44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults

Evolution Photo by Tkgd20071 450x281 44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults

The theory of evolution is false.  It is simply not true.  Actually, it is just a fairy tale for adults based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that hundreds of millions of people around the world choose to believe with blind faith.  When asked to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most adults in the western world come up totally blank.  When pressed, most people will mumble something about how “most scientists believe it” and how that is good enough for them.  This kind of anti-intellectualism even runs rampant on our college campuses.  If you doubt this, just go to a college campus some time and start asking students why they believe in evolution.  Very few of them will actually be able to give you any real reasons why they believe it.  Most of them just have blind faith in the priest class in our society (“the scientists”).  But is what our priest class telling us actually true?  When Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, he didn’t actually have any evidence that it was true.  And since then the missing evidence has still not materialized.  Most Americans would be absolutely shocked to learn that most of what is taught as “truth” about evolution is actually the product of the overactive imaginations of members of the scientific community.  They so badly want to believe that it is true that they will go to extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale.  They keep insisting that the theory of evolution has been “proven” and that it is beyond debate.  Meanwhile, most average people are intimidated into accepting the “truth” about evolution because they don’t want to appear to be “stupid” to everyone else.

In this day and age, it is imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves.  Don’t let me tell you what to think, and don’t let anyone else tell you what to think either.  Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.  The following are 44 reasons why evolution is just a fairy tale for adults…

#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

#2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered

“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

#3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following

“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

#4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

#5 Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs.  But instead there are none.

#7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

#8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…

“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”

#9 The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it…

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature.  In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature.  The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

#12 Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College

“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”

#13 Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has “scientific origins” is fooling themselves.  It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that can be traced back for thousands of years.

#14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no radiocarbon in it whatsoever.  But instead, we find it in everything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones.  This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense

It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.

In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.

#15 The odds of even a single sell “assembling itself” by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about.  The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret“…

Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”

#16 How did life learn to reproduce itself?  This is a question that evolutionists do not have an answer for.

#17 In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth.  Evolutionists originally told us that this “living fossil” had gone extinct 70 million years ago.  It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years.

#18 According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago.  But it still exists today.  So why hasn’t it evolved at all over the time frame?

#19 Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer.  This is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff.  The truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex.  The following is how a PBS documentary described the complexity of the human brain: “It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.”

#20 The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity…

“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”

#21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be a giant hoax.

#22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?

#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?

#24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

#25 Apes and humans are very different genetically.  As DarwinConspiracy.com explains, “the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.”

#26 How can we explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal?  No evolutionary process has ever been shown to be able to create new biological information.  One scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be required to transform microbes into men this way

“The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).”

#27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers.  This simply is not true at all

The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (“younger” and “older” layers found in repeating sequences). “Out of place” fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

#28 Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light enough to fly.  This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous.

#29 If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them?  The following is from an NBC News report about one of these discoveries…

For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

#30 Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?

#31 Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

#32 Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

#33 Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

#34 In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve?

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied.

#36 Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

#37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.

#38 Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old.

#39 If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves?  The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten

Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

#40 Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were.  They often speak of the “illusion of design”, but that is kind of like saying that it is an “illusion” that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed.  And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone.

#41 If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you.  Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality…

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

#42 Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution…

“Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.”

#43 Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution…

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

#44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?

For years, I have been looking for someone that can explain to me the very best evidence for the theory of evolution in a systematic way.  My challenge has been for someone to lay out for me a basic outline of the facts that “prove” that evolution is true.

Perhaps you believe that you are up to the challenge.

I’ll even get you started…













If you think that you can prove that evolution is true, please leave a comment below with your best shot.

Or if you would like to discuss additional evidence for why you believe that the theory of evolution is false, please feel free to share it by posting a comment below.

For those that would like to learn more, there are a couple of videos that I would recommend.  One is entitled “Evolution vs. God“…

The other one is entitled “The Case For A Creator“…

May we all keep open minds, and may we all keep searching for the truth.

About the author: Michael T. Snyder is a former Washington D.C. attorney who now publishes The Truth.  His new thriller entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com.

Evolution Photo by Tkgd2007 450x281 44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults

3dnew3 240x300 44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults
Be Sociable, Share!
  • more 44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults

You may also like...

656 Responses

  1. Seeking the Truth says:

    Not knocking the idea of “God” as a term to describe the whole living intelligence of the cosmos, but as far as the nuances of evolution vs. creation i.e. the storybook account in Genesis, try investigating something along the lines of “genetic engineering by aliens or some other beings, ultraterrestrials, etc”. It would certainly fit in with the above criticisms of evolution.

    • David Endsley says:

      The problem, as I see it, with the idea of “aliens” having engineered life on Earth is “where did the aliens come from”. Did other aliens engineer them? If so, where did that group come from. All the alien theory does is push everything further back. There had to be an original source at some point. That original source was either random chance or some intelligent being who had no beginning and has no end.

      • Graham says:

        Subject matter connected with the “conscious universe” may prove helpful to understanding the paradigm you present.

        For a full understanding of what “consciousness” is, aside from our direct ability to experience it in its true state, you may want to wait until science is ready to reveal more about it from particle accelerator (CERN) research.

        Alternatively, delve into ancient Eastern knowledge like the Vedas. Sanskrit texts reveal a huge amount of data. Even better, learn to meditate!

        • NowAlive says:

          Sanskrit and Eastern mysticism fall into the same trap as evolution. They are non-probable fairy tales. The bible gives an historical narrative that best fits all known scientific discoveries. Numerous historical details are proven over and over again with anthropology, archeology, and paleontology. These Eastern fantasy stories have no shred of evidence for them. This is really the difference. I encourage you to check out some of Micheal’s websites (icr and creation) that are linked above. The Truth will set you free. You don’t need mysticism to enslave you any longer.

          • Graham says:

            When a mind lives within the confines of a goldfish bowl, it will never know what exists in the rivers and oceans. As a moderate Christian, consider me to be “off piste” in the eyes of the fundamentalist movement, one aspect of which I will never condone!

            Christinianity itself has its roots in the “mystery schools” and every major religion of today has its roots in the East. I assume we agree on this? Or, are you following an aspect of Christianity that is essentially an American creation?

            Also, how many stories are written in the bible that arise from visions, visitations and dreams? There are modern day terms for some of those things and many Christians slam them as occultism. A tad contradictory as several of them are one and the same. That is where “exceptional… ism” has to get brought into play.

            Who decided what material went into the bible and why was so much left out? Specific aspects of Christianity refuse to entertain anything that is not in today’s MULTIPLE versions of the bible. Note that the Quran has one single unchanged version! It’s a notable point. I follow the teachings of several religions, hence have respect for many types of people.

            How many translational errors exist in the bible and why? How do you know all the “interpretations” that are given are correct? I can interpret aspects of it in completely different ways due to the knowledge and experiences I have in day to day life through meditation.

            The truth will set you free, but it has been scientifically proven time and again that what is written in the bible isn’t the whole story. Most Christians are bound by fear. Where is the freedom in that? Fear is the catalyst that another uses to control.

            Are you saying that evolution doesn’t exist? Since human thoughts arise from the field of “creative intelligence”, that would undoubtedly lead to creative thinking, when a mind is in its natural state of order. Most today are chemically impaired, especially in America.

            Such thinking leads to inventions. Those inventions then “evolve” over time. They evolve out of further creative thinking, which leads to new discoveries. There is therefore a rational argument that creation and evolution are closely intertwined.

            Take whatever example you wish in the inanimate world. An Intel CPU would be a good one. Now consider a life form. A baby. The bringing about of a baby is undoubtedly part of a creation process.

            Can it be said thereafter that every aspect of its life is based upon creation, or is it a mixture of that and evolution? Biologically, cells recreate. Does one create spiritually, or does one evolve spiritually?

            When a “process” is fully understood and can be experienced, that process is no longer “mystical”. When it is no longer mystical, the experiencer is no longer enslaved. Do I come across as having an enslaved mind?

            This process I refer to is often described as the knower, the known, and the process of knowing. That equates to subject, object and its identification.

          • buffy says:


          • Larry D Andrews says:

            I want to ask you a question. If our Creator loved us so much He was willing to die on the cross for us, why would He choose to not correctly reveal Himself through His word? Especially when He said He would. You cannot be a Christian unless you believe He died for us, and you cannot have faith if you believe He lied to us. He made it so easy as to be black and white. You are either with Him and against the world, or against Him and with the world. I would not want to be the lukewarm one. Do you trust Jesus?

          • Graham says:

            Your question is deliberately worded to entice another into a meaningless closed loop debate. From my own knowledge and experience, that simply sets a vicious trap and achieves little.

            Let me explain my own position from entraining and developing an expanded conscious awareness over many decades. We are talking thousands of hours!

            The latter basically means a practice that leads one to experience full brain coherence, where all four quadrants function in unison. We have a whole brain, but barely use it.

            To explain further, humans are essentially only using half a brain, of which at any given moment in time, have on average only 10% conscious awareness of what is going on in that half. That leaves 90% room for improvement!

            If the mind of God is the field of “creative intelligence”, from where everything arises, there must be a way to interact with that field. Meditation is the proven key. Your man from Galilee knew about it too, so did many others before him!

            Unfortunately, religion became so steeped in ritual, dogma and control of the masses, primarily for financial gain, that it lost sight of the true underlying message.

            The mind of God, to put this in terms you may understand, is based upon the nature of consciousness. It is a creatively intelligent “field”.

            The latter also happens to be a self referral system where a creation of that field has evolved so it can experience its own source and nature. That is the human mind. We are an expression of that field. So is everything else in nature.

            God wouldn’t create something unless it could physically experience the wonder and joy of its own creative intelligence. His “mansion” has many rooms, meaning multiple forms of creation throughout the multiverse.

            The field therefore “creates”, and those creations evolve in a disciplined manner when they remain connected to source energy. What occurs when they disconnect in some shape or form?

            The problem you see all around you today comes from the “disconnected” state, which is often referred to as the “egoic state of consciousness”. You don’t have to look far to see what this state has “achieved”. Religion is a prime example of it in play.

            When you understand this and experience what many have disciplined themselves to do through dedicated practice, you will know exactly what the bible stands for and means. It doesn’t however offer the full story in a way that is easy to comprehend.

            Jesus Christ was an extremely advanced expression of this field of creative intelligence, where much of the knowledge he possessed was gained during his “missing” 13 years in the bible. The latter is a debate no Christian could hold, because the truth has been kept from them.

            What’s is more meaningful and powerful? Holding onto the words in a book written by man, or experiencing what those words actually mean?

            Bring your mind to a state of restful alertness and experience the inner peace of the kingdom that lies within. Psalm 46:10. Thy shall then be done on earth as is done in heaven, which means peace and no further violence or war. No more destructive or nonsensical crusades!

            What mind of mind promotes and involves itself with the latter? Egoic and deluded is the answer.

          • Larry D Andrews says:

            Good luck with that. I’ll take the Jesus that is in the bible.

          • Graham says:

            If it isn’t “in the book”, just ignore it. No research beyond it? Astounding, but a well known predicament.

            Let’s here your explanation of what “God” is. I’m all ears!

            I have given what decades of research and experience have led myself and many others to conclude.

            That also includes many Christians who have slowly come to realise it.

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            In the end, the Catholic church decided what made it into the Bible and what didn’t. There are VOLUMES of writings that didn’t make it in, up to an including the gospel(codex) of Mary Magdalene and Thomas. And how much more is lost to history.
            Yes, trust in Christ, but to say the Bible is the sum total of the word of God is false.

          • Graham says:


            A very prominent statement appears in the “Gospel of Thomas”. It points to something that I have done my best to “explain” in some of my postings in this article.

            Note what I stated about the knower, the known and the process of knowing. Checkout the scientific studies that have been carried out into “meditation” for further evidence.

            When one understands the true meaning of “know thyself”, there is no need to be bondaged by any institutional, or government type power. This likely explains why this and other material was purposely omitted from the bible. Control.

            When the full story isn’t told, one will not understand the complete picture. That was undoubtedly by design. If every human being on this planet understood the whole story, our spirit would have flourished in every aspect as nature intended. That clearly hasn’t been the case.

            Jesus said, “If those who lead you say to you, ‘See, the kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

            When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.”

          • Wayne Chipman says:

            All the other writings similar to the Holy Bible are Devil’s copies. Claimed writings that are older are just that false claims.

            Your Ilk has been raping Monkeys since Darwin’s day.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Sanskrit is a language. Way to start off from a position of utter ignorance. News flash: the bible is also Eastern mysticism.

        • Wayne Chipman says:

          How can You be so silly. I guess You grab at any straw to Deny God.

      • With Fortitude says:

        Good point

      • Wayne Chipman says:

        You beat me to the Punch responding to that Silly person Seeking the Truth. Their are no Aliens simpli Fallen Angels who are going to play themselves off as Aliens.

    • Rebecca says:

      Then who created the aliens?

  2. Graham says:

    Avid readers and researchers may be interested in the following material, which is indirectly connected with the subject matter of this article.

    A very interesting court case took place in Australia numerous years ago in order to obtain the necessary legal consent to release the knowledge into the public domain.

    To save me posting a direct link, lookup the following by name. There is plenty of material on their site, including a few short videos.

    The named “Books” below can be downloaded as PDF’s. The first is “737” pages long, the second “163”.

    Subject:- The biology of the human being

    “World Transformation Movement”
    Freedom Book 1
    Freedom Book 2

  3. mleblanc138 says:

    Microevolution, the slight change or adaptation of species over time, is a scientific fact. Macroevolution, the whole Fish-Monkey-Sub Human-Human thing is the fairy tale.

    • MichaelfromTheEconomicCollapse says:

      Yes, that is a point that “The Case For A Creator” makes very well.


      • Rebecca says:

        Anyone who likes the video should consider buying the book. I also highly recommend reading The Case for Christ. It is wonderful. I also highly recommend reading Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box, however, it is written by a brilliant scientist so people would need college level reading skills to be able to fully understand it. I struggled quite a bit! lol

    • ort says:

      Can you please list some examples of this micro evolution? I am interested.

      • Joshua says:

        Dogs and cats, they interbreed two different breeds over and over and the result is a new variance of the breeds. Doberman’s are an excellent example. But this doesn’t mean at some point this interbreeding with cause a new species of fish. The dog is still a dog! The Bible states, “Kinds reproduced after their own kind.” That doesn’t mean animals can’t adapt to their surroundings or mate with other kinds to produce a different species of that kind. I believe God, in his infinite wisdom forseen that animals would need to have a built in mechanism to adapt to their enviroment or changes in their enviroment to be able to survive. Micro-evolution is better named species adaptation.

        • ort says:

          Yes, as the Bible says, everything reproduces “after its own kind.” A horse is a horse of course of course.
          ; )

        • alfalfa31 says:

          This is a misrepresentation of evolution. All dogs are Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of Canis lupus (timber wolves). All domestic cats are in the same species, Felis catus. Dogs and cats are not evolutionarily distinct, they are simply expressing different traits already present in their genome. A Great Dane can just as easily breed with a chihuahua as it can with a pit bull, thus proving that they share the same DNA. A yellow tabby can just as easily breed with a russian blue as a dirty alley cat for the same reason. There is no speciation in this process. Common dogs cannot interbreed with Canis simensis (the coyote) or Canis vulpes (the common fox) despite similar DNA. Common cats can’t interbreed with Felis silvestris despite the striking similarity (and likely ancestry).

          A real (and observable in lab conditions) example of speciation will occur in reproductively isolated species of fruit flies, or lice, or any other rapidly reproducing species of creature. Fruit flies are used often, as their reproductive cycle is so short. If two groups of fruit flies of the same species are isolated and left in different environments (different food stuff, different temperature, different barometric pressure or what have you), after many generations, the resultant flies from each group will be unable to mate. They have become different species at that point, and this experiment can be performed in your own if you have the patience and the facilities.

          You may also want to look up ring species. It poses an interesting question about when speciation occurs, but speciation absolutely does occur, and the process is very well documented.

          Again, micro and macroevolution are exactly the same process, and even distinguishing them is a gross misunderstanding of the process (and the science).

          • Son of Thunder says:

            Thanks for the laughs, what a steamer.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            So, your answer is to make a lame statement, lacking in all substance, rather than argue or show how I’m in error? Why am I not surprised.

          • Son of Thunder says:

            You cannot argue with the ignorant, I wont waste my time.
            Pound sand, clueless

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Believe me, I know how hard it is to argue with people who refuse to look at evidence. Case in point, Son of Thunder…

          • Son of Thunder says:

            History is replete with scholars that set out to prove your case, that wound up converting themselves.
            Simon Greenleaf, Tom Anderson, C.S. Lewis, just to name a few.
            The fact you go about making such statements is proof positive that you are not interested in the truth, only your agenda.
            I am so very sorry for you.
            I will waste no more of your time, and you shall not waste more of mine. Go in peace. Y.I.L.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Your list of ‘scholars’ pales in comparison to the number of people who, on a daily basis, arrive at the conclusion that based on an objective review of the evidence, gods simply cannot exist. Those people represent the only growing group in the US, and scholars, lay people, politicians, scientists, and even ministers, priests and pastors make up their numbers.

            You can’t possibly be more sorry for me than I am for you. You will continue in your error until the day you die because of your closed mind. Nothing is more sad.

      • Nys Parkie says:

        Look to Darwin’s Finches on the Galapagos

      • Malcolm Reynolds says:

        Humans today are on average much taller than they were a few hundred years ago.

        • ort says:

          Well, wouldn’t that be a genetic/nutritional thing? Plus, if shorter ethnicities mated with taller humans eventually their kids would be taller. So, for me, that’s a little iffy. I mean, they are still human. They haven’t changed into something else. Humans are all sorts of heights. Ya know?

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            The whole world benefits from better nutrition today than then? nope.

            If it’s genetic then why were they shorter back then? nope.

            and they wont change into something else – That’s macro evolution and a steaming pile of dung.

            all sorts of heights, yes. *cough* on average taller than before. *cough* they were all sorts of heights then too… ya know?

          • ort says:

            I was being cordial, and the entire tone of your response seems snotty to me. I was trying to be nice. Goodbye.

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            Admittedly I was snotty with the whole *Cough* thing, but then sometimes people just need to be slapped in the head with snotty when they say something ..uh… goofy.

          • ort says:

            Now I need to be “slapped in the head”. Thanks, but you can keep your “apology”. See ya.

        • Rebecca says:

          There is a plethora of skeletons that have been found of people who were 10 feet tall, some even taller. Most of this information has been conveniently withheld by the “scientific community.” There truly were giants in those days.

    • Erik says:

      Micro and macro evolution are not scientific terms, they are made up by creationists who intend on discrediting evolutionary theory because of their own insecurities. “Macroevolution” is simply “microevolution” over a long period of time. Considering the age of the Earth and life on Earth, it should be of no surprise to anyone with the available mental faculties that is phenomenon is entirely possible.

      • jaxon64 says:

        Still not one scintilla of supporting evidence for your personal faith/belief in evolution.
        Typical response-you insult and belittle your detractors and question their “mental faculties” thus trying to add strength to your viewpoint-ytet you still offer nothing but low browed insult.
        PS: I wish that even half the Christians demonstrated the level of faith you atheists with your Evolution Dogma and lord/prophet Darwin exhibit. You atheists have greater faith than anyone I know…atheism is not disbelief in God, it is the unbending Belief/Faith that there is no God–contrary to the amazing hand of creation evident in all things, and complex programming in each strand of DNA or the unyielding order of laws of physics/nature–you still believe it all just happened by chance–all of it–now that is faith!!

        • alfalfa31 says:

          You clearly have no concept of what a belief or faith actually is. Couple this with the fact that your moderators keep deleting the arguments we post and you have a pretty strong case for your arrogant statements to be called BS.

        • blackciti_fo5 says:

          Lol I agree 100%. I love the way you said it lol.

      • Dennis Johnston says:


    • alfalfa31 says:

      Microevolution is exactly the same process as macroevolution. For what you are arguing to be true, there would need to be two different types of DNA. One which was locked and unchanging and one that was free to change. Sadly, there are not two types of DNA. All DNA is subject to change, and despite your inability to accept it, evolution is the only explanation that meets experiment and prediction for diversity of life. Your personal incredulity around it doesn’t change the fact that it is.

      • Jon Perry says:

        That you believe micro is macro just demonstrated your misunderstanding of E. Macro requires the introduction of new code for the arrival of new complexity. Scales to feathers ect. Unfortunately when this idea was put forward and explained by mutation, those who proposed this had a very limited knowledge of microcellular technology. Had they known this they would have realized the utter hopeless position they were left in as for this being a viable mechanism. Today we can understand and can start hammering the nails in the coffin which contains a dead theory.

        • alfalfa31 says:

          Micro and macro are nonsense terms when they precede the word evolution. Are you insinuating that the most complex organisms have the most DNA?

  4. DJohn1 says:

    You want an educated guess. That is what a theory is.
    I have a theory(uneducated guess). I think the Earth was terra-formed sometime in the last 10 million years.
    To do that the individuals responsible had to have multiple life forms available to plant here. They had to have a long term plan starting with simple creatures and developing a base. From that base had to come an atmosphere that would support life of some kind. Which means you had to have a balance between plants and animal life to keep the atmosphere breathable.
    A simple error in translation could make the word day an indefinite length of time. Our current word would be an era.
    So from simple beginnings, each era a new set of life forms was planted here. Each one represented a building block in an increasingly complicated planet full of balanced life.
    I don’t feel that it could be done in under about 7,000 years. It could have been a lot longer than that.
    Finally we were designed and planted here to rule over the entire thing with the help of the creator of it all.
    The Earth is the only planet with a Moon as large in proportion to its size. That Moon provides life with a lot of advantages including a time table of events. Our own species is calibrated to the Moon’s cycles. So is almost every other animal life form on the planet.
    We have more water than anyone can explain should exist on this planet. That provides a continuing recycling of life and air on this planet.
    Surprisingly the fingerprint of that water exists both here, the moon, and in the asteroid belt. It has the same characteristics as Earth Water does.
    One of the games on computer was a program to terra-form Mars. It had various decisions involved from an engineering standpoint. It couldn’t be done in under about 2-3,000 years.
    The point is that it is very probable.
    Now anytime you plant a large group of species on a living planet some will live and some will not.
    Personally I think the dinosaurs could not survive because they were too big. There is evidence that the Earth’s original atmosphere was a lot denser than the one we currently have. It might have supported the weight of larger creatures than we have today.
    I personally feel that the Flood of the Bible let a lot of radiation through our atmosphere and shortened mankind’s lifespans. If it gradually had lessened the density of the atmosphere 2 ton reptiles may not have been able to support their weight. The same is not true in the oceans. We still have large whales and other creatures where gravity doesn’t kill off the large creatures.
    We have also had a number of really large disasters on this planet. Like the semi-tropical animals found frozen in Siberia.
    There is a science of genetics in which they are trying to reproduce reptiles from birds. It is being done by turning genes off and on. Instead of feathers, some birds develop scales like a reptile.
    Everything that was ever programmed into the genetic nature of animals is probably still there. It is probably buried in recessive genes that no longer turn up in many animals.
    The challenge is that it is not a rigid science. It is changing as we discover more and more about what makes us tick.
    Just like Dorothy the cloned sheep. From that we have discovered that we age because of a design. We are so close to discovering why we die of old age it is pathetic.
    We know why, we simply do not know how to change it.
    It can be changed. Cancer cells do not age. They die from other reasons but the aging process is turned off in cancer cells.
    The problem I see with evolution is that too many people are dependent on it being so to make a living. Our entire farce of a university and science is based on economics.

    • Malcolm Reynolds says:

      “I personally feel that the Flood of the Bible let a lot of radiation through our atmosphere and shortened mankind’s lifespans”
      Interesting hypothesis, but the Earth’s magnetosphere protects us against cosmic radiation and I don’t see how ‘the flood’ would have affected that.
      please stop using ‘feel’ where the work ‘think’ or ‘believe’ belongs. you don’t feel thoughts

      • DJohn1 says:

        You are right about the magnetosphere. What I was attempting to say is if the atmosphere of the planet was thick with water it might have provided an additional shield against radiation. The Bible gives lifespans of people before and after the flood. There is a dramatic reduction in years of life after the flood. But even that reduction is open to question. How did they measure years? For instance there is a definite 360 day year in the past. Meaning that we might have been slightly closer to the Sun. That we are very gradually moving away from the Sun in our orbit.
        A lot of scientists think that about the time of the Flood there was a giant wave of water that crossed over the planet’s lands. They think a huge glacier in Antarctica might have broke loose and fell into the ocean causing this huge wave.
        The water levels are definitely much higher today than they were in the past.
        So a lot of water came from somewhere.
        Unlocking the water from the poles only seems a logical way for it to happen.

  5. Luis says:

    As I see it, this is the best explanation for the existence of the theory of evolution, along with all the other lies so many people readily accept:

    “…they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. 2:10-12

    • MichaelfromTheEconomicCollapse says:

      Very good point Luis. :)


      • Luis says:

        I’m amazed by the response to that passage of scripture. Truly, “the word of God is quick,
        and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the
        dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and
        is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Heb. 4:12

        Btw, Moody Science Institute puts out a first rate video series called “Wonders of God’s Creation”. Much of the content is a bit dated, but it still does a great job of pointing to the hand of God for the existence of life on earth.

      • Rebecca says:

        Don’t forget Romans 1:22 “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”

    • k1mbr0 says:

      Right there as plain as day. But these verses will sadly not change the unbelievers mind nore will any amount of evidence. Only the power of the gospel can transform lives ultimately. The true power is in the gospel and is proven everyday in many people.
      Also, the evidence is not the reason the Christian believes. Evidence brings the Christian joy, yes but we are belivers because of the realization of our sins and that Christ truly died for us so that we may be saved in Him.

      • Erik says:

        You talk of evidence not changing anyone’s mind yet here you are denying the absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolutionary theory and instead believing in that which has no evidence outside of its own book. That’s called circular reasoning…The Bible is true and God is real because The Bible says so. The mental hoops and willful ignorance required to deny one of, if not the most well-substantiated scientific theories is simply mind boggling.

        • k1mbr0 says:

          Theories being the key word in your statement and those ever changing theories will never convince the Christian to the contrary.

          • Ole Christian Haavaldsen says:

            Are you guys using the bible to explain things? Funny.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            That’s exactly your problem. Evidence to the contrary of your belief is rejected. There is a word for that. It’s called delusion.

            Also, you have no clue what the word ‘theory’ means. I can assure you that it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

          • k1mbr0 says:

            And I’m to believe in you. What is it that you believe your objective is here?

          • alfalfa31 says:

            The original post contains a mountain of nonsense, inaccuracy and outright lies. My objective is to combat scientific illiteracy, purposeful ignorance and banal ramblings of those who would justify belief in what is demonstrably false.

          • LoveistheKey says:

            alfalfa why don’t you stop being such a troll. Ether put up your proof of whatever it is you think you know or keep your unintelligent remarks to your self.
            It is better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            I did put up proof. You didn’t bother to read it.

        • Son of Thunder says:

          After hundreds of years of diligent searching NO evidence to support evolution has been found, not one iota. Conversely troves of evidence

          supporting the Bible have been found and documented.

          And you thought you had no faith…

          • alfalfa31 says:

            I love how the ignorant assert that no evidence has been found without ever having read a bit of the mountains of evidence that exists. Plug your ears, shut your eyes and scream “La, la, la! Not listening!” all you want. You’re still asserting nonsense.

          • Son of Thunder says:

            Hate me if you wish, the truth is within your grasp.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Hate is not an emotion I choose to feel. I think you’re sorely misguided and blind to the evidence,

          • Son of Thunder says:

            Alas, but I KNOW you are woefully misguided and refuse to see the truth, Sadly you will face the consequences. Hate may not be something you feel, but those around you certainly do, it radiates from your words. You cannot hide it. Your (metaphorical) house is on fire.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You put it there, in true believer fashion. There is no hate. I also like how quick you are to attack the man rather than his arguments. Very christian of you. You folks need to learn to argue. Watch how William Lane Craig argues and emulate it. Until then, keep believing you know the unknowable (and without a clue what it means to know something).

          • Son of Thunder says:

            Where did I attack you?
            You on the other hand called me ignorant. How very atheist of you.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            I called your position on the most well researched theory in science ignorant. It is. You and yours can’t seem to be bothered to educate yourselves on the subject, yet you all sit around patting each other on the back for remaining ignorant.

          • Son of Thunder says:

            Obviously I’m much more educated on the subject than you are.
            Your position is ignorant to the fact that it is ignorant.

            I’m done feeding the troll.
            Have a nice life, what remains of it.
            It shall soon come to an end, while “ours” comes to a beginning.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You’re not educated on the subject at all. If you were, you wouldn’t have commented in support of this nonsense article in the first place.

          • Your blind says:

            “Your position is arrogant to the fact that it is arrogant”..now there’s the good ole religions circular meaning if I ever seen it..gods real because the bible says so….how convenient

        • Jon Perry says:

          I keep hearing about this overwhelming evidence! I believe that the last time I checked, the overwhelming evidence was the fact that there are similarities in DNA and genetics. That looks like this!!!! That is NOT evidence of anything.

      • Dennis Johnston says:

        How do you know the bible is true?

    • Jason7189 says:

      I got some other good ones too. Well, God does, lol

      1 Corinthians 3:19 “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”;

      1 Corinthians 1:25 “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.”

      Psalm 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good.”

      • Ole Christian Haavaldsen says:

        It is rather strange that you try to explain something we haven’t learned the answer to yet, with something we know nothing about. For all we know, Jesus was a crazy person and people were just really dumb back then, eager to believe that everything had a purpose. Religion is a mess with confusion and lies.

        • jaxon64 says:

          still waiting for your–or anyone’s- evidence to support evolution. I was pretty sure that all Michael would get would be a bunch of insulters and hateful comments…

          • alfalfa31 says:

            In actuality, they won’t let us post our rebuttals. I’ve tried 20 times in the past several days.

          • Ole Christian Haavaldsen says:

            So, better to believe the word of an old book and just take their word for it?

      • alfalfa31 says:

        The foolish man says in his heart, there is no god. The wise man says it out loud, and in public.

        • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

          The idiot thinks he is wise until one day he is proven very wrong.
          Remember the penalty for a Christian being wrong is a good name, moral healthy life and hope for something better. The penalty for an atheist for being wrong is a very literal hell. You have a 50-50 chance on this test with no do-overs…choose wisely.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            I defer you to Marcus Aurelius wager. If your god demands blind obedience and unearned worship, he is not worthy of worship.

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            Marcus Aurelius lost many wagers making stupid bets like this one…Which is why he died poor.
            1- the basis of the wager is stupid. A deity (any deity) would be more than human and divine. Therefore, blind obedience would serve the human well should he want to live. And worship would be earned just because of the nature of the deity being divine. Just the nature of divinity is worthiness of the worship.
            2- However, the God of the Bible does not demand blind obedience. He reveals Himself to His people and we follow and obey out of our own free will. We worship God because He is divine but also because of He loved us enough to die upon the cross for our sins and we grow in our relationship with Him to love Him as well. God has earned our worship with blood.
            3- But let’s break the wager down to its logical components:
            a- If a god demands blind obedience AND
            b – If a god demands unearned worship
            ERGO that god is not worthy of worship
            The first thing that stands out to me is the conclusion introduces a new concept not found in the premises; the notion of worthiness. Therefore the conclusion is not supported by the premises and falls short of soundness and validity.
            The second thing that stands out is that BOTH conditions must be met to elicit the conclusion. If a god does not fulfill one of the conditions then that god is worthy of worship. Since Jesus Christ gave up His life for us as a substitute for our sins. He has earned worship. The first condition of blind obedience is therefore moot. Ergo, the God of the Bible is worthy of Worship.

            What do I win from this wager?

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You didn’t read Marcus Aurelius’ wager, did you? Not only that, but saying he died broke tells me you know nothing about the man.

            It’s obvious, but no matter. It merely invalidates everything you wrote in (3).

            You’re making a pretty positive assertion here that your god died for you. I can insist at this point to show some evidence that A). your god exists, B). Jesus existed / exists, and C). Was his death, in any measurable way, a sacrifice?

            Concentrating on C, he died and came back from the dead. I would assert that a soldier in the Civil War sacrificed more for me having been killed on the battlefield at Antietam. Assuming there actually was a Jesus (which is a dodgy assertion at best) he was merely temporarily inconvenienced.

            The fact that there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed, tends to invalidate the whole of point 2.

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            I won the bet…stop drooling on the keyboard.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You clearly don’t know how to read.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You really have no idea how silly you sound. You didn’t even bother reading the wager until you realized you never bothered to read the statement I made.

          • Son of Thunder says:

            We have 10 historical accounts of the life of Titus so no valid historian disputes his existence. For Jesus there are OVER 40, NO real professor of history disputes the fact that Jesus was a real man. And if he was not who he said he was, why did 10 men all go to martyrs deaths to defend a lie?

            You are dismissed.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            By all means tell me who these historians are. I’d love to read their accounts. The bible is no historical document, by the way. It’s too full of historical inaccuracies to be considered ‘historical.’

          • Son of Thunder says:

            Here’s 3. You’re so smart do your own research, but you don’t really want to know the truth.

            Lucian (c.120 – after c.180 ) referred to Jesus as a crucified sophist (philosopher).

            Josephus (c.37 – c.100 ) wrote, “At this time there appeared Jesus, a
            wise man, for he was a doer of amazing deeds. When Pilate condemned him
            to the cross, the leading men among us, having accused him, those who
            loved him did not cease to do so.”

            Tacitus (c. 56 – c.120) wrote, “Christus, from whom the name had its
            origin, suffered the extreme penalty … at the hands of our procurator,
            Pontius Pilate.”

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You said there were 40. I’ve read the ones you just provided. Give me the others. Unlike you, evidence can actually change my mind.

          • Son of Thunder says:

            oops I replied to this post, at the post above.

          • sallyho3000 . says:

            I wouldn’t buy a used car from Josephus Piso…

          • weddingsinger says:

            Those are all written by people born after Jesus would have died. Please reference something more relevant if you want to use it as historical evidence.

          • HP Austin says:

            I’ve read a book, written by an attorney, who compared the Bible to other historical documents and it is far more established than any other document. By the way, archeologists have said many times that the Bible was wrong, only to be proven wrong by archeological discoveries. For example, they used to say that there was no such tribe as the Hittites, but now they admit that there were because of archeological discoveries. Name one historical inaccuracy.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            The entire Egyptian enslavement of the Jews. Even Jews admit it didn’t happen.

          • HP Austin says:

            Odd, since they have found artifacts in the Red Sea that could have been from Pharaoh’s army, and almost certainly were. And about 90% of the Jews in Israel are not religious, so it doesn’t surprise me if some don’t believe it. There is also a scientific explanation for how the Red Sea could have parted. Continue in your unbelief and see where it gets you.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Even the people at Answers in Genesis have distanced themselves from that claim, as the man who made it was an outright fraud. His name is Ron Wyatt, and he’s a charlatan.

            Go to AIG’s site and visit get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use.

            Part of the problem with you lot is that you believe without ever investigating.

          • mach says:

            There so isn’t an explanation for how it could have parted, wow… There’s also no evidence there were ever Jewish slaves in Egypt.

          • sallyho3000 . says:

            Hey! good start.
            I want to go next.
            There is ZERO evidence that Solomon ever existed, as per the bible, AND the “first temple” was greek, according to archaeological evidence.

          • Shamael says:

            In the Bible, nothing of all you read has ever existed, but all is true, only condition is that you know how to read the slang they used to write it. The Bible’s literal text is a story of babies, cabbage and storks, it explains you how a human becomes , just, it does it in the same way as that stupid story. You need to read behind the veil.

          • sallyho3000 . says:

            The bible is allegory; very different from history… sort of.

          • Dennis Johnston says:

            Just because someone dies for something doesn’t mean that they were right about it …

          • Son of Thunder says:

            This is true however the apostles were eyewitnesses and no man dies for what he KNOWS is a lie.

          • Giveurheadashake says:

            Eye witnesses? Considering not even 1 book in your bible was actually written in the of your jesus, were talking almost 100 years later before the first book was written…”eye witnesses”, nobody can agree on what he even looked like and your claiming eye witnesses lol. Religion makes your a foolish sheep. Trust no “god” that puts a man on his knees.

          • Mason says:

            quantum physics proves the existence of a creator. this is the utmost serious science we are talking here, Einstein’s work. the religions of Earth may be true may be false or may be partially true. only three choices.

          • Spanner1960 says:

            Quantum physics proves nothing, even to scientists.
            It still remains theory.

          • sallyho3000 . says:

            While I will assert that it is my contention that consciousness organizes matter, and not the other way around. Anyway, quantum physics does NOT confirm a “creator,” but the central-ness of conscousness; not the same thing at all.
            PS-Einstein admitted that none of his work came close to unifying the fields…

          • jim gardiner says:

            But as you can see Sallyho Einstein said it himself, none of his work or anyone else`s for that matter will ever come close to unifying ANY so called fields of understanding. He was only a man just like we all are, then we DIE, there is a CREATOR and His name is Jesus

          • alfalfa31 says:

            He’s not talking about fields of understanding, Jim. The fact that you think he’s talking about understanding tells me that your views on Einstein and physics might not be up to par.

          • jim gardiner says:

            Mason Christianity is the only TRUE so called religion if you want to say so. but being a Christian isn’t about some stupid demomination or anything like that, It is a personnel RELATIONSHIP with GOD through Jesus Christ His Son, its being born again from ABOVE. God hates religion, there are so many religious so called people ou there professing to believe in the TRUE God but they are wrong. Jesus said I am the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE, NO ONE comes to the Father but through ME. Now He is stating that He is the WAY to GOD PERIOD all other so called religions are cults and false.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            There is no such thing as a true religion, and to claim there is, and that you practice it is a ludicrously easy argument to dismantle.

            There wasn’t even a jesus, so if your whole argument rests on that chestnut, you may need to do a bit more digging and find some real evidence that he actually existed.

            There was no Egyptian enslavement, and no crossing of the parted Red Sea. Since the Sinai incident took place after the escape from Egyptian captivity which never occurred, it likely never occurred either. If it never occurred, there was no reason for a jesus to come and redeem mankind from a law that was never handed down by a god that never existed.

          • Bob Loblaw says:

            Why are you even arguing? It is clearly that Jim has all the symptoms of a paranoid schizophrenic.

          • Bilbo says:

            ‘God hates religion’

            You need to have a little think about that … a god who hates….very old testament….and contrary to the very notion of what constitutes a ‘god’

          • texcteach says:

            Wrong the accounts were written with in 15-40 years. There is no mention of the destruction of the temple which occurred in 70 A.D. in any New testament text.

          • HP Austin says:

            According to the Scofield KJV, the traditional date of the Gospel of Matthew is 37 AD; Mark has been placed between AD 57 and 63; Luke falls between AD 63 and 68; John falls between AD 85 and 90; Acts AD 65; Romans AD 60; 1st Corinthians AD 59; and so on. Your claim that ” were talking almost 100 years later before the first book was written” is SIMPLY FALSE.

          • Mike Drew says:

            You use phrase “traditional date” that means what it says it a tradition not a fact. We have physically only fragments of copies that are as early as the first century. Since the books had to be copied by hand there is no reliable “original” versions. They have had to go through the copyist who could make mistakes or “improve” on the mistakes of the manuscript that they were copying.

          • HP Austin says:

            Well, the Jews had a long tradition of copying the Old Testament texts very accurately. If one jot or tittle was off, they destroyed the manuscripts, so I think it is fair to infer that the Christians, who included many Jews, would have been very scrupulous in copying texts that they esteemed very highly.

          • weddingsinger says:

            Mike Drew is correct that only fragments of copies exist. Using the other methods, most scholars date the first Gospel, Mark, at 50-70 AD, so generally 20 years after Jesus at the earliest, with changes being made much later, mostly the birth narrative.

          • jim gardiner says:

            don’t be stupid bro, Jesus is who He said He was, the Son of God. He is the Creator of EVERYTHING seen and un seen. There is a spiritual world that you and I cannot see but in telling you this you cant understand this because you are not born from ABOVE ( born again) so what you and countless morons see with your eyes is the only thing you think is out there. But as the WORD OF GOD says in the beginning GOD created, you say oh how can that be, I cant reason this or that so it must be BS, GOD (Jesus) spoke the worlds into existence but your little bitty human so called understanding leaves you out in the cold saying this cant be so cause I cant understand it. Who are you to think that you or I should be able to comprehend what we wernt prevy to in the beginning. God says My ways aren’t your ways and My thoughts aren’t your thoughts, meaning your the creation, I`m the CREATOR leave as I have said cause “I” did this PERIOD.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Yet another nonsense argument made by a person incapable of understanding the simplicity of the null of the god hypothesis.

            What you call “the word of god” is not proof of anything. It’s the claim. The fact that you can’t grasp this fact is sad. The fact that you use your inability to grasp this fact as an excuse to deny scientific reality is a travesty.

          • Bilbo says:

            ‘What you call “the word of god” is not proof of anything. It’s the claim.’

            Yep..a claim made by a very human author

          • Rich Wilson says:

            So you’re a Mormon?

          • David Cohen says:

            How do we know that the Gospels were written by apostles? The Gospels themselves are anonymous: they give no indication of who wrote them

          • weddingsinger says:

            You presume that the stories we have heard about their lives are accurate, as well.

            Or that they knew it was a lie. There are plenty of modern examples of people willingly martyring themselves for someone the rest of us would consider a liar.

          • Dennis Johnston says:

            Yeah………History says otherwise, and so do jihadists and self proclaimed martyrs…

          • sallyho3000 . says:

            Where do you come up with NO real historian disputes the rea;ity of Jesus, the man. Jeez! You Christians and your confirmation bias. You know, those of us who dispute evolutionary theory would not look so stupid if iut weren’t for all the Christians arguing using the Bible (ALLEGORY-look it up) in English as supporting evidence.
            There is not even any evidence that Jerusalem (much less any other biblical location or character) EVER existed in the middle East 2,000 years ago. The “first temple was even Greek (rectangular foundation) as opposed to Hebrew (SQUARE foundation). Seriously, you can look into all of this, but you might have to change some of your BELIEFS. Belief is the opposite of thought, btw.

          • Bilbo says:


          • amanda says:

            Try reading some C.S, Lewis…he was a believer and has some good insight. However, not of the modern age

          • nnyan says:

            There is absolutely no evidence of Jesus as a real person, all your so called “historical accounts” are heresy but people that lived well after the supposed time of Jesus. There are absolutely no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. The primary historical “evidence” is from the Gospel’s, which most biblical historians date from after 70 AD (Mark, which while written at least a generation before Matthew it appears after Matthews. Even better most Bibles exclude the last 12 verses of Mark! Wonder why God did that?) to after 90 AD (John). The Gospels did not come to the Bible as original from the authors but from early church fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyon. His four became Church cannon for the orthodox faith and many others were sought out and destroyed. Many of the so called Gospels come from unknown authors. The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier materials and not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). I won’t even go in the the numerous inconsistencies (John disagrees with events in Mark, Matthew and Luke) or that even in antiquity people like Origen and Eusebius raised doubts about the authenticity of other books in the New Testament. Dismissed indeed.

          • weddingsinger says:

            Son of Thunder, I can’t find any historical records of Jesus from his lifetime, or within even 15 or 20 years. What are your sources?

            No historian mentions the slaughters by Herod of Bethlehem. Or the 3 hour eclipse or earthquake that occurred at Jesus’ death.

          • Mason says:

            there are plenty of writings and texts and Scrolls that predicted and recorded Jesus. idk if he was the son of god but everyone knew about him.

          • sallyho3000 . says:

            Please investigate the definition of “allegory.” Don’t blame me if no lights come on in there…

          • weddingsinger says:

            All those writings date to well after Jesus – all written by people who were born after his death.

            Surprising considering 1) the Bible claims Jesus was famous far and wide; and 2) there are several events related, slaughter of babies by Herod, and eclipse, an earthquake, etc. that you would think would be mentioned by historians, astronomers, etc. regardless of their knowledge of Jesus.

          • sallyho3000 . says:

            Very well stated.

          • mach says:

            Marcus Aurelius died as an Emperor of Rome you ignorant fool.

          • Bob Loblaw says:

            again, paranoid schizophrenic, real condition and you are affected by it, find professional help.

          • jchous says:

            Unearned worship! This is a very foolish comment. Our very next breath is dependent on God!

          • alfalfa31 says:

            It’s amazing how certain you can be concerning a thing about which you have no knowledge.

          • jchous says:

            There is a teriffic and well written book you need to read. “Fearfully and Wonderfully Made” by Dr. Paul Brandt & Philip Yancey, focusing on – A surgeons look at the human and spiritual body.
            Intelligent design makes so much more sense than evolution.Thinking everything just came together without a creator is like a tornado going through a junk yard and creating a Staelth bomber.
            There is a whole lot more we know about the God of the Bible than the THEORY of man evolving from pond scum, to monkeys, to man over millions years. In order to be real science it has to be proven. Right? There is no observable evidence (FACT) of Darwinian evolving of a “change of kind” is for real. Don’t tell me about some birds on an island whose beak changed. That’s “adaptation”. If it’s not observable it’s not science! There is no proof of evolution!
            You are going by blind faith.
            The main reason people don’t choose to believe in Intelligent design is because the can’t stand to think that they are and will be accountable to one greater than they. Think a little deeper friend!

          • alfalfa31 says:

            The problem with you folks is always personal incredulity. Just because you can’t understand how it works doesn’t mean the thing you can understand is right.

            I’ll read your book, and give it the fair shake it deserves. Maybe you should try that with real science.

          • jchous says:

            In order for real science to be fact, it has to have documented evidence. Evolution is not documentable. It is only theory because you have no proof, only the thoughts of a man who said on his death-bed that he doubted his theory was true. He had no facts to prove it! You could care less if it id true or not, as long as you don’t have to acknowledge an intelligent designer.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Um… you do know that every biologist working since Charles Darwin (who did no such thing as doubt his theory on his death bed) has added to the body of evidence making evolutionary theory the most well researched theory in science, right? As stated numerous times in this thread, there is more evidence in support of evolution than there is in support of nearly any other theory. You simply choose not to look at it. Intelligent design, however, has not one shred of actual evidence, and everything called evidence in support of it is explained away by real science.

            If you want an on-ramp to the massive amounts of information available on the subject (so much that you couldn’t possibly read all of it) try doing a google search for Panda’s Thumb.

          • Andrew Hardwick says:

            If apes evolved into humans, why are there still apes??

          • sallyho3000 . says:

            Why are there lizards, birds, and fish? Spooky, I know…

          • weddingsinger says:

            Because: 1) humans didn’t evolve from apes; 2) evolution is more complex than that.

            Let’s say there is an early ancestor of humans and apes. They multiply and spread over a few different areas. Once they’re separated by a mountain range, or an ocean, or just vast differences, they’ll evolve separately since they’re no longer interbreeding. One group evolved into apes, the other humans.

            Even humans didn’t evolve in a straight line. There are fossils of other early ancestors, like neanderthals that show us this.

          • sallyho3000 . says:

            Stephen Jay Gould spent most of his career arguing against Darwinian evolution.

            His theory of punctuated equilibrium flies in the face of uniformitarianism, and Wallace, from whom Darwin apparently (I will give credence to all great ideas being thought of already, except if two men are colleagues and one comes up with an idea RIGHT before the other, who publishes…) stole his theory, admitted to the mystery of the evolution of the structures and complexity of the human brain and concurrent upright posture (seemingly maladaptive), and concluded that while natural selection was evident, it could not account fully for the world around us, that there must be some consciousness involved somewhere along the way… obviously, Wallace being a Christian, he said it was God.

            You could argue that a lack of evolutionary pressure is what prevents speciation from being obvious in the present, but I believe that to be a short-sighted and trite explanation.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            It’s my own personal theory that if it was originally Wallace’s idea, he likely told Darwin to publish for fear of the consequences of publishing something so radical. Pure conjecture on my part, though.

            As for Gould, he was more arguing the finer points of gradualism, which isn’t the same thing as it’s purported to be in the quotes so expertly mined in this nonsense article.

          • Colin Bell says:

            I have been reading the comments and so far no-one has risen to the challenge to prove convincingly that evolution is not a hole-ridden mess of a theory. There iS evidence of intelligent design…… read the article. Logical thought, by itself, shows that there is more merit in the idea of the intelligent design of complex organisms than the conjecture that life came from nothing then somehow “evolved” into the diverse world we have today. If “scientists” are open-minded and genuinely interested in getting to the truth we would not be in the position of trying to prove a theory that the evidence doesn’t back up. I will look up Panda’s Thumb and see if it demolishes the concept of intelligent design ;)

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Colin, there is NO evidence for intelligent design. In fact, ID is illegal to teach precisely because there is no evidence for it.

            The evidence for evolutionary theory is so overwhelming, it’s simply amazing that you lot continue to promulgate this myth that there is no evidence. It’s a testament to the scientific ignorance you are all willing to embrace. I use the word ignorance with purpose. The ability to ignore the facts on the basis that they’re devastating to your case is seemingly unique to religious folk and creationists.

          • Rich Wilson says:

            When people say there is “no evidence for evolution” I always like to ask what sources they have investigated. And invariably (if they even answer) it’s whatever they were taught in high school, and Creationist/ID sources. Rarely have they studied evolution at a college level, or from an evolutionary biologist such as Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True” or Dawkins’s “The Greatest Show On Earth”. They scoff at those being biased or full of lies, but are wiling to take Behe or Ham at face value.

            In short, they deny a ridiculous version of evolution that has nothing to do with reality where they imagine missing crockoduck fossils as some kind of evidence against evolution.

            Anyone who thinks there is no evidence for evolution should really read a book which explains the evidence. If you don’t, you’re simply stuffing your fingers in your ears and chanting “No missing link! No missing link!”

          • Colin Bell says:

            There is nothing substantial in your arguments for Evolution. For example, if there was such a wealth of evidence in existence to back up your claims then you would not have to resort to using a panda’s thumb as the best extant proof. You have to admit that this example is clutching at bamboo!! And, you also seem to have missed the fact that you have been tasked to present some proof and evidence to back up your claims for evolution, not just simply state that such evidence exists. Just because it is illegal to teach creation science in school does not mean there is no merit in it. After all, there are many scientific theories taught , which have no absolute proof to back them up. Please share some of this overwhelming evidence.for evolution.

          • Rich Wilson says:

            Please go read Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True”

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Colin, the fact that you’re asking me to share evidence that you could easily look up is very telling. It tells me that no matter what I share, you won’t bother to entertain any of it. This despite the fact that I, personally, sis a point by point rebuttal to this article. Find it in this mess of comments.

            For the sake of suggestion, I recommend you find a local university with a good biology / paleontology department and ask to see their fossils. Most decent universities have drawers full of the things, and the transitional forms exist in abundance. Since I don’t know where you live I can’t give specific guidance as to which school you should visit.

            Suffice it to say, if you’re still lacking in sufficient evidence to satisfy your needs, it isn’t because that evidence does not exist, it’s because you have not gone in search of it. You’re asking other people to prove to you that a thing is, while asking that they prove that another thing isn’t. Do your own work. Do your own research. You will never value mine.

            Also, if you have an issue with Panda’s Thumb and still think science deals in absolutes (based on your use of the words ‘absolute proof’), then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the scientific method is, and what it does. Science doesn’t speak in absolutes. You’d do well to strike that language from your lexicon, because it will do you no good outside a church.

          • Colin Bell says:

            I looked through the comments but couldn’t find a point by point refutation of the article. Maybe I missed it and if so, apologies. It is true that there are no absolutes in science and that is why scientists should have open minds and be willing to give equal consideration to all evidence, whether it backs up evolution, intelligent design or a totally new paradigm. Are all evolutionists atheist or people who believe in God “non scientists”? Actually, neither is true. Debates between scientists do not have to be so polarised. For me personally, I do believe in God but I am also very interested in science. To be a “real” scientist does not, or should not, mean they have to accept the theory of evolution as fact. They also don’t have to believe in God…… just have an open, enquiring mind. To me, personally, evolution is a ridiculously impossible theory. Life did not originate from nothingness nor did any creature evolve into another creature. From a logical point of view, it just doesn’t make any sense, basically impossible. Believing this involves more mental gymnastics than believing that an intelligent mind created the world we have now. Scientists may find an alternative to evolution, but it’s hard to conceive that something came from nothing. The article above asks many specific questions that no-one has answered yet. If I pointed to a car and said to you that a billion years ago it was a pile of metal and plastic but it evolved into a fully formed, working car you will say impossible. But you can look at an infinitely more complex organism and tell me, with a straight face, that it evolved. Obviously one thing does not become something else, and never has. Even less so the possibility that something came from nothing. If a creature begins to evolve into something else how does it “know” what the end result will be? Also, how does it survive its intermediate state? In the example above about reptiles developing hollow bones in anticipation of the development of flight how does it know the end result.? That’s why it’s too ridiculous to contemplate. I have visited the Natural History Museum in London and remember seeing the reptile bird from China on display, despite the hoax already being discovered. I have never seen a transitional fossil, sorry. Show some links and I will take a look.

          • Rich Wilson says:

            My longer reply is being held in moderation due to links. Try this, make sure you have the raw URL for this page in your browser. If there’s something like:


            that indicates a specific comment, remove that (if it’s there), and add #comment-1197017972

            That’s the indicator for one of the point by point responses. Refresh the page with that at the end of the URL and it should take you right to the comment.

            There’s another one by someone else,


          • Bilbo says:

            I have no interest or belief in religion, but with a PhD (science/research), and having studied evolutionary theory at the graduate level, I still cannot fault the arguments outlined in the article above. The theory of Evolution has no more substance than the theory of JC….blind faith in either topic will get people no where

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You clearly have not, in any way, studied evolution at the graduate level. If you can’t fault the nonsense and quote mining that make up this article, you have no basis in research at all.

          • Tsadi Waw Mem Taw says:

            There is not any evidence which can only be interpreted as supportive of evolution and not of other beliefs as to the origin of biodiversity. It is a matter of interpretation of that evidence with a vested interest in the promotion of evolution which leads to the evidence ONLY being declared supportive of evolution and not of a million other hypotheses which it could also be interpreted as evidence of.

          • Spanner1960 says:

            Darwin may not have had the proof at the time, and in some areas he was wrong, but most of his suppositions were proved correct with evidence from biology, including DNA, paleontological records and many other modern scientific means.

            There is mountains of documented evidence, whereas the still remains not a single shred to prove the existence of your god.

          • Jon Perry says:

            Actually it is the opposite, the reason that I do not believe in evolution is exactly because I do understand what is required for it to be a reasonable theory. It is an insane idea and only exists as a reality in the minds of those who refuse to take it off life support despite it being as dead as a dodo.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            To make a statement like that, you clearly do not. Because I like learning, however, feel free to explain the things you know which refute the most well researched theory in science.

          • sallyho3000 . says:

            Just because we agree about religion… Well, you know the rest.

          • Colin Bell says:

            The motives of those who cling to an extremely unlikely, dare I say it, impossible idea, evolution, are obvious when the common belief of them is that God does not exist. it is because this is the only concept of life that removes the need for a creator that they so fervently cling to a theory that doesn’t seem to make any sense. If they are honest with themselves and honest in the pursuit of knowledge and science there would be no need to try to debunk a creator. In other words they should not be trying to debunk one thing to prove another. Often it works both ways, not just evolutionists. it’s a polarising debate with little objectivity, always tainted by the participants pre conceived beliefs. A real scientist with integrity will consider all evidence, and is open to being proven wrong, with no preconceived ideas and no animosity for those that have contrary views. I do believe in a creator. It makes more sense to me than than idea of evolution but I am open to being proven wrong. Why must a scientist feel the necessity to write off a creator? If they have a truly open mind that shouldn’t be necessary. Sadly it’s never the case.

          • Nick says:

            Maybe read the article. There are 44 reasons above you.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You did’t read the rebuttals. There are several, and they’re very well put.

          • The world is alone says:

            There’s a book you should read. It’s about a boy bitten by a spider and gets superpowers. Spider-Man is real, he’s our saviour

          • Bilbo says:

            ‘The main reason people don’t choose to believe in Intelligent design is because they can’t stand to think that they are and will be accountable to one greater than they. Think a little deeper friend!’

            I don’t accept evolution, as it is strictly pseudoscience at best. But I also do not accept religion and notions of separate (often angry/cranky) gods that we must pray to/ be subservient or accountable to etc for the same reasons.

            If you take the time to think about it, it is quite obvious that if god is unlimited, then there is no evil or good or bad, as god must be everything…that means that you are god, and so am I. It means I am accountable to no one but myself, and that there is no one wearing a white bed sheet checking making notes regarding my activities. if there is a god, then there is no good or bad, or right or wrong, as that would imply separation from god, which is patently impossible. it also means that there is no one to scrape or bow or pray to. If you wish to find god, take a good look in the mirror, and learn to like what you see.

          • weddingsinger says:

            Observable change through the fossil record is science. There are plenty of samples of all kinds of creatures. Heck, they recently found a specimen of the oldest creature to have reproduced sexually, off the coast of Scotland.

            There are all kinds of reasons to believe in evolution of us, as well (also, we didn’t evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor). There are several ways our own bodies aren’t the best they *could* be – evolution doesn’t guarantee the best option, like pandas being so reliant on bamboo..

          • Son of Thunder says:

            One man sees a puddle, the other sees a pond.
            What is amazing is how certain YOU can be, regarding the knowledge of someone you do not know.
            At very best you have no evidence for your statement…

            Be still and listen, Jesus is calling.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            The intent of the original post was to poke fun at the single most researched theory in all of science. The initial point is one of complete ignorance, and all of you who are completely unwilling to even look at another viewpoint have the gall to say we, the ones who have actually entertained the evidence and made an informed decision based on that evidence, are somehow wrong. Keep trying. Science is waiting for you to accept the truth.

          • Son of Thunder says:

            ~shakes dust from his feet outside alfalfas door~

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Come on in. This is a conversation I prefer to have in person anyway.

          • Son of Thunder says:

            If you knew ANY thing about the bible you would understand my previous post. You clearly do not.
            You make the statement that “all of you” … You can be rest assured I have not only entertained the evidence, I ate it, slept with it and studied it for years before coming to my conclusion. Your comments and posts show a lack of understanding of the scriptures you reference.
            If you ever REALLY “entertain” the evidence you’ll come down on the other side.
            I wish this for you, Be well.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            I understand more about scripture than you’ll ever know, and not just your version of scripture. You stop at one, I read all. It’s sad…

          • Son of Thunder says:

            Theres no way thats true, you obviously dont understand even the scripture you reference. I STUDY the bible everyday, you are just an ARROGANT JERK.

            One day soon you will see.

            You read all? Yes it is sad, because you understand NONE.

            Rant on and on, it wont make you right or smarter, just noisier.

            Crawl back under your rock and resume playing with that tiny piece of gristle.
            Thats all you got, Jerk.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You do realize that by using words like ‘jerk’ and ‘arrogant’ you’re deflecting the real and rational argument in favor of attacking me personally, right? I posted a clear and concise rebuttal to every point in the article above. It’s too bad you didn’t bother to read it.

          • Hypocrite says:

            You “study” the bible, and then resort to name calling when your faith is tested. Congratulations on being a hypocrite and a scumbag.

          • Son of Thunder says:

            Pfft.. your mom is a scumbag

          • alfalfa31 says:

            1 Peter 3:15-18…

            Son of Thunder clearly doesn’t believe in his own book.

          • Spanner1960 says:

            Ad hominem remarks are the last bastion of someone losing an argument.

          • Believer says:

            I apologize for his name calling. Please turn the other cheek brother.

          • Tsadi Waw Mem Taw says:

            Oh, and if you think that endogenous retroviruses can be used as evidence of evolution, and they seem to be a major one that is appealed to, think again, as Germ Theory is, and can be experimentally proven to be, false. “Bacteria” and “viruses” have been made to change species from one known species to another depending upon the media into which they are placed. They have not ever come from outside of an organism to infect that organism, and serve the purpose of disposal of already diseased tissue, as can be confirmed from the work of Dr. William Holub and Dr. Antoine Bechamp among others.

            Another disproof of or strong piece or body of evidence against Germ Theory comes in the form of the success which many have had in causing their teeth to heal themselves by way of abstaining from certain substances and adding others to their diet, which also refutes the concept of it being responsible to rely on the supposed expertise, training and knowledge of a person trained in one or other of the sciences.

          • Bilbo says:

            By the very definition of god – i.e., unlimited – then everyone and everything must be god, therefore, as god, my next breath is dependent upon no one or no entity but myself

          • texcteach says:

            You plainly have missed the point. God gives every one a choice. I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You should read up on the null hypothesis before making such a misguided statement.

          • Praenestrian says:

            In what way unearned?

          • alfalfa31 says:

            That can’t be a serious question. The god we’re talking about is a horrible god.

          • Blazeraid says:

            What chances did the people have before the bible was ever written?
            Or the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas, who for whatever reason, were never contacted by the same god?

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            Ask God when you meet Him…
            The Bible says that salvation came to the Jew first then to the Greeks (Gentiles).
            That said, the Gentile nations rejected God long before they migrated across the oceans. The ancestors of those peoples came from paleo-Babylon (Nimrod’s kingdom) and had sealed the fate of generations with their rebellion. Just as you seal the fate of your kids by your rebellion (they follow your path and beliefs).
            However, missionaries have been reaching the current populations with the Gospel. Many missionaries are killed doing just that.

          • Blazeraid says:

            And you know this is true because you read it? What if the bible was written by men, who don’t know anymore about the creator than you or I do within our own thoughts and ideas?

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            OR I could ask God what the truth is. If He answers then God is real, if He doesn’t then I can move on. Wait a minute…I already this.
            back in 1997 I had a white German Shepherd who loved to chase pickup trucks. One day I came home and she actually caught one but it fought back. The vet showed me the X-rays where her hips were shattered, her tail all but severed off and internal damage. The vet told me that the best thing was to put her down because she will never run again, never walk without pain, her tail (which was all but severed anyway) had to be amputated. She would most likely die early in severe pain from arthritis. I took her home gently because I just could not put her down that night.
            I was taking an Anthropology class in college then and I was really doubting God at that time. And this really just pushed me to the edge. But as I sat in the living room I heard God tell me to anoint her with oil and pray over her.
            With nothing to lose I grabbed the vegetable oil from the kitchen and went to the back porch where my dog was laying down. I poured the oil over my hand and placed my hand on her hips and prayed for her healing.
            I felt her hips go back into place, I felt her being healed all over. Then her tail began to wag. She got up and walked to her food dish and ate and drank. I took her back to the vet’s office the next day and he X-rayed her again and declared a miracle. All of the damage seen clearly in the previous X-rays was gone, completely healed. A few days later she was running around the yard and climbing the fence like nothing happened.
            I think God is real, I think He dictated to the writers of the Bible what to write. I think I’ll trust a God that cares for me and my broken heart over a pet so much He not only heals my dog but my faith in Him. I’ll trust God over man and the God of the Bible is proven to me.

          • Blazeraid says:

            Unfortunately you seem to be delusional. How can you tell somebody else they are wrong about their god when they have just as much a reason to believe in theirs as you do?

          • alfalfa31 says:

            As they say on 4Chan, pics or it didn’t happen. You claim that an educated man declared the fact that your dog had been healed, miraculous. If he had, publish the story and the x-rays with a sworn affidavit from the doctor in question, or I call utter BS.

          • HP Austin says:

            Somewhere in the New Testament it says that Christ preached to those in Hell, so perhaps they were given a chance that way. God is just.

          • Rant In A-Minor says:

            That’s a logical fallacy called “Pascal’s Wager”; you assume that the only way you can be wrong is that your god doesn’t exist. However, if someone else’s god exists, Zeus, for instance, you are still wrong and just as bound for eternal torment as the rest of us. Pull your arrogant head out of your book of fairytales, and think for yourself instead.

          • CLT616 says:

            50 / 50 chance? Have you forgotten all the other religions in the world that don’t worship the same god as you? By your suggestion you should believe in all the gods from every religion that has ever existed just to be safe. Also calling non-believers idiots isn’t a great way to try and convert them.

          • Bob Loblaw says:

            You should find help with your paranoid schizophrenia. I feel sad for a human being like you living in fear without any wisdom.

          • Alison Lane says:

            God sends all atheists to a literal hell? Love to see your biblical evidence for that statement.

        • Vega Garcia says:

          “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” Romans 1:22 (KJV)

        • Bob Loblaw says:

          the foolish man is impressed with words even though they have no meaning at all.

        • Marcus Dee says:

          I say a foolish man says invisible Gods exist. prove me wrong. Show your God to me…lol. Guess you lose. We know who the real fool here is :)

    • Rebecca says:

      Once upon a time I received God’s strong delusion. I was a die hard atheist, believer in evolution. One night I had a dream where I was praying and I said Jesus’s name three times. I woke up, and laughed, and said, “Yeah right.” Almost exactly three years later, I had found Jesus. Or perhaps he came for me… Don’t ever think that the receivers of the strong delusion are lost forever, because they are not. I love that Bible passage. :)

      • Luis says:

        Rebecca- That is wonderful that you came around. As you might know, Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3, and Romans 3:10-12 says there are none that seek God. That clearly means it is God that comes after us, or we would all be “toast”. Btw, I agree with you… there is hope for receivers of strong delusion. That I believe is where the power of prayer comes in. It might take many years of pleading with God for our families and friends, but some will respond to the Spirit of Christ. I know you are right….

      • alfalfa31 says:

        I think you may have succumbed to apophenia, and therefore chosen poorly.

    • Dennis Johnston says:

      Yes,lets rely on a book that says plants came before the sun and that also states women are to blame for everything. I mean shoot,”knowledge”,aka fairy tales from 2k plus years ago will teach us much better than actually doing the research ourselves,right?

    • Rob says:

      Yes Luis, and alien belief/fear/worship is becoming more prominent as the delusion strengthens . A natural result of faith in the theory of evolution.

    • Sarai Johnsson says:

      So what you’re saying is, that the almighty, ‘loving’ god, who *wants* us all to be saved, will try to confuse people more if they don’t ‘get it’ straight away? What a douchebag!

    • Bob Loblaw says:

      So your proof is a bible text, written by humans based on hearsay? you are the proof religious people are barely functional retards, adult believing in fairy tails, how sad is that? You are all paranoid schizophrenic.

  6. K says:

    Ecclesiastes 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. In an arrogant attempt to prove there is nothing greater than man. They produce theories that are far more unlikely, than the existence of God. Most people claim that knowledge is a positive thing. That it greatly improves our life. When you show me a mankind, that does not turn almost every scientific breakthrough into a weapon. A mankind that even when he creates something that is supposed to be good, ends up destroying a large portion of the planet (Fukushima). Then perhaps you will convince me knowledge is good. What I see is a very flawed creature. Given to arrogance, greed, power, and I could go on. No man creates far more to his detriment, than he produces to his good.

    • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

      All evolution, micro and macro, depend on the idea that information is created to adapt to new environments. I cannot accept even micro-evolution because information cannot be created without a creator.
      To explain breeding we need only to look at the information already available in the original breeding pair. In other words, the information to adapt was already there and those traits just get expressed instead of suppressed.

      The traits of a doberman already exist in the wolf. If those traits did not exist in the ancestors it will never show up in the offspring.

      • K says:

        Totally agree.

      • Dennis Johnston says:

        Information can’t be created without a creator? Then god can’t be god,can it….

        • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

          God is eternal, without beginning and without end. I know that is difficult for you to wrap your pointy head around but it is true.
          As for information, it must originate from an intelligent source. Research Information theory if you doubt me. Go ahead.
          Random distribution of bits only result in nonsensical randomly distributed bits. On a graph it is a straight horizontal line.
          Information is not random and bits are chosen and the result is something that makes sense. On a graph of bit distribution it is a 45degree slope.
          This same method is how scientists are distinguishing random background noise in space from extraterrestrial communication. Scientists are also using this method understand how animals communicate.
          Again, Random bits cannot result in information. Only an intelligent source can create information. DNA is information, therefore it needs an intelligent source. It cannot be random.

        • Saros7 says:

          “Meeeeh! Meeeeeh!”, “well I say I FINITY TIMES INFINITY! That’s a higher number!”

          This is the argument everytime

    • blackciti_fo5 says:


  7. Rufus T Firefly says:

    The problem is one of spelling. It is not evolution. It is elvislution. Elvis was the perfect human being and we all are becoming like him: fat, lazy and drugged up. Put on a rhinestone jumpsuit andsunglasses and we all look like The King.

    • Malcolm Reynolds says:

      Even Jesus made water into wine. I don’t think any of that has changed over time, just the ability to do so.

  8. Phinehas says:

    Years ago I had a discussion with an MIT graduate… extremely smart, brilliant man in many ways. We would get into discussions about Creation and Evolution on occasion. One time I told him “If Evolution is true, then would it also make sense that given enough time, a couple billion years or so, that computer on your desk would eventually become faster and smarter on its own?” After a brief pause he walked away and we never had a discussion about Evolution again.

    Even my 6 year old son understands that we had to have been created. Everything we use, live in, drive, play with, etc., was created. He knows that the pile of legos isn’t going to build itself. Someone has to make it into something. If that is true about legos, how much more so when you realize the complexity of our universe (and all the other creatures, including ourselves) inside of it?

    • MichaelfromTheEconomicCollapse says:

      Very well said Phinehas.


    • Twilight Sparkle says:

      Computers can’t reproduce! That’s why he walked away!

      • Daniel Cameron says:

        Right. People here don’t have a lot of critical thought with this subject, even though they like to think they do. The problem seems to be a lack of understanding about evolution by both sides.

      • Malcolm Reynolds says:

        Do they suddenly pop into existence out of thin air?

        • Erik says:

          Did human life pop into existence out of thin air? That’s certainly what the creationists like to believe.

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            There ya go. I knew you’d get it.

          • Twilight Sparkle says:

            Who made God?

          • RHHH says:

            Check out the “Fibinachi sequence,” or the golden ratio, even the DNA proves Christ’s word, “the very hairs of your head ARE ALL NUMBERED,”
            (written with 4 letter coded DNA)
            spoken almost 2,000 years ago, before we could see the invisible makes up the visible, just like God revealed to the prophets, thousands of years ago.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            What you just did there is called apologetics. You forced the bible to fit modern understanding. It would have been way smarter for your god to tell the truth (say, that the earth is round) from the beginning. Instead we have to put up with you people squeezing bronze and early iron age nonsense into the current model of reality.

          • RHHH says:

            The prophets said thousands of years ago that “God sets above the CIRCLE of the earth.”

            As Christ predicted, this generation has returned to “as it was in Noah’s day,” and the days of Lot, crossing the species barrier, ancient astronauts mixing with the seed of man and animals, building the LAST Babylon,
            a hatred for Christ, and slaughtering his followers, etc …

          • alfalfa31 says:

            The reference about being above the circle of the earth is another reference to the flatness of the earth. It cannot be argued that the god who created the earth would not have known it was spherical, nor can it be argued that man could not understand the concept of a sphere. That being the case, why not just tell people that they live on a giant ball? What you’re left with is the inane ramblings of bronze age men struggling to make sense of nature and writing it as they saw it.

            If there is to be any slaughtering of christians, it won’t come from non-believers, as the whole of your prophecy can be said of any religious group (and in fact, they all say they will be persecuted). Do you suppose that prophecies like that might be related to the constant religious wars of the day? It’s not hard to predict what you see on a daily basis.

            In fact, we all need to be wary of the rise of islam. It’s the most likely place from which you’ll get your pseudo-prophecy fulfilled.

          • RHHH says:

            Isaiah predicted 2700 years ago, that Damascus will be destroyed in one night, you will see that Isaiah (the bible) is more up to date than tommorrows news paper.

            God sent Isaiah to speak with the religious leaders of his day. He told them that their religious feast tables were like tables full of vomit, to God.

            All ways lead to the prince of this world, all is one.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            The Jebusites were also guaranteed to be driven from Jerusalem. They’re still there. Egypt was to be laid to waste under the rule of the Pharaohs. It wasn’t. David was guaranteed to have an heir on the throne of Israel for all time. oops… he doesn’t…

            That’s just three.

          • RHHH says:

            “David was guaranteed to have an heir on the throne of Israel for all time. oops… he doesn’t…”

            Not yet …. “I have set my King in my holy hill of zion,” from God’s view point, it’s as good as done, we just haven’t gotten there yet.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            There was to never be an interruption of his line on the throne. Read your bible or stop saying such silly things.

          • tg1392 says:

            Ok, so provide your evidence

          • alfalfa31 says:

            What is it that you want Erik to provide? He’s made several statements, so be specific. Is it the fact that computers are no biological? For that one, go look to see if your computer ingests and excretes. If it does, Erik is wrong.

            If you’re talking about evolution, we have all provided mountains of refutation to the nonsense contained in this article, but confirmation bias seems to be more important to the believers here.

        • Twilight Sparkle says:

          No, because they are not organic. Organisms don’t pop into existence either. You can’t compare non organic things to organic things. By the same logic, I could say that I evolve by growing up. No, it’s NOT what happens. But I can give you a nice example in technology: Smartphones made the phones with small screens and buttons nearly obsolete among in countries. That’s because they are better adapted to changing conditions. Computers are getting faster because we design better ones.

          Human body, like all organisms on Earth, has many weaknesses, like one tunnel for breathing and eating, not being able to make vitamin D, appendix, goosebumps, and many more

          Nothing pops into existence out of thin air, except for your God which for some reason doesn’t have to be created.

          It would be foolish to assume that science has all the answers. We are always seeking them, and we don’t know many things.

          But maybe you can tell us where your God came from? Or did you never though about this because ”God is eternal” is sufficient explanation for you?

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            I swear, it’s like talking to a brick wall.

          • Twilight Sparkle says:

            And why exactly? You don’t have better arguments? Or you think that your explanation of the origin of universe is the only correct one?

    • Erik says:

      He walked away because he realized it was useless to engage in a discussion with someone so ignorant. Computers aren’t biological entities and cannot act on their own.

    • Dennis Johnston says:

      So everything is created or has origin except god? that’s called special pleading…We know from experience where computers come from via empiricism,not revelation.

      • RHHH says:

        God is out side of time, “one day is as a thousand years, and a thousands years as a day.” He has revealed himself and his plan of redemption, in the sun, moon, and stars, called the Mazzeroth, astronomy. Please check out the blood moon tetrads, on April 14,
        2014, these are a “flashing warning” in the heavens, that fall on God’s appointed feasts.

        Very rare event, everytime it happened, in 1948, Israel became a nation, in 1967 Israel
        regained Jerusalem, in 2014-15 Israel will build the Temple, would be my guess.

        All anyone has to do, to know God exists,
        is to ask him to give you eyes to see, and ears to hear, and you will understand.

        • Dennis Johnston says:

          So something can both be A and B? Oh boy…..

          • RHHH says:

            “So something can both be A and B?” Sure it can.

            We were born (A) physically alive
            but (B) spiritually dead.

            Some of us have to die physically, to find out they were dead spiritually
            even while they lived.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Not only completely irrelevant to the conversation, but also complete poppycock. You don’t even understand the logical fallacy he was pointing out as evidenced by your reply.

    • Thomas Moerman says:

      You cannot make the analogy with objects that do not procreate! How many times do I have to repeat that? Is your education system so worthless that’s the kind of nonsense I have to debate with? For crying out loud. I’m losing faith in humanity.

  9. ort says:

    A person who willingly believes the patently ridiculous, i.e. evolution, should be committed to an insane asylum. It is the biggest hoax I have ever seen and only the insane could believe it.

    • Erik says:

      Ok, so the universe is about 14 billion years old and the Earth is over 4 billion years old. In our galaxy, the Milky Way, there are billions of stars (our sun is a star, in case you don’t know). There are also billions of galaxies besides our own. How many possible planets exist within the hospitable zones our their parent stars? How reasonable is it to assume that the Earth, which is just one small rock orbiting a rather small star on one of the outer legs of our galaxy, is the only one that supports life and that the creator of all of this, cares only about our well-being. Any person who believes that a god created all of this and is involved in the daily lives of all ~7 billion of us are the ones who should be questioned. The mere idea of your god is straight up preposterous and I really question any adult who believes in Santa Claus level delusions.

      • alfalfa31 says:

        Well said, Erik. The sheer arrogance of believing what they believe is astounding. Planets around stars has proven to be the rule, not the exception. There is undoubtedly life somewhere else out there, and unless they came to exactly the same god solutions as people like the above, all gods (as has historically been the case) are false.

      • ort says:

        “The fool says in his heart there is no God.”

        • aaron says:

          The wise man says it out loud.

          • ort says:

            “Wise”? No, far from it. Paul writes in Romans that those who see the wonder and splendor of all that has been created, and refuse to see God’s Hand in it have no excuse for their disbelief.(paraphrased).

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Paul is much the same as Muhammed. Those of you who call yourselves christians yet quote Paul don’t realize you’re not christians but paulinians. As a non-believer, I simply don’t care what that charlatan Paul said.

          • ort says:


          • alfalfa31 says:

            Wonderfully thought out reply. Why didn’t I think of that?

          • ort says:

            Look, what do you want? A cookie? Geez.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Some kind of debate would be nice. Instead you revert to childish banality and offer no substance.

          • ort says:

            I don’t feel like a “debate” with someone who states I am a “paulinian” and that there is no difference between muhammad—a pedophile, murderer, liar, rapist and thief, and the Apostle Paul—a Godly man and excellent teacher of the Gospel who was filled with the Holy Spirit.

            Do you really think I am going to convince you otherwise, and you, me? I think not. Have a good night.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Had you bothered to ask what I meant when I made the comparison, you would have known I was talking about the initial lie, and no other comparison. They both claimed to receive revelation from on high, and were alone when they did (or at least no one else heard the revelation).

            Paul, not Jesus, is the basis for the religion you practice. Wake up and read your own book.

          • Dennis Johnston says:

            beat me to it:-)

          • Dennis Johnston says:

            Paul was a heretic. You’re a Christian,not a Paulian…..

          • ort says:

            How was Paul a heretic?

          • alfalfa31 says:

            He contradicts the teachings of jesus on more than one point. That makes him heretical. Why is it that non-believers understand this and you don’t?

    • Dennis Johnston says:

      Ort..not a single word Paul wrote in the Epistles gives the actual teaching of Jesus, nor does he mention even one of his parables; instead he spreads his own philosophy and his own ideas.that’s why he is a heretic

      • ort says:

        Did you not read what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus, or what happened after? Jesus taught Paul personally—read Galatians.
        Besides, if one takes God at His Word, that His Word is true, (like He says it is) nothing in it is contradictory or false.

        God told Cornelius, not Paul, how much “Paul will suffer for My Name”.

        So, we definitely do not agree on this.

        • alfalfa31 says:

          If you took a course in comparative religion you’d know that the revelation narrative of all religions boils down to the originator of the lie that spawns the religion.

          An example of this lie would be Joseph Smith telling people that he received revelation from angels about the location of golden tablets inscribed with a new testament of god for the new world, written in a language he didn’t speak on tablets he destroyed. There is no way to check the lie, so it gave rise to a religion. It’s called the Applewhite Theorem (named after the founder of the Heaven’s Gate cult). People are gullible, and in order to start a religion you need two things. You need a lie that can’t be checked, and gullible people to dupe.

          Paul had that. Think, if you will, what it means that 30 years after the supposed ascension of jesus, he appears to one man (and no one else) on the road. It means that the second coming already happened, or (and more logically) that Paul was Joseph Smith, Marshall Applewhite, Mohammed, L. Ron Hubbard or any other liar who founds a religion based on a lie.

          Paul wrote his letters before a single gospel was written (feel free to check that) and had never read a gospel, nor had he heard the ‘good news’ in his entire life. He was a fraud.

          Don’t take my word for it. Look it up.

  10. Hammerstrike says:

    #1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

    Actually yes, yes we have!

    “#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.””

    Apple mahggot fly, anyone?

    “#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?”

    What does that jhave to do with evolution?

    “#25 Apes and humans are very different genetically.”

    news.sciencemag.o rg/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives


    “#37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support Life.”

    It does, life adapts to conditions due to evolution.

    en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Extremophile
    And not all life is equal.

    • Malcolm Reynolds says:

      #1 Actually no, no you haven’t. See #2, 3, 4, 5.

      #6 A little math lesson. 1 does not equal millions.

      #11, Again, laying its eggs on apples now, in addition to hawthorns only historically is not equal to ‘the formation of a new species’

      #25 please explain the MASSIVE genetic dump that would have to have happened from chimps to humans. NOPE.

      • Hammerstrike says:

        Except several of his points are outright false.

        6# Just a small example, do you know what a Platypus is? A mammal that lay eggs, have a beak and is poisonous.

        The thing is, in just a century apple fly and pear fly have different mating seasons and have become physically different.

        Also, bacteria, insects and fungus growing resistant to Chemicals used against them.
        This have happened in just half a century.
        Point remain thou, Michael claims there is a massive genetical difference between them and human, that again, is false.

        • Malcolm Reynolds says:

          Oh, well because you said they’re false….

          Certainly we adapt to our environment. The inuit(?) eskimoes have super adapted to cold. You fail to understand that doesn’t mean they’re different species.

          And speaking of that, which of those is a whole different species now?

          And you still didn’t answer my other question.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Again, you’re being completely disingenuous. You keep throwing up straw men then attacking them like you know what you’re talking about.
            Evolutionary adaptation takes ages.

          • Hammerstrike says:

            Noot me, the info, a lot of it, is widely available.

            The difference is just a question of time. Eventually, with increased genetic difference, interbreeding between population A and B will result in problems, eventually becomes impossible altogether.
            No evolution would mean that insecticides, pesticides, antibiotics that so considerably reduced human mortality and increased agricultural production in the 20th century would keep on working forever.

  11. MichaelfromTheEconomicCollapse says:

    When I read “up until now I have been a fan…” I thought that I was about to get slammed. :)

    Thank you for the very kind words.


    • With Fortitude says:

      Your welcome . You should post this article on
      Skeptic Mags site . Let’s bring the fight to em!! : )

      • Erik says:

        This would be very thoroughly refuted, and it wouldn’t even be that difficult. This post is nothing but gish gallop, intended to overwhelm the opposition with so many half-truths that it becomes tiresome. Every single point worth arguing has been rehashed and debunked time and time again.

        • With Fortitude says:

          Well Eric, Michael does invite you to post something to refute his article. Your just complaining.

        • alfalfa31 says:

          I did a through refutation, but the author will not publish it. He keeps deleting the comment. He’s a coward.

    • alfalfa31 says:

      As a moderator, why are you and yours refusing to allow my comprehensive rebuttal to this article? The end of the article challenges us to rebut. Please allow my rebuttal to be published and continue the discourse.

  12. Prut says:

    If God existed, wouldn’t there be some evidence of it? What a ridiculous column. Pretty funny really. Thanks for the laughs.

    • With Fortitude says:

      Check out “the case for a creator”

      • alfalfa31 says:

        Check out the mountains of evidence for evolutionary theory. The difference between us is, I assure you I will check out “the case for a creator” but I doubt you’ll be bothered to look at anything that doesn’t come from your camp.

        • With Fortitude says:

          I believe there are mountains of evidence that attempt to explain our origins as do you. Dawkins makes a valid argument for evolution , but the probabilities in intelligent design are compelling enough for me to realize that man has an ego problem in trying to do this. I happen to have a book that states that and warns about that also. Its roughly 4 thousand years old, and I won’t go into how old the tradition is to which eventually became this book. I understand your point though. Christians have a bad habit of believing without searching for why they believe .

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Kindly name your book. Odds are I’ve read it, but you can’t speak in riddle and expect to be taken seriously.

          • With Fortitude says:

            Laughing!! The bible my friend. The book I speak of is the bible.It talks about mans ego, and how this alludes us from knowing God.
            And, yes it may be a riddle for you now, but I promise if you seek it’s knowledge with sincerity you will find the God I’m speaking of.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            I’ve read the bible (and continue to do so), and I didn’t stop there. Having done so is the main reason I can’t, in good conscience, believe it. It speaks of a god unworthy of worship, jealous, vain, petty, unjust and devoid of love. It does nothing to explain the natural world, and a god that made it should understand how it works. He clearly doesn’t.

    • Michael Bartels says:

      Its funny how unbelievers come onto the boards and discussions make you wonder if they are searching for the truth, Jesus my God is everywhere look around and tell me he is not. Times and season the firmament in the heavens, the way the sun the moon and the earth are at distances when there is an eclipse they cover each other perfectly, all at the right distances, trees time it self, also the fact that they find objects in coal that is supposed to be millions of years old, or could coal be the result of the flood during Noahs age. The only thing science does in there pursuit to disprove God is not real, is they prove ever more that Jesus my God is real. The only countinual fact is that Jesus created everything, it all been proven.

      • Nexusfast123 says:

        Mate the fairy tale is your stupid imaginary person in the sky and all the deluded crap that sits around it.

        I venture here very rarely as I find it amusing and profoundly sad that grown ups continue to believe in a bunch of myths concocted by individuals 2,000 years ago as they could explain how the world around them works.

        There is no difference between what you believe and things like Scientology,

        • Larry D Andrews says:

          What do you believe? Let us hear the world according to you, oh great man.

          P.S. Our Father is in the heavens, your father resides in the sky.

        • Michael Bartels says:

          iniquity would wax could in the end days saith the Lord, prophecy is being full filled daily.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            The prophecy which cannot be fulfilled should be your focus. If you believe that there are no errors in the bible, and that god is infallible, start with the errors. That’s the scientific method. First seek to prove yourself wrong, because if you can prove yourself wrong, you need not explore that avenue anymore. If even one prophecy is wrong, the rest of the tome is suspect.

          • Michael Bartels says:

            now I see that you claim to be up and up on Jesus prophecies, so which one has not been full filled that has already supposed to have been full filled, conjecture is one thing but your words have no proof pull out the Bible and list them and I will tell you when they were full filled. May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you forever.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            The Jebusites were supposed to have been driven from Jerusalem. They weren’t and it’s a little late now. David was supposed to have an heir on the throne of Israel in uninterrupted succession. He does not. God himself cursed Cain to be a fugitive and a vagabond (essentially a homeless man in the land of Nod), yet Cain got married, had children and founded a city. God promised Josiah that he would die in peace, yet he died of an arrow wound in battle. Egypt was supposed to have been laid to waste by god during the time of the pharaohs and the nile river was supposed to dry up. It didn’t. Jesus told the high priest that he would live to see his second coming. Oops… he died. Jesus also told is listeners that he would be back within their lifetime. He wasn’t. Paul said the end of the world would happen in his lifetime. It didn’t. James and John said they would live to see the rapture. last I checked, they didn’t. There are hundreds more, and there are many examples of prophecy having been written after the fact. That’s pretty disingenuous, but what do you expect from a book of lies.

          • Michael Bartels says:

            A lot of what you just said was never even quoted in the Bible were you came up with this I just do not know, Paul, James and what ever other names you mentioned knew they were not going to be in the catching away of the church. All the stuff that you posted is all made up, let’s see some back up with some verses out of the King James Bible. With out that what you saying is all made up. And the egyptians all getting killed and the jubisites, the hittites, the amorotes and the other tribes were all supposed to be killed, man, woman, child, and beasts, but the Hebrws did not listen, took them for wives and slaves. Do not come up with stuff if you have not read Jesus word.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Every single thing I said above is in the bible, and newsflash, even the other people who follow the bible call it god’s word. Your notion that jesus and god are synonymous isn’t a common one.

            Genesis 4:17
            Jeremiah 33:17
            2 Samuel 7:16
            Matthew 16:28
            Matthew 10:23
            Matthew 24:34
            Mark 13:10
            Luke 21:32
            1 John 4:3
            1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
            Ezekiel 32:12
            Isaiah 19:5-8

            It’s your bible, not mine. Look some stuff up instead of making me prove you believe a falsehood.

          • Michael Bartels says:

            John 1:1-14

            King James Version (KJV)

            1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

            2 The same was in the beginning with God.

            3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

            4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

            5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

            6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

            7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

            8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

            9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

            10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

            11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

            12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

            13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

            14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

            Jesus and God are the same, God was the word and the word became flesh.

            1 Timothy 3:16

            King James Version (KJV)

            16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

            God was manifested in the flesh. God and Jesus the same.

            Revelation 1:8

            King James Version (KJV)

            8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

            Jesus is the Alimighty, so Jesus is God.

            Revelation 1:8

            King James Version (KJV)

            8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

            Back to the book of John, his name is the word of God Jesus almighty.

          • Michael Bartels says:

            Genesis 4, 17

            Cain bare a son and named a city after him, before that he was exiled form the Garden of Eden and a mark was put on him, he married and went and lived in the land of Nod, nod in Hebrew means wanderer, and he defiled Gods were by building a city, not following the commandment of God, that’s why we have free will, all of cain lineage was named after Adam and Eve sons, mocking God, not a good idea.

            2 Samuel 7 16-17

            If you read the verses before and after all its saying is that King Saul lots his spot to King David, and the lineage of Jesus Christ would come through Davids blood line his seed and it Did through Mary starting with David through Nathan his son.

            Isaiah 19 1-8

            This is saying that the Egyptians will fight against Egyptians, a civil war, is that not what is taking place right now as I write this little Bible study that they are fighting amongst themselves. The second part of the prophecy that the waters shall fail form the sea and the river shall be wasted and dried up, and the brooks shall be wasted and dried up, another thing that is happening right now is that in Ethiopia they are building one of the biggest hydro electric dams in the area, that is drying up the Euphrates river as I write this.

            Revelation 9, 16 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.

            Revelation 16, 12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

            Ezekiel 32, 12

            This is a war right around the time of the war of Armageddon , as in Ezekiel 39, and Revelation 19, the new Babylon the one from Revelation will be heading this war.

            Jeremiah 33, 17

            King David shall never want another man to sit on the Throne of Israel, true David lineage sat on the Throne of Israel, God made a covenant with David and he never broke it, all his seed sat on the throne until they were over thrown for there wickedness.

            Mathew 10,23

            Jesus is telling his followers to go to all the Cities in Israel and preach the wonderful gospel of Jesus Christ, and they will not make it too all the cities before Jesus returns for his bride.

            Mathew 16, 28

            It saying that some people will not taste the sting of death because the will be caught up in the taking away of the Church, Jesus Church.

            Mathew 24, 34

            Jesus is saying when these things start happening that generation shall not pass until all of this covenant is full filled, ounce Israel became a nation that was the start of the generation, that means seventy years, if the man of God is blessed he will give us eighty, time is coming get down on your knees and Repent and be Baptized in Jesus glorious name.

            Mark 13, 10

            Jesus is saying before he comes back the Word of God, The Bible will be published among all nations, which there is now over 1200 languages of the Bible, The Word of God, and the word became flesh.

            Luke 21, 32

            Jesus is saying that this generation will not pass till all the prophecies for this covenant are full filled, which started when Israel became a nation, seventy years according to the Bible, but if the man of God is blessed he will get eighty. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord both now and forever, the time is coming Repent and be Baptized in Jesus glorious name.

            1 Thessalonians 4, 16-17

            Paul is telling us about the catching away of the church, and Jesus will come with the shout of an archangel and the trump of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Repent repent repent repent repent repent repent.

            1 John 3 1-4

            We are told by John to try the spirits to see if they are of God or of the, and the ones that confess not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh have the spirit of the antichrist. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. Ounce you repent and are baptized, Jesus gives us the gift of the Holy Ghost, which is Jesus spirit inside the righteous man.

            I love giving Bible studies hope you enjoyed, Repent and be Baptized and then you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

          • Michael Bartels says:

            John 1:1-14

            King James Version (KJV)

            1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

            2 The same was in the beginning with God.

            3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

            4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

            5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

            6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

            7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

            8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

            9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

            10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

            11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

            12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

            13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

            14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

            God is the Word, and the Word became flesh, sounds like God and Jesus are the same.

            1 Timothy 3:16

            King James Version (KJV)

            16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

            God manifested himself in the flesh, God and Jesus are the same.

            Revelation 1:8

            King James Version (KJV)

            8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

            Jesus is the almighty. God and Jesus the same.

            Revelation 19:11-13

            King James Version (KJV)

            11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

            12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

            13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

            Just as also in the book of John, Jesus name also is The Word of God.

            James 2:19

            King James Version (KJV)

            19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

            Not three gods, but One God, Jesus and God the same.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            And all of that means exactly nothing to me, because I didn’t stop at the bible. The concept of the trinity and divinity of the jesus character (the christian monomyth character) didn’t arise until the 4th century CE, so what you’re getting at isn’t factually accurate (like the rest of the bible). It’s one book among thousands that says the same nonsense about creation and deities. I showed you how prophecy in the bible was wrong and yet you still think I’ll believe other parts of it. Not likely.

          • Michael Bartels says:

            Jesus has been around forever his name was known to us in the new covenant. I gave you answers for all the scripture verses you gave me, all prophecies will be full filled or have been full filled. Men have free will whether you want to believe or not, but then comes the judgement day. Jesus says you have ears but you do not hear, eyes but you do not see. I myself do not believe parts of the Bible, I believe it all. Jesus is God you and everyone else will see.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Um… They CAN’T be fulfilled. The time for them to have been fulfilled has passed. What part of that do you have difficulty with?

          • Michael Bartels says:

            Mocking me or The Word of God is no gain, you show me nothing and expect me to take what you say as it is scribed for eternity. The fact of the matter is you can do what you want and I can do what I want (free will), but there will be a day that we will all die, inevitable then comes the judgement, you can go your route and see where it takes you and I will take mine, and when that day comes we shall see who is in Paradise and who is not. You jot scripture but you give no reason why they are supposedly passed, I say this I would not want to be in your shoes.

            Proverbs 13:15

            King James Version (KJV)

            15 Good understanding giveth favour: but the way of transgressors is hard.

            Jesus is king both here now and forever.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            If you truly understood it, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. You would, like me, disbelieve the entirety of it. Instead you refuse to acknowledge that you may be wrong. It’s OK to be wrong. It’s OK to believe a lie, so long as you correct the error and attempt not to do it again.

          • Michael Bartels says:

            The one thing that was great about this conversation is I give you facts written facts from The Word of God, you give me your misguided beliefs, I have back-up for what I say, you have conjecture, I never told you what to believe or not to believe just the truth and the scriptures you tell me what i should and should not believe by your guessing at events. I will never tell anybody anything just quote scripture you can take it for what you want or leave it for what you want. From what I can see by your writings all you are doing is the worlds work, and if that is the way you work I fell sorry for you, light and dark cannot be in the same place, neither is good mingled with evil, I work a job were I go into homes everyday, in bad neighborhoods, I have seen people stabbed, found a person dead, seen some pretty bad stuff, the works of demons, the healing of the sick, the casting out of demons, I only hope one day you can see the same, then you can make your diagnoses from that, but if you choose to live the way you do thats your will not mine, I will live my life for Jesus, its not always easy lots of battles, but I enjoy being part of Jesus, whether or not you want to accept Jesus or not is up to you, I gave answers to all the questions you gave me and you still fight me there is nothing more that I can do from this point for you. Live your way and I will live mine. May The Lord Jesus Christ be with all, thank you I hope I was able to answer all your questions.

            Psalm 1

            King James Version (KJV)

            1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

            2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

            3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

            4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

            5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

            6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

            A very informative Psalms for all those that are reading. I will not reply to anymore of your comments. I have said what I needed to say heed your own direction. May Jesus be with you all amen.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            The bible is the claim, not proof of the claim.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            By the way, if you have evidence of demonic activity or possession, talk to James Randi and claim your million dollar prize. You won’t because you can’t prove it.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You believe the whole bible? Even the stuff that makes god look utterly evil, like this?

            “From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. ‘Go up, baldhead,’ they shouted, ‘go up, baldhead!The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces.”

            You think that’s somehow the work of a just and loving god?

        • Malcolm Reynolds says:

          Ahh, gotta be another one of those that put their faith in global warming or Baracka Claus coming to tell us all we’re deluded idiots.

        • WM says:

          How could so many “myths” be so accurately fulfilled and verified by history, science, prophecy, archeological, etc.

          Do a study on textural criticism and how the book of ” myths” holds up to HISTORY and other ancient manuscripts.

          It’s viewed as myths because of you close minded refusal of a Holy creator God, and the ramifications it would have on your lifestyle.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You’re making some wild claims which can’t be backed up. It’s called a myth because it IS a myth, and not even an original one.

            I don’t expect you to read Joseph Campbell’s Masks of God series, but if you did you’d see just how much your myth borrows from myths you call evil and idolatrous.

            If even one of the prophecies in the bible proves false, the bible is false. There are several which not only did not come to pass, they cannot.

            Closed minded people by definition refuse to accept new evidence and reexamine their beliefs. Nexusfast123 doesn’t seem to be the closed minded one here.

          • WM says:

            I ‘ll look into the masks of god series, thank you.

    • Barry Dingle says:

      The evidence lies in the very first living cell. The evidence lies in the paranormal events that occur. Prove to me that the first living cell was created by any set of conditions on any planet in the universe and I will denounce my belief in God. Prove to me that the spontaneous transfer of energy described as paranormal activity was orchestrated by a living being, and I will denounce my belief in God.

      • alfalfa31 says:

        James Randi and his foundation have a one million dollar reward available for anyone who can prove any kind of supernatural event or paranormal activity. That prize remains, to this day, completely unclaimed.

        Sadly, you’re the one upon whom the burden of proof rests. You claim that god did it. Prove your god did it. If you demand proof of abiogenesis, I can demand proof of divine involvement.

        Your belief in god is founded in the utterly irrational, and whatever nonsense you’re asking about spontaneous transfer of energy doesn’t even make sense.

      • Dennis Johnston says:

        There are no such things as “paranormal” or “supernatural”. Of it indeed does exist,then it is natural because it has been observed within the natural world. Of it hasn’t been observed,then it doesn’t exist …simple

  13. Christine says:

    What would it mean for the scientific “priest” community to acknowledge that the earth and its inhabitants were created? What would it mean to anyone who resists the idea of intelligent design?
    It would mean we are not our own ‘god’. It would mean we are accountable to a Creator, who has demonstrated historically that there are consequences for our behaviors. It would mean we have no secrets from this Creator. It would mean admitting we are just not that brilliant, nor have all the answers. And it would mean acknowledging **gasp** that we are ultimately not in control or in charge.
    The concept of acquiescing or submitting to a God who controls the universe; the idea of being subject to a much higher authority with supreme intelligence, is just too overwhelming for those who desperately need to be king of their palace.
    Sadly, many will never open the Bible and discover that the greatest supernatural intelligence who breathed life into the first man, is the one and same God who loves, protects, supports, provides and ultimately died for His creation.

    • k1mbr0 says:


    • Nexusfast123 says:

      Does is actually matter of we were not ‘created’. It never happened and is an irrelevant notion.

      We create our own mess and chaos and not amount of mumbling to an imaginary entity is going to change anything unless we deal with the issues. Religion projects and sustains a form of moral cowardice.

      Thinking we are unique and created is the height of human arrogance and stupidity. Who wrote the Bible? Human beings did. It is a human construct which is no different to things like Scientology.

      • Malcolm Reynolds says:

        “Religion projects and sustains a form of moral cowardice.”
        how so?

        • alfalfa31 says:

          That’s actually a simple one. We all agree that rape, murder and slavery are immoral. All of these things are condoned by the bible and the qu’ran.

          • Twilight Sparkle says:

            Except when YHWH commanded these things in old testament?

          • aaron says:

            What on earth does that mean?

          • Twilight Sparkle says:

            It means that your God is a cruel monster who punishes people for eternity for not being his cheerleader.

          • aaron says:

            Dude… not my god. I don’t have one.

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            Would you allow people in your home that hated you?…
            If not, you are a cruel monster by your own standards…

          • alfalfa31 says:

            What a nonsense argument. He wouldn’t light the people not allowed in his home on fire and keep them alive forever just so that they could feel the burn the entier time.

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            You really are the sound of one brain cell clapping aren’t you…
            In each circumstance there are only two places the would be guest could be. In the instance of Twilight Sparkle that would be either in its home or outside of the home in the weather. In the instance of God it would be either in Heaven with Him or outside in Hell.
            The analogy is fine and the conclusion is sound. Either way, by Twilight’s own standard if she left someone outside of her home in the weather she is a cruel monster because she did not allow those that hated her to come into her home. Same process bigger proportions in the case of God.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You clearly have no grasp of logic to make false dichotomies like this.

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            It is not my fault you scored on the left wing of the IQ Bell Curve…. and stop drooling on the keyboard.

          • Dennis Johnston says:

            False dichotomy ,excluded middle and many other fallacies in here. he logic is lacking this one,’ey?

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            There is no false dichotomy or excluded middle. Nor are there fallacious arguments.
            In the case of Twilight’s would be guest we are not concerned about the accommodations the guest would seek should Twilight refuse entry into its home. The point is Twilight left the guest to suffer without concern for the guest’s well-being. The conclusion that Twilight, or anyone for that matter, is a cruel monster for not allowing those that hate them not to enter their homes is sound, using that standard.
            The truth of the matter is somewhat different than the standards posed by Twilight and supported by alfalfa (name misrepresented on purpose). The choice to be on God’s side and enter Heaven or to remain an enemy of God and go to Hell is totally yours. God does not send people to Hell; you send yourself to Hell. You choose where you will spend eternity. But God’s house has conditions and you must accept those conditions to enter.

          • Dennis Johnston says:

            It is indeed a false dichotomy. Either heaven or hell??? Why would I wanna worship something that only gave me two options and how ,assuming you believe in that garbage,can you?

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            Two options are all that is necessary. God has to keep it simple for you simple minded ones.
            You can choose eternity in Heaven (aka Paradise) or you can spend eternity in Hell (torment). The idea is to make the decision easy, because who in their right mind would choose Hell? A third option would just confuse you.
            But I see you did make up your mind and I, no matter how much I try, will never change it. In your arrogance you will stumble and fall and everyone that tried to tell you about Heaven will only be able to pat your pointy head and laugh as you perp walk to Hades.
            Good luck with that.

          • blackciti_fo5 says:

            Amen! God will not drag them by the hair to Heaven with them kicking and screaming. If they refuse to go to Heaven then their only destination is hell.

          • Dennis Johnston says:

            Lolz. You’re just a fallaciously thinking little booger huh? I don’t buy into the bible because firstly,it was written by men ,secondly there is no evidence outside the bible to prove anything it says,and thirdly because people like you believe in it.

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            And where did THIS country get it’s attitude from?
            And you still didn’t answer the question.
            Religion PROJECTS AND SUSTAINS moral cowardice. How so?

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You’re asking me to answer a question aimed at another user. Fine.

            Who cares about where this country got its attitude.

            The bible as a moral guide brought us things like the Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, institutionalized slavery, genocide (recent, modern and ancient), repression of women, usurpation of women’s reproductive rights, and a host of others which are perpetuated by the fundamentalists in the abrahamic religions.

            Christians, specifically, lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up to religious leaders who promulgate hate toward homosexuals. That’s a morally bankrupt position and points to moral cowardice.

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            Yikes, There go them lefty talking points.
            It’s not lacking the intestinal fortitude so stand up against religious leaders. It’s agreeing with them over the blatant an utter hypocrisy of the left.

            Ok, so people have done wrong in the name if Christianity, but it also brought the most prosperous and free peoples in history.

            Now identify the outright EVIL of your philosophy.

            Murder on demand – 70 million dead in abortion. Wholesale genocide. Millions forced into oppression. Over 100 million dead. Thanks, make mine Christian.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            More nonsense. If you eliminate religious influence brought about by christians, the dark ages never happened and the thousand year reign of terror against anyone who dared question the church (which, by the way, wholly supported the Hitlerian rise to power and extermination of undesirables), and much of the wholesale murder may not have occurred. Those events still pale in comparison to the atrocities committed by church nonsense prior to today and continuing even now. For instance, the genocide of sub-Saharan Africans on the part of the catholic church by forbidding birth control spreads AIDS and exacerbating poverty. Another example of immorality.

            You claim abortion is murder. Isn’t murder punishable by death under the biblical law?

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            This comment may just be the reason most of all your comments are not allowed to be posted…sheer stupidity without rhyme or reason…or even facts.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You and I differ greatly in our definition of reason and fact.

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            I agree, my definition comes from the dictionary…yours comes from your cerebral hemorrhoid.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            More ad hominems. Par for the course, really. I posted a paragraph in response to every one of the OP’s nonsense points. You, on the other hand, continue with bible verses. There is no truth to be had in the bible, and likewise, the article isn’t even about the bible, it’s about evolution. The only fantasy around evolution is that it’s a fantasy. The even more funny part is, evolutionary theory doesn’t discount a god. I have no idea why you folks rail against it so much.

            Now, when the folks working on abiogenesis make a breakthrough or two in the next couple years, then you’ll have a fun time arguing against that.

            Science deniers universally die off. This is no different.

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            Not ad hominems. Ad hominems are an attempt to discredit an argument by attacking the character of the person making it…I am not trying to discredit your argument (you did a fine job of that for me)…I am merely making fun you.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Still not answering the arguments. You and yours can’t seem to grasp what evidence is, or how to apply it.

            Also, in argument, when you revert to ‘making fun’ of a person instead of demonstrating how the argument happens to be false, you’re using ad hominem attacks. I don’t expect you to understand that, as the bulk of your argument is based in nonsense.

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            okay spanky let me explain this to you using Barney the Dinosaur techniques (since you are the lowest common denominator).
            Explaining stuff to you, imparting wisdom to you, or even talking to you is a total waste of time. You are swine that will only trample the pearls under your feet as you shuffle through the mud that is your mind.

            Once I realize that no matter what I say you will refuse to listen I stop trying to educate and start patting the retard on the head.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            At the very least, I can objectively look at evidence. I also never resort to ad hominems, because I have actual arguments.

          • Dennis Johnston says:

            Lmao. No they are not and no we do not….Just go to India or some middle Eastern countries. Shoot,even some souther states in the usa and repubs think to the contrary…

        • Erik says:

          Walk into a church. Meet the people. If you take off your blinders, you will see people who easily justify their actions of bigotry and hatred because “their” god supports them. It’s funny that their god always seems to fit their narrative, almost as if they made it up… I don’t like seeing that Marine Corps EGA by your name.

          • tg1392 says:

            I see you’ve given up justifying evolution…perhaps you could provide a line by line analysis discrediting all 44 points with the overwhelming evidence you seem to possess

      • Michael Bartels says:

        If you ever read the Bible you would see that God wrote the Bible.

        2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)
        16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17[That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.]

        You will see due time every knee shall bow and everyone will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord both here now and forever, on earth, above earth, and under earth. When that day comes you will remember this conversation.

        • Twilight Sparkle says:

          If you ever read Superman comics wou would see that Superman exists.

          If you ever watched Avatar you would see that Navi exist.

          How about some extrabiblical evidence?

          What about the date of rapture?!

          • Michael Bartels says:

            You say that there is no evidence well there has to be no evidence, faith alone and works are what will save you, you replied to someone elses comment the Jesus will burn people in hell, well you are right, the way of a transgressor is hard. I tell you what even though Jesus did not have to leave evidence he did, the red sea crossing with the chariots in the bottom of the red sea, Mount Sinai with the burned top were Jesus came sown and spoke to Moses is still there in Saudi Arabia, the alter for the golden calf is there as well, a rock sitting on top of a hill with water coming out of it, the rock of Meribeth is still there as well, the problem is all these government folks especially the ones in the united states all the way up to the top of the president obey the devil and not Jesus, that is why they hide all the evidence, look up giants in the united states and the burial mounds, and how the smithsonian destroys all the evidence or buries it all in there vaults. Even though Jesus did not need to leave us evidence he did anyway, look up Solomon Islands and the giants out there, Guadalcanal still has living giants on the island if you say you are going to take a camera there and do some filming the government is the u.s. will threaten to kill you, I leave you with one verse believe and you will see.

            Acts 2:37-39

            King James Version (KJV)

            37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

            38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

            39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as theLord our God shall call.

      • jaxon64 says:

        Again, for all of your insulting, distraction and avoidance of the topic–everything that you believe has not one iota of evidence to support it yet the greatest minds of physics, genetics etc–all agree in the amazing nature and order of creation….try again hater..

        • alfalfa31 says:

          If you keep getting your information from Ken Ham and Ray Comfort, you’ll believe nonsense like that. Nothing could be further from the truth, however.

          A simple google search will net you more evolutionary evidence than you’ll be able to absorb in a lifetime, but you won’t look at it.

          To use a bibleism, it’s casting pearls before swine.

    • Twilight Sparkle says:

      Open an atheist site instead of creationist ones and you will see that you were wrong. And stop looking at things from human perspective, it will only blind you.

    • blackciti_fo5 says:

      I totally agree! Amen!

  14. Kyle Becker says:

    Denying that life has been around for millions of years on this planet is a conversation ender.

  15. Seth says:

    I believe several points the article illustrates are wrong, what are your sources? I just took a biological anthropology class last semester, and there is plenty of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.
    Anyhow, it is just a theory, and any theory can be proven wrong. The God concept is not even a theory, but rather a belief that goes against most logical conclusions. Why do you have to try to disprove a certainly credible attempt of explaining the origin of the human race if you’re not going to provide another better one afterward? Where does such a desire come from? You’re sort of contradicting yourself, since you’re asking for
    scientific empiric evidence to prove a theory, when the least scientific
    thing is God. Also, I don’t understand why the theory of evolution and believing in God have to be against each other.
    If you yourself did some research, you would realize that you don’t really need fossil evidence for every single transition in between different species; the similarities are remarkably evident, not to say that evidence is still being found.
    Evolution occurs as a consequence of “random” mutations in the DNA that make a particular species more adapted to its environment. Well, of course those mutations aren’t random.
    I believe in a much greater universe than that apparent to the 5
    physical senses, I believe in God by all means, and I also believe in
    the theory of evolution. “Choosing a side” is completely narrow minded and unintuitive, what do you people have against each other? Open up already.
    Evolution is one branch of human understanding of the physical universe and our involvement in it, with the hopes of explaining how we came to be. All the different religions attempt to do the same thing with different means. That doesn’t mean one is right and the other wrong. It’s all a mater of perspective.

    • Graham says:

      I very much look forward to reading the responses you should get in reply to your post.

      I enjoy reading and following the forum commentary in several of the authors blogs. However, I also accept that many of the viewpoints arise from an American Christian fundamentalist and evangelical point of view. That’s fine.

      In light of the “decades” of research I have carried out, I have to agree with certain others that this indoctrinated viewpoint is often very narrow minded in its scope. That’s fine too. Being slammed or completely ignored for disagreeing with it is something you get used too.

      See my lengthy response post above. Your own input is welcomed!

    • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

      I too have taken an Anthropology course or two in my college days. It nearly destroyed my faith. God intervened directly in my life so that I could not question His existence. So I asked God how could all that “evidence” be true and you and your Word be true at the same time. The following is the answer I got:
      When God created the animals He created “prototype” animals. These animals had all of the genetic information in them to breed out into the different breeds.
      In other words God created a generic cow type animal. This generic cow had the genetic information to breed a milk cow, the oxen, a Texas Longhorn etc…
      An illustration is a prism. White light has all of the colors of the spectrum. A prism separates these colors into the rainbow.
      God created “White” animals (not trying to racist here but keeping with the illustration). Reproduction is the prism that separates out the traits. So in a very few generations you can have a huge variance in offspring and therefore great bio-diversity.
      Noah’s Flood is also explained. Not every animal had to be on the Ark. Only the animals closest to the original “prototype” animal. Again, within a few generations great bio-diversity would occur.
      This explains also animal extinctions. As long as a breed stays close to the middle of the spectrum it can mate with more of its kin and therefore adapt to changing conditions through mating. Animals on the outer fringes have less options and therefore are unable to adapt and die off.
      Note: in this explanation no new information is created or “evolved.” The information is already there to be utilized.

    • Malcolm Reynolds says:

      As the story said

      I’ll even get you started…


      And as far as the genetics go, evolutionists talk about the “missing link” but completely ignore the sheer volume of genetic information that would have had to be ‘dumped’ for chimps to become man.
      In other words, there wouldn’t be 1 missing link, it would require a whole chain of links, and so far, they simply don’t exist.

      • aaron says:

        I tried replying to this with a thorough response. The author of the article will not publish it. What is he afraid of?

        • Malcolm Reynolds says:

          I doubt that.

          • aaron says:

            He won’t even let me reply to this telling you where it’s published. He’s a coward.

          • aaron says:

            The daily sheeple published this same article, and he was unable to censor my reply there. By all means, go read it. It’s the long comment by alfalfa31.

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            I’ll bother if you have cites like this author. If you’re just blathering, then no thanks. It’ll amount to so much talking points and BS like any conversation with a globull warmist hysteric. So, do you have cites?

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Go look. If it takes less effort to visit the site and click a link, your reply here is more nonsensical avoidance. Anything not linked in the rebuttal is true on its face, so have at it. Rebut my rebuttal.

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            It’s simple, either you blathered BS or you cited something worthy of my checking it out. This article is thoroughly cited and your rebuttal thus far has been ‘Nuh uh’.
            Praise worthy to be sure for a leftists to manage to type through the drool, but I’m not interested otherwise.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            So, you’ve pigeonholed me as a leftist. have you? You’d be dead wrong. Likewise, I’d love to hear your rebuttal of the rebuttal. You say it’s been “Nuh uh,” despite the real answers offered. There are several non-points in the original article, There is no reason to answer non-points, and the vast majority of the points made are mined quotes. The fact that you don’t get it means you have never read those quotes in context.

            Given your EGA, you must have been a Marine. What unit?

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            11th Marines.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            B Co, 1/1. I still compete in NRA competitions. Pretty leftist, huh?

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            Went and looked up 1/1.
            Nu Uh! You were at Del Mar! I was at Pulgas. Ha! That’s cool.
            What years might I ask?

          • alfalfa31 says:

            No, I was at Horno (like one camp further up Basilone Rd.). I was there from 92-98. You?

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            Horno? In AAVs?
            I was at Pulgas 90-96. MCRD SD till Dec 2000.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            AAV was Alpha co. at the time. We did boat raids and such. I know that 1 Mar Div moves the battalions between Del Mar and Horno from time to time. We were only there for about 3 months post west-pac because we needed 1/4 to move out of our squad bays.

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            Refresh my memory. Was Horno where that LCAC landing beach was with (what looked like to me) the concrete sandbags laid out in a huge “pad” or was that actually at the LCAC place?
            AHHHHHHHHH! Squad Bays! AHHHHHHHHHH! LOL! Luckily we had barracks and individual bathrooms.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            I think you have San Onofre and Del Mar mixed up. Horno was a little mess of a camp that you saw on the left just after Deer Park and Iron Mike, and just before arriving at SOI. Past that was the San Onofre gate to the left and the further camps to the right.

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            Doh! I have Horno and San Onofre mixed up. Horno was MCT and SOI area, San Onofre was out by the beach.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            That’s the one. SOI was a little closer to the gate than we were (like 3 miles up the road if memory serves.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Well, you may not know a damned thing about evolutionary theory, but semper fi anyway :)

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            LOL. Semper Fi!

          • 0bamasnought says:

            And Las Pulgas had real fleas. San Onofre had killer waves.

            0811 82-83

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            Ha! An arty brother. Semper Fi.

            I was 2531 in the FDC. Spent 95% of my time in there. Given time of flight on a mission, I could do 4-5 missions at a time and calculate accurate ‘splash’ in my head on the fly.

            There were times we’d do simulated naval guns or missions with aircraft and I’d get people I didn’t know on the FO side request me by name.

            I loved doing call for fire. Keeps the mind busy on LONG trips.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Still no comment on the rebuttal? Take all your doubt and mail it to the cowardly author of this article.

  16. Dennis Johnston says:

    this article demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of
    evolution. The Darwinian principles are as follows:

    1. More offspring are generated than can survive.
    2. All offspring are not identical.
    3. Those offspring which survive to reproduce will the ones that are most
    fit for their environment.
    4. Each generation will be different than the last.

    The fossil record is filled with transitional species. They are all transitional. The current cornucopia of extant species are all transitional species. We are all evolving. It is a continuous process. Life is not

    I find it humorous to watch religious entities struggle with evolution,
    when religious ideology itself is evolving. Look over the past 500 years
    of religion, and see how the dogma has changed. Look at how the Christian church has diverged into different groups. Ideas evolve in the same way
    that life evolves, by splitting into separate competing groups.

    Evolution is now so well understood that it is self-evident. The battle
    between evolution and creationism is not a conflict between two scientific theories. It is a political battle over the more profound question of who
    will control the collective human intellect. Will it be directed by
    scripture or by logic? Who will hold the reins of natural philosophy?
    Will it be the church or the academics?

    From steven ..

    • Larry D Andrews says:

      You are talking about natural selection. Evolution is used to explain where everything came from. For a human to evolve from a single cell would require a change in species. Never proven never will be. Evolution is supposedly self evident because it is jammed down the throat of our school children as fact, when it is in-fact, only religion that requires a lot of faith. By the way which of Darwin’s offspring came first, the chicken or the egg?

      One religious ideology has not evolved, Jesus was Lord from the beginning, and He still is today.

      • alfalfa31 says:

        That’s even more ludicrous than your flawed notion of evolution.

        • Larry D Andrews says:

          The fact that some of the most intelligent people in the world are still debating your religion, and there is still not a shred of evidence to support evolution religion, should tell you not to put all you faith in one basket. So you might ask why I put my faith in Jesus. Because it is the way of life.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            There’s more evidence to support evolution than there is to support gravitation, yet you don’t argue that one. I wonder why that is. Truth be told, you refuse to see the evidence, and you likewise couldn’t wrap your head around it if you did. Your personal incredulity does not make it untrue.

            As for your nonsense assertion that evolution is somehow a religion, you clearly have no clue how science works. If you were to go out and find a fossil out of order in the fossil record (which is to say, a fossil that proves the existence of a creature prior to when it could have evolved naturally) the entire theory crumbles. This has never happened. When you do, you can put this debate to rest once and for all. You can then write up your findings in a scientific journal, await peer review and collect your nobel prize. Until then, your assertion that there is no evidence is hogwash.

            Assuming you do find said fossil, every scientist who uses this theory to explain the natural world will admit that it was false and find a new model.

            Conversely, feel free to show how a deity did it, because absent evolutionary theory, there is no theory that incorporates deities that has a shred of merit.

          • tg1392 says:

            provide said evidence or a link to it

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You didn’t bother reading it, did you?

      • Erik says:

        Why do all religions change with the times then? To the chicken and egg question, that is very easily answered. The chicken, as we know it, came first, since it evolved from a similar ancestor.

      • Twilight Sparkle says:

        ”One religious ideology has not evolved, Jesus was Lord from the beginning, and He still is today.”

        Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, New Agers would like to disagree with you. Religion is the ironic example of evolution.

      • Dennis Johnston says:

        Evolution says nothing of origin. If theres no difference in Christianity’s theology,then why do they have the OT and the NT? As for the chicken and the egg: go take a bio 101 class. An egg can be anything,and a chicken can only be a chicken…

        • Larry D Andrews says:

          You are right on the the first point. The second is another theory (guess) actually never proven.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You clearly have no idea what the word theory means. Youre theories are guesses. Scientific theories started as hypotheses, tested claims, made predictions, amassed evidence, underwent peer review, stood on their merits and run the gauntlet of intense scientific scrutiny. That’s not a guess. It’s too bad you don’t get that.

      • Dennis Johnston says:

        “Never proven never will be. ”

        This also supports the fact that you have a very vague understanding of the scientific process: Science doesnt prove anything. It disproves things: EG, The earth is flat,the earth is the center of the universe, the earth revolves around the moon,the earth is 6k years,etc.

      • Dennis Johnston says:

        “Evolution is supposedly self evident because it is jammed down the throat of our school children as fact, when it is in-fact, only religion that requires a lot of faith”

        Then stop using modern medicine if its only conjecture being stuffed down your throat. Next time you get sick,just kneel beside your bedside with your book and pray that the illness goes away .

        • Larry D Andrews says:

          Actually I have and I do. I know where I am going and I am not afraid to die. This world is not my home.

          • Dennis Johnston says:

            Well come back and say hello if you die before me…

          • alfalfa31 says:

            It’s great that you know what cannot be known. Since you know it, you should write up the evidence and submit it to a scientific journal and maybe get a Nobel prize. Either that, or you don’t understand what the word ‘know’ means.

          • Thomas Moerman says:

            It’s quite remarkable so many religious people want this world to come to an end.

        • Larry D Andrews says:

          You are telling me that all modern medicine is dependent on the fact we came from monkeys?

          • Dennis Johnston says:

            Vaccines,antibiotics,genetics,infectious disease research ,diet…yeah,all come from evolutionary principles…

          • alfalfa31 says:

            There you go with the monkey straw man again. We did not come from monkeys. The great apes and human beings had a common ancestor. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make your false interpretation of it true.

    • Malcolm Reynolds says:

      “The fossil record is filled with transitional species”

      See #2, which was Darwin himself saying not so much and then there’s 3, 4, 5 too.

      • alfalfa31 says:

        Firstly, Charles Darwin originated the theory. He wasn’t around to watch it become what it is, which is the single best explanation of diversity of life. Just because you can’t understand it (and aren’t willing to do a little Googling) doesn’t make it invalid.

        • Malcolm Reynolds says:

          So, you’re saying that when Charles Darwin said there weren’t any transitional species, you know, in that quote of his up there at the top of this page, he didn’t understand what he saying? He somehow didn’t understand his own theory?

          • alfalfa31 says:

            It’s funny that you believers like to quote mine as much as you do. Quote mining is another disingenuous method of bearing false witness. Perhaps you should read the rest of that passage before assuming you know a thing about Darwin.

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            Nice way to avoid the question. It doesn’t make you right, but it’s something.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            The question was nonsense. Darwin said a thing at the very outset of the theory, and here we are 155 years later and you somehow think a quote mined completely out of context proves your point? The original post is also chock full of mined quotes. You who use this tactic are in violation of your own book’s mandate against bearing false witness.

          • Malcolm Reynolds says:

            Umm, since when did quoting scientists on the subject become bad?

  17. mahatma says:

    “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

    St. Thomas Aquinas

  18. EDAQUASURE says:

    I am really surprised by this really stupid article.Evolution is fact.And those “transitonal fossils” that everyone says eludes us are everywhere.But still people expect to see a monkey change into a human?LMAO
    There are thousands of each species and they all go through different mutations over millions and millions of years,you don’t see it happen instantly.
    The fossil records and DNA are a road map and dead solid evidence.

    • WM says:

      No expects to see a monkey change into a human, there should be MILLIONS of God s old (skeletons) shown the transition BETWEEN a monkey and human or even more showing transition between a fish and a bird, etc,etc,etc. There is not ONE!!!!

      I suggest you study more on cellular biology and the complexity of DNA and ask yourself how something so complex was able to survive the so called evolutionary process.

      There is a blank checklist above, p k ease enlighten us and provide ONE transitional fossil that is unidentifiable as one kind or the other……

      • Thomas Moerman says:

        Okay I challenge you to clarify to me in detailed molecular cell biology terms why something so complex as DNA would not
        e able to survive the evolutionary process. The gauntlet has been thrown down. Your move.

      • EDAQUASURE says:

        You obviously don’t understand how evolution works.Evolution is not claiming species transform right before your eyes.How do you expect to see a species change to a different species over millions of years when you only live for 80 years?
        Fossils and now DNA prove evolution as fact.

    • Malcolm Reynolds says:

      So in other words, you’ve refuted the article detailing why evolution is bunkum by calling it stupid and posited and article on evolution as proof.
      You’re prolly right. You are a monkey..

      • alfalfa31 says:

        The word is ‘probably,’ not ‘prolly.’ Also, the ‘I didn’t come from no monkey’ straw man is a waste of time. It merely serves to demonstrate your scientific illiteracy.

        • Malcolm Reynolds says:

          So you knew what I meant and had to stamp your feet anyway?
          I’m sorry does your Darwinian evolution not tell you that you came from monkeys? What straw man. Isn’t that another quote? Quote BAD!
          LOL! dolt

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Again, the ‘you came from monkeys’ straw man is used routinely by you because you have no understanding of the science behind the argument. The closest thing to that straw man which could be called fact is common ancestry with great apes. Apes are not monkeys, and we are absolutely related.

  19. Buffy says:

    Evolution IS the creators handywork in motion.
    I am a woodworker, I can take a piece of wood and turn it into furniture, BUT this a process, IT EVOLVES.
    My son can pick up a piece of LEGO, but not instantly turn it into a finished model, He has to pickup many pieces and arrange and re-arrange them to get his desired results.

    • Nys Parkie says:

      How made the lego or the wood.? Not thy son nor you. Then who?

      • buffy says:

        I created the design and executed the transformation from raw wood to furniture. My project creation evolved. I am only human, this is the extent of my level of creation and evolution. The devine creator works the magic at the atomic, subatomic and molecular level.

        • Graham says:

          And what you were essentially doing was transforming an already present creation of nature, whereby you refined its original form using knowledge gained from the field of “creative intelligence”.

          If you subject that form to other “processes”, has that form then evolved from the help of creative thought, or have you simply changed its initial “state”?

          Now try altering the state of your mind through a known and natural discipline by expanding your minds level of conscious awareness.

        • Nys Parkie says:

          Yes he does.

    • Larry D Andrews says:

      That is not evolving, that is refining. If you turn the wood into a plastic chair, that is evolving.

      • Buffy says:

        Think a little deeper, the creator works at the molecular and atomic level, in the span of billions of years.
        The creator IS capable of re-arranging wood atoms into plastic, something that is being done all the time. To me this is creation evolving.

        • Larry D Andrews says:

          You are right, I see I made a bad analogy. I should have said glass chair. Billions of years?, requires “following of the yellow brick road thought process”.

          • Graham says:

            A good example of “conscious awareness” expanding… evolving. Further input and thought has helped you refine your thinking!

            Do words fully explain the expressions of nature? No. Can the mind? Yes.. but only in certain conscious states. Those states pertain to different levels of awareness.

            Those with higher levels of awareness and experience understand a lot more. The human race on the whole is barely off the starting grid!

      • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

        Actually this is a good analogy.
        At the beginning he had a piece of wood. At the end of the day he still had a piece of wood, albeit in a different shape.
        The properties of the wood did not change. The genetics of the wood did not change.
        In fact, through the process of reshaping the wood he actually LOST pieces and information from the wood. He cannot add to the wood, nor can he manipulate the grain or the lines (I know it is called summer and winter wood). He can only work with what is already there.

    • Thomas Moerman says:

      You cannot make an analogy with objects that do not procreate.

  20. mjs says:

    Richard, there is no blending of evolution with creation. In order for things to evolve, creatures would have had to die for millions of years before the appearance of man. Yet God’s Word tells us: ”
    Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Romans 5:12. Therefore, death entered this world through sin.
    Also, how does reason #15 disprove the virgin birth? Are you implying that “millions and millions” of years of evolution took place in Mary’s womb in the span of 9 months to give us God’s Only Begotten Son? The same creator that spoke the entire universe into creation during a span of 6 days also provided the miraculous means for Mary to give birth to The Sinless Sacrifice, The Lord Jesus Christ.

    • Richard says:

      I used to think as you, but no longer see the world this way. To assert “there is no blending of evolution with creation” is intellectually arrogant – and potentially blasphemous. I do not presume that evolution is beyond or contrary to God’s ability. The full intricacy of God’s creation is far beyond our current science – but does not rule out evolution. As for #15: “The odds of even a single sell ‘assembling itself’ by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about.” Sorry, but the Holy Spirit fertilized an egg, creating a single-cell embryo in the Virgin Mary’s womb, which, after gestation, gave way to birth, growth, a miracle-filled life, and resurrection after death upon the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. To accept #15 is to nullify the reality of Christ and entire New Testament. Repent = “Change your thinking.” In this case, expand your thinking. If one can accept the miracle of God’s birth in Man, perhaps one can consider the possibility that evolution IS God’s design.

      • ort says:

        Well, in Genesis, the Hebrew word used for “day”, is “yom”, which denotes a literal 24 hour period of time. God said He created everything in 6 days, and I believe Him.

        If we cannot take God at His word that He did this, how can we believe Him when He tells us the way to be saved? In fact, how then could we take His word involving anything? We either believe what He says, or we don’t. We can’t believe Him a little bit.

        See what I mean?

      • Rebecca says:

        That would go completely against scripture. Accepting the strong delusion is just the beginning. Don’t let this delusion tear you away from the truth that is the Lord.

      • WM says:

        Wrong. Evolution by its very nature involves something dying. Scripture reveals no death until after the fall in the garden. So to assert that the God of the Bible utilized evolutionary methods to ” create” mankind and the highly sophisticated natural world, is not scriptural, and is a lie from the enemy to distort the truth and decieve you in a lie.

    • Dennis Johnston says:

      So god waited 4ks years to reveal Jesus??

  21. WM says:

    Michael, I am a big fan if your many websites, and I have been very blessed by your articles. This is one of my favorites to date, because you systematically laid out the issues of evolution that have not been able to be answered and refuted by evolutionists and atheists.

    I believe that shoving the “theory” into the minds of our young, instilling into their young minds that there is no God, in which they will be accountable to, and thus, no moral absolutes, as we are all just evolved animals , and we can all just ” do what thou wilt”……. well, we as a society as ” why” when some wacko decides to go on a shooting spree.
    The liberal, progressive, anti- self defense, anti- Constitution, anti-God tyrant politicians then scurry around taking more liberty from law abiding citizens via draconian gun legislation, ( Feinstien, Bloomberg, Cuomo, Malloy, etc,etc,etc) rather than addressing the fact that the real issue is a moral , or world view issue as it were, and the best thing we can do for the healthy future of our civilization, is to STOP teaching our kids the LIE of evolution ( a theory that is taught as truth and fact) and start teaching our kids the fear of the Lord and the precepts of the Living, Creator God as revealed to us in the Bible.

    Grace be with you and yours.

    • Thomas Moerman says:

      Why do you theists keep claiming ownership on morality? Who is the most moral person: she who acts morally out of fear of a deity, or she who acts morally without believing in a deity. Faith is neither necessary nor sufficient for moral behaviour. Nothing in the world breeds hate and all the atrocities in its wake like religion does. That is the truth of the matter.

  22. Theodore Cyrene says:

    Did you even read the article on Coelacanths that you linked to? It is saying something quite different than what you claim.

    “It looked similar to the coelacanths found near Africa, but genetic analysis revealed that the genomes differed by about 3.5%, and it was described as a new species called Latimeria menadoensis.”

    “Estimates from the genetic fingerprinting carried out on the fish caught in 1998 suggest that they separated about four to five million years ago”

  23. Theodore Cyrene says:

    #1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.”

    Wrong. The Smithsonian has over 6,000 hominid fossils alone that demonstrate the evolution of man with transitional fossils.


    • Rebecca says:

      Actually the vast majority of “proof” that has been found are either skeletons of apes or skeletons of humans. There is so much variety in normal human skeletons. Read “Bones of Contention”

      • alfalfa31 says:

        Skeletons of hominids and transitional ape forms. It shouldn’t be incumbent upon scientists to prove what you could find out with minimal effort. Your laziness prevents actual science from being done.

  24. Malcolm Reynolds says:

    You forgot that initial expansion of the universe violates the speed of light

    • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

      my bad…LOL

    • alfalfa31 says:

      Nonsense. The young earth viewpoint does, but current origin theories have no such issue. Stating that kind of nonsense as fact is silly.

      • Malcolm Reynolds says:

        Sorry bub, yer gonna have to fuss with astrophysicists on that one like Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Michio Kaku. It isn’t my theory. I heard that on the Science Channel.

  25. otter1111 says:

    Great article, Michael. One of my favorite arguments is how the first living cell came into being. Just the most basic living cell has a nucleus, cytoplasm, and a membrane surrounding it. That just can’t happen by chance.

  26. Rebecca says:

    So you believe in the beginning there was nothing, and then nothing began to spin around, and then poof!!!! Nothing exploded and created the cosmos. I guess believing in that religion is intelligent, then?

    • Twilight Sparkle says:

      Atheism is NOT a religion! We don’t have a supernatural deity, just like an Empty glass is not a beverage, it’s an empty glass.

      Where did God came from?

  27. Gordon Barlow says:

    I have no problem believing that life on earth – and perhaps the earth itself, and the universe, come to that – was created by one or more supernatural beings, at either first or second hand. Where such beings might have come from is an entirely different question, and indeed an unrelated question. Whether they were sentient or not is valid, though they would more likely have been idiot-savants than intellectually advanced in general.

    But what puzzles me is why this whole general topic is regarded as a religious one. For me, it has nothing at all to do with religion. Mentions of Christianity and the Holy Bible simply clog up the discussion with irrelevancies, surely. Is there any logical reason to *worship* a creator, whether by solemn public rituals or quietly in private?

  28. Son of Thunder says:

    Dan 12: 10

    • Erik says:

      That says absolutely nothing and I caution you against quoting a spurious source.

      • Son of Thunder says:

        It says everything, as it applies to you.
        And in return I caution you against being an idiot

        • alfalfa31 says:

          Idiots believe what they are told with no evidence. I contend that Erik is the opposite of an idiot. Likewise, the term ‘idiot’ has a legal connotation. If you were to call him an idiot, he’d have a strong case against you for libel. Thankfully you merely suggested he might be an idiot for not believing in the same false deity you do.

      • Son of Thunder says:

        It says everything. It applies to you.
        You have chosen poorly grasshopper.
        I caution YOU against siding with the devil.

  29. alfalfa31 says:

    Kindly publish my rebuttal or change the end of your article to reflect that you will not welcome dissenting views.

    • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

      If your rebuttal is as stupid as your wager, then Michael is doing you a favor by not advertising your idiocy.

      • alfalfa31 says:

        You didn’t even bother reading Marcus Aurelius wager, so until you do, kindly refrain from using words like ‘stupid’ lest they come back to bite you.

        • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

          I read what you posted…if you posted it incorrectly then that is totally on you. It would seem you did not read Marcus Aurelius’ wager either, or you really have no understanding of it….
          You are the sound of one brain cell clapping….

          • alfalfa31 says:

            I posted that I’d stick to Marcus Aurelius wager. You decided you knew what that was without bothering to research (in true believer fashion).

          • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

            It is not my responsibility to read up on your wagers. I read what you posted as the wager (assumed you knew what you were talking about…a mistake, you really don’t have a clue). It is not my fault you are scored in the left wing of the IQ bell curve.
            You posted what you thought was the wager…I destroyed it…
            But here is the real quote attributed to Marcus Aurelius.
            “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will
            not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the
            virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you
            should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be
            gone, but…will have lived a noble life that will live on in the
            memories of your loved ones.” —Marcus Aurelius

            It is quite different than what you thought was the wager.

            Here are the problems:
            1- Define “a good life” and whose standards is good defined? What happens if your standards clash with the standards of the god into whose house you trying to gain access?

            2- Define “just” and by whose standards is it defined? My idea of justice may not be your idea, and our ideas may not be the god’s idea of just (justice). Personally a just god would be one that sets it’s standards and keeps them faithfully.

            3- Devotion is not being the enemy of something. Why would a god receive it’s enemy as a friend?
            4- If a god is unjust (is not faithful to their word or standards) they are evil (demons, devils etc..) and true they are not worthy of worship. BUT, that is not what Aurelius is saying. He defines “just” as a god that allows him to do what he wants as long as he thinks it is okay. In other words the god must conform to him in order to be a just god…unfortunately that is blatantly untrue (it would make the god less than man).
            5- the rest is an argument I make myself…the win-win argument. If you believe in God and live according to HIS justice, then you win if God does exist and win if He doesn’t. An atheist wins only if there is no god.
            The question is where do you want to wind up when you die; Heaven or somewhere else. There are conditions to getting to Heaven (God’s home). These conditions are set by God alone jsut as you set the conditions of who you allow into your home. Everything else leads to somewhere else.

            Basically the premise is the debate between Absolutes and Subjectivism. Subjectivism states “There are no absolutes.” This is an absolute statement and therefore refutes itself. There are absolutes. The question is who makes them. I

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You clearly have done absolutely no study on the concepts of simple natural order, and less than none on logic.

            Morality is a simple thing, as is justice. If you read the writings of Marcus Aurelius, all of the idiocy you just spewed would have been unnecessary. He defined his notion of justice and goodness and nobleness in those writings. Your definitions, if they arise from the bible are in antithesis to even the modern understand of what is and is not moral or just.

            Your definitions of words are so far off the mark that you make Wittgenstein roll in his grave.

            We’ll leave Aurelius to his definition of goodness (a definition even you’d be hard pressed to eschew) and address your idiocy.

            You assume that justice derives from gods. There is no need for gods to exist to have justice. In fact, the very god for whom you argue has no sense of justice, as he allows tens of children to be devoured by bears for calling a man bald. He also slaughtered every man, woman, child and animal in the largest act of genocide ever perpetrated (if the myth is to be believed) simply for exercising the free will he supposedly granted them. Those are two among many examples of your god’s ludicrous notion of justice. There is no justice in that god. He is unworthy of worship.

            Your definition of devotion doesn’t even rise to the level of sane. I don’t hate you, so by your definition I’m devoted to you? Laughable.

            Again, your definition of justice (and speaking for a man you’ve not actually read) is wrong. If your god were held to his word, several things would be true. The Jebusites would have been driven out of Jerusalem. Egypt would have been wiped from the map during the time of the pharaohs. David would have an heir on the throne of Israel to this day. Jealousy being a sin, your god is guilty of sinning, etc. Your god can’t seem to get things like that right in prophecy or even how to behave.

            The fatal flaw in your 5th point is this. There are some 2800 gods identified in the mythos of mankind. Your god is no more special or right than any of the other gods who are contemporary or precedent, and they all make the same claims. With competing claims, only one of the claims can be right. While they can’t all be right, they can all be wrong. They are all wrong (and yours more so than others).

            We’re not arguing subjective vs. objective. You’d know that if you read Aurelius’ works. We’re arguing a shared understanding of what justice, goodness and virtue are. He lived a virtuous life. He worshiped no gods. You’re rehashing Pascal’s wager, and you don’t even understand it.

            If you understood any philosophical systems at all, you know that we leave the subjective to aesthetics. Rational people deal in reality. Reality is objective. Reality does not involve gods.

        • Apokalupto Aletheia says:

          It is obvious you have not read it either…or you really horribly misunderstood it.

          Yep, Michael did you a favor not allowing your drivel to post.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            It’s up now. Feel free to read it, yet I doubt you’ll understand a word or open your mind to the notion that you believe a bald faced lie.

  30. alfalfa31 says:

    Not only is he a sheep, he refuses to publish the rebuttal I wrote which covers not only every point he wrote in the article above, but the opening and closing paragraphs as well. He’s a coward.

  31. Sandbagger says:

    I recommend the video series created by Kent Hovind. How anyone can watch those and still be an evolutionist can only be explained by saying they are willfully choosing NOT to admit there is a creator.

    Of course, once one admits there is a creator, then they need to find out what that creator expects of them!

    Now THAT is the real reason evolutionist don’t want to study creationism with any seriousness. They want to do what they want to do, period.

    “Do what thou wilt.” is their creed.

    • alfalfa31 says:

      Kent Hovind is, and I use this term pointedly, a moron. He makes false assertions appealing to the supposed authority of his doctorate degree and his time as a science teacher. Based on his false assertions, not one of his students ever learned a damned thing that could be called ‘science.’

      He’s also in prison for fraud, but that’s an aside.

      He claims, among other things, that a single chromosome contains all the information necessary to make an entire being. This is so wrong as to be laughable. He also has no clue about biochemistry, as he thinks meiosis is the same as mitosis. He also has no idea what the difference between a base pair and a gene.

      What you learned from Hovind is wrong, nearly in its entirety.

      • Thomas Moerman says:

        Wikipedia on Kent Hovind:

        According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Kent Hovind, BOP Register number 06452-017, is scheduled for release from prison on August 11, 2015

        ROFL! that just made my day

        • alfalfa31 says:

          It’s amazing the inanity that believers hold up as an example of correct. Hovind insists that the reason he was ‘railroaded’ was because he was right on evolution vs. creation. In reality, it’s because he thinks lying to the authorities is just dandy.

    • Thomas Moerman says:

      Kent Hovind for goodness’ sake… nothing that guy says makes any sense whatsoever. That kind of stupidity should come with a HazMat sticker.

  32. Tatiana Covington says:

    Well, if God made us, he sure did a sloppy job. Farsightedness, astigmatism, mental retardation, Tay-Sachs, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, ca. 5000 known genetic disorders (three of them universal: scurvy, uremia, and the inability to cleanly repair UV-induced dimerization), crooked teeth, and on and on and on.

    If I had been in charge, none of this would have gotten out the factory door! That’s because I know, either do the job right or don’t do it at all.

    Humanity is defective junk.

    • Matty says:

      Judging from your attitude and outlook of life, Im sure that you look as sad, ugly and as miserable as you do because you do not believe in our Heavenly Father.

      Sorry, but thats the truth.

      • Tatiana Covington says:

        Do you seriously believe that my physical appearance is conditioned upon whether or not I believe something?

        • Matty says:

          My apologies for making a comment like that, I have no right to speak to you or anyone like that.

          Please accept my apology.

          I am just very defensive our Heavenly Father and our Lord Christ Jesus.

          As you mentioned above, there are so many deficiencies in humans now that it is hard to believe in a Creator.

          The world is just so contaminated with sin now, in our bodies, in our minds, and in our hearts.

          Everyone is so selfish, so self centred, so greedy and perverted, these are the things that Jesus said would happen before he returns.

          I pray that you come to know the Lord Tatiana.

          I just think that Michael has put together this article so well, and the points that he has made are brilliant, it is impossible that we came into existence by chance!!

          God bless you sister.

  33. Apokalupto Aletheia says:

    It is obvious you have not kept up on the evolution of the evolutionary theory.
    If evolution can be directly observed…tell me how.
    The purpose of science is to predict what will happen given certain circumstances within a narrow margin of error. If evolution were a valid theory, tell me what would become of a pair of horses if we were to strand this breeding pair on an island for a period of time. Would they become Wombats? Or even vegetarian dogs?
    Since you cannot predict the outcome of said experiment with any confidence, the hypothesis of evolution fails.
    Just tell me ONE instance of observable evolution…JUST ONE!

    • alfalfa31 says:

      A breeding pair of horses on an island for a period of time (depending on the period of time) would likely become dead. By asking if they would become wombats or vegetarian dogs you, again demonstrate your insane lack of understanding and complete scientific illiteracy. It doesn’t work the way you think it does, and every word you write further illustrates your intellectual laziness. You keep demonstrating your abject lack of understanding around all things scientific. Keep manufacturing your nonsense straw man arguments and keep being wrong.

  34. Rastus says:

    Wow! Michael you sure know how to drum up those goofy agnostics. It is sad though to read how inept the answers (or lack of answers) to your question is. The monkey to man or even microbe to man debate has long been debunked! Get with the times naturalists. Why even chemical evolution isn’t even viable debate material anymore. And spare us your methodological naturalism for it is not “science” by its own definition. Darwinism can not explain the origin of life because it cannot explain the origin of information. Irreducible complexity refutes chance! Which came first, the DNA or the protein? It takes protein to make DNA yet the sequencing information of amino acids to make protein is encoded on the DNA molecule itself. Both had to be created at the same time. Yet even further, the three billion nucleotides ATCG (digital code) that make up the information on the molecule are extrinsically arranged! There is NO correlation between the base (backbone) and the nucleotides. Therefore biochemistry at its core cannot explain the origin of the information that is needed to assemble life, To “evolve” you have to have something to evolve from! You “Atheists” bore me :)

    • alfalfa31 says:

      Do you have any idea how insane you sound? Evolution isn’t an origin of life theory. You don’t even know what it is you’re railing against.

      On the subject of chemical evolution: Next time you have a sunny day go outside and look at that big yellow ball in the sky and realize that it’s making hydrogen into helium as you sit here on the surface of a tiny blue marble arguing your brand if idiotic denial of reality with people who don’t think enough of you to give a floating poo about your inability to grasp the simple.

      • Rastus says:

        So sad to be in your state, (though I know you do not think so). All the worldly knowledge that you supposedly posses and all that you have worked for is all for not. Like Pascals wager, if you are right then you go to the grave and will be as if you never existed, but if you are wrong… well you know the answer. Enjoy your final days or hours in utter confusion of actual reality oh hopeless one. For you have been warned as I have read most of your discussions prior to this one. “Of all the words of tongue or pen, the saddest of these: It might have been” J.G. Whittle.

        • alfalfa31 says:

          Pascal’s wager has a fatal flaw. There is more than one god making the same claim. They can’t all be right, but they certainly can all be wrong. Homer Simpson said it best, “Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder.”

          I’ll take Marcus Aurelius’ wager over Pascal’s any day of the week.

          • Rastus says:

            Marcus purposefully omitted the most important part of the wager: If you (do not) live a good life and there is a just god… Hmm. I’m sure you have heard of the “good test”. Good “luck” with that one!

          • alfalfa31 says:

            You’re not really a reader, are you? The first line of his statement is, “Live a good life.” That means the counter is presumed to be off the table.

            There are two types of people in the world. Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data…

          • alfalfa31 says:

            The first line of the quote is “Live a good life.” What part of that did you miss? Read a little more closely so as to avoid saying silly things like the above.

          • Rastus says:

            The point was “Mr. intelligent” that Marcus’ wager is not a wager at all. He stacks the deck and then makes a bet, thereby making the “wager” a win win situation. Sorry, but that is not how it is going to work silly man. You will give an account, and there will be no partiality.

    • Nys Parkie says:

      Drawers of them at Berkeley, yet you fail to give one example of a transition from one species. OK, I will take your word (FAITH) for it. HA !

      • alfalfa31 says:

        Or, and go ahead and give this a shot, do a google search using terms like transitional fossils and look at the pictures. Then, when you’re near a university with a paleobiology department, ask them to see their fossil collection. Ask the professors there to describe them and where they were found.

        The alternative is you can keep making snide and silly comments which only serve to prove that you are either too lazy or too set in your ways to bother expanding your knowledge.

        • Nys Parkie says:

          YOU do not give an example. You argument is without weight/merit.
          You are a dill weed.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Nice ad hominem attack. No, you refuse to do a simple search. You’re acting like a child who wants mom to find his socks when if he just opened the drawer, they’d be there. I need not find for you what you could find in a few keystrokes. The fact that you refuse to educate yourself points more to your laziness than my ‘dill weed’ nature.

          • Nys Parkie says:

            Watch the Ham – Nye Debate. I have studied both sides. You still haven’t given ONE example. YOU are still a dill weed.

            Feb. 4, 2014 in Petersburg, KY

            “Is creation a viable model of origins?” Creation Museum Founder and AiG President/CEOKen Ham will debate Bill Nye at the Creation Museum on Tuesday, February 4, at 7 PM. Bill Nye is the former host of the popular Bill Nye the Science Guy TV program for children, current Executive Director of the Planetary Society, and frequent pro-evolution guest on TV interview programs.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Again, you didn’t bother to read my rebuttal. You won’t. You’re lazy. I get it. You also think that name calling will get under my skin. You’re wrong. It serves to make you look petty and infantile, but nothing more.

            Read my rebuttal. You can read, can’t you?

        • Nys Parkie says:

          Are there any Transitional Fossils?

          None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

          Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

          Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

          ‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
          ’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. ‘So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job …’


          Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.

          • alfalfa31 says:

            Dated information much? Go look at the fossils. Stop posting here and go look. There is a university within driving distance of you where you can actually see them. What’s wrong with you people?

  35. alfalfa31 says:

    I’m answering this point by point below. Apparently, links are not allowed in comments (which makes it difficult to show the sources for the answers). Feel free to contact me for links.

    The initial claim that people don’t understand evolution is absolutely true. The evidence of this fact can be found in the questions asked in this article. It’s also true that people who believe a creation myth, by and large, have no idea what they believe, why they believe it, or where in their own books the belief originate. Feel free to visit churches and ask pointed questions. Where these groups differ is, if you ask a biology professor or graduate student, you’ll get pointed answers to your pointed questions. Of course asking undergrads and high school students will get you dumb faces.

    When you ask pastors and elders about their beliefs, on the other hand, you’ll find that they have not, for the most part, read or understood the bible (or other tome) at all. Exceptions are few and far between.

    No one says that evolutionary theory is proven beyond debate. Anyone who says this is not a scientist. No scientific theory is beyond debate, Beyond debate is a concept unique to religion and politics.

    One part of this article makes sense. It’s this part: “In this day and age, it is imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves. Don’t let me tell you what to think, and don’t let anyone else tell you what to think either. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.” If I confine my research to creationist websites, I’m likely to continue in my error that evolutionary theory is a fantasy. If I use scientific journals, I’ll likely come to the conclusion that creationism is wholly false. If I use both, I come to the conclusion that creationism is utterly unsupportable.

    On to the questions / points.

    1. & 2.There are loads of transitional fossils. In fact, there are so many that listing them all would take eons. The last time I was at UC Berkeley, I got to actually see thousands of them. They’re in drawers, and the entire thing is open to the public. Go look. Here’s a link to some for a few major species since not everyone can travel to the campuses.

    3. Dr. Patterson is oft misquoted. In fact, this is a creationist tactic called quote mining. I can do it too but I choose not to due to the fact that it’s completely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to do so. I only do it to prove how bad a tactic it is in argument. Couple the fact that Dr. Patterson is misquoted with the fact that the book from which the quotes were taken was published in the 1970’s and you have a nonsense claim easily dismissed by my answer for 1 and 2 above.

    4. Gould, like Patterson is often quote mined. More nonsense and easily dismissed. In the example, Dr. Gould was arguing for the challenges of gradualism in evolution, not against evolution. Quote mining is bad form, and I can do it too. “There is no god.” – Ray Comfort.

    5. More quote mining.

    6. This one is a classic example of a complete lack of understanding concerning how evolution works. It’s understandable that this argument comes up frequently because people making it are genuinely lazy. Macro-evolution takes place slowly over time, and transitional forms which are maladapted die out. The forms that are properly adapted (even temporarily) evolve on. The mechanism for this process is contained in microevolution, as microevolution is exactly the same process as macroevolution only over a shorter period of time.

    7. This is a nonsense argument, as the fossilization process tends to occur around mass extinction events. For instance, the K-T boundary is formed at an extinction event. Also, this takes it back to the gradualism argument. Without some basis in the science, arguing that here is beyond the scope. It remains at this point, however, that this nonsense argument is another example of a complete lack of understanding around the actual theory and the evidence. Another fun fact: The Cambrian explosion (exactly what we’re talking about here) happened in the water after atmospheric oxygen levels skyrocketed. Oxygen hyper-accelerates adaptation, and prior to that period (which was several million years long) oxygen was all bound up in other molecules.

    8. & 9. (as well as 7) are both examples of quote mining and absolute lack of basis in the science.

    10. The idiocy of use of the term ‘blind faith’ cannot be understated. There is ample evidence of speciation and in-laboratory evolution, all of which bears out the theory. In addition there is ample actual evidence in support of common origin macro-evolution, it’s just unlikely that creationists will actually read it.

    11. & 12. More quote mining

    13. This nonsense is counter-factual, and because of the fact that the theory that it was pagan the claim was made that ‘evolutionism’ (which isn’t even a word) gave rise to war, murder, crime, divorce and other societal evils. The correlation is actually the opposite, as only about 0.07% of prisoners are non-believers, and the highest divorce rate is among baptists and pentacostals. Because natural order resembles paganism does not mean evolution supports paganism. Even if it were a pagan ideal, the reality of evolution would necessarily refute the abrahamic world view, and would mean that paganism was, after all, the one true religion. The problem with this notion is that paganism is a catch all term that encompasses nearly every polytheistic religion on earth.

    14. This is typical creationist nonsense, again. C-14 is not used to date anything older than 50,000, as at that point, any C-14 is expected to be gone. C-14 dating is the ONE method creationists have issue with, and they know next to nothing about it. They also can’t seem to wrap their heads around the notion of composite materials, but that’s an argument for another discussion.

    15. & 16. This isn’t even remotely related to evolution. For some insane reason creationists can’t understand that evolution is not an origin theory, it’s a theory explaining biodiversity. This particular point is about abiogenesis. Apart from this fact, the math is not only wrong, but not even in the ballpark of reality. I’ll cover this at a later date, as it does not apply to this argument.

    17. There are hundreds of new and old creatures discovered every year. Things thought extinct, things as yet unknown or merely hypothesized by science. What, exactly is the point to this point? It proves only that we haven’t explored the entire planet and that the coelacanth is a more resilient creature than it was given credit for being.

    18. Many creatures are found in the fossil record, and have evolved very little or not at all since that time. This fits the model in two ways. The creature in question is perfectly adapted, and further adaptations have not been more fit than the original. Cheetahs are an example of a modern creature with the same minimal diversity. They’ll either survive or they won’t.

    19. The simplest explanation of brain evolution is found in the fact that every life form that has a brain has the same brain building blocks, and with each succeeding evolutionary step, more complexity is added. This addition is a result of elimination of superfluous genetic material. The fact that natural selection tends to disfavor stupidity means the brain would necessarily become more complex. It’s not that hard to grasp, if you look at it without god goggles on.

    20. More quote mining.

    21. Piltdown man was an example of how the scientific method and peer review actually works. Constantly pointing out the fraud does little to advance creationist arguments, mainly because of the fact that if scientists refused new evidence (the way creationists do) there would still be scientists who accepted the forgery as truth. I find it funny that one of the creationist heroes is in prison for fraud, and you all bring up stuff like this.

    22. This is a physics question, and while easily explained, absolutely out of the scope of ‘proof or disproof of evolution.’

    23. This one is absolutely ludicrous. Of the four known forces (Strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravitation), the two that have absolutely no bearing on the life equation are the weak nuclear force and gravitation. Gravity is about 10^39 less powerful than EM, making it irrelevant. The fact that this made the list at all makes the list suspect in its entirety (even more than the notion that this list seeks to debunk the scientifically accurate evolutionary theory).

    24. More quote mining, and in no way a statement that there is no evidence.

    25. Common ancestry is a slam dunk as it pertains to human – great ape ancestry. Humans share 98% of genes in common, with a fusion of our chromosome 2 from two great ape chromosomes as one of the two main pointers. The other is the fact that retro-viral insertion points are exactly the same in both genomes. The notion that you don’t want it to be true does not make it untrue, and only one chromosome with significant difference does more to invalidate your point than prove it.

    26. As more advanced life forms evolve, genetic information is lost, not gained. The creature with the most genetic material is an amoeba. Given the thinking that generates this question, that amoeba should be the most complex organism on the planet. It is not. Human beings contain less genetic information than the common potato (and less than the great apes). Again, an abject misunderstanding of the science.

    27. This statement is, again ludicrous. If even one fossil is found in the fossil record before it could have evolved, the entirety of evolutionary theory is destroyed. The fact that this has never happened bears out the fact that the statement in this question has no scientific merit. If you (or anyone at all for that matter) has such information, write it up and submit it for publication in the Journal Nature or Science or any other, wait for peer review, then collect your Nobel prize. Until then, number 27 is nonsense.

    28. This one is a classic example of the logical fallacy of personal incredulity. Just because you can’t understand it doesn’t make it false. No one understands quantum mechanics, yet it works.

    29. This one is fun. There was an assumption that soft tissue could not survive for such lengths of time. This is now known to be a false assumption. Another example of science correcting error, and as such not as good for the creationist side as they may think.

    30., 31., 32., 33., 34. & 35. are all exactly the same question, and were answered in number 19. Subsystems evolve independent of each other, and where the subsystems exist in tandem, the adaptation may prove advantageous to the creature. For instance, if human beings (and all mammals for that matter) had evolved hemocyanin instead of hemoglobin we’d be remarkably stronger than we are due to the fact that hemoglobin has a lower oxygen affinity than hemocyanin. Insects evolved to use hemocyanin. Clearly, at the divergence, our ancestors went a different way.

    36. The old riddle. Pro tip: it’s not a riddle. What it is, is a philosophical question that necessarily revolves around linguistic understanding of the word ‘code.’ The scientific application of the term varies markedly from the lay understanding of the word. This question is wholly invalid because of the way it’s posed. It’s a burden of proof logical fallacy. The answer to the question is DNA and RNA. Two examples of a ‘code’ created by nature. The burden of proof is on the querier, in this case, to prove that they are not naturally occurring. Here’s an example (not my example, BTW):

    1. Humans are a form of life.

    2. All life evolved naturally; there is no process known to science by which a god could create life.

    3. Therefore, humans evolved naturally. If you can provide an empirical example of a form of life that was created by process of a god (and can prove it), you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one. (It would also be nice if you’d describe the process used. We’re curious.)

    Can you see how disingenuous this ‘riddle’ is?

    37. Life is plastic to the environment, so this question is logically invalid. Life adapts to the place where it happens to have occurred. I hope you can grasp how sensible this statement is, but I’m not holding my breath.

    38. This is, again a fact that is quite easily explained, yet the explanation is routinely ignored by creationists. Calibration is the key.

    39. We haven’t dug everywhere, but everywhere we dig where evidence of communal societies exists, graves are found. What else ya got? Maybe if you go dig everywhere you can prove this a valid question when you find nothing.

    40. This is another false dichotomy argument. As stated in number 37, life appears designed because of the plasticity of it to the environment. A 747 is a machine, not an organism. Apples to oranges, and therefore nonsense.

    41. I fail to understand why this is a bad thing.

    42. And Discover, Scientific American, Nature, Popular Science, etc. all disagree with that ages old Time piece. Again, what’s your point?

    43. Malcolm Muggeridge was a staunch catholic, and for this reason his opinion is irrelevant to the scientific question. He doesn’t even rise in argument to an appeal to authority.

    44. This is another example of begging the question. There is less than no proof for creationism (and in fact, ‘intelligent design’ as a theory has been wholly disproved). So we turn this question around.

    For years I’ve been trying to find someone who can prove that ‘god did it’ but to no avail. The arguments against evolutionary theory do only one thing. They demonstrate an overt lack of scientific literacy. If creationists would objectively look at the evidence, this idiocy would not be necessary. Instead, they argue entirely from a position of personal incredulity. It’s incumbent upon the questioner to avail him / herself of the information already published instead of start from the position that all of the information that they refuse to read is false.

    It’s perfectly acceptable to question scientific theories. In fact, to question a theory is the height of understanding the scientific method. The part of this science fun where creationists fail is, with that question there needs to be accompanying evidence. Without evidence, the claim can and should be dismissed as a closed minded rant from a person resistant to change and real information.

    The difference between those of us who trust the scientific method and those who don’t is simple. When science is wrong, we admit it and move on. When religion and the religious are wrong, they undertake a campaign of apologetics to reconcile what they believe with the state of the real world. Rather than admit that things could be wrong, they act like young children at bath time.

  36. Tatiana Covington says:

    Very simple… the more modern the hominid type, the more recent the fossil. Case closed.

  37. Dennis Johnston says:

    Then did god come from nothing? Or did he come from something? Which is it?

  38. Son of Thunder says:

    Waaaa, he don’t like seeing it Malcolm. And I agree, he is a bitch.
    Real men believe in Jesus, and have eyes to see. In my unit there were FAR more believers than atheists, actually we had more PASTORS in our unit than atheists.

  39. alfalfa31 says:

    I’m a three discipline shooter. I shoot rifles for accuracy on NRA courses (same as KD) using my Colt AR, I shoot pistols for speed (my choice being a Glock 22 race gun) in local IPSC / steel challenge competitions, and I shoot shotguns at clay birds routinely scoring 25’s in trap (using a Benelli M2 which I can also use in 3 Gun competitions).

    I also enjoy shooting paintballs off of golf tees with my .17HMR and a 10/22 that I modded the snot out of. I shoot weekly, and swage my own bullets, so it’s safe to say I love shooting as well. I even do my own smithing. I’ll shoot anything at anything. My kid and I compete with red-ryder BB guns on little green army men, soda cans and paper targets. We shoot bows and slingshots as well. Shooting is the key.

  40. alfalfa31 says:

    I’m not a leftist by any stretch. I am, however, a rationalist. I can’t stomach irrationality or nonsense. I see all religion as nonsense. It’s not even so much the religion, as the science denial. I’ve heard more abject lack of understanding on scientific matters lately than I can handle, this article being but one example.

  41. ort says:

    I rest my case.

  42. Dennis Johnston says:

    Too sweet coming from a christian

    • Malcolm Reynolds says:

      Meh. Too bad. Like I said, come and take it. I’m more than fed up with the left, who somehow identify with always evil statism over anything Christian, which just boggles the mind.

  43. Thomas Moerman says:


  44. Guest says:

    Why don’t you allow links in comments? There’s a lot of source material i’d like to point to in my answer!

    • alfalfa31 says:

      They finally did post my linked answer, but it took 4 days.

      • Thomas Moerman says:

        Just discovered that the 44-… article was posted on 2 different websites with more or less the same layout. Kinda confusing. Anyhow, thanks for your elaborate post alfalfa31. Happy to know there are smart people who don’t like to see articles like this unanswered.

  45. ewallman says:

    Wow, that is one delusional article. Science is a fairy tale? What does that make religion? LOL.

    Evolution is not a theory, it is a proven fact. The bible and other so called ‘words’ of God(s) on the other hand have zero supportive evidence.

    Religion continues to contribute to the retardation of the mental capabilities and intellect of humans.

    • alfalfa31 says:

      Firstly, I’m on your side, so bear with me while I correct you on something. Evolution is not a proven fact. No scientific theory is ever called proven, because use of that term implies that the field is closed for inquiry. It is not, and new evidence either for or against is always welcome. What evolutionary theory is, however, is a collection of principles that best explains biodiversity. It’s so well documented that there is little real debate over its ability to explain the process by which species have come to exist in their modern forms.

      Your assessment of religion is spot on. :)

  46. evolutionA2Z says:

    I read most your articles on all three of your webpages. I read your 44 reasons why you think evolution is false. You should read my work on why evolution is fact. I follow you on twitter. You can find my work on twitter @EvolutionA2Z. Start reading from my first post onward. I understand carbon dating might not be accurate and our years of migration could be off.

    • alfalfa31 says:

      I doubt you’ll get any takers from this lot. I’ve posted quite a few reasoned arguments which are universally met with fingers in ears refusal to listen. I love your tweets, though.

  47. @sholadogg says:

    So evolution is a fairy tale? And if you believe it you have blind faith that life just popped into existence??? So your more realistic explanation is that a big man who lives in the sky made us all, right that seems logical ?!? No proof of this in thousands of years! Come on religion is the fairytale that is slowly getting less and less popular as people are not even bothering to brainwash their kids anymore!!

  48. I raise you a DOUBLE says:

    for the love of me. did you know that in the “dark ages” they had belived in “blind faith” that you can fall of the edge of the earth? even when by tests the greek empire proved the world was round. the vikings were first to find america. no one belived `vainland` might be `america` of now days. if by sceintific way I can not prove to anyone there was evolution. IS by lack Of knowledge,and undearstanding and it`s not everyones job to prove it. not everyone can put the effort and time to prove anything, or disaprove anything WE HAVE LIFE TO HANDLE!. for That same reason for Pissing me off about “BLIND FAITH” I dare you to prove There is a True ONE AND ALMIGHTY GOD. and not several of them.
    sorry about grammer mistakes,
    it`s lack of me not using english as a mother languge :P

  49. Rusty Shackelford says:

    So what you are saying is that you have no understanding of the basics of science. Tell me, why is it that everything in nature behaves as if evolutionary theory is fact? You would rather that people have, how did you put it, ‘blind faith” in your story tellers? Let me get this straight. God created man first, with nipples. Why?

  50. Saros7 says:

    This human man looks like a primate, so Darwin Theory is NOT a “Theory” it’s actually a FACT, a LAW. Darwin’s Law of Evolution.

    Oh, and for the man that looks like a primate (just a silly example, really) Elliot Hulse, a fitness youtuber,


  51. Saros7 says:

    Here’s a good one, one side actually tries to RESEARCH and discuss the environment they live in. While side two still lays around vomiting the same tooth fairy tales told to them by their grandparents!

  52. john says:

    Let’s just agree and be done with it I’ll agree you evolved from a monkey and your the son of a monkey alright? So you agree that I was born gifted with life and I am the son of a god :)

    • alfalfa31 says:

      As soon as you provide at least as much evidence as there is in support of evolutionary theory. Also, you don’t understand how it works if you keep using the ‘i didn’t come from no monkey’ strawman. Learn at least some of the science before making such asinine comments.

  53. Michael says:

    Additional evidence refuting evolution:
    1) How did multi-celled life develop? It’s hard to imagine a two-celled organism having a survival advantage over a one-celled organism.
    2) How did sexual reproduction develop, as it would require the simultaneous development of two unique yet perfectly complimentary reproductive systems within a species?

    • Thomas Moerman says:

      Your “evidence” are two mere questions, no evidence at all in other words.

      Inability to answer a question is not equal to there not being a rational answer.

      Imagine yourself a few hundred years ago, you would defend your position with different questions, for example:
      1) what causes the tide to come in and go?
      2) why do people get sick?

      Science is working on the questions you’re asking, and soon enough they will be answered. Google them, and reasonable theories are yours to read, explore, and marvel in.

      Just do not be lazy and take your “divine” answer for an explanation. That amounts to knowing exactly nothing.

  54. David says:

    Well I don’t know how god created humans. I don.t believe it happened one day as many Romans believe, Yes you, the christian,s. One needs to look at all the evidence and put the puzzle together. if we take the word of Moses then it took only one day. It seems odd to me one day to make a man and now it take 9 months. Those that restrict there thought are condemned. to be blind. Some don’t want to know the truth as it frightens them. It has been 2000 years since God made his presence know. That may be just one day for God. Hell I don’t know and neither does anyone else. You only go by faith. Who cares how God made man or how long it took. We must be patient and the truth will be found. it will scare most all Romans. Ask me some time what I mean when I say Roman when referring to christian.s. More than most. Now i see below you want all the information you can get out of me so you can bombard me with nonsensical ravings. Please don’t.

  55. Sam says:

    I think you are all ignorant. Evolutionists and creationists. You are all just striving to make up answers for something that will never be understood. At least evolutionists have more facts to back them up… They aren’t simply following a religion created to make people feel better about their inevitably insignificant life. Religion was created to give humans a sense of purpose and understanding. But in the end, believing in anything is ignorant and frankly embarrassing. Claiming to understand the universe is ridiculous. The most logical belief system, although it is wildly unsatisfying, is accepting the fact that it is impossible to know anything, therefore we all know nothing.

  56. Sean says:

    There is no evidence, for evolution or creationism, they’re both theories. The wise man keeps his opinion to himself until the truth is Known.
    Why be petty and try to prove others wrong? Instead of pointing out the errors in someone else’s theory, look to your own.

    • alfalfa31 says:

      Sadly, you’re wrong in your assertion that there is no evidence for evolution. There is so much evidence in support if it, not accepting the evidence is, quite simply, unacceptable.

      • KrustyLovesYou says:

        Bet you believe in global warming too.

        • alfalfa31 says:

          One need not believe in a thing for which evidence exists. I’ll be you believe in the judeo-christian god, and I’ll bet you don’t believe in Zeus and Hera. Those are beliefs. Science is not a system of belief, it’s a system of understanding the natural world honestly.

  57. Heil says:

    wait… you only allow people to say “mod-approved” comments?
    Charging the LOIC.

  58. Chris Muench says:

    I’m sorry… I’m confused. I have a poorly developed brain.

    However, is this entire page devoted to dispelling a scientific theory because it is actually a form of “faith”, that is propagated by scientific “priests”? Am I supposed to be convinced to have “faith” in creationism and trusting the “priests” of the past?

    Why bother? Traditional beliefs in our existence have been quite simple: “God made everyone, and all the rules. We live, we die. After we die, the good go somewhere nice, the evil go somewhere very bad.” Yet, in order to convey this simple idea, there have been books upon books published and edited. Wars fought over interpretations and ceremony of this simple belief. People struggle to keep their “faith” in this simple idea and often read, study and attend a place of worship weekly in order to wrap their minds around this simple idea: “God made everyone, and all the rules. We live, we die. After we die, the good go somewhere nice, the evil go somewhere very bad.”

    Science is complex and don’t think for a minute that every scientist is a genius. They are often smart but that is not the rule. The rule to be a scientist is to have a curious mind, to question the world around them, and work very hard to study the world and make every effort to provide accurate and honest information. Where not all the information is available, they must theorize. Draw from their field all the ideas, philosophies and hard facts in order to provide some idea as to what the correct answer may be.

    The modern scientific library, of facts and irrefutable evidence is vast! Immensely vast! One could spend a lifetime reading up on the known facts of our little universe and hardly scratch the surface. It also includes many, many theories. All of which are based on the data in the immensely vast library or know and irrefutable facts. Not all theories are correct… that would defy the laws of probability. Some will prove to be very, very accurate, once more information becomes available.
    I say always question any “theory” and any “religion”… just remember that we are human. We are honestly incapable of comprehending our Universe, whether we see it in a “scientific” way, or a “religious” way… or a combination of both. If we don’t understand something, it doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. It doesn’t mean that it’s correct either. It just means that it’s very complex!
    Let’s all keep our minds open, be confident in what you think and ask questions. It’s just Life…

    • Oinia says:

      Not every theory is true, and not every theory is false. But some theories are true. Some beliefs are true – they correspond to reality. And obviously some beliefs are false.

      Science cannot tell us anything beyond what it can observe and replicate. Science cannot even justify the scientific method! The method relies on logical presuppositions, which are a product of rational thinking, and cannot be “proven” scientifically.

      So religion, philosophy, theology, ethics, logic – these deal with matters of value, belief, and spirituality. None of which science can either prove or disprove. That’s beyond the realm of the scientific method.

  59. Bobby says:

    Worst propaganda ever, completely self aggrandizing rationale.

  60. Yourgodisfake says:

    If your “evidence” comes from a fable and plagerised book about an old man in the sky, your a tool. God has no business in science, “it” cannot be proven or disproven, and the only evidence is a book that’s been ripped off from Sumerian creation myths.

  61. Thomas Moerman says:

    When your kid is sick, do you take her to a doctor or to a priest? Be advised that everything a doctor knows is based profoundly on evolution theory.

    You have your way if you must, but do as follows:

    – stay away from medicine (practiced by people who understand evolution)
    – stay away from computers (made by people who understand quantum mechanics)
    – stay away from fire detectors (made by people who know about radio isotopes and therefore know for a fact the age of the earth is about 4 billion years)
    – stay away from cars and gasoline (pumped up by people who know oil is essentially fossilised organic material, millions of years old)
    – stay away from GPS devices, cellphones and satellite TV (made by people who understand relativity)

    Stay away from every scientific achievement or call yourself a miserable hypocrite.

  62. Gabriel says:

    We’re just descendants of Aliens…

  63. Tim says:

    Nice job repeating the same “reason” with a dozen quotes there. Ive heard that repetition and filler are both important parts of a bigot’s daily breakfast.

  64. Listen I Know What I'm Talking says:

    SO hilarious that people can be SO stupid to believe that something came from nothing and that we all just got here from nothing. Hahahahahahahaha. Dummies!!

    • alfalfa31 says:

      Dummies don’t routinely discount scientific evidence in favor of pseudo scientific nonsense.

  65. Spanner1960 says:

    What a load of theistic bunk.
    Science may not have all the answers, but it certainly has proof to justify what it has, instead of making up fictitious deities in order to justify their existence.

    All these questions about “Which came first, the heart or the blood vessels?” and suchlike.

    Look at the formation of a baby from two single cells, that is evolution in a nutshell.

    • cookies says:

      “Look at the formation of a baby from two single cells, that is evolution in a nutshell.”

      Wait… you think reproduction and cell replication following an existing built-in blueprint in an existing complex system is evolution?

      • Spanner1960 says:

        Of course not.
        However, making dumb suppositions about how organs and routes form can be demonstrated like that.
        If a complete human being can form in 9 months with a route map, it is not difficult to contemplate the same thing happening over 50m years without one.

        • Oinia says:

          Your little thought experiment in that last sentence is a fine fairy tale, but it is NOT science. Just telling you facts.

          • Spanner1960 says:

            You talk about imaginary invisible deities that created mankind from two people, yet have the nerve to call MY theories fairy tales?

            There is a proven trail of evidence demonstrating man’s formation.
            There is not a SINGLE shred of anything to show the existence of your ridiculous god concept.

    • Ben Franklin says:

      “Science” is not some god, it is a method of observation and experimentation about the world around us. Name your “proofs”. Name them. We humans love to make up words and categories and then try to stand on them as if they’re proof. Science doesn’t have ANY answers. Science is a mechanism for experimentation. if a theory cannot be experimented to either falsify, or corroborate, it is not even a theory! It’s philosophy/religion. Evolution is a poor deity for you to believe in.

      • Spanner1960 says:

        Science seeks answers, and freely admits it does not have a lot of them, unlike religion that claims to have them all, and is invariably wrong.

        I certainly do not pray to imaginary sky-fairies, I place my trust in solid, palpable evidence, not the word of some dusty old 2000 year old tome written by men to control others.

  66. gingerlycolors says:

    Explain this: Who created God? This has got to be the ultimate chicken-or-egg argument.

    • cookies says:

      Not really. Both sides of this issue must of necessity believe in the eternal existence of something that has no creator.

      So the “who created” question when applied to God is no more “ultimate” than it is when applied to matter and energy.

      The mere fact that anything exists necessitates that something has always existed, whatever it may be. Any intelligent person, whether theist or atheist, will acknowledge this.

      • Voice-Of-Concern says:

        God of the gaps.. “we don’t know yet”is a valid answer. It is much more sound answer than “if you don’t know, it must be gawd”

  67. Chris says:

    I find it interesting that many of your arguments to points of evolution are simply that “This makes absolutely no sense.”

    You are quick to completely paint evolution as total BS yet you give no valid reason why it’s not true. Just because you or I don’t understand something, doesn’t mean it isn’t true or the least doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have some validity to it.

    Evolution certainly is a flawed science and has some holes in it but the creation story is just as flawed. There are many, many aspects of creation that ‘makes absolutely no sense.’

    • Oinia says:

      He gives numerous reasons why evolution is not true – empirical evidence which appears to disprove evolutionary models of the origins of life.

      The lack of transitional fossils from one species to another is a glaring, fatal problem for evolutionary theory. So far I don’t see any responses on this forum that even attempt to address this!

  68. eli_jones says:

    I have been reading these comments, yet many are side issues.

    What is interesting about this article is that it highlights the LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS.

    As to the validity of Christ.

    In my opinion, the reason non believers have such a difficult time believing is because the mind of God is beyond our understanding; therefore, non believers will not be able to understand because they are trying to understand something that is beyond our understanding. We do not know what we do not know.

    The bible is believed to have more than 400,000 mistakes. Yet. If the book was perfect, people would be worshiping the book.

    Understand this. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE BOOK.


    We are dealing with something beyond our understanding, and that is where faith comes in.

    I believe God is real. I choose to have a relationship with Christ.

    All I can do is provide the reader with my testimony. Whether or not you believe is YOUR DECISION.

    Before you discount something as false and non valid, if this really means something to you. Eternity.

    If you want something you never had, you will do something you have never done.


    The book of John is the only book in the bible written to non believers.

    Reading any other book will not make sense to a non believer.

    So read the book of John, seek relationship with others, and ask God. Because if you seek, you will find.

    God is not loud, he is quiet, yet confident.

    If you are reading this, you have been called. God already showed up, YOU will need to be WILLING to meet him halfway.

    remember, it is about RELATIONSHIP with GOD, the rest is details.

    YOU HAVE WHAT IT TAKES. You have the mind of GOD, just get out of your own way.

  69. simon says:

    there IS no evidence for the theory of evolution..hence why they call it a theory. Not sure why so many commentors keep on insisting on there being “mountains of evidence” for evolution. Did they not read the very words of PH.D evolutionists quoted here that admit there is nothing definitive to bring evolution out of theory into fact?

  70. Ross says:

    Hopefully future generations will be scientifically literate enough to forgo this kind of thing.

  71. Praenestrian says:

    Too bad the discussion ends up as Bible thumpers vs. Atheists. Most cogent arguments are numbers 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 41 wherein scientists ‘fess up to the lacunae in evolutionary theory. Objectors to “Creationism” need to address those statements. I cannot dismiss the likelihood that there was a “creation” just because one may or may not accept the Biblical version. To do so seems far more silly than anything the religionists come up with.

    • Voice-Of-Concern says:

      Every fossil and every living being is transitional.

      • Oinia says:

        That doesn’t address the complete lack of fossil evidence of species-to-species transition – amoeba to mammal, for instance.

        We get it that species in stasis are supposedly “transitioning” into something else. So where’s the fossil evidence of all the in-between organisms endlessly evolving? Apparently there is none. NONE.

        • Voice-Of-Concern says:

          I understand how some folks might like a totally linear line of fossilization, leading from one cell organisms to each consecutive stage until modern mammals (including humans), in prefect order, like a museum display. But that’s not how things work. Fossilization is not merely uncommon, it’s actually quite rare. What normally happens when creatures die, is that they are consumed or they decay, returning their minerals to the surrounding soil.

          However, humans came to understand what fossils were & what they meant. With each passing year, we learn more. At one time, it was thought that soft tissue could not form into fossils.. then we found some. The fact that some part of the fossil record has not yet been found or not yet understood is essentially the “God of the Gaps” argument. Every year, as we learn more, the God of Gaps gets smaller.

          “where’s the fossil evidence of all the in-between organisms endlessly evolving?”

          I do not understand this question, as stated.

  72. Praenestrian says:

    Untenable because you cannot accept any being/ force outside the laws of physics. A creator – one existing prior to the first atom, is a better explanation than ” matter always existed”. Natural selection is easy enough to embrace, but “evolution” takes it over the edge. We’re expected to swallow a crock of bs because some folks paste their pampers over the prospect they might owe their existence to someone other than mommie.

  73. Zach Harland says:

    I’m impressed that Christians are so dependant upon the acceptance of secular sciences to try to justify miracles. Who cares what you believe? Despite your claims at science, your faith still rules your belief. So why are you telling me my faith in something is bad when your faith guides you as well? Is it because your own faith is so weak you have to rant at others to distract you from your own personal failings? The man Jesus had something to say about the grains of sand in others’ eyes and I would think his opinion should matter to you more than anyone else’s. This is a stupid conflict and has zero bearing on the message of your christ who said the one thing everyone should do is love your neighbor. If I were following him I would think an article like this that causes hatred and conflict would reflect poorly upon the author.

  74. Antitheist4lyfswag says:

    I like how he doesn’t mention natural selection once in this article which is the basis on which this theory was created on.

    • Oinia says:

      I like that too, because natural selection isn’t relevant to the points he raised. It would be a waste of time to discuss “the basis on which the theory was created” when the evidence he’s raising addresses other aspects of the theory.

      We all know NS is part of evolution. What does that have to do with the lack of fossil evidence for transitional species?

  75. Russell says:

    Wow, just wow. So much false information, speculation, and opinion here. I could post many links but they would go unread by people consumed with the word of sheep herders. We will fall behind and science marches on overseas…

    • Oinia says:

      That’s your best response to the fatal flaws in the evolutionary model?!? “Wow, just wow”?

      Brilliant rebuttal. We’ll take your word that you’re dumbfounded.

  76. Oinia says:

    “Two groups of the same species” adapting to their environments is microevolution, which no one disputes because it is observable and repeatable.

    Intraspecies evolution, from single celled organisms to complex life, is the leap that the fossil record simply does not verify.

  77. Blazeraid says:

    Weird that when I look up transitional fossils all of the information I read says there is actually quite a bit. I’d post a link, but one is no good, look it up for yourself to find out that this author has no credibility.

  78. sallyho3000 . says:

    Ahhh… Wikipedia, editing history since…
    You should check out the WW1 and 2 history. It’s a riot, that is, if you’ve ever read a book published before 1968. That’s right! Books! It’s what we use when the Wiki server is down…

  79. Jamie says:

    There is much more evidence to back up the evolution theory (the fact that most children grow to be taller than their parents is a short term example) where is religion is based purely on faith. There has never been any concrete proof of a divine power. There are no recorded images or audio recordings of any sort. The bible are stories passed down by generations. The teachings remain relevant in many cases but they hold no factual truth. To anyone who claims to discount science with regards to evolution, I would expect you to ignore the same field that brings advances in medical treatments. Why was the average age of death in biblical times closer to 55 years and today it’s 80? Is it because God feels we disserve to live longer lives or is it because mans destiny is in mans hands? Evidence has proven it’s the latter.

  80. EvolutionIsALie says:

    I’d like to add in how an animal adapts to the environment over the course of many thousand years is an absurd thought all by itself. By the time the animal has fully adapted, it should’ve gone extinct due to either being prey for other opposing animals or being unable to find it’s own food. Take the giraffe for instance. How did it adapt to eating the leaves of the tall trees around it, and what came first? The legs? Well, you still won’t reach up to the leaves and you’d die from starvation. The neck? Well, you reach up to the trees and can actually feed… but how do you get around with such a highly disproportionate body, and how do you fend of predators when you literally cannot walk around.

    It’s a funny read, this theory, but that’s all it is.

  81. Deanna says:

    This is one of the most ridiculous lists I’ve ever seen. I can explain nearly 75% of this with a high school education. The misrepresentation of information here is deplorable.

    #41 in particular is upsetting. Science ONLY deals with physical evidence that can be measured, observed or tested upon. The reason God does not show up in science is because he hasn’t made himself available yet for testing. As soon as he does scientists will include him in theories.

  82. dyrwolf says:

    Makes complete sense for fruit to be flavorful. That way animals will eat it and disperse the seeds over a larger range.

  83. Scientistengineer says:

    I wonder what you mean by “prove.” Cell theory seems pretty easily proven to me. If you observe cells over time in a microscope, you can see each point to the theory proven.

  84. feenix219 says:

    Fossils are formed through intense electromagnetic discharge, and therefore were formed during the cataclysmic extinctions of these various creatures. Downed power lines can create objects that are indistinguishable from an “ancient fossil” in a matter of moments.

    • Rich Wilson says:

      citation please, preferably from a source other than AiG or DI.

      • feenix219 says:

        I posted links, but I think they were removed.

        • Rich Wilson says:

          Try replacing .s with spaces in the URL. Because I can’t find anything even in hard-core creationist sites.

          When you say “Downed power lines can create objects” do you mean power lines landing on an animal?

          I’m guessing this is going to be an ancient aliens or timecube type site, since that’s not actually how fossils are formed.

          • feenix219 says:

            No aliens, no timecubes. The same thing that creates fulgarites. Check out thunderbolts project on youtube. Maybe that won’t get censored. The other is on hold pending approval from “the truth.”

          • Rich Wilson says:

            Ah yes, lightening bolts do that. They fuse the sand. They are very distinguishable from fossils.

  85. Stani R. says:

    American Trollness at it best :D

  86. Naomi says:

    Stephen J. Gould hypothesised that evolution occurred in great leaps after long periods of no change so of course he would talk about “a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution” – he didn’t believe in gradual evolution! I’m sure he would strongly oppose your use of his words to “support” your ridiculous and outdated beliefs.

    p.s I solved your “riddle” (number 36). DNA is a code that occurs naturally. DNA replication (which is, unfortunately for the rest of us, happening in YOUR cells right now) is a process which creates coded information.

  87. Charly Rabbitt says:

    Re: transitional fossils – quite why all those people would say that is a mystery, as the evidence is there. I suspect some serious out-of-context quoting going on (creationists are fond of doing this – see the regular example of Darwin saying words to the effect of “quite how an organ as complex as the eye could evolve seems a complete mystery” – the bit where he goes on to describe *exactly how that happened* is never included).

    Some examples of transitional fossils: Wiki “evolution of tetrapods”. If you scroll down a bit it’s got a nice little timeline of illustrations of how fish evolved into reptiles from every stage of the process. One of them, Tiktaalik (a sort of fish-alligator), was even predicted to exist before it was found. We also have a near-perfect cross-section of the evolution of equines and humans, amongst many other things (google “evolution of equine skull”, for instance).

    The whole idea of “transitional fossils” is stupid, though. EVERY FOSSIL is a transitional fossil, considering things are constantly changing. If we have a fossil of the apes we evolved from and something halfway between ape and man – which we do, in the form of Australopithecus, H. erectus, H. habilis, Neanderthals, etc. etc. – then that is a transitional fossil. The ape itself is a transitional fossil between us and whatever it evolved from.

    To say that supposedly missing “transitional fossils” disproves evolution is like we’re boiling a kettle and took its temperature at various stages. We might have records of it being 43.2º, 44.9º, 52.0º, 79.8º, 93.7º, etc – we could have records of it at 61.2º and 61.3º, but because we don’t have a record of 61.25º then there’s no evidence that heating is happening. And if we do, the absence of 61.12º disproves heating.. and so on. Don’t you see how silly that is?

    Also, let me turn this around: show me the body of physical evidence that God created everything in six days.

  88. Israel meza says:

    I think you don’t want to realize that evolution it’s not only true, but us a fact. Thera are many transitional fossils, maybe not as much as you wanted, but I don’t know what of you think that “have fossils” means, because … You don’t just go outside your home and look down and then there is it!!! A transitional fossil!! … Evolution is a fact, it’s so much fact that we have not only fossil records, but the DNA prube of how all animals and plants past qualitys between generations (heritage) and to day, biology it just doesn’t have any sense without evolution.
    Finally, I think that you spend to much energy trying to make the world works the way you want, and your vision it’s just doesn’t have any, any! sense, it’s just doesn’t, why? Because all the evidence we have now that points evolution it’s a fact it’s out there and you decide just don’t take it, only because it’s just don’t match whit your magical and pink god world.
    Why don’t you show us the moment of creation of a new specie, of curse by god? If you do that, all the world will change his mind about evolution. Good look whit that! ;)

  89. Randy C Cone says:

    Talking about Fairy Tales (scientists as a “priest class”?!?), I think the writer should take a look in the mirror. Nearly everything explained in the first two paragraphs can be very very well applied to Christianity and other major religions.

    The outright lies (campus students are far better versed, depending on their majors of course) on the facts of evolution than stated) are very transparent to anyone who care (or dares?) to ponder these outrageous, easily made and easily refuted claims.

    Poor show mate, poor show.

  90. Patricia Bentley-Ivens says:

    Why does DNA all point to the fact that all living organisms on Earth are related, sharing many genes and strings of genes which point towards a common ancestry?

    It also appears that the writer has no idea how the scientific method works, Darwin’s prediction that the fossils would be found is an entirely valid and expected part of this method. Predictive theories are usually the strongest.

    Several transitional species have been found including, Archaoptryx (sorry if I spelled this incorrectly) and Lucy yet you claim there are none at all? This is either an untruth of you have not done the research for this piece. As it stands if you actually understand the way heredity and evolution work you need to realise that every living thing on Earth is itself a transitional form, we are all slightly different from our parents, but not much. These changes add up. You need to get your head around the idea of eons of time before you can get it.

    If you prefer to believe the biblical creation story, that is not my business and you have a right to it but to try and confuse this with science is laughable. To claim there is no evidence yet propose that the actual evidence for your preferred version is all contained in a 2000 (ish) thousand year old collection of books is beyond a joke. Evidence should be independently corroborated and written evidence for something like this is simply not strong. I still fail to understand how anyone can take ‘creation science’ seriously.

  91. John says:

    Woww, this is sad. I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.

  92. Brendon says:


  93. Karen Mitchell says:

    The theory of god/the bible is
    false. It is simply not true. Actually, it is just a fairy tale for
    adults based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that hundreds of millions of
    people around the world choose to believe with blind faith. When asked to
    produce evidence for the theory of god/the bible, most adults in the western
    world come up totally blank. When pressed, most people will mumble
    something about how “that’s what I was told as a child” and how that is good
    enough for them. This kind of anti-intellectualism even runs rampant on
    our college campuses. If you doubt this, just go to a college campus some
    time and start asking students why they believe in god/the bible. Very
    few of them will actually be able to give you any real reasons why they believe
    it. Most of them just have blind faith in the priest in our society (“the
    anti-scientists”). But is what our priest class telling us actually
    true? When man popularized the theory of god/the bible, he didn’t
    actually have any evidence that it was true. And since then the missing
    evidence has still not materialized. Most Americans would be absolutely
    shocked to learn that most of what is taught as “truth” about god/the bible is
    actually the product of the overactive imaginations of members of the bronze
    aged community. They so badly want to believe that it is true that they
    will go to extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale. They keep
    insisting that the theory of god/the bible has been “proven” and that it is
    beyond debate. Meanwhile, most average people are intimidated into
    accepting the “truth” about god/the bible because they don’t want to appear to
    be “stupid” to everyone else.

    In this day and age, it is
    imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves. Don’t let me tell
    you what to think, and don’t let anyone else tell you what to think
    either. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

  94. OhioAtheist says:

    This is a joke. Right? Right? Please tell me it is.

    • lena says:

      Haha someone posted this to the atheist group on Facebook as a joke… I’m not sure whether I’m confused or concerned about humanity

  95. Finnish says:

    Vittu mitä paskaa!

  96. ScienceRules says:

    In science,you all are confusing the terms hypothisis with theory.The hypothisis that reptilian aliens control all of us has yet to be proven,but the theory of gravity has been proven.

    • feenix219 says:

      Side effects and “descriptive words” of gravity’s effect have been proven, but no one knows WHY gravity works…..

  97. John Fix says:

    Yeah, those are tough questions. The only answer is a mystical, invisible, omnipotent, powerless, loving, hateful “intelligent” designer. Oh, and derp.

  98. E. Collins says:

    Hey this is great. Why don’t you assemble all your evidence against evolution – have it peer reviewed – collect your Nobel Prize.
    Well it’s 150 years later and we’re still waiting,

  99. Rant In A-Minor says:

    You are all complete morons engaging in wilful intellectual surrender. May your stupidity wipe out every last one of you, leaving those of us who bothered to ask questions and place reliance on objective evidence instead of consciously disconnecting our critical thinking faculties in favour of blind obedience to a debunked fairy tale to enjoy the world you so despise. You are slowing down the progress of our species. Bloody good riddance, you festering idiots.

  100. #evolveonthis says:

    During the epochs of the dinosaurs the Earth was hotter which allowed species to grow to larger sizes. Even now the blue whale is larger than any dinosaur that has ever been found.
    The world flood is a myth, as is the allegorical story of Noah, and the ‘kinds’ that creationist have invented to try and fill the gaps in their pathetic attempts to reconcile the evidence with their bronze age cattle sacrificing barbarian myths.

  101. Jo4an says:

    100% argument from ignorance and/or stupidity.

  102. Brad Simmons says:

    Oh brother.

  103. Anthony Edwards says:

    Whales are often born with legs, feet, and so on. The whale is an example of a living transition. This is insanity.

  104. Grim Truth says:

    Your ignorance is staggering. Evolution is blatantly a fact…Could prove it in countless ways, no Gods can exist, not even a matter of believing he just literally can’t.

  105. gryntelyder says:

    Uhm, if you had bothered to actually look into this you would have known that there is no lack of transitional forms. Nor do we lack the tools to figure out where, along an evolutionary timeline, they belong.

    You are uneducated and ignorant and your “contribution” to the discussion is of no value. Get an education.

    • Nick says:

      You are sadly mistaken. There is no evidence in the fossil record of transitional forms, what we see is an abundance of different classes and phylums all springing up at once, ususaly fully formed and different in their own ways.

      One of the major floors of evolution is that we have never been able to prove a species can become a different species. We often confuse species variance with evolution by saying things like ‘the evolution of a dog’, or ‘the evolution of a horses hoof’. This is a gigantic misues of the term. A dog is still a dog. A great dane can breed with a chiwuah, and every over breed of dog out there because they are the same species! There is no evolutionary stage of a single species becoming two seperate species, nor has there ever been. Just selective breeding to nurture different physical characteristics, but no evolution.

  106. Joe says:

    Wow. The author really doesn’t understand evolution, or really even science.

  107. Charles says:

    Quoting scientists out of context makes for a lousy argument. Especially when your sources for most of the quotes are NOT primary sources. Rather, they are published on a biased website which gives your argument less credibility. But then again, you were an attorney. How becoming of you.

  108. Nick says:

    All comments from Evolutionists on this board do not attempt to defend the theory with fact as asked in the original post, but to dismiss religion instead. This comes accross very desperate. No sane religious person will dismiss science, however what you all have to realise is that evolution is a 150 year old theory. In years to come, IF people are ever allowed to speak out against religion in the scientific world we will laugh when we know the answers. I have a PhD in Geology and I can tell the fossil record does not support evolution, but raises more flaws. If you all do a bit of reading into different fields, you will find that the same is true with the study of nearly all so called evidence of Evolution. God is the why, science is the how but sadly we have not uncovered the mysteries yet. Remeber all, we used to think that the Earth was at the centre of the universe, and don’t come back and say the church held science back. The Church has always readily accepted science, and historically the clergy where the best educated people. They simply did not accept a theory based on face value but waited untill it was proven beyond reasonable doubt, which unfortunately Evolution is not. Time to move on.

  109. Bilbo says:

    ‘Given a heart EARNESTLY seeking the truth, and a mind open to the truth, He will reveal himself.’

    I looked, thought, and read… and what I found was ‘The Christ Conspiracy – greatest story ever sold’ by Acharya S and the dvd ‘The god who wasn’t there’

  110. Carlos says:

    Ill give you just one of the thousands transitional fossil discovered just Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus.

  111. D R Lindberg says:

    It’s silly to argue that evolution is somehow anti-God. Almost all the major churches accept evolution, and many evolutionary scientists are Christians.

    It’s a shame that so many allow themselves to be taken in by misinformation and misrepresentation like that in Mr. Snyder’s article.

    • Thomas says:

      One problem though! They can’t explain original sin. Did the devil tempt the neanderthals or some other species? Did he tempt the entire species or just two of them? When did gender(the two sexes) evolve and why?

  112. Notmyname says:

    Who is to say that God did not use evolution to mold us to what we are today. Furthermore there is no way to prove evolution and in the same way we can’t prove that there is a God or that if there is then ours religion is the right one? It is all just blind faith so why can’t we have both God and evolution?

  113. Brandon Roberts says:

    warning incoming evoloutionists bitching jk

  114. WakeForestYankee says:

    Ridiculous list: #s1-5 all cover the same thing; #6 willfully misrepresents what evolution is; #s7-9 cover the same thing; #s 10 and 11 display an utter ignorance of evolutionary principles. I could go on but you don’t want to hear it anyway.

  115. steve d says:

    I was discussing this with some friends and I wrote this.

    The absolute minimum complexity for evolution to get started is a self
    reproducing machine, AKA a living cell. Without that there cannot be any
    natural selection. So how complex is the simplest possible self reproducing
    organism? I couldn’t find any simple answer to that but I thought that it is
    unlikely to be less than 1000 proteins. Even a simple mechanism described in
    MB’s book, which attaches itself to DNA, then crawls along stripping off RNA
    (which is then transported to the ribosome (is that how you spell it?), consists
    of 38 proteins if my memory serves me correctly.

    So if you assume each protein has an average length
    of 200 amino acids, and there are 20 amino acids to choose from, then the number
    of possible variants of a single protein is 20^200, which is
    10^(200*(1+log10(2)) or 10^260, or 1 followed by 260 zeros. And that’s just a
    single protein, and we’ve got 38 to go to make this small machine, and then a
    lot more to go to get to 1000 proteins. So the number of combinations of 1000
    proteins is 1 followed by a quarter of a million zeros. And then, to make it
    self reproducing, we have to have a DNA chain which contains all the information
    required to make all these proteins, so that’s another quarter of a million
    zeros. And then assuming we had all these proteins in a test tube, what’s the
    probability that they will all come together and assemble themselves into the
    complex machinery required to form the cell? Probably the same again at least,
    which would bring us up to around a million zeros. It’s a bit like going down
    the local Ford dealer and ordering all the nuts, bolts, gaskets, cogs,
    electronic components, to make a Mondeo, then putting them all into a drum and
    turning the drum for a few million years in the hope that a fully assembled
    Mondeo will fall out, complete with the key in the ignition.

    I have since read in Phillip Day’s book that the
    simplest organism, an E Coli, has a complexity of around 1 followed by 2 million
    zeros, so my back of envelope guess was not too far out, if you’ll allow for a
    missing million zeros.

    Now I may have made a few too many simplifying
    assumptions in this argument, and perhaps Mike with his mathematical precision
    can improve on my engineer’s back-of-envelope approximation.

    But it doesn’t really matter, because the next step
    is to ask how much complexity the universe is capable of generating, and
    whether, as my colleague argued, it can come close to generating the complexity
    required to produce a living self reproducing organism, because without that,
    let us remind ourselves, evolution is conclusively ruled out.

    There are 10^80 atoms in the universe. If we take
    the currently accepted age of the universe of 15 billion years, the number of
    picoseconds which have elapsed since it started is 5 X 10^29, Call it 10^30 to
    make it a round number.

    So if every atom in the universe has been engaged
    in the task of selecting amino acids and building proteins since the time the
    universe is assumed to have begun, and has randomly selected 200 amino acids
    every picosecond and formed them into a protein, the maximum number of of
    proteins that could have been made since the universe began is 10^80 times
    10^30, or 10^110. So what’s the probability that somewhere among these 10^110
    proteins is the one we need to start building our living cell? 1 in (260 minus
    110) or 1 chance in 10^150. I wouldn’t bet on a horse with those odds! And
    we’ve got another 999 proteins to go!

    If we take all the 10^80 atoms in the universe, and
    for each atom we create another universe, i.e. 10^80 universes, and we set them
    to create proteins every picosecond, we still won’t have enough proteins
    (10^190) to start our living cell. If we create another universe for every atom
    in this universe of universes, to create a universe of universes of universes,
    we’ve now got 10^270 proteins, so there are probably 10^10 of the kind we are
    looking for. The problem is they are likely to be rather widely scattered, to
    say the least. And then we’ve go to create some DNA to match. And of course
    there is no mechanism outside a laboratory or a living cell to create either
    proteins or DNA, so our thought experiment is a non starter anyway.

    Of course there may be a number of assumptions that
    need a lot more attention, but the numbers are just so ludicrously improbable it
    doesn’t really matter.

    The way they are trying to get round this of course
    it to talk about an infinite number of parallel universes. As far as I know,
    this theory has so far been unable to come up with any falsifiable predictions
    that anyone has tried and failed to falsify. So it isn’t science.

    Science is a very powerful methodology of modelling
    that which is observable and repeatable. Anything that is not observable and
    repeatable is outside the remit of science. Parallel universes are
    unobservable, to the best of my knowledge, so science may legitimately speculate
    about them but is not entitled to claim any knowledge of their existence. We
    have shown that, according the best scientific understanding, it is not possible
    for life to have come into existence in the part of the universe which is
    observable by us, and so falls within the remit of science. Or to put it
    another way, since life manifestly exists, science has proved that there is more
    to the universe than that which is observable by us, i.e. the universe which we
    observe must be a subset of a much greater universe. We would of course refer
    to this superset of the natural universe as the supernatural. Atheists resort
    to infinite parallel universes. “You pays your money and you takes your

    Incidentally, after reading some of the posts here, I wish to dissociate myself from the idea that atheists go to an eternal hell. My theological studies tell a different story, of redemption, but that is a long discussion on a different topic. Recommended reading: Revelations of Divine Love by Julian of Norwich (1373).

  116. cshorey says:

    Every organism that has an ancestor and leaves a descendant is by definition transitional. My office is littered with fossils of transitional species. Whoever wrote this has huge holes in their understanding of evolutionary science. They actually seem to think it’s a completely random process. How does this person know to quote rip parts of Darwin’s work, but missed the point that Natural Selection is an algorithm that automatically, and non-randomly, results in evolution, a type called adaptive evolution?

  117. Amanda says:

    I came to believe in evolution through study…you say to stop by a campus and ask students why they believe….have you ever actually done this…did you take down the numbers, because all your statements are vague at best. Because most people I know…people who don’t rely on “blind faith” as you call it can tell you exactly why evolution is a proven and accepted part of our life. Read the book “The Theory of Evolution” the Facts are there..in fact, read ANY book about DNA in general. Your list just proves that you have never really studied anything that wasn’t completely biased. Try looking at something free from your own blind faith. And before you go and call me some atheist…I have my faith, in God, and in the afterlife, but denying science is holding the whole human race back.

  118. DF says:

    It’s funny how all the believers of a theory fail to answer the author’s questions. Yet there’s a bunch of people who are just arguing with circular logic… fools. All of them.

  119. David Cohen says:

    Was there an apocalyptic preacher from Galilee during the First century with a name something like “Jesus” who acquired followers, irritated people in power and was killed for doing so? This is an extremely credible possibility. In fact, I know of no legitimate historian who doubts that it occurred.

    Now notice what is missing for that scenario. Was this man Jesus the only Son of God? Was he born of a virgin? Did he perform miracles? Did he die for the sin of the world? Did he return to life from death after three days? Those are NOT questions for a historian. Those are matters which one can only take on faith.

  120. Moof says:

    “#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.”

    Indeed it is only a theory but based on blind faith its not! unlike your religion its based on Logic and observations!

  121. JAMAL says:

    I have a problem with number six (incidentally the one after which I stopped reading): If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none. How do you know this. As a game ranger in Kruger Park, I can assure you that the animals that get taken at a young age by disease, predation or other phenomena are most likely weak…ie: bad respiration circuits for outrunning predators, bad muscle development etc, and thus they get killed. Sadly, Wildebeest, Buffalo, Lion and all of their wild brothers don’t speak and thus don’t tell us why they are weaker than their peers, though if they could I’m sure the natural order would take them out before they could voice their opinion on their weakness. Also next time a list of this magnitude (attempting to disprove an accepted theory) is made, don’t spend the first 4 repeating number one with different theorists as your example.

  122. @FMShyanguya says:

    Regarding the theory of evolution, Darwin himself gives cause for pause.

  123. Shamael says:

    Hahaha, my second comment had to be approved by the truth, so let us see if you can stand the truth. Some day you all will understand that your meaning of the “book” was as wrong as your meaning on evolution. Both are as true as they are wrong.

    The Bible only tells the truth, nothing in there is false or wrong, the only problem is that none of you is able to read it the way it should be and it is not what you think it to be. If that was, billions in the past 2000 years had not killed each other for that.

  124. John says:

    Evolution is supported by a mountain of geological, paleontological, biological, and genetic evidence. Evolution requires some education and effort to understand, hence all of the assertive know-nothings who say it is not real. We do not “believe” in evolution (the way you might believe in a god). We understand that evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for what we observe in nature.

  125. 5thApe says:

    The stupidity on display here is epic. Quote mines and total lack of understanding. One rather choice brain fart:

    ” Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?”

    The religious are laughable when it comes to science these days.