Christian faith requires accepting evolution

| 20/06/2011

(Huffington Post): In the evangelical community, the year 2011 has brought a resurgence of debate over evolution. The current issue of Christianity Today asks if genetic discoveries preclude an historical Adam. While BioLogos, the brainchild of NIH director Francis Collins, is seeking to promote theistic evolution among evangelicals, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently argued that true Christians should believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they've abandoned it.

Go to commentary

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: World View

About the Author ()

Comments (303)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Socrates says:

    "Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.""  

    Hmmm…. chromosome fusion strongly establishes evolution.  What's the Popester have to say about that I wonder?

    I was watching a science show about chimps demonstrating cooperative social behaviour and the use of tools, specifically a spear to hunt food, and there was debate from the scientists about the need to change the definition of human if we wanted to exclude chimps from the class.  Religion might say that chimps weren't infused with the holy spark of life or a soul or some other invisible unprovable thing, but real science seems to be well past religion's ability to hold any ground.

    • Anonymous says:

      DNA sequence similarity is just as much evidence for common design as it is for evolution.

      • Socrates says:

        Er… no, it doesn't.  On your theory the fact that everything is made of molecules would also be evidence of common design.  The "argument" is so weak as to not be one.

        • Anonymous says:

          Er…I think you missed the point the original poster was making re the DNA similarity between chimps and humans. You second statement is simply nonsense. Obviously it was not a similarity on the basis that they are both made up of molecules. 

  2. Anonymous says:

    Jesus wept! I can't believe how many people think this whole fairy tale of religion is worth arguing about.

    • Anonymous says:

      Why are you calling the name of Jesus if you believe Christianity is a fairy tale?

      Try to distinguish between your opinion and fact. Obviously people are posting things that disagree with your view because they have a different opinion. They are entitled to. You need to be mature enough to accept that.  

      • I was there says:

        Jesus was a real person and no doubt he wept from time to time, especially when those Romans were kicking his a$$.  Religion can be confirmed as a fairy tale while still referencing that Jesus wept.

        Jesus was just a man, but hocus pocus stuff aside he was a pretty cool dude.  I would have loved to have sucked down a few brews with him and chat for a while, but I wouldn't count on him to make one from a pint of water…

        • Anonymous says:

          Since you believe he was a real person then that must come from the gospels. Jesus wept is a verse from the gospels.  You have not "confirmed" anything. You have merely expressed your opinion.  

    • Anonymous says:

      I'll let you in on a secret: 95% of the world's population believes in the supernatural. What we can't believe is how many people miss the blindingly obvious.   

  3. The Lone Haranguer says:


  4. Anonymous says:

    Yes, but GOD could have created all of the "beings" in the Universe..if there are others and not just us right? We cloned a sheep. We shouldn't have in my opinion. We know we can extract DNA from a Wooly Mammoth frozen in the Siberian Tundra, Create and embryo and impregnate a female Elephant. We shouldn't do it either…in my opinion. If we have the technology now and obviously an advanced race from long ago was capable of space flight..then it would be fair to think that genetic experimentation could havetaken place? For a purpose perhaps, maybe slaves to build things? Maybe not slaves in the sense of forced labor but intellegent beings all working towards a common goal with "upper management"

  5. Anonymous says:

    Yes, anything can be lose reality over time or be exagerrated but I think it's a pretty good bet we were visted and the question is what hand did they have in our "evolution" if any. At least for me and many others it has made parts of the Bible and the Theory of Evolution more understandable. The two point at one another. There seemed to be something missing and the evidence of ancient astronauts made me feel a little more at piece trying to understand in particular Genesis and Evolution. It may have reclassified Angels (interpreted as men and women who could fly) but it didn't encroach on any belief in God as the Universe has no boundary as we know

  6. Jumbles says:

    Magic.  I think magic from the bronze age makes more sense than a large body of scientific evidence.  Especially magic from a source that believes in people living for 900 years and a firmament above us to which all the stars, planets and the moon are fixed. Yes, magic has my vote.

    • Anonymous says:

      That may sound like good rhetoric but it misrepresents the choice. There are very serious problems with neo-darwinism and more and more scientists are reaching the inescapable conclusion that an finitely superior intelligence was involved. We call that God.   

      • Jumbles says:

        Some of us call that "a figment of imagination".

      • Anonymous says:

        The problem with your statement is that most of those who believe in a god insist on defining and describing it, when, in fact, nothing can be known about it at all.  We simply don't know (yet) whether such an entity exists, or what it might be like if it does exist.  Science suggests that one day we may know.  The conclusion is not "inescapable" as you claim, but neither is it ruled out.  

        I don't know if you espouse any particular religion, but the thread began as a discourse on Christianity and evolution.  Christians, generally, do not mean by "God" a possible and currently unknowable intelligence or entity that might have been responsible for life on earth.  In that way, you also misrepresent the choice.  I would guess that most atheists and agnostics are not reacting against the kind of inscrutable "superior intelligence" you posit above; rather, they react against what appears to them to be a caricature of such an intelligence as described and imagined by our human ancestors.  

        • Anonymous says:

          Who said anything about God being unknowable? Why would an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent being not be able to communicate with his creation? Why could such a being not reveal himself as he chooses? By definition it cannot be beyond his capacity.  

          The matter of God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved by science although it may provide clues. Science is concerned with what may be observed, measured or tested, i.e. physical phenomena.     

          • Anonymous says:

            "Why would an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent being not be able to communicate with his creation? Why could such a being not reveal himself as he chooses?"

            At least we agree on the question…I doubt we would agree on the answer.

            • Anonymous says:

              Then please answer the question.

              • Anonymous says:

                If you prefer me to answer, I will.  My answer would be that it has not communicated with mankind.  There are some who claim to have had communications from god, but given their vastly differing accounts of the nature, meaning, counsel and demands of god, I (personally, of course) cannot believe these communications are valid.  It seems (to me) that communication from an omniscient and omnipotent god would be clearer and more consistent.  

                You may disagree, and I respect your right to do so.  I hope you will respect my right to my own beliefs, too.  

                • Anonymous says:

                  Read the question again. You have not answered it.  

                  • Anonymous says:

                    "Why would an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent being not be able to communicate with his creation? Why could such a being not reveal himself as he chooses?"

                    I answered as I did because these questions, as worded, are pointless to me.  The being under discussion is hypothetical.  What it could or would do is therefore unbounded, in just the same way that any invisible friend is unbounded.  


                    • Anonymous says:

                      I am sure you are quite capable of answering the question even if the circumstances appear to you to be hypothetical. By saying that such a being is "unbounded" I understand you to be acknowledging that such a being could communicate with his creation if that was his purpose.    

                      Incidentally, it is a very poor argument to say that if God did exist you would not expect there to be disagreements among religions and if there are disagreements then he must not exist. If there are three purported witnesses to an event and the three give differing accounts, but which contain points of similarity, does one logically necessarily conclude that the event did not happen and are figments of their imaginations? Is it not at least possible that only one is giving an accurate account, or that each one may have a different vantage point and therefore made different observations, or that there are differing powers of observation among them?       

                    • Anonymous says:

                      …or that the witnessed different events.  

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Yes, I agree that in theory, an unbounded entity *could* communicate in any way — and with as much clarity — as it might choose.  

                      I did not say that disagreements in scripture and revelation disprove the existence of a god.   Only that scripture and revelation (being mediated — or created, depending on your bias — by fallible humankind) are unreliable and therefore cannot prove the truth of god. In the same way, the "differing accounts" of eyewitnesses have been shown to be unreliable, and human perception notoriously faulty.   

                    • Anonymous says:

                      "I did not say that disagreements in scripture and revelation disprove the existence of a god". 

                      You have suggested that disagreements between proported revelations means that none of them and no part of them is  a valid communication from God. 

                      "There are some who claim to have had communications from god, but given their vastly differing accounts of the nature, meaning, counsel and demands of god, I (personally, of course) cannot believe that these communications are valid. It seems (to me) that communication from an omniscient and omnipotent god would be clearer and more consistent. 

                      The point that I was making with my analogy is that there may be no fault with the quality of God's transmission of the communication but fault with human reception. Accordingly, to prove that God is communicating it is not necessary to prove that every single word is accurate. If a significant part is shown to be accurate and outside of natural knowledge that is evidence of valid communication.

                      Let us use the analogy of a radio transmission. Communications are constantly transmitted over radio waves. Some may not detect them at all because their radio receivers are not turned on at all, or alternatively not tuned to the right frequency. If the tuner is detecting the communication but it is not precisely on the right frequency it may result in a distorted communication with a lot of static and the person receiving may try to fill in the bits which were unintelligible. Radio frequency jamming and interference can also come into play.          

                    • Anonymous says:

                      "You have suggested that disagreements between proported revelations means that none of them and no part of them is  a valid communication from God."

                      Right.  This is my opinion.  I quite clearly stated that they are not convincing *to me*.

                      "The point that I was making with my analogy is that there may be no fault with the quality of God's transmission of the communication but fault with human reception."

                      Hmmm.  An omnipotent god who has created mankind in his own image is unable to clearly communicate with his creation.  It doesn't really matter whether it is the (alleged) message or the reception that is faulty.  The message is unreliable and (to my mind — as I have always taken pains to say) must be rejected as a communication from a god — or at least the kind of god described in your scriptures.  

                      If you will allow a faulty communication from an alleged superior intelligence who is DIFFERENT from the god described in your bible, who is perhaps not omnipotent or omniscient or involved in human affairs — and whom, in fact, it is not possible to describe with any certainty — then I am glad to concede the possibility.

                      I have made all of this clear in my previous posts. 

                      Your radio analogy does not convince.  Again, it strikes me that an omnipotent creator would be able to a) create and then b) find, the correct frequency.  If he (it) cannot, then he must be something other than what you suggest.  

                    • Anonymous says:

                      "Your radio analogy does not convince.  Again, it strikes me that an omnipotent creator would be able to a) create and then b) find, the correct frequency.  If he (it) cannot, then he must be something other than what you suggest".

                      It seems that you did not understand the analogy which did not involve any fault with the transmitter only potentially with the receiver.  I suggest that you read it again.   

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Perhaps it is you who needs to reread.  I have addressed this issue.  Did your creator not also create the receiver?

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Theology 101. The Fall of Man from original perfection means faulty receiver.

                      There is obviously no point in continuing this discussion as we are going circles.


                    • Anonymous says:

                      At least we agree on something.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Of course, this only applies if one accepts that theology is valid and true, which i do not.  

                    • Anonymous says:

                      "If you will allow a faulty communication from an alleged superior intelligence who is DIFFERENT from the god described in your bible, who is perhaps not omnipotent or omniscient or involved in human affairs — and whom, in fact, it is not possible to describe with any certainty — then I am glad to concede the possibility".

                      This really does not make logical sense. Why would there be a communication from a superior intelligence to humans if he is not involved in human affairs? There are probably many faulty communications but it does not follow that all communications are faulty.

                      You seem to be open to space alien communications. It is just God that you object to.  

                    • Anonymous says:

                      You are willfully misrepresenting my posts.  

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I receive communications from many sources not involved in my personal life.   I am sure you do too.  

                      I didn't say all communications are faulty.  I said they are unreliable, and therefore unlikely to originate with an omnipotent creator.  

                      I said nothing about space aliens; nor did I say that I object to god.  I only question your assertion that you "know" god (or God) or can describe it (him) with confidence.  



                    • Anonymous says:

                      First, the issue was whether God is involved with his creation.

                      Second, whether the send is interested in your personal life obviously depends on the nature of the communications.

                      You spoke of a superior (but not infinite) intelligence, which is not omnisicient and not involved in our lifes. Sounds like a reference to space aliens to me.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Round and round and round he goes; where he stops, nobody knows…

          • Anonymous says:

            "The matter of God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved by science although it may provide clues."

            Actually, you have no way of knowing this for sure.  Anything is possible.

            "Science is concerned with what may be observed, measured or tested, i.e. physical phenomena."

            Why do you assume that "god" has no physical presence?  How can you really know?

            • Anonymous says:

              God may manifest himself as he chooses but his essential nature is spirit.

              • Anonymous says:

                My question remains:  How can you know this?

                • Anonymous says:

                  Just so that I know that I am not engaging in some pointless debate to stroke your ego, can you please explain what your point is. Are you saying that God is a physical being?   

                  • Anonymous says:

                    Not at all.  My point is that a) you have no idea what manner of entity any possible god might be, and therefore cannot say whether it is "spirit" (whatever you may mean by that term) or something else, and that b) you therefore have no way to know whether science might be able to detect its presence or not.  

                    • Anonymous says:

                      As the first cause God would have preceded all matter, energy, time and space. It follows that he cannot be a physical being. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross puts it this way:

                      "Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe".

                      That falls outside the scope of science. 

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I am intrigued to see you quote Hugh Ross to make this point, since his books seem to make the case that Christians can look to scientific evidence for proof of a creator — which is antithetical to your own position that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.  Conversely, these are not scientific books.  Ross makes his bias quite clear and makes it plain that he rejects any interpretation of the data that does not point to a created universe.  

                      In any case, this position from Ross about god not existing in time space but in some dimension beyond time is purely speculative, and certainly not the only theory in existence.   Even if Ross' theory turns out to be true (that god exists beyond timespace), it does not follow that science will never understand anything about this other (speculative) dimension — or god itself.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I quoted Ross as an astrophysicist to show that God conceived as the first cause is outside the scope of science. That follows as a matter of simple logic that that which  causes the existence of matter and energy in the first stance  cannot be matter or energy. Such a cause must be outside the laws of physics as we know them. We can only sensibly speak of science as it stands, rather than speculate about what science may be able to eplain in the future.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Nonsense.  You have speculated about several things in this post alone.  Why object to speculating about the future progress of science?


                    • Anonymous says:

                      I am allowed to be based my premise on faith which you are calling speculation. But you claim to base all your views on facts and reason. Since you have equated speculation with faith that must mean that you are exercising faith in science and are not basing your views on evidence and reason.     

                    • Anonymous says:

                      " But you claim to base all your views on facts and reason."

                      Actually, that was not me.  I am well aware of my own humanity.  I have simply pointed out all along that what you represent as "true" through faith is not, in fact, proven.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    Are you quite sure you're not here to stroke you own?  Your tone is rather condescending.

          • O'Really says:

            This posted on response to one of my earlier posts today :


            Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 06/29/2011 – 12:12.


            ""Complexity is increasingly cited as evidence for God, yet the more I think about it, the more this seems counter intuitive. Why should anything be mind boggling in it's complexity if produced by a being who has no limits and could presumably make things happen in just one simple step ( like producing a carbon atom without the need for a finely tuned nuclear resonance)?".


            While it is true that an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent being could have chosen to make things happen in just one simple step, since we cannot know the mind of such an infinite being we cannot asume that he would necessarily have chosen to do so. He may have his own purposes in the unfolding of creation which we cannot fathom. "


            There are a lot of anonymous's around, but some of that wording is awfully familiar. I hope this is not you my friend.

            • Anonymous says:


              • O'Really says:

                Because if you were the poster of both viewpoints, you would be guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Please explain.

                  • O'Really says:

                    A central tenet of Christian dogma is that while it is possible to have some knowledge of God through the Scriptures and revelation, God is not knowable ( definition: capable of being known ). The Bible is specific on this point:


                    "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9)."



                    There is no need to get into the issue of whether or not an infinite God could make himself " knowable " to finite man; God has declared in the Bible that this is not to be and the fact that this is recognised by the poster I was debating is embodied in the words " ….since we cannot know the mind of such an infinite being…."


                    The second post contained the words " Who said anything about God being unknowable?" The clear meaning of this sentence is that God is knowable. There is no limiting wording on the extent to which God is knowable, notwithstanding that to suggest God is knowable in an open ended way runs contrary to accepted Christian philosophy and the Bible.


                    If both posts are by the same author, then one is in accord with Christian teaching and one is not. The poster has challenged a comment on here with a position not supported by the teachings of his own faith and I have reason to believe the poster with whom I was debating is sufficiently well versed in his own faith to know this. This is intellectual dishonesty.


                    • Anonymous says:

                      Thanks for your explanation but it is entirely misconceived. There is no conflict between the two posts and neither is in conflict with the Christian faith. You have wrongly equated knowing God with knowing the mind of God. The post on this thread was given in response to the statement by another poster that "those who believe in a god insist on defining and describing it, when, in fact, nothing can be known about it at all".  This was clearly a rejection of any self-revelation of God through the scriptures or otherwise.

                      The Christian faith is all about entering into a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Jesus said: "This is Eternal Life: that they may KNOW you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" – John 17:3.  Clearly, this does not mean that one knows the mind of God which must be beyond our capacity as He is an infinite being. That is the point of Isaiah 55:8-9 which you quoted. God is knowable to the extent that He reveals Himself to us.

                      I hope this clears up the confusion.

                    • O'Really says:

                      The issue then is one of interpretation of the original posters words. Your interpretation " This was clearly a rejection of any self-revelation of God through the scriptures or otherwise" is not my interpretation.  I believe you have missed the point, but unless the original poster wants to step in and clarify, there is nothing to be gained in debating this further. However I am grateful for your explanation which at least allows me to accept your position is arrived at honestly.



                    • Anonymous says:

                      I would welcome the original poster's comment, but I think his meaning is clear beyond any reasonable doubt from the quote that I provided.

                      "Intellectual dishonesty" is a pretty serious charge. It should be levelled with greater care.  

                    • O'Really says:


                      Of course you think his meaning is clear – one thing you do not lack is certainty in your beliefs. I do not share such certainty and as a consequence I am open to interpretations that do not start from an absolute conviction God exists.  I can think of 2 alternative interpretations and I will deal with the most simple of them.


                      Your quote did not extend to the posters next sentence which in part reads " We simply don't know (yet) whether such an entity exists…." One obvious interpretation of this within the context of the exchange overall is that the poster is suggesting that in any debate of God, a legitimate position to take is that God does not exist. If God does not exist then no matter how elaborate the belief system of Christians, no matter how great the supposed degree of self-revelation, no matter how detailed their descriptions of God, Christians are mistaken. If God does not exist, then asserting that problems with neo-Darwinism are inescapably resolved in God is nonsense. This interpretation is not a rejection of self-revelation ( with it's accompanying underlying assumption that God exists), as you have chosen to characterise it, but a simple statement that it is not possible to know that which does not exist.  


                      My second alternative interpretation, which assumes God does exist, requires a detailed discussion of the concept of the "mind of God", what it means logically if we all agree ( and we seem to ), that man cannot know the mind of God and why this sentence of yours is in error  " You have wrongly equated knowing God with knowing the mind of God. " I'll be honest though and say I am not interested in pursuing this line of discussion, because in the end only one of us is capable of objective thinking facilitated by the absence of an entrenched ideology. With respect, having a pretty good idea what you are going to say before you say it is losing it's appeal.





                    • Anonymous says:

                      When in hole quit digging.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Oreally, stop making a fool of yourself and let the first poster say what he meant. 

                    • Anonymous says:

                      The simple point is that your post reflects a misunderstanding of what Christianity teaches about whether God is knowable and your charge of intellectual dishonesty was therefore ill-founded. The right and proper thing to do was to acknowledge that and apologise. However, your pride and ego will not allow you to acknowledge that. Instead, you have chosen to deflect and adopt a rude and condescending tone to regain your misguided sense of your own superiority. 

                      I hold no malice but I hope you will reflect on and benefit from what I have said.           

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I am the original poster — and am replying quickly here as I have two small children hovering who need my attention.  

                      I would say that my statement can embrace both of these interpretations — and a million other points between them.  My thoughts on god are entirely subjunctive.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      The question was what did you mean, rather than how many interpretations are possible.


                    • Anonymous says:

                      That's right, subjunctive.  Similar in mood and spirit to the verb tense, expressing a condition that is doubtful, not factual, or theoretical.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      LOL. It is one thing to be able to look up a word in a dictionary and another thing to be able to use it properly in a sentence. You need to master the latter. It does not convey the meaning you intend to say that your thoughts are subjunctive. It may also be used to show something wished or hoped for or possible.    

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Please.  I know very well the meaning of the word.  I have Masters degrees in two languages.  Language is a living entity, as I'm sure you know.  This word conveys my meaning better than any other.  Thank you so much, though, for your helpful comments.  


                      "It may also be used to show something wished or hoped for or possible."


                      There…you see?  It's perfect.  It conveys your meaning, too. 

                    • Anonymous says:

                      …which means that it is not an appropriate word for you to use in this context.  

                    • Socrates says:

                      subjunctive |səbˈjə ng (k)tiv| Grammaradjectiverelating to or denoting a mood of verbs expressing what is imagined orwished or possible.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      That was always the danger of O'Really putting words into the poster's mouth. Now the poor poster is not sure what he meant but perceives that at least this way he will get support from OReally.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      To say  that "we simply don't know (yet) whether such an entity exists…." logically must mean that the writer does not accept that any purported scriptures are evidence of the existence of such a god.  That is the only point at hand. The rest of your post is pure waffle.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Mmmmm, waffles….. I love waffles….

                    • O'Really says:

                      Me too.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I am glad you understand.  The original post to which I responded noted that a "finitely [sic] superior intelligence"  was believed, even by some scientists, to have had a hand in shaping the universe, and that "we [I now see you mean Christians] call that God."  But you don't call "that" God, as I noted in my response to that post.  Your god is very specific, and has been described in great detail in your bible, along with his many commandments and laws.  My original post (which you asked me to clarify) pointed out that the theory of a "superior intelligence" may be acceptable to many scientists (and even atheists), but that most would object to the detailed description ofthis intelligence in scripture — since they believe this scripture to be man-made, and not divine. 

                      I did not agree with O'Really's post to get his or her approval, and in fact, did not agree with it in essence.  I pointed out that my meaning was much more broad.  I have no way to know whether any god exists or doesn't exist and don't care to speculate.  Anything is possible.


                    • Anonymous says:

                      "This was clearly a rejection of any self-revelation of God through the scriptures or otherwise."

                      I would be glad to clarify my comments, but first I need you to clarify something for me:  To which scriptures do you refer?

                      It seems to me that that one small word, "the," (as in "the scriptures") represents the vast gulf that lies between our points of view.  I am not sure it will be possible to bridge that gulf here, since your use of the definite article here tells me that you consider only the Christian scriptures to be a revelation of god.  

                      To make a beginning before you reply, I do not reject "any" self-revelation through (some sort of) scripture (or indeed, any other media…many of which are available and seemingly unused by the god you invoke).  I do, however, view "the scriptures" (if by these you mean the Christian bible), as extremely unlikely to be true, for reasons I am sure you have heard from many others before me.  

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I should also point out that I do, in fact, value the bible (particularly the King James version, with its sumptuous language and gorgeous poetry) as a cultural artefact and as living literature.  I see in it (especially in Matthew and Luke, and the Song of Songs) the very best of humanity's search for meaning, truth and beauty. Unfortunately, I also see humanity's worse contained therein — all our weaknesses and failings and cruelty — and not simply as parables or reflections on our behaviour from an omnipotent god.  I see these things inherent in the very act of its writing, in its inception and the motivation for its preservation, and for that reason, I cannot accept it as the word of a benevolent, omnipotent or omniscient creator.  I see it as the work of mankind, as many others do.  In that way, it is no different — and no more privileged — than any other scripture or work of art created by humankind.  This is, of course, my own opinion — and you are very welcome to yours.  

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Not that this is relevant to the issues at hand, but yes I do consider the Judeo-Christian as the scriptures, but I have made allowance for any other revelation by use of the words "or otherwise".

                      You seem to prefer other purported holy books as truth. Please explain which one(s) and why they are superior to the scriptures.      

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I prefer no holy books, thank you.  

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Other scriptures are "purported."  Yours are "THE scriptures".  This is entirely relevant to the issue at hand.  Please reread my original post. It is this very certainty and specificity to which I objected in the first place, in response to your post about the possibility of a "superior intelligence" somewhere out there.


                    • Anonymous says:

                      That is quite right. That would be a standard Christian view. Christians would not consider the Hindu Vedas, e.g., to be a revelation of Almighty God. Are we supposed to apologise? 

                      What is the point that you are making? 

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I don't see why it is relevant at all. If you consider all purported scriptures to be invalid as communications from a god, then what possible difference does it make which scriptures I am referring to?

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Wasn't it, "Ciao" yesterday?

                    • Anonymous says:

                      More circles.  

  7. Anonymous says:

    What do you think the ancients saw? Follow the links to the pictures (Cave drawing from China est 100,000 years old)

    This picture on the follow link is one of several pre-columbian gold figurines that archaeologists thought were some kind of bug. However look at the shape. Looks like the space shuttle doesn't it?

    Then what do you think would happen if s scale model of it was made with a tiny jet engine (although they most likely used mercury vapor) Check it out:

    The point is we were visited over long periods of time and perhaps by different "races" . In India you will find evidence of Vitrified Rock. The only place you will find Vitrified Rock is at Nuclear Test sites or places where Atomic Explosions have taken place. The evidence is clear and everywhere if you look. Yes evolution, Yes Genesis. We remember what 3,000 years. We don't know much do we? We still have war. We are killing our planet. We think we are so smart but we don't really know much do we?

    It does not discount GOD but may kick it up a level. The Universe IS endless





  8. Anonymous says:

    No one discounted evolution. It does take place in animals and primates. Somewhere between Australopithecus and us there was a giant leap forward…too fast for evolution. Within a short period of time (maybe 100,000 years) we went from cracking snails with rocks to building pyramids. Too fast for evolution. Our second and third chromosones are in fact fused together. This is not a natural thing. Noah? Today we have giant DNA banks frozen underground with DNA from animals seeds from all of the plant life we have been able to collect. Why? In case we are whacked by an asteroid or some other type of catasrophe. The ARC was a collection of species someone wanted saved while the great flood wiped out all of the genetic mistakes. Apparently there was some genetic tinkering going on an all sorts of strange thinks were running loose. Certain species including some early homonids needed to disappear. Noah being trusted and pure was assigned essential to this task. How do you think all the animals where collected 2 by 2 from all parts of the earth an bought to him. Just the species that someone wanted saved? Just repeating what was written. Not making it up so don't shoot the messenger.

    • Chuck Darwin says:

      Modern evolutionary models are consistent with all of this – the gradual accretion change model of the early days has moved on with empirical evidence to show that large changes in very short periods of time in terms of generations are very common indeed.  And chromosome fusion is evidence of the common ancestry with other primates.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Not chariots of the gods exactly but hey…… "poof" it can be exactly the way you want it to be. Having no reasons must be be better.

  10. Anonymous says:

    The point is that we  could not have evolved from primates without genetic intervention. Our Chromosones were fused. I would encourage anyone to look beyond what we think…remember it doesn't discount the Bible or God.  It may bring you clarity. There is a tablet (cylinder seal) unearthed in Sumaria which depicts solar system" long ago. There is an the image of the "sun" being circled by ten planets in the upper left of this ancient Sumerian cylinder seal. Remember folks, they could not have seen this with the naked eye. This was long (LONG)before people though the world was flat. They could only have know if the the they knowledge was bought here. This leads to a lot of new ways to look at things….Atlantis, Pyramids, The Aztecs. We have forgotten where we came from. Much of the ancient material where burned when the Library of Alexandria was burned down in AD 46–120. However many parts of the book of Enoch survived. and you just never know folks

    "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
    "To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."


    So be good boys and girls


  11. Anonymous says:

    eden = this is a sumerian word meaning steppe land or land between two large rivers. What is between the tigris and euphraties rivers. The Bible speaks of the Hebrew word 'Elohim', meaning 'God' or 'those who came from the sky'. Genesis Chapter 1:26, states 'And God said, let us make man in our own image, after our likeness' eden was the place where "they lived" . "Eve was created from Adams Rib" was the very basic understanding genetic engineering that was being witness. None of this dicounts the Bible at all except that parts of the Bible that were designed ti onfluence and control. Genesis was a recorded historical fact a witness by the people who saw it but interpreted the only way they knew how to come to terms with what they saw. "God" didn't concern himself with worldly this things but the Angels (astronauts) who had the attentiona of the people (afterally they could fly and cool gadgets) thought, wow back home I'm just a regular guy but here I can have anything I want. People worship me and I can have lots of girlfriends. GENESIS 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

    The "Angels" that concerned themselves with worldly things "of the flesh" or "lust" stayed behind and were of course "the fallen angels" . None of this dicounts Genesis and there is an explanation for everything if you look hard enough. The Great Flood, Noah…it is all true.

    Evolution of man? in simple terms…all primates have 48 chromosomes (24+24) except humans, which have their
    second and third chromosome "fused" together. Why are our second and third chromosones fused together like "Dolly" the genteically engineered sheep? Becuase….Eve was made from Adams Rib or in other words direct genetic intervention by someone who basically has the technology that we now have today.


    • A. Theist says:

      If Noah and the Flood are true explain how all the Blue Iguanas swam exclusively to the Cayman Islands and all the wombats swam to Australia without leaving any trace of their journey or stragglers behind.  The rapid delineation of isolated species into new species especially in island environments is excellent evidence to support evolution.

      • Anonymous says:

        A. Theist, It was rather obvious to me from a child that he was speaking of the world as he knew it. There was no world flood as most christians think.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Study Ancient Sumaria. When you do read Genesis again. It is a recorded historical fact. It is how people who didn't really understand what they were witnessing interpreted what they saw. "The sons of the Gods " came to earth. Angels? or Astronauts….we look like them. It is who we are. We forgot where we came from. Yes, religion was there to control and the bible is influence heavily by the "watchers". Jesus refered to book of Enoch. Read up on that. Hold on to your hats folks. Look hard and it will all make sense.

    • Clair Ity says:

      Need some more tinfoil over here….

      • Anonymous says:

        Clair Ity, or lack of it, I should say. This poster has done some research into the history of Ancient Sumeria, some facts of which actually baffle scientists today.

        And since the scientists are baffled, don't you think that the poster is entitled to his opinion?

        Rather than research his claims, you have come out with some profound comment about "tin foil".

        This shows a serious lack of maturity. I suggest that you re-evaluate your approach because in my opinion, you are becoming somewhat rude.

    • Anonymous says:

      We have heard it all before in "Chariots of the Gods". Not convincing.

  13. MER says:

    I feel that people need to realize one of the sole purposes of religion was to control, intimidate and influence the people of the world, to act, think, work and believe whatever the Governments of the world want the minorities to believe.

    If this isn't true then why did kings, queens, emperors, pharohs and the list goes on insist on killing the masses that did not believe in the same religious theories that they did? Uniformity is stability when it comes to being one ruler over thousands or sometimes millions, once you have all your "countrymen" believing in everything you believe in there is less chance of an uprising.

    With that said, we get back to this evolution thingy, for any person who truly understands God for "what" God really is, it is less difficult to realize that the chance that the world did "evolve" and not come into being in the 7 day period as stated in Genesis is quite likely. Pastors pick what they want to teach us, some parts they want us to take literally and other parts they don't want us to take literally, in reality no part of the Bible can be taken literally at all, so why should we feel that God's seven days would be the equivelent to our own? Did he not say a thousand of our days passes as one of His?

    If the Bible is to be taken literally, then when it says "if your right eye offends you pluck it out" no one wants to believe that is literal, and of course it is not, so why then is it difficult to realize neither is much of anything else? There is ALOT about God that has been hidden and kept secret from us to make the "common person" feel less important, keep them below their true abilities and attainments for the purpose of control, and we have been bred to be so simple-minded, accepting everything that is fed to us that our minds have closed off the realities of our lives and true spiritual capabilities and existence.

    • Anonymous says:

      "…in reality no part of the Bible can be taken literally at all".

      That is a broad sweeping statement for which you have absolutely no basis.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I am sure that none of the readers and commentators have the education to even think about understanding what the truth is.

    We believe what our parents told us, or what the pastor tells us, some even believe what politicians say.

    A tiny minority of people is capable of understanding what is going on. This is all hearsay . . . .


    • MER says:

      Fully agree with you, hence the "thumbs down" on both our posts, it actually is hilarious to me that when a person attempts to enlighten others to the reality that 3/4's of what we've been taught for the past few hundred years is a sham. Like people are content to believe there is nothing the Governments can do about the "recession".

      Few points to consider:

      1. Money is made from the shreadings of jeans (please google the history channel episode of "making money" if this sounds crazy).

      2. If money is made from jeans clippings (which they purchase meanly from "Levi's"), then how can their be a shortage? I could understand if it was a natural resource; but a man-made fabric? "lightbulb!"

      3. If OUR Government is so broke, can you explain to me where we got the funding to create our "new money" and the resources to incinerate our old dollar bills? I'd think the common sense thing to do if we're "broke" would be to distribute the old dollars to the banks or use them to fund government projects and expenses, if recovering from the so-called "recession" is really such a priority!!!!.

      If these points don't open your mind to the reality that the world's Governments are only in place to manipulate, control, intimidate and boss around the minorities a.k.a their so-called "people", then your intellectual capabilities are hopeless, happy armageddon to you!

  15. Anonymous says:

    No one can prove that the theory of evolution as proclaimed is absolute fact, as many try to declare.
    In reality it is a theory based on incomplete,  unreliable and often mis-applied evidence.  To truly believe it, adherents have to exercise great faith in the teachings, writings and works of the promoters of the concept.
    To believe that the Laws of Nature originated out of haphazard happenings, and that they continue to function reliably without a master- planner and sustainer, requires much blind faith.
    When one considers how there are male and female of virtually every kind of creature and that there is an inherent attraction of one to the other, that causes reproduction of each specie after their own kind, it is impossible to reconcile that to haphazard evolution.
    Also think about the millions of stars and various other heavenly bodies floating around in space, travelling at great speed, yet not crashing into each other.
    The idea of intelligent- design, whether you like it or not, is much more logical.
    The Holy Bible says “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”   (No precise date or time- frame was given).
    Since the Bible also says that “everyone of us shall give an account of himself to God,”  It is easy to understand that men would like to avoid that,  and therefore try to disprove the existence of an eternal Almighty God.
    Having read the Holy Bible myself, I have absolute confidence in its writings, have proven many of its teachings  and have observed a number of its prophecies coming true in my lifetime, but I am quick to admit that many people misinterpret many of its teachings.   I recommend that both those who trust the scriptures and  those who reject it, spend time reading and scrutinizing it for themselves

    • Anonymous says:

      I think in the end we will all find out that reality is somewhere in between the extreme Christian and extreme evolutionist supporter.The problem is that there are not many believing in a compromise. the christian believes he has the one and only true way and the volutionist believes the same. Both theories has holes in them.  

      • Anonymous says:

        Except that one is a theory that is supported by evidence, and one is a fairy tale that is not – it's what I like to call, wrong.

        There are no holes in evolution, just in the understanding of evolution in those who talk about it without educating themselves about it.  

        • Anonymous says:

          Anon 0748 you sound just like the blind christians that claim the bible is 100%. If there are no holes in evolution then why is it that the scientist dont all believe in it 100%.

          It is like global warming we dont know everything. But there are those like yourselves that is going to pass yourself off as such.

          • Anonymous says:

            I double-dog dare you to name one (real) scientist who doesn't believe in evolution.  Just one…

            • Anonymous says:

              Anon 1315 try

              Sir Fred Hoyle, a famous UK astronomer

              Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in Biology after discovering DNA

              British physicist Sir James Jean

              NASA astronomer Robert Jastrow

              astronomer George Greenstein

              Physicist and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias

              Knock yourself out there are many more. You are as blind as the extreme christians. This site would not allow me to post you a website as part of their spam protection.


              • Anonymous says:

                I'll have to call bullsxit on you, but I'll do this one at a time.  I started checking you out with Crick, and what didI find but that his beliefs were the exactly opposite of what you say they were. Caught you in a lie, I did.

                From Wikipedia: "Crick's name was raised in this context in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial over the teaching of intelligent design. Crick was, however, a firm critic of Young Earth creationism. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom." Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday."

                He believed in Darwin so much that he wanted a national holiday made for him.

                I'll be back with more to embarrass you further.  Please stand by.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Anon you are not embarrasing anyone. Just proves that the internet has more than one point for an individual. But here is the thing that you are not realising. First I have no problem with evolution nor do I have any problem with christianity. As I said more than one time the truth lies somewhere in between.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    The problem is that the truth does not lie in between: where Christianity enters the realm of science it errs, and evolution does not say there is or isn't a god – it only says things about our physical world. 

                    If Christians were to say, "OK, the Bible got it wrong when talking about the origins of the Earth and life on it, or better yet what it said wasn't meant literally but only for spiritual guidance.", then we'd all be fine.  Science has proved conclusively that life evolves, and the fossil records show a trail that demonstrates that evolution has been going on continuously for millions of years.  For Christians to come along and say, "Nope, that didn't happen" just doesn't work. 

                    You don't hear (all of the) evolutionists saying there isn't a god, do you?  They just say "Here's the science.  Do with it as you will."

                    This isn't a compromise where you meet in the middle. Evolutionists don't say anything about god, but Christians say science is wrong.  For so long as Christians hold an intolerant inflexible view, there isn't room to co-exist.


                    • Anonymous says:

                      The most famous evolutionist in the world today is Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist. He wrote a book called "The God Delusion" written to ridicule belief in God.  Many other scientists have taken their cue from him. So yes, we do hear evolutionists saying there is no god. All the time actually. Clearly, this is "an intolerant belief that leaves no room to co-exist".  

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Not intolerant. He/we tolerate religion. But ridiculed yes and so it should be. Seeing these attempts of religous pseudo science and von Daniken type endeavours saddens me and actually makes me doubt evolution. We are apparently still a long way from a rational enlightened society.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      You appear to have one definition of intolerance for Christians and another for evolutionists. Dawkins clear objective is to promote atheism and alienate people of faith.  

              • Anonymous says:

                I'll give you that Hoyle believed it, but he also believed that life came from outer space (which may well be correct) and that evolution progressed by the introduction of new viruses from passing comets, which is surely wrong based on current data.  

                His calculations that led him to his views were in error, and his beliefs are wholly rejected amongst scientists to the point where they are actually labelled "Hoyles Fallacy":

                Wikipedia: "Hoyle's Fallacy is rejected by all evolutionary biologists, since "no biologist imagines that complex structures arise in a single step."…".  In short, he was wrong.

                Please stand by.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Your admission here means that the poster has succeeded in meeting the "double-dog name one (real) scientist who doesn't believe in evolution.  Just one…". Hoyle was a real scientist and a very eminent one at that.  Given that he was a critic of darwinian evolutionary theory, to say that evoutionary biologists disagree with him is to say nothing at all.  


                  • O'Really says:

                    I'm inclined to think that the original poster conceded on Hoyle a little too easily. To suggest that Hoyle did not believe in evolution is wrong; he did not believe in Darwinian evolution because he thought that both the origin of life and the catalyst for evolutionary change came from space, as opposed to life arising from "primordial soup" on Earth and genetic change arising from chemical evolution.


                    But he did believe in the process of evolution based on his initial premises. Here is a quote from Hoyle to this effect ""The Darwinian theory is wrong and the continued adherence to it is an impediment to discovering the correct evolutionary theory"


                    If you are anti-evolution in all senses, Hoyle is no ally.


                    • Anonymous says:

                      I think when one says "evolution" it is understood that one is referring to darwinian or neo-darwinian evolutionary theory. Most Christians believe in micro evolution since that may be proved by observation.

                      The issue is whether evolution was directed by a superior intelligence, or whether as neo-darwinian theory suggests, consciousness on earth emerged from matter through a partially random process. Hoyle would be in complete agreement with the former position.  

                    • O'Really says:

                      "The issue is whether evolution was directed by a superior intelligence, or whether as neo-darwinian theory suggests, consciousness on earth emerged from matter through a partially random process."

                      But is this the issue? The title of this thread is " Christian faith requires accepting evolution," because there is a vocal component of that religion that does not accept the concept of evolution, directed or otherwise. Hoyle would not be in any sort of agreement with the idea that evolution does not exist.

                      He certainly argued for the existence of superior intelligence, but this should not be taken to mean he believed in God. His opposition to the Big Bang theory and the development of his alternative steady state theory was based in part on his firmly held belief that the universe is eternal and required no creator. 

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I was not for one moment arguing that Hoyle believed in God or that he did not believe in any form of evolution. It was precisely because he did not believe in God but knew that Darwinian evolution was untenable given the clear evidence of design and particularly given the age of the earth that he reached for his panspermia theory although there is no evidence of that. Scientists invent all sortsof suppositions to avoid the reality that God exists.

                      As I explained when one refers to believing in evolution it isunderstoof that one is referring to Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolutionary where consciousness arises from matter through a partially random process.  

                      As a Christian myself I consider it would be utter folly to deny evolution in any form.  

                    • O'Really says:

                      It is interesting how we are so close but so far! 


                      I accept Hoyle believed, but not that he could " know" that Darwinian evolution was untenable. His objection to Darwin appears to me to have been based on his deep seated belief that the concept of survival of the fittest was demonstrably disastrous for humanity ( as evidenced by 2 world wars ) and therefore was ideologically unacceptable to him. Adherence to an ideologic belief led him to seek an alternative, much as adherence to the belief that the universe was eternal led him to the steady state concept. Whilst both are evidence of great intellect, neither are evidence of intellectual objectivity.


                      As you say, there is no evidence to support his belief in the panspermia hypothesis. However, there is also no evidence to support his hypothesis that all genes exhibited in known organisms ( the mechanism by which Darwinian evolution is by-passed), existed in toto before the Cambrian explosion. One you reject as unsupported by evidence explaining that  " Scientists invent all sorts of suppositions to avoid the reality that God exists." The other you accept, although equally unsupported by evidence, because it suits your pre-existing ideological position. 



                    • Anonymous says:

                      As I tried to explain in my previous post (perhaps not very well) Hoyle's rejection of Darwinian evolution was based on his computation of the odds of one simple bacterium arising from a primordial soup – 1 in 1040,000 and the estimated age of the earth. It is so extremely improbable that it must be rejected.  The time required for this would be many, many times the estimated age of the earth (set at the standard 4.6 billion years).

                      To quote from his book The Intelligent Universe: "as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance".

                      And yes, I am aware of what his critics call "Hoyle's fallacy" but whether or not his computation was precisely correct the fact remains that the neo-darwinian theory of intelligence arising by accident from a primordial soup is extremely improbable. Recognising this more and more evolutionists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) are turning to some form of panspermia because they are ideologically opposed to theistic evolution.  

                    • O'Really says:

                      Again we are close but not quite on the same page. My view is that Hoyle's rejection of Darwinism is indeed motivated by his ideology as expressed ( very briefly ) in my previous post. Support for his rejection he found in the application of maths to the issues involved. 


                      I have stayed away from a critique of Hoyle's work. You are aware of Hoyle's fallacy and are unimpressed, so what would be the point? And eventually we circle back to belief, expressed in your post by the implication that intelligence arising by accident is inherently more improbable than the existence of God, in your case the Christian God. My response – not to me! 


                      My final comment on this. The concept of panspermia does not in my view address the issue of the creation of life. It just kicks the issue into the realm of the universe. Nor does it necessarily negate Darwin's theory of evolution, which does not address the issue of how life started, only how it evolved.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      We agree on one thing: "The concept of panspermia does not in my view address the issue of the creation of life. It just kicks the issue into the realm of the universe".

                      "The implication that intelligence arising by accident is inherently more improbable than the existence of God, in your case the Christian God. My response – not to me!"

                      I understand that, but I also understand that that is an expression of your ideology and is not based on pure reason. While you may choose to believe that intelligence arising by accident is not so extremely improbable as to be a mathematical impossibility that is an argument you must have with mathematics, and not only Hoyle's:

                      “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”

                      – Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist)
                      Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry

                    • O'Really says:

                      Actually I don't have a well defined ideology. I do not believe in God, but do not rule out the possibility that a higher intellect exists. I do not believe science has all the answers, nor do I believe science will necessarily be able to come up with all the answers over time.


                      The problem with discussing an issue such as evolution is that unless one is an expert in the field, there is no option but to rely on the work of others. For every expert you produce to support your position, I can find another one who refutes the findings, Ilya Prigogine being no exception. I take this as a sign that the jury is out; you take it as a sign the verdict is in. The difference is belief. Your belief leads you to the view, flawed in my opinion, that disproving one thing necessarily proves another. So in the case of evolution, if you can disprove the theory, you prove God exists, but you overlook the point that there is no way you can even be certain that all options have been identified, let alone explored. Hoyle's hypothesis is a case in point, which requires neither evolution nor God. 


                      I post on this subject because it interests me, not because I have an ideological position to promote, nor because I have a desire to change someone else's mind. I hope to learn, or at least have my eyes opened and this exchange has been enjoyable. It has led me to consider complexity. Complexity is increasingly cited as evidence for God, yet the more I think about it, the more this seems counter intuitive. Why should anything be mind boggling in it's complexity if produced by a being who has no limits and could presumably make things happen in just one simple step ( like producing a carbon atom without the need for a finely tuned nuclear resonance)?  I see endless hours of stimulation in my immediate future.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      "Complexity is increasingly cited as evidence for God, yet the more I think about it, the more this seems counter intuitive. Why should anything be mind boggling in it's complexity if produced by a being who has no limits and could presumably make things happen in just one simple step ( like producing a carbon atom without the need for a finely tuned nuclear resonance)?".

                      I don't see why that is counterintuitive at all. While it is true that an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent being could have chosen to make things happen in just one simple step, since we cannot know the mind of such an infinite being we cannot asume that he would necessarily have chosen to do so. He may have his own purposes in the unfolding of creation which we cannot fathom. 

                      What is counterintuitive is that something which has all the appearance of design (even evolutionists admit this) of intricate complexity and even intelligence could have been produced by, at least in part, a random process from matter.   


                    • O'Really says:

                      I had hoped we had progressed beyond the " mind of God " defence, but, oh well.


                      Peace indeed.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      No need to progress beyond that until you have got a good answer to it.  

                    • Anonymous says:

                      "Nor does it necessarily negate Darwin's theory of evolution, which does not address the issue of how life started, only how it evolved"

                      Ah, but it does negate neo-darwinism which hypothesises the origin of life from an organic soup. Hoyle was enamoured with Darwinism at all:

                        "Darwinism is physical and mathematical nonsense, and it is logical nonsense as well, for a sound thinker does not assume anything which must be deduced from his theory. Darwinism is, indeed, far more a blunder than a theory, and physical scientists should have shown this clearly and effectively decades ago".

                    • Anonymous says:

                      "1 in 1040,000".

                      I am afraid the process of posting distorted this. It should be 1 to a number with 40 thousand zeros after it. According to Hoyle this would be roughly comparable to rolling double-sixes 50,000 times in a row with unloaded dice.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      No, no, no, no, NO!

                      Evolution speaks to the past modifications to life forms and the on-going evolution of all species.  Christians can believe in the science or not.  Whether or not evolution was and is guided by God is entirely different!  Evolution is a scientific fact about our physical world, but God is not.  Christians err because they say that the Bible says that evolution is wrong, while evolutionist say that the science is what it is and does not need God to explain the physical phenomenon, but let's be absolutely clear here:

                      Evolution does not say that there is no God, evolution says that what Christians say that the bible says about the evolution of species is wrong.  God can quite easily exist as the guiding hand behind evolution, without being a physical part of it, but this does mean that Christians who deny the whole of evolution (and the "micro-evolution" sidestep is bullshit) are just wrong.  They need to revise their views on God so as to align with physical reality.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I am not sure what the "no, no, no, no No" is all about. What is your point?  

                      As I explained micro evolution is proved by observation. Macro evolution is not. It is simply an interpretation of physical reality and not physical reality itself.   

              • Anonymous says:

                James Jeans doesn't fare very well, as he seems to think the universe is just a thought, not a physical thing… you would be a brain cell on his theory.

                ""I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe… In general the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine. It may well be, it seems to me, that each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind."

                "What remains is in any case very different from the full-blooded matter and the forbidding materialism of the Victorian scientist. His objective and material universe is proved to consist of little more than constructs of our own minds. To this extent, then, modem physics has moved in the direction of philosophic idealism. Mind and matter, if not proved to be of similar nature, are at least found to be ingredients of one single system. There is no longer room for the kind of dualism which has haunted philosophy since the days of Descartes." Sir James Jeans addressing the British Association in 1934."

                • Anonymous says:

                  "James Jeans doesn't fare very well, as he seems to think the universe is just a thought, not a physical thing… you would be a brain cell on his theory".

                  I am not the original poster but this comment clearly does does not accurately represent the quote you posted and reflects poorly on  your level of comprehension.  As you own quote reveals James Jean is saying that the material universe is a derivative of consciousness [i.e. that infinite intelligence we call God] not consciousness from the material universe [as atheistic evolution would have it].  

                  • Amonymous says:

                    Sorry, I don't agree.  I've studied the philosophy of mind, epistemology and "mind in reality" for years.  I do in fact have a degree in it.  I stand by the short description I provided.  Where physical reality exists as a manifestation of the mind, an unavoidable conclusion follows that knowledge of the physical is nothing other than what is known about the idea, and thus reality is nothing BUT the idea.  Jeans took it further and constituted the universe as the effect of an idea, probably thought by god, and that the sparks of consciousness that we are were but cells of the brain thinking the idea.  We'd all be part of god ion that view.  

                    Now this is all complete and utter horse shxt, but I did describe it fairly.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I really don't care how many degrees you claim to have or in what subjects.  It is plain that James Jean did not suggest that "the universe is just a thought, not a physical thing". That is absolute nonsense. You have now correctly stated that physical reality exists as a manifestation of the mind but are still trying to pretend that these are equivalent statements. You attempted to create a 'straw man' and now you are now trying to baffle with BS.   

              • Anonymous says:

                On Robert Jastrow I can't find a view on evolution, but his views on creation were thus:

                "His expressed views on creation were that although he was an "agnostic, and not a believer", it seems to him that "the curtain drawn over the mystery of creation will never be raised by human efforts, at least in the foreseeable future" due to "the circumstances of the big bang-the fiery holocaust that destroyed the record of the past"."

                I'll keep looking, but the results so far certainly don't help you.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I don't think you are looking very hard.

                  “This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth… [But] for the scientist who haslived by his faith in the powerof reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

                  – Robert Jastrow (God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. 

              • Anonymous says:

                George Greenstein wrote 'The Symbiotic Universe', where he is described as writing:

                "He shows how extraordinary "coincidences" that created an environment suitable for the evolution of life in the universe are actually based in the laws of physics, making biological life likely, if not a sure thing."

                This does not make him an anti-evolutionist as you say. Wrong again.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Greenstein also wrote:

                  "As we survey all the evidence, the thought instantly arises that some supernatural agency, or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? " 

            • Anonymous says:

              Sir Fred Hoyle, world renown astronomer, Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge. Amongst the numerous awards and distinctions bestowed on him were the UN Kalinga Prize, 1968, the Royal Medal of the Royal Society and the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society.  In 1997 he was awarded the highly prestigious Crafoord Prize by the Swedish Academy in recognition of outstanding basic research in fields not covered by the Nobel prize.  He was a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Foreign Associate of the US National Academy of Sciences.

              Sir Fred, who I hope you will agree was a "real" scientist had this to say on the subject:

              "A super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology … The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number of 10 with 40 thousand noughts (zeros) after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of a purposeful intelligence," (Nature: vol.294:105, Nov 12 1981).


              • Anonymous says:

                Hoyle’s Fallacy – double oooooops.

                • Anonymous says:

                  "Hoyle's fallacy" is merely what his analogy has been dubbed by those, chiefly Richard Dawkins,  who disagree with its conclusion. Tellingly, what his detractors do not offer is their own calculation of the odds based on what they consider to be the appropriate analogy. The bottom line is that whatever proper analogy you use complex organisms arising randomly from a primordial soup is going to be so extremely improbable as to be mathematically impossible given the estimated age of the earth (4.6 billion years).  

                  • Anonymous says:

                    I can see that it is of course infinitely more probable that theres an old white dude with a beard in the sky that governs us all. The formula would be something like

                    old white dude = insanity + ignorance

                    • Anonymous says:

                      That is a puerile response that reflects your own ignorance. The fact is that many top scientists have now concluded that there is an infinite intelligence which guided the evolution of life on earth.  They are neither ignorant nor insane.  

                  • Amonymous says:

                    "Tellingly, what his detractors do not offer is their own calculation of the odds based on what they consider to be the appropriate analogy"

                    That's because the premise is so very wrong in the first place, and therefore more erroneous calculation need not be made.  However improbable life on earth was, and there is a perfectly good argument that it actually was rather probable in the circumstances, it is not rendered more probable by hypothesizing an invisible sky fairy.  On the contrary, that just takes a complex scientific problem and turns it into a puddle of meaningless metaphysical goo.  

                    Hoyle's Fallacy was named as such because it is so very wrong.  Were it otherwise, where are all the supporters flying the Hoyle flag?  OK, there are none, so here we are.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      "However improbable life on earth was, and there is a perfectly good argument that it actually was rather probable in the circumstances".

                      That is pure, unadulterated nonsense. To what circumstances are youy referring? To what perfectly good argument do you allude?

                      "Hoyle's Fallacy was named as such because it is so very wrong. Were it otherwise, where are all the supporters flying the Hoyle flag? OK, there are none, so here we are".

                      Truth is not judged by how many people agree, but nonetheless there are more and more top scientists who have reached Hoyle's conlcusion as it relates to a superior intelligence guiding evolution and have concluded that life evolving through a random process is mathematically impossible. Even Richard Dawkins has posited a panspermia hypothesis in an effort to avoid the obvious conclusion of theism.    

                    • Anonymous says:

                      "That's because the premise is so very wrong in the first place, and therefore more erroneous calculation need not be made"

                      Absolute rubbish. A theory built on random events must be checked against the probabilities of those events. If it cannot withstand that scrutiny then it is not a valid theory.

            • Anonymous says:

              How about a list of over 800 scientists showing qualifications/positions held that don't believe in Darwinian evolution can explain the complexity of life? 



    • Anonymous says:

      You got to be kidding me  . . . . . .

      Any idea how many time this bible has been rewritten and books left out.

      Do you actually believe a god created the earth in 6 days ?

      And we all come from adam and eve ? Ever heard of inbreed ?

      My advice is to read the bible as a more symbolic book. Written in a time when people had zero education.

      You're brainwashed . . . . . .


      • Anonymous says:

        "Any idea how many time this bible has been rewritten and books left out".

        I am not sure what you mean by "rewritten". Do you mean that it had to be copied from manuscript to manuscript? If so, the evidence is clear that the Bible is best preserved book of antiquity by far. It has thousands manuscripts occurring in different places and at different times and yet textually they are 95% identical and the remaining 5% are obvious copyist error or variant spellings. it is pretty astounding that the Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered in a cave in 1947 and were written around 100-200 BC correspond with the manuscripts from the Masoretic text the earliest  copy of which dates back to about 900 AD.

        "Books left out" suggest that they had some right to be put in. Books were not included merely because they contained the word "God" or "Jesus". Please don't believe the sensationlist hype they have on the History Channel. The books of the OT in Protestant bibles were derived from the Jewish canon. Those in the Roman Catholic OT included books which were included in the Septuagint but were never officially a part of the canon. All of the books of the NT were the earliest written and were written either by the apostles or those closely connected to them. There were of course many pseudigraphical books that appeared later, e.g. the gnostic gospels. They were of a completely different character and taught a different and sometimes contradictory gospel from the books that had already been received and so were not included.

        And please none of that Dan Brown nonsense about Constantine which books were to be in the Bible. Dan Brown never lets historical facts get in the way of a good story.            


    • Yo mama says:

      To the previous post at 14:50–

      You are skepticalof evolution but you "know" the Bible is 100 percent accurate.


      Wow, talk about a brain gone wrong.


      Please, do yourself a favor and learn science from credible science teachers and scientists. The preachers don't know what they are talking about. Preachers don't know science and they have a biased agenda. They want to keep you in line so you won't question their fairy tales–and keep tithing, of course.


      That god you believe in gave you a brain, right? So use it! Think for yourself, my friend. It might hurt a bit at first, but it gets better.


      Evolution is a fact. It is one of the most well established facts in all of science. There is no doubt, no controversy about whether or not life evolves. The only only controversy is between people who understand this and people who have a nostalgic yearning for the Dark Ages.


      You also don't understand what a scientific theory is. Look it up. "Theory" in science does not mean a hunch or guess.


      Seriously, stop listening to preachers on matters of science and stop reading religious oriented Web sites that talk about science. They are confusing you with lies and ignorance.

      If you want to understand a science issue and not sound like a Medieval astrologer who got kicked in the head by a mule, then read credible books by real scientists.Trust me, you will be better for it. Reality is great.

      Good luck (I mean that)


      • Anonymous says:

        Yo mama

        Why is it that you ask him to use his brain for excepting the bible 100% when you have excepted evolution 100%?


        Not even the train scientist except evolution 100% and yet you an unqualified individual can?

        I believe personally that the truth lies somewhere in between the two. I personally except parts of evolution theory but not all. There are still questions left unanswered.

      • Anonymous says:


        Rejecting the scriptures exempts no one from the consequences and penalties described in them!

        • Anonymnous says:

          If they were true, but they are not, so it's irrelevant.

          If I wrote on a bubble gum wrapper that you would have to pay me a million dollars, the fact that you don't beleive in my bubble gum wrapper doesn't mean that you get away without paying me the million dollars, right?  Of course not. The mistake you make is obvious.  When you assume the truth of the source information, also rejecting the truth of the source information leads to immediate logical conflicts and inconsistencies, and nothing about what you are doing helps determine if the source information is correct or not, because you just assumed it was true at the outset.  The fact that you are wrong can never be examined for so long as you hold that base assumption. 

        • Yo mama says:

          To post 8:27


          I agree, which is why you will burn in hell for all eternity for your crime of eating crab and lobster! (you might want to reread Leviticus, homey)


          Are you a parent? If so, has your child ever been disobedient to you? Yes? Then that means you were obligated to kill him or her, according to the Bible that you say must be followed or else. What, you didn't perform the execution? Oh, sorry it's off to hell with you.


          Have you ever done laundry on the Sabbath? Yes? Then it's the eternal lake of fire for you.


          Are you man? Ever shave your beard? Yes, oh boy, the Devil will definitely be seeing you on judgement day.


          Got a tatoo? Uh oh…


          Yes, our jealous God will make you pay for your transgressions against His word. You will pay with pain and suffering until the end of time. Tremble as his wrath approaches.

          And, don't forget, he loves you!


          • Anonymous says:

            I know you desperately want your words to be true, and then it would appear that you are smarter than God. Alas, none of your eloquence can change the fact that you have a face to face date with your glorious Maker. (In praising Him, I am respecting you)
            Unfortunately at that time, it will be too late to hoist your sails in another direction and everything will become crystal clear.

            To multiplied many of us, it is already clear and we have raised our sails to receive the living breath of the King that will safely guide us home.

            I wish you enlightenment and peace.

        • Jumbles says:

          Unless of course the consequences and penalties are entirely fictional.

    • Chuck D says:

      "No one can prove that the theory of evolution as proclaimed is absolute fact, as many try to declare.  In reality it is a theory based on incomplete,  unreliable and often mis-applied evidence."

      This is gibberish.  The scientific case for evolution is unassailable and can be proved by many different routes – have a read of "The Greatest Show On Earth" – each chapter is a free standing route to see how evolution can be proved.

      There may be arguments within evolutionary biology as to how specific elements of evolution progressed but that does NOT mean that evolution is unproven.  That is like saying because we have arguments about how gravity works, gravity is "only a theory".

      What is unreliable and misapplied is creationists attempts to distort the science of evolution to create false doubt. 

      • Anonymous says:

        "Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms." (Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Geological and Paleontological Arguments," in Godfrey L.R., ed., "Scientists Confront Creationism," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1983, p.156).

        • Chuck Darwin says:

          That would be like quoting Rutherford and saying that because he was wrong, particle physics is nonsense.  Most modern evolutionary biologists would not support smooth transitions.  Rather the spurt and rapid change models are now more consistent with empirical data.

          • Anonymous says:

            I think you know that that is facile.

            Take the empirical data of the Cambrian explosion. The real challenge of the Cambrian explosion is the wide variety of fossilizable forms which appeared at more or less the same instant in geological time. Every single phyla represented by modern day organisms — certainly all those with fossilizable parts — were included, yet for none is there any clearly identifiable ancestor. It is explaining the simultaneous and abrupt appearance of those which is one of the leading challenges in evolutionary biology. 

            • Amonymous says:

              Unknown accelerants do not undermine the science of evolution.  Japan is now having rabbits born without ears, though we have some idea as to why that is.  If the earth were partially doused in gamma ray radiation from a distant supernova that could easily have given things a stir.  We don't know all the things that can cause acceleration, but we certainly know some.  The fact that we don't have radiation measurements or whatever for that event does not undermine evolution.

              • Anonymous says:

                Of course they don't. You get to ignore all contrary evidence or indulge in wild speculation about gamma radiation from a distant supernova although there is absolutely no evidence of the same or that it would have had any such effect. That's not science, my friend.  

                • Anonymous says:

                  If you know A, B, C, E, and F, and you know there is something between C and E but can only speculate about what it is, you nonetheless still have an alphabet.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    Not sure how this relates to the point.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      First there was evolution, cooking along at normal speed (A, B, and C).

                      Then something appears to have accelerated it for a brief period (D), but we don't know if that appearance is because there was more going on earlier for which we have no fossil record, or there was some change or other factor that increased the rate of evolution, or something else: in short, we don't know what D is.

                      Then evolution goes back to cooking along at normal speed (E and F).

                      D provides an interesting challenge, but our lack of understanding of it (through a lack of evidence about it) does not negate the existence of A, B, C, E, F, and all the letters that our science says will follow.

                      Sure radiation is speculation, but we've got A, B, C, E, and F downcold.  What we don't have is this:

                      "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth."  Nope, there was a big bang, an expanding universe, a few births and deaths of star systems that provided the parts for our solar system, then our solar accretion disc formed, then planets etc…. so that was wrong.

                      "…then God created light."  Nope, we're all pretty certain the sun was working before the planet formed.

                      "…then God created Land."  Nope, see the first section.

                      "…then God created…" …well you get the picture, don't you?


                    • Anonymous says:

                      "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth."  Nope, there was a big bang, an expanding universe, a few births and deaths of star systems that provided the parts for our solar system, then our solar accretion disc formed, then planets etc…. so that was wrong.
                      "…then God created light."  Nope, we're all pretty certain the sun was working before the planet formed…you get the picture?".

                      I am afraid you don't get the picture. First, Genesis was not intended as a scientific treatise but was intended to convey certain spiritual truths. Theoverall truth that God created the heavens and the earth (the Hebrew words for heavens and earth literally refer to the entire physical cosmos of matter, energy space and time – the universe) is by no means negated by the Big Bang Theory but many scientists have found it to be completely compatible with it.  You believe that there is some negation because you assume that a Big Bang automatically means something random and uncaused.

                      The first version of the ‘big bang’ as the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ was put forward by Abbé Georges-Henri Lemaître in 1931.  Lemaître was a priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. Evidently he believed that God was the creator of the universe and saw no inconsistency with this theory.  

                      Speaking of the Big Bang astronomer Hugh Ross writes:  "In truth, this “bang” represents an immensely powerful yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space, and time within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws which govern their behavior and interactions".  Indeed when the Big Bang Theory was first proposed some astronomers openly stated their view of the big bang as “philosophically repugnant” because they recognised the theological implications of such an event. Hugh Ross continues:

                      "General relativity theory, which gave rise to the big bang, stipulates that the universe had a beginning and specifically a “transcendent” beginning. The space-time theorem of general relativity states that matter, energy, and all the space-time dimensions associated with the universe began in finite time, and that the Cause of the universe brings all the matter, energy, and space-time dimensions of the universe into existence from a reality beyond matter, energy, space, and time. The extreme fine-tuning of the big bang parameters that are necessary for physical life to be possible in the universe exceeds by many orders of magnitude the design capabilities of human beings. The worldview significance of these conclusions cannot be avoided. No philosophical system or religious doctrines in the world fits them as does the Bible. It not only fits them, it anticipates them by several thousand years".

                      And it is by no means only Hugh Ross or the originator of the theory that hold this view:

                      Frederick Burnham, a science historian, said, "The idea that God created the Universe is a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years".

                      Robert Jastrow, a leading astronomer, writes: "Consider the enormity of this problem: Science has proven that the universe exploded into being in a certain moment. What cause produced this effect, who or what put energy and matter into the universe? Science cannot answer these questions. For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason our story ends like a bad dream. We have scaled the mountains of ignorance; we're about the conquer its highest peak, we pull ourselves over the final rock and we are greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries?".  

                      So, your world view is not as clear cut and unassailable as you assume. Do you get the picture?  


                    • Anonymous says:

                      "First, Genesis was not intended as a scientific treatise but was intended to convey certain spiritual truths."

                      How do you know the intentions of the authors?  For centuries Catholics have tortured and tormented many many people for denying that the Bible was literal truth, and now along comes you saying forget about all that.  

                      You want to revise the Bible to fit actual facts as now known.  OK, go ahead.  The Bible is literally not true, as you fairly admit, so do with it as you will.

                      I'm curious about one thing.  The parts of the Bible commanding you to kill non-believers… what interpretation do you spin into that to constitute it as a "spiritual truth"?  I'm thinking your answer ought to be good on this one.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      The Bible does not purport to be a scientific treatise. It  is about God's revelation of Himself to man. That is what I mean by spiritual truths. It says as much.

                      I am not "revising" the Bible at all. I have not said that there are no parts of the Bible which are literally true. The Bible does require interpretation. Interpretation involves understanding the literary genre being employed.

                      As a Christian, God does not command me to kill non-believers. I am bound to love the Lord God with all my mind heart and strength and to love my neighbour as myself.     

      • Anonymous says:

        "As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and "tweaks" the reactions conditions "just right" do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area".

        – Edward Peltzer
        Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
        Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry


  16. caymanheretic says:

    what is it with being Christian and not believing in basic scientific fact like evolution? Why are so many this side of the Pond so dualistic? Believe in God, in Jesus, in the Bible and learn hermeneutics – it would help if more Pastors had proper Theogical degrees – the Bible is not a scientific book and its pages can never replace the discoveries of empirical science. Let's embrace evolution and the God of Creation. You cannot use the first chapters of Genesis as an historical account when it is pre-historical – read it in Hebrew – it is acrostic poetry in the first chapter reflecting its symbolism and figurative language. You can be a Christian and believe in evolution – leave the dumbed down Christianity behind

  17. Reality_Lives says:

    I'm an agnostic but, I think people should just use their preconception to decide whether they believe in certain things. They don't HAVE to accept evolution. Christians (and all human beings) can accept whatever is correct to them in their own sense. Just let people decide for themselves. Everyone sees everything differently! If you accept something to be true, then it is! 


    The 'Peace' Mediator.

    • Clair Ity says:

      Absolutely – people are free to be wrong about whatever they want.  

      Think the earth is flat?  Hey, you have the right.  

      Don't beleive in dinosaurs (except as a test of faith sent by Satan)? Carry on!!!

      The real problem however comes when such people are in positions like school teachers or authority figures, and they "teach" such things to the youth of the world.  Beliefs such as the biblical version of cosmology, meaning beliefs which are just plain wrong, then have the effect of making the next generation labour under misconceptions which will prevent them from participating in life and in the workforce in any way that requires a scientific foundation.  I mean try to get a job as a scientist of any sort while telling your interviewer that you don't actually believe in evolution, a proven fact and current powerful medical research tool, and your interview will be over right about then.  

      This is a scientific world we life in, and it is becoming more so. Reject science in favour of superstition and be prepared to be excluded from a lot of higher-level things.  

      That said, there are lots of jobs where the rejection of science won't interfere.   I mean you can reject science, reason, integrity, education, and pretty much everything, ditch school in grade 9 and still get a good job in government!  Who knows?

      "If you accept something to be true, then it is!"  No, not really.

  18. Anonymous says:

    People choose to 'believe' in God. This is because there is not one speck of factual evidence to 'prove' he exists. (Take from this what you may.) On the flip side, you cannot 'believe' in Evolution. It is a theory which seeks to explain the adaptations of various populations of living things to their environment over successive generations and why so many organisms have become extinct. It has a large amount of evidence supporting it. You can choose to accept these facts or not – but you cannot 'believe' – for to say you 'believe' in evolution places it on the same 'no proof, blind leap of faith' level as God. 

    And by the way, for those who pounce on the 'theory' part – electricity is still a 'theory' – but you don't find too many people disclaiming that do you?

    • Anonymous says:

      Everything around us is evidence that God exists. The irreducible complexity of many of its designs show there is a Designer. While there is clearly micro evolution you choose to believe that there is only random chance. Evolutionists are as dogmatic as any religion.  

      • the epistemologist says:


        Everything around us is evidence of the existence of everything around us.  How this stuff got the be this way is a factual question that does not benefit from the instertion of a supernatural being (Occam's razor).  The fact that it is complex does not mean it was designed, it only means that it is complex. 

        You throw out the term "irreducible complexity" as if that means something special.  Scientists are very capable of reducing the physical world to little bits and to discrete instances of the laws of science, and using high-sounding words without actual support doesn't help you.  Your argument is akin to: "There exists a thing, x (here, irreducible complexity), which proved that y (here, god exists), but I offer nothing that either proves that x in fact exists, or that y logically follows from x in all cases, or at all."  In short, your argument isn't.  There is nothing that is irreducibly complex.  That term is only used to support an intelligent design argument, however the term is flawed in that it is internally wrong and assumes the very thing it hopes to prove, i.e. that the universe is so complex that it needs a god to exist.  Throw out the assumption that it is irreducuble and look at your argument then.

        Evolution has nothing to do with random chance, but relies on the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics.  To say it is "random" is just to say that you don't understand it.  The fact that humans are doing very well in coming to understand it belies your statement and supports the scientific view.  Nothing succeeds like success, no?

        Dogma, hmmm?  Wikipedia is as good as any here: Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers."  In short, it is something that is told to you and you are required to believe and you are not allowed to question it, evidence to the contrary be damned. 

        Science is the exact opposite – practitioners are REQUIRED to question everything, and test everything by expiriment in every possible way until the means of testing whatever you are on about are exhausted, and only then you accept it, and only then pending coming up with new expiriments.  This is the scientific methodology requiring "falsifiablilty" for a proposition to have scientific meaning, and "verification" in that it has actually been tested by expiriment.  It is the exact opposite of dogma. 

        Just because you don't understand the science, doesn't make it dogma.   Just as the fact that the universe is complex does not mean it was designed (it only means that it is complex), the fact that you don't understand science doesn't mean it is dogma, it only means you don't understand it. 


         It just means you

        • Anonymous says:

          You said "Evolution has nothing to do with random chance, but relies on the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics. To say it is "random" is just to say that you don't understand it. The fact that humans are doing very well in coming to understand it belies your statement and supports the scientific view. Nothing succeeds like success, no?"

          It is simply not correct to state that "evolution has nothing to do with random chance" or to suggest that there is unanimity on it in all branches of science and in mathematics. 

          Evolutionists say that there are four basic mechanisms of evolution: (1) natural selection (2) genetic drift (3) mutation; and (4) gene flow. Of these genetic drift and mutation are said to be random.  According to evolutionary theory the origin of evolutionary modifications is random mutations that take place in the genetic structure of living things. The traits brought about by the mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection and therefore the living things evolve. However, mathematicians argue that if mutations were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today.


          I am not sure what you mean when you say that to say it is random is just to say you don't understand it.  Are you suggesting that you are more knowledgeable about these mechanisms/smarter than all other evolutionists?   If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that science does not fully understand the mechanisms today but will do so in future isn't that simply an expression of your – that awful word – FAITH?

          • the epistemologist says:

            You know, I disagree with some of what you are saying, but I haven't had time to do a proper reply (soon come).  

            That said, I like the way you formulated your post so well that I gave you a thumbs up even though I disagree with you.  Thank you very much for this thoughtful post, and I do hope to see more of you here.

        • Jab-Jab says:

          Actually, Rev. Occam’s razor works against you here. Evolution is complicated. Evolution from a big bang even more so. God is simple. He said “let there be light” and everything went “bang”. See how simple that was?

          (Yes, I ‘believe’ in evolution. I just disagree that Occam ‘proves’ it.”

          • Doo-Doo says:

            I know you are joking, but you shouldn't write jokes like that.  People less educated than yourself would probably not recognize that you are being sarcastic in bending Occam's Razor into the reverse of its actual meaning, and you would thereby mis-inform them with your joke.  Humour doesn't really translate well in these knds of posts.

            • Anonymous says:

              I think it is you who is "bending" Occam's razor. Clearly, as Catholic Clergyman Occam believed in God.  

              • Anonymous says:

                Nope… Wiki:

                "William of Ockham himself was a theist. He believed in God, and thus in some validity of scripture; he writes that “nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”   In Ockham's view, an explanation which does not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources cannot be considered valid.  However, unlike many theologians of his time, Ockham did not believe God could be logically proven with arguments. In fact, he thought that science actually seemed to eliminate God according to the Razor's criteria."

                • Anonymous says:

                  I think you missed the point. The point is that according to Occam his Razor did not have any application to supernatural phenomena like the existence of God. God is not a scientific theory and is not bound by sicence. Even if He was, there would not be any simple explanations for His existence.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    Fine with me… You keep God out of science and stop using God as a purported counterpoint to it, and I can stop bothering you.  

                    You seem to be saying God cannot be dealt with by science, but Christians, in the name of God, get to say that science is wrong because of a book they say was inspired by God.  Not going to happen my friend…

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Science does reveal an infinite intelligence at work so there is no need to keep God out of it.  

        • Anonymous says:

          Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." 

      • Anonymous says:

        Yawn.  Not this tired old argument again.

    • the epistemologist says:

      People can believe lots of things that may not have any connection to the external world, but belief alone isn't very useful. Knowledge is much better.  What's the difference?

      A good definition of knowledge states that in order to "know" that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, note "true"and not false, but one must also have justification for doing so.

      Evolution is a set of propositions that are supported by evidence, meaning they are directly provable, combined with additional hypotheses which project theories about other parts of evolution for which there is less direct evidence available (i.e. only incomplete fossil records).

      The provable factual propositions about evolution are sufficient to say that "evolution is known", in that the core propositions are true and belief in them is justified by uncontradictcted empirical evidence.  The add-on hypotheses are supported by partial evidence but cannot be said to be "known" until, say, more fossil records are discovered so as to fill in the gaps as to, say, the chain of evolution of a certain life form into its (hypothesized) later versions.

      This structure of knowledge and belief is more rigorous than the one "Wed, 06/22/2011 – 17:29" describes.  You can believe in (core) evolution, just as you can believe that your fingers are tapping a keyboard when you reply to this post – there is evidence to support both propositions, and the beliefs are both justified and true.  In short, you "know" them.

      I'll stand by for the Cartesians….

  19. Anonymous says:

    Christian faith requires accepting evolution???

    Nah!  Foolishness!

    The Christian faith requires accepting and living your life in accordance with what the Bible says, and Bible interpretation boggs down to the individual – on how they see it; or, on how their pastor sees it.

    Evolution is a scientific theory. It has nothing to do with religion.   

    • Anonymous says:

      You're wrong because evolution speaks about God's creation.

      So by denying evolution, you are denying the way God creates.

      Christians faith DOES mean believing in evolution.


  20. Anonymous says:

    I thought the issue raised was whether evolution is true. That is a different question than whether there is a god. All the verifiable evidence is in favor of evolution. Dinosaur fossils were not created in rock 6000 years ago for the future amusement of paleontologists.

  21. JC says:

    I like to think that there is a god (but I can understand if you don't) and in his wisdom he has created a system that gives each person the ability to choose for himself.   The only way this works (and it does) is that each choice is not only right or only wrong.  What works for one won't work at all for another.  What a great system right?  The only problem with the system is when one person decides his personal choice MUST BE THE ONLY RIGHT CHOICE for anyone else.  Human nature makes sure this will happen often.  As you can see by all the different replys this system is working well and is only a problem when someone disagrees with anothers ability to make their own choice.  So my humble opinion is you should make your choices and be free to change your mind anytime BUT try hard to allow everyone else to do the same.  Not easy but possible.  Live in peace…if you choose to.

    • Anonymous says:

      If the argument for God and creation was brought forward today for the first time, we would quickly dismiss and classify the advocates as mere lunatics.

      • Anonymous says:

        Rubbish. The existence of God becomes increasingly clearer the more we learn about ourselves and our universe.

        • Anonymous says:

          Following your logic (more like lack of) : I guess anything we don’t understand about the universe the alternative must be attributed to a God that keeps the complexity beyond our comprehension?

          Do you realize how much we have ‘shrunk the size of God’ over the centuries, by dispelling ignorance, and superstition with ‘good ol science’? But then, how could you.

        • Anne T. Krist says:

          You mean the god who wants us to kill all the non-believers, gays and disobedient kids or some other god, and if some other god what exactly do you say that you know about him/her/it?

          If I reject the god of the bible (and all the other human constructs as well), but I expect that there is more to the existence of the universe and life than meets the eye (literally), but also that we know nothing about it, other than it couldn't possible be an accident, then what?

          Do I still need to go to hell?


        • Anonymous says:


          Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist) wrote: "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory """"

  22. Anonymous says:

    What is interesting is that genetics seems to support the existence of Adam and Eve. OK well not the Genesis version exactly. It appears that we all have a common ancestor on the paternal side, a man who lived somewhere around 50,000 – 60,000 years ago.  We can do the same for mitochondrial DNA on the maternal side, and we find that there was a woman who lived perhaps 170,000 years ago who was a common ancestor for us all.

  23. Anonymous says:

    er…surely the truth is as simple as nobody actually knows for sure….the believers 'believe' they know….the non-believers 'know' they shouldnt believe….you really have to equally question all sides, i mean – do people really think that there's some dude with a beard in control from up high somewhere? and equally, do others really think that there's absolutely nothing else going on but a simple act of random science? i think there's a really good chance that we'll all find out when we die what the answer is….the problem for me is why so many seem intent on answering it now…..its no different than a headless chicken running around….it's impossible to answer….stop being impatient, and simply wait……the "good book" has so many flaws it'd be laughed at if it was invented today….and those without doubt that there's nothing after this life really run the risk of hitting an early depression!!  nobody knows….loads of people believe…..maybe we should just all smoke de rope and chill out

  24. Anonymous says:

    I remember when I used to smoke cigarettes. Hell, it tasted so goodat first, but deep down I wished I could get free and when I would go out, I would see other people smoking and I would draw comfort from the fact that there were others like me.

    Now that I've stopped, (Thank God) I can see that I was wrong.

    Atheism is like that, you are all really miserable together and you even think that if you shout loud enough, you might get people to believe you.

    It doesn't matter how loud you shout, you are still plain wrong. Give it up, it's not making you happy.

    Jesus can make you happy. He said,  "Come to me all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest"

    Atheism says, "Come to me all you who desire to be seen as superior intellectuals and I will confuse the crap out of you and everyone that you try to convince."


    • Clair Ity says:

      You've got that backwards.  Religion is like a bunch of dope-smokers who feel great but are completely wacked out.  Reality has evaded them. 

      Non-believers (which is different than atheism) have the fresh air and clear thinking, and are honest enough to say that the religious folk sure seem happy after smoking all that dope, but you wouldn't want to be one of them.

      • JC says:

        Your both right and your both wrong.  If you can understand that then you don't need to debate with anyone else.

      • Anonymous says:

        Amusing. You assume that reality is limited or defined by the material world. You assert what is merely an opinion as a fact. Indeed, with you it has become dogma.  Christians at least rely on supernatural experiences. It seems to me that your approach is less rational.  

        • Clair Ity says:

          You assume to know something about my assumptions; you are wrong.  

          You know nothing about my dogma (it was ran over by my karma).  I rely on that for which there is evidence. I assert evidential findings and hypothesize about the various conclusions of fact that might follow. 

          You mention supernatural experiences, but you contradict yourself.  All experiences are by definition of the empirical realm, not supernatural.

          Amusing indeed.

          • Anonymous says:

            Your assumptions appear on the face of your comments. If you are making a positive assertion that "reality has eluded" people of faith that necessarily implies that there is no reality other than the material.  Isn't it at least possible that they are aware of a reality in another dimension of which you are not?  Perhaps it involves the use of theta brain waves. You are expressing your opinion, and that is all it is, as a fact. That makes you dogmatic. You appear to dismiss anything as unreal which is outside your knowledge and experience? Your last comment again makes the same assumption: "All experiences are by definition of the empirical realm, not supernatural".  For your benefit, "empirical" means "based on, concerned with or verifiable by by observation or experience rather than theory or logic". Your argument is all about theory and logic and is based on your absence of experience. Our argument is, at least partly, about experience. However, I think what you were attempting to say is that an experience is not an experience unless it has certain measurable, physical properties and can be reliably replicated under certain conditions. This serves only to confirm my statement re your assumption about reality.     

            • Clair Ity says:

              I give up.  My Mom told me never to argue with anyone who hums the theme to the Twilight Zone show whilst waiting for a reply.  Theta waves indeed….

              • Anonymous says:

                That's it? That's your response – imagining that I am humming the tune to the Twilight Zone. You give up because you have no intelligent response.

                • Clair Ity says:

                  I hear you can tune out the noise from the other dimensions, and keep your theta waves to yourself, if you wear headgear made out of tin foil.

                  Does that help?

                  • Anonymous says:

                    Try addressing the issues raised rather than silly attempts at deflection.

                    • Clair Ity says:

                      OK, what the hell…

                      "Your assumptions appear on the face of your comments. If you are making a positive assertion that "reality has eluded" people of faith that necessarily implies that there is no reality other than the material."  My version of "material" includes consciousness, since that is a physical part of our universe.  It doean not include things for which there is no evidence.  To that extent, yes, I do not beleive in things for which there is no evidence supporting existence.  To the extent that people beleive in things for which there is no evidence, I say they beleive in the unreal.  Reality on this definition is that which can be experienced, for example you might say there is an invisible cat on my desk, but I can't experience it by sense or by indirect testing or expiriment.  Is it real?  No, it is not.  If there is no connection to or involvement with our universe such that it can be experienced, it does not exise.  If you beleive in it you beleive in the unreal.

                      "Isn't it at least possible that they are aware of a reality in another dimension of which you are not?"  If they were I'm sure we would have heard about it.  If it existed other than as a physical state of their brain (i.e. a delusion), we could test the physical universe for evidence about it, and again I'm sure we would have heard about it. 

                      "Perhaps it involves the use of theta brain waves."  I have no reply to this other than to say that it makes you sound like a flake (needing a tin foil hat).

                      "You are expressing your opinion, and that is all it is, as a fact."  Nope, I'm espousing the scientific method.  My only opinion is that science is better than superstition, in that it predicts the universe in a much more reliable way.  Religion has failed in that oh so very badly.

                      "That makes you dogmatic." You clearly don't understand the meaning of that word.  Everything I believe and say is subject to empicical verification.

                      "You appear to dismiss anything as unreal which is outside your knowledge and experience?"  That which is outside the experience of humans generally, and subjectto independent verification, yes.  It is unreal.

                      "For your benefit, "empirical" means "based on, concerned with or verifiable by by observation or experience rather than theory or logic"."  I have an advanced degree in logic, but thank you for stating this for the record. 

                      "Your argument is all about theory and logic and is based on your absence of experience."  Nope, it's the other way around: that which is supported by experience (i.e. rigorous scientific testing) provides the propositions from which logic leads to hypotheses, which leads to further testing and more knowledge.  The absense of experience or experiencability renders the proposition meaningless (i.e. if it is not falsifiable it is meaningless).

                      "Our argument is, at least partly, about experience."  No, it's about a beleive for which you have no physical evidence.  You confuse the belief with the experience – the act of believing in god feels good, and that feeling is an experience, but it is not the sort of experience that proves god, it is the sort of experience that proves that beleiving in god feels good, at least for you.  See the difference?

                      "However, I think what you were attempting to say is that an experience is not an experience unless it has certain measurable, physical properties and can be reliably replicated under certain conditions."  I thought I waid that quite clearly, although there are of course events that can't be replicated.

                      "This serves only to confirm my statement re your assumption about reality."  Nope, does not follow.  This is a logical error in that the premises you deploy do not support the conclusion you assert.

                    • Original Poster says:

                      Epic fail.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Fail is a verb, not a noun.

                    • noname says:

                      So it follows that the Unoriginal Poster cannot be called a fail, but would have to be called a failURE, though not so significant as to reach epic proportions.  

                      As a matter of fact, the only thing interesting about Unoriginal Poster's failure is how entirely uninteresting it is; perhaps it didn't work?  If Unoriginal Poster tried to fail, but failed, did he still fail?  If the answer is yes, is it just on principle? Would it be any different if he didn't fail at failing? He'd still be a failure, but just a better one.

                    • Clair Ity says:

                      We're back to that? OK.  I always wanted to write an epic.  Here's the first chapter:  Your mama's so fat, that when she jumped for joy, she got stuck.  OK thank you.

                      Epic fail my a$$.  Try reason, if you can, but I'd be surprised.

                    • Unoriginal Poster says:

                      There was that verse in Revelations that said: "Whomsoever shall use the term "epic fail" shows no thought or creativity, and shall be cast into the pit to forever smoke turds wrapped from chimp diapers." Rev. XX:UU.

                      I'd hate to be you fail-man. Better luck with your next epicpost.


                    • Anonymous says:

                      '"You are expressing your opinion, and that is all it is, as a fact."  Nope, I'm espousing the scientific method.  My only opinion is that science is better than superstition, in that it predicts the universe in a much more reliable way.  Religion has failed in that oh so very badly.

                      "That makes you dogmatic." You clearly don't understand the meaning of that word.  Everything I believe and say is subject to empicical verification".

                      Clearly, I do understand the meaning of the word since I preceded that statement with a simple definition: expressing your opinion as a fact. The opinion in this case is that "reality has evaded" believers. That is not an expression of a conclusion that you have reached by any scientific method. You have not subjected that statement to empirical verification. Even if your contention were correct that there is an absence of evidence for God, which we deny, then the absence of evidence is not proof of absence. There is plenty of evidence for the intervention of the supernatural into this realm. The difference is that you prefer to believe that one day science will explain it all in material terms. That is simply an expression of your hope or belief, not scientific method.      

                    • Sotong says:

                      "There is plenty of evidence for the intervention of the supernatural into this realm."


                      Would you like to share this evidence? – I am unaware of any evidence of the intervention of the supernatural into this realm.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      One of the classic ways is supernatural healing. I have personally received this through the laying on of hands, faith and prayer. 

                      Have a look at this news video, for example.–Gq6k2PnYE&feature=related

    • Anonymous says:

      wrong way around buddy……….and by the way i am a very happy atheist !!

  25. Anonymous says:

    Ok, adam and eve got 2 kids, these two kids got 4 kids and these 4 kids got 8 kids and so on.

    At a certain time there were 20.000 of them, acting weird, and they all came to this island.

    • Anonymous says:

      …and were issued work permits.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hang on. Adam and Eve’s kids were both fellas, one of whom whacked the other. Now run that by me again: they had HOW many children between them?

      • Poof T Er says:

        I thought you knew – one kid was actually named after his dad, and the other was named Steve, and in those days Adam and Steve were quite the item!  How did they have children together you ask?  Well, god works in mysterious ways, but for sure he's willing to support same-sex families.  Either that or Adam and Steve cast an eye to the only other woman around for a little hanky-panky.

      • Anonymous says:

        Adam and Eve had more than two kids. Genesis 5:4 says that "after Seth [the third son] was born, Adam lived 800 years," and that "he had other sons and daughters." I think Genesis 4 reveals that, before the birth of Seth, there were other people living at that time since Cain was afraid that other people would see him and kill him, and also after the birth of Cain's son Enoch he built a city.  

        • Stamp out Incest says:

          So who were those other people?  Did other people get tossed out of the Garden of Eden, or was Cain boinking his mom or his sister?

  26. Anonymous says:

    I have no religeon, but I keep that to myself.

    I don't try to convince others of my believes.

    I don't force the country to act according to MY rules.

    I don't feel superior because of my opinion.

    I don't take advantage of the weak by using fear.

    I give to others what I have.

    I help people without asking questions.

    I respect you (christian), try to respect me and leave me alone.

  27. Anonymous says:

    It really makes no difference if Christians accept evolution or not. Evolution is proven to those that understand evidence and facts, and irrelevent to those that choose to believe in magic and gods. That's the real decision that people have to make.

    Faith is just believing something without any objective evidence.

    • Anonymous says:

      I agree, but the problem comes when faith rules a country. Like iraq, iran and the cayman islands.

      • Anonymous says:

        Be sure that you don't confuse faith with religion. Faith is a belief in a real God that makes us free. Religion is forced or manipulated  subservience to an evil power that will most certainly bring usinto slavery.

        Atheism most certainly fulfills the criteria to be classified as a religion and it is just as full of zealots as any other religion. They then take the moral high ground because they can make their imaginary friend disappear at will because he never existed in the first place.

        Get a grip, man.

        • Athy Ism says:

          If I didn't have an invisible friend because he never existed in the first place, why would I be trying to make him disappear? 

          You are not very logical, friend.  I hate to say it, but in fact you make no sense at all.  You been smokin god again?

        • Christian Notreligious says:

          Most people seem confused between being a christian and being religious. And Jesuswas the son of God! And he did come to this earth. We have no problem believieng that there was a Roman Empire but we doubt that Jesus came to this earth and proved that he was the son of God.

    • Anonymous says:

      Christianity and evolution both have holes in them that you could drive trucks in. Neither side of this equation has all of the answers. The preacher the other day said the world was ending the atheist laughs at christians for it, christians who know what the bible says knows it was bogus. Such also is the arguement  between christianity vs evolution.

      • Logic Guy says:

        Completely false analogy.  Camping had followers, but the majority of the earth, including most Christians, knew he was just fleecing the flock of their money with complete BS.  Camping and his followers were dead-assed wrong, and we were all right.  

        Now help me out by explaining how this story says anything meaningful about evolution?  I can't put that part together.

  28. Anonymous says:

    No, rather this…"Christian faith requires accepting Jesus"

    It was the best decision I've ever made and it has brought me immense pleasure, especially with that intangible joy that I feel with every day knowing that I have found the source of Truth that has set me free.

    Yes, I still have problems, but I trust Him and He never fails me.

    Don't hate me because I'm happy.  His grace extends to you too. Give yourselves a chance. Give your children a chance and don't condemn them to the same hopeless, pointless existence that you have chosen for yourselves.

    If believing in evolution makes you happy, be my guest. I believe in Jesus andHe makes me happy, and I don't hate you. Do you hate me?

    • fur real? says:

      "Yes, I still have problems, but I trust Him and He never fails me."

      If he never fails you, why do you still have problems?  Did you forget to pray for his help, or is he just not listening? Perhaps he did fail you.  Perhaps he's not real.

      I don't hate you at all, but you're suffering from a delision.  It's not my business though, and I wish you happiness and peace during your life.

      • Anonymous says:

        Do you have kids? Would you ever willingly fail them when they need you. Of course you wouldn't. Life is not some moth-balled existence where God kicks the bullies ass every day.

        We all have lessons to learn and consequently, we will all have problems. I just know that I have chosen to put my life in His living hands and not the hands of a dead scientist.

        Jesus said that if we being evil (don't deny it, we've all screwed up at one point) know how to give good things to our kids, how much more would the Father give good things to those who ask.

        My only question to you is this…"When was the last time you asked God for something good?"

        Or are you still waiting for a magic turtle to evolve into the more magical genie?

        Sending you light to guide you home, my brother/sister.

        • fur real? says:

          "…how much more would the Father give good things to those who ask."  If he were real, maybe, but he's not.  Besides, if he were the omnipotent creator of the universe you suggest, why would he make a problem so hard that he couldn't help you with it without fxxxing up his master plan?  Seems like a fairly major screw up to me.

          "My only question to you is this…"When was the last time you asked God for something good?""  I don't.  The moral here is to never talk to imaginary people. 

          "Or are you still waiting for a magic turtle to evolve into the more magical genie?" I'm waiting for my lunch to arrive, and that's about it.

          Thanks for the light.  Right back at you.


      • Kung Fu Iguana says:

        "Yes, I still have problems, but I trust Him and He never fails me."

        Basically "God" is a self-help device.  If something good happens then it is "God" and he should be praised and we should be grateful.  If something bad happens then apparently it is part of "God's plan" and we accept it and move on. 

        Basically this is what believing "God" comes down to and in modern self-help parlance it is just a tool for showing gratitude for the good and letting go of the bad. 


    • B L Seebub says:

      Why do you go straight to hate?  We can dislike the fundamentalists of your faith fettering the teaching of science because it conflicts with creation myths of bronze age shepherds.  Once does not have to believe in Genesis to accept Christs teachings, but sadly there is a large body of American "Christians" who believe that one does.

      Let's look at theGolden Compass.  Christian groups wanted to boycott or have it banned.  Why?  Because the books in the trilogy contain atheist themes.  The film did not.  Christian extremists were scared that children might see the film and then want to read the books.  Imagine that!  Reading an alternative view and then forming one's own view from personal experience.  How terrible.

      If however you are scared about your children reading.  Here are some pre-prepared stickers to protect them from being influenced accurate science.

    • Anonymous says:

      By definition, an atheist's life is neither hopeless nor pointless.  Why would you assume that?  

      • Anonymous says:

        I am definitely not assuming anything. I am stating that living a life on earth devoid of the love of God and then spending eternity in self imposed banishment is pointless and very hopeless.

        • Sai Tann says:

          With the thousands of gods you reject by believing in your particular one, if there is a god the odds are that you've picked the wrong one and man is he gonna be pissed. 

          Much safer not to believe in any of them and just wait and see.

          Rejecting superstitious falsehood is not a cause of hopelessness.  Trying to believe in something you know, deep down, to be complete rubbish – now that's hopeless.

          • Anonymous says:

            My friend, if we follow your philosophy, we are doomed. Your simple argument reduces God to the size of your own understanding. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

            What are you, a Pharisee, Sadducee, Can't see or Won't see?

            • Sai Tann says:

              I'm a rational empiricist, if it really matters.

              • Anonymous says:

                I thought so, a Won't see.

                • Anonymous says:

                  How very glib.

                • Sai Tann says:

                  You obviously don't know what a rational empiricist is.  

                  The proper answer would have been, on your view of the universe, that I am a "don't see", because there's nothing there to be seen that supports your superstitious nonsense.  I don't see it because it isn't there to be seen.  It isn't true.  It is wrong.  With me so far?

            • Anonymous says:

              I don't want to be too pointed, but that last sentence is just stupid.

        • Anonymous says:

          Nope, no assumptions there!   LOL

      • Anonymous says:

        By definition it is both hopeless and pointless. For them life has no meaning and no purpose. Everything is random. There is nothing better to look forward to.

        • Anonymous says:

          I am an atheist, and this is categorically NOT how I feel.  My life is replete with meaning and purpose, wonderment and awe.   It's about being awake, my friend.  Just that…that is enough to provide eons of meaning for anyone who thinks — for anyone who looks around them at this beautiful, mysterious universe we live in.

          Not enough for you though. You must have more existential angst than I do to need a god to give your life meaning. 

          Might I give you a small piece of advice?  Try not to tell other people how they feel.  It's really kind of pointless.

          • Anonymous says:

            The wonderment and awe about the mysterious universe should lead one to believe in God.

            "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

            "The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that , compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of  human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

            – Albert Einstein


            • Anonymous says:

              Why should it?  

              Einstein also said:  "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

              • Anonymous says:

                Because, as Einstein concluded, you are confronted by the evidence of an infinitely superior intelligence. Your quote only served to confirm that.  

                • Anonymous says:

                  Spinoza's god (the one Einstein invokes here) is not quite the same as the god you imagine.  See below from Wikipedia:

                  "Spinoza believed God exists philosophically and that God was abstract and impersonal.[1] Spinoza's system imparted order and unity to the tradition of radical thought, offering powerful weapons for prevailing against "received authority." As a youth he first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, but later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being a single identity. He contended that everything that exists in Nature (i.e., everything in the Universe) is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality,[14] namely the single substance (meaning "that which stands beneath" rather than "matter") that is the basis of the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect is understood only in part. His identification of God with nature was more fully explained in his posthumously published Ethics.[1] That humans presume themselves to have free will, he argues, is a result of their awareness of appetites while being unable to understand the reasons why they want and act as they do. Spinoza has been described by one writer as an "Epicurean materialist."[14]

                  Spinoza contends that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") is a being of infinitely many attributes, of which thought and extension are two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as one and the same. The universal substance consists of both body and mind, there being no difference between these aspects. This formulation is a historically significant solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. Spinoza's system also envisages a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, according to this understanding of Spinoza's system, God would be the natural world and have no personality."

                  And even then, I am under no obligation to agree.   

                  • Anonymous says:

                    Are you saying that like Einstein you are a deist and believe in God? If not, I am afraid I don't understand the point of your post.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    It is overly simplistic to attempt to reduce Spinoza's thought to God=Nature. That simply does not do it justice. To quote the philosopher himself :“By God I understand A BEING absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.” He is the first cause.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I can certainly understand your wish to recruit Spinoza and Einstein to your cause.  However, neither man's philosophy has anything to do with the Judeo-Christian notion of god.  Both rejected anthropomorphic representation of the divine, despite the use of the word "being" here.  I am sure you know as much.  Einstein, himself, said:

                      "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems."

                      This does not at all imply, as you have suggested, that wonder and awe in reaction to the world around us "should" inspire a belief in god — by which I can only assume you meant the Christian god.  

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I meant God. The being of infinite intelligence, the first cause. That is clearly what Einstein believed and he was inspired by the wonder of the universe. You have attempted to rule him out altogether.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Let's be more clear.  When you write "God," do you mean the Judeo-Christian god, as depicted in the King James Bible, its predecessors and its successors?  


                    • Anonymous says:

                      Let's be more clear.  Do you mean the Christian god?

    • JC says:

      The fact that this works for you shows you have made the right choice……

      for you.  Try to make some one who is not ready belive in God and you won't be as happy as you are right now.  But I love you for trying.

  29. Anne T. Krist says:

    Jonathan, I was having such a nice rest before you woke me with this Viewpoint.  I thought we were done with the religion bit for now?

    I too hope that the faithful abandon the bits of their faith that is inconsistent with science (i.e. wrong). Sooner would be better, for them and for everyone who is forced to listen to them.  

    The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary you mention doesn't surprise me.  After all, there are kooks wandering the streets of US cities with signs that the earth ends on Tuesday, and KKK members spouting hate that this race is better than that race, and frankly you can find any sort of insanity you go looking for – finding someone to agree that the earth is flat as well as only 6000 years old shouldn't be too hard.  Just look around Cayman for, say, a 9th grade drop-out working as, say, a Premier, and you'll see a never-ending fountain of self-contradictory bullshxt.  There's no limit on the supply of ignorance.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Boy is that a topic that ought to be left alone…

    • Chuck Darwin says:

      The truth will set you free.  Science is right in front of you, and superstition fails every time in the face of true science.  Bring it all on and let the truth shine through.

      No dear, the earth isn't flat.

      • Anonymous says:

        Jesus is the truth and if you give Him half a chance, He will set you free from your life of darkness. Those are pretty heady words you use about bringing it all on.

        I can assure you that we are a race of selfish creatures without so much as the decency to thank God for all He has given us and then we ignore Him and turn this place into a greedy, disease-ridden, polluted shithole and then we have the gall to turn around and blame Him?

        Sir, you have some large kahunas. There's gonna be some serious bringing on. Good luck.

        God did not invent religion as a form of control, evil men did and they still do and fool on us for not seeing through it.

        Jesus came to set us free and if the Son will set you free, you will be free indeed.


        • Chuck Darwin says:

          Indeed I do have very large cohones (not "kahunas", which is a Hawaiian word for a priest, sorcerer, magician, wizard, etc).    They are big, made of steel, and shiny too; I polish them regularly to keep them that way.

          Your god is not real.  Jesus was just a guy with a political agenda (kind of like the Pope).  Darkness is relieved by turning on lights, not burying your head in falsehoods. I don't need "freeing", as I have a good handle on the truth (and a good ability to recognize BS when I see it).  I never blamed anyone for polluting the planet except the polluters. 

          I agree – religion was invented by men.  Men like Jesus, and like the men before him who invented other superstitions, and like that wanker Harold Camping whose still at it.

          It's good to be free.  I respect you and hope you live well.

          • Anonymous says:

            Kudos to you on picking up on the "kahunas" unless of course you are wielding an equally impressive wizard in which case, double kudos.

            I agree it is good to be free, but a wise man said, "Whoever commits sin is a servant of sin"

            If you've got such a good eye for spotting BS when you see it, I suggest you use your nose in the future, because your eyes are definitely failing you.

            I agree with you on the Camping deal, although he's just a man like the rest of us, with an agenda.

            However, Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world, because if it was, his servants would fight for Him. We fight battles that you would not even understand.

            There are forces of extreme evil that wield incredible sway over this planet that we live on and if you don't open your eyes, you'll never understand.

            You cannot see the wind, but you can see it's effect. Likewise, you cannot see evil, but it's effect is plain for all to see, murder, rape, disease, wars, violence, killer storms, earthquakes, famine, greed and other acts of evil.

            Likewise, you cannot see good, but you see it's effect, mercy, forgiveness, love, compassion, generosity.

            If you think that the killer storm came from God, then why did Jesus rebuke it? Think Man! Get into the boat. There is room for all of us. Good discussion. Peace to you.

          • Anonymous says:

            Funny that you should correct the poster but still get it wrong. This is a Spanish word: cojones.   

            • Chuck Darwin says:

              …and if I were writing in Spanish I would have used a "j", not I'm not so I use the anglicised version with a "h".

              Now stop bothering me, I'm busy polishing.

              • Anonymous says:

                The word is borrowed from Spanish by the English language and as such there is no such anglicised version in use among educated people. The appropriate Spanish word is "cojones". When we write "laissez faire" – a word borrowed from French – we do not write "lezay fair".  


                • Chuck Darwin says:

                  If you're going to keep disturbing me, you'll have to do the polishing while I sort you out…

                  • Anonymous says:

                    If you are going to pick on someone's spelling then your spelling will be picked on. Do unto others… 

          • Anonymous says:

            "Jesus was just a guy with a political agenda".

            Come again? That is exactly what he was not. Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place". 

            He had no earthly ambitions. His message was spiritual as he came to give a true representation of the Father and restore our broken relationship with Him. He came to seek and save the spiritually lost. He sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim freedom for the captive. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. He came to set you free and he whom the Son sets free is free indeed. He said render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.  

            Only a person whose mind is distorted by anger would say that Jesus was "just a guy with a political agenda". You sound like a very angry person.

            God is real. I hope that you will get to know Him. 

  31. Faith, Fear and Pride says:

    There are really only three planes that we operate on.

    The first is our natural prideful self whereby we think we know all the answers, (even though we don't much of the time).

    The opposite of this is our fearful self whereby we convince ourselves that we are capable of very little and just struggle on.

    The third is faith which is the desirable plane on which to exist. To live by faith does not require complex scientific truth because it derives pleasure from knowing that we cannot possibly know ALL the answers in our limited earthly existence.

    Let me close with a simple example. Does a young person get all bent out of shape because they don't know how a car engine works? No, they get in the car and drive it, having faith that it will do what it is supposed to do. Does the parent get angry because the child does not know nor has insisted on being told. I think not.

    So. Live by the faith of a child and whether or not you unlock all the secrets of the universe, it matters not to the Heavenly Father and if it matters so much to you, ask Him. If you don't get the answer now, you'll certainly get it later.

    It might not be so important then, eh?

    Do I believe in evolution? Probably not but I certainly won't lose any sleep over it.

    • Anonymous says:

      That's not faith, that is ignorance

    • William Verhoeven says:

      Your entire post can be summed up in three words:

      Ignorance is bliss.

      • Aris Totle says:

        Very true.  

        And I don't mind people deciding to be uninformed if they choose (though it is a shame), but I do get pissed when those same uninformed people start to preach that the world is this way or that way.  If they embrace ignorance, they should have the decency to keep it to themselves.  I mean, you don't fart in public places where everyone else is forced to smell it, right?

        • Anonymous says:

          ???????? Some pissed in your cornflakes, pal? Free speech is not dead, yet.

          • Aris Totle says:

            They did taste a little off this morning, now that you mention in.

      • Anonymous says:

        If you call having a personal relationship with the Creator of this universe through His loving Son blissful ignorance, I shudder to think what you are on? Come on admit it…lol.

        • William Verhoeven says:

          You misunderstand me my friend.

          Having a personal relationship with the creator is the opposite of ignorance. Not learning about god and religion would be ignorant. Not learning about evolution would also make you ignorant.

          The original author stated:

          "Do I believe in evolution? Probably not but I certainly won't lose any sleep over it."

          Therefore this person is choosing not to learn about this subject and is  purposefully living in blissful ignorance.

          I never said anything was wrong with this, but I personally believe we should all strive for a higher understanding of everything in our universe.

    • O'Really says:

      "To live by faith does not require complex scientific truth…" Maybe not, but posting on the internet certainly does. Lucky for you that someone decided they wanted to know the answer now or you would have been sharing your insights with us on papyrus.

      • noname says:

        Hysterical statement. How many people actually posting on the internet have any idea of how the OSI Model functions such that what they type on their keyboard ends up on a screen on the other side of the world.

        How many of them understand that their url is simply a DNS entry that is shunted over to the correct computer using a lookup system that converts their into an ip address that is currently a 4 octet hexadecimal binary equivalent of 32 bits, each one being a one or zero which is the only language a computer can actualy speak.

        How many, smarty pants?

        "I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation." Psalm 119:99

        No my friend, very few of them understand, they use faith. LOL.

        Have an awesome day. Spock out.

        • O'Really says:

          Thanks, I thought it was pretty funny myself!

          "… they use faith." I doubt it; as you said, they almost certainly use a keyboard. And they don't need faith because they have direct experience that using a keyboard will work.

          I'm not arguing that we all have to understand how a complex mechanical system works, but I am arguing that some of us must and that this is opposed to the original argument, nicely summarised elsewhere on here as " ignorance is bliss."

          Live long and prosper.

    • Anonymous says:

      "Live by the faith of a child"

      But not the mind of a child!

      • Anonymous says:

        Funny you say that. I've got a first class double honors degree in engineering, write software, design data acquisition and control systems, solve complex problems on a daily basis and if I choose to believe in Jesus, then I can assure you, it is not a decision I have made lightly. 

        Are you telling me that you are so high and mighty? Sorry, forgive me for not bowing to your superior intellect. Not.

        • Just the Facts Ma'am says:

          "… it is not a decision I have made lightly."

          Yeah, but it doesn't mean you're not wrong.  If you solve complex problems on a daily basis but you messed up on this one so badly, you might want to consider another line of work.

          Your Friends,

          High and Mighty



          • Anonymous says:

            The verse says, "taste and see that the Lord is good" I have tasted and I have indeed seen.

            I guess I can explain the sweet taste of knowing the divine ad nauseam, but until you taste it for yourself, well, you've only got an opinion.

            As far as atheism is concerned, been there done that. I've tried both and I'm satisfied now.

            A friend too.

        • Rorschach says:

          all that edumacation and yet you still can't spell…hmmmm….

  32. Anonymous says:

    Here is some good info for atheists.  Quite a few arguments



    • Slowpoke says:

      I watched your buddie's little film.  

      What a great Christian!  Why, at the very beginning he states " It is one of my personal misions in life to add to their frsutrations and anxieties".

      If I remember correctly, that was one of the main missions for the baby Jesus.

      It was quite entertaining, in a humorous kind of way.  I would highly recommend it to anyone wanting to waste five minutes of their life.

    • Common Sense says:

      I watched this and it did make me throw up just a little, at the back of my mouth.

      What complete drivel.  The stupidity of the supposed "arguments" is bothersome because it presumes such extreme stupidity in the consumer of the message.

      Example:  a watch didn't evolve so life can't either [barf].  A watch is a manufactured thing, and not a self-replicting life form.  Self-replicating things changebecause during the replication genes are divided and spliced in different combinations, yielding different life forms which then either survive and again self-replicate, or not, yielding different types of life forms over many repetitions..  Watches aren't that type of thing.  Make a watch that is self-replicating with variable outcomes, and we'll talk.  This author is an idiot.

      The video claims there is no evidence of beneficial changes to the genome.  Bullsh!t.  Human brains are bigger now than in earlier iterations of the species.  Sounds beneficial to me.

      The video claims that there is no evidence of evolution at work.  Geneticists have been evolving flies for decades in their experiments.  Flu bugs evolve continuously, hence the new strains every year, not to mention the evolution of the super-bugs that are immune to antibiotics.  How did that happen?  EVOLUTION.

      The video was written by an idiot for consumption by presumed fellow-idiots.  Don't be sucked in.  Read up on the answers and the truth yourself.  Ask for help if you need it.  Don't let them make you stupid too!

  33. My Genes are from Space says:

    But we know that there are amino acids in outer space (seriously), having found some drifting by in Comet Wild 2 in 2004.  It would thus be hard to argue against the conclusion that these building blocks of life fell to earth and seeded life here: (and many other reports)

    It follows on this that evolution has a much longer history than we know, in that these molecules of life came from space and from who knows how far away, after drifting in space for how many millions of years? 

    Life began out there, and came here.  We are all spacemen of sorts, and since these amino acids fell here and made life, and there is more of it floating around in space in comets, it follows that the universe must be full of living things.


  34. Washington says:

    Again, who gives a big deal but Christian people or people who are trying to mend Christianity with Science.

    For God sake, it is either or I-ther!

    Either you're a Christian or you're not!!

    Jonathan, thanks for wasting 3 minutes of my life responding to your article.

  35. Swine says:

    Hakuna matata