The Holtonian

I'm with you on the TBN tower thing. No, scratch that, I don't want to make any threats involving explosives on the internet.

I heard that TBN's lease ended and isn't broadcasting from there any more.

Benny Hin does appear to be an imposter.
If only people would spend a little time and examine how Jesus lived, and how He worked, such frauds as old Benny would not get the time of day.
It's amazing how little many Christians really know about the lifestyle, teaching, and attitude of Jesus. I will always be amused at how easy it is to fool believers.
Guys like Benny have deceived many for years.
There is one certain fact though...Judgement day is coming!!!

Far be it from to defend Benny Hinn, but remember to consider the source before you believe everything you see on the news. Sadly, it seems that many news organizations have an agenda in mind and comment on the news rather than report on it.

Did they get into his method for healing people by hitting them on the head? I bet it's all in the wrist.

The really sad part about Benny Hin's fraud, and I repeat FRAUD, is that he lies straight to the face of his veiwers, and brings false hope to the people he promised to help. Some of the the people he supposedly "healed" died shortly afterwards from the diseases Benny was supposed to have cured. He also said that he would help pay for a boy's surgeries and things for the boys eyes, even though Benny was supposed to have "healed" them. Well, they're still waiting for that money. To anybody who cares enough to read this, I will tell you this, DO NOT TRUST THIS THIEF AND LIAR!!!! Because this is one twelve year old that won't just stand by and watch people give in to the trust of this vile man.

Oh ya! Benny Hin REALLY heals people by shouting BAM! What is up with that? He is a fake and a phoney and a FRAUD. Should you trust him? No way!
People that were supposedly 'cured' died later, very soon after he 'healed' them. He makes promises he doesn't keep, makes procclamations that aren't true and makes people believe in him. He is a simple impostor. I'm only twelve, but even I can see through his act. And no way will I ever trust this faker.

Namstay
sir,
I belive in mr.benny hin and his
salvation i belive that he is a yahowa
messager he work in fulfil and command of holy sprit sir plese continue your work do something in Israel.
your in him
Himanshu

That sounds like Dispensationalism to me, Himanshu.

estoy tan sedienta de Dios quisiera que usara mi vida al maximo

Hin is the biggest fraud. Someone believed by the truly ignorant and naive. The mans lifestyle by its nature contradicts his very source of inspiration. That is, his way of life is incongruent when it is applied to the teachings of Jesus Christ, the very teachings that are his inspiration. In my mind people such as this Hin are a detriment to religion and a leach “praying” (pardon the pun) on the uninformed or ill advised. Mr. Hin and his work are that of an infectious meme, spreading and infiltrating those of weak mind. People must educate themselves from such attacks, for Mr. Hin and his cause have the makings of a cult: A strong, charismatic leader, offering praise to followers, and providing consequences to not following or attempting to change faith. Such properties are cult like and must be defended against. Mr. Hin is true scum.

I think Benny Hin is for real, the amount of joy on all those people's faces when the are healed can not be acted.
If you doubt him i think you should try Jesus, he will show you the amazing things He can do through other people even YOU.
Try him.

I totally disagree. Benny Hin is a fraud. He exploits religion and his sole purpose is on building an empire of followers to line his pockets. How can the man be for real? Would someone in touch with Christ as Benny claims to be, live in a huge house, drive a Mercedes and wear the most expensive of suits if all he cared about was the word of Christ and helping others. Jesus would surly disagree with such a materialistic life style, when there are those in the world who are dying of starvation because they cannot afford food.
The truth is Benny cannot justify this “incongruency” between his lavish life style and the teachings of Christ he exploits. Why you say? The answer is they are in contradiction .Benny Hins rich lifestyle illustrates the exact opposite lifestyle that Christ himself had lived. How can someone who you believe is in touch with Christ live off his followers.
Oh and the Joy comment you made, that is ridiculous. Obviously if someone is stupid enough to fall for such fraud they are stupid enough to truly believe that Bennys mere presence warrants their joy. If enough people get together and they want to believe something so badly, they can truly fool themselves into such fallacy, when there is ample proof in opposition to their belief.
People who truly live the good Christian life try to help others, not try to profit off them and expand their empire for that mere purpose. If you really believe in Benny, it is likely then that you are already a follower. For there is likely no one sitting on the fence on such an issue. They either are a follower and believe in him, as you do, or they understand that some people are corrupt and are willing to exploit others beliefs for money, as hopefully most do. The truth is that such a followings purpose is expansion and expansion is only for the purpose of making Benny richer.
This guy said it best: “Let all Charismatics and Pentecostals be warned that since Benny Hinn is a proven fake, deceiver and liar, that it has critical implications for you as well, since you make the identical claims and practices. How could anyone tell the difference between you and Benny Hinn. After all, no church that claims immediate, supernatural, apostolic type healings has ever been documented. If you have such documentation, please send to us at: email-webmaster.htm. ( 1. documentation that proves the illness existed. 2. documentation that proves an instant supernatural change took place. 3. documentation that proves the illness is 100% gone.)”
'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him"……….Deuteronomy 18:21-22 !.............
(even proven a fraud in religious text!)

Dear Man of God can u please praiy for me I love God so much and I like to preach the word of God,thank you .

Many of you are very quick in passing judgement about Benny. The important thing is that God is using him in a very effective way so let God judge him. Huge crowds are coming to Christ because of Benny's ministry and his TV coverage - thank God.
None of us will ever come close to imitating the life of Jesus - we are all human and therefore sinners. There are many examples in the bible where godly people lived a very lavish lifestyle (eg Abraham). I sincerely believe that Christ never intended that all His followers should be living in poverty. But we are expected to use the gifts and talents He has given us for His glory. I therefore don't think that Benny is doing too bad. Keep him in your prayers - it will achieve much more than trying to pull him down.
Just remember to love God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength and love your neighbour (that includes Benny) as you love yourself. Ultimately it is this command we all will be judged on.

Have a great day, may God bless you and give you a heart filled with love.

Many of you are very quick in passing judgement about Benny. The important thing is that God is using him in a very effective way so let God judge him. Huge crowds are coming to Christ because of Benny's ministry and his TV coverage - thank God.
None of us will ever come close to imitating the life of Jesus - we are all human and therefore sinners. There are many examples in the bible where godly people lived a very lavish lifestyle (eg Abraham). I sincerely believe that Christ never intended that all His followers should be living in poverty. But we are expected to use the gifts and talents He has given us for His glory. I therefore don't think that Benny is doing too bad. Keep him in your prayers - it will achieve much more than trying to pull him down.
Just remember to love God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength and love your neighbour (that includes Benny) as you love yourself. Ultimately it is this command we all will be judged on.

Have a great day, may God bless you and give you a heart filled with love.

Some people use others weaknesses and try to bring them down,others use their knowledge about some people to pass verdicts,
But the Bible clearly points to us that do not Judge others for all have fallen short of the Glory of God,
The people who are calling Benny Hinn all names such as a fakehealer,heretic, blah blah
Are guilty before the Almighty God and should repent,for not every one who says Lord, Lord will inherit the kingdom of God,
I urge all those who have a vast knowledge of Benny's deceptive attitude to launch weapons of mass prayer,pray to God to touch Benny's heart so that he may change,pray for Benny everyday without ceasing, your prayers work much more than criticism,our God is a God who answers prayers.
Be aware that every one has to account for what he or she lived to do on earth, so if you spend the rest of your life criticising what will you tell God when your time comes to leave this earth,
Beloved in Christ once more,JUDGE NOT.

We are forgetting the Simple truth of the matter. No man can come to the father except through Jesus Christ. You do not have to go to an evangelistic movement to receive God's blessing. Go directly through Jesus Christ. Our ability to experience our healing comes through repentence, forgiveness, etc. We have total control over how and to what extent we experience God through Christ. Greater is he that is in us than he that is in the World. AMEN

Necesito saber sobre una persona que hable Español, necesito un consejo del Siervo Benny Hins

Por favor necesito hablar con alguien que sepa español

Anabela Viteri said, "I need to know of a person who speaks Spanish, I need advice from Servant Benny Hins (sic)"

And then:

"Please I need to speak someone that knows Spanish"

Our solvation is through Christ. Let is seek him for our forgiveness. The Lord uses all means to spread him Word. Everyone on earth must be informed of the Word. Let the Lord use whomever he want to use for spreading his Word. Let us not take the seat of the Judge. Every one will be measured and given unto him according to the rightiousness he displayed during his life on the earth.

For Mr.Benny Hin Please read the Jesus Christ word on the Bible (Luke 18:18-30)if You understand this please REPENT because you are The Christiant public figure.Jesus Blessed You.

The man is a Menace.

While I believe the jury is still deliberation on the validity of Mr. Hinn, I wonder what difference it makes on how he flies or what type oh Hotel he stays in...

If it was Donald Trump that we were talking about (who has a 100 to 1 following to Mr. Hinn), we would all applaud his business savvy and universal skill. We need to separate what is in the man rather what the man uses as his/her financial instrument to earn money.

God gave us the inheritable right to make our own decision. Don't blame Mr. Hinn because others do not posses the ability to make a sound decision. Just like those who pray to God on their baseball team winning the World Series...God is just little busy taking care of the real problems facing the world today...I'm sure he does not care much on what kind of car Mr. Hinn drives..

For what it's worth...

To the fool who complained about Donald Trump.
These 2 people are not the same.
Trump worked hard for his money! Hinn lied, cheated, and one day this person will be before the courts. and I hope will spend the rest of his days in jail, and maybe even in hell.
He wont go to Heaven because I doubt that he really beleves in God.
If he did this SCUMBAG would not steal money and lie like he does.
Regards,
Rod (Australia)

This thread might someday give Colrus' prom dress post a run for the money...seven months later and you're still getting comments.

Crabby's Ford vs Chevy post went on for a year i think and got so much traffic. He eventually had to pull it due to the language.

Many will come but few are chosen...Wide is the road many will follow but only a few will follow the narrow road

Guess why?

GOD

I have been watching Benny Hin and tried to have an open mind. But I can't help but feel there is something off with Him. I ask if the truth is told by a liar, is it still not the truth? What he says is right alot of the time, but sometimes it's not but he teaches salvation through Jesus. That is truth worth hearing even if it has to come through a very questionable charector. In the NT Paul discusses nonchristions preaching and teaching in Christs name and even casting out demons in Jesus name and he said something like it is better that this happens than he isn't preached at all. As far as the healing... I get very annoyed by his chronies who bring people up on stage... very over dramatic. Still I think it is possible that the faith of the people in the crowds is what does any real healing. No matter who is up front if there are thousands seeking God with all their hearts and have faith to be healed it will sometimes happen. I don't think his money or past mistakes disqualifies a man from service, but other things may very well do so. Samson who was a prophet and judge was sometimes immoral. King David was a voyeur, murderer, and filthy rich but he wrote much of the psalms. If I watch Benny Hinn it is more out of curiosity and love to see the joy on some of the people's faces.

I have been watching Benny Hin and tried to have an open mind. But I can't help but feel there is something off with Him. I ask if the truth is told by a liar, is it still not the truth? What he says is right alot of the time, but sometimes it's not but he teaches salvation through Jesus. That is truth worth hearing even if it has to come through a very questionable charector. In the NT Paul discusses nonchristions preaching and teaching in Christs name and even casting out demons in Jesus name and he said something like it is better that this happens than he isn't preached at all. As far as the healing... I get very annoyed by his chronies who bring people up on stage... very over dramatic. Still I think it is possible that the faith of the people in the crowds is what does any real healing. No matter who is up front if there are thousands seeking God with all their hearts and have faith to be healed it will sometimes happen. I don't think his money or past mistakes disqualifies a man from service, but other things may very well do so. Samson who was a prophet and judge was sometimes immoral. King David was a voyeur, murderer, and filthy rich but he wrote much of the psalms. If I watch Benny Hinn it is more out of curiosity and love to see the joy on some of the people's faces.

Mr. Hin has caused quite a bit of anger among Christians and non believers as well. I do agree that he has not shown the best taste in the way he lives. Jesus was a humble man, he did not go traveling about with servants doting on him and setting him up in the swank, posh Inns of the middle east, pulling him about on a gold carrier. Not to mention the meals Jesus ate, simple, forget the gourmet restaurants.

I'm sending Mr. Hinn a challenge. . . find a nice home in a good neighborhood, not exceeding let's say 700,000.00 That will buy a middle income home in Orange County. Turn in your current car for a volkwagen jetta or one that is comprable. Eat at Marie Callenders, Mimi's Cafe or Baja Fresh. Live like the rest of us. Stop being a flamboyant showman. I want to see if you continue to heal the sick and love Jesus with all your heart. The gauntlet has been thrown down... Are you strong enough to do it Mr.Hinn? It's your call.

P.S. It took my mom 13 years to get new carpet in her dinky 2 bedroom home. It was filthy and worn to a frazzle. She lives like an old maid. She is one of the many who have been sucked into this massive illusion. Why she thinks she owes this man anything, is a true phenomenom.

Please excuse my terrible sentence structure and spelling. I'm sorry! I get in a hurry and want to get things done. So forgive any mistakes in my comment above.

I like Benny Hin. I think he definatley has a legit healing ministry, but I do wish he would he would cut down on some of the bling.

By reading all of these comments it makes me wonder of who you people are... are you really doing anything that benny hinn isn't? What would you do if you were benny hinn? There are record of massive amounts of healings that have come out of Benny Hinn's ministry, and all we can focus on is what he did wrong, i'm sure there were people that thought that they were healed but wern't and i'm sure benny hinn has said things to people that he couldn 't fullfill, but who is to blame him? after all he is as human as we are, and if he is a theif and a liar and a fraud, who are we to expose him? have we not all stolen something? have we all not lied to our parents? friends? siblings? So if benny hinn is all of these things that you are accusing him as, you better be without blame in all of these areas, grow up and stop scrutinizing someone who has done many great things, along with some bad, as we all have. Jesus picked up a stone and placed it at the feet of the woman who commited adultrey, and those that were accusing her could not throw thier stone because they had sin. Are we soo good that we have no wronge in us so that we can judge Benny Hinn this way? Check yourself befor you make any comment. And realize, you are a sinner just as he is.

well the point is not believing in benny hinn the point is believing in God through Jesus Christ if benny hinn has anything which God doesnt like thats between him and God but benny hinn is just being used by God miracles do really happen and someone needs to be a christian to be able to understand the spiritual things and for you to have a discernment so as far as im concerned benny hinn does things through God and is not an imposter

We should all be carful of the negativity that pours from the mouth for it plants the seed you speak. Make Proverbs is a good reminder for us all.

To the man who spoke about the differences between Hinn and Trump I would be more worried about what comes out of your mouth regarding judgment.

What happened to building God's Kingdom why keep those who are seeking out of it act like Christians.

I watch Benny Hinn almost every morning on Fox49 in Tallahassee. My feeling for those people is sad. Sad that they pay money to go see this fraud just so he can give them false hope. If there is a hell I hope this guy goes there. As I with this show in the mornings and I see him hitting people in the head or trying to sell his videos of books I developed a large hate for this guy.

quisiera saber cuanto saldria un aproximado en costos pr que pueda venir ud aperu

BENNY H. SIMPLY A SOCIOPATHIC PERSON WHO DOESEN,T CARE WHAT HE DOES TO PEOPLE AS LONG AS HE GETS THE ATTENTION AND THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BENNY H. SIMPLY A SOCIOPATHIC PERSON WHO DOESEN,T CARE WHAT HE DOES TO PEOPLE AS LONG AS HE GETS THE ATTENTION AND THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I,m always amazed at the e-mail that I read on a web site like this Judgemental, derogatory , and jealous . Worst of all Hateful. I was swimming in a world of hate when God showed it to me and I asked forgiveness and asked God to forgive me of the hatred in my heart towards a certain individual .That is when I was unbelievably , miraculously healed . While watching a television evangelist . My doctor couldn't believe it . Saved me thousands of dollars in medical bills, no operation, no pain.Now instead of judging preachers I pray for them and support them on a regular basis. HEALED OF A STRANGULATED HERNIA OCT/1982.

Just because your doctor could not explain it, it does not mean your recovery was not attributed to something else. It is your own belief that it was the show that healed you. I'm sorry to tell you, if you had a physical ailment that it was not the show, but rather something else. Many people who write in here are uneducated, or at least ignorant of the truth. Hin is a fraud, I am not a religious man, I am scientific, and all I am trying to do is warn people about Benny's fraud. And secondly, I have a right to judge him, this is a free way of expression, and he is the man who is in the lime light, not me and not others who are critical of him. What good has he done? He has done more for himself with the donations of others than for others truly in need.

What does Christ like mean? Why does he advertise so that stadiums are filled. There is plenty of healing that needs to happen in Hospitals. Why do we not hear about this. There is plenty of healing in the world that needs to happen. Most of those folk wont show up to a stadium. Where is the grass roots? Perhaps Mr Hinn can help the homeless. It appears that with the 100 of millions of dollars that has been made he could have wiped out disease in a small village or city. I have heard nothing about direct impact to communities. This is what Jesus would do... Yes, we should not judge.. But that does not mean we should not see the truth for what the truth is.

Would christ say a b lessing or a curse on all these fine church buildings? Or the lavish church budgets that do not feed people, or homeless, or orphans or widows? How many churches visit jails/ When was the last visit to the nursing home? Small groups of dedicated christians mostly, but probably more spent on the sound equipment!

http://www.exodus2006.com/fab/hinn2.htm
check this people, (great site by the way
ultimately accurate fromout the word of God: the bible

this is to inform those who are blaming benny hinn,who r u to blame him?can't u do the healing?
can't u help others?if these things are not possible from our end what is the question of blaming hinn like personality.God is using him,and he is producing the fruits of holyspirit,
until and unless we do that,let him do all these
things

Mark 10 verse 21 through 25.
Then Jesus looking at him, loved him and said to him. "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.: But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. Then Jesus looked around and said to His disciples, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! And then He said How Hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

I have watched Benny hinns program for some months. Initially, I was amazed at his healing power. But, what made me to think is that when he came to Bangalore, India there was an ambulance behind the stage. If a man can heal people by god's power what is the need for ambulance and doctors. Moreover, what is the need for such high volume songs and prayers if God can hear even the sound of a butterfly spreading its wings. If he is a man who can really heal can he make all the people healed by him to appear on a live show with Doctors to check them. He cannot. And for those who believe him, If he has god's blessings ask him to heal all the patients in America which has to proved scientifically. Then the whole world will do whatever he says.

I saw a program disclosing the fraud of a TV evanglist and how people that could walk were asked to sit in wheelchairs and the evanglist would heal them. Was this Benny Hinn?

dear benni hin Ministries, i request from India
my Name is Ashraf request for the prayer for health and success though i am in trouble facing deppretion and i request to give back the message
i will be waiting for your message please pray for me for the health to improve

Who am I, well I’ll tell you who I am: “I am a skeptic”. Hinn is not being used by god. At no time has he been able to prove that in anyway. His show is the most fraudulent thing about him. You know, the shows where the man up front, i.e. Benny, has the ability to heal people by touch. The truth is, if anybody could perform these acts they would be accepted by others outside of his following as legit. If he had true healing powers it would be observable outside of his show, or reproducible, or even proven through medical evidence. The sad thing is that it is the truly ignorant, truly alterable minds that are being hurt by frauds like this. Those who for reasons that parallel that, do not have high paying jobs and cannot afford this treachery.

Only God hills, only God saves by Jesus.

Benny if ya readin this, give me money for stuff and i will read stuff outta the bible too and then i got some friends that want in on the deal too. They said they'll pretend to fall over after i touch em on the head while sayin stuff about God but they need a bit of the green too. Benny your a good business man, i need some more ideas to get dough from people, email me.

Dios bendiga , solo quiero decir q nadie tiene por q juzgar a nadie es Dios quien conoce los corazones y si este hombre tiene lo q tiene es por q Dios honrra al q le Honrra y por lo tanto no miremos la vida de nadie miremos nuestras vidas y vivamos en paz

Benny Hinn is the most funniest comedian on t.v. these days after the other famous T.V. Benny, the late Benny Hill. So sad though, millions of viewers and "fans" of this Gumby look alike character, are duped [are made suckers] to pay him money "offerings" to live his luxurious lifestyle. When and How can you awake these poor Ignoramuses that this impostor is Benny Hinn character is the Devil Incarnate.

Good Day Mate!!

I can't believe this is still going. This is awesome.

altijd ben zelf

The last writer Misha, hit the nail in the head right-on. This funny bloody wanker could do better rating in his T.V. show if he just sorround himself with volouptous women like the original "Benny" rather than these suited monkey-faced assistants when he start the comical and theatrical part of his show, BAMming peoples head. Wohhh....unbelievable but true, people are healed out of their normalsy, and become really funny and stupid because of this cunning crook's devious "said" healing power. Also if this bloke could just get rid of that s**tty Star Trekky look white outfit and dressed instead with the boyish farmer's outfit again, like the original Benny, maybe millions of non secular people out there will watch his T.V. show more. Honestly, his show is next to nothing in comedy category after Married with Children was cancelled years ago. I wonder why his show never been nominated for any awards. :) :) :)

Sorry, I missed the real Benny(Hill). This other Benny(Hinn)is hellbound and all his fans. He IS already a nominee and a candidate for a special award. The "Award" for all of his nonsense works and accumulated wealth over these years will come by soon. His big daddy is watching him day and night and ready to take him soon ....it's a very "Hot" paradise. Can somebody guess where it is?

I hear his next healing is going to be the kid who only could recite 8,784 digits of pi from memory when he intended to recite 10,790. A couple of whops on the head should free up the memory banks in his head:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/ap_on_sc/pi_prodigy_1

Be healed...fall down...then go about your life like nothing happened, because nothing did.

Benny Hinn is a bullshitist, and a prominent practitioner of bullshitism.

jesus when he went to the temple and saw that the people were using it as a market became angry and trashed the place and chased the people out and it clearly states in the bible not to use the lords name in vain and we all know there are many ways to comunicate ie verbal actions etc. you shall know a tree from the fruit it bares...as for the judgement i will leave it u to god as i put all matteers in his hands he will be called to justice for i do believe he is misguided and misguiding for it also states in the bible do not look for your reward here on earth for it is in heaven the things of earth are temporary and fade with time the kingdom of god is and always will be....pray for him and god will deal with his heart and call him to repentance but to have anger in your heart will only cause you to sin yourself.. i think to be christ like is to know you are human and that you will fail but to get up everytime and go after the goal again take the path less traveled do not seek to pile up treasure here on earth when you die you are dead and there is no happiness in the things of this world..god bless

Matt. 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Matt. 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

One word.....psycho. You Bible thumpers are nuts. Many of you discard provable ideas such as evolution, yet you believe in abstract concepts that are not provable whatsoever. Many people in the Christian community are either misinformed or are simply ignorant of the truth. The truth is that evolution is very much a real and ongoing process. Some may be surprised to know that it is almost as much a fact as the sky is blue. You see, it is not the process of evolution which is arguable, it has been proven: In fruit flies, examining viruses, in embryology, in genetics, in behavior, in structure, in function, and on and on. It is the process of how evolution operates that is under question, not if it actually exists or not. Many hardcore Christians mix this up. They think that it is evolution itself that is under question. The question of how does evolution occur is what is yet to be definitively proven. Natural selection is the process that is under question, not evolution. To date, it is probably the most correct theory of how evolution occurs.
When you think about it, evolution under natural selection is a pretty intuitive process. Perhaps so much so that it makes one think: how did I not figure it out? The idea is this: Genes are clearly a force in driving appearance. This can be seen by simply examining your children or your Uncle and the like. If this is the case, if deoxyribonucleic acid is transmittable, why is so hard to grasp that as it is passed along slight modifications are possible and that arbitrary mutations can occur also. Secondly, Evolution by natural selection operates via the environments interactions with many organisms. The environment simply creates pressure that favors some traits over others in terms of survival. The animals that find the environment too harsh and who cannot adapt die out, and the ones with the "fittest" genes produce a disproportionate amount of offspring compared to all others with alternative genotypes. There you have it: It is so simple, yet why so hard to believe? I think the man reason it is hard to believe is because many cannot observe evolution in action because it operates of course very slowly through tens of thousands of years in most organisms. Fruit flies and viruses have proven insightful since they evolve much more rapidly and have shorter generations. The fact that we must adapt our medication to new strains of bacteria, also illustrates that organisms adapt. Perhaps the most interesting fact is that humans share over 90 something percent of their DNA with chimpanzees. Such a genetically close proximity is perhaps one of the biggest pieces of evidence. Lastly, even cognitive psychological processes are a product of some evolutionary processes. This can be seen by the fact that many people have a somewhat disproportionate innate fear of dangerous spiders and snakes, things most people don’t encounter on a daily basis anymore. On the other hand they find present day dangers relatively harmless. Driving and walking around a busy street is much more likely to cause death these days, yet people maintain to preserve their innate fears that have risen from the hunter gathering society long ago. Evolution has shown that we are adapted to the interactions of organisms with past environments, not necessarily present ones.

well...after i read all the threats here, I just wanna tell you guys to be becareful with your words, for me, personally I won't dare to be like several of you guys, cause to jugde is not my right, but I believe that Judgement is the authority of God, and let God decide who's wrong, who's true, I feel so sad to know that still some of us don't realize that thing, I'm not tha fan of Beny Hinn, I'm not the fan of anybody, I'm just the fan of JESUS CHRIST my saviour, my Lord, my God, my everything! All the glory and honor and worship and praise and power only for Him, yes for JESUS CHRIST...!!!

Well that is your opinion. If you beleive in all this judgement crap, well, good for you. Just a few points though. What makes your religion right over all others. Everyone thinks that their own religin is the only salvation. In my opinion, religion operates as a coping mechanism for the truth. The truth of course is unkown. Unkown things make people feel uneasy. People like to feel in control of their life, or in the least have a feeling that if they don't they will still be sent to heaven anyway.

Great comment Misha Shevenski......I luv It

saloom,

I want benny Hinn coming back in my countery

great observation arantxa. where did you find such word? trying to find it from the dictionary and can't find it. good stuff though and says it all. muchas gracias

great observation arantxa. where did you find such word? trying to find it from the dictionary and can't find it. good stuff though and says it all. muchas gracias

hey mr evolution just because you share the same dna doesnot make you related scientst are the insecure ones since they need to see to believe and without the sight they cannot believe doughting thomases and all your theories change from year to year what happened to lucy the fake chimp that they wanted to make it the missing link but all it was was a bunch of fake bones put together science is fraud when it comes to evolution big bang haaa explain to me ho one cell could live for milions of years in order to split into another and another to become that ape you are clueless if you can believe in the baseless theories of science based only on conjecture and theory where is your proof sir they dont have it and i came from an ape how is it that man split off and all the other primnates stoped at so many different levels of inteligence and size etc. etc. reevaluate your life im no ape if you tell chilidren thart the y came from animals then they will act like them im done wasting my time on a faithless fool

Let’s evaluate your argument, shall we? Ok…..were to start: First of all, your comment “just because you have the same DNA does not mean that your related is Wrong!…..For starters, it depends on what you mean by related- the process of cell division allows itself up to 64 trillion combinations or something like that, and that’s just for humans! It is no fluke that the sequencing is rather similar between homo- sapiens and other primates. Think about it: If there is that many possible combinations it would be highly unlikely that organisms of “no relation” would “Share” over 90% of there genotype by chance. If there was no organization, no relation between organisms of similar genes, how could they come to have such similar sequences? If no selection pressure or genetic drift was applied then there would be nothing wrong with any sequence. In other words, there would be no reason to share DNA gene sequences (besides heritability) because no one sequence would do any better than any other sequence. Everything would be random, not just the changes caused by genetic drift, everything! The proposition that organisms share abundant sequences for no reason makes no sense. If every possible gene sequence was just as adaptive as all other possible gene sequences, why would different species share some many of them when there would have originally been so many alternatives?
Secondly, your second statement was, and I quote, syntactical errors and all: “explain to me ho one cell could live for milions of years in order to split into another and another to become that ape” Well, one cell would not have to live for that long at all. Incase you are ‘clueless’ DNA allows for heritable transmission of genetic information. (That is why you generally resemble someone in your family). In other words, the cell would pass on its genetic material, than die. Expression of less dominate genes would lead to new phenotypes. Those new phenotypes then recombine to form a new combination and on and on. Those cells with the fittest combination of genes survive, while the others die out. Billions of year go by (learn about carbon dating and isotope dating) the mutations and recombinations of genes have allowed organisms to be split into various classes ( Domain, kingdom, phylum, order, family, genus, species) and for those classes to be “related” genetically to one anther (perhaps loosely with greater distance). Environmental changes continue to allow certain genotypes to thrive and others to die, and eventually evolution, (regardless of the force) occurs. Those sequences that have proven adaptive are preserved, passed on, and improved upon. For example, examine the brains of reptiles and notice, the various sub-cortical structures- A simple system that has a basic function. Next observe the primitive paleomammalian brain and notice the addition of a larger cortex, and contained inside that cortex that same basic reptilian sub-cortical structure. Finally, observe the human brain with a large neocortex (new cortex). This neocortex is on top of the paleocortex, preserved with similar paleomammalian structure. Guess what else is inside?....... The reptilian structure is also there- similar to our subcortical region. So, then, you see that by examining the brains of various organisms we can see where the addition took place. (After all the evolutionary explanation of the origin of man is far more believable, then say, god created every organism and that they just suddenly appeared!)
Thirdly, you said that: “ you are clueless if you can believe in the baseless theories of science based only on conjecture and theory where is your proof sir they dont have it and i came from an ape how is it that man split off and all the other primnates stoped at so many different levels of inteligence and size etc. etc. reevaluate your life im no ape if you tell chilidren thart the y came from animals then they will act like them im done wasting my time on a faithless fool.”
Let us try and pull this apart: Evolution is no baseless theory, your simply misinformed, uneducated, or both. Evolution is observable in embryology, buy studying genes, viruses, fruit fly’s etc--it is not proven by conjecture, nor by opinion, but by observation. On the other hand, what can religion prove? It is all conjecture itself, not fully agreed upon, the cause of war and death. It cannot prove that Jesus had magic powers, which is less believable than humans and chimps evolving from a common ancestor. Just because there is a bible, does not mean that everything in it is true. How can you prove the things in the bible? You cannot…. So you chose to believe in the things that are not provable whatsoever, yet disconfirm the things that have rational support-error in you logic perhaps?... Science is not conjecture, it is generally factual, it is responsible for the invention of penicillin, cancer treatment, life saving surgery, disease immunization, building computers and robotics and on and on. What has religion done: caused war, robbed people of their money (Benny Hinn), brainwashed the week, etc. How do you explain all the religions? Is your religion the correct one? The ones in China and Indian, are they wrong in your mind? If so, are they going to hell just for the arbitrary reason of geographic location? Religion is a meme, I am not going to explain the concept (you can look it up), but that is what it is. It also operates as a coping mechanism for the unknown. I agree that it provides people with a feeling that there life is meaningful in some special way, for. many cannot stand the notion that life can be reduced to arbitrary processes.
Granted, scientists make errors, but that is what the process of replication is for. If a finding cannot be replicated, it lacks reliability, and can be disproved. Science is not conjecture for same reason that it is subject to a certain integrity, (perhaps stronger now than in the past). That is, science must follow guide lines: publish results, be subject to criticism and debate, and be reproducible, and lastly, scientific claims must be falsifiable. Religious claims are not subject to strict guidelines, they are believed because they are passed on from father to son. It is them that represent the conjecture, the hear-say. As for your last claim: all the other primnates stoped at so many different levels of inteligence and size : First of all when I say Man and other primates are related I mean that they are not related like family, they are related indirectly. They are related by relation to a common ancestor. That means that chimps and man diverged millions of years ago at some point and have been evolving differentially ever since. You ask why they have different intelligences because you do not understand evolution. Man and chimp are not the same animal, that is the simple answer. Our related ancestor that lived millions of years ago was likely scattered, as many organisms are. That means that our common ancestor was subject to differing environmental demands. It is believed that these differential conditions such as, how hard food is to get, what the land terrain is like etc, is responsible for the divergence in brain power. Some member of our common ancestor lived in areas that did not require additional cognitive adaptations, while others were selected because of their environment to require a higher cognitive capacity (read about the foraging hypothesis) Researchers examining correlations between ecology and brain size in primates -- including ecological variables such as diet, stratification, activity timing, home range size, and breeding system -- have concluded that grades of encephalization depend on taxonomic family and are correlated with body size and home range (Bauchot and Stephan 1966, Clutton-Brock and Harvey 1980.
In summary, I think I answered everything comprehensibly whether you understand it, that is another story.. lol I suspect you have not graduated from University and are ignorant of what is now taught in school. Evolution is taught instead of creationism in most first world nations now, with the exception of areas in the southern states…rednecks…lol It is your view that is outdated and is the product of conjecture, not mine. (Mine relies on credibility and skepticism and scientific moral, yours hearsay and tradition). But thanks for coming out!

Check mate!

totally agree with robert

But as most creationists, you lack the knowledge and ability to counter the argument directly. Divertive strategies are the choice: Attack the person explaining what has been observed,rather than addressing the issue and explaining why you feel it is false. I'm so sure the creationist are right...lol Most don't even understand the difference between evolutionary fact and evolutionary theory. I suggest you read the paper written by Robert Gould on the issue.

You are just Full of it BH

You are just Full of it BH

Full of what, knowledge? It is the creationists who are full of it. Your just one of them- brainwashed into believing that the bible is the be all and end all of existence. It is quite remarkable the power religion has over people. You could show them how bacteria evolve right in front of their face and they would say: "evolution is false because it is in contradiction with some old book (the Bible).

You know how the religions of the past seem quite hard to believe today- like the beliefs of native Indians or the beliefs people had in Roman Gods. Today, people think: "how could people have believed that." My prediction is that people will be saying the same thing 200 years from know about religions of today. Why you ask? Because science will eventually prevail, reason will eventually work its way past the scholars of present to the far reaches of hickville. Creationists believe for the sake of belief and turn a deaf ear to "direct" observation, common sense, and reason. Hmmmm….. I wonder who is right on the matter?...Is it the scientists, with their rigorous testing procedures, calculated findings and public standards... or is it the creationists who are right- the rednecks who are still ignorant of evolution and present day knowledge and thought, who base everything on the hearsay and translation of a book....hmmm I wonder who is right?

you"re of bullshit!!!

you"re full of bullshit!!!

The Hominid Family Tree

Orrorin tugenensis
(6 mya)

Ardipithecus ramidus
(4.4 mya)

Australopithecus anamensis
(4.2 to 3.9 mya)

Australopithecus afarensis
(3.6 to 2.9 mya)

Kenyanthropus platyops
(3.5 to 3.3 mya)

Australopithecus africanus
(3 to 2 mya)

Australopithecus aethiopicus
(2.7 to 2.3 mya)

Australopithecus garhi
(2.5 mya)

Australopithecus boisei
(2.3 to 1.4 mya)

Homo habilis
(2.3 to 1.6 mya)

Homo erectus
(1.8 to 0.3 mya)

Australopithecus robustus
(1.8 to 1.5 mya)

Homo heidelbergensis
(600 to 100 tya)

Homo neanderthalensis
(250 to 30 tya)

Homo sapiens
(100 tya to present)

mya = millions of years ago
tya = thousands of years ago

Hey Arantxa, prove me wrong if so. So far you have proven me right (scroll up). All you can do is attack me with insults. That is the choice of creationists. They have nothing intelligent to say on the matter, nothing that proves the phenomenon of natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, or evolution (in general) wrong. Some of you attack my claims by saying that I have no proof, but that is not so. It is the creationists who lack proof and who believe when there is a lack there of. Science doesn't believe in evolution because it has an agenda (like religion does). Science supports evolution because it is supported by evidence (unlike the crap in the bible). So how can you argue that evolution is not true because it has no proof, when firstly it does, and secondly religion itself is based on translation and conjecture and is not supported by proof. HYPOCRITES!! I wonder what is more believable: organisms are related through common ancestry or that animals just appeared in a temporal sequence of relatedness out of thin air...hmmm

Gentlemen,
And Ladies,please! Before we get wounds and bleed all over the place, read S.J.Goulds interview with PBS. He and many of his peers were wont to condemn others. I would remind myself and others that science has not answered every question, nor is my understanding of god limited to a single issue. I had a wise professor in school that often reminded me that science was about "how" and you are free to let god answer "why". For my fellow christians I would suggest writers like spong or borg, the jesus seminar. There is no way to pusuade anyone by bludeoning them with a beaker or a bible.
Best regards

Let’s just stop and think for a second about the psychology of the human mind: Would there be religious like beliefs if no claimed religious events had ever taken place? Yes, because many religions are quite different, so not all religious explanations can be correct, therefore, some must be incorrectly explaining existence. If it is possible for some of the religions to be 'wrong', it can very well be possible that they all are wrong. Their existence is related to something about the psychology of the human mind. This is because there are so many of them. There existence is almost a universal phenomenon: African, Asian, Indian, Chinese, Middle-eastern societies all have greatly divergent, yet religious beliefs. The universality of religion means that it will exist if it is 'real' and it will exist if it is not 'real'. Which is more likely?..... To me, it is more likely that religion explains the existence of a universal, independent, cognitive system, a system humans’ have to explain the unknown. Since the unknown cannot be explained, such practices are reinforced, culturally transmitted, and updated with the times. They relieve anxiety, and are a means to transmit old culture and, such practices are deeply rooted in family participation.

really BH, you are so funny and weird, Benny Hinn is the issue (topic) here, not anything else of your bullshiting science knowledge. who cares of your heritage from the apes, proud of it, then so be it.....okay

does BH means BUBBLE HEAD, just wondering :} :}

Are Arantxa Gallegos and Arther Miller the same person, just wondering? Both posts were within five minutes of each other and past one in the morning. hmmmm I wonder!

Benny Hinn,
charlottan for sure, but a very phat bank account. Who amoung us can dismiss the placebo effect? Statistically the effect is measurable. The US Pub Med data supports a strong corelation. So who knows, really? My biggest gripe with TV evangelist, and religion in general is the fact that christianity is in the real estate business. We sure as hades are not "taking care of widows and orphans, feeding the poor and visiting the incarcerated."

ok bh here we go again lets start at the very begining ...ohhh but firs my appologies fro my syntax error i do alittle more in life than blog 24/7 but anyway enough insults im trying to have an somewhat intelligent conve here ....but i was saying is #1 you cannot even explain how that cell has the water the earht and all that to live in sir #2 and if a cell does not have to live for millions of year to learn to split save and share its dna then you are saying it is pre programed by SOMETHING other than itself and where did this one cell come from thin air lets get the concept strait from nothing you cannot get something so first you explain to me where it all came from before you just assume it was there with out giving a vialble provable factuall basis for this claim ie no big bband that would take energy and mattter and substance and if you have nothing then you dont have those factors why is it that man thinks it is so far fetched that there just might be something more or greater than he in the world if we as humans are our hop then i might as well kill myself because im already dead science is not a perfect sience it hads done alot of great things for man kind but it has failed miserably at explaining how it came to bethey are always stating this and that then a few years go by and boom ooh well we were wrong on that we found this now and so we changeded our theory to suit what is what we claim for the next few years is the new theory im sorry my friend your long winded blog has done nothing but show me nothing but one day the man that you are will stand before the god in heaven and know that he is no APE i applod you on your intelligence and your scientific diatrieb and your ability to quote me with my syntax errors for i am a man of many faults and not perfecr but for a man with such in telligence why to you find sollice in the unfounded does it make you more comfortable to feel that you are in some sort of power over your existience or that you can some how manipulate your enviroment to make you feel better about your believe ablility you probably hold some beliefe in aliens from another realm or planet that seems scientifical ehh. but you simply find it impossible to believe in a god because you cannot see it taste it touch it but if you look around sir you do see it breath it its that sence out thier that makes you go huum when you stare at a stary sky and think man what is that feeling like im being watched i assure you it not alliens your go.....but i will appologize for calling you a fool sir i must show more respect to my fellow man forgive me..must be the ape in me...hahah robert

estor that lived millions of years ago was likely scattered.... uuh ohhh the scientist made a mistake syntax the word would be "were"....and ps i may not be the smartest person in the world but iam working on my degree im about 21 credits from my BA you dont assume because you go around qutoing other peoples work that you are somehow of a higher evolutoion than my selfall that long winded blog you wrote answered nothing you meerely go tone of your science mags and went to quoteting youve probably made awhole list on your computer to use in a flash...when called for any way i must retort on your science has saved the world THE ATOM BOMB VX GAS RIACIN GUNS IN GENERAL AND SHALL IGO ON NO I THINK YOU GET THE POINT i will explain the religion in different place theory of yours take budism budda was A man who died and you could mister scientist probably do some research and find his grave if you wanted and you would find his bones..in the religious belief we have a fallen angel who in his haste to become god now fights to defeat god hence turning man who god created in his own image against god hence the false and phoney dietisms and the romans and the greeeks were meerly trying to eplain why the sea roared with storms and the volcano errupted so that they not unlike you would feel better about themselves so as you can see all is explainable and anything you put to a christian can be put to science and im sorry if my english is to hickish for your brilliant mind to understand but im a common man and dont need big words half the population doesnt know to make me feel educated but if thats your cup of tea drink it down sometimes you dont need theoris conjecture and math problems and etc etc. to believe something my friend if your god is science then save your self from death pray to your god and heal yourself science is only as smart as the person possesing the knowledge and we all know that what men make is only temporaryand you said we are related because we share dna wich goes to proove one creator who had the knoewledge to reuse the same blue print for it alot of animals have eyes simular to us also are they my relative did we previously spawn off of them and they just decided to stop..and we keep on up the ladder to the apes and got some of that dna and so on and so on you scientist do alot of anilmal research on alot of different animalk because the part of the body that you are testinf react alot like ours are we then related i hear that the sheeps vagina is the most simular to humans but im sure you sir DO KNOW THIS...end of storie...r

well im back i know its a slow night at work and i have the time to blog away i did alittle research on your fruit flies and it seems that they did change but not like you represent sir the scientist was usind radiation to alter the genes some had no wings some two some big wings etc.mico evolution i think you guys call it but it resulted in no new changes that clearly bennifited the fruit fly they were still well fruit flies wich does not prove the macro theory of evolution wich states complete changes in a spechie small to large, ie one cell to two to three and to fish to frog etc.none of those fruit flies ever changed from a fruit fly they only changed because of the radiation that also happens im humans hardly a case to base your macro evolution on ape to man weak man very weakand now i want to say that since no one was around to see the big bang or hear it or deal with the reprocustions of such a big bang i guess that takes a little FAITH to believe it but you still cannot hAVE NOTHING FROM NOTHING and take the sun how did or does the sun excist and why does it burn and not expode completely since we all know that it does have explosion show did gravity form where did that force come from and what changed on the earth that this force knew that the living things would need it to stay on the earth as opposed to floating away and how did the spherers around the earth form to protect US from the sun and harmfull thing from space it almost sounds like someone was planing on this EARTH substaining life or did it just evolve thhis was JUST IN CASE that one day that cell that might come and one day might devide to become LIFE that would need such a protective force why is the natural world so perfect at sustaining life if it never knew that life was going to ever exsist SIR i need answers here but you cnanot give them your too busy looking for the next lucy i think im going to go ape lol lets face it god exists have a good day SIR and god bless you....:)

Once again, you have failed to understand me. That was one particular type experiment you looked at, not the whole journal. What I was implying was that by using fruit flies to study evolution was that we are able to see changes or adaptations at the "gene" level. Try to think of evolution in terms of genes, not whole "macro" organisms –a system where individual genes compete so to speak for expression. By demonstrating natural selection at the gene level, one is better able to understand how it led to macro adaptations. Why is it so hard to believe that if small changes in gene sequences can make small changes, larger changes in gene sequences can make larger changes? Sine even small changes in common gene structure can take hundreds to thousands of years, it should not be surprising that macro-level changes may take millions of years or more. Thus, such changes are not seen because no person can live long enough to see them! Nevertheless, the framework that is able to account for micro-level adaptations is able to explain macro-level adaptations because it is the same theory….Natural Selection…
Secondly, evolution is not a new theory that changes every week. It dates back to the eighteen hundreds and has for the most part been preserved as the theory of all theories’ in the area of study. All present study has built to support this framework: maternal-fetal conflict, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium, just to name a few.

Why do you assume that your religion (Christian) is the ‘right’ religion? Let me offer some insight: You do so because you grew up a Christian and that is what you believe ….(nothing wrong with that)…. But what about the religions elsewhere?...What about Judaism, what about Hinduism, what about Buddhism, what about the other thousands of belief systems out there? Why do you assume that they are phony because they make outrageous claims while yours does also? The point is that every religion thinks that its explanation of existence is correct and that all others are wrong. What makes your religion correct over all other religions, other then the arbitrary reason that it is “your” religion? Secondly, it seems rather arbitrary to send non-believers to hell for the sole reason of geographic location. Are all the Chinese greater sinners because they have a different religion? I think the fact that almost all societies throughout history have had religious like beliefs illustrates something more about the human mind rather than the existence of a god. It is the need-to-know-now mentality perhaps, or it maybe the relief of anxiety the unknown can cause. Nevertheless, the human mind seems to possess a universal cognitive system for the production of what one would call “religion”.
.

Lastly, the failure of science to completely explain phenomenon i.e. the big bang, does not imply that what it has found is false or incorrect. In other words, just because science cannot explain how the earth came to be definitively is by no means an assertion that somewhat unrelated phenomenon i.e. Natural Selection is incorrect. Today, science is limited by the frameworks and paradigms used to understand data, technology, ethics, and the intelligence of the human mind. Just because man has not been able to explain exactly how the earth formed by no means suggests that what it has found is false. In examining the histories of scientific discoveries, it can be seen that they often build upon each other. Perhaps one day, if technology allots us, we will be able to understand better the process of planet formation……But I should mention: Religious explanations of the origin of man are quite weak and are not supported by anything other than by blind faith. At least science has working proof for its claims, and as I said: the process of evolution is much more believable than all animals appearing in a temporal sequence of relatedness out of thin air! I am sorry Robert, but I cannot fathom that humans just appeared all of the sudden out of nothing. When have you seen something appear out of thin air? Why is that so much more believable to you than evolution? It violates everything you have experienced in your life, when have you seen something suddenly appear out of thin air?! Plants slowly grow, they do not just transform from seed to stalk magically. Nature operates gradually over time, not in a matter of seconds. From this framework, Natural Selection is more believable than creationism.
For lack of time and space, I will have to address the issue of planet and life formation another day, but I will say this: the presence of water and ozone layer are not proof of god, they are however proof that life can be supported; the fact that the other planets have no ozone layer is not proof of god, because we only have a small number of planets in our solar system and there is likely billions of planets throughout the universe as a whole, in which some likely have Ozone; the fact the sun does not float away is not proof of god because the sun is held in place and together by the force of gravity; and water exists in other planets, not just earth, it is present in the atmosphere of both Venus and Mars and there is evidence that Mars had large bodies of water on its surface long ago….though that does not mean I believe in Aliens. ...lol…..

Best regards,

BH

BH...surely you're from the planet of the apes

Yes, I am. Guess what planet it is.......................................................................................................give up?................It's Earth. Do they teach basic science in your grade school or are you from hickville. You see we live on a planet called "Earth", need I go on?

BH...you must be in the cage now or in the wilds since all apes in this planet are either on these two places...how's your father king kong?...you must look alike?...are you it's mirror image?.....oga oga ogagah...how are your chimpanzee cousins.ummmmmmmm ugggggggghhhhhh

Guess what Arantxa? Guess what the dominant scholarly view of the world is? It is not creationism, it is science. Why do you think that Evolution is taught in schools and creationism is not? Why do universities solely teach evolution? I wonder what the average difference in IQ would be between the scholarly, those who are educated, and people like you.
The computer you are writing on, its built on scientific principles, what has your religion done for you? In fact most of the life you enjoy is built on science. Yet you brush it off when it goes against what people like Benny tell you. Try getting an education, open your mind to natural observation rather than what's forced down your throat (likely by your parents no doubt).
On the other hand, it is no surprise people on this website cannot understand evolution: Most come from rural hick town and have not seen the inside of a University; most have no understanding of science and scientific principles; and most are ignorant of how much science has improved their lives; Lastly, this forum is surly not representative of the consensual view humans have about evolution, it is built on a certain bias so to speak.
Most are joyous of the relief scientifically produced pain killers have given them, how present medical treatment has allotted people the opportunity to live longer and be healthier than ever. Was it prayer that saved people from the plagues past or was it medicine? Is it science that is coming up with all the answers or is it the bull they feed you from the day you were born? Think it over, go to school, and then come back and discuss the plausibility of Evolutionary theory with me. I could not be more delighted then to set you straight. Until then, I will no longer bother myself with your comments on the matter. You cannot offer an argument anyway, only attempted insults, and poor ones at that!

BH...points i will give my true beliefs i believe that we were made by a supreme being..but i also hold some scientific beliefs they are as you stated visible in the natural world but since they cannot entirely prove how it all came about i will follow my religion not that my beliefes are formed by going into a builiding i dont follow all the things modern religion says and i feel alot of them like our bro hinn use it to our and others dismay.(ps my insults are to mainly joust a little for humors intent only nothing personnel)they have taken something that i feel could be if only in theory as beautiful as you hold your science wich by the way has become a religion and holds the same basis as any religion that it will save us..but my point being is that since it does take or would take thousands of years to develop such a system say as the human body that in itself is a more reliable machine than anything man has come up with if you think about what it does and the sure traume it can take and still repair and go on with its funtions or when one part of the brain is damaged then another takes over for it and i will conceed to you that some of the stories in the bible such as creation ism may seem a bit over the top but it does take faith t believe in something even if that something is science you said yourself that you belive that one day science will figure it out or prove it points but you cannot garuntee this so you base your beliefes in a faith of science whether you are willing to believe it or not you do practice a religion it is science..or if you want buhdism or islam or hinduism etc.yes sir mans brain does sence something above himself or greater than himself and he seeks it out trying to answer the ultimate question WHY AM I HERE nothing just happens like you stated have you seen anything just appear so why would anything just appear such as molecules and atom and then form into tthe glop pools and then decide hey lets get together and become something and so one sir the theories in science are just as over the top as creationism ...why is it hard for you also to believe that thier could be a god who created this place and does allow for change with in his creation..this theory is more among my beliefs i think god is the ultimate scientist ..and as far as other religions i sir am not to judge them it is not my duty if they are right and i am wrong then i guess ill find out when im dead and if this god i believe in turns out to be nothing then it has not hurt me to try and live a better life i applaude the scientist who work hard to heal us and am very grateful for them and the work they do but religion was here before science as far as my studies but if you can prove me wrong then by all means do so and i will conceed the point but reguardless sir onething i do know that you god of science cannot stop your death as your religion goes once your dead your dead its up to the next guy i will have the faith in the resurection and if im wrong then it is my honor to let my bones and flesh rote and feed something else thefore giving me the honor of living on if only as food..or the giver of life if you want to see it that way science hyas its place as well does religion but one thing you sir cannot deny is your sence of something greater than yourself it is that drive to know and understand..and as far as your water and atmosphere explanation the only thing lacking is the whole complete picture of the life forming and every little part of the puzzle coming to gether just so to make the whole picture as you know if one little thing in oour earth goes awire were done for ...and i never said the sun doesnt float away why is it not explodeing how can something soo unstable exist for so long with out dire cataclismic event such as it blowing itself up or burning up and isnt it just funny how its the only planet that just burns as a heat sorce al other planets are not as this one is..i think we as humans need to get over ourselves we are not as great as we think just look around you maybe scientists should try in venting peace..but iknow what you will say religion has started most or the wars through out history which i will admit this but i thin that says something about the carracter of man and not religion i dont claim to have all the anwers but i think with any two sides of the story the truth lies somwhere in the middle...hows that robert

he said...To me, it is more likely that religion explains the existence of a universal, independent, cognitive system, a system humans’ have to explain the unknown. Since the unknown cannot be explained, such practices are reinforced, culturally transmitted, and updated with the times. They relieve anxiety, and are a means to transmit old culture and, such practices are deeply rooted in family participation.

Posted by: BH at April 14, 2006 08:57 PM ...well what round is this did you think by my last e-mail i would bow and conceed no im not finished yet..i belive things do evolve but not every tree florew bee ape etc. coming from one ONE COMON ancestor i think not lets look ...micro evolution the theory that things can evole or mutate is a better word on a genetic leval these either happen naturally or due to enviromental impacts.such as the radiation or chemicals ...the second natural selection or darwinism...that the strongest will survive and the weakest will die...and speciation..where one species mutates to the point tha tit can no longer mate with its own kind and become a closed off segment therfore starting a new species..SOME INTERSETING THING ABOUT THE MISSING OR SHOULD I SAY STILL MISSING LINK....piltdown man WAS SAID TO BE 500,000 YRS OLD AND "the missing link" after all the scientist were singing the praises of the found link..it was alass found to be a FAKE a combination of an oragutan jaw bone and filed down teeth and a human skull treated with chemicals so as t look old....#2 NEANDERTHALL MAN...found in germany in the neader valley in 1856 by johann furhlrott..the find a shull and some bones..protrayedas semi-errect and a brutish human like or sub-human if you will..as called you guessed it "THE MISSING LINK" the belief now is that these people suffered from rickets they were real but mainly just had vatamin d deficencies but not the missing link they were people ohh and i forgot arthritis...now we move on to nabraska man found in well nebraske in 1922 by one harold cook what did he find ONE TOOTH =man ???? anyway and was claimed tobe by H.F Osbourne to be you guessedit "THE MISSING LINK" LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD AFTER MUCH HOOPLA our loving scientist discovered no link but an estinct PIG to whom the tooth belonged to.and not least and probably not the last the famous"LUCY" FOUND IN ETHIOPIA in 1974 by one american anthropologist donald johanson...it was so incomplete the skull richard leakey along with johanson is one of the most well known anthropologists in the world said most of it was imagination made from plaster of paris....leakey even stated in 1983 that no firm conclusion couldbe made to what species could be made..so since we came from the same ancestor why oh why have we not found the evidence of it if natural selection is the case then the stong have survived that led to us the obvious strongest of the strong where are the bones of our predisessorsthe fact is that all the evidence we have of human evolution could fit in a coffin with room to spare...but one more storie about lucy Dr. johanson gave alecture at the univesity of missouri in kc nov 20 1986 on why he felt that lucy was our ancestor and he gave reasoning such as the femur and the pelvis being more robust than most chimpsand therefore "could have " wlaked upright huum was that just conjecture i heard...i drive on...then after the lecture was over he opeaned it up to q's a mr. roy holt from the audience ask "and he is a creationist mr holt" how far from lucy did you find the knee??? answerthe knee bone was actually found a year earlier than the rest of lucy about 200 ft. lower.and about three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles)again the gentleman askes the why are you so sure it belong's to lucy ...reply because of anotomical simularities(dogs and bears have anitomical simularities)so thats the science of homology.....preety weak..robert...ill be back..god in the end always wins..now refer to BH'S COMMENT I PASTED ON THE TOP WHOS RELYING ON WHAT KNOW....ROBERT

It is not faith that drew me to that 'proposition', but rather observation: Why are many religions so different, why do people from the cave men and Egyptians of past, to the tribal natives of Africa, believe in the existence of supreme beings, yet have greatly differening explanations of existence? From this framework some religions must be wrong. Why are they their then?..... I inferred that it was to do with a need-to-know mentality, or motivation man has to try to explain what he cannot. I never said that such a system exists in reality; I inferred it based on observations. I do not have faith that it exists because it is only a proposition and I would succumb to evidence to the contrary (unlike religion). That's the difference... Science is not built on faith Robert, I will tell you why: 1.) Science uses what is observable to make conclusions not on what is not observable such as the existence of a supreme being. 2) Science is subject to standards of ethics, reliability, debate, criticism, and falisfibility. The last one is the most important, item that distinguishes science from religion: Scientific theories are only scientific if the claims they make are falsifiable. That is, they must be within the realms of reason and it must be possible to prove them wrong with other theory. Religious beliefs are not changeable because they are faith-based, and they are not scientific because they make claims that are outside scientific inquiry and therefore claims that are not falsifiable through inquiry. Other claims that are faith- based are found in the pseudo-sciences. Ideologies that are not “real” respectable science are things like: Astrology, phrenology, scientology, etc. Scientology is a funny one because it is not science at all. It is a religion that tries to use science to support its claims, but it is NOT a science in the least, nor is it considered respectable among main stream scientists. Science does not wish things to be a certain way, or have faith that they are. Science is only based on evidence drawn from the environment.
Now to address the missing link thing: The failure of science to find a missing link for primate ancestry is not evidence that evolution by natural selection is wrong.: It merely implies that we have not found it yet. How do I know?......well I infer this based on the fact that other missing links have been found and other animal chains of existence are complete. i.e. “Scientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link between fish and land animals, showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago. Paleontologists have said that the find, a crocodile-like animal called the Tiktaalik roseae and described today in the journal Nature, could become an icon of evolution in action - like Archaeopteryx, the famous fossil that bridged the gap between reptiles and birds. As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power.” Secondly Steven Gould’s theory called punctuated equilibrium states that it may be that the missing link is not findable because transition was rapid, though I do not know if I agree with this theory, it is falsifiable and within the realms of scientific endeavor. Secondly, we are talking about fossil records that date back hundreds of millions of years and preservation is not kind to such records… But I will leave this debate to another day. I think it may be in our best interests Robert if we agree to disagree. Let’s face it, there are some arguable holes in both sides of the story, well, for now….
Best regards,
BH

b'ther Benny Hinn is real servent of god father and jesus christ i belive him with my whole heart coz in him jesus christ is there , b'ther pls always remember me and my family in ur prayers , b'ther pls pray for who r not beliveing jesus christ and his amazing miracles doing through with u tq u

Dare I say it......brainwashed by people who want to make a buck of her, it is quite sad.

BH...I'll ask you one question, science smart ape. Explain to me why your cousins and close relatives .....the gorillas, the babboons and the monkeys still remain the same [APE LOOK] over thousands and STUPID presumption of yours millions of years compared to the rest of us excluding yourself. Shed me some "ape" light on this why this so...

BH...I'll ask you one question, science smart ape. Explain to me why your cousins and close relatives .....the gorillas, the babboons and the monkeys still remain the same [APE LOOK] over thousands and STUPID presumption of yours millions of years compared to the rest of us excluding yourself. Shed me some "ape" light on this why this so... Just curious how you look like....never mind....seen so many pictures of this ape creatures....thanks but no thanks

BH....i agree with you that the theory of rapid growth is completly a stetch to try and expain why they have failed to so far find..but i still conceed that you are still aware of something greater than yourself..and you youreself are through science trying to explain your world..some are true and have been proved..ohhlet me go back to the first point quickly since the rapid growth would also go against ole darwin who said things change over a long slow period of time ok..while others were all the radge such as lucy and my previuos examples who later on become disproven or found quite lacking in the mans race to be the one to find the link and then the fame that comes with it screwed up or just generally lied and cheated everone and in the end was found uncredible but this my friend is the pliet of al people who in any group we will find the bad apples and they usually rise to the top to be gleened away so i dont fault all scientist but here is where you fail you wont even consider god in the equation and therefore you in my humble opinion have over looked the missing link i think like i stated before god allow things to change this world is not stagnet as people are not he (god)allows us the choice to make decsitions but then you must deal with the consequenses for every action there is an equal and opposite action quite scientific would you not say could it be that god made many different types of human like animals and as you state natural selection was allowed to do its thing but in my belief if you rule out the posibility of god you loose your scientificability to see the possibilities just because god like the way the earth was formed but its not known how it was or that it was not seen by any one does not mean that he is not thereif you choose to cover one eye i theorize that you will only see half the picture to be purely scuientific yuo must leave you mind open to the posibilities that not all is at thhis point known or explainable and then in my beliefs can you see what has been missing but if you put up a wall and you close it off it will certainly return to a pile of dust leaving you lacking.think about it...you said i was uneducated and i told you im not the smartest person but let us not forget einstien was a failure in school and didnot become smart shall we say till later on and then he created or helped via his theories to create the worst known thing in man kind the atom bomb and he later regreted it since mAN ABUSED his work. i dont always know all the fancy scientific terms but i think i have held my own with you and eveni think we both came to a better understanding of the two thoughts and we have arrived at a stale mate as this debate has always for years been but i must say it gave me something to look forward to and i have enjoyed it imencely maybe we can discuss another talking point and once again my slams were ment in good humor i was really proud of the sheep one which you failed to mention i just wanted to keep alittle humor into it so it would not get overlly heated wich i felt at first it was but i mellowed and used my brain insted well god bless bh dont be a stranger i will check this sight often to see if you findthat link or if you have another topic we can battle over are you in california ,san diego??? gb...robert

The back of the animal's skull, neck, ribs and fins "are particularly tetrapod-like while the snout, lower jaws, and scale-cover are similar to those seen in closely related fish," Shubin said. The animal was a predator with sharp teeth, a crocodile-like head and a flattened body.

Scientists collected the fossils during four summer explorations on Ellesmere Island in Canada's Nunavut Territory. They turned to the people of Nunavut, who retain ownership of the fossils, for help in naming the new creature. The Nunavut Elders Council suggested the name "Tiktaalik" (tic-TA-lick), their word for a large, shallow-water fish.

At the time Tiktaalik lived, the Canadian Arctic region was part of a landmass that straddled the equator and had a subtropical climate. The deposits that produced the Tiktaalik fossils were left by stream systems meandering across wide floodplains.

"This kind of shallow stream system seems to be where many features of land-living animals first arose," said Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. "The species shows that evolution from life in water to life on land happened gradually in fish in shallow water."

The skeletal structure of Tiktaalik and the nature of the deposits where it was found suggest an animal that lived on the water bottom, in the shallows, and perhaps even out of the water for short periods.

"The skeleton of Tiktaalik indicates that it could support its body under the force of gravity whether in very shallow water or on land," said Farish Jenkins of Harvard University. "This represents a critical early phase in the evolution of all limbed animals, including us."

The project was also funded by the National Geographic Society, an anonymous donor, and the researchers' institutions. The team also relied on geological mapping by the Geological Survey of Canada.

-NSF-if these are bones then how do they know it had scales...and to point out that there are alot of words like perhaps or could have where is the facts the we knonw with out a dought...im not saying that it did not exist but jst to use it how they always report these thing as if they know what they are saying to be true..or fact...just a thought ...robert

Arantxa, I have answered that question, look above. You ask that question becasue you do not understand evolution. As I said, man and gorilla or man and chumpanzee are not the same animal. That is why they do not look the same. They are only presumed to be related by decent to a common ancestor. The question you asked is the same as these and does not even discredit natural selection in the least:Why are some members of the ape family small, why are others larger, why do some have bigger testes to body ratios than others, etc. The answer to yours and to the similar questions I posted above is that when man and chimpanzee diverged from a common ancestor "millions of years ago" (thousands is not long enough, read about radioactive dating)they had been subjected to differential selection pressure. This means what works in one environment does not necessarly work in another. I will repost what science has to say about differential intelligence among primates because it also follows the same logic as your question requires: Our related ancestor that lived millions of years ago was likely scattered, as many organisms are. That means that our common ancestor was subject to differing environmental demands. It is believed that these differential conditions such as, how hard food is to get, what the land terrain is like etc, is responsible for the divergence in brain power. Some member of our common ancestor lived in areas that did not require additional cognitive adaptations, while others were selected because of their environment to require a higher cognitive capacity (read about the foraging hypothesis) "Researchers examining correlations between ecology and brain size in primates -- including ecological variables such as diet, stratification, activity timing, home range size, and breeding system -- have concluded that grades of encephalization depend on taxonomic family and are correlated with body size and home range"(Bauchot and Stephan 1966, Clutton-Brock and Harvey 1980.

Arantxa, I have answered that question, look above. You ask that question becasue you do not understand evolution. As I said, man and gorilla or man and chumpanzee are not the same animal. That is why they do not look the same. They are only presumed to be related by decent to a common ancestor. The question you asked is the same as these and does not even discredit natural selection in the least:Why are some members of the ape family small, why are others larger, why do some have bigger testes to body ratios than others, etc. The answer to yours and to the similar questions I posted above is that when man and chimpanzee diverged from a common ancestor "millions of years ago" (thousands is not long enough, read about radioactive dating)they had been subjected to differential selection pressure. This means what works in one environment does not necessarly work in another. I will repost what science has to say about differential intelligence among primates because it also follows the same logic as your question requires: Our related ancestor that lived millions of years ago was likely scattered, as many organisms are. That means that our common ancestor was subject to differing environmental demands. It is believed that these differential conditions such as, how hard food is to get, what the land terrain is like etc, is responsible for the divergence in brain power. Some member of our common ancestor lived in areas that did not require additional cognitive adaptations, while others were selected because of their environment to require a higher cognitive capacity (read about the foraging hypothesis) "Researchers examining correlations between ecology and brain size in primates -- including ecological variables such as diet, stratification, activity timing, home range size, and breeding system -- have concluded that grades of encephalization depend on taxonomic family and are correlated with body size and home range"(Bauchot and Stephan 1966, Clutton-Brock and Harvey 1980.

Arantxa, I have answered that question, look above. You ask that question becasue you do not understand evolution. As I said, man and gorilla or man and chumpanzee are not the same animal. That is why they do not look the same. They are only presumed to be related by decent to a common ancestor. The question you asked is the same as these and does not even discredit natural selection in the least:Why are some members of the ape family small, why are others larger, why do some have bigger testes to body ratios than others, etc. The answer to yours and to the similar questions I posted above is that when man and chimpanzee diverged from a common ancestor "millions of years ago" (thousands is not long enough, read about radioactive dating)they had been subjected to differential selection pressure. This means what works in one environment does not necessarly work in another. I will repost what science has to say about differential intelligence among primates because it also follows the same logic as your question requires: Our related ancestor that lived millions of years ago was likely scattered, as many organisms are. That means that our common ancestor was subject to differing environmental demands. It is believed that these differential conditions such as, how hard food is to get, what the land terrain is like etc, is responsible for the divergence in brain power. Some member of our common ancestor lived in areas that did not require additional cognitive adaptations, while others were selected because of their environment to require a higher cognitive capacity (read about the foraging hypothesis) "Researchers examining correlations between ecology and brain size in primates -- including ecological variables such as diet, stratification, activity timing, home range size, and breeding system -- have concluded that grades of encephalization depend on taxonomic family and are correlated with body size and home range"(Bauchot and Stephan 1966, Clutton-Brock and Harvey 1980.

Arantxa, I have answered that question, look above. You ask that question becasue you do not understand evolution. As I said, man and gorilla or man and chumpanzee are not the same animal. That is why they do not look the same. They are only presumed to be related by decent to a common ancestor. The question you asked is the same as these and does not even discredit natural selection in the least:Why are some members of the ape family small, why are others larger, why do some have bigger testes to body ratios than others, etc. The answer to yours and to the similar questions I posted above is that when man and chimpanzee diverged from a common ancestor "millions of years ago" (thousands is not long enough, read about radioactive dating)they had been subjected to differential selection pressure. This means what works in one environment does not necessarly work in another. I will repost what science has to say about differential intelligence among primates because it also follows the same logic as your question requires: Our related ancestor that lived millions of years ago was likely scattered, as many organisms are. That means that our common ancestor was subject to differing environmental demands. It is believed that these differential conditions such as, how hard food is to get, what the land terrain is like etc, is responsible for the divergence in brain power. Some member of our common ancestor lived in areas that did not require additional cognitive adaptations, while others were selected because of their environment to require a higher cognitive capacity (read about the foraging hypothesis) "Researchers examining correlations between ecology and brain size in primates -- including ecological variables such as diet, stratification, activity timing, home range size, and breeding system -- have concluded that grades of encephalization depend on taxonomic family and are correlated with body size and home range"(Bauchot and Stephan 1966, Clutton-Brock and Harvey 1980.

Arantxa, I have answered that question, look above. You ask that question becasue you do not understand evolution. As I said, man and gorilla or man and chimpanzee are not the same animal. That is why they do not look the same. They are only presumed to be related by decent to a common ancestor. The question you asked is the same as these and does not even discredit natural selection in the least:Why are some members of the ape family small, why are others larger, why do some have bigger testes to body ratios than others, etc. The answer to yours and to the similar questions I posted above is that when man and chimpanzee diverged from a common ancestor "millions of years ago" (thousands is not long enough, read about radioactive dating)they had been subjected to differential selection pressure. This means what works in one environment does not necessarly work in another. I will repost what science has to say about differential intelligence among primates because it also follows the same logic as your question requires: Our related ancestor that lived millions of years ago was likely scattered, as many organisms are. That means that our common ancestor was subject to differing environmental demands. It is believed that these differential conditions such as, how hard food is to get, what the land terrain is like etc, is responsible for the divergence in brain power. Some member of our common ancestor lived in areas that did not require additional cognitive adaptations, while others were selected because of their environment to require a higher cognitive capacity (read about the foraging hypothesis) "Researchers examining correlations between ecology and brain size in primates -- including ecological variables such as diet, stratification, activity timing, home range size, and breeding system -- have concluded that grades of encephalization depend on taxonomic family and are correlated with body size and home range"(Bauchot and Stephan 1966, Clutton-Brock and Harvey 1980.

Hi Robert,

Yes, I too have enjoyed our debate. I am not sure, but I think that there has been scientific debate over how Gould's theory relates to Darwin's. I think that at present, the consensual view is that Gould's theory is not in opposition to it: “Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with quantum evolution, saltationism, catastrophism, and with the phenomenon of mass extinction, and is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism. It is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism (in the strict and literal sense of biological continuity). This is because even though the changes are considered to be occurring relatively quickly (relative to the species geological existence), changes are still occurring incrementally, with no great changes from one generation to the next. This can be understood by considering an example: Suppose the average length of a limb on a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches, a large amount) over 70,000 years (a geologically short period of time). If the average generation is seven years, then the given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. Thus, on average, the limb grows at the minute, gradual rate of only 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000 generations).
Critics of punctuated equilibrium, such as Richard Dawkins, have argued that the concept of phyletic gradualism was merely a straw man—arguing in his book The Blind Watchmaker that a belief in the uniformity of rates was never really held by any serious evolutionist. Eldredge and Gould's advocacy of the theory brought punctuated equilibrium much attention, including full page stories in The New York Times and Newsweek. The resulting debate stirred up in evolutionary circles was misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis." Some detractors among evolutionary biologists wryly termed punctuated equilibrium "evolution by jerks." (It is now sometimes referred to by the slang "punk eek," with no negative connotations implied.) The actual differences between the various evolution theorists were not as large as they were made to appear. Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis”.
Though, there are some areas that the theories but heads, they are not really too oppositional. I find this explanation to be quite polished and it offers an excellent argument.
Just a thought or an analogy so to speak: Why do people believe certain things on faith when logic seems to cause less error in any other branch of life- would you believe a stranger who tells you that he only wants to borrow you car, or would you base your decision of whether to let him borrow it on evidence of his honesty, i.e. whether you know him, whether he has been truthful in the past, whether he has borrowed other things and returned them before or not, etc. You see, real life important decisions require evidence to avoid being cheated. It would not be an “adaptive” strategy to believe strangers honesty on “faith”, because logic would lead to less error. This framework can be applied anywhere in life. If people used faith to make most of life’s important decisions, it would cause them to be suckered more often. For example, people who believe Benny Hin’s abilities are legitimate believe on faith and then act in accordance, and so, they are the one’s who are suckered more often. It is no wonder man requires evidence to make decisions. Realistically, logic-based thought has led to the most adaptive decisions, so why do some people believe religion and religious claims based on faith when most of their decisions and decision making processes use logic?

I have just done some reading on religion and found scientific papers on the purpose of religion. Evolutionary psychologists have proposed that religious beliefs are rooted as by-products of other cognitive adaptations man has undergone in his evolutionary past. Let me first explain what a by-product of an adaptation is, before I mention his actual argument. An evolutionary by-product is an arbitrary phenotypic trait that is associated with an adaptive trait. For example, the fact most homicides in the world are universally done my men relative to women is a by-product of the aggressive behaviour that has been promoted by natural selection in males instead of females; language was not an adaptation in its own right, it was a by-product of the fact man has been selected to possess such a large neocortex; the color of blood and bones is also arbitrarily related to what blood and bones are selected for……….Anyways, you get the point.
Along these lines, I do not have faith in the future claims’, I believe them because they are rational explanations with supporting evidence from the natural world.
Because the existence of a religion is almost universal, and because many religions are so different, it is reasonable to propose that religions will be present regardless of their truthfulness. Religions themselves are therefore not adaptive. However, religious practices are socially rooted and they promote social interaction indirectly through a common front. They promote social cohesion in times of conflict, and to some degree social order. Attachment theorists propose that there is a relation between classified attachment types and religious beliefs. That is, certain attachment styles are more common in people with religious beliefs than others.
In the past 50 000 years there has been an estimated 100 000 distinguishable religions. All have their own view of the world, and not surprisingly, all are resistant to change and outside opinion, no matter how truthful it may be. Thus, scientifically it is of no surprise that I am unable to convince people who have a deeply religious background- just as I would fail to persuade the astrology- believer that astrology is a load of crap. But, why are there so many religions, why are they so universally present in almost all societies, and why are they all so different? Many are in fact quite oppositional, yet equally confident that theirs is correct over all others.
Evolutionary theories that have been proposed to account for beliefs in the paranormal, or supernatural, say that such beliefs are kin-based. That is, they function to promote family cooperation and also function to support community altruism. Incoming ambiguous information is also categorized specifically based on one’s religious affiliation. Evidence even exists that Cro-Magnon man possessed the capacity to use symbolism -(cave markings)- and because of that, they possessed the capacity to have supernatural explanations for things such as fire.Though their explanations were wrong, they served a greater purpose and were therefore preserved.
Lastly, to be purly scientific it is true you must have an open mind, but only to what is within the realms of scientific inquiry. As I said, no real scientist can scientifically address issues that are unfalsifiable. If there is no way to prove the claim wrong, then it cannot be addressed by science. Religious beliefs are therefore untestable and unprovable through scientific means.

Best regards,

BH

BH....All your statements above does'nt even hold any water, even a single drop. It's full of holes, assumption, supposition and presumption. Remember apeman, your level of mentality is so limited and stagnated with foremention above that you can't even fathom what the word "theory" is all about. Stupid (*)beings, like you, dwell so much on the works of Darwin and his "Theory" that if he is alive today, he will be laughing with his butt. So funny to say "a blob" like you, would readily accept the idea of another "blob", which in reality make sense. If you are satisfied of being an apekind, act like ape, think like an ape, then good luck to you. Sorry to say, as you openly admitted, that me [with the rest of humankind] do not belong to the same ancestry as yours. You chose to believed that your ancestor are from animal kind, so be it. You want to be called an animal, so be it. I always called you an apeman [which is oxymorn] cause I don't want to very sound rude. But many "beings" in this world like yourself want to be identified with the animals, again so be it. Think for a moment about the science that you rely so much upon. If you happen to be in an accident or got sick or acquired a dilibedating disease, you want a veterinarian to handle you?, and have a blood tranfusion with a pig and have an organ transplant with a dog in your life and death situation? umhmmmm just wondering if you will survive even a day? I "assume" you have the level of mentality to ponder on this queries.
Can't understand why some (**)like you want to degrade themselves so much and very insistent about it...So So Sooooooo Sad.....Anyways, Good Luck Bloke

Your response has the workings of a true moron. Once again, you fail to address the issue nor could you address my questions about why it is the dominant view nowadays and why your specific religion is right and the others are wrong. You represent the unscholarly, the dumb and uninformed strata of the population. As I said, you have no substance, no argument, only slander. That only proves your ignorance of the issue at hand. I remember reading something above from Robert about how scientists think people are special... that is not true in the slightest. If anything, science assigns the same prescriptions to humans as to all other organism. Religion is the ideology that tries to give significance to humanity. For example, only humans go to heaven. But when it comes down to it we are just as much an animal as all other organisms. To deny it, is to give yourself a greater significance, one that you cannot prove whatsoever. Humans are bound by instincts, and reflexes just as all other organisms. When we get something in our eye we tear up, when we get ready for confrontation our heart beats, adrenaline is produced, we mobilize for action- as all other animals. When scared and happy, we make cross-cultural stereotypical expressions, much similar to other primates. Arantxa, we are as much animals as any other. We become sexually aroused by the opposite sex, we protect and nurture our young, when we burn our hand we quickly and reflex ably draw it back, when cold we shiver, when hot we sweat. Humans, as all other organisms are bound by the laws of biology. All animals, including humans require food, water, warmth, shelter, etc. Humans have instincts, and the fact that you are not aware of them is proof that they work so well. Just as all other animals are unaware of there instincts, man is greatly unaware of his. And when he is aware that they exist, he is still ignorant of what they actually accomplish and how. That is what creationists cannot accept, man is as insignificant as any other organism. It is only our large brain capacity that distinguishes us and makes us feel superior, but trust me Arantxa, you and I, and all other humans are animals. Though, your attempted ploy to draw negative connotations to such an argument is just proof of your ignorance, I will except your responses as proof you have nothing of value to offer on the matter. You can believe what you will. I will continue to believe in things that have proof and you continue to believe in things that don't and ignore the things that do----error in you logic perhaps? In any case, good day to you and I will no longer respond to your southern drawl.

And to add, the assumptions, presumptions I make Arantxa are at least supported by present day study and scholarly thought. Religion makes just as much, and far more outrageous assumptions and presumptions when they have "no" evidence, only their "faith". Dare I say hypocrite... You think the things I say do not hold any water, well, what about the things you believe when you don't even have support for them. You do not convict a criminal because you have faith he did it, you do so because you have proven it with evidence. Faith based decisions lead to greater error: the compulsive gambler has faith he will win if he plays one more time, where logic prescribes his chances are the same on every try so he should stop. You are the one with outdated view. The scholars of present are far more credible than some southern hick, with little intellect. Why do they teach evolution in university as it is advocated. Get an education, leave your little hick state and open your eyes to present knowledge and thought.

Arantxa, you represent the stereotypical creationist: so conservative and blind to the truth. Does it make sense to you to believe in claims that have no support and then attack and doubt claims that do? If so, you are quite irrational.... Simply compare my statements to yours and it is greatly evident that I possess the greater intellect and offer a more credible argument: I speak of evolution and you speak of someone "laughing from his but." I address the issue and counter with questions about religion, which you then ignore and then proceed to counter with slander. You forget how much science has done for you, and you chose to believe in science when it is convenient to do so, but ignore it altogether when it is conflict with a book based on conjecture, assumptions, presumptions, hearsay and ample translation.
Oh, and one more thing, they have been known to use animal organs as transplants. The pig heart is often used in absence of a viable donor....but I bet you already knew that, you seem quite educated.....lol

Just some more thoughts Robert: If evolution never occurred, as most creationists suggest, why is it that males are the more eager sex when it comes to potential mating opportunities? What is the creationist’s explanation? If there is no evolution, there is no natural selection, and if there is no natural selection there is no reason for males to be more aggressive than females?
Evolutionists suggest that males are more aggressive and sexually eager to mate because males who have behaved that way in the past are the most likely to reproduce. In other words, from an evolutionary standpoint it makes sense that males should try to mate as much as possible and also be more interested in doing so. Historically, the greater burden of pregnancy is put on the female sex in most organisms. This is because they are the ones who have to house offspring, and give maternal resources. Evolutionary explanations of female reproduction strategies exclaim that it makes sense for females to be more choosey, since they are the ones who bare the greater burden through pregnancy. Females, from an evolutionary standpoint have faced greater obstacles than males by making mate choice errors. Because such errors are more costly to females, evolutionary thinking reasons that this is why females are more choosey. After all, they can only have a limited number of offspring and only have a limited number of eggs. They try to choose the males with the fittest genes. Sexual selection is a component of natural selection, where female mate choice is a driving force in the evolutionary process. Males who have the most attractive characteristics are often chosen first and males who lack them, are often overlooked. Why can't low quality males trick females into choosing them? Well, evolutionary thinkers have discovered that the degree to which a male has characteristics attractive to a female is related to his circulating levels of testosterone. That is, males with higher levels of testosterone have more secondary sex characteristics females find attractive in mates, i.e. Peacock tail colour. The reason low quality males can not trick their way into the bed of a female is because testosterone is an immunosuppressant. This means, that only the males with the highest quality, and most virus resistant genes can tolerate such high levels of testosterone. How can creationism explain these asymmetries in relation to male and female sexual behavior?
Secondly, why are males more aggressive than females. From an evolutionary standpoint, aggression has offered much greater benefits to males than to females. This is because males are not limited by sperm and females are limited by eggs. Therefore, male fitness is a product of their frequency of insemination, female fitness is not. Males are more aggressive because many animals, including humans have evolved in a state of effective polygyny. This means, that male reproductive variability is greater than female reproductive variability. In simpler terms, aggressive males mate with multiple females and males that are not aggressive enough mate with few or none. Since some males mate and others don't, competition for mates is of greater importance for males. That is why they are more aggressive, that is why they are responsible for the greatest number of homicides that is why males between the ages of 18-25 get in the most bar fights and drive the most recklessly. What is the creationist explanation for this asymmetrical pattern of aggression in males and females. If no environmental pressure is of any importance, as creationists suggest, why the asymmetry in behavior? A second point can be seen in the differing testes to body ratios in primates. In gorillas, monogamy is common (at least for females). With this in mind, it has been shown that gorillas have small testes mass to body mass ratio. This observation is important because it has been found that larger testes give off larger amounts of ejaculate. In animals where sperm competition is low, no adaptations have been necessary and males tend to have small ratios, like gorillas. Chimpanzees are the opposite: they have a polygynous reproductive system so there is a great amount of sperm completion. As such, male chimps have larger testes mass to body mass ratios because adaptations are needed because of sperm completion. Humans are in the middle, they have a testes to body ratio in between the two animals, and this is evidence that humans have evolved in a effectively polygynous environment, where male reproductive variability is higher than females reproductive variability and males require some adaptations for sperm competition. It is clear that the environment is responsive to structural features. In organisms where competition is high, and aggression is important, males have a greater relative size and possess greater armaments compared to females i.e. horns on a bull, antlers on a deer, greater strength etc. In more monogamous organisms where competition is weaker, the two sexes are of relatively equal size. This is evidence of selection pressure. How can creationism account for the asymmetrical reproductive strategies males and females possess in all organisms, why males in most organisms are more aggressive than females, why males are of greater size in polygynous systems and equal size in monogamous systems when compared to females of the same species, and why the testes-to-body mass ratio is an index of reproductive strategies if there is no evolution or natural selection?

After reading all the statements from both sides of the issue, the theory of evolution inspite of all the studies and fact finding done, it's not conclusive that man and animal came from the same ancestry as BH suggested. The point here is if animal kingdom is consistently evolving still, then there are so many questions need to be answered that's never been address here.
First, if there's a common ancestry between man and animals Where's the link? if such, What is it? if such, How? if such, When did this happened (so easy to say such and such a million or milions of years ago.......if science is so well advance and carbon dating probation is the only means, unfortunately still with inconclusive results...then it arrive to one conclusion.....Evolution IS All Bogus and A Big Lie.
Second, which I will linked this question to Ms. Arantxa Gallegos comments earlier that also not address properly here is, if animals and man are of the same ancestry, then Why all these Evolutionist Propagators and Professionals in the Science Community NEVER and could even suggest that we CAN conclusively share body organs (it's done ONCE in the past but a what miserable failure) and body fluids, especially blood as Ms. Arantxa is suggesting. For all Intent and Purpose, MOST (if not all) medical sources for man's diseases medicine and cure ARE Derived from the PLANT kingdom. Now BH... Explain that. You're assumption is All wrong about relativeness between man and animals (in regards to ancestry). And I would never ever suggest man's relativeness with plants as well. This second question SHOULD be an eye opener to any evolutionist cause I want to challenge ANYONE of them to Volunteer to have a blood transfusion or exchange of blood WITH ANY Animal of their Preference. (Blood by the way, between man and animal's commonality, is the source of life). BH, that question was raised on you, and since you're an ardent die hard evolutionist would you do it or volunter TO MAKE YOUR POINT?

If you then believed on what you believe, and since you wrote so many Supposively Scientific Studies with surmountable "Presumable Conclusion and Answers", with Scientific jargonic words that you used ....Then I challenge you to PROVE IT. You have such faith in Science (I don't nothing wrong with it)... then DO IT...If you are absolutely sure that Evolution is not debunk........ You know what BH, I assume you're a very intelligent being, as I hinted in your comments and respect all, on what you believe as everyone else, BUT in this planet we live in, as the saying goes...THERE"S A SUCKER BORN IN THIS WORLD EVERY MINUTE" and I assume you're not one of them. There's an old Adage which says "Before you believe on something, PROVE IT (to yourself by experiencing it). Hopefully, before Keep repeating and rewriting all your comments in this forum in the past.....I suggest that you go to the nearest Laboratory and volunteer to have my suggestion done mentioned above. Have a nice experience and good luck

to BH... Good News...I've just learned that any Medical Laboratory in North America are looking for any individuals who would volunteer their effort, time and body for the advancement of medicine to find cure for diseases such as cancer, heart diseases and other unknown diseases especially the forthcoming "pandemic" that would happened in the near future. The recent outbreak of mad cow disease and chicken flu worries the Medical Science Community so much that, in restraining this diseases, they need really to work on "HUMAN" not just laboratory animals to developed antibodies to fight against the new strain of virus the diseases carried by these animals. As you eagerly suggested over and over again about "Our relativeness to the Animal World, then this is the right oppurtionity to best serve your belief in Evolution with the help of Science to find ways to stop and prevent the spreading of these deadly viruses from animals to human, and if there a chance it will, find a cure for it. I would also call ALL other good-hearted Evolutionist to do the same. "Maybe Evolution Theory has a Purpose after All, as Evolutionist Believe that NOTHING came to this World by Chance but WITH NATURAL PROCESSES."

So BH ....There's your Challenge.....First, to Proved Yourself and your Belief is Right...and Second, To disproved millions of us who are in disagreement with your debunk Theory.

The point is simple. Animals and humans cannot share blood and most organs because they are not the same animal, they have differing immune systems and the like. However, that is not proof against evolution in the slightest. Why you ask? Well, because some humans cannot share organs with even other humans and the same goes for blood. Though you would not deny that two randomly selected men came from a common ancestor would you? The fact that their organs are incompatible is not proof against evolution because humans are related and they cannot always share organs and blood! The truth is science does not rely on faith. Natural selection is a mere consequence of the environment arbitrarily favoring one set of genes over another set. How do you account for the origin of man, through god? Through things that have no proof whatsoever? If so, how can you say that things that have support are less true than things that have none?
Granted, many things cannot be proven to fact, but that does not mean we cannot make rational, educated models that explain existence and behavior in ways greater than creationism ever could. As I said, I am not surprised to reach such resistance here because this site is not representative of the average view. This site has an obvious bias towards creationism. So it is of no surprise that I cannot convince many, if not all of you. Most choose to believe in what they have always known to believe. Such belief systems are hard to alter. I can only hope I make some people see the (possible) errors they are making on the issue. Religion has an obvious agenda for protecting itself from scientific inquiry. For example, there are sham sites on the net that try to give the creationist ammunition to be used in debate. Scientific discovery is a mere consequence of un-biased observation, it has no agenda, no reason to believe in views to the contrary or in favor of any position without support .The truth is though, that religion needs more defending then science. Many scientific theories and models are not definitive, but they nevertheless do a good job of describing what they observe: Calculus, for example, is by no means free of error, but its use gives one close approximations to difficult questions; physics model of the atom is not necessarily accurate, but it is limited enough in its error to still produce viable results.. The theory of natural selection, perhaps may not be a composite of perfection, but more complex models may. Although it may not be perfect, it is a representative explanation for a wide range of "observed" phenomenon i.e. maternal-fetal conflict, sexual selection, etc. Creationism cannot explain any of my questions above, but no one here questions the bibles truthfulness. Helena, even if I could prove it definitively, people like you would still not believe. I know this because evolution is at present the dominant scholarly world view on the organ of man, and if you cannot accept the work of present scholars, any attempt in my part would be like beating a dead horse (perhaps I have already beaten that same horse!) Secondly, you could not address my specific argument nor could you convince me that you have a present informed understanding of evolution and the studies that support it. (It is not as though you read the abundant scientific journals with “lab” support, far more likely you read creationist books and/or websites that offer the same old tired arguments to keep their people in check).
I just think that most frequents of this site do not realize the strength of the argument for evolution: Simply recognizing that your genes can be passed by heritable variation is argument for evolution; the fact that primate reproductive systems is responsive to their reproductive anatomy is proof of divergence in reproduction in primates; the fact that individual genes compete for expression in a maternal-fetal conflict is proof of evolution at the gene level ; carbon dating is not the only form of dating, and radioactive isotope dating has shown equal readings and offered better estimations- this is proof, in the least, of a biblical flaw. Do you really think the dinosaurs were around thousands of years ago!
There is no one in the lab trying to prove religious claims because they are not provable, however, that being said, how can religion account for its greater flaws? There are far more questions the bible fails to address or even can clearly answer. Specifically, why can no one answer my questions about: 1) Why there are so many religions? 2) Why god would punish people who believe in the “wrong” religion for the arbitrary reason of geographic location? 3.) Why faith-based decisions are wise in trying to make important life decisions relating to views on man’s existence when in all other scenarios logic-based claims are used and cause less error? 4.) Why there are about 100 000 different religions and “ones” particular religion is of special consequence? 5) Religion exists if it is wrong and it exists if it is right since there are so many religions and they are greatly divergent- if there is only one true religion, most must be wrong. Therefore, it will exist if it is wrong regardless of others truthfulness, how can this be accounted for? 6) Why are the most scholarly countries, states, provinces at a consensus when it comes to evolutionary theory- Why is evolution taught as the dominant ideology and framework for research and instruction? 7.) Why is evolutionary theory able to account for more behavior, sexual practices and functional design in living organisms than creationist views? Creationists cannot prove that there view is correct, yet they chose to believe it anyway. 8.) Why is it more rational to believe in things that lack proof and slander the things that have immensely strong support for them? 9.) How can it be shown that religion has no agenda in terms of keeping its followers from believing and/or doubting science? 10) how can evolution be a lie if no one intended it to be one and if it has no agenda?
In closing, as I said, there are a number of ways to address the missing link issue: punctuated equilibrium--(which I now favor based on further reading); there is the fact that other, once missing links have been found and the fact that some chains are likely complete.

to BH... Good News...I've just learned that any Medical Laboratory in North America are looking for any individuals who would volunteer their effort, time and body for the advancement of medicine to find cure for diseases such as cancer, heart diseases and other unknown diseases especially the forthcoming "pandemic" that would happened in the near future. The recent outbreak of mad cow disease and chicken flu worries the Medical Science Community so much that, in restraining this diseases, they need really to work on "HUMAN" not just laboratory animals to developed antibodies to fight against the new strain of virus the diseases carried by these animals. As you eagerly suggested over and over again about "Our relativeness to the Animal World, then this is the right oppurtionity to best serve your belief in Evolution with the help of Science to find ways to stop and prevent the spreading of these deadly viruses from animals to human, and if there a chance it will, find a cure for it. I would also call ALL other good-hearted Evolutionist to do the same. "Maybe Evolution Theory has a Purpose after All, as Evolutionist Believe that NOTHING came to this World by Chance but WITH NATURAL PROCESSES."

So BH ....There's your Challenge.....First, to Proved Yourself and your Belief is Right...and Second, To disproved millions of us who are in disagreement with your debunk Theory.

to BH... Good News...I've just learned that any Medical Laboratory in North America are looking for any individuals who would volunteer their effort, time and body for the advancement of medicine to find cure for diseases such as cancer, heart diseases and other unknown diseases especially the forthcoming "pandemic" that would happened in the near future. The recent outbreak of mad cow disease and chicken flu worries the Medical Science Community so much that, in restraining this diseases, they need really to work on "HUMAN" not just laboratory animals to developed antibodies to fight against the new strain of virus the diseases carried by these animals. As you eagerly suggested over and over again about "Our relativeness to the Animal World, then this is the right oppurtionity to best serve your belief in Evolution with the help of Science to find ways to stop and prevent the spreading of these deadly viruses from animals to human, and if there a chance it will, find a cure for it. I would also call ALL other good-hearted Evolutionist to do the same. "Maybe Evolution Theory has a Purpose after All, as Evolutionist Believe that NOTHING came to this World by Chance but WITH NATURAL PROCESSES."

So BH ....There's your Challenge.....First, to Proved Yourself and your Belief is Right...and Second, To disproved millions of us who are in disagreement with your debunk Theory.

to BH... Good News...I've just learned that any Medical Laboratory in North America are looking for any individuals who would volunteer their effort, time and body for the advancement of medicine to find cure for diseases such as cancer, heart diseases and other unknown diseases especially the forthcoming "pandemic" that would happened in the near future. The recent outbreak of mad cow disease and chicken flu worries the Medical Science Community so much that, in restraining this diseases, they need really to work on "HUMAN" not just laboratory animals to developed antibodies to fight against the new strain of virus the diseases carried by these animals. As you eagerly suggested over and over again about "Our relativeness to the Animal World, then this is the right oppurtionity to best serve your belief in Evolution with the help of Science to find ways to stop and prevent the spreading of these deadly viruses from animals to human, and if there a chance it will, find a cure for it. I would also call ALL other good-hearted Evolutionist to do the same. "Maybe Evolution Theory has a Purpose after All, as Evolutionist Believe that NOTHING came to this World by Chance but WITH NATURAL PROCESSES."

So BH ....There's your Challenge.....First, to Proved Yourself and your Belief is Right...and Second, To disproved millions of us who are in disagreement with your debunk Theory.

There's an old Adage which says "Before you believe on something, PROVE IT (to yourself by experiencing it).............Helena, how can you prove religion is true? How can you account for the majority view in favor of evolution? How can proving anything to oneself make anything any more true in reality? You pray and you feel better, so you remember that it helped and experience it- do you then believe it worked. If there is one of two possibilities death and survival- why is survival attributed to prayer and equal death rates to no-failure of prayer? (well, because the person dies and there is no subsequent attributin after death I guess...)

When columbous said that the earth was round, there were doubters. when man said they will land on the moon, there were doubters, the fact that there are doubters is not proof against anything.

Secondly, virus cannot all be stopped because they have such short generations and ample populations and because they evolve at a much faster rate. Man cannot stop evolutionary processes that are too advanced to be stopped. Virus material DNA has been around longer than most host DNA genotypes, it is best adapted to local genotypes and therefore, impossible to definitively stop.

to BH... Good News...I've just learned that any Medical Laboratory in North America are looking for any individuals who would volunteer their effort, time and body for the advancement of medicine to find cure for diseases such as cancer, heart diseases and other unknown diseases especially the forthcoming "pandemic" that would happened in the near future. The recent outbreak of mad cow disease and chicken flu worries the Medical Science Community so much that, in restraining this diseases, they need really to work on "HUMAN" not just laboratory animals to developed antibodies to fight against the new strain of virus the diseases carried by these animals. As you eagerly suggested over and over again about "Our relativeness to the Animal World, then this is the right oppurtionity to best serve your belief in Evolution with the help of Science to find ways to stop and prevent the spreading of these deadly viruses from animals to human, and if there a chance it will, find a cure for it. I would also call ALL other good-hearted Evolutionist to do the same. "Maybe Evolution Theory has a Purpose after All, as Evolutionist Believe that NOTHING came to this World by Chance but WITH NATURAL PROCESSES."

So BH ....There's your Challenge.....First, to Proved Yourself and your Belief is Right...and Second, To disproved millions of us who are in disagreement with your debunk Theory.

There's an old Adage which says "Before you believe on something, PROVE IT (to yourself by experiencing it).............Helena, how can you prove religion is true? How can you account for the majority view in favor of evolution? How can proving anything to oneself make anything any more true in reality? You pray and you feel better, so you remember that it helped and experience it- do you then believe it worked. If there is one of two possibilities death and survival- why is survival attributed to prayer and equal death rates to no-failure of prayer?

Secondly, virus cannot all be stopped because they have such short generations and ample populations and because they evolve at a much faster rate. Man cannot stop evolutionary processes that are too advanced to be stopped. Virus material DNA has been around longer than most host DNA genotypes, it is best adapted to local genotypes and therefore, impossible to definitively stop.

There's an old Adage which says "Before you believe on something, PROVE IT (to yourself by experiencing it).............Helena, how can you prove religion is true? How can you account for the majority view in favor of evolution? How can proving anything to oneself make anything any more true in reality? You pray and you feel better, so you remember that it helped and experience it- do you then believe it worked? If there is one of two possibilities death and survival- why is survival attributed to prayer and equal death rates to no-failure of prayer?

Secondly, pathogens cannot be stopped because they have such short generations and ample populations and because they evolve at a much faster rate. Man cannot stop evolutionary processes that are too advanced to be stopped. Virus material DNA has been around longer than most host DNA genotypes, it is best adapted to local genotypes and therefore, impossible to definitively stop.
PS: Why is mostly the creationists who discount evolution? (and they are no majority, nor does their exceptence of evolutionary claims matter becasuse there doubt would be there regardless of evolutions truthfulness).

BH....You are a such a bloody confused-minded Animal. First you suggested, man and animal are from the same ancestry, BUT at same time cannot have blood transfusion with each one. How come then between HUMan TO HUMan there's "no if's and buts" (except for HUMAN blood types, should be a matched) when it comes to the same situation.

You are full of descripancies and self- contradictions in your statements, that little by little as this dicussion progress(hope so!!), your suspicious level of Intelligence as you PRETEND that you have, is dangerously counted to Nothing. All Your supposition, presumption, assumption and conjectures to support this debunk Theory is just all crap....period!!. True to the notion out there... that there are millions of SUCKERS BEING BORN IN THIS WORLD EVERY MINUTE and NO DOUBT YOU are One of Them. You are Sure and Contented to be of Animal Kind and Proud of it.....wowwww!!!so mind boogling and a pity for a (*) like you to self-degredate.

If animal could only acquire what Human have (reasoning and sound mind), we can see animals communicating with Human. Sorry to say but all they have is instinct.
Back to you BH. You Still didn't answer Any of the queries from different people in this forum and what a shame on your part to exposed yourself as a pretensious uneducated and ignorant (*) being. You are a forever loser for not accepting of what and who you are. All I can say to you is....PITTTYYY!!!!

Yes, but I did answer them. It is the creationists that cannot answer my ample questions. No one has been able to answer how creationism can account for: the asymmetrical reproductive strategies males and females possess in all organisms, why males in most organisms are more aggressive than females, why males are of greater size in polygynous systems and equal size in monogamous systems when compared to females of the same species, and why the testes-to-body mass ratio is an index of reproductive strategies if there is no evolution or natural selection? Secondly, no one can answer: 1) Why there are so many religions? 2) Why god would punish people who believe in the “wrong” religion for the arbitrary reason of geographic location? 3.) Why faith-based decisions are wise in trying to make important life decisions relating to views on man’s existence when in all other scenarios logic-based claims are used and cause less error? 4.) Why there are about 100 000 different religions and “ones” particular religion is of special consequence? 5) Religion exists if it is wrong and it exists if it is right since there are so many religions and they are greatly divergent- if there is only one true religion, most must be wrong. Therefore, it will exist if it is wrong regardless of others truthfulness, how can this be accounted for? 6) Why are the most scholarly countries, states, provinces at a consensus when it comes to evolutionary theory- Why is evolution taught as the dominant ideology and framework for research and instruction? 7.) Why is evolutionary theory able to account for more behavior, sexual practices and functional design in living organisms than creationist views? Creationists cannot prove that there view is correct, yet they chose to believe it anyway. 8.) Why is it more rational to believe in things that lack proof and slander the things that have immensely strong support for them? 9.) How can it be shown that religion has no agenda in terms of keeping its followers from believing and/or doubting science? 10) how can evolution be a lie if no one intended it to be one and if it has no agenda? and most importantly 10) Why is it only the creationists who mostly doubt evolutionary processes...(perhaps it is because of religions agenda of keeping its followers in line)
I answered all questions, simply scroll up: As I said, the fact that animals and man cannot share organs is not "direct" proof against evolution. Being related does not entail being able to share organs or blood, especially because common ancestors were split millions of years ago and selection from that point on has promoted divergent change. It is no surprise that they cannot share blood or organs because they are not the same animal, their relation to man is based on ancestry from millions of years ago.
I think it's time others tried defending religon. After all, it makes sense to attack the things that have no support over the things that do.

Arantxa, it is you who cannot except who you are. Your are one of the earth's organisms plain and simple. You have reflexes, instincts and sterotypical behaviour patterns. Man has organs and blood, just as all other animals do. If evolution is not correct, why don't you enlighten me on what is? First prove the intellects of today wrong and then prove, with evidence, how your religion can account for the orgin of man....

Xenographs(using tissue and bone from different species) are common in medicine, so many folks want to take thier organs with them.
best regards

Here is a better explanation to the organ question: The reason man and animal cannot share the same organs, is because of evolution, not because evolution is absent. Explanation: Organism X and organism Y share a common ancestor in organism Z. At the point of divergence, they have been evolving at different degrees and towards different directions. With this in mind, organism X and Y’s immune systems have been evolving differentially—How do I know this?----- Because certain organisms can contract certain pathogens, while others are immune. Anyway, because evolution at the point of divergence promotes immunes systems that are very defensive of foreign tissues and/or pathogens. i.e. organism X cannot accept an organ from organism Y because of the fact immune systems have faired better in organisms when they are highly “specific” and selectively permeable to acceptance of foreign tissue. In other words, natural selection has favored immune systems that are overly reactive, (even in cases where it should be a false alarm, i.e. harmless sham skin) and so, only the most discerning of all systems are prevalent in today for both organism X and organism Y. With this in mind, arbitrary mutation and genetic drift have piled random changes and caused both organisms immune systems to be even more divergent.
With this framework, it is no wonder man and animal cannot share organs: There are no immune system genotypes that have survived selection that permit foreign animal tissue in man. Therefore, failure of having animal organ donors is actually evidence of differential selective processes and evolution in general and not evidence against it.
Your turn: answer my questions above! Also refer to glen's comment...

Amazing what people believe ! This guy Benny I guess deserves every penny he gets if people continue to believe the utter B.S. he preaches !!

God gave Man a brain to think and apparently many people are not using it .

It is written that things like this will be and it is amazing to witness it first hand.

Many times in the Bible there is reference to the persecution of Christians , especially in the end times and I clearly see why.

Thank you for allowing me to post without "regestering"

I believe that benny is the true messenger of god. I ain't serprised people don't believe Benny rewards the people that believe with faith healings. You should go and see what he can do for you.

Benny Hinn will bamm your head and presto!! your under his spell and you fell backward and his henchmen will catch you in the air and lie you on the floor like a dummy. What a show. I like his hair piece too. Can someone can me tell if it's real? The suit, I like that Indian "Nehru Style" look. One thing that really bothers me though is when he start speaking, he got this funny accent.
But the most disturbing act on the part of his show is when he start duping people to send in their money. Bottom line Benny Hinn is a professional con-man.

I think you doubt Benny. Benny is the real thing, he ain't lieing or jocking. He has the power to heel and he can help you to. You should see the look on faces of peeple who have seen Bennys power.

WOW....I HAVE A COUPLE OF DAYS OFF AND I COME BACK TO A FULL ON ONSLAUGHT...BH SINCE I PUT YOU IN MY CROSS HAIRS IT SEEMS THAT OTHERS ARE NOW SIGHTED IN OJN YOU ALSO ALL APPALOGIES..BUT I GUESS THATS THE PRICE FOR STANDING ON ANY BELIEF PRO OF CON...BUT I WILL SAY THIS AND A COUPLE OTHER THINGS ...BECAUSE NATURE IS THE WAY IT IS DOES NOT REALLY PROVE EVOLUTION AND THIS IS WHY SINCE IT COULD BE THAT THE CREATOR ALSO CREATED THE NATURAL LAWS AND THE NATURAL CLOCK... IE WINTER SUMMER ....WHEN FEMALES COME INTO HEAT WHEN MALES GET THE URGE WICH IS USUALLY WHEN THE FEMALE IS IN HEAT WICH IS SET LIKE A CLOCK..HUMANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE SEX FOR PURE PLEASURE WHY IS THAT ...AND AS I STATED BEFORE I THINK THIS SYTEM IS TO COMPLEX TO BE SOLELY EVOLVED AS I STATED BEFORE THAT THE EARTH SOLELY AS FAR AS WE KNOW EVOLVED AS YOU SAY TO CARE FOR LIFE OR SUPPORT IT BUT THE OTHER PLANETS WICH ACCORDING TO YOUR EVOLUTION WAS CREATED AT THE SAME TIME but its only earthy that seems to have life or that is able to sustain life did this force that you call natural selection chose earth over every other planet...earth is the most perfect ecologically balanced planet that works like a swiss watch..its protected by shields ie stratus spheres etc. water evaporates then get heavy and falls to earth as rain also we have the morning dew all this is obviously perfectly thought out its too complex to have just come to be BH...as we stated before there are proofs in science obviously but as far as evolution it is not an exact science do things change as far as a part of the enviroment yes i think so i saw a show where these ratlesnakes in florida were being pushed out of thier territory in florida from the woodland due to building houses and what not to the swamp where thay have adapted just fine and are thriving but this did not happen over thousands of years man has not really adapted himself to an enviroment but has adapted the enviroment to him ie if you live in arizona we made ac and in minnesota heaters and vice verse i would think that if all this evolution as you believe it was taking place then there would be all the start and the midlevel bones and the finished product...explain man and dinosuar same animal or not so many different ones and now exstint where are the phases of the changes in the animals they have really yet to be found and then proven yet they will go on blaitant assumptions but with the last animal the alligator thing where are the next phase of that animal they should as with man be able to but into a line this phase to this phase and then be able to back it up with pure factnot the possiblies or the could have beens...but you know my points i think it all was created and then allowed to progress as a naturally funtioning creation as according to the perscribed laws..robert

Well, you have a good argument….(kind of)…. And no worries about the attacks you have brought upon me: They are expected since the people who frequent this site hold a bias towards creationism and do not hold the general consensual view on evolution the rest of the population holds…
The problem is that we are approaching the same issue from two different standpoints: i.e. The scientific versus the creationist view. You very well may be right that the laws I refer to are governed by some outside force. However, from my standpoint, I cannot address that because, as I said, science can only address falsifiable and testable claims. Unfortunately, none of your claims can be tested or proven and can only be accepted by taking someone’s word for it...i.e. the Bible. I also think there is ample proof to detract from the Christian conceptualization of a supreme being, or god: The fact that there are so many religions and the fact that they will exist regardless of their truthfulness because they are a universal phenomenon in man, yet so different. Everyone thinks that "their" religion is right, but whose to know which is, or if any for that matter? The Christian thinks he/she is right, the Buddhist thinks the same, and as do all the rest of the tens of thousands of religions out there. The point is, what makes your belief system any more right than the Buddhists or the Hindus, or the etc, other than the fact it is what you have grown up believing, which is an arbitrary reason. If you were born in China, you would have a different religious affiliation. If Christianity is right, let’s say hypothetically speaking, then, is it right that you, the China man, should go to hell because you believe something different for the arbitrary reason of geographic location? I think there are far more flaws in creationists arguments than those that rest on science. This is simply because scientific theory will grow stronger, gain support, and ultimately be proven as factual as anything can be i.e. the heart is for pumping blood, while creationist views will stay stagnant until they have to be updated with the times. Secondly, they will also gain no additional strengths since they cannot gain evidence or testability.

The fact that humans (arguably) are the only animals that have sex for pleasure is not evidence against evolution. It rests on the same reasons humans are the only organisms to have a language and to have definitive conscious thought: Simply put, it is a result of our large neocortex. The fact that human mental capacity is superior to all other organisms can explain their hedonistic nature more than the fact that evolution is false. Secondly, I take exception to that comment you made because the Bonobos (Pygmy chimpanzees) have been documented and observed performing oral sex, group sex, anal sex, etc. As a result, many have indeed concluded there is motivated interest in sex, via positive reinforcement. In fact, many other organisms instinctively behave in a hedonistic fashion. Whether consciously aware of it or not, almost all other organisms stride to avoid pain and motivated towards pleasure. The reason this is, is understandable from an evolutionary standpoint because natural selection would obviously favor genes that produce motivations in that way. In other words, natural selection would probably favor genes that promote avoidance of pain and acts that produce pain. Pain itself presents a negatively- reinforceable stimuli. Because pain encourages avoidance of potential pain inducing situations, those that are more cautious of it are motivated and effectively more fit than those that are not as responsive. This point illustrates that animals are motivated, in the least, to avoid pain, regardless of their conscious awareness of it. The large neocortex man possesses is evidence for his conscious motivation toward sexual activity. Perhaps not coincidently, the Bonobos share roughly 98.4% of their DNA with man and also have been shown to show consciously motivated sexual intent.

Next, the fact that Earth is the only known planet to sustain life is not evidence of god. This is because man can only search the planets within his solar system. Space is rapidly expanding, therefore, there are a lot more planets out there than in our solar system. We do not have the means to travel far enough into the Galaxy to answer, or know for sure whether Earth is the only planet which has rain and an ozone, etc. Keep in mind there are only 9 planets in our solar system, so saying that because we are the only “one” out of a possible 9 (or 0.11111%) is not saying much at all. It is naïve on my part, or science’s to assume that there is other life. As it stands, such a question is unfalsifiable. In any case, the proposition that god exists because Earth is the only one planet of a researchable 9 to have life, is equally naïve.

The fact that the rattlesnakes on that show “adapted” just fine, is not evidence against gradualism in the slightest. First of all, “adapted” in the sense you are using is clearly subjective. Secondly, all snakes can swim, even if they have never had to before. The snake lineage is well adapted to water and it is believed snakes evolved from swamp- dwelling organisms.
The fact that man is good at making the environment fit his needs, is not an adoption, it is actually a by-product of the fact man has a large neurological capacity. Secondly, man has such a capacity because of evolutionary adaptations.

Not completing the link is not proof that evolution does not occur. Where would the middle point be? …What of the end-point, if there is such a thing? Man and all other organisms are still interacting with the environment therefore, it would be hard to say there is an end point at all. If pathogens are still evolving i.e. bird flu, then it is likely other organisms are as well.

Lastly, how can you attack me by arguing that evolution is based on assumptions, when the Bible and creationism as a whole are based on far more assumptions. Your belief system has no support, yet you believe it anyway. Then you attack me for believing something that has evidence to back it up. It is a rather hypocritical way of presenting an argument.....

Correction, thats 11% not .1111% for my earth comment.

BH i do think your word attacked in reference to me is an overtly strong one and i have seen monkes at the zoo stick thier fingers into each other parts why they do this i dont know maybe its the get to know you game or what ever anfd because science has also OBSERVED these occurences does not mean that they do it for pleasure as well as vice verce when these chimps begin to talk if your theory of evolution holds true they should begin after all theyve been evolving for all these years so speech should come around soon ??? abnd to say that other animals cannot talk or express themselves in other ways than a langauage wouldsince we do knonw that hte howl of wolves and moos of cows are a launguage in themselves they understand them and our langaguage is nor much diffent nothing but a few sound that we learn as we grow and mature etc. we call red red because we are told it is red etc. i will conceed that religion and i state religion is a set of written beliefs that a group of people have interpeted ...but i do not follows a religion persat i have a belief and that there is something greater than myself a power a god if you will like i have also stated bh i dont blindly follow everything im told like you i have a annaliticle mind and seek also to prove and to disprove but for me there is some things that i will base on meer faith like alot of things ...i dont seek to scientifically find out where my wife has been is she says im goint to the store and i will have faith and trust that she went to the store and not to get a cup of sugar from the local stud. i have faith in my fellow man to do the right thing on a daily bbaisis and not to drink and drive or drive reckless there are many things my friend that you must have faith in but you cannot always prove that they will or will not happen i have already gave the the point that you can scientifically prove allot of things we kn ow how to split atoms and etc. we can and can show scientifically how that occurs but just as you have no middle link you say that that does not disprove evolution.as well as that there are so many religions does not disprove god.science has so many different beliefs about evolution darwin ism neo darwinism and etc etc. as we have catholics and protstantsalot of things are reginal and different beliefs come from different cultures but the main root of the subject comes from there is something greater than ourselves out there but since man punny little newly evolved brain cannot fathom the concept of a god or that there is something that defies his perception of logical thinking because he cannot see it touch it smell it etc.is no more a reason that the two are no living in some kind of harmony (that is god and natural rules)when we creat something on earth as humans we allow it to do its job but we also hand out and monitor the performance of it and make correction or fix it as it were if something goes wrong so here is the role of god i just find it hard to believe that life is just a progresive mess of meaninglessness and to evolve just to for the sake of evolving is to me a great big waste of time and that life truly is meaningless then i should do as i feel in life without the worry of conciquences of my action on a moral level as opposed to a social level.i my friend do not claim and dont or will never claim to know it all but i think that the two are working in some sort of harmony it would only to me make sence that a creator would allow for progression and change as we do in society man could you imagine if we still had 8tracks in our cars and no bose steros what a horrible place it would be ..my belief is that this god created many kind of sub-human or animal as well as man over the years as things changes ie land masses temp.etc.some died out some adapted and stayed around and man was and will be always in his own class but the same basic plans were used in the making or the sub humans wich you cannot discount nor prove as well as the we came from apes theory the world is full of many exciting mystories wich i guess is a part of the excite ment of life. but i will go with the theory of god and his allotment for things to happen change and progress you get you r evolution i get my god and then we can be friends and have a glass of suds or wine if thats what you prefer or a single malt brady what ever you r cup of tea would be like you said we both can beat this drum till we are blue in the face when we both die either the greatest mysterie will be revield or we shall slowly rot away as the time ticks by. so thats were i stand robert.and i have been rather nice to you if you consider the other comments to you...gb robert

Robert, when I said you were attacking me, I was referring to attacking an argument, not me in general. Basically, I was saying: how can you argue against (or attack) evolution by saying "it is based on assumptions", when creationist’s arguments are based on far more and far more outrageous assumptions. I was saying that your "attack” or choice of argument was flawed because it was a hypocritical one. However, logic prescribes that my rebuttal is a fallacy in itself…lol
Secondly, I do think that chimps are motivated to have sex because it is pleasurable. I think this because: firstly, many studies have shown that animals are motivated to repeat acts that have lead to positive outcomes, and secondly, because the specific acts I speak of i.e. oral sex, etc, are solely for the purpose of pleasure. Oral sex is not for procreation, so, something must be motivating them to do it. It is not a stretch to suggest it is pleasure. As far as I know, only a specific few organisms engage in such specific sexual activities and they all have relatively high mental capacities. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that the Bonobos are indeed repeating these acts because they are motivated by positive outcomes, or pleasure. Even studies with more primitive organisms have shown that animals can learn positive outcomes and be motivated to repeat activities that lead to them. For example, pigeons have been shown to intentionally peck a key because they are aware it will result in the production of a pellet. With exposure, birds can eventually learn that if they peck a button, they will be rewarded with food. This has been proven and can be noticed simply by observing how the frequency of pecks increases as soon as the bird learns that pecking the button results in the presentation of food pellets. If birds can learn and be motivated towards an end, it is reasonable to argue that more advanced animals, like chimpanzees, can be motivated to more advanced ends, i.e. sex for the purpose of pleasure.It is perhaps a little naive on your part to say that they are not participating in sexual activities for pleasure. After all, oral sex is quite a different cup of tea, especially in more cognitively advanced animals.

Next, evolution does not assume that chimps and other primates will develop human-like communication abilities because they are still evolving. Here are a couple of reasons why: 1.) Chimps do not have a sophisticated enough brain to allow for adaptations toward humanoid communication systems. 2.) Chimps lack mans relatively lowered larynx, upright teeth and the flexible musculature man has around the lips and in the tongue. 2.) As I said, language is NOT likely an adaptation, it is the by-product of our large neocortex, which has been the product of natural selection. In other words, our brain size is likely the cause of evolution and adaptations, but language itself is the result of our large brain size and it is a by-product of our previous neuronal adaptations.
3.) Evolution by natural selection does not always promote change in every trait all the time. This is because natural selection can cause traits to stabilize and not change at all. Quite simply put, traits that are at an optimum will likely not change. This is because change would reduce the quality of certain traits. For example natural selection has favored human infant birth weights to be around 8 pounds. Any increase or decrease in weight has been shown to increase the chance as a function the baby will die prematurely. In this case natural selection favors traits that are stabilized because any increase in weight is less fit and any decrease is also less fit. So, some traits will not evolve anymore because they are already at a ceiling level for fitness.
4.) Even if language was the result of evolution, (hypothetically speaking) it would likely not turn up in apes and chimps. This is because man and chimp are not the same animal and are the products of differential selection pressure. In other words, when man and chimpanzee diverged from their common ancestor, they were evolving differentially. From the point of divergence, chimps and man experienced differential consequences as a result of the same or different environmental pressures. I think you may slightly misunderstand evolution, as I have tried to drive similar points like this home in the past. For the reasons above, evolutionary theory does not predict, or assume that other human-like organisms will one day have human language. The point of divergence was millions of years ago, so essentially natural selection has operated differently towards man and beast from that point on. In other words, what works for man in his Environment of evolutionary adaptiveness, is not what necessarily works for chimpanzee, or gorilla, or gibbon, and vise-versa.
Next, you do not use faith to determine if your wife is behaving monogamously. You know your wife, and you therefore know if she has lied to you about serious things in the past, you know if she has cheated or if she is capable of it. You have logical reason to assume one way or the other. You do NOT use faith to determine if she will cheat, you use evidence about her character. My point in regard to that is you don’t make many small decisions on faith because they lead to greater error. Therefore, you must use logic, or evidence. If people generally use logic (whether aware of it or not) to make small decisions, why would they not make bigger decisions using logic also?

I concur that we should let it rest; however, I think our argument is more about who will get the LAST word. In any case, I will try to stop myself from responding to further argument on the issue, and yes we should be friends!

I am a fourth year psychology and biology major at McMaster U. I’m a male, 24 years old, from Ontario Canada. I think that you said you were from Arizona, so I think that it would be hard to have a few suds together given the distance and all...lol Anyways,

Best regards,

BH

BH.....Finally you gave up your bullshiting in this forum. Enough of your all nonsense moronic "theory". Thanks for ending it yourself. Have fun living as an animal in this world.

BH greatings yes i have said to myself that i will not blog anymore but alas here i go again.
i must give my thoughts on the oral sex within the chimps although everone or animal can be trained the key word with a reward system hence we have preforming circuses and the like does not mean that they percieve it in the same way as a human humans to my knowledge use it as a form of foreplay as well as for pleasure and for climax.and i do not dought that it may give some form of pleasure to the bonobos but do we know the extent to wich they feel pleasure and do they act the same as a human does when giving and or recieving it and with apes i think i will be correct in saying that they swing both ways so it could be a dominance factor or maybe just a nice way to say hi how are you i care for you as part of our troop.i will not lie i dont know alot about monkey sex and how pleasureable it is. and need i say that people use drugs for the positive stimuli it gives them also so i think mty main point would be that WE REALLY DONT KNOW EXACTLY WHY UNTIL ONE TELLS US SINCE WE CAN ONLY REALLY ASSUME THAT WE UNDERSTAND THEIR BEHAVIORS with out really being raised in the troop and experiencing the monkey life.and as i stated before that i think if your theory about evolution is one that decides to stop for one reason or another than it is flaued sytem in itself since the basic law would dictate that a better form of communucation would only help the animals within thier own group and for you to say that you dont think that it will never come to talking apes or other animals since all forms of life have developed a form of comunication as i imagine that before we EVOLVED into the brilliant creatures we are today that we must have also squecked and squawked and made hand gestures many native american cultures used only hand signals to communicate and had no real written languagebut i think and you are probably right for just as you since you have the preconcived idea that religion is a fallicy as i feal that the basic belief of evolution is one also we are not proned to follow all the studies or the thing as a whole.but i argue on that bh faith does play a roll in life but to know mans nature is to understand the basis of faith since we know we are faithless creatures for even in the bible it says that you need only the faith of a mustard seed. to say mountain move and it shall be done but if you know how small a mustard seed is then you know it is very small so that says alot about the faith of mengod and science are the yen and the yang thier is truth in both..but if science has helped man it has also spelled out his demise since we as the elite EVOLVED creatures that we have become still cannot help each other of get along meerely because of race, yes religion, and polotics. i find it very sad indeeed that we have not turned off those genes of the or that natural selection has not deemed the need to kill assault and rape and murder are not qualities that bennifit our species but maybe one day....but please drop in from time to time maybe you can let me know of new discoveries or findings i can research i love to reaserch.and if i find something then i will share it with you..but good uck with your studies and gine god a chance ask him to reveal himself to you never know he could unlock the mysteries of the universe to you and you will.be the greatest pchyc. around any way one quick question why is everyone i knoe that goes t therapy more of a basket case i have two x girlfriends who go to therapy one blames everthing on everthing else and not to say that there are not things that happen to one that affect you for the neg. or the poss. but they both just so like ohhh everthing is not my fault its this or that one blames me for all her relationship problems after me on me hello could it be that you just dont make good descitions or you got mental problems how could everything in your future life minus me be my fault what do they teach you guys in those classes play the victim its the oldest game in the book.. anyway just curious...blessings robert

and ps sorry for the many syntax errors im always in to much a hurry to proof read the whole thing again and im no key board master but im trying to learn to use all my fingers in the proper manor and as you can see it is still a work in progress as natural selection has not taken our lazy genes out of the equation i am to lazy and have other things to do than fix my mistakes but i think you can understand me ...best wishes and do check in once in awhile ...and for this blog sakes BENNY HIN IS A FRAUD A PHONEY AND WILL HAV TO ANSWER FOR HIS LIES if you people would do research on his so called healings you will find that most of the people he claimed were healed from their diseases later DIED!!!!!!.....I WILL NOT JUST FOLLW ANY SHEPARD AROUND WHO CRIES OUT SLAPS YOU ON THE HEAD AND GOES BE HEALED BRO...DO THE RESEARCH ON THIS CASE AND PONT BH AND I SEE EYE TO EYE...ROBERT

First off, Arantxa, evolutionary theory is not "my" theory. It is the theory of the intellectual elite. That is why it is taught over creationism in school and that is why all research goes into various aspects about it in university and college. It is the dominant belief in the world over any religion. So, if you want to call it my theory, you are complementing me, for you are putting me on the pedestal with the intellectual minds of past and present. I still cannot understand how you think man is not an animal. Especially when he is born with innate tendencies, is not immune to disease, and requires all the faculties that any other organism needs to survive.

Anyway, Hi Robert,
Not everyone who goes for therapy is a basket case. First of all, the term basket case is obviously not a professional term used by clinicians and secondly, there are a wide range of mental problems out there, and they are not all neurotic women who are the clients. Women seem to be able to come to grasp more with the fact that there is nothing wrong with seeking psychological care. Men, more communally think that they are fine and do not need to enter the arena of psycho-therapy, or couples therapy. So, most are surprised with the headway they make when they actually give in to their wife's requests. In any case, to some degree everyone only thinks of themselves. Others prescribe to this more than others and they are usually the ones who think that everything is not their fault. The truth is, these people are usually in some form of denial. People like that must learn to take responsibility for things that are their fault and learn how to correct themselves from repeating things from the past. It is a little short-sighted to suggest it is mostly women who require therapy. The reason people think this is because women are more likely to go, but men are equally in need of help.

I'm sorry Robert, but I just can't resist mentioning this! Remember when you said Lucy was a fake... well, I know you are wrong.. I just researched the net and have found numerous "respectable" sites who mention nothing of fake bones. The fake bones I think you are referring to is the cast copies that were made of the original bones. The copies were used in lecture and for research, while, the original is stored in a safe in the Paleoanthropology Laboratories of the National Museum of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Here is the link: http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html you should check it out. The real remains are not used for study because they are too fragile. I don't know who told you that the whole thing was a hoax, but they were greatly mistaken. I suspect there are some aspiring conspiracy theorist/creationists out there with an agenda against scientific discovery. In any case, Lucy was very much a real finding. In fact, my sister is currently studying for her biological anthropology exam and Lucy is referred to on numerous occasions and no question is given as to here real existence. The site has some good information on her: like why they think she walked upright, how tall she was, how old she was, who discovered her, where, when, how they know all the bones belong to her, etc. Anyways, I could not resist mentioning it since it “had” played such an integral part of your argument against evolution!
Here are some other respectable links, including, National geographic, CNN, the BBC, University articles, and an online encyclopedia, etc: http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4322687.stm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1430/is_n8_v16/ai_15346423
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050718/lucyrobot.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0413_060413_evolution.html
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsevo0413,0,2015340.story?coll=ny- leadhealthnews-headlines
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/joh1int-8
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/science/12cnd-fossil.html?ex=1146024000&en;=08e06c6ee17b60f2&ei;=5070
http://www.answers.com/topic/lucy
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9508/human_ans/index.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1058664.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001819.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/26070/data/no/eng/2/4.html
http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v18n1/p18.html

By all means, if you can find “respectable” arguments against this and if your links have as much respectability with the public as news organizations, university’s, or the National Geographic magazine, post them.

hi again yea i will check them out im not a one sided moron im willing to see other views of other people i think in order have a good arguement you should know the other side of the arguement as well ....so here i go to research...be back soon robert

here is a good it has both argument going but i think its more leaning to the evolutionist theory

Lucy's Knee Joint
A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors
by Jim Lippard
Copyright © 1995-2003
[Last Update: June 12, 2003]

Perhaps Arantxa should check this case study out. I wonder how willing he/she would be to admit to errors? As it stands he/she does not seem to willing to even recognize them. He/she probabally still believes witch burning should be legal... Was religion right about the witch burning Arantxa?.....lol

huuuum.....No reply but i know that one was more leaned toward proving it so it was mainly from the scientific point of evolutionist point i did foind another but it was mainly from a creationist view i am still looking for a middle of the road eval on it niether pure evolutionist nor pure creationist but ive been off the last couple of days so that family tim...but ill do some looking tonight and see but i hold firm that there is truth in both sides...robert

BBH HERE IS A GOOD MIX OF BOTH BELIEF SYSTEM CHECK IT OUT QUITE INTERESTING TALK ABOUT ALOT OF THE POINT YOU BROUGHT UP AND IS A SCIENCE SLASH RELIGIONhttp://www.religionscience.com SITE....ROBERT

Robert, I do not believe there is a truth on both sides, especially when we are dealing with a black and white issue: Lucy exists, or she does not, there is no in between. I think that CNN, the National Geographic, and Universities, etc are much more respectable sources than the one's you have brought forth (no offense). That last one for example, is a website run by someone who is a creationist with a BA in Biology? First of all, there is no such thing as a BA in Biology. Biology is a scientific program in University. It is not under the umbrella of BA, which stands for Bachelor of "Arts". BA courses are histories, sociologies, anthropologies, etc. Biology falls under BSc or Bachelor of Science. So, to start, this guy has already lost credibility for lying, since his so-called degree does not even exist. There is no BA in Biology......Secondly, there is no University program called “Bible”, it is generally called “religious studies”. So, for whatever reason this guy is lying about having a BA altogether. My guess is he does not have a BA at all. Moreover, a BA is all well and good, but no student with a BA would ever likely shake the scientific community. So even by an outside chance this guy has a BA in something, he still lacks the credibility of a national news organization, or a University. This guy’s got an obvious creationist bias and he is trying to bridge it with science of all things. The term intelligent design or scientific creationism is an oxymoron. Science cannot be “science” if it makes untestable claims. Science is objective it has no bias towards anything unless it has scientific evidence to back it up. So, no true science can really address the issue of creationism. Therefore, there is no scientific thinking at all behind saying: “evolutionary processes are the act of God”, “similar DNA in chimpanzee and man is evidence in favor or intelligent design”, etc. The truth is, trying to view science from a creationism stand-point, is like trying to see the sky with a telescope through a filtered lens (or like viewing results through a filtered lens). In other words, the true scientist would say that “the fact man and chimpanzee shares 98.4% of their DNA is evidence of evolution”, while the creationist/scientist would “never” be able to believe that because he/she would be restricted in accepting evidence when it is in conflict with their bias (or filter). So, beliefs in scientific creationism or intelligent design take away the objectivity of science, thus taking away credibility. Moreover, people are masters at trying to verify beliefs they already hold. In other words, people have a “self confirmation bias”. They search for ways of confirming already held beliefs more frantically and less skeptically then beliefs in conflict with their own. Here is an example of what I mean: the reason people still take vitamin C when they have a cold is because they have falsely self-confirmed that it helps get rid of, or prevent colds. Studies have shown that vitamin C does not stop colds or help get rid of them at all. People believe that vitamin C, Echinacea, and orange juice are effective because they are more likely to remember the times that they felt better after taking them than the time they welt worse, or the same. So, a similar self confirmation bias is at work with scientific/creationists, they except scientific results as proof of intelligent design before the study has been even started. Science, to be a real science, must not be biased towards things without real scientific support and must make testable and falsifiable claims.
Lastly, to evaluate someone’s argument, logic prescribes that you take note of: the source, or the communicator, the message, what is being said, and the credibility of the argument. The article you sent comes from some guy, who has created his own creationist/science website. His message is biased towards examining scientific data through a filtered lens and not remaining objective. He seems to be a bit untruthful, since he has made up a degree (BA) in Biology/Bible. Therefore, he is not a credible source at all, and Robert, he is not even close to as credible as my ample sources.

BH

ok my hunt will go on but i paid no attention to his title poor research on my part but the hunt will go on....robert

Anybody knows where I could buy in DVD format all the Benny Hill series here in Portland, Oregon. I'm a cult follower of his show and want to collect all the the series. Thanks for the info.

To Alvin, You could buy those DVD set series of "Benny Hill Complete and Unadulterated" online from Amazon.com. Good luck and fun watching.

I'm sorry but you two are dumb if you are willing to fork out money for this phony. How can you actually believe he has healing powers? I would like to see him heal one of his followers with a documented medical condition such as a broken leg or spinal damage and not fibril Malaga, or a fake limp. You are truly a moron if you think Benny is anything special. He has no healing powers! Why is he only able to heal people with fake or minor ailments and why is he only able to heal people who are followers of his show and not just any ordinary Christian.
He is not the first person claiming to have the power to heal, so what makes him legit? How about the fact he lives in luxury, very unlike Jesus did. He takes money from the poor rather than giving it to them.

To Alvin.....Another source of Benny Hill movies online is at bestprices.com. Find all his movies in this unique website. Again, good luck and have fun watching.

BRAIN WASHED!

What's wrong with you bloke?.....Neil the "Rat Man". I'm helping Alvin in his search for DVD series of Benny "HILL" the English comedian...you bloody wanker!!!. You just butt in here with your comments exposing how stupid you are. Next time, ANALized first what people are chatting about in this forum before butting in. Benny HILL and Benny HINN are two different persons okay!!!. You are just like these two Stupid No Brainer Blokes commenting in this forum for a long while...BH and Robert... insisting their stupid "Intelligent" knowledge of such Garbage as Theory of Evolution. Remember..... the topic in this forum is Benny HILL/HINN comparison. You have a very Good Day Mate. :) :) :)

Bloke, what is that some dumb Euro insult? Nice one. Honest mistake "mate". Thought you were talking about Benny Hen. Anyway, I do not think the theory of evolution is garbage. I also think that the topic of choice is free to change, so fuck off "BLOKE"! Maybe you should try to learn to type English before you use it on some one. ANALIZED is a past tense, try "analyze" British faggot.

Neil, I think you need to blank-off yourself. The man was not really insulting you at all. As far as I know, the term bloke means dude, or man. You should think before you write and realize what your saying, get some respect. Don't call people names, you screwed up and you need to lay off people, especially when they are not talking about Benny Hin, but Benny Hill. Think before you write Ratty....k

You guys. Just few weeks ago the real master Benny Hinn came to Indonesia and I got the CD ( side B broken ) and really gor amazed how he just touched the cheek of the people and they felt down to the ground. I did the same thing to my younger brother but I used a bamboo stick to
fall him down. He is God messenger or not I do not care as believe only to Jesus. he said too much words and I saw too many rich people came. I did not see one even poor people sitting and looking for him to heal. What I read from the bible is 1000 % different from what I saw on the CD......Anyway how we could easily be decieted.?? if so....

Have you ever thought that the theory of evolution is contrary to the second law of thermodinamics. It actualy goes against any common sense and observation.

Evolution happenig? Mutation of viruses ? Well that is not evolution. Tell me of a species evolving into another species... (a better one),when you see it.

There is so much information in a single cell creature and there is so much design to it. Let me know when you see it turn into a more complex organism.

It takes more faith to believe in evolution then that there is a Creator
And what is wrong in believing in a Creator? Your children believe in mom and dad.

Just becasue we can't see Him?

We can{t see many things. Our living room is filled with radio and tv beams and waves we can not see... unless we have the due equipment to materialise them.

Just because we can not explain? My 3 year old son can not explain how TV set works, but he whatches his DVDs. It seems it does not bother him.

I don't believe that at the heart of the matter the evolutionist does not believe God becasue he can not see Him or explain Him.

For that matter sience has a lot of explaining to do anyway. It seems any new answer is birthing more questions.

I believe at the heart of the evolution religion hides the desperate atempt to escape accountability.

If there is a God, we are acountable to Him, and that probably is the feeling evolutionists don't like.

But with what hopeless state they are ready to come to compromise: You are an animal, you die like an animal. You are really not significant, and then ... what?

You can enjoy your Darvin.

I will enjoy my Jesus.

.. He can become your Jesus to, if you invite Him.

Sorry my broken english. It is a language I learned by myself.

By the way. I have a question for a sientist.

I wander what keeps an atom going as it is without colapsing when protones and electrones are pulling each other?

Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Mutation itself is not evolution, however, ordered changes in viral or bacteria tissue is. When bacteria adapts to an antibiotic, it is from an ordered adaptation and not from mutation. Mutation is generally random, that is, it does nothing specifically to promote fitness. But when I talk about adaptations I mean that some viral and bacterial changes occur and they help promote individual survival. Since mutations are random, you would not expect them to increase survival or to occur in huge masses of a population. Since there is no selection pressure for mutations, there is no differential reproductive success in mutants and originals. I never implied that a mutation itself was evolution. Only ordered changes that create differential rates of survival are evolutionary changes...and yes, they do occur in viral tissue and bacteria.
Next, your comment about thermodynamics and the second law being violated by evolutionists is wrong..... First of all it is clear you do not understand evolution and also thermodynamics. This is a poor creationist argument. Here is a good evolutionary rebuttal to this (not in my words of course): “Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

Lastly, I have beaten this point to death, but here I go again: Science does not have a motivation for things to be one way or another. Science uses theory, testing, reliability, publication, and debate to come across answers to worldly problems. If science pointed toward a creator, then it would use evidence that is testable (too bad there isn't any!) For that reason, science has no motive for the order of nature to fall one way or another. Your attempt to draw accountability into the argument is flawed on so many levels! It's not as though evolutionists are sitting back thinking "I don't want to be accountable to God so I am going to develop a theory for that purpose." That is a ridiculous statement and it falls so far from logic and common sense, it’s not funny. The theory of evolution is not created to meet some end or motivation. It was created to explain naturally occurring observed phenomena.
Radio waves exist because we can "detect" them. There is no measure to detect God...so you little analogy kind of falls short....radio waves are provable, God is not, so your analogy is quite weak and does nothing to help your argument....

Oh.....and evolution is not a religion, as you put it. Evolution is based on scientific principles that arise from "observed" evidence. Science is not a religion...do you really need me to explain why?

Oh please do, explain why science is not a religion. Please, I do so enjoy the responses. (snickers rather indecently)
best regards

Reply to mister HB

Evolutin is not a religion? (I did not say sience)Evolution is no sience.
But lets see:
If you believe in evolution, you have to beleive that from chaos came order, from non life came life, from impersonal came the personal. That takes faith, doesn't it?

This as contrary to, let's say, bible believing.
You have to beleive from a Personal Being with inteligence, will and emotions came order, laws of nature, living things and the person of man with power to create, to will, to reason and feel.

This takes faith to.

You say that there is evidence that there is no God. I say we are surounded by evidence. Look up the stars, look the trees in your yard, look yourself in the mirror.

But again is a matter of what you believe, isn't it?

Now you say snow flakes and so forth are order coming from disorder. I say nature is responding to rules and laws it can not oppose. And to me wherever there is a law there is a lawmaker.

How come water freezes at 0 degree C. Who decided it? Why not 5 deegree, why not minus 5? Every single time the same.

An animal that is born with six toes (or fingers)when his parents had five is a mistake. How come genetic defects will bring about the improvement of a species into another more evolved?
This would makes mankind the result of a series of genetic mistakes.

Also Natural selection is not evolution.

Diferent Races of men probably are the result of natural selection in diferent geografic arias.

Black skined men did not do well in cold climates. They did not survive. If I have the righ information they think now that the Neanderthal people where black skined and did not do well in the cold weather. They where not a link at all. They where modern men with arthritis problems.
White skined people probably did not do well in very hot climate, and so forth.
But races of men did not evolve from one to the other. Actualy was this kind of undertanding that made Hitler think the German race was more evolved. He would not kill hebrews like that if he did not think they where of a lesser species.

Natural selection and Adoption to the inviroment is not and brings not about evolution. It only uses the genetic information already existing within the species.
We have to face the facts that the missing links are stll missing.

You say beams and waves exist becasue we can detect them. Are you saying that the galactics we did not see before the telescope was invented did not exist becasue we could not detect them?
Are you saying that the many things in the universe we Know nothing about yet, are not there because we can not detect them?
Well for some of them, their detection it is going to be a matter of time.

With all due respect sir, also detecting God is going to be a matter of time for anyone.
With all my heart I wish for you it would be in this life.

With all due respect sir, Darvin is dead. He can help no one.
Jesus' tomb is empty, sir. He can really help.

Thanks for your patience with my english

Sincerly

I suspect that you are Robert due to the similarities in your writting styles. In any case, you decide to move forward with that same argument, which if anything, only examplifies your misunderstanding of evolution and thermodynamics. You are sadly misinformed, if you truly believe that natural selection cannot bring about evolutionary change. Simply read the most recent journal articles in biology. Natural selection is the dominant exceptd mechanism for evolutionary change. There is no surprise as to why. You say belief in evolution takes more faith than belief in creationism...please explain..........As far as I see it, evolution has numerous scientific evidence, embryolgoy, genetics, structure/funcion, psychology, antrhopology,etc. Religion takes pure faith. It takes faith that there is a God in the way you see him; it takes faith that you are of some sort of special significance because you are you; it takes faith to believe in things that cannot be seen are existent and bias to believe that looking at the trees is proof of God. Faith-based belief systems are subject to error for the same reason they require no "real" un-biased evidence to justify their belief. I still cannot understand why you think that things that have evidence require more faith to believe in than things that do not, such as religion. My point with the radio waves was only to counter your weak anology, not to start some sort of phylisophical debate. Simply put, things that have proof are obviously more believeable than things that do not.
Homer, why is evolution by natural selection excepted by the worlds top minds, and why is most opposition to it from the southern states where the average person has not seen the inside of a university? Why is evolution obviously supported by present News organizations, Universiites, respected magazines, etc, over creationist views,while creationism is supported by the simple-minded. Simply put, compare the demographics of evolutionary believers with non-believers and there is likely some surprising differences. Ones that perhaps highlight the reason that evolution is the dominant worldy view of the orgin of man. Lastly, I do not believe you should try to use ammunition you do not understand...i.e., thermodynamics, evolution.Read the material before cutting and pasting from the web and passing it off as your own writing! Your response is simply a collage of other creationist views. Your argument has no substance, no meat to it and with all due respect, it appears you do not understand the arguments you are using...

In my view, it takes a hell of a lot more faith to believe that each organism at a specific time appeared out of thin air!.....
The celcious air tempertature measure is man made. It can be scaled to naturally occuring phenomena. There is no significance to 0 celcius since it is based on man made measurement. And if you want to get technical, -273K is absolute zero and there is nothing significant about that number!

Evolution is not science, it is supported by science, it is a theory discovered by scientists using scientific thinking and scientific principles. Natural selection is not evolution, it is the cause of evolution......

bh come now i am not homer and homer is not me i dont write in other names only my own i have nothing to hide from you but my english is not bad only my typing and i am always rushing and rarely read through my blog to fix the mistakes this is called laziness which homers problem is is forien and does not write english well...but BH as GOD as my witness me and homer are two different people i have not posted in awhile since i was on my days off and then i have to write my evaluations on my workers and have not had the time to blog..but i still read them tonight since im way ahead on my work due to not blogging..but anyway i do like homers arguement since because you have no means to test god then to you he does not existbut it is true that you at one point didnot see gravity nore did anyone have a way to test it but nonetheless it was there.and i have given this arguement before also about the universe being held in check that there are laws which govern them but we dont know how they developed nor can we explain gravity as a force within itself and how it came to be and what laws keep it in check why is there just enough gravityto keep us on the earth and not pull us away and if there was no thinking by a living being and then why would these things or laws come into being to support life how is the oxygen just the right amountso that lifwe can breathe it and water just right amount for fish and the other things to breathe it why are trees users of carbon dioxide and give off oxygen kind of crazy the way that works but im sure you will have somre kind of jargin to explain how this system ruled by laws and a back scratching effect has come to be only through millions of years of evolution and chance...or survival of the fitest..or natural selection...the3 actual bones of lucy were obviuosly real but the bones where not found all together or even in the same level this is my point that they cannot prove just because there are likenesses to this or that that those bones are from one animal or the same animal and even you must adnit that and if you can show me the proof of this then i will lay off of lucy but the fact is that they can only speculate that since they think that due to bone structure ande blah blah blah that it was from the same animal and they dont have proof that it walked semi up right they can only assume based on the bones we call this an educated guess this could have only been a monkey....and bh as per your comment that lucy either excists or does not and that there is no inbetween then your sir are wrong...due to the fact that for all these millions of years they STILL HAVE NO INBETWEEN WHAT WAS AND WHAT IS NOW MAN...THEY CANNOT PROVE LUCY IS THIS AS THEY CANNOT PROVE ANY OTHER BONES THEY HAVE ARE THIS EITHER.and therefore it is all conjecture on what they think WHAT THEY THINK!!!! based on what they have been taught or what they think the world was like from then till noe the facts are they can never be sure that the way they think the world was is the way that it was no one will really know that until they can go back in time..and as far as god not being able to be seen or heard or tested he is god and will revel himself as he wants it not by your testing and there is a clear cut way to test god and he gives it to you open your heart up to him..and science is a religion that so many follow it is like an athiest who says there is no god as most scientists do and. most religions are dictated by a group of people who get together and say this is what we believe and this is why it does not matter the way you practice your religion whether you call it studies testing and theories it is your belief system as christanity is one for many but you can break it down into catholicfs and mormons all the sam basis but diffent beliefs of their theories and how they interpit the theories. etc..it is the scientists whos reluctance to admit they cannot figure all the mysteries of the world out that is and will be thier down fall face it BH science is just as flawed as the religious belief system they will follow one coarse of belief and harold it as the fact but in reality it is only the fact of that moment and i will give you the point that new things can be found later but come on there has to come a point when you must say we DONT KNOW...GOD COULD BE ATLEAST PLAUSIBLE the theories on how the planet even got here are crazy and so far fetched and hard to believe but they come up with them and actually believe them and teach them and they cannot prove it one way or the other....AND THAT BH IS FACT...so how are you anyway everything evolving well inn your life..hope so so anyway give me a blog back...ROBERT...ps if i dont blog back for awhile im not homer my uncle passed away and i will be going to handle that buisness. ROBERT

Robert, you raise a good argument about Lucy. It would be quite a good rebuttal if it was not for one thing (this is the explanation, not in my words): Although several hundred fragments of hominid bone were found at the Lucy site, there was no duplication of bones. A single duplication of even the most modest of bone fragments would have disproved the single skeleton claim, but no such duplication is seen in Lucy. The bones all come from an individual of a single species, a single size, and a single developmental age. In life, she would have stood about three-and-a-half feet tall, and weighed about 60 to 65 pounds.

ME again, If the bones were not from the same individual it would be expected that there would be duplications of bones. The fact that there is not even “one” duplication makes it quite a long shot to suggest that they are not all from the same individual. Think about it mathematically! There are a few hundred bones or so and there are no duplications. You even admitted yourself that the bones are "real". If they are real and not from the same animal, they are still qualitatively in-between a common ancestor and man. The existence of the bones themselves is proof.
Robert, as I said, failure in one regard does not diminish success in another. Man's missing link may be elusive, but other missing links have been found for other organisms. You have to admit: Lucy looks very man-like. The fact that science has not answered all the questions (how the earth formed being one) is not evidence that what it has found is false.
Lastly, science is not a religion. Simply compare the web definitions of science and the definitions of religion (no overlap). Science relies on observation, study, replication, debate, falsifibility, reliability, testability, while, no religion relies on those standards or ever will. If a new ground-breaking theory comes along that disproves natural selection, then science will admit original thought was wrong, religion would not. Religion keeps the same beliefs even when there is immense evidence to the contrary. Religion believes in the supernatural, science has no belief in such untestable claims. Religion has reason, or motivations, for things to be the way they are and for things to stay that way no matter what. Science is open for change or revision when needed. Science has no motivation or agenda for things to be one way or another. If the facts pointed toward a creator, then science would support the creationist view (too bad they don’t) for those reasons and more science is not a religion.

I hear you talking about Lusy and I am reminded of something. I don't know if you ever noticed when one of these scientists that believe in evolution speaks on a TV documentary (or for that matter writes something) you hear (or read) a lot of "we don't know exactly" or "we asume" or "we think" or even "we have no idea".

Now science observes. So far is good. But then it comes the interpretation of that which is observed. Evolutionary thinking is interpreting the observations based on a presuposition that God is not there. As you put it mr BH for you it would take much more faith beleive that each oragnism at a specific time apeared out of thin air. What you say ilustrates your presuposition that there is no God and becasue of that you need to find an explanation of how things came into being.

You interpret the observations of science the way they fit your thinking.

You are right in saying that Evolution is a theory. It is more wishful thinking and it has a lot of fiction to it. You imagine things.

You (not you personaly but you of the evolutionary camp)find a small piece of a bone and create a whole being and show a picture of it. Well it takes a lot of guessing. You have to guess most of the parts. You can not know how the nose really looked like, and how his ears where. How thick his hair was, if he had any. (But he has to have thick hair by evolutionary faith).
Please don't call that science. It is more the fantasy of an artist. And you present this junk as fact.

I am very curios to learn the latest news about natural selection bringing one species out of another, but I can not read these jornals where I live. Is there a web page you can show me? I like to read the latest news before I say more on this.

I can not answer your question about the southern states, becasue I now little about the southern states of your country. But as you put it, the answer could be that there live less evolved people....

Have you ever thought that not only the simple minded believe in God. If you look history a lot of great man and scientists to (like Isack Newton.. and many others )have had no troble believing in the Creator.

About mesuring temperature I know that it is man maid thing. Just as the letters we use to comunicate with each other. My point was that water freezes at a certain temperature. All the time the same.

Another point I wanted to make is that religion (the one I believe - )it is not based on blind faith. There is a lot of evidence, for one, Jesus Christ himself. I can exstend later on this

Have a good day

Homer, think of things logically. There is no reason to assume there is a God. You cannot observe phenomena with the presumption that God exists. Looking at the trees or yourself in the mirror is hardly evidence of anything. In fact it is rather hypocritical of you to say science operates to interpret results in a way that fit's ones thinking and then also suggest that science should operate minus the assumption that there is no God. Science cannot operate with a bias that something is given without proof… (Not proof that simply creationists take liking to, but proof that an impartial person would acknowledge being evidence of God). It is far less logical to run experiments with an improvable framework. The creationist likes to "interpret" things and "assume" things far more outrageous than any evolutionary theorist....i.e. any discovery science makes was true because God made it that way, any discovery by science that contradicts the Bible should be rejected completely as false, i.e. the genetic basis of sexual orientation, the age of the earth, etc. Creationists operate with a "firm" bias that God exists because they make attribution errors. That is, the fact that I got better was because of prayer and not something else, Benny Hin is able to heal, the trees show me God exists, etc. If looking at the trees proves to you God exists, then looking at the sky should also tell you that evolution exists....get my drift? There is no relation between your evidence (trees) and your argument (God exists). Creationist’s assumptions are "far" more outrageous: God made the Earth in 7 days; God created each organism and made them magically appear at his will with a given temporal sequence of relatedness. There is no support for these claims that an impartial party would take seriously. There is however support that: genes are hereditable, that DNA operates at the gene level and so does evolution (i.e. mother, fetal, ontogenetic conflict), that natural selection can operate via selection pressure from the environment, etc. Only creationists assume that their all- encompassing book is correct no matter what on Earth can be observed, or proven as much as to say "the heart pumps blood". They believe often because they are taught to at a young age by their parents and they teach their children and so forth.....Things that represent the most meaning, or importance, are often hard to stop believing in. That is why it is of no surprise that I cannot convince you, or anyone for that matter that evolution exists. Your assumption that God exists is one you would not drop no matter what evidence was presented to you.
Yes, there are articles on speciation. Unfortunately, you need to have a subscription or be a student at a University to have access to them. Some articles are accessible to the public, or at least have abstracts that can be read for free.
In scientific endeavors, control is another standard scientists use to try to parcel out error that is implanted in their data. This is why studies use a control group (group without treatment), why blind and double blind studies are done, and why results are debated immensely by the world’s top minds. All the creationist rebuttals are week and most of them can be countered again by science clarification. So any evidence you present to me will not be real evidence or at a level that would be acceptable when trying to prove anything for that matter. I mean, there are people who think that there is quality evidence that: ghosts exist, that people can be possessed, that there are Aliens, that Astrology can accurately predict one’s personality traits,that man never actually walked on the moon, etc. There is evidence for many things that are not true because people make inaccurate interpretations, just as you suggest looking at the trees proves there is a divine spirit. Your bias and accompanying hypocritical assumptions are far more outrageous, unsupported, and falsely interpreted. As I said, science does not wish that evolution exists. It only believes in it because of the ample evidence that supports it and the fact it has not been falsified, while still maintaining falsifiability. Homer, the scientific consensus is that evolution does occur, that natural selection is the mechanism for it to occur, and that ontogenetic, phylogenic, and ultimate- function investigations are best suited to evolutionary study.
It is quite interesting that it is only creationists who resist evolutionary thinking. There’re far less people out there with a true scientifically supported objection to the whole thing. As I said, religion has an agenda and motivation to reject contradictory discover no matter what the proof because of the held “assumption” that God exists no matter what.

Dear mr B.H. Obviosly I can not think with your logic.
Perhaps at some point in time you where upset, disapointed with God. I am sorry if some religios person became the cause of that.

I was taught evolution. I lived in a comunist country and I was an atheist.

I meet Jesus 16 years ago, when I was not really looking for God.
I agree with you that there are a lot of religious hipocrits but I try the best I can to not be that. What I say I believe with all my heart.

I do believe the Bible tells only truth in many levels. However in the acount of creation it was not writen to explain us HOW as much as WHO and WHY.

I am not for a strict interpretation of the seven days of the creation. For one thing they probably where not days as we have now because they started before the sun existed and the earth rotating around it. But it really does not matter to me. Science could help us with finding out "hows".
Now science deals whith the "hows" not whith the "whys" That's why science does not, nor can not oppose the idea of God.

You keep presenting evolution theory as science. I have been stresing that science and Evolution Theory are two seperate things. With all I read from you, you give me no evidence that Evolution is not a religion.
The Evolution Theory interprets science findings from a possition that a Creator is to be excluded. Otherwise that theory falls. So starting with the "hows" science provides, with an bold interpretation (and a lot of imagination) has to get into the relm of "who" (in this case "what") and "why".

My point of evidence of God in the stars, trees and yourself (or myself- it does not matter) is related to "why" and not "how".

For whoever believes in God there is purpose to existence. There is purpose for the universe, and there is purpose for the human life.

Why water freezes at a certan temperature? The sicentists can tell me how it happens but can not tell me why it happens

It is true that Creationists would interpret scientific evidence keeping in the back of their mind that there is a creator and purpose in creation. They find design, purpose, and inteligent laws govern the universe. To them that is evidence of God.

They see an atom or a galaxy and based on the same information you have see a purpose in them. A Evolutionary Believer with the same evidence in hand sees nothing there. He says there is no purpose, all happened by chance, the laws on nature just exist.

On both cases the evidence does not change, the interpretations do.

Maybe your view of God is so distorted that you can't accept Him. That was my problem in the past. The God I imagened it was unaceptable, so I could not believe.

You have to meet God to know Him.

Now about evidence of God.
I would start with Jesus Christ.

He was born of a virgin

He lived a perfect life, performed outstanding miracles, taught like noone else.

He died, and rose again.

All this before the eyes of many whitnesses.
And that tomb is empty to this day.
All His enemies from those that crucufied Him to this very day could not produce His body.

Now you can say that is sort of evidence like that for the aliens.

There is a difference though. In all this Jesus fulfilled more then 320 Old Testament prophecies.

Could christians fake those prophecies?
I don't think so, because they where not the only people using the Old Testament.
The Jewish people who for the most part believed Jesus was a false prophet an an imposter use the same scriptures. And they had no interese leting their Holy Spriptures geting corrupt, especialy against them. But to this day they use the same Old Testament with all these prophecies there.

Be Blessed

Ps: To bad the articles on speciation seem to be secret.

Homer, there is no evidence that Jesus could perform miracles outside of the hear say and conjecture of the bible. I don't know about you, but for me for something to be evidence it has to be at an acceptable level and not based on the truthfulness of an old book. What prophecies did Jesus fulfill and what evidence is there outside the writings of the bible? Evolution itself is not science. But it is supported by science and scientists. It is the view that scientists have of the world and it is supported by immense study and scientific experiments: Work with fruit fly’s, viruses, bacteria, psychology, anthropology, biology, and experiments documenting, speciation, maternal-fetal conflict, imprinted genes, etc. There is so much support for evolution that it is not funny. You are not aware of most of the evidence and likely are not trained to understand most of it in any case. The scientific experiments by mendal, the work of watson and crick, all have testable reliable scientific evidence and all are in accordance and supportive of the "science" behind evolution. The view of evolution is supported by the world’s top minds by study in relating endeavors. The theory of evolution is falsifiable, but it currently has not and likely will not be falsified (perhaps further evidence). Why is Evolution taught in school over creationism, why is it supported by credible scientific sources, if it is false? If it is false, man must be moving in the wrong direction. Each year creationist views are falling and evolutionist ones are rising. Public schools generally favor evolution, as does the world consensus.....Perhaps the creationist views are outdated interpretations. After all religion has supported witch burning, war of faiths and the like....seems kind of old school to me.... I will address your how/why comment later.....

One more thing, evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology and anthropology are all taught in university and under the umbrella of science....

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is for ever praised. Amen.
Romans 1:20-25

One more thing. The Bible is not an old book. It is 66 books by 40 different authors writen over a period of almost 1600 years.

Have you ever red it?

About Jesus miracles documented outside the Bible.
There are Historians like Josephus and Tacitus that write about Jesus.
However the Bible accounts are those writen by the eye witnesses of the events, or from those that heard it from the eye witnesses.

The gospels in the time of their writing where not writen to be put in an old book with black covers, but as witness to the events that took place.

How can any other document be more trustworthy?

What is acceptable evidence to you?

Acceptable evidence is outside of creationist rhetoric and semantic jargon. It is evidence that can pass statistical analysis. You speak as if the Bible is still being written, as far as I know the bible is updated and retranslated but still based on the same "old" original testament in many respects. Jesus still lived long ago, so the eye witnesses are also generally from long ago. I do not consider hear-say and eye witness testimony to be accurate forms of evidence, especially ones from long ago. Many studies have found that human memory is very flawed when it comes to eye witness accounts and proper recall of events. Secondly, I do not believe that the so called witnesses are credible nor the great number of interpretations. Simply examine the other beliefs these witnesses had and their credibility jumps right out the window...

A bible can be a book or not it depends on the reader's point of view. You can make it as the God's teaching or then turn to the satan's dogma. depends on what you folloe. Spiritually, scientifically or dogmatically. I believe in God and my savior.

DearH.B.

No Historian would agree with you sir.
You can not aply the rules of physics and biology to the science of history.
Jesus is a historical figure. The gospels are historic documents.
Acording to your logic we should dump all historic documents of the past especially if they are old.
Don't forgett that based on book like Illiad that Troy was found.

That you don't like the Bible, that is another matter. But History is based in old documents. (older they are - I mean closer in time to the events they describe - more reliable they are thought to be)

What you are saying is, that since you don't like the evidence that exist, you would like to find evidence that does not exist, and only when that evidence that does not exist is found, then you will be happy. This is nonsense!

Also, Can you explain why the gospel witnesses are not credible?
Are you saying that becasue I believe things that to you might sound weird (like miracles happen), I would be not a credible witness in court, of things I have seen or heard?
Who is a credible witness? Only someone that believes what you believe? Are you ruling out all of us exept the atheists?
That is a very dangerouss idea you are bringing up.....

This is what John the apostle wrote:

"1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.
2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.
3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (1John 1:1-4)

Apostle Paul wrote:
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time....
....13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.
17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.
19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
20 ¶ But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (2 Corinthians 15)

Apostel Peter writes:
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.(2Peter 1:19-21)

All these men suffered much for they witness. Again They where not whitness of some theory or believes, but of things they saw and heard, and experienced.

Paul died beheaded, Peter cricified upside down. Why woud they do that if they really did NOT witness the things they testiefied about.

Would you be ready to die for something you know is a lie?
I am not.

Sorry, Correction made in capitals

DearH.B.

No Historian would agree with you sir.
You can not aply the rules of physics and biology to the science of history.
Jesus is a historical figure. The gospels are historic documents.
Acording to your logic we should dump all historic documents of the past especially if they are old.
Don't forgett that based on book like Illiad that Troy was found.

That you don't like the Bible, that is another matter. But History is based in old documents. (older they are - I mean closer in time to the events they describe - more reliable they are thought to be)

What you are saying is, that since you don't like the evidence that exist, you would like to find evidence that does not exist, and only when that evidence that does not exist is found, then you will be happy. This is nonsense!

Also, Can you explain why the gospel witnesses are not credible?
Are you saying that becasue I believe things that to you might sound weird (like miracles happen), I would be not a credible witness in court, of things I have seen or heard?
Who is a credible witness? Only someone that believes what you believe? Are you ruling out all of us exept the atheists?
That is a very dangerouss idea you are bringing up.....

This is what John the apostle wrote:

"1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.
2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.
3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (1John 1:1-4)

Apostle Paul wrote:
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time....
....13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.
17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.
19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
20 ¶ But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (2 Corinthians 15)

Apostel Peter writes:
FOR HE [JESUS)RECEIVED HONOUR AND GLORY FROM GOD THE FATHER WHEN THE VOICE CAME TO HIM FROM THE MAJESTIC GLORY, SAYING, "THIS IS MY SON, WHOM I LOVE; WITH HIM I AM WELL PLEASED."
18 WE OURSELVES HEARD THIS VOICE THAT CAME FROM HEAVEN WHEN WE WERE WITH HIM ON THE SACRED MOUNTAIN
19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.(2Peter 1:19-21)

All these men suffered much for they witness. Again They where not whitness of some theory or believes, but of things they saw and heard, and experienced.

Paul died beheaded, Peter cricified upside down. Why woud they do that if they really did NOT witness the things they testiefied about.

Would you be ready to die for something you know is a lie?
I am not.

Historians often are in disagreement about historical events. In any case, credibility is based generally on more than eye witness testimony. You take the witness word for it no matter what? That does not seem logical to me. After all, the Bible has been re-translated and interpreted so many times that its meaning has been spread to oppose itself in many respects. Different religions interpret the Bible in different ways, which interpretations are right...yours? I will take my physical evidence over your hearsay and conjecture any day...

Dear HB

Historians can disagree when the evidence is week or contradictory. But that certanly is not the case.

You say it does not seem logical to you that I take the word of the witnesses no matter what. Why shouldn't I, if I have strong reason to believe they are not lying ?
How logical it seems to you that Courts condemn people or reliese them based on the word of the witnesses?

However eye witness accounts are not the only evidence for the Bible. Arceology proves the Bible acuracy in a powerful way too.

Of course the Bible has been translated many times, becasue language changes. And for anyone who speaks other languages it is clear that any translation has its limitations.

But the Bible manuscripts in the original languages stay the same. They don't change. But you have to learn old hebrew and old greek to read them.

About interpretations of the Bible, you have to make up your mind to what it is saying. But of course in order to do that you have to read it first. Bible is not that complicated realy. Asking few simpke question as your read through could help, like: To whom the writing was addressed originaly? What was the purpose of the writing? Is there anyhing that aplies to my situation today? How?
I sudgest starting wih new testament. Chouse a translation that is closer to your everyday speaking. (Living Bible, The Message, NIV)
You cant really go wrong.

What I have been quoting from the Bible is no heresy. I have not been actualy interpeting much on any verse. I just wrote them down.

What I wrote down describes the core of mainline christian believes from first century untill today.

But of course you are free to believe whatever you want.

I certainly enjoied the conversation with you. Please forgive me if I hurted you in any ways.
It was not my intention to do so. But you know, especially expresing myself in english is hard for me.
Thanks again for the tolerance you showed with my english

May God bless you reachly
Homer

I hate to mention this, but I have to: Your belief that the bible is an accurate historical document is an interpretation itself. Many Christians believe that the Bible is better understood as allegory, poetry, or symbolism and not to be taken as historical fact. So, in my research, I found that interpreting the Bible as a true historical account is in itself an interpretation among many others and this view is even supported by other Christians...

As I said before, the Bible is made of 66 books writen in differnt times by different aouthors over a period of 1600 years.

It is true that some of the books of the Bible are allegory and poetry and use symbolism. The song of Solomon is an allegory of the love relationship betwein God and His people. The Psalms are songs too (poetry). There is a lot of symbolism used in the book of Revelation.

But certanly they are historic accontuns in the Bible. In the Old Testament we have a lot of these books starting with Genesis and Exodus, Judges, I and 2nd KIngs 1st and 2nd Chronicals, 1 and 2 Samuel and so fourth.
There are prophetic books, like Isaiah and Jeremiah and so fouth.

In the New Testament the 4 Gospel accounts are historical accounts about Jesus and also the Acts of the Apostles the account of how the gospel started spreding and the church came into being.

Now none of these books is exclusively one thing. There are many prophecies in the psalms. There is some historcal evidence in the prophetic books, and he letters of the new testament.
There is some poetry in the historic books and so fouth.

You find many things in the books of the Bible but at the botom line the main theme of the 66 books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of the World. This is a strong evidence of Bible being more then man generated literature.

In this point the Bible is very clear and leaves no room for different interpretations.

In a book like the Revelation, a prophetic book, because of the allegories and the simbolism it uses it is hard to understand in detail. Some people have tried to interpret this book even puting the dates when the events described there woud happen. Many have been mistaken, and some disagree about the timings of things that are to happen.
But these are minor disagreemant that are normal when you try to see how the unfulfilled prophecies would take place.
But the book of revelation was not writen to give us detailed dates and times but more to prepare us for the things that are to come so we would be ready whenever they happen. In this there is no disagreement.

And certanly there are certain principals in interpretation of any part or verse of the Bible.
You have to keep that verse (or part) in the context of what is writen above and below it. Keep that in the context of the book. Keep the book in the context of the whole Bible.

In my above postings I was refering to the gospel accounts (4 out of 66 books) as historical accounts about Jesus.
That is not my interpretation. Any historian or biblioghraph will confirm that.

You can really know Jesus for yourself. He is only a prayer away. My first prayer having been an atheist beffore was: "God I think you are not there and I have no capacity to believe you are. But if you really exist and Jesus is real, please show me!

I promisse you my friend He will make himself known to you. And then you will know, not becasue I say so, but because you meet Him.

Jesus has promised : "...whoever comes to me I will never drive away"

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."

Soften your heart. That is the door Jesus comes through.

Wishing you the best

Homer

Historians of present would perhaps confirm the existence of a man named "Jesus", however, no current scholars weather historians, scientists, etc, would ever Consensually confirm that he performed miracles or that he rose from the dead....(cough cough..grave- robbers). Secondly, my further research indicates that the bible was not in fact written by witnesses, but rather by hearsay. Hear say is not a witness account, it is the word passed on from person to person. So, seeing as though no actual "witness" wrote the bible, I find it even less credible. Hearsay is not admissible in court! "No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people." There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings."

Next, the first mention of Jesus came 40 years after his death and he was not written about during his life. If Jesus was really performing miracles then would you not expect there to be writing about such miracles during his life? Why would the supposed miracles not be referred to until well after his death? Hot news is often written about as soon as it happens, not 40 years later. ("Because the religious mind relies on belief and faith, the religious person can inherit a dependence on any information that supports a belief and that includes fraudulent stories, rumors, unreliable data, and fictions, without the need to check sources, or to investigate the reliability of the information”).

I am curious to know how Jesus let himself known to you. Did he appear in front of you, or did you have a recording of his voice? Perhaps you have mistaken your thoughts as his words? In any case, the main argument is about evolution and the point is that there is much more proof for evolution than creationism. Creationism is based on hearsay testimony, not eye witness, as you claim and it is filled with far more outrageous claims than any scientific journal on evolution. Moreover, failure of an accurate account as to "how" things happened discredits any "why" explanation. If a book you read had some wrong information in it, would you take any additional information from it seriously? Scientists generally agree that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Isotope dating is accurate and can be tested in the lab. The error rate is marginal enough from the true earth age to be quite certain in the least that the Bible’s suggested age is wrong. So, if the Bible is wrong on the "how", why should you expect the "why" to be any more truthful?
Evolution has evidence from gene evolvement to organism evolvement. Think of evolution at the gene level, not restricted by organism categorization. Genes transcend organism boundaries and they are evolvable. If genes can transcend organism boundaries why is it so hard for you to understand that they can lead to immense speciation? "The best-documented creation of new species in the laboratory was performed by W.R. Rice and G.W. Salt in the 1980s and described in their paper. Rice and Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After 35 generations, the two groups and their offspring would not breed with each other even when doing so was their only opportunity to reproduce." So, if speciation has been observed the mode of organism change suggested by evolution is more factual than not.
Next, organisms are very responsive to their environment; this is evidence of environmental pressure: read my passage about testes/body ratios and degree of polygyny by scrolling up many passages. Maternal-Fetal conflict is a documented fact and it is proof that genes themselves evolve. The fetus tries to get more maternal resources than the maternal tissue wants to a lot it and so conflict arises and evolution of the genes involved are in a tug of war with changes in responsively and the creation of dummy receptors. Trivers theory of parent-offspring conflict is in accordance with this framework and is also supportive of an evolutionary account. There is more evidence for evolution than creationism. In fact, evolutionary theory is supported by: Biology, Computer models, Chemistry, Psychology, Anthropology, and even economics! (read about game theory) The support that evolution receives is immense and simply blows creationist accounts out of the water. Secondly, if creationist accounts are not about "how" as you suggest, then they are not credible writers of how and they cannot offer an argument against evolution. You speak of how/why as if they are mutually exclusive, but often how and why explanations of things are intertwined. You have presented falsely that investigative notions of how/why are more separate than they actually are.
In closing, the theory of evolution is a “scientific” theory, not a religion. It is supported by actual “scientific” study, unlike creationism. It is the theory of choice for the origin of man. It is taught in schools and supported by News organizations, scholars, scholarly magazines, geological evidence, etc, over any creationist view. You still could not account for this... If creationism is right, man must be moving in the wrong direction, but I highly doubt that. Science is finding all the answers not creationism. Science is finding cures for illness, not prayer, science is performing life saving surgeries and science is also in support of the scientific theory of evolution. I don't know about you, but I will take the side of the issue where the answers are being found over the hearsay from the Bible any day!

HB: I have to thank you for the time and the wholeheartedness. I also thank you for taking the time to do some research about the Bible.

However, I don't know what books you are reading from.
I cited John, Piter and Paul two blogs up. They said that they where eye witnesses of Jesus.
You can read that again if you don't remember.

Piter (wrote two books of the new testament) and John (wrote 4 books of the new testament)where of the twelve original apostles. Mathew (who wrote the first gospel)was of the twelve original apostles. These guys lived with Jesus for 3,5 years of their lives, where witnesses of his death, and his resurection, and his asention.

James and Jude (each wrote one book of the new testaments) where physical bothers of Jesus (from the mother).

John Mark (who wrote the gospel of Mark ) was one of the seventy disciples.(Jesus had four circles of disciples: the 120, the 70, the 12, and the 3 - Piter John and James.) Mark was there when Jesus was arrested. We see from the Acts and the Letters that he is mentioned often as a close asociate of Peter and Paul and the twelve.

Only Luke (wrote te gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles) who lived in the life time of Jesus anyway, he became a believer later.He was a phisician and a historian.We don't know how much of tha facts about Jesus he had witnessed himself. Probably some.
Luke was a close asocciate of Piter and Paul and of the other apostles. What he wrote, he wrote on their behalf. It is very much so like today when a biography book needs to be writen about someone, a writer is hired to put the story together in a profesional way but the information he gets it from the witnesses.
Archeology is proving that the information he gives in Acts about places, times and persons to be very accurate.

I mentioned also before that contemporary historians Josephus and Tacitus wrote of Jesus.

Now you have to keep in mind that Jesus was crucified at the age of 33,and a half years old. It was his contemporaries that outlived Him that wrote about him.

The older manuscripts of the gospels WE HAVE TODAY date about 40 years later.

Now any biblioghraf or historian would tell you that there is NO OTHER document of ancient history that comes EVEN CLOSE to these new testament manuscripts in terms closeness to the events they describe or the number of copiess that exist. Check this if it is not so!

Now about the idea of something needed to be writen while Jesus was still alive: You are confusing your world of the 21st century America with the 1 Century AD world.There was no news paper, no CNN, no Fox News then.
Just to give you a feel of how things worked then. It took 3 to 4 months for a civilian to travel from Jerusalem to Rome, if you where lucky. If you where not lucky you had your ship anchored in some harbour waiting for the winter to pass and better weather to come.
Jesus' ministry was relatively short, only 3,5 years.

Jesus legacy where the many people that followed him, He had crowds of 5 -7 thousand men (not calculating women and children) following him everywhere even in the most remote arias. That was how someone made news back then.

Now you want me to expain how did Jesus made Himself known to me. Probably you are not going to beleive it anyway, so why don't you try it for yourself. You can pray a prayer similar to what I prayed, just mean it from your heart. What have you got to lose? ... only if God is really there... but then it is worth it.

Now about the fruit flies. Thank you for explaining to me the case. I got curious what heapened to the third group (there where three choices).
I would be happy to wait for the 35 generations to become 3500, and see if they would turn into something else other then fruit flies. Not breading it is not enough evidence for speciation.

The maternal tisue, fetus conflict, as you describe it looks more like a norm. It looks like it is ment to be that way according to a designed pattern. My mind goes to who designed those paterns of behavior?
However whateve conflict my sons' fetuses had with my wifes body I am glad my sons look like me and my wife, and are not some other species...
(probably I would still love them).

Now about hows and whys. I never said that the Bible is worng on hows. I just said it is writen with another primary purpose, to tell us more about who and why.(and not only about the creation but many other levels)
For example:If you are writing a recipie book, it is not necesary to describe the mulecular structure of the meat cells you need to use (even if you are a scientist). Why? Becasue that does not fit the purpose of the book (not because you don't know it) I hope you understand what I mean.

If you would want to use the Bible just as a scientific text, well you are using it out of its Author's purpose.

Scientist that believe in God, surely have to work on the hows and with the hows, because that is what science does. Otherwise they are no longer scientists but theologians.
Need to remind you that there are great scientist of the past (and of the present) that believe in God. If you need me I can make a list of names in the next posting. It seems the hows they discovered did not contradict the whys and the whos they believed.

Now let me say something in my terms. I am a painter and paint paintings.
If a go to a gallery to look at art, and I see a painting never seen before. I don't know who the author is and yet I have no doubt someone worked that work. It would be really strange if I would say there is no author, becasue I can't see him, and I don't know him.

How come we look at nature that is far more marvelouse than any work of art man can make and say, there is no Author.

Another analogy(still from art - hope you don't mind):
Imagine you are in a gallery with all the works of Von Gogh, put on the walls in the order from first drawings to the last painting. Now you can observe progres from painting to painting, you can oserve there are similarities, You can observe there is a conection in betwein them. Then you reason: O.K I know what happened here, the first painting happened by chance, than it evolved into the second, third and so fourth to the last. It is no need for an author.
To me this is exactly what I percieve the evolutionist doing with nature and God.
The normal way would be to think that the similarities and the conection in betwein the painting are there becasue the same hand painted them. And that is how I see this world. The hand of sma Author over all creation.

This got to be too long but about miracolouse healings: We meet a lady in 1995 who was dying from cancer. She had been operated twice and had lost the feeling the need to go to restroom for number 1 and 2. The doctors had given her no hope. She was so week she could not walk.
We prayed with her and talkt to her about Jesus (she was from muslim backrownd). She felt something and next Sunday came to our church service. (she asked her sister to bring her). She could hardly seat. After church we prayed with her again. We asked Jesus to heal her. She startet shaking like a surge of electrical power went through her. She keept shaking like that for about half an hour. Next Sunday she walked to church. She said it took me half and hour but I could do it. (she lived not that far at all)We prayed again with her. She felt so much power that she fell from the chair. Next Sunday she was all radiant. She could walk to church now in 20 minutes. Her feeling to restroom needs had come back. We prayed some more with her. Every one was so exited but at the same time overcome. Here was a miracle hapening in front of our eyes. The Sunday after that she could walk to church in 15 minutes. She was almost flying filled with so much joy.
That week she went back for tests. The doctors did not know what to think. She was completely well. Even the dameged tisue form the surgery was completely restored. Doctors said "We don't know what to do with you. We thought you where dying. You are completely well.
Since then this lady is perfecly well. She went to live in Italy about one year later. After a couple of years in Italy she got married.
This is true story. I am spending to much time on this to be lying to you.
I can tell you about 30 accounts of dramatic healings like this I have witnessed first hand.

DOn't get me wrong though, I am most grateful for doctors and medicine.

I won't be bloging for a while. I have a very bussy week ahead of me.

Be blessed my friend. May you know the joy and the love of Jesus in your heart.

I suggest you read about the self confirmation bias, and attribution errors people make. If there are two possible outcomes (you recover or you die) from illness, than why is it so astonishing that the marble falls one way rather than the other. This bog is testimony of the bias you possess. I am a psychology student an I can tell you that you are operating with some sort of thought bias. You think that because the lady recovered that it was prayer that healed her? I think that chance went one way rather than the other. These sorts of attributions are ludicrous. Do you not remember the more than equal number of times that your prayer or prayer in general failed. Your bias is evident because failure of prayer is not as well remembered or sought after in memory when trying to argue about its effectiveness. My guess is that the lady you refer to and the others who were healed were already believers themselves (like the Benny Hinn believers) who also have bias and therefore good chance of making false attributions. My point is, that on average if you did an experiment you would find that prayer would fall short when compared to scientific medical intervention. Having said that, I was indicating that I would chose the side of the evolutionary argument that is supported by science and the one that is "truly" curing people. You sound like an evangelist, and it is of even less surprise that I cannot convince you of anything, even by showing you. I will make one final blog to you homer (aka. Mr. Holtonian) some time in the future and it will be one that has arguments that you could not address, such as above and perhaps a rebuttal on the witness thing...

PS: Good of you to mention that not breeding is not evidence of speciation. I didn’t realize you were an expert on the subject of speciation. Last I checked this is immense evidence of speciation. I wonder who is more credible, you or the scientists…hmmmm.

"Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them, consider that the average life span of humans in the first century came to around 30, and very few people lived to 70. If the apostles births occured at about the same time as the alleged Jesus, and wrote their gospels in their old age, that would put Mark at least 70 years old, and John at over 110."

your full of non-sense crap!!!!!:) :) and you stinks

Typical unintelligent creationist rebuttal! You cannot address the isssue so you use insults....pathetic and dumb...... Hi Arantxa, good response... Keep up the good work!

ha, ha, ha,.......speak to yourself asshole, creationist? who is creationist? and who is arantza? you are of out of your freaking mind like your idiotic "theory", full of assumption.....stupid BH.

i called you an "ass" hole and considered as one, because of your insistence on this freaking theory which is all based on nothing but "ass"umptions. people who believe on this and trying to convince other are called jack"ass"es like yourself. so go ahead and be a jack"ass" forever. and if people don't agree with you on this, the world is much a better place....stupid

If you’re not a creationist, and you do not believe in evolution, what is your belief for the origin of man?
Funny how the theory is taught in schools and is considered to be the dominant theory in the world. Explain why news organizations, magazines, and the average educated individual supports evolution? Why are there specific courses on specific aspects of evolution: Evolution of human behavior, Evolutionary Biology, Genetic Biology, Evolutionary molecular Biology, Evolutionary Anthropology? I guess the Universities are teaching "fake" courses then...lol. ...The theory is not my theory, it is the dominant scholarly theory for the origin of man, guess you were unaware of that. Maybe you should crawl out from under that rock you have been living under for the last 100 years and perhaps you should read about all the supportive studies for evolution before making your “uneducated” judgment….just a thought….

PS: please tell me how the observed supportive lab studies are assumptions!

For anyone, here is some evidence for the age of our planet. You make up your mind:

EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE
1 - Earth rotation. Because of solar and lunar gravitational drag forces, the spin of the earth (now about 1,000 mph [1,609 kmph]) is gradually slowing down. If our world were billions of years old, it would already have stopped turning. Or, calculating differently, a billion years ago our planet would have been spinning so fast—it would have become a pancake. So, either way, our earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

2 - Magnetic field decay. Earth's magnetic field is slowly, relentlessly lessening. Even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it is now. Only 20,000 years ago, enough heat would have been generated to liquefy the planet. Therefore, the earth cannot be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. This is an important matter, affects the entire planet, and has been measured for over 150 years.

EVIDENCE FROM BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH
1 - Escaping natural gas. Oil and gas are usually located in a porous and permeable rock like sandstone or limestone. Fluids and gas can easily travel through the containing rock, but more slowly pass out through the impermeable rock cap. The rate of gas escapement has been found to be far too rapid to agree with long ages. If the theory were true, all the natural gas would now be escaped.

2 - Oil pressure. When drillers first penetrate into oil, there is a "gusher." This is caused by high pressure in the oil vein. Analysis of surrounding rock permeability reveals that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but it has not happened. These deep rock formations and their entrapped oil cannot be older than 7,000 to 10,000 years.

3 - Oil seepage. If much oil seepage had occurred from out of the ocean floors, all the oil in offshore wells would be gone if the earth were 20,000 years old.

4 - Lack of anciently destroyed reservoirs. All the oil in the world must have been placed there in relatively recent times. If long ages had elapsed, the oil reservoirs would be gone, and we would only find the cavities where they had been. But such locations are never found.

5 - Molten earth. Deep within the earth, the rock is molten; but, if the earth were billions of years old, long ages ago our planet would have cooled far more than it now has.

6 - Volcanic eruptions. There are many extinct volcanoes, but evidence indicates that volcanic activity has only continued a relatively short time since the world began. Otherwise, there would be far more lava than now exists.

7 - Zircon / lead ratios. Lead gradually leaks out of radioactive zircon crystals, and does so more rapidly at high temperatures. Yet very little lead has escaped from zircon found deep in the earth at temperatures above 313oC [595.4oF]. This points strongly to a young earth.

8 - Zircon / helium ratios. Helium is a gas and can diffuse out of crystals much more rapidly than many other elements, including lead. Since heat increases chemical activity, there should be no helium left in the zircon in that same deep hole. Yet amazingly little helium has escaped. Therefore the world must be very young.

9 - Soil-water ratio. The earth is still in the partially soaked condition it became at the time of the Flood. This indicates that the Flood occurred only a few thousand years ago.

EVIDENCE FROM ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH
1 - Topsoil. It has been calculated that 300 to 1,000 years is required to build one inch [2.54 cm] of topsoil. Yet the average depth of topsoil is about eight inches. On this basis, the earth could only be a few thousand years old.

2 - Niagara Falls. Erosion of Niagara Falls is about 3.5 feet [106.68 cm] per year. Since the length of the gorge is about 7 miles, the age of the falls would normally be about 5,000 to 10,000 years at the most. However, the Flood would have greatly accelerated that erosion.

EVIDENCE FROM THE OCEANS
1 - River deltas. The Mississippi River dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cm] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico each year—continually enlarging the delta area. Yet the Mississippi delta is not large. Calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years (4,620 years, to be exact). If the world were 120,000 years old, that delta would extend all the way to the North Pole.

2 - Sea ooze. Soft mud from dead plants and animal life form on the floor of the oceans, at the rate of about one inch (2.54 cm) every 1,000 to 5,000 years. The depth of ooze indicates the earth is quite young.

3 - Erosion in the ocean. We do not find the erosion in the ocean floors which ought to be there if the world were millions or billions of years old. There are ragged cliffs and steep mountains. Indeed, the continents should have eroded into the oceans by now.

4 - Thickness of ocean sediments. If the earth were billions of years old, the ocean floor would be covered by sediments from land, measuring 60 to 100 miles [96.5 to 160.9 km] thick, and all the continents would be eroded away. Instead, we only find a few thousand feet of sediment. Based on known yearly sediment deposition, calculations yield only a few thousand years for our planet.

5 - Ocean concentrations. We have a good estimate of the amount of various elements and salts in the ocean, and the amount being added each year. On this basis, our world is fairly young. For example, the age of the earth, based on nitrate analysis, would be 13,000 years.

6 - Growth of coral. Coral growth rates indicate the earth is quite young. No known coral formation is older than 3,500 years.

EVIDENCE FROM LIVING THINGS
1 - Tree rings. Sequoias are never older than 4,000 years, yet are the oldest living thing in our world. Bristlecone pines are said to be older (over 4,000 years); however, it is now known that some years they produce a double tree ring. Therefore, the sequoias remain the oldest. Only man or flood can destroy the sequoia. It appears that climatic conditions, prior to 600 B.C., were erratic and produced difficult conditions, enabling tree-ring counts to provide longer ages than actually occurred.—

2 - Mutation load. Calculations based on genetic load (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms) indicate that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand years,—and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are. (The deteriorated atmosphere after the Flood, with the consequent increase of solar radiation, probably increased this genetic load.)—p. 30.

EVIDENCE FROM CIVILIZATION
1 - Historical records. If mankind had been living on earth for millions of years, we should find records extending back at least 500,000 years. (Evolutionists claim that man has been here for a million years.) But, instead, records only go back to about 2000-3500 B.C. When writing began, it was fully developed. The earliest dates are Egyptian (Manetho's king lists), but should be lowered for several reasons. Well-authenticated Egyptian dates only go back to 1600 B.C.

2 - Early Biblical records. Bible records carry us back to a Creation date of approximately 4000 B.C., with a Flood date of about 2348 B.C. Scientific facts point us toward the same dates.—pp.

3 - Astronomical records. Prior to 2250 B.C., we have not one record of a solar eclipse ever having been seen by people! Because it is totally accurate, that earliest recorded astronomical event is a significant date. It comes only about a hundred years after the Flood. We have reason to believe the sky was darkened with volcanic eruptions for years after the Flood ended.—

4 - Writing. The oldest writing (pictographic Sumerian) is dated at about 3500 B.C. The earliest Western script (Proto-Sinaitic) somewhat before 1550 B.C.—

5 - Civilizations. No really verified archaeological datings predate the period of about 3000 B.C. More ancient dates come from radiocarbon dating, which, prior to about 600 B.C., is known to be much more inaccurate. In every instance, our earliest aspects of civilization (crops, animal husbandry, metallurgy, building, cities, etc.) go back to the Near East. This agrees with the Bible record (Genesis 8:4).—p. 32.

6 - Languages. Records of ancient languages never go back beyond 3000 B.C.; yet, beginning in the Near East, there are language families which have spread all over the world since then.—

7 - Population statistics. Estimates, based on population changes, indicate that, about the year 3300 B.C., there was only one family.—p. 33.

8 - Facts vs. theories. Evolutionary estimates of the age of the earth have constantly changed and lengthened with the passing of time (it currently stands at 5 billion years). But the scientific evidence remains constant and, as new authentic evidence emerges, it only fastens down the dates even more firmly. It all points to a beginning for our planet about 6,000 years ago. Some may see it as 7,000 to 10,000 years, but the evidence points most distinctly toward a date of about 4,000 B.C. for the origin of our planet. The evidence for an early earth is not only solid, it is scientific.

Be blessed you all

Hey I found some more good stuff... should make you think...

HOW FAR BACK DO THE RECORDS GO? - 1

Historical Records - Everything started off fully developed about 2000-3000 B.C.
Early Egyptian Records - Manetho's king lists should be revised downward to 3200 to 3600 B.C.
Radiocarbon Dates - They are not accurate prior to 1600 B.C.
Biblical Records - The oldest history book was Genesis, which Moses wrote about 1510-1450 B.C.
Astronomical Records - The earliest recorded solar eclipse is 2250 B.C. This fact is highly significant
Writing - The oldest written tablets were Sumerian, dating back to 3500 B.C.
Civilizations - All the earliest ones were located in Mesopotamia, which is a little southeast of the Ararat mountains, where Noah's Ark came to rest

HOW FAR BACK DO THE RECORDS GO? - 2

Languages - Ancient languages never go back beyond c. 3000 B.C., and radiate outward from Mesopotamia
Ancient Historical Records - The oldest dates go back to about 3000 B.C.
The Oldest People - They do not go back before c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia
Conclusion - Man, whom the evolutionists claim to have come into existence over a million years ago, is said to have "stopped evolving" 100,000 years ago. Why then do we not have at least 100,000 years of civilizations, cities, and human remains?

Jesus i good

I don't know what you would expect to find in early man society 100 000 years ago. They lived a primative existence!

World’s oldest human remains unearthed in Ethiopia
ADDIS ABABA, 12 June (IRIN) - The world’s oldest human remains, unearthed in Africa, may finally solve the puzzle of the origins of man, scientists said on Wednesday.
The "160,000-year-old" fossils, the oldest ever Homo sapiens and excavated in a remote region of Ethiopia, appear to prove that the continent was the cradle of humanity, the scientists said.
Theres your remains!

WASHINGTON — Paleontologists searching the bleak desert of central Ethiopia have unearthed the fossilized bones of a 5.5-million-year-old creature that appears to be the oldest human "ancestor" yet discovered.

The finding has brought scientists tantalizingly close to determining what the earliest human ancestors looked like when — somewhere between 5 million and 10 million years ago — apes and humans diverged from a common ancestor to take separate evolutionary paths.

The Ethiopian creature, dubbed Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (root-man ancestor), had a toe bone that indicates it walked upright — a classic characteristic separating humans from apes — and teeth that appeared to be evolving from apes to later human ancestors, researchers said.

Scientists have found only 11 bones from at least five different individuals — including a jawbone with teeth, hand and foot bones, pieces of arm bones, and a piece of a collarbone — making it impossible to determine the creature's size or appearance.

But tests show the remains are 5.2 million to 5.8 million years old, making it about a million years older than the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus, found nearby in 1995 and previously the oldest human ancestor ever discovered.

Manny,
Why would they be in a primitive state if they where full modern men? Why would they have to wait to about for about 94000 more years and only then get civilised?

BH
Is ts the same case you are talking about in the last two postings? It seems a big difference in the datings?

SOME MORE INFO ABOUT SOME DATING PROBLEMS (that you seem to admit)

RADIOCARBON DATING
Carbon-14 cycle. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating was devised in 1948. Theoretically, it sounds like a good method; but, in practice, it does not turn out that way. Radiocarbon dating is only "consistent" because the large number of C-14 dates which do not agree—are thrown out.—pp.

Thirteen assumptions. As with uranium and other radioactive dating, carbon-14 dating requires flawless uniformity, down through the centuries, in regard to 13 assumptions. If one or more are incorrect, then C-14 dating will be unreliable.

Seventeen radiodating problems. In addition, there are 17 reasons why radiocarbon dating is seriously flawed:

1 - Type of carbon. There can never be certainty as to what type of carbon may be present. It might be from carbon-14, but it might be a different carbon.—

2 - Variations within samples. There can be biological alteration of materials within the soil which can radically affect the dating over a period of time.—

3 - Loss of C-14. Moisture intrusion of any kind will dramatically affect the dating outcome.

4 - Lesson from Jarmo. Eleven C-14 tests, made at Jarmo (in modern Iraq), yielded dates with a 6,000 year spread!

5 - Changes in atmospheric carbon. We do not know what were the carbonic and atmospheric conditions in ancient times. Yet we must have that information, in order to start the radiocarbon clock and keep it running right for the first part of its cycle.

6 - Sunspot cycles. Sunspot production greatly affects C-14 activity, yet all we know with certainty is that there have been changes in the past. However, radiocarbon dating is based on the assumption that there have been no such changes!

7 - Radiocarbon date survey. A survey of 15,000 carbon-14 dates reveals a wide variation from other radiodating techniques. Yet they all ought to agree.

8 - Change in neutrino radiation. A change in neutrino radiation into our atmosphere, in earlier times, would also dramatically affect radiocarbon dating. But nothing is known definitively.

9 - Recent dates are most accurate. One landmark fact is that C-14 dates, from the present time back to 600 B.C., tend to be more accurate. Before that time, the results are highly speculative.

10 - If warmer and more water vapor. It is highly significant that, if the earth were either warmer at an earlier time or had more water in the atmosphere, the C-14 clocks would slow down dramatically; that is, register longer periods of time than they should.

11 - Cosmic rays. The amount of cosmic radiation entering the atmosphere and reaching the earth would also be crucial, since it is cosmic rays which make carbon 14 in the first place.

12 - Magnetic field. The greater the strength of earth's magnetic field, the more cosmic rays would enter our atmosphere. And it is the cosmic rays which change C-12 into C-14 (which is then absorbed by body tissues).

13 - Moisture conditions. Even small changes in atmospheric or ground moisture, would greatly affect the C-14 clock.—How about a worldwide Flood?—

14 - Dramatic changes after the Flood. Immense changes occurred worldwide (during and just after the Flood) in the atmosphere, vapor canopy, and temperature. Immense volcanic output for about a century thereafter would have had significant impact on the clocks.

15 - Even modern specimens are inaccurate. Not only are ancient specimens inaccurate, but recent ones also are. Freshly killed seals have been dated as having lived 1,300 years ago, etc.—

16 - Carbon inventory. Drastic changes during, and following, the Flood produced immense variations in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

17 - Four radiocarbon samples. Four examples of ridiculous C-14 date results are cited.

Throwing off the clock. *W.F. Libby, inventor of the C-14 dating technique, found that, prior to 1600 B.C., the radiocarbon dates go wild. But, since he assumed earth was millions of years old, he went ahead with his work and ignored the problem.

C-14 data points to the Flood. If the Genesis Flood actually occurred, there should be a lot of specimens which died at about that date. One research scholar found such evidence. A gigantic loss of life occurred at approximately 2500 B.C.

Mass spectrometer. This new and expensive technique shows all ancient dates should be very low.

AMINO ACID DATING
Amino acid decomposition. This dating method, devised in 1955, analyzes ancient amino acid remains and tries to date them. Each type of plant and animal has its own special amino acid ratios. Researchers have reported that this dating method can only yield broad ranges of possible dates.

No ancient fossils. Traces of amino acids are today found on all ancient fossil remains! This means that none of the fossils are very old.

Racemic dating. This is a second amino acid dating method, based on the fact that all animals only have L (left-handed) amino acids. (In Primitive Environment, we will learn that this fact is a powerful evidence that God made them; since, in a laboratory, amino acid synthesis results in a 50 / 50 mixture of left and right.)

Seeking a racemic mixture. At death, some of the L amino acids begin converting over to D (right-handed ones). Eventually, a 50 / 50 pattern emerges, which is called "racemic." Scientists prefer racemic amino acid dating, since it is easier to do.

Ten racemic problems. Ten different factors affect the results of racemic dating, yet no one knows which ones are off or to what degree. So racemic dating is practically worthless.—p. 35.

Most easily contaminated. Water-contaminated materials have their racemic clocks thrown off. Bone from a given period will yield 20,000 years, while comparable seashell meat will be 150,000 years.

Temperature changes. Racemic dating also requires that the temperature not change for thousands of years! Just a one degree increase in temperature at 73.4oF [23oC] will produce a nearly 16 percent increase in the rate at which racemization occurs.

Cold storage problem. But cold is as much a problem as is heat. As the cold increases, racemization slows down. Example: It is known that, because of the overcast caused by heavy volcanism, the world became much colder for about a century after the Flood. Yet this cold factor would cause creatures buried in the sedimentary strata to appear to be over 100,000 years older than they really were!

Moisture: A double problem. The experts tell us that moisture must be present for racemization to occur. Yet that continual inflow of moisture would bring with it various kinds of contamination. One such contaminant would be the pH of that moisture. For example, a higher pH (as would occur if the penetrating water had some dissolved limestone in it, not an uncommon occurrence), would cause very rapid racemization—and impart an apparently great age to the sample.

Another radiodating problem. As would be expected, racemization results do not agree with radiocarbon test results. Yet they ought to agree.

OTHER DATING METHODS
Astronomical dating. We discussed this in great detail in Origin of Matter. The methods used to date the stars and galaxies are wildly incoherent, because they are based on a theory which is incorrect (the speed theory of the redshift).

Paleomagnetic dating. Paleomagnetic dating is also based on incorrect theories. This is discussed in greater detail in Laws of Nature vs. Evolution.—

Varve dating. Certain sedimentary deposits are composed of extremely thin layers. Evolutionists theorize that each band must be exactly one year. But any limnologist will tell you that a brief flooding into a lake will cause a varve, which is a settling out of finer particles. In addition, only a rapid laying down of sediments could produce the plant and animal fossils we find in varves.

Tree ring dating. Bristlecone pine rings indicate an apparent age somewhat older than that of the giant sequoias. But evidence reveals that more than one bristlecone ring can be laid down in a single year. Sequoias are the oldest living thing, and their age closely correlates with the end of the Flood. See Age of the Earth for more on this.

Buried forest strata dating. Sometimes vertical trees are buried in sedimentary strata. Because they are found at various levels, it is said that this proves long ages. But how did vertical trees remain in place for long ages, while they were gradually covered over? Vertical trees in strata prove the Flood, not long ages of evolution.

Peat dating. Evolutionists theorize that peat moss forms at the rate of one-fifth inch per century. But there is evidence indicating that this assumption is not true.—

Reef dating. *Darwin theorized that coral reefs grew as the oceans, over long ages, gradually filled with water. Yet the truth is that the Flood occurred rapidly—and coral is only found fairly close to the surface. Thus, they began forming after the oceans were rather quickly filled.—

Thermoluminescence dating. This little-known dating theory has also failed to find scientific support.

Stalactite formation. Stalactites (the long conical formations which hang from cave ceilings) are said to require long ages to develop. But there is abundant evidence that they can form much more quickly.

more dating problems.

RADIODATING
Major dating methods. There are three primary radioactive dating methods: (1) uranium-thorium-lead dating, (2) rubidium-strontium dating, and (3) potassium-argon dating.

In each system, the "parent" element decays to a "daughter" element, and a certain amount of time is supposed to elapse throughout the decay process.

Six initial assumptions. Each of these dating methods can only be accurate if each of the following assumptions always apply:

1 - Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products during the process. When something is in the ground for a long period of time, how can anyone be certain that this is true?

2 - Each system must initially contain none of the daughter products. But, of course, no one was back there then to know that.

3 - The decay rate must never change. Who was standing there all those years with a time clock in his hand?

4 - There can be no variation in decay rates. But one researcher has already demonstrated that it actually happens. 5 - If any change occurred earlier in certain atmospheric conditions, this could profoundly affect radioactivity. There are reasons to believe this has happened.

6 - Any change in the Van Allen radiation belt would greatly affect the rates, and that could also have occurred.

Five radiometric dating inaccuracies. Here are several reasons why uranium and thorium dating methods cannot be relied on. Each of these five problems is very, very likely to have occurred over past time, thus devastating the value of the computed dates:

(1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the parent substance. (2) Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leaked out. (3) Inaccurate lead ratio computations may have been worked out in the lab. (4) During the decay process, neutron capture (from a radiogenic lead) may have contaminated the results. (5) Clock settings would initially be greatly varied, if the substances originally were (as evolutionists claim) derived from molten materials.

Thorium-lead dating. The same flaws with uranium are applicable to thorium. In addition, contamination factors, common to both, may trigger different results in thorium than in uranium. A powerful evidence that these dates are useless is the fact that uranium and thorium dates always widely disagree with one another.

Lead 210 and helium dating. These are two other dating methods. Lead 210 can leak or be contaminated by entry of other leads. Helium, being a gas, leaks so radically that it is also useless for dating purposes.—

Rubidium-strontium dating. This is a widely used dating method at the present time. But, in addition to all the other problems mentioned earlier,—the experts have been unable to decide on the half-life of rubidium! This is like saying we will use a certain wall clock to figure time with, while having no idea what each "hour" that passes on that clock equals: five minutes or two days. To add to the problem, strontium 87 is easily leached away, thus ruining the computation.—

Potassium-argon dating. Since potassium is found in fossil-bearing strata, this is a favorite method. But the experts cannot agree on the half-life of potassium, and argon is a rare gas that quickly escapes from the rock into the atmosphere. In addition, potassium can easily be leaked. Finally, the notoriously defective methods used for uranium dating must be used to figure potassium-argon dates.

Yet, in spite of these mammoth defects, potassium is the most common method of dating fossil-bearing rocks. As with the other dating methods, its results are reported only in those instances in which they seem close enough to the nineteenth-century strata dating theory.—

Problems with all radiodating methods. Here is a remarkable example of what we are talking about: All the dating methods were applied to the moon rocks. The result: dates varying from 2 million to 28 billion years! Yet, as we found in Age of the Earth, non-radiogenic dating methods show the moon to be only a few thousand years old.

Emery's research. *G.T. Emery discovered that long half-life radioactive elements (the kind discussed in this present article) do not have consistent half-lives! This would be like having a clock, with one "sixty minutes" actually eight minutes long, with another two days in duration.

In spite of these facts, evolutionists, in desperation, continue to hang their theories on cobwebs.—pp. 22-23.

Just one catastrophe. *F.B. Jeaneman noted that just one catastrophe, such as a worldwide flood, would throw all the dating clocks off. Immense contamination of all radioactive sources would occur; there would be major shifting of rock pressure and reversals in earth's magnetic core.—p. 23.

Five ways to change the rates. All aside from contamination and other problems, everything hinges on unchanging decay rates. But *H.C. Dudley noted five ways they could change. Dudley actually changed the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes by means of pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, and stress in molecular layers. He also cited research by Westinghouse laboratories which changed the rates simply by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.—p. 23.

ROCK STRATA DATING
Strata and fossil dating. An in-depth analysis of fossil and strata dating will be presented in Fossils and Strata. But, right here, we will note the relationship of radioactive dating to fossils and strata—and find there is no relationship!

Fossil and sedimentary strata dating were imaginatively invented in the nineteenth century and are totally useless. Radioactive dating of fossils and strata are also useless. Consider this:

Only three usable test results. It is impossible to date fossils or strata by radioactive dating. In fact, only three test dates have ever been accepted! All the others vary so wildly that they have been thrown out. Tens of thousands of tests, costing millions of dollars in salaries and lab time, have been discarded because they have been found to be useless.

Random guesses, unproven possibilities, and confused data; that is the story of fossil and strata dating.—pp. 23-25.

Astounding discrepancies. Of the 1,400 radioisotopes known to exist, only 75 have half-lives longer than 700 years. In 1978, John Woodmorappe carried out exhaustive research to ascertain the dates given to materials in the 11 major strata levels. In each case, he found variations in the millions or billions of years! The dates just do not agree with one another.

DATING THE STRATA AND FOSSILS
The circular reasoning used to date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks—and all of it by a theory.

How are the rocks and fossils dated? Read anything on the subject by evolutionists, and you will quickly learn that the one obvious proof that the strata and fossils must be so ancient—is the fact that the strata all have dates going back into the multimillions of years!

Okay, but now let us go deeper into the matter: Exactly how are the strata and fossils dated?

Let me tell you in just one sentence: Evolutionary scientists dated the rocks from the fossils, and then dated the fossils from their theories! And they decided on nearly all those dates over a century ago—when only a few fossils had been found!

That may seem astounding, but it is true.

Real history. Real history only goes back about 4,500 years. Everything before that is guesswork. We know that to be true because the various ancient dating methods (C14, radiodating, etc.) have severe inherent dating flaws. (See Dating of Time in Evolution and The Truth about Archaeological Dating.)

Not dated by appearance. The strata are not dated by appearance, for various types of rocks, of all levels and "ages," may be found in strata. They are not dated by their mineral, metallic, or petroleum content.

Not dated by location. The strata are not dated by where they are found or by their structure, breaks, faults, or folds.

Not dated by vertical location. The rocks are not dated by their sequence in the strata, for "younger" strata may be below "older" strata.

Not dated by radioactivity. To anyone familiar with the fact that radiodating dates are wildly inconsistent, it should come as no surprise that strata dates are not obtained by radiodating. (See Dating of Time in Evolution for more on that.)

Are the rocks dated by fossils? That is about all that is left,—yet the same fossils are found in many different strata! A full 99.8 percent of the fossils are useless for dating, because they are in so many different strata.

How then are the rocks dated?

Rocks are dated by index fossils. It may seem incredible that all evolutionary geology is keyed to a few fossils, but it is true. In every strata, there are a few fossils which are mainly found in that one strata. The strata is then dated according to those index fossils.

That may seem like going out on the limb quite a bit, but it does seem sort of scientific. Okay, everything is dated by a certain few fossils.

But, wait a minute! How did the evolutionists decide what dates to apply to those index fossils?

They are dated by a theory!

Fossils dated by a theory. There is no way to tell the age of a certain fossil—any fossil. No possible way. The evolutionists do not even try to do so. Instead, they date the fossils by their theory of how old they think the fossils and those strata should be!

The whole idea of "index fossils" is a charade to hide the fact that each strata, and everything in it, is assigned an arbitrary date—according to what men imagine it ought to be!

(It is revealing that, every few years, another "index fossil" is found to be alive today! Then it must be removed from the "index fossil" list, since index fossils are supposed to have died out at a certain ancient date. Many of the index fossils are trilobites, tiny ancient sea creatures, generally less than an inch in length.)—pp. 21, 23.

Circular reasoning. Although it is called "fossil evidence," circular reasoning is the basis of the evidence used to prove evolution to be true.

Every thinking person knows that fossil evidence is supposed to be the primary basis for evolution. Yet we find that it is based on circular reasoning: They use their theory of rock strata to date the fossils, and then use their theory of fossils to date the strata!

Although it is called "survival of the fittest," circular reasoning is also the basis of the means, or mechanism, by which evolution is supposed to occur.

The fittest survive because they are fittest or, to say it another way, the survivors survive because they survive; therefore they are the fittest. But all they do is survive; they do not evolve into something different!

WARNING: There are so many long idiotic postings in this forum tricking readers to think and perceive it's all coming from different writers but in reality the source of all these is coming from one lamed-brain s.o.b. To unsuspecting readers who want to get involved in these dialogue is futile. BH, Homer,Manny, Robert, and Glen H is one person. BH whoever you are, is so dumb and stupid to think you could out-smart people with your baseless dumb ass "reasoning, facts and datas. Who give a shit of these so called "datas and facts" you presented here by using different aliases. Who give a shit, asshole, of your "educational attainment" you've mention earlier in these forum. Don't be self-deceived in assuming people in these forum don't noticed similarities in the writing pattern you've wrote and used different names to make them believed that different "people" are involved and contributing in this dumb-ass topic you are imposing on everyone. Don't you realized how dumb and stupid you are? Anyway you did it to yourself shithead and you can rectify things up by S.T.F.U. okay buddy? And this forum is not about your stupid theory nor anything else but about the two Benny's. Read the "heading" title above if you have the brain(hopefully) to grasp or understand what the discussion in these forum is all about. Hey, stop imposing yourself being a lamed-brain and stupid, everyone knows that already. Now back to Benny Hinn and Benny Hill discussion.....

Right,there is no pattern between me and Robert, or homer, or arantxa. Point it out. Ironically, I was suggesting that homer and Robert where the same person and that ivanoff and arantxa were also. But there is no universal pattern my friend. The topic of the origin of man is hottly debated and it would be a surprise if only one person was offering their two cents. I surly hope my writing is not like some of the people above..lol.. Why would I argue with myself? your the idiot, if you truly believe that so be it.... But I suggest you find actual similarites in the writing and mention them before making up your theory"..

PS: this is a free fucking country, and if you don't like it don't read it! I could care less if this started out being about some hack comedian and fraud evangelist, now it is an argument about evolution and creationism. Offer an arguement, or shut up and fuck off! ....

Homer, homo sapiens have been around for a long time. When they split from a common ancestor long ago, they were not exactly as they are today. They have evolved and are still evolving. There teeth structure has changed, as has their craninal structure. They did not appear in the exact form they are in now. Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey 1994)

Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive". Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes more typical of archaic sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace 1983).

Furthermore, there are 3 types of classified homo- sapiens: 1.) Homo- Sapiens- praesapiens from 200 000 years ago, 2.) homo- sapiens- neanderthalensis from 130 000 years ago, and 3.) homo –sapiens- sapiens from 40 000 years ago. So modern man has only been around for about 40 000 years. So, yes, it is of no surprise civility did not enter the equation until much later than the 100 000 year mark. Homer, (a suggestion) read the material and try to understand it before cutting and pasting from the net, after all it is your argument.

And anoter reason to read and understand your argument is that some of your sources have claims that are just plain wrong! i.e. humans stopped evolving 100 000 years ago. That is not an evolutionist claim, it is an uneducated creationist trying to play with the big boys.

There is evidence that humans have evolved in the last several thousand years and continue to evolve: Analysis of variation in the human genome indicates that genes associated with brain size have evolved over approximately the last 37,000 years and 5800 years (Evans et al. 2005; Mekel-Bobrov et al. 2005).
Sickle-cell resistance has evolved to be more prevalent in areas where malaria is more common.
Lactose tolerance has evolved in conjunction with cultural changes in dairy consumption (Durham 1992).
Some humans have recently acquired mutations which confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) and to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).

Homer, there is a reasonable scientific rebuttal for all your arguments: need I post them? Try to stick to you your element.

Hey busted,
I apologized if I really over-exposed myself being a lamed brain, stupid s.o.b. as you suggested. I'm just trying, if I can pull-off some legs on people on this forum and I'm so embarrased on what I did. This is not really fun anymore, and I say sorry to everyone whom I offended. Again, to all of you, sorry for my stupidity. BH

Disregard the above blog, it was not me. Someone took my name and tried to pass it off as me. Nice try ivanoff, or whoever you are!

Sure, sure, it's me, the real me you dumb wit. who ever is trying to pass it off as me writing in here is an impostor. Again to everyone I'm sorry for my past stupid lamed-brain writings.

stupid idiots, stop this nonsense. I'm the real BH and happy to declare that I'm gay too.

Hey BH....Are you a closet one or an open one? Do you have a partner? Just curious!!!!!!

Okay, this is my last blog in response to homer! I suspect that it will not make much difference to those religious fanatics, but in any case, I thought it would perhaps give a little nudge to those of who are sitting on the metaphorical fence. (unfortunately, most of those people do not frequent sites like this!)
My argument will be all- encompassing and will draw on the works of many scientists and subjects. Subjects such as: Psychology, Geology, Paleontology, Biology, Anthropology, etc.. The argument will be divided into various sections, namely, the sorts of proof for evolution will come from the subjects listed above.
Evolution is a theory, and a fact a scientific theory and a scientific fact. It is a scientific fact that organisms are still evolving and it is a scientific theory that these evolvements are compoundable and capable of transcending organism species categorization. But truthfully, almost everything that science can explain is in the form of a theory. It is a theory that man’s notion of Physics is a close enough composite of physical reality, though you would not see many people wanting to test notions of gravity; Einstein drew up the theory of relativity, but not many people argue that it is as of now best suited for explaining physical events; It is a theory that our conceptualization of the structure of the atom best describes the atom and matter in general; It is a theory that matter can behave as a particle and a wave; it is a theory that cigarettes cause cancer; though most except that it is true based on the astounding evidence. The point is a theory does not carry the negative connotations with it that creationists suggest. After all, it is a fact that when you throw an apple in the air it will fall, and it is a theory that gravity is responsible for the apple’s fall. So, you see that a theory can be a very strong argument and can be a close enough composite to physical reality, and still be a theory. Many would not deny that there is a force drawing them to the earth and many would equally not deny that our physical understanding of such a force is just a theory.
Now that that is out of the way on to the meat! What support does evolution have: well, there is the evidence drawn from speciation, fossil records, evidence of current selection pressure and divergent morphological form, DNA (mitochondrial and animal), evidence through gene evolution (Maternal-fetal conflict, ontogenetic conflict), evidence through genetic mutation, the age of the earth (indirect support), cross species/ organism fetal similarities, evidence of natural selection and evidence of sexual selection, evidence through artificial selection, genetic imprinting, evidence from natural observation, evidence of homologous structure, evidence from vestigial organs (organs that serve no purpose), evidence from the observed geographic distribution of related species, evidence from bacteria resistance to antibiotics and evidence from recent viral change and potential change, (i.e., aids, bird flu, etc), evidence from insect resistance to insecticide, evidence of existence of transitional stages in organisms (i.e. Lucy and others, Biretia fayumensis and Biretia megalopsis, fish with limbs and nostrils, etc), evidence through proving creationism wrong (indirect), evidence through preservation of reptile and paleomamalian cortex in man, and others, evidence through the observed morphological changes in bacteria, evidence through the fact that no one has been able to prove evolution wrong (indirect evidence/ perhaps fallacious, though not as bad as creationist evidence..lol ), evidence through psychology and evolved cognitions for: (altruism, cues and responsiveness to kinship cues), homicide rate (indirect evidence): evidence though infancies and observed disproportions of step/genetic perpetrators (indirect evidence), evidence from Genghis Khan star cluster(indirect evidence), evidence of long equilibrium and rapid change, evidence through phylogenetic, ontogenetic and ultimate function accounts of adaptation, evidence through computer population simulations, evidence for adaptation, evidence through observed gene responsiveness to environmental input, evidence through Mendel’s laws of segregation and the law of independent assortment are in the least consistent with heritability and DNA’s involvement in evolution, the fact that: ( all living things are made of cells, all cells come from preexisting cells, cells contain heredible information which is passed down from cell to cell during cell division, all cells are of the same chemical composition for the most part, all energy flow of life occurs within cells), and on and on…….. The evidence is astronomical and much more supported and than any creationist book. This is simply because it is based on actual physical evidence and not on hearsay (or what I like to call the purple monkey dishwasher effect, obtained from a Simpson’s episode). By this I mean hearsay is not reliable because it is passed on and changed sometimes incidentally, sometimes not,
To start, I will address some of the evidence above. Perhaps some of the most important is that evolution is still occurring and can be proven in the lab at least on the micro level. That is, animals are still adapting to their environment and adaptation can take a “relatively” long time when compared to an individual’s lifetime. Maternal-Fetal conflict theory is not as homer suggested that “genes are trying to change species”, rather it is a battle of interests between mothers genes and infants genes. The logic is as follows: Since a mother and infant are not identically related, only relating on the scale of relatives by a little more than 50%, they will have small differences in interests. Evolutionary history of maternal-fetal interactions, have yielded a documented struggle and change of genes in an attempt to control maternal resources. The fetal genes try to maximize maternal resources by gaining control of maternal physiology while the maternal genes try to allocate resources to the fetus and allow the mother to stay healthy and keep enough resources for herself. This struggle has been noted, especially when one side gives in under the pressure (no pun intended). The result of this is usually maternal thyroid problems or diabetes resulting from pregnancy. Specifically, the fetal tissue invades maternal tissue via hormones. The fetus has genes that are responsible for this invasion that code for the production of hormones and the like to control maternal blood, blood sugar, and levels of circulating progesterone. Human Chorionic Gonadotophin, or (HCG) is responsible for maintaining levels of progesterone in the fetus. Progesterone is responsible for keeping the fetus in a habitable environment. More, specifically HCG mimics the maternal luteinizing hormone (HLH) at the ovarian receptors. Maternal LH causes the ovaries to produce progesterone and this is usually done naturally from pituitary stimulation. The HCG mimics, or fools the ovarian receptors into thinking that they are real maternal signals and causes stimulation of the ovaries and production of progesterone even after progestone is being made maternally for the fetus. The result is a tug of war were by maternal genes are created that reduce responsively, while fetal genes are trying to increase maternal responsively. Proof of the fact that HCG evolved as a fetal conflict tactic: 1.) Fetally produces HCG specifically targets maternal tissues, not fetal tissues; 2.) HCG evolved from HLH, and the evolutionary modifications have specifically diminished its affinity for certain other receptors that respond to HLH (especially TSH receptors while retaining its impact at other receptors not exposed to the conflict, such as follicular receptors; 3.) It’s a shouting signal: circulating levels of HCG are far higher than maximum maternal HLH levels- and yet HCG is inessential; 4.)Thyroid disorders of pregnancy are a costly proof when one side gives way (maternal, in this case). HPL, or human placental lactogen is another fetally evolved tactic for maintaining high maternal blood sugar levels. The logic is that mother and fetus are in conflict over the share each gets after a meal. If mothers’ blood sugar is kept high, it will take mother longer to reduce it and so, the fetus will get a bigger share in the mean time. This hypothesis predicts that the insulin resistance that is seen in late pregnancy is induced as a fetal tactic, and increased production of insulin is a maternal counter measure. HPL causes maternal insulin to be less effective and the result is a need for more to do the same job. The same evidence for the fact that HPCG is an evolved fetal tactic generally applies to HPL as well: 1) Fetally produced HPL specifically targets maternal tissues, not fetal tissues; 2.) HPL evolved from HGH, and the evolutionary modifications have specifically diminished its affinity for certain other receptors that respond to HGH, while other receptors are unaffected and maintain the same sensitivity or responsively, like prolactin receptors 3.) It’s a shouting signal: circulating levels of HCG are far higher than maximum maternal HLH levels- and yet HCG is inessential; 4.) Pregnancy diabetes is a costly vestige of this evolutionary conflict history and proof of it also. In addition to conflict between maternal and fetal genes, there is also a conflict between maternally expressed and paternally expressed genes within the fetus and this conflict as also been subject to evolutionary history. Intragenomic conflict is what this specific battle is called. Since paternally derived genes have a lower probability of having copies identical by decent (IBD) in future offspring of the same female than a maternally derived gene, they attack maternal tissue with greater intensity in order to increase optimal expression in paternal kin. The conflict between paternal and maternally derived genes is over an organisms ultimate phenotype. Transforming growth factor beta (TGFB), is secreted by maternal cells to limit the fetal invasion and TGFB is regulated by the fetus’ production of TIMP (tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases). The fetus interestingly enough, has genes designed to stop its assault on the maternal tissue. So why would the fetus act in opposition to itself? The answer is the opposition is derived from maternally derived genes in the fetus. The TIMP gene is on the X chromosome, so the active gene is always of maternal origin. Selection therefore at the TIMP locus has favored less intense conflict with mother than dose selection on autosomal genes and the fetal genome as a whole. Introgenomic conflict is also evidenced by imprinted gene effects. Imprinted genes are autosomal genes whose activity or inactivity derives from the parent of origin (male/female). IGF2 (insulin like growth factor 2) is only active on the parental side and it functions to maintain the invasion longer than mother or maternally derived genes want. This conflict is because of the chance of expression is different and less in males and therefore male genes have evolutionarily been more successful when they favor more intense conflict and competition for resources. IGF2R is a maternally expressed imprinted gene whose product is the creation of a dummy receptor for IGF2. As you may have guessed, this is the maternal fetus fighting back and an evolutionary counter measure to extra conflict created by paternal genes. If IGF2 is knocked out on mice, the mice of small size, duplication of the same gene in humans produces a larger fetal size. Aberrant development of embryos with abnormal ratios of maternal to paternal genomes offers evidence for imprinted gene effects, as does the dichotomy in symptoms between angelman syndrome and Prader-Willi syndrome in relation to a maternal or paternal deletion on chromosome 15. Lastly asymmetrical hybridization effects offer more proof for imprinted gene effects as a result of evolutionary struggle. An example of asymmetrical hybridization comes from breeding different species of mice: The Florida Beach mouse and the deer mouse. The Florida deer mouse is monogamous in the wild, while the deer mouse is not. When the bred male is a Florida beach mouse there is a high success rate but the pups are smaller than both species pure pups. When the male is a beach mouse death rate is higher and the pups are much bigger than either species pure pups. In non-monogamous mice there has been more conflict and more of an evolutionary struggle between maternal and paternal genes. Since the Florida female is monogamous, she has fewer defenses against the male deer mousses adapted genes, which has from an evolutionary perspective come from greater conflict. When the male is a deer mouse his genes can overpower the lower Florida female mice which have weaker defenses. The result is larger mice, morphologically different mice. This is also evidence of speciation to add (more on that later).
Other micro-level support for evolution comes from the documented adaptations of bacteria and resistance to anti-biotitic. What about the changes the bird flue virus has gone through? “Scientists from the World Health Organization are concerned that the bird flu virus in parts of northern Vietnam may be evolving. The fear is that the mutation could mean a virus that would much more easily be transmitted to humans, and from human-to-human. These differences suggest that the epidemiology of H5N1 infections may be evolving in Asia. The changes in epidemiological patterns are consistent with the possibility that recently emerging H5N1 viruses may be more infectious for humans. Furthermore, sequencing analyses of H5N1 genes from avian and human H5N1 viruses from several countries suggest that they are becoming more antigenically diverse and may be forming distinguishable groupings based on phylogenetic analyses.” All these micro-level processes are strong support for an evolutionary framework. The fact that genes can transcend simple species categorization (90% + of our DNA is the same as many other primates), and the fact that viral and bacteria changes and adaptations are currently occurring, is evidence for evolution at the micro-level.

According to the creationist argument, there should be no species to species transitions since each and all “kinds” were created separately. But what is their definition of kind, like the one given in Genesis. Kind is a vague term, especially when science offers an extremely detailed way of classifying each organism. In any case, there are tons of “found” transitional organisms in the fossil record that support evolution and go against the creationist petty missing link arguments. Transitions have been found for: primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays, transitions from primitive jawless fish to bony fish, transitions from primitive bony fish to amphibians, transitions from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles), transitions from synapsid reptiles to mammals, transition from diapsid reptiles to birds, there are also some found species-species transitions in primates, bats, bears, cats, rodents, beavers, hoofed animals, whales and dolphins, rhinos, elephants, etc. As one can see, there are many found transitional stages in temporal sequence and in accordance with the layers of the earth each fossil was found. That is, fossils “documents changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species. I’ll let you read up on sedimentation, but basically, the top layer is younger and the bottom layer is older, provided there were no major earthquakes in the area.
In summary, the fossil record clearly favors the evolutionist account over the creationist one. This is because, transitional fossils have been found and thus, some missing links have been filled in.

Proof for the preferred mechanism for evolution (natural selection) comes from evidence of selection pressure. Simply put, there is immense evidence that, in the least micro-level adaptation is the product of selection pressure. Here is a repost of a few explanations as to how the environment forms selection pressure: If evolution never occurred, as most creationists suggest, why is it that males are the more eager sex when it comes to potential mating opportunities? What is the creationist’s explanation? If there is no evolution, there is no natural selection or sexual selection, and if there is no natural selection or sexual selection, there is no reason for males to be more aggressive than females?
Evolutionists suggest that males are more aggressive and sexually eager to mate because males who have behaved that way in the past are the most likely to reproduce. In other words, from an evolutionary standpoint it makes sense that males should try to mate as much as possible and also be more interested in doing so. Historically, the greater burden of pregnancy is put on the female sex in most organisms. This is because they are the ones who have to house offspring, and give maternal resources. Evolutionary explanations of female reproduction strategies exclaim that it makes sense for females to be more choosey, since they are the ones who bare the greater burden through pregnancy. Females, from an evolutionary standpoint have faced greater obstacles than males by making mate choice errors. Because such errors are more costly to females, evolutionary thinking reasons that this is why females are more choosey. After all, they can only have a limited number of offspring and only have a limited number of eggs. They try to choose the males with the fittest genes. Sexual selection is a component of natural selection, where female mate choice is a driving force in the evolutionary process. Males who have the most attractive characteristics are often chosen first and males who lack them, are often overlooked. Why can't low quality males trick females into choosing them? Well, evolutionary thinkers have discovered that the degree to which a male has characteristics attractive to a female is related to his circulating levels of testosterone. That is, males with higher levels of testosterone have more secondary sex characteristics females find attractive in mates, i.e. Peacock tail colour. The reason low quality males can not trick their way into the bed of a female is because testosterone is an immunosuppressant. This means, that only the males with the highest quality, and most virus resistant genes can tolerate such high levels of testosterone. How can creationism explain these asymmetries in relation to male and female sexual behavior?
Secondly, why are males more aggressive than females. From an evolutionary standpoint, aggression has offered much greater benefits to males than to females. This is because males are not limited by sperm and females are limited by eggs. Therefore, male fitness is a product of their frequency of insemination, female fitness is not. Males are more aggressive because many animals, including humans have evolved in a state of effective polygyny. This means, that male reproductive variability is greater than female reproductive variability. In simpler terms, aggressive males mate with multiple females and males that are not aggressive enough mate with few or none. Since some males mate and others don't, competition for mates is of greater importance for males. That is why they are more aggressive, that is why they are responsible for the greatest number of homicides that is why males between the ages of 18-25 get in the most bar fights and drive the most recklessly. What is the creationist explanation for this asymmetrical pattern of aggression in males and females. If no environmental pressure is of any importance, as creationists suggest, why the asymmetry in behavior? A second point can be seen in the differing testes to body ratios in primates. In gorillas, monogamy is common (at least for females). With this in mind, it has been shown that gorillas have small testes mass to body mass ratio. This observation is important because it has been found that larger testes give off larger amounts of ejaculate. In animals where sperm competition is low, no adaptations have been necessary and males tend to have small ratios, like gorillas. Chimpanzees are the opposite: they have a polygynous reproductive system so there is a great amount of sperm completion. As such, male chimps have larger testes mass to body mass ratios because adaptations are needed because of sperm completion. Humans are in the middle, they have testes to body ratio in between the two animals, and this is evidence that humans have evolved in an effectively polygynous environment, where male reproductive variability is higher than female’s reproductive variability and males require some adaptations for sperm competition. It is clear that the environment is responsive to structural features. In organisms where competition is high, and aggression is important, males have a greater relative size and possess greater armaments compared to females i.e. horns on a bull, antlers on a deer, greater strength etc. In more monogamous organisms where competition is weaker, the two sexes are of relatively equal size. This is evidence of selection pressure. How can creationism account for the asymmetrical reproductive strategies males and females possess in all organisms, why males in most organisms are more aggressive than females, why males are of greater size in polygynous systems and equal size in monogamous systems when compared to females of the same species, and why the testes-to-body mass ratio is an index of reproductive strategies if there is no evolution or natural selection?

Now to address speciation: Speciation has occurred and been documented in study. If it is possible for lab studies to create new species and to observe them naturally, macro-evolution must be possible. Here are some documented cases of speciation:

Now to address the age of the earth, which is also supportive of evolution: (most of the evidence presented is quoted here from credible sites:
“The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence. The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.”
The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.)
But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to obtain a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers handwave away mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:
There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts." But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:”Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss."
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age. The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point. Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.
For many people, the idea of an ancient Earth is inextricably linked with an Evolutionary Origin of the Species. In fact, the charge is often repeated that the only reason people take old-Earth positions is because of a commitment to Evolution. On the contrary, it is important to recognize the historical fact that the evidence for an ancient Earth was recognized by geologists as early as the late 18th century, more than 50 years before Darwin published his theory. Most of these geologists were Christians who struggled with the implications of their discoveries on their faith, yet could not deny the evidence that they saw before them. The "father of modern geology" himself, James Hutton, remained a Creationist all his life. Today, many Christians are similarly driven by evidence to an old-Earth view.
I will now briefly outline some important lines of evidence for an ancient age for the Earth and Universe: Observed large formations that could not have formed quickly River delta deposits cannot form underwater, and thus could not have been accelerated by Noah's Flood. The rate of coral reef growth is inherent in the organisms that build the reef, and also would not be affected by Noah's Flood. Both are observed in volumes that would take at least hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate. The formation of stalactites in caves requires small amounts of water, increasing the flow of water will stop the carbonate precipitation rather than increase it (quick-forming stalactites under artificial concrete structures are due to an entirely different chemical process). A 3-meter stalactite would take 30,000 years to form. In addition, the cooling of large underground granite batholiths, as well as the formation of metamorphic rocks, requires much more than 10,000 years.
Continuous records of various Earth processes Annual layers in ice deposits in Greenland, and especially in Antarctica, are observed which give records of the climate in the year each layer was deposited. The upper layers of these deposits correlate with other methods of measuring recent climate, but from there the layers continue to give a continuous record of the yearly climate for the past 160,000 years (see C. Lorius et al, Nature, v.316, pp.591-596 (15 Aug 1985); J. Jouzel et al, Nature, v.329, pp.403-408 (1 Oct 1987); J.M. Barnola et al, Nature, v.329, pp.408-414 (1 Oct 1987)). Among the many discernable patterns, the 26,000-year climate cycle due to the precession of the Earth's rotation axis (that is, the Earth "wobbles" like a top, and the rate of its 26,000-year cycle can be calculated from physics alone) is clearly visible throughout the 160,000-year record. This refutes the young-Earth claim that perhaps the lower layers of the ice cores were built up quickly due to large precipitation rates from Noah's Flood. A young-Earth attempt to explain away this evidence (ICR Impact #226) talks mostly about issues that are irrelevant to the Antarctic data, and its only attempt to challenge the above-cited data is to quote a statement from 1972 that deeper annual layers are more difficult to measure, a difficulty that was solved by superior technology by 1985. It is important to note that, if this is a case of "apparent age", God would have not only created these layers for no apparent reason, but would have "written" into the ice a climate record that cannot be trusted. Such a theory results in serious difficulties with the truthfulness of God. A similar situation applies to sedimentary varves (annual layers from lake sediments). Varves in Utah's Green River Formation give several million years of unbroken history. Evaporite deposits, in which one layer is formed each time a shallow body of water is evaporated dry, also contain records at least hundreds of thousands of years long. Finally, paleomagnetism, the science that studies the reversals of Earth's magnetic field as recorded in rocks, has worked out a consistent history of Earth's magnetic field stretching back hundreds of millions of years, correlated across the entire globe.
Formations that could not form underwater According to the prevailing young-Earth hypothesis, all sedimentary rocks are the result of Noah's Flood. Yet several kinds of deposits are found inter-bedded with sedimentary rocks that could not possibly form underwater. These include sedimentary varves, glacial deposits, evaporite deposits, and sand dune deposits.
Record of shorter days in the past One species of rugose coral forms both daily and yearly layers. Specimens of this coral from Devonian strata (360 to 410 million years old) show that the Earth's year was 400 days long when the coral was alive! This is a dramatic confirmation of both Planetary Science and Geology (see Deceleration of the Earth by tidal friction, above), but inexplicable for the young-Earth hypothesis.
Radioisotope Abundances All radioactive isotopes with half-lives greater than 75 million years are found on Earth, while not a single radioactive isotope with a smaller half-life is found in nature (except for a few which are found as decay products). This supports the claim that the Earth is old enough for the shorter-lived isotopes to have decayed away (which takes many times the half-life), but it would be a strange coincidence indeed if the young-Earth hypothesis were correct. Furthermore, we have very clear evidence that several of these short-lived radioisotopes did in fact exist early in the Solar System's history (aluminum-26 being the most abundant and well-known). Since Al-26 is known to have existed in the past (due to detected excesses of its decay product, Mg-26, in ancient meteorites), and has completely decayed away since the beginning of the Solar System, the age of the Solar System is demonstrated to be at least many times the half-life of Al-26 (which is 26,000 years). Among the radioisotopes for which the same argument applies are hafnium-182 and palladium-107, with half-lives greater than 10 million years.
Radiometric Dating Problems with radiometric dating techniques are greatly overstated by most young-Earth advocates. They often cite isolated instances of implausible dates, but these are generally caused by obsolete dating methods, contamination that a good scientist would detect (and which does not affect the large majority of dates), or by attempting to date materials that are younger than the dating method's margin of error (using radiometric methods to date recent Hawaiian lavas or living sea creatures, for example, is akin to using an unmarked yard-long stick to measure the thickness of a human hair). Most modern radiometric dating uses the isochron method, which measures several different decay paths and correlates them. The isochron method basically cross-checks itself constantly, and results that do not represent real ages will fail the isochron tests. Consequently, the isochron method does not require any assumption about initial amounts of parent and daughter elements (a common young-Earth objection to radiometric dating). Also, any addition or removal of parent or daughter elements (another common objection) would leave tell-tale chemical clues that scientists could detect, and furthermore such contamination could not possibly account for all of the world's radiometric measurements, which are in good agreement. Finally, radioactive decay rates are known to be constant under all relevant physical conditions. The fact is that, although radiometric dating is imperfect like any other science, there is tremendous overall agreement among radiometric ages, as well as with stratigraphic (relative) ages, giving very strong circumstantial evidence for the reliability of radiometric dating methods. For more detail on radiometric dating, see Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Christian geologist Roger Wiens.
Star Distances It is extremely evident from astronomy that our Universe is billions of light-years across, and thus that light from distant stars has taken billions of years to reach us. One method of accurately determining star distances uses Cepheid variable stars, which have a known relationship between brightness and pulse rate. This relationship is explained by physics, and verified (calibrated) by measuring all Cepheid variable stars whose distances are close enough to confirm by parallax. Therefore, the actual brightness of a Cepheid variable star can be determined by its pulse rate, regardless of how far away it is. And, of course, if a star's actual brightness and measured (apparent) brightness are known, its distance can be calculated from a simple equation (apparent brightness decreases as one over the distance squared). This and many other methods verify Hubble's law describing the expansion of the Universe, with the beginning (Genesis 1:1) between 10 and 20 billion years ago. Attempts by young-Earth proponents to explain these facts have been unavailing. Norman and Setterfield's proposal of decay in the speed of light is easily shown to be invalid (Roberts, Ross, and Stoner all deal with this), as is Humphreys' attempt at a young-Earth cosmology Another explanation, that the Universe was created with "appearance of age" is both un-scientific at its core (if all the evidence that we see for age is fabricated, then why even have this debate?), as well as having theological problems with the truthfulness of God, since in that case we are constantly observing events in the cosmos which in fact never occurred.”
“Because of tides, the rotation of the earth is gradually slowing, by about 1 second every 50,000 years. About 380 million years ago, each day would have about 20 hours long! There would have been about 398 days in the year. Studies of rings on rugose coral fossils that were independently estimated to be 370 million years old revealed that when they were alive, there were about 400 days in the year. This relationship has been confirmed with other coral fossils. This is rather good evidence that the world was in existence a third of a billion years ago. The thickness of the coral reef at Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean has been measured at up to 1,380 meters. Even the most optimistic coral growth rates would require that the atoll be over 130,000 years of age. Radiocarbon dating of wood, using accelerator mass spectrometry, is accurate as far back as 50,000 years. The method has identified many wooden and textile objects to be many tens of thousands of years old. Reversals of the earth's magnetic pole are recorded in the Atlantic Ocean sea bottom for the past 80 million years. The rate at which the continents are spreading apart from each other indicates that the Atlantic Ocean is about 200 million years old. Accelerator mass spectrometry measures particles of high atomic mass. Surface rocks have had their ages measured up to 10 million years old by detecting their level of Beryllium-10 and aluminum-26 isotopes. 2 Other methods are used for older rocks. Radioactive dating of some earth rocks gives an age of almost 4,000 million years. Some moon rocks and meteorites from outer space give dates in excess of 4,000 million years. If we assumed that all of the minerals which are carried by rivers into the oceans remains trapped in the oceans, then it would take 260 million years for the concentration of sodium to reach its present level. If plankton, fish or other plants adsorb sodium, then it would take much longer. We can conclude that the age of the earth is something greater than a quarter billion years, and is in all probability much longer. Measurements by sensors attached to satellites shows that space dust accumulates on the moon at the rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year. (A nanogram is one thousandth of a million of a gram.) This rate would require 4.5 billion years to reach a depth of 1.5 inches, which is approximately the depth experienced by the astronauts who walked on the moon. This agrees rather well with radioactive dating of moon rocks. Estimates for the length of time for the galaxies to have spread apart to their present spacing are in excess of 10,000 million years. Evolutionary principles applied to geology indicate that about 100 million years ago, the ancient super continent of Pangea was beginning to split apart so that land that would become South America and Africa drifted apart. At first, the drift caused some shallow seas and a few land bridges. Later, the Atlantic Ocean opened up and became gradually wider until it became the ocean that we see today. This theory would have a logical consequence in the evolution of dinosaurs. Before this split in land mass took place, dinosaurs would have evolved into a variety of species which were found throughout Pangea. Since 100 million years ago, when the land bridges disappeared and the seas became too deep to cross, the dinosaurs would have evolved differently in Africa and South America, due to their isolation from each other. This is precisely what has been observed in the fossil record. The human genome project has mapped all of our genes. Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics has written: "The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right — mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors...The core recipe of humanity carries clumps of genes that show we are descended from bacteria. There is no other way to explain the jerry-rigged nature of the genes that control key aspects of our development...The theory of evolution is the only way to explain the arrangement of the 30,000 genes and three billion letters that constitute our genetic code...The message our genes send is that Charles Darwin was right." Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said that if you look at our genome it is clear that "evolution...must make new genes from old parts." Since evolution of the species must have taken billions of years to evolve from bacteria to h Homer, a lot of the “science” you are using to defend creationism has a favored interpretation, one that falls outside of your chosen periphery: here are some of your points by creationist scientists and rebuttals by modern science: Earth's magnetic field - The strength of the earth's magnetic field has been measured for over a 100 years. In a recent study, Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that the earth's magnetic field is decaying at rate of 1/2 life every 1400 years; that means that the earth's magnetic field was twice as strong 1400 years ago as it is now. If the earth was even as old as 10,000 years its magnetic field would be as strong as a star! That is impossible! The earth could not possibly be any older than 10,000 years!

(The earth's magnetic field is caused by electric currents in the earth's core.

If we go back as far as 20,000 years, we find that the heat produced by those currents would have melted the earth). [Creation Science & Alleged Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field.

This is Nonsense :The "recent study" was published in 1973 but even then enough was known to show that Barnes' argument was worthless.

Petroleum and natural gas; Evolutionists say that petroleum and natural gas took millions of years to develop.

[No they don't! In fact, natural gas production starts immediately the organic material starts to rot. Petroleum takes a little longer; the plant material must first be buried (to prevent oxidation back to carbon dioxide and water) and then held in a narrow temperature range about the boiling point of water - the "Petroleum Window' - for at least a million years;

The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing due to the gravitational drag of the sun, moon and other factors. If the earth is billions of years old as the Evolutionist believes, then its present rotation should be zero. Furthermore, if we go back for several billion years, the centrifugal force would have been so great that the continents would have been sent to the equator and the earth would have been as flat as a pancake. Christopher Columbus took care of that theory long ago.
[No, He didn't!] The real estimate on rate of stoppage by the earth is 15-20 seconds per million years. The information you got homer on this was somewhat unfounded. Creationists with their supposed scientific sites cannot even get the numbers right! Here is some more: Sudden appearance of life forms - there are no fossils found in the lower 2/3 of the earth's crust. (pre - Cambrian). You would think that if we evolved from tiny, simple life forms that there would be an abundance of these fossils in the section or strata of the earth we call "Precambrian" However, there are none!!!
(In reality, there are many!)
Then, all of a sudden, in huge numbers, fossils of advanced life forms appear!! there are billions of these, but where are their "ancestors"? They exist only in the mind of the Evolutionist! [Nice try….lol…..they exist in precambrian rocks! See: these "Advanced Life forms" (all of which btw lived only in water) was Anomalocaris, a Cambrian giant that was fully 18 inches long!] ;
- Permanence of kinds - There is no evidence where any creature turned into another in the fossil record. (Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature. There are also many fossil intermediates - many more than were known in Darwin's day).] ; The theory of natural selection is tautological, or a form of circular reasoning. Those that survive are the best adapted. Who are the best adapted? Those that survive. Likewise, rocks are used to date fossils, and fossils are used to date rocks. Tautologies do not make a science. (Creationists have a very simplistic and naive understanding of the workings of natural selection and geological forces. First of all, natural selection is by no means the only mechanism of organic change (e.g. Darwin wrote an entire book about sexual selection). Second, population genetics demonstrates quite clearly, and with mathematical prediction, when natural selection will and will not effect change on a population. Third, one can make predictions based on the theory of natural selection, and then test them, as the geneticist does in the example above, or the paleontologist does in interpreting the fossil record);

The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that evolution cannot be true since evolutionists state that the universe and life moves from chaos to order and simple to complex, the exact opposite of the entropy predicted by the Second Law.
(First of all, on any scale other than the grandest of all-600 million years of life on Earth-species do not evolve from simple to complex, and life does not simply move from chaos to order. The history of life is checkered with false starts, failed experiments, small and mass extinctions, and chaotic restarts. It is anything but the Time/Life-book foldout from single cells to humans. But even in the big picture, the Second Law allows for such change because the Earth is enveloped within a system that includes a constant input of energy from the sun. As long as the sun is burning, life may continue thriving and evolving, just like automobiles may be prevented from rusting, burgers can be heated in ovens, and all manner of things in apparent violation of the Second Law's rule of entropy may continue. But as soon as the sun burns out entropy would take its course, and life would cease. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed, isolated systems. Since the Earth receives a constant input of energy from the sum, entropy may decrease and order increase (though the sun itself is running down in the process). Thus, the Earth is not strictly a closed system and life may evolve without violating natural law. In addition, recent research in chaos theory is demonstrating that order can and does spontaneously generate out of apparent chaos, all without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolution no more breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics than one breaks the law of gravity by jumping up);
The dating techniques of evolutionists are inconsistent, unreliable, and wrong. They give false impressions of an old Earth, when in fact it is no older than 10,000 years, which is proven by Dr. Thomas Barnes from the University of Texas at El Paso, who demonstrates that the half-life of the Earth's magnetic field is 1,400 years.
First of all, your magnetic field argument falsely assumes that the decay of the magnetic field is linear when in fact geophysics demonstrates that it fluctuates through time. In addition, it is amusing that creationists dismiss all dating techniques with the sweep of the hand, except for those that purportedly support their position. The various dating techniques, however, are found not only to be quite reliable, but there is considerable independent corroboration between them. For example, there are radiometric dates for different elements from the same rock that all converge on the same date.
Homer clearly you should stick to your element! Cutting and pasting creationist science ridiculous throws at the dart board is only making you look foolish. How can you deny mainstream scientific interpretations, for creationist/ science ones. Logically speaking, this makes no sense. If the core scientific theories and interpretations are wrong to you, how can you appeal to peripheral interpretations with even less support? I think the answer is only because they are trying to support you view. So you only support science when it fits your bias- that is not real science in the least.
Me again, in any case, there is much more proof of an old earth than a young one. All, or most of the creationist scientific claims against the old earth are refutable with further argument. Personally, I think it is a little hypocritical of creationists to try to deny science with the use of science, when there faith is in God. It seems as though creationists like to pick and chose which forms of contemporary science (and religion) is expectable and to live by. (Funny enough they choose a lot of the scientific claims that no longer or never were supported by mainstream science any way! Hence, homers creationist science crap above about sciences apparent support for a young earth…lol) I wonder what percentage of “real” scientists would support the creationist account of the earth being only thousands of years old. I mean are you telling me homer that man and early dinosaur were walking around together at the same time. I guess it must be a fluke that dinosaur bones are found much deeper in the earth than any human remains….lol give me a break! Have paleontologists ever found a T-rex with human bones on or around it? .nope! The truth is that there is a reason why dinosaur bones are generally only found in deep strata’s of the earth and human bones are closer to the surface. The reason is that they were around at different times and therefore have been exposed to differential sedimentation.
It seems apparent that creationists are greatly hypocritical when trying to argue against evolution. Granted, it is perhaps fallacious on my part to mention it. In any case, creationists like to appeal to arguments against evolution, arguments where creationism also falls short when trying to address them. It seems odd that many creationists do not even notice how hypocritical that they actually are, it’s quite remarkable!

Homer, it is also quite remarkable that you feel free to appeal to science to defend your unscientific beliefs, is not such fallacy obvious to you? You reject mainstream science when you reject evolution, yet you appeal to not- so-mainstream science to validate your “theory” about the age of the Earth. This is an error in logic. You cannot use science to back up your claims if you don’t support its main premises. It is quite hypocritical to make such an appeal. After all, mainstream science (like evolution, the old earth) has much more support than science that is on the periphery of scientific belief (i.e. your young earth support). Moreover, your references are from creationist sites and not scientific ones. So it is likely that the credibility of a creationist trying to make sense of science is questionable, especially when it is being used to support an unscientific stance (i.e. God created Earth). Your whole argument is fallacious because: you only support science to the degree you can use it to reinforce creationism (which is not scientific anyway); because even if your science is correct and the world is young, there is still no direct scientific support for creationism in general; because you like to pick and chose what science is acceptable based on nothing but the assumption that there is a God and not the scientific plausibility of the claims (true science holds no untestable biases); and because you chose to only acknowledge unpopular scientific stances in favor of popular ones with more support. All these points make your appeal to science fallacious and perhaps arguably irrelevant to your argument.

You have noted that you would expect there to be cities found from 100 000 years ago if humans were around that long ago. This argument is somewhat ludicrous because there were no cities that long ago. The term “city” and its associated meaning did not even exist then. So, you would not expect to find proof of cities and civilizations when there weren’t any in the sense your thinking. Fire was not even known about until around 70,000 B.C., so why would you expect there to be artifacts and cities that long ago. Humans were not born with all the inventions they made (cities, artifacts, records, etc) Think about how primitive early homo sapiens were. The first actual cities were not around until man had the mental capacity to meet other challenges and the earliest cities were not around until between 10,000-4,000 B.C. Moreover, there are documents of such civilizations and proof in the form of cave markings, artifacts, and of course remains. There are also remains that have been found that date back 100 000 + years (i.e. Lucy and others) and remains of pre homo sapient forms that date back millions of years!
I also find it rather hypocritical that you appeal to the claim that there is no found proof of speciation, when first of all there is (plants, mice, bacteria, fruit flies) and second of all there is no solid proof of a miracle performing Jesus conceptualization outside of biblical writings. So is it ok for you to use faith when there is less evidence and not ok for science to use some assumptions when there is strong evidence?

Next, I will discuss speciation in detail: Speciation has been observed on many instances: 1.) Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.) (Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.); 2.) Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.); 3.) Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41; 4.) Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.); 5.) “Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved. The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart."; 6.) It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.” Note two of the animal cases (the mouse and the fishes) have been observed to be new physically distinct species since they are not only exclusive in breeding, but they also have morphological distinctions (differences in appearance). Some uniformed creationists and creationist’s sites are not aware of the transitions found in neither the fossil record nor the instances of speciation. Most importantly, they do not understand their significance because they do not understand the true definition of a “species”. Since evolution is arguably such a long processes you would not expect to see a cow come from a duck or vise versa , or something like that. The changes are so small that they are not categorically noticeable, or at least to the categories uneducated individuals appeal to. Do you see your nails actually grow….no, of course not, but that does not mean they do not grow. You only see the stages where you notice a change (short, long) but all the stages in between still are occurring, even if you cannot view them directly. The proof is that your nail gets longer, even when you don’t see it actually growing. The same analogy can be applied to the processes of macro evolution: That is, you would not expect to see drastic changes over a few years, but you would surly see noticeable ones over hundreds of thousands of years. And in this case, it is even longer: tens of thousands of years compared to the week it takes your nail to grow! No wonder you cannot view macroevolution directly! I mean if you cannot see growth of nail protein directly in a week (other then noticeable stages) why would you expect to see macro-evolution when it takes much longer?

Now, I will try to “somewhat” philosophically address the origin of life. Though, an appeal is not necessary to prove the truth in evolution because in all respects the origin of life is not needed to express the truth for evolutionary change. As I have argued in the past, just because science has not proven the origin of life, is by no means proof against how life (once available) develops. If you wanted to get technical I could argue for the origin of God: When did God come to be, how, why? Did he just appear, how could he have always been there “if you cannot get something from nothing”-to use an old creationist argument. How did he start being God, what was there before God? Obviously, one can see that such an argument is somewhat irrelevant in the mind of creationists when they chose to believe in him; Just as the argument for the origin of life is irrelevant when arguing for evolutionary theory. Simply put, the origin of God is not known but that takes nothing away from people’s belief in him (even in the face of little hard evidence). Here is an online encyclopedias explanation of the issue: “It is worth noting that creationists frequently confuse abiogenesis with evolution. By pointing to problems or lack of knowledge about the former, they think they refute the latter. So, it is important to realize that how life arose is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. It matters not in the slightest to evolution whether the first living things came about through supernatural or natural means; the evidences for common ancestry of populations (including species) that make possible to infer a single phylogenetic tree of all life still the same in either case. Once there's life -- with heritable variation -- descent is allowed to accumulate modifications -- to evolve -- and populations will unavoidably eventually split, originating new species.” So, that having been said, there is no need to address the issue because it is not a “direct” attack on evolution. Just as the origin of God is irrelavent for people to believe in him, the origin of life is irrelevant in respects of evolutionary thinking and a scientific lack-there-of is not evidence against it.

Philosophically speaking, it is quite odd that people appeal to faith-based beliefs when they want to make major decisions ( God, Astrology, etc), but they use logic when they need to make most other, less important decisions. When you decide where to by gas, where to eat, weather to trust someone, you use some form of evidence. This is logical of course because evidence is proof and beliefs without proof, or a lack of solid proof are less trust worthy. Moreover, beliefs based on faith are subject to much more error because they require almost no proof to be accepted. What other decisions would you make based on no actual evidence? Would you tip the waiter before hand based on faith he will be a good waiter, or do you wait until you have evidence of his service before you decide how much to tip him; do you allow your wife/husband to venture out when there is proof he/she is cheating on you; do you have faith that they are going to the store when they have cheated in the past, or do you use evidence and logic to make a composite of probability and make decisions logically.
The truth is, most decisions people make utilizes logic and not faith because faith- based decisions allow one to be suckered more often. Here is an example from game theory: If you play a game with a partner where the object is to secure profit and avoid loss (i.e. poker), would you not use evidence on how your partner plays or would you ignore the evidence and play on faith? Most faith-based gamblers run out of money a lot faster than those that play with minimal logic (i.e. poker). If you teach your partners habits based on past play, you are better able to predict their choices and are able to better avoid loss.
So, if logic-based decision-making processes cause less error, it is no wonder most decisions people make require it. It is curious though that some ignore logic when it comes to “some” big decisions (origin of man, age of earth) but they use it (unknowingly) when they are making less significant decisions. Historically, there must have been some benefit to ignoring logic in favor of faith-based religion. (One thing may be that “the truth hurts)” People feel better and can accept faith if it can give them a feeling of significance that logic cannot give them. In any case, this was a simple observation on my part and I thought appealing to game theory was relevant because to some degree games are composites of real life decisions.
Even common sense supports an evolutionary framework. Think about how DNA works homer. If cell division lends itself to roughly 64 trillion combinations of DNA, why would most have similar sequences? Why do man and chimpanzee share 98.4 % of their DNA? If evolution does not occur and natural selection does not occur, why do are gene sequences so similar across evolutionary related species? It is not although they share that much DNA by chance. If there was no selection pressure, there would be no reason for gene sequences to remain so similar because no one sequence would be anymore adaptive than any other one sequence. Currently, there should be much more genetic variation than there actually is in organisms in order to prove that there is not an adaptive nature for certain alleles over others. All variations should apply, no matter what they code for. Natural selection makes it possible for certain sequences to be more environmentally adaptive than others and it is evidenced by the fact that DNA is relatively and congruently preserved between man and ape. That is, the currently surviving hominid sequences are of an adaptive significance because their specific sequences of genes survived selection (natural, sexual).
Not only does cellular DNA offer evidence but Mitochondrial DNA also offers evidence for evolution: “Human genetics got a real boost with the discovery that mitochondria have their own DNA. Mitochondria are tiny organelles that live in the cytoplasm of cells, the fluid-filled space between the cell nucleus and the outer membrane. There are thousands of mitochondria in each cell, and each one has its own small circle of DNA, a reminder of their distant bacterial ancestry. What makes mitochondrial DNA (or mDNA for short) so special and so useful? First is its unique inheritance pattern. Human eggs are full of mitochondria, while sperm have only a hundred or so, just enough to power it while it swims towards the egg. After fertilization, when the sperm penetrates the egg, these few male mitochondria are immediately destroyed. This means that, while we all receive our nuclear DNA, with the exception of the X and Y sex chromosomes, from both parents, we get all of our mDNA from our mothers. She got it from her mother, who got it from hers – and so on back in time.
Mitochondrial DNA is most useful in connecting the maternal lines of living people in different parts of the world. The other handy thing about mDNA is that it changes much more rapidly than nuclear DNA, about 20 times as fast, because mitochondria lack an efficient proof-reading system to check for errors when DNA is copied. The high mutation rate means that there is plenty of variation in the sequence of mDNA between people, and variation is the lifeblood of genetics.
For geneticists and historians, mDNA is a natural for tracing maternal genealogies but the real excitement is in tracing much deeper connections. It is so abundant in cells that traces can still be found in human remains many thousands of years old, like Oetzi the Iceman. In 1994 a research team showed that Oetzi had exactly the same mDNA as many people alive today. Its retrieval from ancient bone has been instrumental in many famous cases of historic significance, such as confirming the identity of the remains of the last Tsar and his family. The fact that mitochondrial eve (the ancestor of all contemporary mitochondrial DNA) is traced

Sorry it would not fit in one blog!) to continue: mDna is traced back to about 143 000 years ago. This is evidence for evolution and also that the earth is at least that old (much older than the bible says!)

Next, there is even evidence of evolutionary -based social behavior, fears, and altruistic acts. The fear of snakes, for example, can be noted in almost all ape-like creatures. Wild-monkeys are generally born fearing them and so do many humans. The fear is likely an innate tendency since it is so universal in primates, and since it is still so prevalent in light of newer dangers. Since evolution is a “relatively” slow process, it is true that present man is adapted to the past (hunter/gatherer days). Since we are not adapted to the present, there are no innate fears of current, and greater risks in modern society. For example, you are much more likely in most present societies to be hit by a car than killed by a snake, yet you still see a disproportionate amount of people afraid of snakes. Even emotions in general have been hypothesized to serve adaptive functions: Fear probably emerged as one of the earliest emotions. Fear allows us to detect and respond to dangers, and avoid things that could damage us. It’s a complicated process. If something novel shows up, your brain needs time to figure out whether the novel object is a danger. Once you’ve detected danger, there is a change in body systems. Your heart races; you start sweating. But at the same time, your brain is more alert, so you’re focusing on the potential danger. Your memory systems work better, so you remember where you encountered that danger and what it’s like. Fear is all of those things together and more. Emotions are currently thought of as specific modes of operation that have traditionally served an adaptive purpose throughout evolutionary history. The recognized basic emotions: Fear, disgust, surprise, sadness, happiness are remarkably universal facial expressions in man and even in other man-like creatures. This suggests that facial expressions are innate and have evolved in an evolutionary history to perform some adaptive function.

Creationists should read up on attribution errors and confirmation bias before they jump to their absurd conclusions. Basically, an attribution error is when someone wrongfully identifies the cause of something. For example: (I prayed and prayed, and my illness went away). Well the fact that an illness went away, is only proof that the illness is gone and not that your prayer had anything to do with it. Creationist seem to ignore the ample times that their prayer goes unanswered and then relish in the times it appeared to work. That is the first noticeable bias creationists have, they make false attribution errors to support their claims. Secondly, they use the self confirmation bias: that is, they only try to look for verification for God and deny any evidence that goes against his existence. For example, Homer you deny mainstream science in favor of creation science because it is more supportive of creationism. These two biases are operating in many creationists, and surly in the minds of many evangelists who insist that guys like Benny Hinn are healing them. These biases are powerful forces, not to be underestimated. Control in scientific study goes into avoiding biases (blind studies, etc.).

I think this last part of my lengthy argument is more theosophical, but nevertheless I will proceed and appeal outside of science: The question “why” is perhaps arbitrary because why from the creationist stance is needed to give significance to one’s existence. The question why has a motivation and in implied assumption that there is a purposeful reason outside of reality that things are the way they are from the creationists point of view. Is it not just as plausible that the question “why” is irrelevant because the answer is not purposeful and directive, but rather arbitrary? Creationists assume that there is a reason outside of arbitrary processes for why we are here, but there are not. It is false attributions and self confirmation biases that operate with in the creationist mind, reinforcing the need for a spiritual answer to the question “why”. Regardless of the truthfulness of the Christian account of creation, people have traditionally felt less anxious by having a faith-based answer to fall back on when in doubt. People like to believe that there is certain significance to their life, a spiritual one in the least. When people feel that there is none, they feel anxious and a desire to feel that they have greater control of reality, that life is in their control. That is why people believe in astrology and why some say that “everything happens for a reason”. Before the “why” is asked the implication is that the answer is spiritual and has a personal importance.
The fact that there are so many different religions and other spiritual conceptualizations, the fact that religion is an almost universal phenomenon, is perhaps indicative that religion has been a powerful coping mechanism. Perhaps the positive message religion gives offers hope for people that they will be cared for after death. Is it not equally true that this “why” question is only important when one is alive (the cope), and of obviously no importance in death. Since there are so many religions and since they are so different, then a great percent are wrong. If some are wrong, is it not possible all are wrong? The wrong account of different religions makes no difference to the believer as long as it offers hope and a means to cope with an arbitrary reality.

In closing, I think I have addressed a great chunk of the argument. There are a lot more rebuttals to Homer’s surprising appeal to interpretations founded on unpopular science, but I think I put enough into it to drive the point home. (The point being that creationist science is not science and is based on faulty interpretations of scientific results using bias). I tried to tie many disciplines into this work and show how many subjects converge and favor the evolutionary process. In short, I used evidence about micro and macro evolution, how the environment can form selection pressure, how evolution works on the gene and micro level, etc. Also take note that though a lot of this work is direct quotation, a lot of it is in my own words (though not all of it). You see Homer, I have cut and pasted like you, but I have also added quite lengthy personalized arguments. That is, I am aware of my arguments unlike you. This “probably” is my last blog to anyone, so take care and believe what you will! I will take my beliefs, others can take theirs!

Best regards,

BH.

PS: I think we can be sure that this is the real BH, and that likely most future posts are not me!

Moby Dick and everyone.....Ignore the impostor writing above. To answer your query, I'm open as wide as you can imagine. I don't like to suffer and shame i'm with for long time. No point to live under this condition and I'm proud now that I'm equal as anybody else. With help and support from love one's and other closet friends, who later came out as well, and especially unknown individuals who later become my close best friend, glad to tell you I'm proud now to declare what I'm and who I'm....why are you interested?

Good Riddance of BH and and all his crappy "science facts" + his abnormal sexual orientation. So long buddy, it's long time overdue...

Getting philosophical:
Since life could not come from nothing, and as you say the same rule should apply for God in either case we have to go back to the supernatural.
Now life could have been created supernaturaly by God.
But if God had to have an origin then He would not be any longer God, because whoever created Him would be true God. But then the same question stands for the greater God, who brought the first one into existence? Who created Him?
The mystery is not ended and the need for the supernatural has not decreased.
The reasonable way to advance would be that whoever (or whatever) is the sorce and the origine of ALL He is GOD.
If you like philosophy I would racomend you a realy good book called “Mere Christianily” by C S Lewis

I said that not breading is NOT ENOUGH evidence for speciation. You say that the fruit flies changed their species. Which one of the two groups was that did that? Did they look like a spider or something else? Are there pictures to see? Don’t tell me they still look like fruit flies…
And since we are talking about flies:
According to what you believe it should have taken about 25000 - 50000 generations for the modern man to evolve from apes. For flies that would be about 68, 5 -137 years. How come we see no fly turning into another animal in the last 200 years or so?
(for that matter we never did)
If evolution is common and normal way nature goes about, it should not really take a scientist to fathom that.
Let me say this for an analogy: It might take an engineer to project a car, it does not take one to drive it. What I mean is that any little infant is able to tell the difference between a cat and a dog.
How come we witness no animal in any intermediate stages of evolution in nature today? All animal life is “set” in their specific species. (now about your nail growth analogy – it is true I can not see my nail growing, but I can see if they are long or short and I can look back on the once I cat)

How about the story that reptile scales (folds in the skin) evolved into feathers, and feathers into hair. Can any one tell me what was the intermediate state from feather to hair?

When fishlike creatures came out of the water and started to live on dry ground how did they go about breathing while the organs that breathed oxygen out of the water where being transformed into organs that breathed oxygen out of the air? According to evolution all these things need a long time. More time then these animals could hold their breath, I suppose.

Now you say you can’t believe in miracles? You really do!

At the close of this argument for me: Animals turning into other animals (that is what evolution is all about) just does not happen. Never seen, no records of it, not happening today.
The assumptions that the natural selection, and genetic mutations bring about evolution (when all they do is, improve the same species to it’s best potential –in the first case - or corrupt it – in the second) is a desperate attempt to convince people to use their faith and imagination that animals did turn into other animals, and then into man. Call that religion.

Chattanooga is home, but I am wondering if I fell into a hole and woke up in Dayton?
Is it christlike to attack folk that disagree? Maybe I am reading the wrong scipture verses, ivanoff, bh_, moby ? Leaves me feeling ashamed.

HB
Good you mentioned the genetics: All races of mankind come form the same women.
All man (male) come from same father. Huuummm…Sounds like I heard that somewhere before.. from an old book ..writen thousands of years ago.

You guys would laugh about the idea of Adam and Eve decades ago.
We will see with next findings what you would stop laughing about.

One more thing on the contradictory evidence you and I seem to be finding. Someone is lying here.
There has been fraud found with anthropologists like working on bones to make them look old, produce bones that where found in different places as they where found in the same place and so forth. ( making money and a name for themselves is the theme here, and of course putting bricks into the evolution theory status, bricks no one seemed willing to take off even after fraud was found)

If I have to choose, I would rather believe someone who is God fearing and knows he is going to give an account for all he has done, than someone that believes he is an advanced ape, and has no obligations to morality.

Answering you on the New Testament text writing: Mark was very young at the time of crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. (Mark 14:51)
Also John was the youngest of the 12. It is believed he was 17 years of age when we followed Jesus. Also it is well known that he lived to be very old. Jesus somewhat pre-told John’s long life (John 21:20-23) When John wrote Revelation he was about 90 years of age. That was the last book of the New Testament.
In the Gospel of Luke is mentioned a lady called Anna. She was a prophetess and she prophesied over the little baby Jesus. It is mentioned she was 84 years old at that moment. We do not know if she died next day but the chances are she lived for more years. My point : People did get to be old even 2000 years ago.

About grave robbers: Use your logic: Jesus’ disciples suffered much because of the resurrection message: Apostle Paul writes of his sufferings:
23..... I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.
24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.
25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea,
26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.
27 I have laboured and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. (2Corinthians 11)

They gained nothing for their witness. Out of the twelve only two died natural deaths, ten where executed, most of these died horrible deaths.
Why would they “call” for this kind of suffering if they just robbed Jesus’ body and they knew he was dead? What was their motif, what was their strength and hope?
Put yourself in their shoes.
Farther more the disciples did not expect Jesus to be resurrected. When told, they could not believe it. Thomas needed to touch Jesus’ wound scares in Jesus’ hands and on his side in order to be convinced. Even 2000 years ago resurrection was not common sight.
And I doubt they even had the possibility to steal a tomb guarded by a Roman Guard.

About possibility of attribution errors? Who decides who is making the wrong attributions? Are you assuming that role? Well, I can say you are making attribution errors when you attribute existence of life to evolution theory?
If a person is dying and the doctors say he/she is dying and then get’s healed that is no luck or chance. If you think scientifically (which you say you do), dice don’t fall either way. They fall on the way they are supposed to fall.

It is sadly true that where the religious leaders that asked for Jesus’ crucifixion. Many religious people even today know about God, but don’t know God, However Jesus is not calling us to a dead religion, but to a relationship with God.
I experience this relationship every day and every hour of my life.
You can not talk me out of what I experienced for the last 16 years and how God has made Himself real to me.

It seems from different postings from you BH, that you think that more one thing is accepted truer it is. This is not necessarily how it works.
Think of history. How often the most accepted things , have turned out to be wrong. I don’t care about going main stream and with the mob. God has given me security in who I am in Him, and I don’t care if I have to question anyone and anything if it is not convincing to me.

Comment number 227! Is this a Chattablogs record?

No Scott, 227 comments only puts this entry in 5th place for number of comments on a single entry. The top 4 are the following:

1. An Unstinky, actually Amazingly Wonderful, and probably the MOST Creative and Beautiful book cover Ever Designed. (By Hudson) has 380 comments.
2. Funny Baby Names has 275 comments.
3. A Racist Gets Schooled has 272 comments.
4. Ghetto Prom Pic 1 has 269 comments.

I will say this last thing about the attribution errors. Homer, I do not decide what is an attribution error and what is not, but it should be noted that: Creationists are more subject to them because they believe on faith. Faith based beliefs require little evidence to be believed in. Evolution has evidence, much, much, more evidence. So, it is not subject to attribution errors at the same frequency....

Admin, then this is the Barry Bonds HR race of the blogosphere. #1 and #3 aren't really active anymore. #2 gets comments fairly regularly. #4 I think just gets comments during prom season. So if this argument dies then the baby names thread may eventually be number one.

Keep it up guys ... even if your discussion has nothing to do with the original post ... help make Holtie a record holder!

My friend BH
About the earth rotation. You say it is slowing down by 15-20 seconds per 1 milion years. So be it. 1 Billion years are 1000 milion years. So in the last billion years the earth should have slowed down by 15000 - 20000 seconds. That is a huge diference in betwein the two.
In the first case 15000 per one million years make about 4,17 hours. If the earth is old 4,5 billion years then the speed rotation has decreased by 18,75 hours form begining to now. This means that at first the earth rotated around itself for 5,25 hours (in the 15 seconds per one million years case.) Call that panecake.

In the other case (20 seconds per 1 milion years) a simple calculation shows that in 4,5 billion years the earth has slowed down 25 hours. Call that stopped 180 milion years ago. (Or the beginig speed of rotation has to be minus -1 hour)

Don't take things just by faith my friend. You have trusted some guys without questioning them.

Homer, I give up, you win your salt and totally agree 100% whatever you say. I could not pull no more string on everyone here. I run out of stupid reasoning to prove my point what evolution really is. Sorry of my nonsense comments I wrote here in the past. I borrowed all of them from different sources just to test how long I could test people's nerve and their faith. Sorry for the commotion I created in this forum. Best regards

As have you. You get most of your so called "scientific" evidence from creationists sites that try to makes sense of peripheral and unpopular scientific opinion. Does it make sense for you to appeal to science? You deny mainstream science and except peripheral science for the main reason that some creationists have tried to support creationist claims with it. The truth is that the mainstream rebuttals are (for the most part) accurate and less outrageous than creationist "scientists" trying to make sense of things they do not completely understand. You can keep looking for creationist rebuttals all you want. Simply put, all that is doing is reinforcing the fallacy in your argument! You appeal to science when it is convenient, and deny it when it is not. (That is not objective research, and surly no scientific research!) I suspect there are some avid creationists with to much time on their hands...lol

Oh, one more thing: You have demonstrated the self confirmation bias above. You acknowledge that mitochondrial eve is “eve” from the bible and ignore the part about how she is 143 000 years old (way older than the bible claims the earth is!) Secondly, Y chromosome Adam- the father of all contemporary y chromosomes was estimated to be around 59 000 years ago. (This means that Adam and eve lived in different times!) Here is an explanation of mDNA eve: Naming Mitochondrial Eve after Eve of the Genesis creation story has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living female of her time — she was not (indeed, had she been, humanity would have probably become extinct). Many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve have descendants alive today. However, only Mitochondrial Eve produced an unbroken line of daughters that persists today — each of the other matrilineal lineages was broken when all the women in a particular matriarchal ancestry had only sons or no children at all.

Imagine a family tree of all humans living today. Now imagine a line from each individual to their mother, and continue those lines from each of those mothers to their mothers, and so on. Going back through time the lineages will converge as sisters share the same mother. The further back in time one goes, the fewer lineages there will be until only one lineage is left — this is the common matrilineal ancestor of all the humans alive today, i.e. Mitochondrial Eve.

Now, going in the opposite direction of the family tree (from ancient times to today), imagine the same line, which now connects mothers to their daughters. Starting with the entire human population alive around 150,000 years ago, lineages will become extinct as women die childless or only have male children. Eventually, only a single lineage remains, which is the same as before.

Mitochondrial Eve was the most recent matrilineal ancestor of humans alive today. However, at times in the past, as certain lineages died out, the status of common matrilineal ancestor would have been passed to a descendant of the previous matrilineal ancestor. For example, the common matrilineal ancestor of the population alive at the time of our Mitochondrial Eve would have lived still further back in time.

The smaller a population, the more quickly matrilineal lineages converge.

Me again, since m eve was around about 143 000 years ago, she was not a homo sapient sapient, but rather an ancestor of homo sapien sapiens. So, unless the Bible referred to eve as a Neanderthal, it is wrong!

Lastly, you claim that prayer can heal but what about all the times: the person has been prayed for and they died; the times Doctors said the person was going to live and they died, the times when people have suddenly died when they were perfectly healthy and "supposed" to live. What about the times a person is told by doctors that they are going to die and they live without any prayer? What about the times that the person would have died if it was not for medical intervention? Why is it that less medically advanced countries have much higher death rates despite equal rates of prayer? Are we supposed to disregard all the contrary evidence and only look for "self confirming evidence? Dr.s can be wrong, and they make many mistakes. The fact that current medical intervention is more successful than prayer speaks volumes, but the fact that someone recovered despite medical intervention and opinion is not evidence of god. Why? Because there is an equal number of times the marble goes the other way; times when someone who is being preyed for dies; times when someone who is not being prayed for spontaneously recovers. Error in the medical field is not evidence of God. After all, Drs. do not know everything! It is quite convent of you to ignore the equal number of contrary examples and focus on the ones that are supportive of your case! (Couch..couh.. self-confirmation bias!)

One more thing, that post a couple blogs up is not me! it is that fag ivanoff! get a life man!

Hey ivanoff! Guess where a lot of my info is coming from? From research papers written by Profs. in university scientific journal in their respective fields. I think that those sources are much more credible than creationist yokal hick sites that try to use science despite a lack of understanding! No scientific university journal article supports creationism...I wonder why?

BH(the other one? whoever?) you're a psycho?.....how many personalities you have? Enough of you buddy. You state your case and everyone somehow sympatized about your state of mind. Admitting being gay is the first step toward your mental reconditioning. I understand every now and then you will experience mental lapses(in & out of normal self) and that's okay. The best therapy I would recommend for you to do is "tell more" about you're being gay, rather than that stupid "evolution theory". Rather, talking more about your personal "gayness" will be more therapeutic for your mental state. good luck buddy

Hey administration, What if you calculated the record number of "words"? Would this room win?

BH AND HOMER greetings im back from the scalding hot sun of arizona....ahhh but sorry to let you all know we are really not the same people believe me im me and they are them...i have been away from the blog due to a death in the family...but i am just me and no one else...but bh this whole thing started between me and you and i think it has EVOLVED(humor) into quite a blog im really rather proud of it are you its good to have a dialog even if the two poeple cannot agree i still holkd that thier is some truth in both therories..but i still will stick to the one argue ment that i feel you dont fess up to and that is this.....this world runs like a well oiled machine perfectly made for life to excist now this in itself to form to have life would in itself take millllions of years for every piece of this pie to come together for this purpose...life to exist that is for the gasses to be mixed just right and the water to form and dirt and all theese things science has not yet explained theese things WHY WHY NOT...the theory still goes from nothing we got something and from all of that nothing we got even more of something truly it makes no sence and until the y can give a reasonable deduction for the case of how all this is here to suppport thier theories of how things evolved then they are meerly just believing that it was here or that they just dont know and cannot explain these things which woulkd explain why you cannot spout all you facts and figures about it because truley there is nothing for you to get this info from because it does not exsistif you belive in the big bang explain where the energy came from for this bang etc etc and you know where im going with this and just because science has found bones that are miles apart from one another and no other where found using your theories of posibilities does not mean that it was from the same animal or that that animal was human or related to humans it could just be a dead monkey and the bones of lucies skull were very incomplete and the molded the missing parts from what they thought they would look like from the other bones of the skull which is conjecture if im not mistaken it is a favct that the cannot yet say fro sure with out a dought that lucy was human or related to us it still falls under the we think and the most likely we feel...speak they like to use i would like to think im keeping a more basic thought process on this issue that in simple form we cannot prove god to you and you even with all your science my friend really cannot prove with out a dought that im a decendant of a monkey...even though im rather fond of bannanas...lol but i want to know how it all began but science stears away from this since they cannot really explain the PERFECTION of it allthe complete and utter balance of it all nothing just comes into being by your own laws of scientific basis....and religion like science changes belifes and theories which would explain why we have many types of religions due to this change of beliefs...and theories...let us just face the facts at hand all is not explainable or understandable...and if everything moves from chaos to order then by the laws of physics (which i admmit im no physics master)but for ever reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction ie what goes up must come down as a very simple example ( also i know this i gravity but also applies to physics)so if you start in kaos then you shoould reach a certain point and then return back into kaos every mountain has a peak and a valley... nothing comes from nothing and everthing returns to whence it came but im gong in circles and dont want to draw out my point to much anyway hope you stick around if not be good and try to expand your thought process just alitle to other theories or posibilities...THE ONE AND ONLY ROBERT ONE MIND ONE PERSON...

Robert, I will say this one more time: The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the process for how established life has progressed throughout history. It makes no difference how life formed to begin with. You should read about this logic elsewhere, where others will make the same case. Even if a creator made the first life on earth, evolution is the continued process that life has followed. I do not believe their is a creator, but to drive my point home (hypothetically speaking) I will say it makes no difference if there is one or not to the process itself. Many scientists have pressed this logic on many sites and there are some good analogies elsewhere as well. Nevertheless, that is a whole other argment. One that takes no wind out of the theory of evolution.
Secondly, life and nature is not perfect: animals go extinct, lines of descent are broken, in a process that is best explained under evolutionary theory. There is no perfection, perfection is your interpretaion of the only existence you/me know of....

In addition all I've written above is just my fun and enjoyment to piss everyone off to those who don't agree with me.

BH.....You are a hopeless case. How many personalities you have? Admitting being gay is tolerable, but proving a point for argument sake and pissing-off people is obviously a character trait of an uneducated, immoral and abnormal person. Let's be civil here. Stop writing these trash and garbage facts about this subject of evolution. Sorry to tell you, after everything said and done and telling everyone to pissed-off cause they don't agree with you, then I'll say to you to Shut The F_ck Up. Get a life my friend and do some therapy.

Garbage "facts"? lol..... If it is a "fact" then it is proven! Therefore, not garbage. Funny how top news organizations, mainstream magazines and University professors think that the "theory" is very credible. Just as credible as the "theory": that smoking causes cancer, that gravitation draws objects to the earths surface, and that our conceptualization of the atom is a correct enough composite of reality to allow for future inquiry. I wonder who to believe, the top minds of present, or the hicks in here who have an outdated and fallicious view of reality. The anger in here is understandalbe. How would you react if you found out everything you believed in was wrong....I guess you know... you can answer that question. What's it like Ivanoff? Please also in your reply accout for how your opinion is more respectable than the opinions of profs..... I'm all ears:
I "probabally" will not be posting in here anymore. So any replys from this point on will go unanswered. The main reason is because one insecure idiot has chosen to take my name and write crap, such as above. BYE ALL!

Then again, I apologized to everyone whom I'ved pissed in the past like Arantza, Ivanoff, Robert et al. Ivanoff, sorry for my self-centered pretensious attitude towards you. Arantza, forgive me for my rustic attitude and Robert, you're a great understanding guy, and honestly believe that some negative commentaries I've thrown on you didn't hurt your feelings. best regards to all.

Enjoy these daying from well known scientists (these with the * are NOT creationists:

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.

Huuummmm !!!

Homer....You got it all. You see, at least I woke up some of you to get excited in this issue to find it yourself that this theory is all "baseless" and "nonsense" topic. I congratulate you Homer for the diligence and effort to find the answers I'm hiding from everyone the debunkness of this theory. Homer you're the man!!!

Cheers to Everyone,
Mr. Homer I like to ask you where did you get these qoutes. I'm following this forum since my last comment here and interestingly enough that BH finally succumb to the follyness of this theory. BH have borrowed so much unreliable materials (don't know where he got it from) that in the end, all been swept away like a dust in the wind. I accepted his acknowledgement of being wrong and foolish in all these and his uncharacteristic childish games he used on everyone for a long period of time. I hope to know that BH is a "well balance" thinking person. He "seem" to be an educated person and in regards to his sexual orientation, this is his persanal battle to overcome. BH good luck in your future.

Once again you appeal to peripheral science. You notice that all of your quotes are no later than 1986? (Many as far back as the 60's and 50's). Well, homer science has come a long way since then. Secondly, you appeal to the less than 1% of scientists and accept their opinion, not based on plausibility but rather on the fact it is not optimally supportive of evolutionary claims. It should be noted to you that most attacks are not supportive of creationist claims either. Most note that there are some problems evolutionary theory has, but they neglect to mention them so their argument can be addressed, and most also often neglect to say that they deny evolutionary theory altogether. Should I get a list of "current" scientists that believe in evolution? That list would not fit on 20 full blogs! Most of the claims come from outside of scientific biology positions. I hate to tell you homer, but the ratio of scientists that doubt evolution against ones that do not is around (1:99)%. Once again you chose to ignore mainstream opinion in favor of some very small minority of scientific opinion. Most of these people are likely already creationists. These quotes are on the net so the avid creationist can pull them up at the drop of a hat. But such quotes are few and far between and vastly outnumbered by current opinion. The number of molecular genetics that completely deny evolution would match the number of fingers I have on one hand, or perhaps be less! Denton is mentioned often because there are so few scientists today that would hold his opinion! People are variable when it comes to beliefs, so you’re bound to find some scientists that are in support of "creation science". The fallacies in this argument come from the fact that: some of your scientists are not real scientists, and they are not a representative sample of current scientific opinion.

My friend BH
First of all, the info about the age of the earth and the slowing down ration of the globe,.... that info I got it from you.
I just made a simple calculation you where not willing to make. I wonder why?
However it does not matter where the information is coming from, what matters is how true it is. There can be many reasons outside the truth why something is popular. I don’t go for the popular, I go for the truth. I stood where you stand. I was willing to change, I let go of my pride.

Now does it not puzzle you that as many women that lived out there ( and if mankind is 1 000 000 years old they have to be many 150 000 years ago) only one had it’s offspring survive.

And how may man lived out there 59 000 years ago? Isn’t really WEIRD that only one man’s offspring survived to make the population of the whole existing (male) world that is now.

If this man is the father of all the races that exist (whites, blacks, read, yellows) but he is not the father of all women, how come the women and man in the existing races match.
Same question for the women line.

What are the chances that all women alive today are descending from same women and all men are descending from same man. But they are not descending from same parents?

Now about the dating process: It really does not bother me. You keep changing your datings all the time (like for the findings in Ethiopia). I am sure you will correct this one two, later.

P.S. I almost forgot about the fruit flies: You guys have been breeding them for the last 90 years in a desperate attempt to make them become something else. Bad luck!
About not breading, I found out that the flies where sterilized in the process of the experiments, that’s why they couldn’t bread. (Did they tell you that?)You know, like people who can’t have children. We don’t think though that people who can’t have children are of another species. Talk about atribution errors...if not cheating!

I have nothing against you personally HB. I actually enjoyed the whole thing and I admire your persistence, You just have been deceived by the people you worship.

It is time to call to common sense about all we have been discussing in the above.

And you know what, I am not in this to win an argument, I can care less about it.

I hope to have showed enough evidence that believing an Jesus is not about a blind faith. Of course the element of faith is essential to approaching a holy unsearchable God. (Being not a part of the four dimensional world we are it is impossible to understand all about Him or to know Him using just our natural elements.) That is why He has put in the heart of every human the element of faith.
God is not approached by the intellect as much as by a pure and humble heart. It is not our intelligence but it is our sin that separates us from Him.
That is why Jesus came and lived in human history, so He could die to pay the penalty for our sins and by his blood to wash our sins away. For it was written centuries before He came to earth that “without the shedding of the blood there can be no remission of sins”.
I hope that in a reasonable and rational way I have given enough evidence that the Bible can be trusted, and that Jesus really was who the Bible says.
Now it is all up to you. I don’t have to know. You don’t have to tell me. But if you really want peace, purpose and true joy in your life there is no other way but Jesus. He has said “ I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”. No one comes to the father but by Me”
Yours is the choice

I think I won’t be bloging anymore in here. I have said what I had to say. Wishing you all the Best
Homer

To Mrs Arantxa

This is the weebpage. There is a lot of stuff there.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/

Regards

Very few christians argue over evolution? Here is a small list of the churches with published statements in support of Darwin's framework for physical evolution and natural selection.
It would seem that many of the folks that would argue, have very shallow beliefs indeed. I could not follow a god who is so small.

Example of Statements from Religious Organizations that oppose teaching Scientific Creationism as equal to evolution and natural selection theory:

American Jewish Congress
American Scientific Affiliation
Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
Central Conference Of American Rabbis
The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
The Lutheran World Federation
Roman Catholic Church (1981)
Unitarian Universalist Association (1977)
Unitarian Universalist Association (1982)
United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
United Methodist Church(1982)
United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1982)
United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1983)
The Progressive Baptist Association(1986)
The United Church of Christ, U.S.A.(1978)

Mr.Homer,
Found the sight you referred me to. Great start for myself to have deeper knowledge about the origin of this evolution theory. Appreciate so much for your help. BH, I recommend you to checked this site as well. Thank you again.

Thanks Glen. It's nice to know that someone in here has enough common sense to know that evolution is a credible theory, especially when compared to the far more outrageous claims that creationists make. Homer, your appeal to peripheral science is about as effective a way of arguing as me appealing to the church for support on evolution. But there you have it! Look above, just as there are a small number of scientists who believe in creationism there is also churches and biblical authorities that recognize evolution.

To clarify: You do not understand who mitochondrial eve is and what she represents about evolutionary thinking. Mitochondrial eve is not the only ancestor for all women and Y chromosome Adam is not the only ancestor for all present men. The two are represent the "oldest" unbroken line of decent. Their mDNA and Haplotypes are not present in all humans. If that is what you think, you better read up. They are the oldest unbroken lines. Once their line is broken, the next oldest unbroken line is the new eve and Adam. You should read up about it and its significance for evolutionary theory!
Next, Speciation starts off with boundaries. Whether geographical or something else. These constraints, or boundaries are responsible for further species differentiation. Speciation is not macro evolution, but it is a step towards it. Constraints, such as not being able to breed are a start to species differential progression. Oh, and Being sterile has nothing to do with selectively mating.

To bring back an analogy I used earlier: Think of evolutionary progression as the growth of protein on your finger (you finger nail); you would never see the actual growth with your own eyes, but you can identify clear boundaries of change, just as evolutionary theorist postulate. So, the unseen nail growth can be thought of as long term evolutionary progression. With this line of thinking one would only expect to see the transitions, just as evolutionist do. So you can identify that your nail has grown based on the fact it is different, but you never actually see it grow....but it does nevertheless!

The age of the earth is somewhat irrelevant to evolutionary theory. This is such because it does not "directly" attack the ideas of transition between species, but rather the plausibility of their being enough time for transition. Nevertheless, even if it was a valid argument, the earth’s rotation is not. Granted, I may have received false information on the exact numbers, but those (real) numbers are on the net and they point to a good rebuttal: Every so often there is a leap second. (Eight times in the 90s, 6 times in the 80s, and 9 times in the 70s when the practice started.) Now the young-earth creationists have noticed this. They claim it is because the Earth’s rotation is slowing down. (Which is correct.) They give the rate, based on these leap seconds to be that the day gets longer by 1.5 milliseconds per day. And thus the need for leap seconds. Then they calculate that if the Earth is millions of years old that it would have to have been spinning impossibly fast in the past. So fast that it would have produced 5000 mph winds when scientists think the dinosaurs lived among other things.

Kent Hovind’s web site has a short audio clip of him talking about this. It is not hard to find many other creationist web sites make similar claims. See this (#20), this, this, and that for a few examples.

Now why is this wrong?

Today we have atomic clocks. These are extremely precise (and accurate) timekeepers. Now since the earth is slowing down at a rate noticeable to these clocks one cannot use the usual definition of one day being x many seconds. The second, as defined for the atomic clock, is based on an atomic process and was defined in such a way that it matched the day as it was in 1900.

The Earth is really slowing down at about 1.5 milliseconds a day per century—not 1.5 milliseconds a day per day as the young-earth creationist state. Whoops!

Now a century has passed since 1900.

(1.5 milliseconds/day/century)(century)=1.5 milliseconds/day

Basically because of a century of the Earth’s rotation slowing down, the second as defined for atomic clocks is shorter than a second as defined by day/night cycle which we ordinary people use. So a discrepancy of about 1.5 milliseconds a day accumulates. To keep the two time systems within a second of each other the a leap second was invented. It is important to note that even if the Earth stopped slowing down and rotated at a constant speed, we would still need to have leap seconds because the second was defined to match the Earth’s rotation in 1900 when the Earth was rotating faster.

(Keep in mind that 1.5 milliseconds/day/century is an approximate figure and that the slow down of the Earth is not absolutely constant. I chose the value for the sake of simplicity.)

For more info on leap seconds see a site from the U.S. Naval Observatory, the agency which keeps time for the United States. Also see another debunking of this false claim. This site also debunks this claim and several other “proofs” that the Earth is young.

Now this one is a bit confusing at first until one sees what is going on. The creationists mistook the discrepancy between the second defined as one 86,400th of a day and the second as the physics people define it for the rate of which the Earth’s rotation is slowing down. I really don’t blame them for making this mistake initially. We are all entitled to a few mistakes. But this does not justify keeping this claim going for years and years. My question is, why is this claim still being made?
Proving a young earth on the basis of the leap seconds and deceleration of the earth's rotation is clearly in error. It is based on a misunderstanding, on the part of some creation scientists, of how time is calculated. This error has been picked up by numerous supporters of creation science and added to their web sites.

PS: Over 99.8% of specialists in the biological and geological sciences support the theory of evolution.

Interesting how those same quotes are used on many creationists sites. I guess there are not that many to go around!...lol

Hey fag, shut the f_ck up, loser. Same comment over and over again. Sound like broken record. Maybe you need to explain the origin of your faggotism.

School yard antics...pathetic

Here is an interesting paper!:

As we will see throughout this website, the entire creationist "case" is built on intellectual dishonesty. While a few of the creationist blunders can charitably be assumed to be honest mistakes, misunderstandings or misinterpterations brought about by their almost complete lack of scientific understanding, many such instances cannot be viewed as anything other than deliberate, calculating attempts to deceive their readers.

The most common tactic seen from creationists is the use of "quotations" from "evolutionists" which, they say, "prove" that evolutionary theory has insurmountable problems. In fact, the creationists even have their own Little Red Quote Book, the Revised Quote Book (Creation Science Foundation, Australia, 1990), which lists page after page of "quotations".

Looking at these quotes more closely, however, shows that in every instance, the writers of the quoted pieces are not at all saying what the creationists would like us to believe they are saying.

Several examples of creationist misquoting come from the anti-evolution booklet Life: How Did It Get Here? by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Watchtower Tract and Bible Society (WTBS), 1985). The booklet says of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, referring to his book The Selfish Gene, "At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins' comment in the preface to his book: "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction." (WTBS, 1985, p. 39). The implication here is that Dawkins is "admitting" that his evolutionary theories are uncertain and should be treated as "fiction". In context, though, we can see that Dawkins is saying no such thing at all: "This book should be read as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, "stranger than fiction" expresses exactly how I feel about the truth. (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p.ix)

In another page, the Jehovah’s Witness Life booklet quotes biologist Richard Lewontin as saying: ""Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms 'appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.' He views them as 'the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.' " (WTBS, p. 143). The implication here is that Lewontin himself believes that life was intelligently designed by a "Supreme Designer". In fact, Lewontin believes no such thing. As he explained in a letter to a creationist publication debunking the misquote, "The point of my article, 'Adaptation' in Scientific American, from which these snippets were lifted, was precisely that the 'perfection of organisms' is often illusory and that any attempt to describe organisms as perfectly adapted is destined for serious contradictions. Moreover, the appearance of careful and artful design was taken in the nineteenth century before Darwin as 'the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.' The past tense of my article ('It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment ... that was the chief evidence of Supreme Designer') has been conveniently dropped by creationist Parker in his attempt to pass off this ancient doctrine as modern science." (Lewontin, "Misquoted Scientists Respond," Creation/Evolution VI, Fall 1981, p. 35) Parker’s selective editing, repeated later by the Witnesses in their tract, can only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to distort Lewontin’s meaning and make him say what creationists would like to hear him say.

Another prominent biologist who has been the victim of creationist misquotes and dishonesty is Dr Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History. In a private letter to creationist Luther Sunderland, who had asked Patterson why no transitional fossils were illustrated in his book, Patterson responded: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." (Creation Science Foundation, Revised Quote Book, 1990). Since then, creationists in both the US and Australia have widely circulated this quote, contending that Patterson is "admitting that there aren’t any transitional fossils".

This is absurd on the face of it, since Patterson’s book contains several descriptions of different transitional fossils: "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes." (Patterson, 1978, p. 130)

However, when one researcher wrote to Patterson to ask about the much-repeated quote, Patterson responded with yet another example of creationist selective editing: "The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues ‘... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.’ " (Lionel Theunissen, "Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites', 1997) Thus, it becomes apparent from the full context that Patterson was referring to the impossibility of establishing direct lines of descent from fossils, a position fully in keeping with his cladistic outlook. Patterson was not saying there were no fossil transitions, and Sunderland’s attempt to claim otherwise can only be viewed as an effort at deception.

A final example of distortion and misquoting from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Life quotes writer Francis Hitching as saying "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble." (WTBS, p. 15) The implication here is that evolutionary theory is being rejected by biologists. However, the Witnesses neglect to quote the very next sentence in Hitching’s book, which goes on to say: "Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this ..., the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms." (Hitching, p. 4) The Witnesses’ claim that Hitching concludes that evolution is "in trouble" is simply untrue. Hitching himself, in a passage that was conveniently edited out by the authors of Life, explicitly states that evolution is "a fact" and "approaches certainty in scientific terms". What is being questioned, Hitching writes, is the prevelance of the Darwinian mechanism in evolution, not the validity of evolution itself.

The creationist fascination with spitting out long lines of out-dated and out-of-context quotes is directly tied with their literalistic Biblical outlook. Since in their interminable arguments with each other over religious doctrines and Biblical interpretations, their usual method of argument is to quote Bible verses at each other, they apparently think that it is a valid scientific argument to quote this or that person as saying this or that, and therefore somehow in this manner invalidate the data and evidence in favor of the evolution of life. The whole strategy is one of "argument from authority"----"X must be true because Mr Y says it’s true". While this method might (or might not) make sense within the context of fundamentalist arguments over which particular interpretation of this or that Bible verse is authoritative, it has no use in science, which depends solely on data and evidence, not on the say-so of this or that prominent scientist. Thus scientists, quite apart from all the distortions and inaccuracies, reject all of the creationists’ "quotes" as irrelevant, no doubt leaving the fundamentalists completely baffled as to why nobody seems to be impressed by all their quotations from authorities.

To Mrs Arantxa and anyone interested

Here is another very good weeb page to check out:

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html

BH as I said before I am not replying anyomre, but certainly I could give you an answer, and please don't talk about fraud, becasue you evolutionists are specialists on that. I can cut and paste here a long list of all your lies, but It is going to be long and anoing stories. However anyone can read all this in the two web pages above.

Have a blessed day

PS and I am not e jehovas witness and can care less of what they say. They are full of lies anyway... (God bless them)

BH i feel that you have misunderstood my points so i will try to better express them. point #1 Since without an earth of shall we say "a perfect earth" and i use the word perfect in the sence that it is perfect for the sustaining of life. wich allow for your theory to occur ie Evolution wich i have already stated that i will agree that things change and addapt to their enviroments. it is perpetuated by effects and the needs of the animal to exist in the domain that it is in people in Africa have developed more skin with pigment to protect them from the sun. when i go into the sun i turn brown these are basic examples i know but i like to keep it simple.but with out this world to exist in you have no life and this is my point how did a planet come together in such a way as to be "perfect" for the existance of life so it does matter in the line of my thinking how the world came to being if you dont put yeast in bread it dont rise brother if all things in this earth are not running in sync then you have no life no life no evolution. get it.And keep in mind that there are many factors to would cause an animal to change weather enviroment disease...etc etc.and to add to the fruit fly thing wich i had brought up along time ago in this blog is the fact that the way they produced the changesd in them was to radiate them and none of the changes were healthy or benificial to the flys so it was not evolution if you radiat people they get deformities also have they evolved then..no they have not...i would like to see your jaw hit the ground when you see the lord coming in the clouds.but by then my friend it will be too late for you..and you have not hurt my feelings in any way with anything you have said i find you to be intelligent and a good human being i try not to call names as i have seen in some blogs here i myself feel it isnt cool but i let others express themselves the way they like to even if i dont agree with it...but im sorry my friend the theory of ape to man is one that i just cannot seem to accept it seems like such a short time for these monkeys to have become so profoundly intelligant in just a few years and the vast changes we have or said we have gone through to me in just a few million years to become what i see on the earth now i look at thier pictures and think those are some really vast changes for short time. and then you use things like finger nails you cant see it because its so slow but yet these changes are preety fast for the end result..And i would like to state that because you dont believe in a creator does not mean that one does notr exist just as you sir cannot see your finger nail grow but you can see the results to me you can see the results of god but like homer said you have to open your heart to the posibilities of a god.Behold i stand at the door and knock and if any man hear my vice and open up i will come in and sup with him.he will mnot force his way in. i also pose this q to you what has made man go and finf the understanding of things it was his thought that there is something more man has an inate drive to discover to ponder man does so many thigs that meer animals do not and probably will not and i belive this is because he was createde in the image of something that has a heart soul and an intelligence which he bestowed upon his creation.. and why is everthing made from the same building blocks CARBON, DNA, ATOMS ETC. BECAUSE ITS THE SAME BLUE PRINT MY FRIEND FROM ONE VERY INTELLIGANT AND ALL POWERFULL BEING WHO HAS THYE PPOWER TO SPEAK THINGS IN TO EXISTANCE... and that is why i feel you will not talk about the importance of knowing how this world came to be. but with out one you dont haver the other and to be frank if you can find out how the world came to be then all the mysteries will or would be revealed but science can find no basis for a theory that can hold any wait in this point so they are left to dig for scattered bones and make assunptions as to what it was and what it did and how tall it was and blah blah blah.. and how old it was and where it fits in the line of man...evolution is a bucket with many holes my friend. and although they can show things change or mutate but i dont consider a mutation evolving at all human s have many mutation now but none always bennifit them or are the in dirrect reponse to the enviroment they are in ti just the mystery of genetics which initself is not fully understood.but im donbe for now im going to research some things ill hbe back...robert

Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians
Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already.

Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish.
Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike.
Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins.
Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable."
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.

Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (late Devonian) -- A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are Ichthyostega, Acanthostega gunnari, and the newly described Hynerpeton bassetti (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) Hynerpeton is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the Hynerpeton lineage did.
Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (late Dev./early Miss.) -- These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc.
More info on those first known Late Devonian amphibians: Acanthostega gunnari was very fish-like, and recently Coates & Clack (1991) found that it still had internal gills! They said: "Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not fully terrestrial....Retention of fish-like internal gills by a Devonian tetrapod blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes...this adds further support to the suggestion that unique tetrapod characters such as limbs with digits evolved first for use in water rather than for walking on land." Acanthostega also had a remarkably fish-like shoulder and forelimb. Ichthyostega was also very fishlike, retaining a fish-like finned tail, permanent lateral line system, and notochord. Neither of these two animals could have survived long on land.

Coates & Clack (1990) also recently found the first really well- preserved feet, from Acanthostega (front foot found) and Ichthyostega (hind foot found). (Hynerpeton's feet are unknown.) The feet were much more fin-like than anyone expected. It had been assumed that they had five toes on each foot, as do all modern tetrapods. This was a puzzle since the fins of lobe-finned fishes don't seem to be built on a five-toed plan. It turns out that Acanthostega's front foot had eight toes, and Ichthyostega's hind foot had seven toes, giving both feet the look of a short, stout flipper with many "toe rays" similar to fin rays. All you have to do to a lobe- fin to make it into a many-toed foot like this is curl it, wrapping the fin rays forward around the end of the limb. In fact, this is exactly how feet develop in larval amphibians, from a curled limb bud. (Also see Gould's essay on this subject, "Eight Little Piggies".) Said the discoverers (Coates & Clack, 1990): "The morphology of the limbs of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega suggest an aquatic mode of life, compatible with a recent assessment of the fish-tetrapod transition. The dorsoventrally compressed lower leg bones of Ichthyostega strongly resemble those of a cetacean [whale] pectoral flipper. A peculiar, poorly ossified mass lies anteriorly adjacent to the digits, and appears to be reinforcement for the leading edge of this paddle-like limb." Coates & Clack also found that Acanthostega's front foot couldn't bend forward at the elbow, and thus couldn't be brought into a weight-bearing position. In other words this "foot" still functioned as a horizontal fin. Ichthyostega's hind foot may have functioned this way too, though its front feet could take weight. Functionally, these two animals were not fully amphibian; they lived in an in-between fish/amphibian niche, with their feet still partly functioning as fins. Though they are probably not ancestral to later tetrapods, Acanthostega & Ichthyostega certainly show that the transition from fish to amphibian is feasible!

Hynerpeton, in contrast, probably did not have internal gills and already had a well-developed shoulder girdle; it could elevate and retract its forelimb strongly, and it had strong muscles that attached the shoulder to the rest of the body (Daeschler et al., 1994). Hynerpeton's discoverers think that since it had the strongest limbs earliest on, it may be the actual ancestor of all subsequent terrestrial tetrapods, while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega may have been a side branch that stayed happily in a mostly-aquatic niche.

In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout life, and scudded around underwater with flipper-like, many-toed feet that didn't carry much weight. Different lineages of amphibians began to bend either the hind feet or front feet forward so that the feet carried weight. One line (Hynerpeton) bore weight on all four feet, developed strong limb girdles and muscles, and quickly became more terrestrial
i found this in a non religious site it is an evolution site and is suppossed to show proof of transitional species and the reason i did this was to prove my point that the proof turns out to be just conjecture with the normal words or "could have been", "most likely belonged to" "possibly came from" you get the point read and you will see i see no proof only conjecture. robert

Transitional Fossil Species, Part III
What About Ape Men?

Some Background Information
This is a valid question, so this page is a brief compilation of the data dealing with “cave men.” Before getting started, we should bring everyone “up to speed” on dates and characteristics that scientists use when discussing these “missing links.”

The Dates

According to evolutionary geologic theory, the most recent geologic periods are:

Holocene - the present period, going back about 10,000 years.

Pleistocene - the period from about 10,000 years ago to 2 million years ago.

This period is split into several sections, generally named after the “Glacial Periods” that took place within the Pleistocene. (These names change in different parts of the world, but we present these as a “standard” for this page.) These periods are, from the “newest” to “oldest” are:

Wurm glaciation
Riss glaciation
Mindel Glaciation
Gunz Glaciation
Villafranchian

That is, a fossil that a scientist dates between the Riss and Mindel Glaciation (termed the Riss-Mindel Interglacial) would be “younger” than a fossil dated between the Mindel and Gunz glaciation. (Note: we are not trying to confuse anyone. Geologists and Paleontologists are the ones that use these terms!)

Pliocene - the period that from about 2-5 million years ago.
If you are wondering how scientists estimate these dates, you can find some information by clicking on this sentence. All of the well-known fossils believed to be missing links for humans come from Pleistocene layers. These include Australopithecus (dated perhaps 500,000 years ago in the Gunz-Mindel Interglacial), Peking man and Java man (in between), and Neanderthal man (dated less than 100,000 years ago—the time of the Wurm glaciation).

Characteristics of these Missing Links between Humans and “Early Ancestors”

Investigating the scientific literature reveals that all these proposed ”missing links” are either very humanlike with a trace of some apelike characteristic, or very apelike with a trace of some human characteristic. There is nothing really in between (where you would expect a “real” transitional species). One example of a change seen by scientists would be in the shape of a jaw. The jaws in some apes are almost rectangular and others are more curved. Since the human jaw is roughly parabolic (a rounded “V”), those apes possessing a more curved jaw are claimed to be “more human.” Similarly, a human skull that had a slightly squared jaw would be considered “more apelike.” Therefore, please keep in mind that the tiny variations seen by scientists may actually be variations in normal ape and human populations that are incorrectly labeled as missing links. This will become clearer as you read on.

What the Data Reveals
Fossils of Modern Humans in Pliocene Layers
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to this theory is the discovery by scientists of modern human (Homo Sapiens) fossils in Pliocene layers—geologic layers so “early” that none of the proposed “missing links” could have possibly been ancestors. However, since these discoveries fly so strongly in the face of the currently popular evolutionary theory, these discoveries are ignored. For more information, click on this sentence.

Australopithecus
Those fossils known as Australopithecines are very apelike. That is, they look exactly like ape fossils except that a close examination of the teeth, or the jaw shape, or minor bones of the skull leads some scientists to think they see faint “human” characteristics. Early attempts to introduce these fossils as “progressive pre hominids” were ridiculed by scientists. One example is the Australopithecus africanus finding at Taungs in 1924 by Dr. R. A. Dart. He considered the apelike skull pieces (consisting of the front of a face and lower jaw) to have slightly human features. The scientists of the day (who were also evolutionists) treated his proposal with great scorn and considered the skull to be a variety of chimpanzee. They called it “Dart’s baby.” Even the evolutionary advocate and “expert on human origins” Teilhard de Chardin (also loosely associated with Peking Man, Java Man, etc.) considered the Australopithecines to be a branch of development that did not continue to progress up to man. That is, even within the “evolutionary community” many scientists believed that these fossils were only apes.

Peking man and Java man
Scientists discovered a modern human fossil at Vertesszollos, with an age corresponding to the Mindel Glaciation. This is actually the same “age” as the “Peking man” and “Java man” fossils. Therefore, if modern humans existed at the same time, Peking man and Java man could not possibly be missing links to modern men.

Neanderthal man
The earliest examples of “mainstream” Neanderthal findings were discovered at Saccopastore, Ehringsdorf, and Krapina and dated in the Riss-Wurm Interglacial period. Interestingly, scientists found fully “modern” human fossil (Homo Sapiens) remains of the same geologic age at Fontechevade. One of the earliest (if not the earliest) “Neanderthal” fossils was discovered at Steinheim, and dated in the Riss-Mindel Interglacial period. However, again they discovered a fully modern human fossil of the same age at Swanscombe. Again, we have evidence that modern humans existed at the same time, and Neanderthal man could not possibly be a missing link to modern men. Although beyond the scope of this message, many scientists now believe that the “Neanderthal” fossils were modern men that suffered from rickets, arthritis, and other diseases that alter bone structure.

There are additional problems with Neanderthal man as a possible “ancestor” of modern humans. The Neanderthal fossil skulls are typically as large as a modern man’s skull. Some are slightly larger—an indication of “greater brain capacity.” Since the brain capacity of Neanderthal is the same as or larger than modern man, it is unreasonable to assume that this is an ancestor of modern man. After all, if the theory of evolution is correct, why should brain capacities (which presumably get larger as humans “evolve”), suddenly become smaller after Neanderthal? The reality is that the scientific community is trying to force the actual evidence to agree with an incorrect theory and has to contradict itself occasionally to make the theory of evolution seem rational.

Conclusion
Although this page is not intended to be a rigorous scientific treatment of the subject, we believe we provided reasonable proof that the fossils of “human missing links” are examples of regular humans and regular apes that had some tiny irregularity. No fossil has ever been discovered that is more than slightly different from either an ape or a modern human. If you wish to learn more about the topic, we recommend the book APE-MEN - Fact or Fallacy? by Malcolm Bowden. Although this book is out of print, copies are still available through The Berean Call. You can locate this book by going down the left hand frame to the Creation Science category and clicking on Books.

enjoy ......robert

Robert,
I have made the points I'm about to make many times. Others here seem to recognize that. You and homer on the other hand convenient try to appeal to the only science that is un-supportive of evolutionary theory (generally creation science). Most of your evidence is written by "creation scientists" who only can accept results if they re consistent with one (the existence of a creator). That is not science. Evolutionary theory has had to fight hard to get to the status it's at now. It has, as far as scholars are concerned, won the debate and this has been so for a long while back. Further study, with an assumption of evolutionary process is not biased to the same degree for the reason that objections made by scientists in the past have not sufficiently falsified evolutionary thinking. Most objections come from creation science, or strict fundamentalists. People who have a motivation for maintaining core religious beliefs. Often these core beliefs, such as beliefs in a divine spirit, are socially transmitted by a parent. People are hesitant to let go of theses beliefs, despite immense evidence to the contrary. If a new theory could come out and be a closer composite to reality than current thinking, then, evolutionary change by natural selection would be thrown out, or perhaps modified. Science does not wish things to be a certain way. They obtain the original results reliability enough to make firm theories: Gravitation, caner causing agents, theories on perception, theories on black holes, theories about the atom, how DNA works, etc. You do not seem to argue against those theories! This is why scientists are not trying to lie to the public (as creationists and homer suggest) they have no motivation to do so! Creationist writers on the topic of evolution on the internet like to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy against creationism that scientists are purposefully making up results and the like. Sadly, this is just another cheap tactic used by creationist proponents who actually have a “motivation” for evolutionary theory to fail. They are the ones with reason to lie, reason to distort, reason to maintain old wisdom. Scientists do not wish things to go one way or another; they simply report results in light of an understood framework. If they actually believed they were lying, then, that would not be science.

Creation science is not science for the reasons that it likely holds all scientific beliefs that are not relating to denial of a creator (i.e. things that are unrelated to evolution, gravity), but "must" no matter what deny mainstream science that is supportive of the consensual view on evolutionary process. The term creation science is an oxymoron, because it claims to be a science, yet it supports untreatable claims.
In reality, there is a true score (true explanation of reality) and the error (how to explain reality best we can), together these terms make up our understanding of what we call "truth". It is a dominantly current scientific view that the explanation for evolution by natural selection has not been falsified, though still remaining a falsifiable claim and that such a claim represents a close enough composite of reality or truth to warrant study and funding promoting further study. In some instances the term popular is not important (as homer claims) but in others it carries very important connotations. The popularity of current notions of evolution are held by the fact much scientific study, thought, reliability, has promoted the currently held scientific consensus on the matter. Current theory on evolution has reached the point where it deserves to be where it is. Creationists and creation scientists have a motivation that their theories must have a creator involvement no matter what the results say!
Robert, it is circular reasoning to suggest that the presence of life means there must be a God and that the "perfections" of life are indicative of God. You say there is a God because there is life and there is life because there is a God. The universe has been rapidly expanding, so there are bound to be some planets that have life sustaining properties. There are likely, billions of planets (or more). It is no surprise that some "few" will have life sustaining requirements in a vast galaxy.
My nail "analogy" was only an analogy, not a direct comparison as you seem to imply above when you falsely attack my argument by saying that "a nail grows fast" relative to evolution. That point is irrelevant to the analogy itself. I was stressing the point that you cannot see macro-level evolutionary progress (because it takes a long time) but you can see noticeable changes in length. So, I was implying that the nail growth was representing large scale evolutionary change and the noticeable changes represent the noticeable transitions in evolutionary history. The point that a nail grows faster than evolution takes is not an argument against my point. The specific growth properties of the nail have nothing to do with the point that you cannot see the growth, but you still no it have taken place because of evidence (noticeable transitions).

Science to some degree has to deal with speculation, as you have noted above. This speculation is often what drives experiments and inquiry. Sometimes the speculation is wrong, sometimes further study shows present unfalisifiabilty. There are some things that scientists cannot say for certain, but that is not as much of a knock against evolution as you may think. I have noted that creationist try to make it seem like the term "theory" carries great negative connotations of falsehood because it is not proven as fact. Well, as I have said, scientific discovery cannot definitively prove anything as fact. Fact is absolute certainty. Science operates with the standards of replication and falsifiable. As of yet, the theory of evolution has not been falsified. The fact that it has survived rigorous debate and inquiry is indicative it is a strong framework and it offers a marginal error when compared to actual reality. As evolution is a theory (on the macro level), creationists imply that this means very "uncertain". This is not the case. After all, it is a theory that smoking causes cancer, it is a theory that gravity operates to draw objects to the earth's surface, and it is a theory for most other "accepted" scientific frameworks. The point is that a theory, though not 100% certain, can be a very strong argument and can operate as a close enough composite to reality. Most do not question many other theories, because of there overwhelming evidence (i.e. smoking causes cancer) but evolutionary theory is considered just a "theory" to the creationist agreement, and this is supposed to indicate that it is "very" uncertain...lol... nothing could be further from the truth!
Some of the fruit fly experiments I have mentioned do not use radiation at all. I do not know why you think that they were all performed with the same method. The one I examined was done without radiation and it documented selective mating between experimental groups. (The two groups were exposed to differential food sources and environmental conditions for many generations, no radiation was used).
As, I have said before, the origin of life has little to do with the progress of life. So, arguing how the first life formed is not really an argument against the progress life takes (evolution). You would likely agree that arguments on how a nail is formed in the fetus are of little use when they are used against how the nail grows. So, you see the origin of life is not a relevant argument because it is a different argument! (Namely, where did the first life come from, compared to how does life progress).
In any case, if you want to go down that road, I will also: What of the origin of the creator? If a creator made earth, how did he come to be? Did he magically appear, or perhaps he was created by another creator, but then who created that creator? The fact that you do not know how a creator would come to be does not diminish your faith in him. How could the creator always exist? Does that make sense to you? There has to be a starting point, so how what is the origin of your creator? I find the creationist response to this to be much weaker than scientific theory on the origin of man…. (Perhaps because that actually involves science and scientific thought!) In any case, how can you argue against evolution based on the uncertainties in the origin of life, when there are great uncertainties behind the origin of a creator? …seems rather hypocritical…

Since, it is believed (by scientist anyway) that the galaxy itself was around before the earth, it is of no surprise that what makes up the earth has its origins in the galaxy itself. Now you could say, “How did the galaxy come to be”? …. I will respond in advance and say: Your notions of the origin of God transcend chronologic boundaries, so perhaps space does also (it does have an intricate relation to time). In any event, it is not anymore unreasonable to suggest this when creationists suggest God always existed!

Robert, I do not know who the author(s) were of the material you posted. My guess is they are not as credible as professors. They are probably some creationists who have made their own website. Secondly, the book they suggested is written by someone named Malcolm Bowden. So, when I searched for his credentials, I was not surprised to find that he was not a professor himself. In fact, he is one of the avid creationists who has made a creationism website. Robert, this guys credentials are suspect (engineer), he is not a Prof., and the data he reports is selectively peripheral and not popular science. He has basically made his site by cutting and pasting all the anit-evolution evidence, just as all other creationist sites do. There is an immense recirculation of the same evidence, because there is so little to go around. Sometimes many creationist websites have one authors work. In any case, Mr. Bowden is not a scholarly thinker of present. He is not objective, since he wants to view all evolutionary evidence with the narrow peep hole of doubt, while, selectively attending to peripheral and often (outdated evidence) against evolution.
In examining his actual arguments (on his site) I noted right away that he was using cheap tactics to defend his points. For example, he noted that some evolutionists back in 1924 had objections to the claim that Australopiicas was an ancestor of man. Well, a lot has happened since 1924. My guess is, many of the objections he refers to came about long ago. So, Mr. Bowden’s attempts at using science against itself, falls short, especially when such reports rare and outdated scientific opinion. Bowden claims that Neanderthals could not be related to modern men because they have a larger skull size (and inferred larger brain size). My response it that evolution is not always a linear progression, natural selection operates to stabilize the most adaptive expression. So, in other words, variations is brain size are stabilized at the most adaptive size, given such an attribute was subject to evolutionary pressure. It makes no difference that the progression is not linearly related. Perhaps Bowden should read about evolution before arguing against it! Secondly, though skull size is correlated with brain size, it is NOT definitively indicative of brain size as Bowden suggests in his site and in your posting. Dinosaur skulls were generally large, but scientists believe that their brains (in general) were rather small. It should also be noted that there are a lot of other things in the skull that are not brain tissue (i.e. water)! So, I would argue against Bowden’s mention of skull size being indicative of brain size. Next, Bowden makes no mention of which Neanderthals he is referring to. The term Neanderthal is rather vague. There are ones from different times and regions. Perhaps the less specific, the easier it was to argue for him. But the terms science has implemented are not derived to deceive as he seems to imply in his site, there is purposeful motivation behind scientific semantics. The fact that Bowden calls them confusing is not helping his case, if anything, they make him seem uninformed. Perhaps this is not surprising, given his argument against evolution. I also find it ironic that he has written a paper Ape man fact or “fallacy” and he is supportive of creationist thinking which is often supported by fallacious reasoning itself. Next, it should be noted that modern human and late Neanderthal diverged from a common ancestor a while back, so they have been subject to divergent selection pressure. Man and late Neanderthal, as far as I know coexisted, so they had been subject to divergent patterns of change (one’s it would appear that Neanderthals could not keep up with since they went extinct).

Here I'm again. Folks, my severe "split personality" (psychological affliction) is on going . Like what I said in the past, this erratic behaviour and ill-mental state of my mind is overwhelming my personality and behaviour. Please Ignore whatever I've written above. It's all bullshit and no substance at all. I've wrote the above comments just to pissed you off people especially Robert. I apologized to all of you and may I request from all of you to pray for me. I need help regarding my mental function and my sexual orientation. I'm struggling on both areas right now. Could someone tell me effective directions how to handle this personal dilemna of mine? Please, anybody respond to this personnal request. Thank you all.

i will agree that how life came to be really has not much to do with its evolution...but where i disagree with you is that you will not come forth with a theory on how life came to be you will only deal with life was here and the theory of evolution and it seems that sience does the same if that cannot explain it of come up with something viable for a theory they just go ohhh it was a big band and there you go and they move on to something that t5hey can atleast speculate on bones and the like...surely BH a man of your education cannot bellieve these silly things of boom and there it was...and you beat aroung my concept of why this world seems to be EVOLVED TO support life how or what force was there to combine gasses together did they do it on thier own where are the scientific facts on how this world sustains life since it is a fact that it does.but you never seem to hit on it you qaintly state the presence of life does not prove god but you my friend never give a viable answer as to why it is the way it is after you give that answer you quickly go on to the evolution..and science should include the thought that there could be a god since as you state science is based on the unknown i find it a little conceded that science just rules out the thought of a god but can stare off into a universe that they can only speculate as to how large or small it is and say there could be other life its posible but for there to be anything greater than thier love of themselves and thier theories it is an impossiblility to thier theoriticle minds...how can the thought of ape to man be plausible but a creator cannot since niether has truly hbeen proven which you cannot argue about the ape to man has not been PROVEN AS FACT IT IS STYILL THEORY with on going thoughts and processes i will do some research but i dont think that thier is alot of water in the brain cavatiy is it posible that they had small brains big heade fillled with water i guess so but science can and never will be able to prove that it was so they could on state in their ever familar words "we think so" "could have been "etc. lets face some facts science although has shown alot of things cannot prove or will ever be able to prove every thing even all their theories... it does take alot of brain ppower to concieve of something you cannot see such as god even i sometimes go wow thats a pretty far out concept but something tells me there is more to life that just living if this is it man whatsa the point you r born you live and then you die!!!!! life to me seems to be a point i know this is more of a phylisofical thought but that is how science started with people going "huuummmmm I wonder" science at one point stated the earht was flat and you would fall off but that theory has been found wrong and this i understand is the methodology of science i agree with you in the sence that things change we see it in species ive always agreed with that but is it really so far out that god would allow natural laws to exist in his creation. why is god so far out of a thought in your head. i would like for you to explain how the world came to be what was the force that caused it and what were the forces that guided it to be the way it is today.if you please....robert

Bennin Hinn visited Thailand, heal lot people. Sick got well and jumping to joy. No need these crotches and wheechair. Saw many mirocles and people cry. Hope he will visits my country again. Sorry for my engleish.

No problem, it's fitting for someone who believes in Mr. Hin! Observe the spelling and grammar from other believers above...

I am just back to the blog to see what has been happening. Hey Neil, if people from other countries (like me) have problems in spelling English, I would like to see your Greek, or Albanian, or local Indian...
Or indeed how you write any other language accept English.

Also would like to see you contributing with something positive to the discussion rather then just making fun of people.
(like some of you other guys as well)

Blessings
Homer

BH

I just wanted to say samething about the origine of the universe.
Big Bang requiers everything coming in existence from nothing.
Bible says God created it. The seen came from the unseen.
Now which requears more faith?

About the discusion of the origine of God, it does not diminishe the need for the supernatural.

The point here is that Big bang or God the supernatural comes into play. There is not a natural explanation of the exsitence of matter which requiers no faith.

Explaing God scientificaly, probably you can to some degree (you say that energy must have existed before matter, and somehow this is true - God's energy was before matter was)

Now if you want an explanation of GOD's origine, give me one of the energy that existed before matter did.

Evolutionary and creation science have to accept "the begining" by faith. One in faith on asumptions, the other in the faith on the Scriptures.
And neither can eliminate the supernatural intervantion of some kind.

..Got to go..

Not being able to directly study the origin of the universe is why such beliefs require speculation. It is not evidence for God. Energy is not God unless you believe it is. We simply do not know the origin of the Universe, Earth etc. But that is not proof there must be a God, it is only proof that we do not know or completely understand the complexities of the universe. Beliefs in a God is a human simplification for things we do not understand.

To add: Evolutionary theory does not have anything to do with how the earth formed.It is a completely different argument (How first life/earth formed and how life has progressed, two different things). Evolutionary thinkers obviously side with the scientific explanations of earth, but that is not "directly" about evolution itself!

I was pointing out that the people who believe in Benny Hin seem uneducated...I was not attempting to write albanian or greek because this is an ENGLISH site. Maybe those people should work on their ENGLISH.

Nail, that is my point, you are not necesarly uneducated becasue you can't spell right one language. I am NOT saying you are!

BH
Energy is not God alright but God HAS (owns) energy if he is the creator of the universe and of the laws that govern it.

Beliefs in a God are simplification of things we do not understand only for people using your kind of logic that says: if I can explain how one thing happened, I can explaing God out of it. This is simplification.

Read here what perhaps the greatest scientist ever said:
"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavor in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is." - Albert Einstain

Think about it

I never said if I can explain how "one thing happened I can explain God out of it." This is because I do not believe everything started with a God. It is a false dichotomy to suggest because science cannot explain it; it must be of supernatural nature. It is just as probable that there is a scientific explanation, but the frameworks we have are not fitting for various reasons. God is not supported scientifically as you suggest because science cannot support unfalsifiable and untreatable claims. That is why the term creation science is a joke to "most" presently living real scientists. You are assuming that there is a God and that (in my mind) is a simplification for the complexities of how the earth/universe formed. Anyways, I am not arguing this with you anymore. There have been many points I have raised against many of your arguments that you seem to ignore and then you move on to some other method of attack. Homer, we will have to agree to disagree......

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.
Albert Camus

In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't.
Blaise Pascal

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." --A. Einstein

"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
C. S. Lewis

It is rather interesting how homer and greg have the same email address..... Perhaps I am not the one with the muliple personalities! Your attempt at philisophical jargon is not impressive nor does it make your argument right... C.S. Lewis is no scientist and it has been quite a while since einstein was alive.

In addition to above, and to be honest with you all....I'm trully gay and open about it. If you have any question about my homosexuality, please fell free to do so.

My friend BH,

It is rather interesting that you bothered to find out the e-mail address. Maybe the sayings where interesting after all.

You are really set on knowing who is who. First you thought I was Robert. Then you are always doubting someone is someone else, as if it really matters. Who is to you Homer and who is Greg? or Robert, or ivanoff ?

This is all about the thoughts and the arguments and the ideas we share. Not about our names.

For that matter BH (Beny Hinn) does not mean much either, and if you want to use your real name I don't care because I don't know who you are anyway.

I would read the content. If you have something worth saying I value it not based on the BH inicials but on the argument. This is what forums are all about.

What's the point of all that "I think you are so and so"?
Read the argument, reply to argument (if you will)
However it is going to be tough for anyone to talk to you since even Einstein is no match for you anymore...

But at least you can not keep saying that real scientists are those that don't believe in God. That has never been true nor it is today.

And reflect on this... life does not consist only on biology and physics.

Great minds belong to other areas of life as well, and after all, evolution uses science based on a theory that is more fictional and filosofical in its core then it is scientific.

At any rate, I have chosen my position based on what I have experienced. You based on what others are saying (maybe they are right or maybe wrong). What kind of insecure position that is.

However that is your choice.

Have a good day

It is only an insecure position if you believe it to be one. For the record, I do not. From the eyes of someone who wants to force God down my throat I suppose it may seem to be an insecure position. Though, I am not you and I am not insecure about things you believe in and not insecure enough in my position that I have to make up other names to make it look like more people are on my side. Why did you change your name? Was it to make it look like someone else was supporting your argument? There is not much to a name, but there is to trying to bolster your argument with deceit, or whatever other motive you had. What was the point of changing it? Would you have led me to believe that they were two different people had I not checked the email addresses? The name is not important, but the argument I am addressing to homer, not Greg. How do I know when Greg responds in your place that it is you? Perhaps your objective was for me not to figure it out. In any case, I do not know what creationist web site(s) told you that the theory of evolution is based on fiction...But I do not respect the opinion of creation scientists nor do I accept their opinion as credible since it is biased towards the existence of a creator no matter what the results say, (that's not science).

PS: It is not hard to check the email addresses, simply take a millisecond and click on the link BH, or Homer, or Greg…lol

Hey BH,
How's is life being gay. I've heard being a closet gay is the worst to ever live. How did you find your way-out of that closet. Must be real hard huh? Acceptance must have taken a toll on you, your family and friends. Maybe tell us more about this homosexuality rather than this evolution thing. Did you notice you're all by yourself in this topic. How being gay and evolutionist compliment each other. Is the reason why you condemned the "creationist" folks so much is because of their belief in their holy book that you are being called a "deviate". In my book, the Koran, {allahhu akbar} you are even worse than that and your debunked theory is worst and stinkier than a dog shit. So be very careful on who you called "creationist" and who you meant it to. All I can say to you is just stop shooting these bunch of dog crap "evolution" issue on everyone here because it really smell so bad and might fly back in toyour faggot face. You have a pleasant day my friend.

Science is a method of inquiry that upholds certain standards in order to be called “science”. Belief in untestable claims is not scientific and therefore is not supported by scientific frameworks. That is why science cannot open itself up to a belief in God. There is no “direct” scientific evidence for the presence of a God and as such, there are no frameworks to conceptualize such a being in the field of science. If science accepted claims without scientific evidence then it would not be the same thing it is today. It would not be credible because it would give weighting to untestable claims. The existence of God cannot be investigated by scientific methods because there is no known way to test for his existence. If there is no way to test for the presence of God, science cannot support it. All scientific laws, principles and the like are based on the scientific method and such a method must prescribe to only what can be tested. Scientists cannot assume that God exists when there are no means to investigate such a claim. It is not a scientific claim if it is not testable. Secondly, (though, a related point) the notion of God is also unfalsifiable, so it offers no way of falsifiability. Claims where there is not even a “possibility” of disproving through science are not scientific. Science would not be science and would lose credibility if it held beliefs that were not testable or unfalsifiable through study, such as the belief in God.
Philosophically speaking, the issue can and is addressed. There are articles in this field about the plausibility of the existence of a divine spirit. Some articles offer an interesting discussion. From this standpoint, who knows! I do not support the belief in God from a scientific standpoint, but I can say “who knows” from a philosophical one. There may be a God, a creator, but who knows, or sure enough to try to preach it to someone else.
There are beliefs that God created the Universe and the Earth and there are beliefs that there exist universes with in other Universes and ours formed from the products of another. There are theories that the Earth was formed by a “big bang”. So many ideas, so many unknown possibilities! How do you know for sure that God is the only answer? You say you experience it, but that is just psychological bias.
Ahh, the old why-cognition! Robert, I believe I touched on the topic of the point of life. Here is my post from earlier: The question “why” is perhaps arbitrary because why from the creationist stance is needed to give significance to one’s existence. The question why has a motivation and in implied assumption that there is a purposeful reason outside of reality that things are the way they are from the creationists point of view. Is it not just as plausible that the question “why” is irrelevant because the answer is not purposeful and directive, but rather arbitrary? Creationists assume that there is a reason outside of arbitrary processes for why we are here, but there are not. It is false attributions and self confirmation biases that operate with in the creationist mind, reinforcing the need for a spiritual answer to the question “why”. Regardless of the truthfulness of the Christian account of creation, people have traditionally felt less anxious by having a faith-based answer to fall back on when in doubt. People like to believe that there is certain significance to their life, a spiritual one in the least. When people feel that there is none, they feel anxious and a desire to feel that they have greater control of reality, that life is in their control. That is why people believe in astrology and why some say that “everything happens for a reason”. Before the “why” is asked the implication is that the answer is spiritual and has a personal importance.”
So, you see Robert, in my mind, what I call the “why” cognition, is why people think there must be a significant reason "why". It is just as likely, the reason we are here is because “we are here”. The questions: what is the point, why we are here and the like, are all human. With this in mind, these common questions outline the complexity of our central nervous system and the abstracts it’s able to deal with, but also our lack of understanding of things that are beyond it. But lack of understanding is not proof of God, only proof that further understanding is needed to make better conclusions.
I do not look on this as a negative situation or position since it gives value to life in the sense that you live only one and for only so long... cherish it…I know I will.

Hi BH,
O.K. I apologise about the joke.

I have other e-mail addresses If I wanted to pass for someone else.

I really don't mind how many people are siding with me.

In this forum it looks like you have not much support, but maybe because is a forum not about science or evolution.

However I am not trying to shavel my faith down your throat. But at the botom line you have joined this forum which is in a way discussin religious matter.

If you predujice the scientist that beileve in God of course you are not going to listen no-matter what the evidence they bring -

I don't believe in evolution not becasue the Bible does not let me. Actualy there are Christians that believe God could have used the means of evolution.
I don't beleive in evolution because it just makes no sense to me. Evolution is not based on any laws, but on imaginary chances and coincidences. There is no law of nature that support the mecanism of evolution. "Change over time" as observed in nature (living things,plants, planets and stars) is true only in the contrary sense of evolution - the deterioration and corruption - and finaly death. But not the other way around.
That's why I say evolution is a fiction theory. It wants to explain life in contradiction with that which is observed happening in the universe.

The adoption to the enviroment can hapenn only inside certain limits - the limits set in the genetic information.
For example: My body shape and my reflexes would be determined quite a lot by the kind of physical activity I do. Or the conditons I lived in, the food I ate etc.
So also my intelectual capacity depending on the education, training etc.
But I would still be inside certain limits.In the worst of cases I would have used some my genetic capability, in the best case I would have made the most of it.
That is what adoption really is.

You are right, not many side with me, but that is because this site is frequented more by creationists (because it is a religious site). In anycase, you do not have the education to make such statements about evolution: "there are no laws of nature that support it, etc...lol Please... I bet you have never read Unversity data...lol

Homer, you should read up enough on the basics of evolution to have an informed opinion. You are in denial if you truly believe there is no connection to your belief in God/ bible and to your negation of evolutionary thinking. How can you make such a claim when you even use pro: (creation, God, bible) evidence to argue against evolution. Biases can operate without one knowing and motivation for certain thinking can be misattributed by people, studies have shown this. For example: Cognitive dissonance is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, which can be defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.
You fit perfectly into this little example because the dissonance you have experienced between the two thoughts (evolution says/ Bible says) has even led you to misattribute why you cannot accept evolution.
Most Christians have to ways of dealing with the contradictions between the bible and the plausibility of evolution 1.) Incorporate them into some sort of creation/science belief system (i.e. Creation Science) or 2.) To reject anything and everything about evolution, guess which way you deal with it?

Homer, since you do not believe evolution is credible because it is just a “theory”, you better also not accept that: smoking causing cancer, our notions of gravity are correct, our notions about DNA are correct, etc… After all, those are just theories too!

Hey BH,

Can you mention for me just briefly which laws of nature support the mecanism of evolution?

If you read carefully my postings you will see that I never brought the Bible as fact against evolution.

Our discusion about the Bible started when you said that my believe it is blind faith and that there was no prove that Jesus performed miracles.
Whatever you make of my arguments about this is your bussiness but I just wanted to show you that I have my very good reasons to believe the contrary.( Actually we have just touched the subject. Becasue the miracles of Jesus are only a part of it. Have you ever red the teachings of Jesus. They are not less of a miracle.)

Gravity is not e theory, if you jump off your roof you fall.

Cognitive dissonance? I really did not make up the Bible. It was beffore I was...dispite of me.

Prophecies in the Bible are not wishful thinking. They came to pass. Prophecies in detail about the fall of Babilon, Persian Impire, what will become of Egipt, the detailed fall of Tire into the Hands of Alexander the Great and so forth of such historical facts writen centuries or many years beffore they happened are not cognictive disonances.
(not to mention the 320 prophecies about Jesus)

Explain me the prophecies if you can

Hey BH,

Can you mention for me just briefly which laws of nature support the mechanism of evolution?

If you read carefully my postings you will see that I never brought the Bible as fact against evolution.

Our discussion about the Bible started when you said that my believe it is blind faith and that there was no prove that Jesus performed miracles.
Whatever you make of my arguments about this is your business but I just wanted to show you that I have my very good reasons to believe the contrary. (Actually we have just touched the subject. Because the miracles of Jesus are only a part of it. Have you ever red the teachings of Jesus. They are not less of a miracle.)

Gravity is not e theory, if you jump off your roof you fall.

Cognitive dissonance? I really did not make up the Bible. It was before I was...despite of me.

Prophecies in the Bible are not wishful thinking. They came to pass. Prophecies in detail about the fall of Babylon, Persian Empire, what will become of Egypt, the detailed fall of Tire into the Hands of Alexander the Great and so forth of such historical facts written centuries or many years before they happened are not cognitive dissonances.
(not to mention the 320 prophecies about Jesus)

Explain out the prophecies if you can. (And they are JUST a part of evidence about the Bible.)...

Oups.. sorry the repetition. I wanted to make it easier by checking my spelling.... :-)

"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"—
10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no-one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:6-14)

There was another issue that I did not get to address. It has to do with your argument of miracles (healings) being rare and non- healings often.

God does not perform His healings as a permanent solution for mankind. Even people who get healed have to die one day. Permanent solution is eternal life through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Heaven is described in the Bible as a place with no more tears, no more pain, no more death. But in this earth we will have all of such things.
Healings (and miracles in general) are signs that point to God, just as road signs point to what is ahead. How many road signs do you need? Just enough, but you don’t expect them every other inch.

What laws are supportive of evolution? Okay, what about Mendel’s Laws, (independent assortment and segregation, and Hamilton’s Law in concern of the evolution of altruism, what about current theoretical understanding of DNA, what about our understanding of cell decision and large genetic variation. Homer gets an education before arguing against things you do not understand such as evolution and cognitive dissonance. Clearly, you did not understand what cognitive dissonance is because your response to it had nothing to do with it. I was explaining that cognitive dissonance was an example of how your motivations can be misleading. This was in response to your claims that you argue against evolution not because of your faith. Forget the whole thing, you do not understand! You have quoted the bible and used creationist arguments to fight evolutionary claims. That is proof that your belief in the bible has influenced your perception of evolution. You even think the earth is only 10 000 years old…Give me a break! How can you feel it logical to believe in things with a lack of evidence (i.e. God) and reject the things that have immense scientific support?
You also failed to really counter argue on the whole healings thing. Are you saying you are supportive of Benny Hin? Or only certain healers? Permanent solutions, who was talking about that, I was talking about your healing claims. I said something like how can you disregard all the times that prayer fails, the times that a person who is told by a doctor that they are going to die and they live without any prayer. I was saying that you chose to believe that the person was healed because they lived despite medical opinion. You falsely attributed the prayer to the healing, but how do you know it was the prayer? You only pay attention to confirming evidence. You ignore all the cases where the prayer does not work and when it does you say “the prayer heals”. Your response to this argument was very weak. You have used the old attribution error when you said it was the prayer that healed. Likely another variable played a role, since there are numerous examples where prayer does not work and numerous examples when people are dying recover without any prayer.
Lastly Gravity is a theory here are some links for you if you do not believe me: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7997/spacegravity.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
http://www.wolframscience.com/reference/notes/1047c
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory+of+gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_theory_of_gravity
http://www.antigravity.org/InertialTheoryOfGravity.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/nov05.html

Ps: If you want actual scientific journal articles references that support this, let me know!

Your whole system of logic is messed up. You do not believe in evolution but you believe prayer can heal human tissue. There is far less proof of your “claim” than of my “theory”. Think about how illogical this seems! You base your claims on all the positive times you have heard or witnessed prayer prior to someone improving in medical condition. Most people do not spread the word when their prayer was subsequent to the death of the person to which they were praying for! Man, you’re so frustratingly illogical!

BH.......If you are "Pressumably" confident enough that your "human" science has all the answer with facts and datas to back up your "conjecture" that there is NO CREATOR in this universe and every "living thing" in this planet evolved through millions of years of existence, then explain to me, say in case if you happened to discover that in your last medical appointment your test results indicates your are positively tested of a malignant cancer in one your major organ in your body, and the doctor's prognosis is "within a year time, then tell and explain to me, when will be the "Exact date and time of your death and the "amount of pain you will endure during that period" {Prediction is a no-no answer here, nor if's and but's......just plain straight simple answer for a simple question). With the help and guidance of all the world best scientists you can get help from, especially your so called medical specialist who you "suppossively" believe has all answer for all life's problem, BH ANSWER THIS QUESTION, and I will be waiting.

You wrote so much (over and over repeatiously....and the novelty of it is really fast fading) about your side convincing everyone to take a close look regarding your understanding of evolution and I'm glad that it all boils down to each individual person who read your comments either to take it or leave it. IT'S JUST YOUR ONE MAN"S IDEA and that's being honest and I commend you on that. But that's where it ends. I do recognized also that in your previous comments, it seems that you are a learned person. Few suggested/commented that you borrowed /plagiarized a lot of these comments which I'm not bothered at all. So BH, a challenged is given and it's on the table.....and please no more of these facts, datas and evidence. The novelty of it is...gone!.

Hope to read your answer on this question soon. GOD SPEED..........

Okay, perhaps you should come back when you can actually make any sense. I cannot understand what you are saying. It is incoherent! Ack! What is your question again? I did not see a question in there.

God does not heal because we will, but because HE wills. When we pray He is not under our control. We better be under His. We have to pray according to His will. In one occasion Jesus went through many sick people (John 5) and healed only one. He said “I do what I see my Father doing.”
God heals out of love and compassion but He does not judge nor think the same way we do.
Why ? God sees things on the perspective of eternity. Being above space and time He sees all that has happened and all that is to happen just as we would see a maze from above. The people in the maze will be quite confused but who is above can see clearly. (simple illustration).
Since I am in this maze called life I need a map to get out and the Bible is that map. But still I can not see what the one above the maze sees (not at the moment).

Does God use natural means for healing? If God is the maker of the laws of nature (a good point for discussion) He does not need to intervene all the time overruling them. It would not really make sense if He did. But He could do it anytime and would do it when He decides.

And are you not a litle confused when calling gravity a theory? Gravity is a law of nature not a theory. Gravity is observed anytime - all the time. Evolution is based on chance and is a theory NOT a law....

O.K this forum started with Benny Hinn, but what I am talking here is GOD. HE can heal tissue, in answer to our prayer. Do I believ this? I have seen this happeneing a number of times.
If you whant the accounts of these stories I can write them down for you. Let me know.
But Certanly this is a camp that does not belong to you and you have no idea what you are talking about.
Did you consider to answer what you think of the prophecies?

I have to go now but will get back on the issue of the natural laws supporting evolution...

Have a good day
P.S.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.(Mark Twain)

God does not heal because we will, but because HE wills. When we pray He is not under our control. We better be under His. We have to pray according to His will. In one occasion Jesus went through many sick people (John 5) and healed only one. He said “I do what I see my Father doing.”
God heals out of love and compassion but He does not judge nor think the same way we do.
Why ? God sees things on the perspective of eternity. Being above space and time He sees all that has happened and all that is to happen just as we would see a maze from above. The people in the maze will be quite confused but who is above can see clearly. (simple illustration).
Since I am in this maze called life I need a map to get out and the Bible is that map. But still I can not see what the one above the maze sees (not at the moment).

Does God use natural means for healing? If God is the maker of the laws of nature (a good point for discussion) He does not need to intervene all the time overruling them. It would not really make sense if He did. But He could do it anytime and would do it when He decides.

And are you not a litle confused when calling gravity a theory? Gravity is a law of nature not a theory. Gravity is observed anytime - all the time. Evolution is based on chance and is a theory NOT a law....

O.K this forum started with Benny Hinn, but what I am talking here is GOD. HE can heal tissue, in answer to our prayer. Do I believ this? I have seen this happeneing a number of times.
If you whant the accounts of these stories I can write them down for you. Let me know.
But Certanly this is a camp that does not belong to you and you have no idea what you are talking about.
Did you consider to answer what you think of the prophecies?

I have to go now but will get back on the issue of the natural laws supporting evolution...

Have a good day
P.S.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.(Mark Twain)

HB

The different theories of Gravity have to do with the cause of it, and how it really works. (they are different opinions about it, allright)

The theories of Gravity have nothing to do with the fact (law) of Gravity. No one is disputing that the Gravity exists.

Theories exist as possible explanations, and they remail theories until the certainty is 100 percent. Then they would be facts, no theories anymore.

Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a theory.

The Laws of Mendel are really saing nothing about evoluion? If you think the contrary you have to explan. strange enough you go to a monk's laws to deffend evolution. I thought you did not trust religios scientists anywhay.

I know what Hamilton's law says, but not concerning the evolution of altruism. It seem to me that Hamilton's law does not relate to evoltion
However I would like to hear about that...

BH you are using big words but with not so much content. Please note great men have spoken quite simply, they have not felt the need to impress people by using all the words of the vocabulary.

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish. - Albert Einstein

Okay, let me get this straight. Prayer works (sometimes) and it does not work (other times). How do you know that the prayer healed? Did you examine broken limbs be healed, or was it that medical opinion was wrong and you assumed because the person survived that the prayer healed. What conditions did these people have that were healed? And why do you insist that the prayer had anything to do with it? If you want to say things have to be 100% certain, how can you say that prayer healed? You cannot prove had you not prayed that those same people would not have recovered anyway. How do I know this? Well the answer is in simple statistics: There is no significant difference between the recovery of those who are preyed for and the recovery rate of those who are not, why do countries with worse health care systems have greater mortally rates despite equal rates of prayer? Prayer is a placebo effect. I'm not sure if you are familiar with that but such an effect has been documented (even to the point that the body itself can be fooled) For example, there is no proof that taking Echinacea and vitamin C can stop a cold, yet many continue to take it, there is no proof that someone’s lucky shoe/sock/ring/etc can make one more lucky. It is quite interesting how you are so willing to reject mainstream scientific work (a minority view) and then turn around and claim that you believe that prayer can heal human tissue! It does not make any sense and to me it seems ridicules. You sound like one of those Benny Hin evangelists that think the hand of the preacher can heal. Let me guess, all the people that were miraculously healed were evangelists...right? You say evolution is based on chance and then you deny that recovery from prayer is also based on chance! The power of collective belief is strong and Benny hin's following is testimony to that. If a large group of people get together and they want to believe something bad enough, they will. But there is no proof behind your claim that prayer can heal human tissue, or insomuch as to rival the evidence supportive of evolution. Did you observe the remission of caner and assume it was the prayer that did it...please... Many more people recover from the verge of death without prayer at all and in the face of medical understanding. How do you know 100% that those people would not have recovered anyway without the prayer?
Gravity is a hypothetical construct like personality. It has no physical existence. With this in mind, it is still based on a theoretical framework. The "fact" that things fall to the ground is what gravity is used to explain, just like how transitive records of fossils are supportive of evolutionary thinking. Anyway, you’re missing the point. The point is that theories are not weak and very uncertain like you would like to believe about the theory of evolution. Here is another example, if you take issue to the gravity one: "it is a theory that smoking causes cancer" Now, this is a theory, just like evolution, but it is a strong argument just like evolution. I am very curious to know what ailments you witnessed get healed and where you were when this occurred. If it is based on here say, I would not be surprised.
Hamilton’s law relates to the "evolution" of altruism and the conditions for which altruism will operate. Almost everything we know about DNA is supportive of evolutionary thinking (perhaps somewhat indirectly) but nevertheless. Medals laws also have an indirect framework for evolutionists to borrow from.
It seems that you like to pick and chose what you will accept and what you will not, but your method of doing so remains a mystery to me. You attack evolution by saying there is no proof and then you make supportive statements about prayer healing people which has even less evidence to back it up. This seems hypocritical.
In any case, we will have to agree to disagree homer or Robert, or Greg; I do not feel the need to continue our debate since we are so far away from agreement! I am not surprised in this site to face such adversity, but perhaps the people in here should occasionally look out from under that rock they have been living under to see how evolutionary progress is going and how other scientific discovery and opinion is also i.e. (new medical treatments, surgeries, drugs). To me, I will side with the side that is coming up with all the discoveries and you can side with the others.

Best regards to all!
Pursue the study of knowledge!

BH, Pursue the study of knowledge. what a line coming from an idiot like yourself. what is it? where it came from? How it came about? and Who gives it? Being a smart ass you are and seems to have all the answer in the world, do me a favor, reply this query or shut the fuck up and up yours

What query? I did not hear one, or a clear one for that matter? Can you please write in somewhat understandable sentences, otherwise I have no way of responding to you……… Or, perhaps more preferably you should stay out of the argument. Nonsense does not contribute to a conversation! Where did what come about? Me saying pursue the study of knowledge? That question makes no sense! Are you thinking the word knowledge means a specific study? …..

BH....Yes that's exactly what I mean you poser and ignorant man. You do so well trying to avoid quesions or discussions that will debunked your stupid belief. Yes, back to the original question above, if you have the capability to answer it. Again reply or shut the fuck up....is it clear to you now?

Repeat the question

"We can find another dangerous expression of pseudo-science in the popular concept of faith healing. This process purportedly restores physical or mental health to a person, solely by reliance on the intervention of divine powers. The idea of faith healing rests on the unscientific assumption that all diseases represent afflictions of the mind or the spirit or the soul. The practice of the laying on of hands is one of the many egregious manifestations of faith healing.

The most famous claim for faith healing traces back to the Bible. The Old Testament (2 Kings 5: 1-14) describes how Elisha cures Naaman of leprosy by washing him in the River Jordan. The New Testament relates stories of a number of faith healings and other miracles allegedly performed by Jesus.

The sole basis for claims of such miraculous events is hearsay. No objective, supporting evidence has ever been available regarding the efficacy of faith healing. If a church insists on declaring a certain event a miracle, the public receives no objective evidence of the alleged miracle and the church performs all evidentiary examinations in secrecy.

The trouble with miracles is that nobody has ever captured one on photographic film or image sensors. There have been no claims for miracles since the advent of photography and camcorders.

The alleged faith healing power of religion, as claimed by evangelists, saints or shrines like Lourdes, prevents millions of people from seeking scientific medical care and is thus extremely detrimental to their health. Many of the reported cures involve nothing more than the reversal of psychologically induced illness.

A large number of afflictions that plague man are psychosomatic in nature. Just as readily as our mind imposes these symptoms on our body, our mind can remove them. Although a psychosomatic illness may produce symptoms similar to physical disease, it is not a physical disease but a mental affliction. Symptoms that merely give the appearance of physical disease lend themselves to removal solely by psychological means, including rituals, prayers or other displays of faith healing.

Witch doctors have always played a large role in the spiritual life of primitive tribes. They could not rely on scientific medicine because it was not available. In order to justify their existence and their upkeep, they resorted to hocus-pocus and to a variety of rituals related to their faith in imaginary, supernatural spirits.

We can also observe faith healing in well-established religions. The Christian Science Church and the Seventh Day Adventist Church practice faith healing. These religious groups consider illness a manifestation of evil forces that need to be expurgated from the soul by faith healing": By the laying on of hands, by prayer, by incantations or by other magical rituals.

Nobody has ever established any scientific or objective evidence for the connectivity of prayer or faith healing with an enhancement of the human immune system. The absence of a readily discernible, natural cause for recovery, in conjunction with faith related activities, has obfuscated cause and effect relationships and has resulted in the attribution of cures to something as ethereal as faith or divine powers.

Often, people take the attitude that faith healing will not hurt anything and, heaven knows, it may even help. This is an understandable assumption when faced with the inability of conventional medicine to help the patient. A belief in omnipotent gods and prayer at that final stage in life may bring some spiritual comfort to some people. However, this stance deprives them of their dignity as rational human beings at a time in their lives when they most need esteem and dignity because there may be nothing else left to them. In all other, non-terminal, circumstances, the reliance on religion, gods, faith healing or pseudo-science will frequently result in the failure to seek reality-oriented solutions. Faith healing is detrimental to our health and our finances.

Solely as the result of scientific medicine, human life expectancy has more than doubled since humans progressed beyond the age when medical resources consisted of prayer, magic and faith healing. Any person who relies on the imaginary benefits of faith to heal physical ailments can expect to revert to the life expectancy that was common in past centuries. In addition, this person will receive the Darwin Award, posthumously. If we wish to achieve happiness, we will defeat our objective if we resort to faith healing. We will not even live long enough to enjoy happiness."

What are you thinking?! ..Hypocrite, the many in here have not been able to counter most of my arguments at all and many of them often ignore them. I guess you neglected to notice that when you read the whole thing, or perhaps you didn't read any of it .First of all I am not avoiding anything! Ask the question so it is understandable, do you speak English? Secondly, it is not just my belief; it is the belief of the scientific elite, with a lot more knowledge and brain power going for them than you. It is a current dominant belief in modern first nation society. You idiot, think! Why is this so! Your view is the minority and it will diminish in time!

BH....You are not addressing and answering my query stupid idiot and pretending you don't understand what I'm asking about. Avoiding an unanswerable question really makes a real fake buddy. In regards of the view in thinking of the theory of evolution.....who is in minority, stupid man....look around you....wake up boy, and never assume thing as it seems. now back to my question asshole.

BH....You are not addressing and answering my query stupid idiot and pretending you don't understand what I'm asking about. Avoiding an unanswerable question really makes a real fake buddy. In regards of the view in thinking of the theory of evolution.....who is in minority, stupid man....look around you....wake up boy, and never assume thing as it seems. now back to my question asshole.

Hisham, surly you’re pretending to be this retarded. I do not know what the hell you are talking about...I am not avoiding anything. I will say this one more time tool, and then I will ignore you: “repeat the question or shut up”! I do not know why it is so hard for you to simply right the question out in a sentence. I am not pretending not to understand your poor English, grammar. Please, right the question so I and everyone else can see it. As far as I know you are asking about the expression I left at the end of my post a while back, but I am not sure. Honestly, just repeat it and I will not hesitate. Unless your are just being an idiot and you do not have a real question. Is it that hard to repeat the question? If you do not right out the question I will assume you are just being stupid, or you do not have the English skills to write it out and now your abandoning ship on the whole thing? Minority in here is not what I meant. I meant Minority in the real world. I suppose Universities are teaching fake courses in evolution and that our news organizations are reporting fake findings...lol my view may be a minority in here, but it is not in the real world. This site is a creationist site so obviously it will be biased in that direction. But make no mistake, they teach no creationism courses in University my buddy! lol..Thanks for coming out though...you got nothing. You can't even write out your question so now you pathetically try to stall and repeat the same crap....

To the man name Hisham, Calm down. You do have a very good point and issue here to be righfully answered, and I do think know your question to BH and I could probably help this discussion more civil. Are you trying to ask BH what is knowlegde? Where it comes from? How it came about and Who gives it? Is this your question Mr. Hisham?

If so, this is a tough question to answer for an evolutionist like BH. And may I add a related question to the same issue, if you may. Then in this case my added query is, why Knowledge is not revealing on any animal specie, sub-specie or whatever. If man and animals came from the same origin as between say Man and higher level "intelligent animals" like the Gorrilas, Chimpanzees or the Monkeys as "evolution suggest" are closely relative to man, then why can a chimpanzee nor a gorilla can say cook, drive a car, learn another language and so many other "trivial" matters with the help from their own kind rather than from Human. Man could teach a dog, a chimpanzee, a gorilla, a horse and many more animal specie to behave in certain ways, but dogs or any of the forementioned animals can't do it amongst themselves. If BH could care enough to answer this queries in a simple english everyone can understand without the scientific jargon words he always borrowed from "sources", then I say to him good luck. BH, this is your opportunity to best redeem yourself from humiliation from all of us.

I would like to even tell a sad news to you BH, that Darwin did not even started this nonsense evil concept and belief. This is the thought of "evil" men from the "beginning of times", during man's darkages and through our modern times.

The "evil thinking man" of the ancient days thought the same as our modern Darwins like yourself that Man and Animal are relatives so they end up practicing the most degradable act a human being can do..."BEASTIALITY". This practice is so popular amongst the uncivilized, heathen nations of the ancient world. Such a despicable act man can do to an animal and animal to human. This practice is even glorified in the mysticism of the ancient "civilized world like the ancient Egyptians, Romans and Greeks and other heathen nations where most {if not all} of their Gods and Godesses are all Half human and Half animals. Beastiality is even practice in our modern times and "AIDS and other modern dreadful diseases" came into the picture.

And where are your modern "Evolution oriented Science" facts and datas, Evolution oriented medical professionals play in this man-made tragedy and epidemic. BH, this are your challenges and need to be answer by you and you alone. Don't borrow someones facts and datas. You have the "Knowledge" I assume, to answer Hisham's, mine and others that you continually designated as "creationist".

I observed those whom you accused of as being "creationist" doesn't even mention God or god's or even Religion at all in any of their comments. You are so quick to designate a person as such if that person happens to differ from your evolution belief.

So Hisham, and all others, let's give BH a chance to answer all the quetion mentioned above. By the way BH, why just using initials or letters in this forum. Is this your true initials or just to ashamed to reveal your true identity. Highly intelligent, learned people like you consider yourself as you mentioned in the past, are never shy to reveal themselves. Specially with all these write-up you did in the past in this forum, it "sound" your a credible person. Please do understand BH, that I'm attacking nor demeaning you, not at all, but it's just my personal human observance on another human personality and behaviour. No offense from this side but just let us all know here in this forum how you best answer the comments above. Have a Good BH

Oh such a lovely day today and finished all my outdoor task and happened to just sit down in front of this box and try to check up the latest happenings in this forum.

So amazing I missed reading so much the past comments that I quickly scrolled down to the latest blog. Now this getting interesting. BH seems holding his fort quite well until I read the latest one from Ms. Chloe Atkinson. Now it's getting deeper in the issue and I think Ms. Atkinson has an incredible valid intelligent question our buddy BH should answer. So simple comment and questions (Hisham, I commend you as well} that BH should really address or else he will loose his shirt on this one. Good observation Ms. Atkinson. Good luck BH.

I find it odd that in such a short time so many people have contributed today. I suspect that someone is using multiple names, but I suppose there is no definitive way of proving that.
As far as Hisham is concerned, I still have not seen a question??? This is very puzzling, he says I am avoiding answering it but then he will not repeat it in proper English for me to respond to. He is an idiot, so until he actually asks a question, I will ignore him. Chloe or whoever you are, or whatever other names you assume, I have answered very similar questions above. Had you took the time to read all the bogs you would have noticed the answer to your mundane question? First of all, your question does not make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. It is clear that you do not have a full grasp on what evolution is and how it operates and the like. If you did understand my points you would not ask such a question, since it is not an argument against evolution in the slightest. The short answer is Man and Chimpanzee or Man and Gorilla are not the same animal (as I have said many times) that is why chimps do not drive, they do not have the same hand eye coordination, neocortex and consciousness to operate human vehicles. Evolutionists would never expect other primates to drive cars, there are not evolving that way, why would they? Your question is not even valid because it has nothing to do with evolution. The fact that Man and chimp are different animals is the short answer to your question. The long answer is that man and chimp are related a long way back to each other through a common ancestor, so from the point of divergence they have been evolving differentially ever since. Genes impose restritions on the impact the environment can have on them, so it is of no surprise that you could not fully train chimps or Gorillas to drive or cook. They have been subject to relatively different degrees of environmental pressure, so there is no reason to assume that they would evolve from the point of divergence in the exact same direction! That is ridicules! In fact, if apes could actually drive cars, evolution would perhaps have to do some reevaluating because it would go against evolutionary predictions!
Please, no offense people, but read up before asking monotonous and redundant questions (one's that I have already answered for the record!) I will repost my response from a similar question: This question (or a close composite) was already answered on April 9/2006 at 10:31 pm: here is the response to basically the same question or supposed "challenge" to my thinking: The question was: why do man and chimp have different intelligences? Here is the answer: First of all when I say Man and other primates are related I mean that they are not related like family, they are related indirectly. They are related by relation to a common ancestor. That means that chimps and man diverged millions of years ago at some point and have been evolving differentially ever since. You ask why they have different intelligences because you do not understand evolution. Man and chimp is not the same animal that is the simple answer. Our related ancestor that lived millions of years ago was likely scattered, as many organisms are. That means that our common ancestor was subject to differing environmental demands. It is believed that these differential conditions such as, how hard food is to get, what the land terrain is like etc, is responsible for the divergence in brain power. Some member of our common ancestor lived in areas that did not require additional cognitive adaptations, while others were selected because of their environment to require a higher cognitive capacity (read about the foraging hypothesis).

Lastly, I perhaps wrongfully assume that all objections to evolution come from creationists. This is because they are the party that really is at odds with the theory, not many scientific people argue against it, and none of them have posted in here! Homer and Robert are creationists and Hisham (I assume is because why else would he disagree with the theory?) This is a religious site after all, so I would expect most people who post here to be creationists.

It is no surprise that scientists and medical officials believe in evolution. It is not a tragedy; it is refreshing and it shows that our society is moving away from obtaining all the answers from an ancient book. Profs, doctors and the like believe in evolution, not because they are supposed to, but because they are well versed in the field of science and all the support evolution has. Most people in here, who argue against it, clearly do not even understand the basics, perhaps that are why they object, or perhaps they prefer to lean on the bible and ignore anything to the contrary.

Ok, homer you want to know how Mendel's Laws relate to evolution, I think this net encyclopedia sums it up nicely: The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the idea that individual organisms which possess genetic variations giving them advantageous heritable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce and, in doing so, to increase the frequency of such traits in subsequent generations.

In the 1930s, scientists combined Darwinian natural selection with the theory of Mendelian heredity to create the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as Neo-Darwinism. The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. The mechanisms that produce these changes are the basic mechanisms of population genetics: natural selection and genetic drift acting on genetic variation created by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow.[1] This theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the staggering biodiversity of the living world.

Mendel's Principles
How does evolution and genetics account for genetic variability in a species? There are a number of ways such as the crossing over of chromosomes, dominant and recessive traits, and independent assortment.

In the case of meiotic replication, the shared genetic information conveyed and expressed by an organism is governed by certain genetic principles. Mendel's laws were as follows:

Mendel's first principle of genetics, states that the sex cell of a plant or animal may contain one factor (allele) for different traits but not both factors needed to express the traits.
Mendel's second principle of genetics states that characteristics are inherited independently from other characteristics.
Mendel's third principle states that each inherited characteristic is determined by two heredity factors/genes, one from each parent which determine whether a gene will be dominant or recessive.
These genetic principles have become characteristically known as the law of independent assortment (Mendel's second principle), and Dominants and Recessives (Mendel's third principle). The second principle is simply as it says, that a trait's expression is not dependent on another traits expression, i.e. a trait for blue eyes is not dependent on the trait for height within an individual organism.

:) :) :) HA HA HAH....BH, I totally believed now you're a complete idiot and a stupid animal/man (what ever you wish to be called) to be reasoning with, that even human logic can't even comprehend and make sense out of this vague, nonsensical, lunatic theory you got stock on.

Your short and long answers to support your debunked theory ARE ALL SELF-CONTRADICTING and had used a lot of oxymoron words to compliment it.

You've wrote the following "explanations and suggestions": ...Earlier, you've mentioned that man and gorilla are "not same animal" But at the same time you continually pointing out that they came from the same "Ancestor"(BH..What/Who is it)... Now, now, this is a big stupid statement to begin with. How is it then that if man and animals are different animals, then why you keep saying they came from the SAME ANCESTOR. So many things are wrong with this ASSUMPTION and so misleading. Even if I put any sense on this Statement, as you are ASSUMING to suggest that "chimps and man have common ancestor and eventually DIVERGED(nice word to make it sound more credible} millions of years ago at SOME POINT and HAVE BEEN evolving differentially EVER SINCE". If this statement is true then give me the facts and datas WHEN "did" this incident happened?, Then HOW and WHAT Causes the divergence?... And perhaps, your best answer to this is your own Statement that "Genes impose restrictions on the impact the environment on them.....Now again this statement is totally wacky. You said man and animal are different animals and but at the same token they came from the same ancestor and yet they both live side by side for "million years", ON THE SAME ENVIRONMENT EVER SINCE as you suggest, then why are apes are still apes and man remain the same for "Million of Years".

You've stated also "that our "common" ancestor was subject to differing environmental demand" and is reponsible for the divergence in brain power. My question on this is "of whom"? Is it the "ONE" common ancestor(singular)you've always insisting all the time?. Because in the next statement, you totally contradicted your former statement by SUGGESTING "that SOME (plural) member of our common ancestor lived in areas that did not require additional cognitive adaptions, while others(plural again) WERE SELECTED" ( hey BH....BY WHOM?)....blah, blah blah :) :) :)".

All of your statements above are self-contradicting, misleading, bogus, full of assumption, supposition, Pressumption and conjectures. Now all this "borrowed" non-intelligent facts and data you gathered from expert and learned scientist in the field of evolution makes a real Moron out of you. Sorry to say, that in your own mental capacity (if you have one), can't even recognize all your comments are self-contradicting. You don't even have the gut's and proper intelligence to answer Hisham simple query about "All about Knowledge" which was supposively clarified by Ms. Atkinson.

Most people in this forum, I for one, really believed now, that you are totally an ignorant, unrelentless, unintelligent and unreasonable being and almost getting to the point of being a hopeless case. What a waste to consider yourself as such (of animal origin) and being treated as such. Maybe this time, answer Ms.Atkinson/ Hisham questionaire which I do recognized a very honest and intelligent one. You might be right to say that people writing here are a bunch of creationist, because they represent the bulk of majority that do believe at such, but it's not necessarily so. Most people, I believe, will put their trust on things that are believable and by using their power of reasoning and understanding,and intelligence before accepting it's face value. If you BH, don't have this things within you, then you are gullible and easily subjected to ridicule.

You have not the wit to understand, that is not my problem. I cannot dumb everything down for you. Okay look, they diverged= "split" many millions of years ago. Millions of years of selection pressure will do wonders for evolutionary progress. Honestly, do you believe that all the organisms just BAM! Appeared, that is far less believable than the theory of evolution. Man and ape is not the same animal, that is a fact, but that does not that they cannot come from a common ancestor. (I.e. cross male horse with a female Donkey = and you get a "mule"... different animal, but still related through ancestry. So your logic here has also gone astray! Secondly, I think you should look up on how organisms are classified before you start using uninformed and plain wrong assaults on my claims! I am not going to give you all the facts and data (data is plural by the way! No need for an "s"), you can look it up on the net, or go to your local library or University. Clearly, I have invested a great amount of time in here, and your argument is the only thing that is "nonsensical". There are no real contradictions, clearly, you do not understand most of my responses (divergent is an applicable word, look it up in the dictionary if you want).
Yes genes do impose restrictions on what influence the environment can have on them (Some people have genetic affinities for certain things that others lack, some are athletes while others no matter how hard they try will never make the majors)! Get my drift.

Look, if current intelligent, studied, well funded evolutionary notions are not appealing to you that is your choice. I am not going to keep debating with "you" about trivial things like why an ape cannot drive a car. That is such a preschool question when it comes to the study of evolution. You are naturally defensive, as am I, but your hostility is unfounded. Yes, I find it frustrating that many in here deny evolution and except that prayer can heal and that God created the earth a mere 10, 000 years ago, but I feel for the most part, and compared to many in here, I have kept my cool.
You mention that there are many contradictions but you can only point out two things that you misunderstood (not contradictions). The truth is that you are just “nonsensically” using the word contradiction, which really is being mistaken for your misunderstandings.
To recap, you pointed out that I had a contradiction with how many ancestors there were: no, I didn’t there is one type and there were many of that type so (ancestors, means many of the same type ancestor) 2.)There is no contradiction between saying genes put restrictions on environmental influence and that man and chimpanzee diverged millions of years ago. Genes put restrictions on current environmental influence and the sums of influence up to this point, but man and chimp have different “equations” so to speak. They have been exposed to differential environmental demands and resulting adaptations (what genes work best in one place do not always in another).

Hey Everyone,

I feel so bad to how we are treating BH. He is all alone in this agains everyone. And he is keeping up a preety good fight. At least we use some respect, and make a point rather then insulting him.

For the sake of truth I have to say though, BH, your arguments are runing thin.

Mendels laws can explain to us the mecanism of genetics,how we end up having blond blue eyed people or dark hair, dark skin people and so forth.
But come on now, if this was about evolution, you would have to admit that different races of men are on the road to speciation and at different stages of evolution.
Tell me the truth, do you belive that?

Man is the only creature that refuses to be what he is.
Albert Camus

Hey BH....I'm back you wacko. You finally meet your challenge on two women. Amazing these two ladies put you in to your proper place. You are trying to Avoid an interesting question originally from me, with lame excuses, pretending you don't understand the issue I'm talking about (typical excuse of stupid people like you), then I need to repeat the same question once again. Since you originally brought this issue..."pursue the study of knowledge" Then What is it?, Where it came from?, Who imparts it?. I thank Ms. Atkinson for her calmly advice and her beautiful eye-opening statements regarding the history of evolution. If Darwin is not the father of this theory as Evolutionist claims, then all evolutionist like you BH are just a bunch of liers. So there's my million $'s question.

Man's greatest enemy is himself. All man's vanities in his life leads to self-destruct.

Homer, How can you treat a man with respect if he himself don't do it to himself? But you are right though. BH doesn't have the mental capability to distinguish error from truth, and right from wrong. What a pity to see a man will openly "degrade" himself to be "from" the "lowest form of life" he could imagine, and at same time "claiming" had the best solution on the aftermath of his vanities. BH is a typical heathen like in olden days, who will defy everything that is truth, just to prove that there is NO GOD. But the almighty is persevering and has reservation for this type of people and time is running short for them. Defying God and his failure to recognized of who God is, is the worst act, man could respond to his maker. Good pleasant day to everyone.

Homer, if you do not believe an encyclopedia, then any explanation I give you will neither. So there is no point. Evolution is based on the gene frequency in expression. Mendel’s laws address how evolution can account for the mass variability in genetic expression with in a species. They are very much related to evolution, unless the encyclopedia is lying and unless there is no such thing as the "modern evolutionary synthesis (synthesis between genetics and evolution)! Give me a break... your the one with the thin argument! Your inability to understand how the Mendelian genetics relates to evolution is not means to assume there is no relation. I will believe in what is documented in science and you can deny my claims, in ignorance, all you want! Have a Good day!

Hisham what does the study of knowledge have to do with evolution? My expression was pursue the study of knowledge= that meant keep in touch with current findings. For some reason you seem to want a philosophical explanation, but that is irrelevant to what my claim was intended to imply. It was merely an expression saying keep informed! Furthermore, even if I did go into the philosophics behind knowledge, it would not be an argument against evolution as others here seem to suggest…lol

“The Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen here in the writings of anti-evolutionists.”

PS: Homer look up the synthesis of Genetics and evolutionary thinking before blindly denying it.... I guess you not only blindly believe things you also blindly reject them!

“The Modern Synthesis in its most basic from is actually a progression of ideas that have been passed on from ancient civilizations and ancient minds by the hands of time to modern man. The idea of evolution dates back far before Charles Darwin, but if one was to try and trace the total all inclusive history of how the Modern synthesis came about from the very beginning then a person would have two options, first being to devote their whole life to the project and when they reached the age of 105 they might have the complete history totaling thousands and thousands of pages, and second to just loose your mind and save yourself some trouble. Fortunately for us, in order to understand the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, a full history of evolution is not necessary.
The core of Mendel's theory lies within population genetics. Population genetics' main concern is with whether a particular allele or genotype will become more or less common in a population over time and why. (THAT IS HOW IT RELATES) From a population genetic point of view, evolution is change that has occurred over the course of generations and time in the frequency of alleles (Jenkins, Simmons, & Snustad, 722). The law that Mendel came up with to explain his findings is called the law of segregation, which states that each individual carries two unblending copies of each gene, and that each gamete receives only one copy of each gene chosen at random from the individual's two. This allowed biologist to predict the fate of alleles with in families (Freeman & Herron, 122). Mendel did work for more than thirty years on pea plants to establish his principles.”

One more thing, homer you suggest that people in here are being polite to me and I am not being polite to them? Take a look at the posts and see who is being more civil!

Honestly BH why are you wasting your time in here? Seriously why bother trying to convince a bunch of yokels or bible thumpers that evolution is right? For almost every discovery there are a select group of people who do not believe in it! They won't believe you, no matter how good or bad your argument is. Let it rest BH discuss Benny hin or hill or whoever he is. The people in here are too far gone, brainwashed or too unaware to give a hoot about what scientists say. Let it go and please talk about Benny that may be something some can agree on!!!!!

Perhaps you are right ratman, but it is frustrating when people cannot see logic when it stares them right in the face and it is even more frustrating when people who are ignorant of it are unwilling to check up on it.

Chole, a "Heathen"...lol I suppose those supposed witches that religious fanatics executed back in the day were real witches too...lol Religion has so many errors...where to begin?

BH,
If you are reading all the other arguments with the same attention you read the one about politeness maybe that is why we can not really talk. You are prejudicing all I say.

Please go back and read what I wrote. I was asking the others to show some respect to you.

I don't know where everyone in this forum stands but I am not using swear words, or insults. Well I can be sarcastic and I do like jokes, so this sometimes comes out...

I agree with you, if we believe in God we are not being a good witness of that.
That is the problem of man's nature though.
Religion is made of people and from people and people religious or not can make big mistakes and wrong choices.
Religion has to do with rules and man's effort to please God.

The Bible though is not religion in that sense. Jesus always pointing to the need of a relationship with God. He was very angry as well at religious people. Just read how he deals with Sadducees and the Pharisees. No wonder they wanted to kill him (and actually did).

As to the point we where discussing I think I heard your arguments and I am still not convinced. Again I made some straight questions you did not answer? You keep repeating the very poor argument of natural selection as being the prove of evolution? I asked you if the races of men are evolving or speciating?
Yes or No.
I asked you how do you explain Bible prophecy. You say nothing.

I also am not clear what are you trying to prove. You started on the idea that there is no God. Then you say that you agree that life could not come from nothing but the origin of life does not have to do much with evolution, and evolution is what you are discussing about.
Then you jump into the explaining out prayer and miracles and the Bible (things you really know nothing about).
What does really bother you?
That there really is a God?
Or that people don't believe evolution even if God originated life?
That prayer does not work because there is no God, or because even if God was, He would not answer.
Is Benny Hinn fake because there is no God? Or is Benny Hinn fake despite the fact that there is a God?
What is that really bothers you. Because I see you are really bothered by something but I can not single it out.

To anyone else in this blog that deems himself/herself a believer, O.K it is a great sin to deny God, however HB is accountable to Him and not you and me. I am sad when someone stands on that place, but if God allowed that freedom, who am I to dispute it.
The gravest mistake people do wants to help God out. God does not need help. BH is the one who will stand before his Creator on that day, and God is going to be a sufficient Judge. He has let none of that judgment for me to do.
You guys should be praying for BH not insulting him.
Are you sure we will not have to give yourself an account for our words?

Be blessed you all

...I mean OURSELVES... :)

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
C. S. Lewis

BH...There is no such thing as logic that could support nor substantiate Evolution...PERIOD. Homer is right, as well as Chloe and all others. Your friend Neil Ratman already waved the RED FLAG on you .....Cease and Decease. You are a loser and admit it boy. Evolution is being taught in schools instead of religion and not as what you assumed, but for one purpose alone and nothing else, to determine who are real suckers and gullible people in this world, and the end result is pretty good so far. Ignorant people like you are taken for ride and readily accept these baseless nonsense. And as these suckers try hard to convince the world, the more they exposed the bogusness of this theory.

Yes BH, ....truth of the popular notion out there of...."there's a sucker born in this world every minute" and very sad to say though, that you are one of them boy. Gullibility in a person is a strong indication of his deprived mentality and incapacitated mind. Say to you, good luck boy

It was an April day and I went out into the garden and it had been raining during the night. I had the feeling that I saw the earth and the beauty of nature as it had been when it was created, at the first day of creation. It was a beautiful experience! I was reborn, seeing nature in quite a new light.
Albert Hofmann

Through my LSD experience and my new picture of reality, I became aware of the wonder of creation, the magnificence of nature and of the animal and plant kingdom. I became very sensitive to what will happen to all this and all of us.
Albert Hofmann

The chess-board is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature. The player on the other side is hidden from us.
Thomas H. Huxley

Yeah okay that makes sense…lol
Arantxa said this: "Evolution is being taught in schools instead of religion and not as what you assumed, but for one purpose alone and nothing else, to determine who are real suckers and gullible people in this world, and the end result is pretty good so far."

So you’re saying that people teach evolution in schools to determine who the real suckers are ...lol that makes no sense! You’re the ignorant one. Your saying the suckers are all the PHD students coming out of university, all the biologists, phyisists, chemists, psychologists, anthropologists, there are all suckers…lol please examine the demographics of many of those who are Bible thumpers and those who are scientifically educated, then make a decision as to who is the “sucker”…lol the country red neck who believes in God is not a sucker…lol Funny how many of the uneducated states are the ones you say are not gullible! The ones with the oodles of people who fork out their money to benny hin..please, you shouldn't talk about gullible!
You have not the slightest clue how evolution operates. Give me a break, you should go to school and learn instead of being the hick that you are. You are ignorant because you deny evolution and cannot explain why. You are ignorant because you blindly deny things that you cannot understand. You are ignorant because you believe that your religion is right and everything you believe in is right regardless of evidence. Please, it is quite hypocritical of you to speak about ignorance when you are the one who has it. Get an education past high school. Okay?
Homer, you are also hypocritical. You say that I have not answered your questions, but there are many questions of mine that you have either not addressed, or that you poorly answered. Is the encyclopedia wrong about the synthesis, being one. Races of men are not speciating and I do not know why you think evolutionary logic supports that!! Please explain how evolution supports that notion, and then I will answer.
The prophecies I do not know much about, but many of the things I have written about, you know nothing about and you still have an opinion on them. I will not address this issue, since I am not versed in it well enough, unlike you, who likes to address my questions when you do not even understand the subject. Everyone in here is so hypocritical!

I suppose I am a minority here. I am a christian. I do not beleive in anything that violates the laws of physics. It is ignorant in the extreme to ignore what is in front of my face. Science explains the "how" for me. I let my spiritual life explain the "why". It seems silly to think as first century christians trying to explain the universe. The jesus seminar, weststar institute, scholars like spong, funk, and borg have a much firmer grasp than "fundimentalist". Christianity isn't history or science, it's how I treat my nieghbor, love my enemy, conduct myself. Liberal compassion and works of charity, mercy and grace for others are the bed rock of christianity. Not biology.
best regards

I really missed Benny Hill. He's a great comedian than our idiot buddy here BH. He does't need to say that much to make people laugh to make a point. Just act it out. BH should learn from this great comedian, should buy Benny Hill's DVD series online and learn from this master comedian.BH for now is a real master deceptionist. :) :) :)

Not so fast there! I did not write this garbage above. I suspect that Glen did not either.

A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed.
Michael Behe

It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on.
Michael Behe

Now, it appears to be a characteristic of the human mind that when it is unconstrained by knowledge of the mechanisms of a process, then it seems easy to imagine simple steps leading from non-function to function.
Michael Behe

I think your are very right Neil "Rat"man. Before you write anything, get an educated, hypocrite. You have no thorough knowledge about this issue so get lost.

The conclusion of design flows naturally from the data; we should not shrink from it; we should embrace it and build on it.
Michael Behe

The point here is that physics followed the data where it seemed to lead, even though some thought the model gave aid and comfort to religion.
Michael Behe

The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.
Michael Behe

Science is wonderfully equipped to answer the question "How?" but it gets terribly confused when you ask the question "Why?"
Erwin Chargaff

BH....Speak to yourself dumb wit. Who is hypocrite here?
Everyone in this blog is sick and tired of your Idiotic theory. Maybe you get an education. You don't even know how to spell and have a life if you can find one.

Hi neil, I did not write that comment to you above. One of our cristian friends now likes to resort to passive aggressiveness!

PS: Whoever wrote that I do not know how to spell should perhaps examine there own spelling and grammar. Just a thought Artantxa, okay.

And in regard to an education, I do have one. I have a university degree in Psychology. You are the fool who needs one Arantxa!

Benny Hinn visits mio pueblo,Guadalajara and has crusade last year. The man had cure sic peeple but is unbelivebable. Maybe he's trickining them to get well. I doubt he is so. Is he true or fake heeler. He's so pepular I think and rich. I don't trust him..Thats all. Muchas gracias.

BH..... You, a psycho? No wonder after all this time you are showing extensive abnormal behavioral pattern. You might have pull some, regarding the borrowed materials you wrote in here, but not on this one ashole. Neil is right, get a life.

Sonny,
Bless your heart. You really need to be careful nowadays who you think a person is, either they are ministers of God or minister of the Devil. Go check the bible and see if they speak the truth and live by the truth..... God bless you.

bh I do not really care about your evolution argument. I do not think you need to show off by humiliating simplier people in a literary match of scientific theories. Regardless, of whether your right you're fighting a pointless battle. remember I said to you that for every belief and for every discovery, there will be people who do not believe it. There are people still out there who think that man never walked on the moon! yes i think evolution is right but I don't think you need to prove it to these people, they will never believe you for obvious reasons.

to Ms.Atkinson,

Minster Benni Hinm, is for real. Belive me, see much paople cured when doing heiling miracles here in Thailand. He is planeing here again soon. I will be there my withs friends cause they are ill feeling. Pray for them too, plaese. thank you.

Chloe, what makes your understanding of religion right over all others. Why is your bible the be all and end all of existence? I hate to inform you that the reasons you only accept your religion and your bible are because you have probably grown up believing in things that way. Most likely, your parents got you to believe in the form of Christianity that you do. But what makes your religion right over others? The simple answer is that it is your religion and to you, because of this, it must be right. This is why evidence to the contrary has no effect on you, and the thumper gang. But, in any case, who cares. Convincing you is of no significance. Putting it in perspective, I can just accept your ignorance for what it is (religiously based).
If you were born in China, you would not likely be a Christian, so would you then go to hell. Go to hell for the arbitrary reason of geography and the spread of memes to specific regions? Please.... What makes the Buddhists religion or the Hindu's anymore wrong than yours? Obviously, the answer once again, is the fact that it is "your" religion, so it must be right....

PS: I love all the psycho gags, really smart! Clinical psychology is one branch out of many different branches in psychology, but I suppose it is the only one the thumper gang knows of….lol

“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles”

James D. Watson

"After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings.”

Richard Dawkins

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry”

Richard Dawkins

“What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?”

Richard Dawkins

“God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture”

Richard Dawkins

Historians will have to face the fact that natural selection determined the evolution of cultures in the same manner as it did that of species.

Konrad Lorenz

The fact - not theory - that evolution has occurred and the Darwinian theory as to how it occurred have become so confused in popular opinion that the distinction must be stressed.

George G. Simpson

The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start (examining evolution), and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science-or of any honest intellectual inquiry.

Stephen Jay Gould

The more important the subject and the closer it cuts to the bone of our hopes and needs, the more we are likely to err in establishing a framework for analysis.

Stephen Jay Gould

Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty.

Stephen Jay Gould

BH,
Just be careful on what you're thinking and writing. Denying the existence of God, He will persevere, Mocking God,
You are accountable to pay. You are standing on that threshold of the point of no return. You said your view, as every one else and it's good enough. It all boils down for free thinking people to choose what to believe in.
This is not a contest of who is right or wrong. Respect peoples right to choose for themselves which belief they will base their faith on. So be it and move on. You claimed to be a highly educated man but unfortunately I've observed and proved otherwise.
Neil, Hisham and all the rest are right to say that you've tabled your salt and seems that nobody is interested in anything nor had to do about this topic and just the right time for you to give it up. Normally, Common Sense automatically prevail in this type of situation. So please show some respect to others (if you think they are deserving) but also show some self respect. Best Regards

BH,
Just be careful on what you're thinking and writing. Denying the existence of God, He will persevere, Mocking God,
You are accountable to pay. You are standing on that threshold of the point of no return. You said your view, as every one else and it's good enough. It all boils down for free thinking people to choose what to believe in.
This is not a contest of who is right or wrong. Respect peoples right to choose for themselves which belief they will base their faith on. So be it and move on. You claimed to be a highly educated man but unfortunately I've observed and proved otherwise.
Neil, Hisham and all the rest are right to say that you've tabled your salt and seems that nobody is interested in anything nor had to do about this topic and just the right time for you to give it up. Normally, Common Sense automatically prevail in this type of situation. So please show some respect to others (if you think they are deserving) but also show some self respect. Best Regards

No myth of miraculous creation is so marvelous as the face of man's evolution.

Robert Stephen Briffault

Nice side-step of the questions I gave you. Please tell me how have you have proved that I am uneducated? So far you have implied that I am a heathen, and that asked why apes cannot drive cars, how you have proven anything in your mind is a mystery to me! Hisham has asked about knowledge, but when I asked him his point and how it related to evolution, he backed off. Homer, still has not answered me on many questions and he seems to have a slective attention span. Oh yeah, you got me on the ropes...please

Nice side-step of the questions I gave you. Please tell me how have you proved that I am uneducated? So far you have implied that I am a heathen, and asked why apes cannot drive cars, how you have proven anything in your mind is a mystery to me. Hisham has asked about knowledge, but when I asked him his point and how it related to evolution, he backed off. Homer still has not answered me on many questions and he seems to have a selective attention span. Oh yeah, you got me on the ropes...please please no more! lol…pathetic!

"If it is not about right and wrong, then I will keep my right and you keep your wrong."

BH

And so be it stupid man and shut the fuck up!!!

Everyone is sick of you asshole. Nobody is interested in your issue anymore, so Get lost.

Okay BH are you satistied. You have made many in here look foolish. If that is your calling in life, then great. but making the people in here look foolish is not that hard to do, so don't give yourself too much credit.

People neil? People is plural. I am beginning to wonder if this whole time I have been discussing with one, perhaps 2. In which case people is correct, though I still believe far fewer than it would appear. I think there are far more names than there are people.

BH,
I'm keeping track of the comments written in this blog for sometime now, and can't hold myself anymore not to write my own. I do think you did your best forward to "lecture" everyone regarding this trash, but in the end you make a fool of yourself. Darwin's writings and books about this theory is as good as anybody else toilet paper. Whoever believed in this garbage have low mentality, including all your so called experts, researcher and scientist (propagating this theory), you ever want to mention are in the same group. What is Ph.D's and Doctorate titles?...... they are just stupid titles and does not reflect of who holds it. Like yourself, the best sample, claiming to have a degree in "Psychology" (????), indicates otherwise. People I commend rightfully to have this titles are same who commands "self respect" and respect for others. YOU DON'T HAVE SELF-RESPECT, buddy and that's alright for me and the rest. At least in this world we live in, everyone with right mind can easily see and notice all the fools around them. There are only two kinds of people in this world, the wits and the fools, which you belong to the later. And so buddy, move on playing the role and the whole world will be listening and entertained.

Hey guys, back to the topic of Benny Hinn. I'm confused what this man is all about, specially regarding his background. Somewhat, he is claiming being jewish but informations I'm getting online and others sources indicates he is Greek or even Armenian. Could someone give some light about this matter. Thanks

Oh, I don’t know what makes these titles so respectable? Let’s see...hmmmmmmmmm... Many professionals such as Doctor’s and Specialists are performing life saving work. Do you deny the science that allows you to live the life that you do. The computer you write on is built on the work of computer science. You are the fool. You selectively deny science- rest on it when you like and deny it when you don't like it. Honestly, how can you be so out of touch to claim that expert’s opinions are wrong? Who the hell are you‘ll you no nothing of the mathematics behind evolution. What have experts done, experts in their respective fields are mapping genomes, curing illness with new vaccines, performing life saving surgeries. It is of no surprise that most scientifically versed folk accept evolution.

You likely are one the same fools that has been writing under other names. I highly doubt that you are a new- comer- having heard your piece, bad English is an all too often reoccurrence. I think you are one of the ones that have been licked in some of the arguments above. In any case, you are likely a creationist if you do not accept evolution. It is quite odd that most people who deny evolution are creationists. There is nothing to the creationist “theory”; it holds no water at all. Furthermore, it does not even qualify as a theory and it has even less evidence to support it…I wonder why?

Oh yeah, and just so you know: Evolution is fact, its proposed mechanism- (Darwin’s Natural Selection) the one you creationists like to confuse with it, is the theory. How convenient of you to overlook that...lol… You should stay in your cave.

Ignore the statement above. This psycho loves to play the role of a fool and a comedian. So everytime he writes something in this blog, don't respond. I would request everyone to just type in with this symbol....":) :) :)" ..... because it is very entertaining. We will not play this game of his anymore. Poor asshole, never want to give up. Here BH......:) :) :) , again stupid boy, move on and find a life.

Here BH.......:) :) :), up yours dumb wit....find a life.

Here is my theory: the thumper gang I am fighting with is all one person. Here is my reasoning: many of the major players in this debate keep changing, but the grammar and spelling is equally bad; the smiley face has been used by Helena Portofino, homer, Neil ratman, and hisham. Looks like you’re the "one" who needs to get a life. You’re done...give up; you lost miserably if I may add... :)

:) :) :) get a life!!!!!!

" Do you not know that every religion in the world has declared every other religion a fraud? Yes, we all know it. That is the time all religions tell the truth -- each of the other." -

- Robert Ingersoll, from a lecture titled "hereafter"

:) :) :), get a life!!!!

My heart breaks for those who are yet to know the relationship with Christ I thank Him for.

Hell is not just a word, it is a place reserved for all who reject Christ.

My heart breaks for those who are there already, who wish with all their heart they would have listened to that christian they met before their last breath breathed.

My heart breaks for those who break God's heart, day after day, who are unable to grasp His tender fatherly heart.

Its not about us, or Benny, its about Christ in us, its about that joy of His salvation that we as babes in Him felt at that first moment we accepted Him as our Lord and Saviour.

Its pointless to argue with or belittle those who are still blinded and have closed ears (2 Cor 4.4), we who know Him just need to simply say thankyou Father for revealing your Son to me, now I pray you will reveal youself to my friend, my family, etc.

Let us who know Christ, observe His greatest commandment, to love one another as He first loved us, His love that conquers all hate.

How the Father's heart broke (Gensis) when he looked down at His creation and knew only Noah's family would survive - how any father's heart would break to wipe out a child he helped breathe life into at conception.

We cannot change others, only ourself, as we press on to have Christ in us change us, then we can shine as beacons of light, dying to our carnal nature daily, being salt to a dying hellbound creation of those without His salvation.

Who do we think we are in our hautiness of words, isnt this what God hates Proverbs 6?

Let us be ruled in our actions, words and conscience by the Holy Spirit, let us children of God press on to become more like our High Priest, Jesus Christ, who knew what it was like to be human, in our lostness when hope seemed impossible we found His light of salvation.

Benny is God's son, God's business not ours, we can trust God, He is sovreign, not us.

Let us remember, the Father's heart that broke, let us feel the heartbreak of the Son and Father being separated as He took the sins of the world upon His shoulders on the cross of Calvary.

Its His gospel not ours, let our service in Him, be like Him, a servant, for all who are yet to know His love.

Romans 10.9

Good Stuff....Hmm, something different to ponder. thanks

I guess you better pray for all the Chinese people and all the Hindu people and all the Jews. They do not believe in Jesus Christ as you do. If you were born there (in one of their countries) you likely wouldn't either. You think your religion is right ( the only salvation), just as they do. I think they are all wrong (Just different memes).
You should not speak of having closed ears. You would never change your belief despite all the evidence to the contrary. At least science is adaptive to the evidence.

PS: Nothing there to ponder, simply nothing there…

All those who do not include Christ in their beliefs are going to hell? All the Chinese, are going to hell for the arbitrary reason of geographic location? That is quite a bold statement and one that is fitting for someone who thinks that Christianity is the only answer.

:) :) :), get a life BH.

I don't want to get too involved in this conversation, but I wonder what you mean by "all the Chinese." There are actually more Christians in the Southern hemisphere than in the Northern, and more Christians in China than there are in the US. India is experiencing a similar phenomenon. It's growing at a steady rate in the non-Western world, whereas it's declining here in the West.

Also, I'll boldly direct you to my sister's blog for a thoughtful, balanced view on science and religion (hopefully she won't mind):
http://heiders.chattablogs.com/archives/027879.html

You’re missing the point. The point is that there are so many religions. Many of them do not accept Christ for arbitrary reasons. Are they to go to hell for the simple reason that a Christian meme is not supported by their country men? It is plain ignorance, and perhaps a little naivety on the part of hard core Christian fundamentalists to assume that their way is the only way. The existence of religion is an almost universal phenomenon and one is not any more correct than another. The only reasons you say any different is because you support your religion because it is your own. How interesting that that in itself is an arbitrary reason.

PS: Your sister's blog does not concern me. She likely is not a credible source anyway. Thanks for the offer though.

So BH, am I supposed to accept your way of thinking? After all, what you're saying seems pretty absolute to me. So I guess I should embrace your way of thinking, especially since you're a "credible source."

No, you can accept what you will. I accept science because it is responsive to evidence and is molded by evidence, while religion is not. Many religions are different and they often only accept there “own” unchangeable narrow accounts. Religion is not molded to evidence and it is not responsive in light of new evidence like science.
Secondly, "my thinking" above is not illogical in the sense that it reflects the truth: Would you not agree that there are many different religions? With that in mind, would you not agree that it is a little naive on your part that out of all the "religions", yours is the only right one?

I am talking science, not religion, so yes; when I talk about evolution I believe that it is more absolute. (That is my opinion and it is the same with most scientists)

PS: No, I am not a credible source, but I have credible sources instead of my sister.

Yah, yah yah, :) :) :), get a life.
By the way your initial BH means Bastard Homo.

Keep your fucking absolute to yourself asshole, and die with it okay!!!!

:) :) :) :) :) :) Bravo Neil, Bravo. You gave him the absolute crap in his face.

To summed up of the Theory of Evolution is evaluated this way:

Evolution = Absolute Deception
= Absolute Lie
= Absolute Stupidity
= Absolute Trash
therefore: ABSOLUTE NONSENSENSE

And whoever believed in this garbage are "absolutely" deceived, gullible, idiot and no brainer.

It is interesting that you cannot address my responses to you Helena. All you can say is that evolution is absolute garbage. Well, you can say that all you like. In my mind the Religious account for the origin of man has many more holes in it than the scientific theory of evolution. Everything just suddenly appeared out of thin air, lol...okay you can continue to believe that "garbage". I will stick with the side of the argument where there is actual progress and the side that is making other discoveries (Science). You can cling to your garbage, and not even theoretical account. The truth is, anything that you thumpers do not want to hear, you simply ignore. That's fine, but you have no argument, only slander and ignorance, and perhaps down-home, southern-drawl stupidity.

Please, by all means helena, point out the major players who started this lie of evolution. You think that it is some major conspiracy against religion huh? That's a joke, and rather hypocritical in the sense that religon itself is a infectious meme that spreads through culture and infects the minds of its followers.

:) :) :) :) :) , GET A LIFE!!!!!!

Helena you're the girl!!!!!

:) :) :) :) :) BH, get a life, you miserable twit!!!!!!!

Now your talking to yourself. Your're pathetic man.

Your all one person, maybe 2. Looks like your the one with multiple personalities!

BH....
For Pete sake, bloody bloke, you lost it big time, long time ago. Everyone in here are right, get a life :) :) :) :) .....and keep your absolute crap to yourself. Until now you're still clueless and didn't got the drift. What level of mentallity do you have?. NOBODY need your piece of shit anymore, psycho! :) :) :) :) and shut the fuck up my boy............

Okay, Okay I give up. You all win. What about changing the topic about myself being gay. I've mentioned earlier that I'm not a closet gay anymore. I'm happy to proclaim to the world world that I'm absolutely free from guilt nor shame. I will fight to the end every right and protection I have in the eyes of the law, you hypocrites want to eradicate. You can use your twisted religious influence to most government leaders but in the end We will prevail.

Hey, I'm back. I'm away for a while and just checkin how's things. Looks like BH finally gave up about this assinine theory and in for another wacko topic. Man, this wanker is incredible. So thick, he/she doesn't mind to be ridiculed at all. I like to meet this person. He/she, I understand is from up north, and Canada which have liberal oriented laws, so I would not be surprised. People are nice though and even accomodating. It's a beautiful country as ours. Oh, I need to go. See you all soon.
Anyways, best regard to all

Yeah, Like that post above was me... and like tony is someone new.. I'm so sure! I haven't given up on anything. In case you forget, your the one who has no argument and cannot address anything but your low maturity level.

Hello BH,
I'm a University student here in Tampa, Florida, doing thesis regarding church's influence on state laws. I would like to know more about gay/lesbian rights there in Canada. I understand it's legal to get married for gays and lesbian almost anywhere in the country except one or two provinces and just like to know which provinces are these. Tell me also sorts of other laws you have, when it comes to adopting children. I'm doing a research in my class about gay rights and protection in different countries of the world. My email address is hheit@yahoo.com. Maybe you can help. Thank you

Get back in the closet, stupid pervert and I'll shut those doors permanently.

Get back in the closet, stupid pervert and I'll shut those doors permanently.

BH, here is a great website for you www.khouse.org if you would like to give an audience to finding debate on Evolution.

It is no ones place to judge you for the lifestyle you choose to live, that is your choice. Romans 1 will give you God's opinion in case you would like to read this, again this is your choice, its good to read God's perspective on being gay.

As for all other religions v. Christ, all other God's are dead, Jesus is alive, He died and rose again, I have a relationship with a living God, and His promises in the Bible are available for everyone, Romans 10.9.

God never forced me to love Him, I chose to love Him, He knew me before I was born, that really amazed me when I read this Psalm 139, as I was an illegitamate child, and after reading this I realised that God knew the circumstances I would be born into.

In hindsight, He put much into place before I was born, and placed many people in my pathway that helped me to find Him when I was lost in a lifestyle that was leading me nowhere, I had no hope, until I found His love, it changed my lifestyle, more importantly, His love changed my heart.

Now I dont want to offend you with 'my opinion' but I will pray you give God a chance to introduce Himself to you, He loves you more than anyone ever will, and when I discovered that, not just in my head, but felt it in my heart, it was a great day.

For those of us who know Christ, please remember this scripture, 'When we walk past the least of them (those who we think are below us - which is pride), we are really walking past Him (Christ - for he created those we haughtily think are 'hopeless').

Jesus came for the lost, let us remember we are His servants, let us act like our Father, God, let us remember we cannot do God's work with the devil's tools (pride and arrogance).

Jesus died our sinners, and we are one of those people, let us thank God we had the common sense to accept His love and His promises, and until those around us find this truth, please remember our greatest weapon for them is love, and our prayers.

Yeah you refer me to a Christian website, what a surprise...lol Sorry, but I do not think people who have a motivational reason to reject evolution or, for that matter anything scientific discovery that is in conflict with their “belief” are credible sources. I also think you are naive to believe that your "god" is the only god. As I said, if you were born in another country, you very likely could have a different religion and that reason would be arbitrary yet powerful enough to show you that your belief is also arbitrary. The only reason you only accept your religion, is because it is yours and nothing more. You are so closed minded to the possibility that other religions are of equal value and of equal truthfulness. There is no point in arguing with you, you are too far gone.

Considering who is too far gone, it's you BH. So get a life :) :) :) :) :)

Just like your fucking evolution religion, your conception of people from other countries are full of assumption, pressumption, conjectures and suppositions. Who do you think you are fucking homo, a mind reader? Get a fucking life, idiot.

Hi BH, its ok, I accept you for who you are and your choices.

I will pray for you, God changes hearts, not us.

Regardless of our differences, you are a human being, and you deserve the same love and respect as anyone I know.

I guess as a child, I remember seeing the evolution of 'apes to humans' on the blackboard, and as that small child, it just didnt make sense.

This is how I reasoned it, if an artist has paintings in a competition, lets say he/she has five or so scattered amongst others, there is someone similar that stands out in each of that artists work, that artist has its own particular signature.

Thats how I see God's artwork, each creation He made, be it animal or human, they include the essentials, eyes, ears, noses, mouths etc.

BH, who was father that let you down, who was father that didnt hold you...who was the overbearing mother that scared you away from experiencing a woman's love?

The one thing we all long for is love, and acceptance, and approval, that is what I found in my Father's love, my earthly father rejected, but who rejected him?

From one generation to another, the cyle goes on, there comes a time, as I looked at others whose lives werent perfect, but handled the storms of life better than I, ...for my generations I wanted to break the cycle of my past generations.

Be at peace BH, you are loved.

Hisham, you are an idiot. I am not making assumptions about other country men. As far as I know, it is a fact that there are people in other countries with other religions, is it not? If you think that is an assumption then what would you consider factual? Hisham, or Neil, or Arantxa, perhaps you are homer also, it is quite hypocritical of you to say that evolution is built on assumptions, presumptions and conjecture when the meme you cling to is built on those things and to an even greater degree. After all, it requires pushing logic aside to accept that each organism just appeared out of thin air. Have not seen any proof for that claim beyond the “hearsay” and “conjecture” of the bible. It takes a lot of assumptions to accept that the “stories” in the bible have any real credible testimony behind them…please, you should examine the large holes in your boat before commenting on the small ones in mine…get my drift moron?

Homer, AKA Prophetess, it is not surprising that you cannot address a response in reference to my claim of your naivety. I guess to you Christianity is the only religion that is right, all the rest are frauds, but if one of them (the religions you deny) were yours, surly the one you have now would be a fraud to you. Do you not see the arbitrary factors that are responsible for your rejection of other religions and acceptance of your own specific Christian one?

I apologized to everyone whom I offended. It's hard to control myself speaking out my mind. This the result of a rough growing-up during my childhood years and many painful experiences at the hands of adult relatives who maltreated me. So you see my personality is not that great when it comes to dealing with people, specially those whom I feel are against things that I think are right. Thank you Prophetess for the warm comfort and acceptance you gave back to me inspite of my harshness and unkindly treatment I put on you and everyone else. I do realized now that I can't change myself on my own but with some outside force that I'm still struggling to recognized. Please pray for me if this thing really work. Thank you again

What kind of freaking animal you are BH? You do have multi-personality. Huh, this is amazing. Being a stupid evolutionist, is bad enough. Being a faggot, is worst enough, but having multi-personality is exceptionally dangerous. Well folks, this is what we are dealing with. An idiot. This is a sick, mentally incapacitated person. Just ignore and don't respond to any of this moron's blog. Somebody already started on how to? Best regards to all.

... quote by BH...

I apologized to everyone whom I offended. It's hard to control myself speaking out my mind. This the result of a rough growing-up during my childhood years and many painful experiences at the hands of adult relatives who maltreated me... end quote.

Your honesty humbled me.

You made me realise that I should have told you before I recommeded the website above (www.khouse.org), forgive me, this was unintentional.

This website, is for gay people especially, with wonderful real stories about people seeking God who are gay.

http://www.exodus-international.org/testimonials_left_homosexuality.shtml

Remember for me BH, you are unique, wonderfully and marvellously made, no one can take away that from you.

I will certainly pray as you mentioned above.

away for the weekend,
Prophetess

Prophetess and/or the person who has taken Neil's name: You are likely well aware that those annoying and constant posts are not written by me. First of all, I never said I was gay (for the record, I’m not) and secondly, it is clear that you have not the wit to argue because every one of your redundant responses is filled with the same message. Until you can intellectually address the conversation, I will ignore you. I will also continue to ignore the pathetic schoolyard antics of the person who likes to write in my name... it is pathetic. It also highlights the type of person that you are. In my mind, I am more of a Christian than you (whoever you are) and that is not saying much for your Christianity because I do not consider myself to be one at all. You like to discriminate and slander, that is not Christian, that is just ignorant. But I suppose if you are ignorant of the conversation I raise, you are also ignorant in general. Your school yard name calling has no effect on me. It only makes me laugh and think I must be arguing with someone who is immature and not intelligent enough to address the issue. So it appears since no one can address the actual conversation instead of saying I am gay, or that I will be prayed for, that I have one the debate. The antics you have fallen back on show that “you” have nothing left in the tank. You lost the debate….Perhaps this is the end of our discussion…In any case, until there actually is one, I give you my best, oh, wait, no I don’t….

Who give a shit to all the garbage you wrote in here. Nobody is interested in your stupid evolution religion from the very beginning and no one ever will. SO FUCK OFF.

Not religion...Science, once again for the record.

:) :) :) :) :) :)

To the pure, all thing are pure , but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted...... Titus 1 : 15

BH ......i see your still in here slugging away this blog has become rather humerous its really hard to tell whose who i thought you had written the im gay thing. but anyway when you speak of christianity it is in essense only a word. or shall i say has only become a word.but you cannot judge all people by what they claim they claim christian bewcause that is the identifier or phraseology of a set of beliefs. it is true that there are many beliefs and depending on the region in the world you live in you ussually fall into whatever you are brought into i have alot of problems with what religion is or has progressed into i guess even schools of thoughts evolve ehhh. but my point being anything can be taken and used contorted and contrived this is true in religion and in science it is only as accurate as the person preforming the work which i think you will agree. as in religion it is only as believable as far as you put your faith into it. but my friend alot of things in the bible are as yet unproven as they are in science. as religion is a set of rules and values. so is science and for you to say that it is not a religion is crazy for as i have stated before it does not matter which way you practice your religion ie your personnal way of expressing your faith it is still none the less practicing as form of rules and thoughts held by a few who have told you or have found theses ideals to have a basis of truth but as religious beliefs throughout time have changed and become other religions, so has the science aas new things or new shools of thought have come to be the main form of belief and once again as in religion the unseen is not proof of the nonexistence of a certain form of life or energy if you wish to put into those terms. so i think for you to fully dismiss the beliefs of god purely on the fact that it cannot as of yet be proven in the same breath one must say that also it has not been disproven by the same token. and so as with science the lack of data or proof has not stopped you from believing in your "science" because science believes one day they will find the answers. so do the christians who believe in god.so it is in this context that i think you have found the falibility of science as far as its inability to believe in something greater than themselves but can believe in the something from nothing theory. which my friend i see that you still refuser to explore as you said that evolution has nothing to do whith how things came to be ...but my friend are your ever wrong for to say that you cannot know the begging is to say that it matters not how it came to be but only is (which is a big christian belief) (that god just was and we dont question it)but in order to fully understand something you must know from wenst it came or how it came for in these things are the secrets you scientist are trying to find. the answers you want. and i find it a little short sighted on your behalf not to aknowledge this but it is fact that you cannot explain how the order that this is is or has become started or what forces created the forces that hold it all in check you may quote all the scientists all you want but in this point they have nothing.and make no joke it does matter how this happened for if you can explain how it happened then maybe you can create the process again . on some other planet. i saw a show where in order to go to other planets the need a refuleing zone somewhere ie the moon and the believe if there is water or ice in the dark cold places in the crater then they can use the water and break it down to make fuel from the hydrogen to refuel a ship to carryon into space this is just the basic point of the theory but they are working on it. but if to make my point can figure out how these things laws the rules what made certain gasses combine to form oxzgen and helium etc etc. can you see the possibilities that this hold but my friend they can acknowledge these forces but cannot account for them nor can they explain them and i know your repsonce will be it is not proof of god but at the same time it gived no disproof of a god or a supreme form of energy all this just did not form from nothing bh it had to come from somewhere you must acknowledge this but in my humble oppinoin you cannot run around just saying oh its here so who cares lets just deal whith what we can somewhat explain. and lets face it all the thoughts on evolution really are just thoughts and theories still waiting to be proven and that is the drive of scientists to be the one that finds the missing link. which still has not been found but this is true if you have this being that is this way and for milllions of years it changes you must have fossill records of it that you can relate to this with out a dought which science cannot do and you must admit this point they cannot say with out a dought that this is the relative of that and after this this was the next stage they are still speculating on this point and theorizing on it. it is not as they say concrete.and so i pose my theory in close maybe things did at the time of creation evolve and man was created as well as all theese other ape monkey like creatures alike but yet different but man was made with better atrributes wich allowed him to survive as the other monkey or ape like creatures did not as man progressedhe would naturally push theese monkey men further out into differnt territories into new enviroment some surrvived as the monkeys and apes of today but the others died out and became exstinct as a complete and different species other than man himself but man was better smarter and could adapt the earth to suit his need why does there have to be a progression from dumb ape to smart man. scientists like to use the family tree example and so will i you have the initialseed that it all comes from but take that seed as one that forms into many like twins or quads etc these are the roots just as some brother or sisters coming from the same parents have different attributes so would the spawn from the seed ie intelligence and other attributes such as strenth health etc. ok so know you have the roots wich are seperates but follow up the same path of existence this is now the trunk the strait line that is meerly the time span of all their exiestences thus far but at some point you get braches now this is seperation but not from the same species just of the differnt groups that were spawned from the one life force(seed)and from the differnt branches as hey branch out some continue as other die out but from one branch you get other branches ie different humans such as chinese, because they migraded to that region and for what ever reason got the attributes that we call or acossiate with them and the same for aficans and eskimo etc. etc.so thatis my closing arguement and theory so what do you think what is wrong with theory it both allows for things to evolve once created and allows for the creator. regards..and as always god bless... robert... and im still just me. im real

Robert,
I feel that we have been down this road before. You like to play the origin of the first life card to fight my arguments about evolution, this simply does not work. As I have said: Evolution is the process for the “progression of life”, not the start of life. It is simply a different argument that is irrelevant to mine and therefore irrelevant to the discussion, (well, in least in terms of evolution). It is unfortunate for you and your fellow creationist members that your argument cannot be used against evolution but can in fact be used against the belief that God exists. What I mean is that you claim there must be a starting point, that you cannot get something from nothing. Well then how did God come to be, what of his origin? Even an almighty dive spirit capable of transcending time needs a starting point. Did another God create your God, no, because someone would have been needed to create him and someone in turn would be needed to create him, and on and on to infinite. Get my point? If you cannot get something from nothing, where did your God come from?

Secondly, I honestly do not know why you claim that the scientific theory of evolution is a religion. Look up the definitions of the two words (religion/ theory) and the meanings they hold. A religion is: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. A religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. While a theory is a: well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

As you can see the scientific theory of evolution holds no belief in supernatural explanations as religions do. Evolution is a theory not a religion, and the two terms are greatly different in terms of meaning. Religious folk are hesitant to change their belief system (religion) while evolutionists do not wish evolution to be that way, or for it to exist at all for that matter. They find it is in accordance with evidence and scientific standards are benchmarks for credibility in evidence. Religions are not subject to strict standards for their beliefs to be held true. The theory of evolution requires its evidence to be found in studies that: 1.) can be reproduced in other studies, 2.) must be falsifiable, 3.) must use controls in study to protect from the influence of extraneous variables 4.) Upon falsification can be thrown out in favor of a new theory, 5.) Holds no beliefs in the super natural.
Religions, not theories have followers who believe in the face of little supporting and greater un-supporting evidence. If the theory of evolution was falsified, it would be thrown out in place of a better composite of reality. People who believe in a religion are obviously not going to throw their belief out the window, no matter how false it seems. Furthermore, no theories make unfalsifiable claims, that is, how science is. Religions do, on the other hand, they believe in what is unfalisfiable and therefore, in what is not subject to real evidence and strict theoretical standards verbatim. The theory of evolution is simply the way the evidence seems to point, not the way its followers particularly want it to point, while religions are the way they are regardless of evidence. You see Robert, because evolution is a scientific theory it is not a religion. Clearly the terms theory and religion are two different things, if you cannot see that now I would be surprised.

Lastly, you claim to use the argument that some of your statements are not evidence for God, but they are also not evidence against him. Well, evidence that is not for or against something is not evidence. Saying that a particular argument is not evidence against God makes no difference. I mean, many arguments contain no evidence against particular statements but that is irrelevant in determining whether one should believe a particular statement or not. The fact is, the reason your reasoning is correct, that many of your claims are not evidence against God is only for the arbitrary reason that the particular evidence you are addressing is not related to the existence or non-existence of God, not because there is merit in the belief God exists.I mean I could say that looking at land on the earth from the ground up is not evidence against the world being flat , but that is still irrelevant to whether it is or not.

Bloody hell, you're still here apeman!!!Get a Life :) :) :) :) :)

Of course I am still here. The question is why are you? You cannot offer anything to the conversation. All you do is right "get a life". You could probably train an ape to type those 7 characters in that order: "GET A LIFE". How does it feel to be even with an ape for intellect?
Honestly, why do you bother, you have no argument at all. Clearly, you do not beleive in mine. Too bad you are too stupid to address anything. Finish school then will talk, okay?

Yes fuck off Asshole, Get a life !!!!! :) :) :)

:) :) :) :) :) Such a loser you are BH. So thick and no shame. You are not funny at all and a no brainer. Being Gay and an Evolutionist really makes a dangerous mix...a highly explosive enchalada. Your initials as expected says it all..."B"loody "H"ellbound. :( :( :( :( :(

Could be Bloody Homo!!!!. :) :) :) :)

For the Lord gives wisdom, and from His mouth come knowledge and understanding... Proverbs 2:6

Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse... Proverbs 2:12

But the way of the wicked is liked deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble...Proverbs 4:19

The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him; the cords of his sin hold him fast.
He will die for lack of discipline, led astray by his own great folly...Proverbs 5:22&23

Allelujah... Praise the Lord !!!!!!!!!

This is just my point. All the posts above since my last one are written by the same person. From this "one" person there are two approaches: 1.) Ignore it and say "get a life and that I am gay” (oddly enough when I never said I was-perhaps a little projection there on your part?; .2) To quote bible verses and spout off biblical jargon (some of which is open to ones individual interpretation) in an attempt to some how prove Gods existence.

Interesting that no “one” could address by questions above. Anrantxa, David, homer, hisham, yourbustedbh, are all the same person, while Neil and Glen have had their name falsely used by the same person, along with my own name in a pathetic attempt to fight back. But this is just immature crap of no consequence. I could care less about your intellectually impoverished statements and behavior. I mean really...come on, saying I am gay is a pathetic schoolyard insult and saying get a life perhaps an earlier appearing verse in grade school. Perhaps "you" should get a life and perhaps "you" should seek therapy for your multiple personality and other dissociative disorders.