News24

Anti-evolution 'equals' apartheid

2012-03-12 10:16

Cape Town - If people oppose evolution as a science, they are expressing support for discrimination, an author and science educator has said.

"My baseline statement is: If you are against evolution, you are pro-apartheid. If you still think the South African population is divided up into races, not ecotypes, races and they are different from one another based on racial characteristics... you are ignoring evolution totally," Dr Jurie van den Heever, a palaeontologist at Stellenbosch University told News24.

He was responding to news that teachers at some schools refused to teach evolution in life science classes as prescribed by the department of education in its policy documentation.

Van den Heever also conducts programmes at the university where teachers are educated and given skills to present lessons on evolution.

He said that the stance against evolution is a legacy of apartheid policy that sought to classify people into specific groups.

Background

"I'm an Afrikaner and I come from the Dutch Reformed background and I tried to unravel this whole thing. Evolution was outlawed from the school curriculum under the auspices of the Christelike Nasionale Onderwys.

"Today, we still have lots of people and specifically teachers with baggage - that kind of baggage - throwing a shadow on evolution."

According to the department of education Caps (Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement) document for life sciences, learners at school are to be taught about the history of life on Earth in grade 10, culminating in human evolution in grade 12.

However, the document also recommends two weeks for learners to be taught about alternatives to evolution, including creationism and intelligent design.

The document specifies "different cultural and religious expalanations for the origin and development of life on Earth" (sic).

Van den Heever said that the legacy of the past when politics informed the religious belief system and it has continued to have an influence in education.

"The Dutch Reformed Church developed into a Volkskerk, in other words, the Volkskerk is informed by the politics of the day. The church does not inform the politics... it became an inverted situation because of political connotations.

"In the various churches, people still view evolution with some suspicion," he added.

The South African constitution guarantees freedom of religion and permits observance of religious services at state institutions, on condition that attendance is "free and voluntary".

Constitution

"Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities; they are conducted on an equitable basis; and attendance at them is free and voluntary," says section 15 of the Bill of Rights.

Van den Heever doesn't believe that schools are deliberately contravening the teaching of evolution, but warned that they may, through their omission, be in conflict with the constitution.

"Schools that are not complying with the department of education and not teaching evolution or teaching a specific kind of religion in maths or biology class are actually contravening the grondwet [constitution].

"I don't think that the schools actually refuse to teach it [evolution], I think it has to do probably with individual teachers or individual headmasters because the school can't do it."


- Follow Duncan on Twitter

Comments
  • Ann - 2012-03-12 10:29

    OH NO, not another idiot blaming Apartheid,

      NrGx - 2012-03-12 15:30

      all be it ridiculous for this guy to liken the denial of evolution to apartheid, I think he has a point. I for one dont believe in "the word", as stated below, because it was written by MAN, I dont believe in a god, its just name MAN gave the higher power (yes I said it, a higher power). Meaning a power we are yet to understand, and the bible certainly doesnt give me the answers Im looking for. And besides, who says that science isnt just reveling the beauty of design that this higher power (To bible bashers: "God") has created and is creating on a daily basis? How can you not believe in evolution when it is all around you. We, humans, are evolving, be is it as it may, not our bodies as time has perfected that, but in mind. We grow smarter, wiser every century...how can you deny that that is not evolution?

      Morne - 2012-03-12 17:45

      Evolution - ape becomes man!? With all these missing links inbetween ape and man, it just makes me wonder how incorrect this view of evolution is, so i ask you; we still have apes and humans, so where has all the missing links gone too? Life is more mysterious than we think!

      Dirk - 2012-03-13 04:56

      I fully agree with this delusional character that there is a lot of ignorance about evolution, particularly amongst those who are presenting it as fact. They should be prosecuted for fraud. Millions, including scientists around the world, totally disagrees with VD Heever and those like minded individuals. For him to suggest otherwise, is blatant dishonesty and perhaps a reflection of that groups determination to force these unproven theories down everyones throat as fact. These unproven theories are not only rejected by Christian, but also many secular scientists. Parents should stand firm and not allow their kids to be taught fables as fact under the guise of educational integrity.How VD Heever equates evolution with apartheid, is beyond belief and it should raise serious questions about his motives and his integrity as a scientist. Its emotional and political blackmail.

      Romano - 2012-03-13 08:11

      HE did not blame apartheid he said it is like apartheid, please dont mix the words in your head and make your own sentence

      Francois Swiegers - 2012-03-13 09:53

      “They should be prosecuted for fraud. “ Well, Dirk, you have access to the justice system like everyone else. Why don’t you give it a go?

      Paul - 2012-03-13 11:29

      @DelusionBuster You mention the fossil record , ok so explain why the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and the total lack of transitional fossils in the record? please note that you can copy and paste as much as you like but do remember this, for every google paste you come up with I can paste one that refutes yours, and let me tell you that many prominent paleontologist express the view that the fossil record does not support evolution, so please lay off the "IGNORANT" insults!!

      Elton - 2012-03-13 11:41

      @ Paul : Science is not copy and paste. He is right there are hundreds of thousands of scientific peer reviewed research papers proving evolution. There is not ONE disproving it. Getting a scientific peer reviewed research paper published is extremely difficult. I am a scientist, it took me 6 years to get one paper published.

      Dirk - 2012-03-13 11:59

      Paul- Well said. Delusion harps on the same tune repeatedly, but he is bound and committed to do so as a declared atheist and blasphemer. If he looses a grip of the deceit, as he has in the eyes of every objective thinking person, he will have to admit that there is a Creator. The "peer reviewed researched articles by the worlds leading scientists", he refers to, is a fallacy. These are mostly lying and deceiving atheists, many who promote and hold on to the deception, to justify their atheism, more than a commitment to academic integrity. Many scientists, Christians and secular, reject these theories. Dont allow them to sell you snake oil.

      Paul - 2012-03-13 12:10

      @DelusionBuster & Elton Out of the horses mouth!!! The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species Delusional ...take a long hard look at the wikipedia list you supplied ...think about it ....millions of spicies, 100million plus fossils in museums ... and that's the best you can come up with ??????? One more post. Harvard professor Stephen J. Gould is famous for declaring that transition fossils are lacking, so evolution must have occurred in rapid spurts (by mysterious genetic mechanisms) separated by long periods of stasis. He called this concept "punctuated equilibrium." This was his attempt to cope with the absence of transitions above the level of created kinds: Delusion ...I suppose you're going to say these men are ...IGNORANT ...LOL !!!

      Paul - 2012-03-13 13:00

      @Meme Yes don't harp on, you pick and choose very selectively to try and prove your point, as I told delusional ...go and take a good hard look at his wikipedia list ... its a joke ... mostly drawings and even the real fossils on the list are disputed ...not by me but by other scientists ...getting back to your selective harping on ... what do you have to say about what Harvard professor Stephen J. Gould has to say , he comes from our times ... check him out here , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould Concerning the absurdity of my statement ...coming from someone that feels the need to put up a picture of Albert Einstein as their profile pic speaks volumes, you see I can't prove that MY GOD exists and I won't even try to, but you atheists feel the need to prove your theories are fact ...PROVEN FACT ...all the while knowing fully that you can't, so when someone debates your theories with you, you resort to ridicule and insults to pretend that you have all the answers ... you DON't !!! just like I DON"t !!!

      Schmee - 2012-03-13 13:02

      And Ann is already bored with all the responses because in the first place she did not even understand the newpaper article and now with all these comments it's way way over her head.

      Rudi - 2012-03-13 15:20

      MeMe Y U no nice to christians?

      Bharath - 2012-03-13 15:54

      Elton and his kind lack common intelligence and are infected with biased theories! Evolution has never and will never be SCIENTIFICALLY proven ! There is no scientific EVIDENCE - only a bunch of so-called scientists who have "written" theories on evolution. These so-called "peer reviewed papers" are utter diatripe comprimising of THEORY papers POSTULATING evolution and not PROVING evolution. Since evolution cannot be proven scientifically it will always remain a THEORY ! It is junk science ! No verifiable tests can scientifically prove that evolution can occur or has ever occured - hence evolution will never be SCIENCE, rather remain a THEORY - forever ! All evolutionists are a bunch of atheists or small minded fools who have not bothered to read past the intellectual verbiage which is actually equal to garbage. No apeman ever produced a human being no matter how many millions of years you give it, it is scientifically impossible. Go suck on some dry decaying bones !

      Morne - 2012-03-13 16:48

      @DB & Meme, so please tell me from what species of ape do you belong too?

      Dirk - 2012-03-13 18:58

      Delusional- You are clearly losing the argument here and coming up with an exaggerated claims.When I called you that, I was complimenting you. I have not yet insulted you.

      billxhosa - 2012-03-13 20:57

      @meme I totally agree your arguments but I see lots of thumbs down. Those thumbs down represent people stuck to a way of thinking that is going to doom SA. It's too bad because it was a nice country to visit.

      Prom - 2012-03-14 01:06

      @Meme: You have no idea what you are talking about just like everyone else that blames religion for apartheid. If you knew anything about our history you would know that apartheid was instigated by the British when they insisted blacks don't get voting right as part of the treaty to end the war. Makes me doubt that you can have a grasp on the "facts" of evolution. @DelusionBuster: Go read your wikigod again. Humans ARE classified as apes. So your statements are dead wrong. @Paul: Well said mate. From all those thousands of peer-reviewed articles that don't all deal with evolution specifically none of them can prove it. What's interesting is that not one paper has ever considered if it is true and "everybody" has merely just accepted it as fact as time went on. How's that for ignorance and delusional? "What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way." ;)

      Karien - 2012-03-14 02:26

      Dirk - You called DelBuster a "blasphemer" and you suggested that he is a blatant liar in the way he puts his points supporting evolution. You also said that he, and the rest of us like him, should not be allowed to sell "snake oil". Now you claim that you had meant it all as a compliment and that you didn't insult him? You got what you deserved.

      Sunshine - 2012-03-14 04:35

      Karien, welcome to the Dirk & Bharath Show.

      Dirk - 2012-03-14 04:51

      Delusion does not have his origins in an ape- he has a proud lineage from the blue fly. Karien, sunshine- If you translate into English, I shall respond. What I did say to delusional, was that I did not insult him when I called him what he suggested- those were compliments. If I intended to insult him, it would have been worse.

      Deus - 2012-03-14 05:53

      http://tribalinsight.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/i-want-to-believe.jpg ...in evolution

      Paul - 2012-03-14 09:17

      @Meme You can aspire to be like Einstein as much as you like, you are one stupid fool .... you can only resort to insults and ridicule ...weak bro weak ... shows your total lack of debating skills !! So yes run away coward, you never brought anything to the table anyway, just like your friend Delusional ... look back over our debate point out to me where you answered any of my questions with any thing of substance!!! these are a few of your pearls of wisdom ... Darwin is outdated , Gould is outdated, fossils are very hard to find (yet we have found 100million plus, but no transitional fossils) and you top it off with this gem ... "man made god" ... lol ... what a chop !!! Did you even bother to go check out Delusional's list of transitional fossils, did you come back with a sound argument in support of that silly list .... NO , only insults, I'm done with you, you're a waste of time !!!

      Paul - 2012-03-14 09:53

      @Delusional You said ...."Also type "list of transitional fossils" on Google' ...I sugest you do the same and tell me what list comes up ...hmmmm ... Wikipedia !!! So now ...I quote you again ..."Yes, Darwin was ignorant and wrong about certain things 150 years ago." ... so according to you Darwin was ignorant and wrong about certain thing but he was spot on on others ... lol ... you're sooooooooo funnnnnnnny ...lol ....CHOP !!! Gould is out date, lol ,Meme also said so,Yo say Gould believes in common decent , as if its that far remove from Daewins theory ...YET !!! ... earlier you said ..and I quote you "Yet to date, not one (NOT ONE) piece of evidence has surfaced or has been presented to disprove common descent. An instant Nobel Prize awaits the person with evidence that disproves common descent." ...lol ...make up your mind ... all you do is call people IGNORANT ...everyone who disagrees with you is IGNORANT ...lol ... maybe you are the IGNORANT ONE HERE!!!

      Paul - 2012-03-14 10:48

      @ Meme No aren't you the genius ...Mr Einstein !! ... I see you've added a new tool to your arsenal ... sarcasm ... to go with your insults and ridicule, as I said you are a weak little man that can not debate the FACTS even though you CLAIM to have ALL THE FACTS!!!! Lol you are a joke ... no wonder you can't engage in a reasonable debate You mention that dusty little book of mine , let me tell you that book has more wisdom on any ONE PAGE in it than you'll ever have in that hollow space between your ears... I feel sorry for your kids , having a father who believes we came from NOTHING and has NOTHING in his head, one who adds NOTHING to a debate but believes he KNOWS EVERYTHING !!!

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-14 11:25

      @DelusionBuster The fossil record supports variations and adaptions within each taxa or kind, it does NOT supports evolution across different taxa. Common descent of all species from it's original kind has definitely been proven by observation and science; but common descent of ALL living things from one common ancestor has NOT. Sorry! You like to group all evolution under one heading, and because micro-evolution or variations is a given and has been scientifically proven, you group macro-evolution in with it and use the evidence for variations within the taxa or kinds to support your macro-evolution theory. Sorry bud, the only thing science and observation and the fossil record supports are variations and adaptions within each taxa or kind...which is what the bible predicts. Sorry!

      Zwelakhe - 2012-03-14 11:55

      @Ann, u r an idiot ignoring the facts

      Paul - 2012-03-14 12:15

      @MEme Ha ha ha ... you so funny you should change your profile pic to one of Barry Hilton ... but then Barry would be ofened ! As I've said before ...weak bro weak ... it shows off your low IQ !!! Do you actually have anything of value to debate here? No wait I take back that question ... anyone that reads back on these comments will see what a pompous little prat you are ....psychotic????? you better hope I'm not !!

      Boeretroos - 2012-03-14 12:46

      If you think evolution works - why haven't certain "people" evolved into better beings ??? Nawww! Evolution is a gimmic and a half truth. So lets look at politics - White Nationalism evolves into Black Affirmative Action - then eventualy becomes Black African Revolusionism and finally Exclusive Black Empowerment. What a load of tripe ! Accept the facts freedom flip floppers - "So gemaak en so laat staan " Volkstaat ***

      Paul - 2012-03-14 14:02

      @Me me You a real comedian, childish but funny ...as I said No value added to the debate from you ....I see on your FB profile that you want to write a book to show us Christians the errors of our beliefs, you can't even back up your argument for evolution here what you going to write in that book of yours ...."Hmmmm Christians are stupid , they believe in fairy tales, man made God hhhmmmmm Darwin has all the answers but he is ignorant and wrong sometimes hhhmmmm .... this is the gospel according to Meme a man not brave enough to use his real name but behind his pseudonym he is a intellectual GIANT ... you are a coward that doesn't have a rational original thought ... a copy and paste artist of note if your FB profile is anything to go by .... you resort to insults, ridicule, sarcasm and now you are trying your hand at humor, but what you fail to realise is that you are a MENTAL PIGMY !!! Now that I've being sucked into and down to your level , where I am also resorting to insults ...I've realised that you are note worth it ...so off with you ...go wallow in your STUPIDITY !!!

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-14 15:59

      @DelusionBuster Not sure why you're laughing, you just admitted that evolution doesn't happen across the basic taxa or kinds...well done!

      Paul - 2012-03-14 17:26

      @Meme Ok ...here goes ..Why does the fossil record not support the Theory of Evolution? 1. And please don't say because fossils are so hard to find, mankind has collected well over 10million fossils , so they can't be all that hard to find. 2. Please supply me with a list of scientifically proven Transitional Fossils. Please not that Wikipedia list ...it has not being proven. I await your response, thank you.

      Paul - 2012-03-14 17:28

      @ Meme Sorry I meant to say 100million fossils not 10Million.

      Jango - 2012-03-14 18:47

      @DelusionBuster & @Meme. Before sprouting all sorts of coil to an audience you clearly want to subject to your "scientific" views (and I represent no anti-or-for "Creator" sect), there is NO proof that common descent (macroevolution) is a “naturally occurring phenomena” or is “reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others”. For numerous discussions on this subject, try reading http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/common_descent.html as a centralized reference as to why your "proof" is not as proven as you claim. That's the challenge with Science and the evolution of theory. For every "proof" vindication, there is an equally opposite counter measure and "proof" invalidation from those seeking alternative answers. People like you simply choose which boundary you want to lodge your belief system, primarily based on your own ideoligy - aimed to dispel the "proofs" that others may seek or believe. Welcome to Science, in itself a contradiction.

      bluzulu - 2012-03-14 19:11

      We use to call them Magicians now we call them Illusionist cos' we know better. If not Evolution then what: The seas parted and out jumped humans, The apple was bitten and humans sprung out, There was a large Earthquake and humans crawled out the cracks in the Earth C'mon we know better, Look at the early history of Religions and you will see these religions preyed on the fears of humans and utilized it as a tool to control the masses.

      bluzulu - 2012-03-14 19:14

      Happy Atheist

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-14 19:20

      @DelusionBuster Here you are, you can read up about Baraminology at these sites... http://nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds.html http://creationwiki.org/Baraminology http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind Enjoy!

      bluzulu - 2012-03-15 08:03

      Where was teh Christian LOVE before 1994?

      Paul - 2012-03-15 10:08

      @ Meme Thanks ... ok ... I find your response to the fossil records lack of transitional fossils devoid of Scientific evidence, we can all explain away any argument using any analogy we chose but then that is not science. I've read many articles on this subject and what I've discovered is that many scientist do not have the answer to this problem that was recognised by Darwin himself as a flaw in his Theory of Evolution. I therefore will not hold it against you for not having a scientific answer. The link you supplied proves absolutely nothing, it's is evenweakedr in substance than that Wikipedia link that your friend Delusional likes to use, the Tiktaalik roseae fossil is not only disputed by creationists but also between scientist. The clip with Richard dawkins in it does little prove your point, Dawkins is militant atheist with his own agenda, his scientific contribution to the debate on evolution is negligible, besides supplying you with your alias ...mmme... his casual dismissal of other scientists work while holding up his own theories shows us that he has an agenda.His Meme theory leaves us with more questions than answers, from what I've read about Dawkins I think he plagiarised his work form other scientists, namely Richard Semon and Maurice Maeterlinck , the man is a fraud and thus we can see why he tries so hard to denounce religion. TBC

      Paul - 2012-03-15 10:29

      @Meme ...continued To answer your DNA proof I read about 20 articles last night ...heavy reading.. what I discovered was that many scientist vary and disagree on the this subject, So I won't even try to make out that I have any answers for you , only one of these articles were from the creationists view point, and I've chosen a section of it to paste for your consideration... Amazing revelations about DNA As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224). It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica— an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves! TBC

      Jango - 2012-03-15 10:35

      Yip Meme, if the heat at the stove is too hot, get out the kichen. Your arguments have been unconvincing to say the least. Such is the nature of man's advances, Science often remains relevant to the era we are in. As man explores, so previous "proofs" become dispelled, new ones evolve, and many become challenged from differing schools of approach. All these efforts still deploying scientific metrics, theory validation, proof witnessing, but attempt to ask different questions. The nature of Science is to push the boundaries of thinking and exploration, and not simply to force concrete into people's minds as you have tried to do - specifically on a broad and still challenging topic such as macroevolution. This being man's ultimate question - where are we from, and where have we been. You and DelusionBuster having solved the ultimate already. Taking more simple themes, we would still believe that gene splicing and atom splitting are scientifically impossible. Man has evolved, the concrete ("proof") rammers come and go - and like them - your time is up... I agree.

      Paul - 2012-03-15 10:35

      continued ... Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis , 1996, p. 334). Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this? @meme ...I found this piece quite simple yet amazing! The odds are something like 1 to 10 to the power of 390 ... A HUGE NUMBER ...with odds like these who can dismiss them as highly likely to occur naturally? TCB

      Paul - 2012-03-15 11:06

      @Meme You ask me for proof of my beliefs, as I've said before I cannot prove the existence of God and I won't even try to ...but ... what I can say is this I find the message of Gods word highly uplifting and wise!!! Meme ... read Jesus's sermon on the mount , to me it is the greatist speech ever written ...if only man could live up to it ...but hey 1 man has ....JESUS CHRIST our SAVIOUR !!! Go well Meme ...keep a open mind ...write your book if that's what inspires you, but please don't debate with others bu insulting and belittling them ...always remember that it takes all kinds to make the world go round!! Goodbye

      Paul - 2012-03-16 10:50

      @Meme I thought we decided not to resort to insults and sarcasm .... really mature of you ... and scientific too, no wonder we can't believe science, with people like you arguing on the side of science. Your book ...if it ever gets written will be a bomb,you have no value to add to the debate, Einstein would be ashamed of you, I replied to your comments with respect and did not insult you once ...and this is what you come back with ... childish!!! You are a total waste of time!!! FOOL !!!

      Paul - 2012-03-16 11:21

      @Meme Last slap in the face for you ....concerning Maxwell. Ivan Tolstoy, author of one of Maxwell's biographies, has noted the frequency with which scientists writing short biographies of Maxwell omit the subject of his Christianity. He was an evangelical Presbyterian, and in his later years became an Elder of the Church of Scotland.[62] Maxwell's religious beliefs and related activities have been the focus of several peer-reviewed and well-referenced papers.[63][64][65][66] Attending both Church of Scotland (his father's denomination) and Episcopalian (his mother's denomination) services as a child, Maxwell later underwent an evangelical conversion in April 1853, which committed him to an anti-positivist position.[65] Meme ...note his anti-positivist position ... for you that anti-atheism!! And from your HERE Einstein .... When interviewed by the Saturday Evening Post in 1929 "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?" Einstein said "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." LOL ,LMAO .... Hehehe ...hahaha .... NOW OFF WITH YOU .... DIMWIT !!!!

      Paul - 2012-03-16 11:25

      I meant to say ... And from your HERO Einstein ....

      Paul - 2012-03-17 01:40

      @ Meme ... Hi ... I'll deal with "your view" that peer pressure could have prevented Maxwell from "coming out" as a non-believer, Firstly you say "in his day, it would be social suicide at least, if not total ruination and hell-to-pay if anyone stepped out of line with the brutal church." ...but didn't Darwin publish his "On the Origin of Species" in 1859 ... Maxwell,a man some consider to be 1 of the top 3 scientists along with Einstein and Newton ...prestigious company....I'd say, converted to evangelical Presbyterian in 1853 and went on to be come an elder in the church. Now Meme are you trying to tell us Maxwell wasn't a man of his convictions, Maxwell had contributed vastly to science and was held in high esteem, I think that his opinion would have carried much more sway. Darwin seemed to have survived his "heresy" quite well! If Maxwell didn't believe and did not want to be persecuted by us MEAN CHRISTIANS he could easily become a "luke warm" christian and not go to church ... but why become an elder?? I could give more evidence on Maxwell but I think it's pointless ...if your going to dispute it without fact or thought!!! Meme..... more to come on Einstein ....I"M GOING TO SHOCK YOU !!!

      Paul - 2012-03-17 02:09

      @Meme I'll give you juat a taste of what Einstein thought of atheists now, if you come back with some smart alec chirp and not FACTS I'll prove to you that Einstein believed in "A GOD" Meme...some wise words from your hero Einstein about atheists ..... According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate disbelievers than the faithful.[17] "The fanatical atheists," Einstein said in correspondence, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."[17][18] Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."[19] Meme ... Einstein didn't believe in a "Personal God" but he did believe in a GOD !!!

      osama.binbarry - 2012-03-18 14:00

      This newspaper article is so the exact opposite of the truth. "Anti-evolution 'equals' apartheid"???. Let us all be reminded of the true facts: Charles Darwin wrote a book called "The Origins of Specie". But that was not the full title of the book, was it? The full title is actually "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Favoured races??? Yes, the evolution theory teaches that certain races were more evolved that others. (White people were dominant over black people). But that is not true today, and it was not true then. Because of this evolutionary teaching, the black Americans were enslaved, the Australian Aborigines were slaughtered and yes you guessed it, the black South Africans were discriminated against. Racism is a direct cause of the evolution teaching. The true bible believing Christians however knows that God created only one race and that is the HUMAN RACE. Yes, we are all related, and yes we do all have a common ancestor. Their names were Adam and Eve. Put the blame where it belongs. This Evolutionary religion (I am not even going to call it a theory) is what caused racism and apartheid.

      Paul - 2012-03-19 01:48

      @Meme ... You brought up Maxwill, Einstein is YOUR HERO, you aspire to be like him ...not me!!! Anyway niether you nor Delusional could sullpy a scienfically published or proven Transional Fossil ...NOT EVEN ONE ...that was my orginal question to Delusional after HE commented that evolution is proven by the "fossil Record" ... he ran away, your attempt to provide ant proof was dismal to say the least ,,,actually it was pathetic!!! For a person who according to there FB profile wants to write a book about Christianty being a load of hocus pocus and that evolution is FACT ... you my friend are lacking in knowledge and undertanding of both these subjects. Your debating skills are non-existant, you resort to insults , redicule and sarcasm when you know that you cannot supply a suitable answer, as far as I and anyone who bothers to read our debate can see , you lost this debate...BIGTIME !!! I'm done with you ... I think you should change your profile pic ...frankly Einstein would be insulted by your use of his likeness !! Please do not reply ...you have nothing of value to add!!!!!!!!!!

      Paul - 2012-03-19 15:11

      @Meme ..yes I would know proof if you supplied it, because to date ...zero proof from you so far ...in this articles and others ....NONE!!! because you haven't got any ...if you had your be throwing it in my face ...BRING YOUR PROOF !!! COME ON !!! I'll remind you what Einstein had to say about Jesus ....Read it and weep ...SUCKER !!! When interviewed by the Saturday Evening Post in 1929 "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?" Einstein said "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." Your hero ... praising MY HERO ...COOL HEY !!!

      Paul - 2012-03-19 19:43

      @Meme More insults,humour, sarcasm and ridicule ...BUT STILL NO PROOF ...Delusional said above that there has been 245 000 peer reviewed scientific papers PROVING EVOLUTION ...all I'm asking you atheist for is ONE ... yet you with all your intellect cannot even supply us with one ... NOT EVEN ONE ... LMAO ... and you say I need to go to university ... lol ... you say and I quote you "but you're incapable of actually holding fairly simple concepts in your head." Yet you can't even come up with one peer reviewed paper ....how many times have I asked you now ...grasp the concept ...take the CHALLENGE I set for you ...ONE PAPER ....come on Meme you're the GENIUS here!!!!

  • rudilemmer - 2012-03-12 10:35

    *Reaches for popcorn*

      janalbert.vandenberg - 2012-03-12 15:11

      I've ordered in the 3D glasses to boot; let the show begin :-)

      Vaal-Donkie - 2012-03-12 21:31

      I'm sorry, but this is WAY too sad to be enjoyed from the sidelines.

      charmaine.pauwels - 2012-03-13 12:28

      Ditto on that. Getting nice a cumfy in chair now :)

  • Chrono - 2012-03-12 10:52

    Wow, when will people please realise Intelligent design = evolution?

      qhuggett - 2012-03-12 10:58

      They wont, because it doesn't...

      S - 2012-03-12 14:49

      At last, one other who has seen the light!

      Heiku - 2012-03-12 16:22

      I don't understand all the thumbs down. Why must this be a war? I think Chrono has suggested the perfect compromise.

      S - 2012-03-12 17:24

      @Heiku: EXACTLY!!!

      Vaal-Donkie - 2012-03-13 10:16

      It makes more sense that there would have been a little help at the start. At the very least the probability of primordial life surviving the first moments is much greater if there was someone to "water the garden".

      markdoubleu - 2012-03-13 21:12

      @Vaal, no! No, it doesn't make more sense. It means that, right at the start of the evolution of life as we know it, you have to introduce a life form that's advanced enough to both survive the conditions and influence the beginnings of life on earth 4 billion years ago. You're needlessly introducing complexity.

      Prom - 2012-03-14 01:17

      Unfortunately Chrono is right. ID is just evolution is disguise for the religious. Behe himself never asserts that life doesn't arise from common descent. From all I know he actually believes in the theory of evolution. @Markdoubleu: And the assertion that complexity arose on it's own from nothing isn't absurd at all? Mwhahahahahaha

      Karien - 2012-03-14 02:02

      Prom Did God make the universe in six days in the fith millennium BC?

      Prom - 2012-03-14 10:30

      Time is relative. We can only watch tv in 25 frames per second. A fly can see the transitions between frames in detail and react to your swatter in a millisecond. In its own time frame it may be alive for years. A ray of light from a distant star reaches us the moment it departs. God can speed up or slow down our universe in His reality or even our own and what may have been days for our earth can be billions of years in another part due to different laws. I don't believe in time as days of the earth revolving around the sun. It's a man made concept because we are incapable of experiencing things that really happen all at once. I don't believe in any length of time because what happened before is as meaningless as what existed before "the big bang". Our universe and reality all came into existence the moment the first life consciously experienced it. Before that there was no time, only order.

      Mark - 2012-03-14 10:49

      Prom, That is an interesting viewpoint. But how do you perceive order when there is no time?

      Karien - 2012-03-14 15:57

      Ok Prom So now the space-time continuum, theory of relativity, speed of light etc. etc., like the Theory of Evolution, has to adapt to allow for your bible which is assumed to be scientifically relevant by default, right? Your proof for the relevance of your bible on scientific grounds is supernatural, and thereby beyond what my be detected by natural means. Then, we should ASSUME what god SHOULD be if indeed He were out there beyond space-time, right? Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

      Bharath - 2012-03-14 23:38

      Karien What doesn’t cut it – are you an idiot? What exactly are you contesting ???? You cannot prove evolution – give me a single scientific experiment that caused evolution Don’t talk about God if you have no proof of evolution ! Baby steps first You're good at wagging your mouth while saying nothing of substance- it's a particularly feminine quality. If you want to dispute a point - do it CLEARLY and concisely saying what exactly you disbute. Don't be vague be specific - I know its hard but science is hard. Don't spew out your diarrhoea without contesting the point in question.

      Bharath - 2012-03-15 00:07

      Dark energy cannot be detected by natural means - does that make physics supernatural ? Karien you are a faker - all you have to offer is the unverifiable theories from so-called "peer-review" papers Give me a single insight of original thought from that brain of yours I challenge you.

      Karien - 2012-03-15 00:15

      SO Bharath You pick two words out of everything that I have said (even though it wasn't THAT much), force it out of context, and then start a specific contextually IRRELEVANT debate. Thanks Bharath, but I'll pass.

      Prom - 2012-03-15 00:52

      @Mark: That is a good question. The answer lies in what we perceive time to be. We see things changing from one moment to the next and think that this is the way they are ordered. We should be thinking of a computer with a file system where something that's saved isn't stored in successive bits but wherever there's space for it. Yet when a program reads a file it sees it in successive chunks when it's really reading back and forth from the disk. We perceive time and measure it accordingly because our brain itself functions from this order of events. In reality all states of the universe exist in an unchangeable state. I don't believe in a multiverse but more something like a quantum computer where all states exist without taking on any specific one. We may either experience successive states because they are marked that way or because we can't perceive the ones with an illogical order. Therefor there may actually not be an order to events and only our perception of one. @Karien: Bharath is right. You don't know what you're talking about but simply refer to other people's "peer-reviewed" articles because you believe they hold any water. We know NOTHING about the space-time continuum, the theory of relativity is incomplete with many anomalies, the speed of light might recently have been broken. Shall we go on with how little scientists actually know? The universe isn't changing to allow the bible simply because we know almost nothing about it. Time is an irrelevant concept

      Prom - 2012-03-15 00:56

      here. We have no idea what can happen in 6 days or in 6 billion years or the states matter can take on in any period. You are still stuck in the Babylonian mindset of gods that are bound by natural laws opposed to a God that created those laws. You haven't given any of your own insights like I always do but simply regurgitated everything others say. Meaning just like the others I get to deal with you believe evolution but probably knows squat about it.

      Karien - 2012-03-15 01:23

      Bharath By your comments to me further down by which you have likened me to a prostitute with graphic innuendo you have only proven that you are a pervert. I think it's fair to say that you are an insult to your fellow believers even though I generally do not agree with them. I would like to carry on this discussion with Prom and others in a civil manner, but you will undoubtedly disrupt it with your stench.

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-15 08:54

      1. Prom what exactly are the "anomalies" regarding relativity? 2. No - the "speed of light" has not been broken (possibly by drivel, but not by any particles that I am aware of). 3. Which laws did Babylonians ascribe to "natural" laws instead of a god?

      Mark - 2012-03-15 08:58

      Prom, What makes you think that I am 'still stuck in the Babylonian mindset of gods that are bound by natural laws opposed to a God that created those laws (sic)" and "... you believe evolution but probably knows squat about it." That is crass generalisation and resorting to pre-ordained ideas without any proof to substantiate it.

      Prom - 2012-03-16 05:16

      @bruning 1. Breaking down on a quantum level for one. The assertion that parts of the universe are "missing" to account for gravitational anomalies that indicate it's possible breakdown at extreme distances. 2. Neutrinos 3. I did not make any such claim one way or the other. @Mark: That was addressed to Karien as a continuation of the previous post.

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-16 09:20

      Prom: 1. Which is why dark matter entered the equation. Everyone would LIKE to have a single law of everything. Nobody claimed we have one yet! 2. Wrong. Cern warned suckers like you not to jump to conclusions. The errors were traced to faults in the sensor readings/intepretations in both cases. All tests are scheduled to re-run. 3. Granted

      Mark - 2012-03-16 11:16

      Prom, Apologies, I did not see that it was directed to Karien.

      Bharath - 2012-03-16 20:16

      To Karien... I see when the time comes for YOU to take resposibility for the words that YOU wrote, then its out of context and irrelevant ! Typical cheerleader!

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-16 21:46

      Curriedbeak to Karien: "...for YOU to take resposibility for the words that YOU wrote, then its out of context and irrelevant !" Faaark! Now we've seen it all! Whats up Doc? You gone bonkers? Ha ha a ha ha cough cough ha ha ha ....

      osama.binbarry - 2012-03-18 14:19

      I would like to respond to Chrono's original post which read: "Wow, when will people please realise Intelligent design = evolution?" Unfortuanetely this is not correct. Intelligent design (or creation) is not compatible with Evolution whatsoever. Creation states that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it, in 6 literal 24 hour days. The bible also states that due to Adam's sin, death was introduced into the world (Therefore nothing died before Adam sinned, and everything would have lived forever). God could therefore not possibly have used evolution to create, as that would put death before sin, making God a liar. These two religious approaches (Creation vs Evolutions) are in direct contrast with each other.

  • Wikus - 2012-03-12 10:56

    Its not baggage... Its science. Or rather lack of science. I wish more scientists actually knew more about science. Evolution as a theory has been debunked by scientific evidence so many times its getting boring. For all you "Free Thinkers" out there, go and actually practice some free thinking and go find out for yourself if the facts for evolution holds any water... I dare you...

      modo - 2012-03-12 10:57

      Debunked? Where? References to these scientific papers would be appreciated, as I am not aware of them.

      Wikus - 2012-03-12 11:05

      Google Jonathan Wells my china's. Open your eyes.

      wesleywt - 2012-03-12 11:05

      Wikus... name one scientific study that debunks evolution. Just because you say so doesn't make it true. The "facts" that support evolution can be found in several scientific disciplines. You clearly didn't practice free thinking and "go find out for yourself if the facts for evolution holds any water". You would have found that the "facts" are overwhelming and that you are embarrassing yourself.

      Wikus - 2012-03-12 11:10

      "Jonathan Wells is a well known critic of Darwinian evolution. As such he has received unwarranted attention, and slandering, from the dogmatic Darwinian elitists in academia. Be sure to read The Real Truth about Jonathan Wells: Responding to Smears against the Author of Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells is also one of the nation’s leading advocates for intelligent design, which is the theory that simply states that some features of life and the universe are better explained as the result of an intelligent agent than purely random, unguided processes. Wells has two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California, and he has taught biology at California State University in Hayward. Dr. Wells has published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher. His most recent books are The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Regnery, 2007), and The Design of Life (FTE, 2007) which he co-authored with Dr. William Dembski. He is also author of Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism (Edwin Mellen Press, 1988) and Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (Regnery, 2000)" (jonathanwells.org)

      J-Man - 2012-03-12 11:10

      Really Wikus.... and religion is getting "more and more factual by the day" and more and more things are being PROVEN to be true? What a joke. Wow you people are ignorant and misinformed...its not even funny any more...

      modo - 2012-03-12 11:11

      Jonathan Wells claims (amongst other crazy things) that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Is this really the sort of person you should be receiving your scientific facts from Wikus? Open YOUR eyes.

      wesleywt - 2012-03-12 11:14

      I said scientific study Wikus... not a quote from a crackpot.

      Wikus - 2012-03-12 11:14

      Excellent online argument Modo. Attack the personality and not the issue at hand. Well done. Stick to the issue at hand please. I read a lot of personal attacks but very little debate.

      Wikus - 2012-03-12 11:16

      And Dr Wells signed a petition reading this: " It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group of diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken". Dont see any denialism there, however a call for more research.

      modo - 2012-03-12 11:22

      Ok Wikus. Why do you think ONE scientist claiming that evolution is false will convince us that the other 99.9% of biologists are completely wrong? If I were to quote the credentials of every biologists and scientist that claims evolution is a fact (thousands of whose credentials far surpass those of Jonathan Wells' and all of who are aware that HIV does indeed cause AIDS) it would go on for miles on this page. You are trusting completely untrustworthy sources and only examining one tiny side of the argument which is composed of a minuscule fraction of the scientific community.

      Grant - 2012-03-12 11:22

      to Modo, I have read numerous scientif articles specifically in the evolutionist magazines "Nature" and "the new scientist" - at least one in ten articles says something like "if this proves true then everything we know about ... (some part of evolution), will need to be reexamined" or if it is about the universe says "we can only see 5% of the universe, but when we can see the whole universe, we know that the ... (opposite to their observation) will hold true. We use big words like evolutionary stasis which actually means "nothing happened and we do not have a cooking clue why no evolution took place", we suddenly give haemoglobin which cannot survive theoretically for over 10,000 years a lifespan of 65 million years plus because it was found in a T-rex bone and say nature has a way of preserving what would be impossible in our labs. Common, the evolutionary scientific magazines is my biggest argument against evolution - if they actually have so many doubts, how do you expect me to believe it - just because millions do, does not make it right. Go read the real articles, and be astounded

      Phoenix - 2012-03-12 11:24

      You are fully clu-repellent. Do you know what 'theory' actually means in science? By definition, the fact that this theory is still valid means it has not been disproved. Loves conspiracies much?

      Wikus - 2012-03-12 11:27

      Modo, if you go and do a little more research you will find its not just one scientist opposed and 99.99% for the THEORY of evolution. Go check it out if you are really interested in the search for truth. Dont let your own biases get in the way for a truly scientific exploration of the facts.

      modo - 2012-03-12 11:29

      @Grant - If any of the claims do prove true then the consensus in the scientific community would shift drastically. That is what is awesome about science! The fact is, the consensus hasn't shifted, since the claims are unfounded or unproven. I do read both those magazines and more, and these types of articles don't 'astound' me as much as they do you, obviously.

      Wikus - 2012-03-12 11:30

      @ Phoenix: Theory (n):A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something. So.... not a fact.... so it is possible to disprove this theory am i correct? :-)

      modo - 2012-03-12 11:34

      @Wikus, I post this regularly, but since you are still denying outright facts about scientific consensus I will post it again. In 2007 The Discovery Institute (which promotes Creationism) announced that a little over 700 scientists had expressed support for Intelligent Design. As a tongue-in-cheek response, the National Centre for Science Education produced a petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named 'Steve' or some variation were eligible to sign the petition. The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like 'Steve' alone (over 1100) than there are in total that support Intelligent Design. This has resulted in the estimate that around 99.9% of biologists claim evolution to be true. Gallup polls have confirmed that an overwhelming majority of scientists hold evolution as a fact.

      Wikus - 2012-03-12 11:34

      @ Modo: You are naive to think that there is anything like consensus in science. Science is definitely not as objective as you would like it to be. It is precisely due to the differing in consensus that we get improved research and further knowledge development in science. Differing from consensus is not a bad thing.

      Phoenix - 2012-03-12 11:38

      ALL theories, including Theory of Gravity, can be disproved but it is highly unlikely. Theory means that in the ENTIRE body of human knowledge, there does not exist ANY evidence that disproves the theory - no matter how small. If it is disproved even in the slightest way it is not a theory anymore, and since the Theory of Evolution is still a valid theory, guess what?

      Wikus - 2012-03-12 11:41

      Well here we have a problem Modo: Scientists claiming a theory as fact? hmm... Maybe we should get Steve from XXX bank to sort us out then. Sounds like a VERY scientific study. No biases whatsoever then. If that's the basis of your scientific inquiry then I'm afraid its a little bit light on the validity side my friend. The fact is the evidence that Darwin needed to validate his THEORY has not been forthcoming. And the longer science keeps digging, the more credibility this THEORY is losing.

      Doc - 2012-03-12 11:41

      Wikus, you argue for debate but make random statements like "Evolution as a theory has been debunked" or "biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis" without any credible sources, although I do not doubt that a few crackpots with PhD exist their "theories" have obtained little traction because they have no factual base. For e.g. The HIV virus attaches itself to CD4 cells in order to use the CD4 cells gp120 receptors to invade healthy human cells. This is scientifically proven, HIV is also the only virus known to man that uses this action to invade healthy cells. By this action the virus reduces the amount of healthy CD4's needed to maintain a healthy immune system and when your CD4 count drops below 200 you are classified as having full blown AIDS because your body can no longer fend off critical diseases. Not all HIV positive people will contract AIDS, however AIDS is synonymous with HIV therefore a reasonable person has to conclude-in the absence of contradictory evidence-that HIV causes AIDS. Scientists will no doubt question finding (its what scientists do) but till one can scientifically produce another argument you cannot just say "it is being challenged" therefore it is.

      Phoenix - 2012-03-12 11:45

      OH dear G**, please TRY and understand what a valid theory is!

      modo - 2012-03-12 12:37

      @Wikus, you seem to not understand what 'theory' means in a scientific context. The definition for theory that you gave is equivalent to a 'hypothesis' in scientific circles. This can't be the first time someone has told you this, surely? Do you shove your fingers in your ears every time someone points out you are misrepresenting facts?? "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered." - Stephen Jay Gould

      Phoenix - 2012-03-12 12:50

      Thank you Modo.

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-12 13:09

      Project Steve, http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve Try again dude.

      Nic - 2012-03-12 16:55

      I don't think you have ever googled Jonathan Wells... Jonathan Wells is best known for his 2002 book Icons of Evolution, in which he discusses ten examples which he says show that many of the most commonly accepted arguments supporting evolution are invalid. The book is rejected by the scientific community and has received much criticism. There have been 12 detailed reviews of Icons, from scholars familiar with the subject matter, which have come to the consensus that the book's claims are a politically-motivated extreme exaggeration and misrepresentation of a scattering of minor issues. Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers. Biology Professor Jerry Coyne wrote of Icons, "Jonathan Wells' book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction." And you use this guy to debunk Evolution?

      Grant - 2012-03-12 18:11

      //Dr. Wells has published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher.// Oh good, please link us to the scientific journals where his disputes over evolution are published with supporting evidence, because you don't honestly think you get to yell scientist at us, and not show any actual science.

      Art - 2012-03-13 04:39

      Darwin AWARD goes to...WIKUS!!!!!!!!!!

      Romano - 2012-03-13 07:15

      Wikus The guy you mention,Jonathan Wells does not discredit evolution he is a critic of darwinian evolution. and i watched he's debate about darwin the guy cant give one fact he just takes his "opponent' on personaly about stuff he got wrong in his book.

      Elton - 2012-03-13 08:13

      @ Wikus - Anybody can write books or articles disputing a scientific theory because they don't do it in a scientific way. If, however you can find a scientific paper debunking evolution the author will get a Nobel prize. Finally, in science a theory is something that is proven, a hypothesis is what you are thinking about.

      Bharath - 2012-03-13 16:01

      Everyone who thinks like Phoenix is the biggest IDIOT in the entire human population on earth ! Science is absolute. No scientifically verifiable experiments can cause evolution nor can it prove that evolution existed in the past. Evolution papers can only postulate scientifically UNVERIFIABLE THEORIES !!!!!!!!!. Therefore evolution in NOT science - evolution is inherently UNSCIENTIFIC ! Evolution is a religion !!!!

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-13 21:29

      Bharath since when does shouting ad hominems in capitals with plenty of exclamation marks make your delusions true? ;-)

      Prom - 2012-03-14 01:40

      Interesting discussion... Modo: Give us references. Wikus: Jonathan Wells wesleywt: Give us something else. "Give us the evidence while we close our eyes" - evolutionist

      Karien - 2012-03-14 02:39

      @ Wikus and Prom Please provide a reference to the peer reviewed and scientific journal-published paper/s in which Dr.Wells disproves the Theory of Evolution.

      Dirk - 2012-03-14 04:58

      I notice the arrival of Bruinkuiken, the esteemed and internationally acclaimed peddler of snake oil in your midst. Karien- Do you expect any decent person to believe the opinions of peer reviews by lying and untrustworthy atheist science groupies (Ack to Bharath) of unprovan theories?

      Dirk - 2012-03-14 06:14

      And the expected and usual feeble attempt by the self deceived adherents of evolution to try and discredit those who reject the fraud of the century, evolution. The time has come to investigate the vicious attack on such people and the reasons for it. This is not simply a matter of disagreement. Many who have expressed themselves (scientists) against evolution, have even lost their jobs and the time has come to ask some serious questions about the evolutionists agenda.

      Dirk - 2012-03-14 06:24

      Modo- To suggest that only one scientist rejects the theories, either reflects ignorance or deliberate mischievious intentions. Many scientists, both Christian and secular, are in opposition to these fairy tales. Just two examples :"In Six Days:Why Fifty scientists Chose to believe in Creation", 2001 "The Genesis Files: Meet 22 Modern Day Scientists Who Believe in a Six Day Recent Creation", 2004

      Grant - 2012-03-14 06:41

      //Modo- To suggest that only one scientist rejects the theories, either reflects ignorance or deliberate mischievious intentions. Many scientists, both Christian and secular, are in opposition to these fairy tales. Just two examples :"In Six Days:Why Fifty scientists Chose to believe in Creation", 2001 "The Genesis Files: Meet 22 Modern Day Scientists Who Believe in a Six Day Recent Creation", 2004// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution "The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[27] " Lies for Jesus, again. 700/480000 is not even 1%. And the expected and usual feeble attempt by the self deceived adherents of creationism to try and discredit those who reject the fraud of the century, your personal god.

      Grant - 2012-03-14 06:43

      //Interesting discussion... Modo: Give us references. Wikus: Jonathan Wells wesleywt: Give us something else. "Give us the evidence while we close our eyes" - evolutionist // We ask for references, not opinions in books, if you do not have scientific studies to back up your statement, you don't have evidence. No we won't apply the same low standards of evidence to your god that you do.

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-14 13:12

      Dork reading the incredible report this morning about the two Lotter minions prostrating themselves before the dogma of the so called "Third son of God", I could not help but be struck by the uncanny tragic similarity to your own mindset and approach to life and reason in general! ;-)

      Karien - 2012-03-14 17:28

      So Dirk I assume that you meant no insult by referring to me as, and I quote "Bruinkuiken". You probably believe that I should be flattered by your brutish and blunt manner of expressing yourself. Luckily the opinions of those like you are irrelevant in modern science as we assuredly would then still have been trying to figure out the wheel.

      Dirk - 2012-03-14 18:59

      Bruinkuiken, peddler of quality snake oil, strange that you should draw such a comparison. Firstly, you demonstrate clearly that you do not know what a Christian is or what has been explained to you over an extended period.Secondly, you in turn remind me of a recent serial killer who says that he was led by your mentor and master, satan.

      Karien - 2012-03-14 20:04

      Dirk The thing is. I used to ba a christian fundamentalist like you. But then during one happy week some years ago, an atheistic scientists' logic saved me from ignorant bliss. At the time I was actually considering becomming a protestant minister. Well, it didn't sink in completely right there-and-then as the fear of hell kept creeping up, but down the line as a Religious Science student, I accepted that hell is nothing more than fiction, so I "converted" to agnosticism. So, I know what it means to be caught in religion. I know all too well. Maybe if I put it that way you might understand, but who knows?

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-14 20:07

      Dork if you and the Lotters are what pass for Christians I obviously don't have a clue. Thank "God" for small mercies. Lol!

      Bharath - 2012-03-14 23:50

      Karien, provide evidence of a single original thought from your brain. Don't hide behind "peer-review papers" that contain ZERO scientific experiments which cause evolution. Are you a cheerleader or a serious thinker - where is your head in ? Give us actual scientific results, from these papers that you worship showing which experiments caused evolution in ANY species Go ahead - we await your delivery.

      Prom - 2012-03-15 01:43

      @Grant: Wikipedia is hardly a credible source for who supports evolution or who doesn't. "We ask for references, not opinions in books," Exactly, selectively accept what you want to accept. Icons of Evolution has 70 pages of research notes and references. Renowned critic Jerry Coyne admits this in his review and doesn't even attempt to refute these. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm Interesting to see that he focuses more on the implications of creationism as usual and even goes off on a tangent. Demanding that Wells should put fourth his own theory and not attack the "don't touch me on my studio" evolution "theory." @Karien: Will do you one better. Was going to give you Stephen C. Meyer and Sternberg but you can look it up for yourself. http://m.christianpost.com/news/intelligent-design-book-meets-obstacle-after-proponents-of-evolution-complain-70682/ Hmm... another book that the evolution movement is trying to squash. And like usual they haven't even read the book. Your "peer-review" system is remarkably similar to the dictator that claims everybody supports him because nobody is voting for the opposition while he's not allowing elections. Do you honestly hold such a system in high regard? I don't. Take up the challenge. Give us one of these papers out of thousands that proves evolution. Why won't you? Because there aren't any. It's a dogmatic belief that the supposed "millions of scientists" that support it never considers the validity of.

      Dirk - 2012-03-15 05:29

      Bruinkuiken- You never fail to provide confirmation of what I have just said. Karien- Strangely, I again, was a fundamentalist atheist as you are, for more than 30 yrs. I was confused and clearly lost and on 22 July 1999 @ 03:00, I called out to God to have mercy on me and save me. And He surely responded. I went to the Cross to which my sins were nailed and died. I was born again in the Spirit and later, also baptized by the Holy Spirit Years earlier, I was in a traditional "church" where I was "baptised" as a baby (unbiblical). At the age of 17/18, I was "confirmed"( Where in Gods word is that) There was hype but no holiness, rituals, but no righteousness. From that, I was set free by the blood of the Lamb. Frankly, I cannot see how a person who was baptised by the Holy Spirit, can turn his/her back on Him- not possible. And the Cross? Because it is such a painful place, so many think that they can avoid it- not possible.From personal experience I can tell you that you are on a cul de sac and its going to get very lonely there. In the beginning, with all the new lies and deception, it may appear exciting, but over a period, I assure you, its not. I hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will have mercy, as He had over me, over you as well.

      Merven - 2012-03-15 08:03

      @Wikus, Jonathan Wells is just another Kent Hovind, that distort facts, lie and make a shait loads of money from ignorant religious folk. Wikus, he is unable to see the link between HIV and Aids, how can he see even more complex problems? The guy is an nut case and will go down just like Kent Hovind.

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-15 10:28

      Dork's best shot at marketing babble! What he does not say is that there is a very real clear and present danger that you could turn out just like Dork and the Lotters! Now why does "Dork and the Lotters" sound so much like a "boereorkes" from the late sixties gone cult worshiping? Lol!

      Dirk - 2012-03-15 12:57

      Like Bruinkuiken and Sithole, the serial killer. Sounds good for your kreeping up to the corrupt regime. You may , as a reputable tender preneur,even get a contract to supply them with snake oil. Birds of a feather---

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-15 13:22

      Lol - too thick to think up even a relevant ad hominem Dork? You sure know how to pick your deepest holes though! Like you and the Lotters, Sithole also claimed to be a "christian" acting on instructions"! In fact, so has the Swedish mass murderer Breivik!!! However I have not read much on them. But you are missing the point entirely. The depth of your depraved gullibility and belief in obvious nonsense is really what it is about. Hence the stunning similarity in outlook and "reasoning" between Dork and the Lotters. Definitely similar... Very very similar! ;-)

      Karien - 2012-03-15 14:48

      Dirk I don't mind if you want to pray for my redeption, but please don't nail any people to your cross on my behalf. Prom As far as I know the speed of light is defined. c equals 299 792.458 kilometers/second in a vacuum. Time is the 4th of four dimensions which also includes length, bredth and width i.e. three dimensional space and time. Einsteins' equation is e=mc^2 which means: energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Your summation of all this is: None of it actually exists because there has to be a god somewhere and our entire universe would be what you assume it to be. According to your approach which is based on gross assumption and utter hypothesis at best, there might as well be nothing at all but your own consciousness and the rest including the screen that you are looking at, might be nothing more than a very elaborate dream. Anyone can think up nice-to-have fictions and assume them to be true Prom, but why do you expect us to take your daydreams as scientifically relevant?

      Karien - 2012-03-15 14:56

      Not "bredth", I meant height *

      Karien - 2012-03-15 15:05

      P.S Prom, there are two instances where the speed of light were exceeded. The first was the radial rate of expansion of the universe itself with and shortly after the big bang which is partly why we do exist as it was necessary to overcome matter-antimatter annihilation, and the second was in an electron accelerator experiment where they sent an electron past the light barrier. The electron essentially went back in time thereby underscoring e-mc^2.

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-15 15:59

      Karien I am not aware of the first instance. With respect to the 2nd instance reported by Cern towards the end of last year, they warned people not to jump onto the bandwagon. Both readings have subsequently been found to be erroneous due to faulty wiring in the relevant sensors.

      Karien - 2012-03-15 16:24

      Ok, Thanks Bruning! I'll go check it out.

      Prom - 2012-03-16 06:35

      @Karien: You are twisting everything I said. Time is not the 4th dimension. That is another hypothesis and not a universal one at that. I have never said none of what you are claiming. I said time in this context is irrelevant as it is just our perception of the order of events. It would thus not exist before intelligent life and only the events and their order exists. You think "oh six days God could not possibly have." You are in the Babylonian mindset of gods working within the power granted to them by natural laws, not one God that creates all natural laws. I do not believe in gods. I believe in one Supreme Being. Be it 6 days or 6 billion years is of no consequence as He can work in both because He is not bound to time. You believe in a hypothesis that has no proof to back it up. It's estimated that Darwin's Origin of the Species contains no fewer than 800 subjunctive phrases. And you talk about me making gross assumptions. Yeah whatever... PS: And scientists are still puzzled why we have more matter than anti- and why the 2 didn't annihilate each other if they were equal. Also there's no confirmed experiment where electrons traveled past the speed of light otherwise this rule would have been called into question long ago. The neutrino experiment was the first to show it may be possible but no neutrinos went back in time there. You seem to believe what you want to based on dubious sources. I am through arguing with you.

      Dirk - 2012-03-16 06:44

      Snake- I dont think that your diatribe deserves a response- its the usual drivel of an empty tin. Karien- My goodness, so you are a believer of the "big bang". I have asked many of your fellow deluded atheists this question and they all seem to shy away from it or deny, as old snake man has, that they believe in it. A bang normally occurs after an explosion. How did this "big bang" of yours occur? What exploded to cause the bang? Explosions normally causes destruction, but this one was an exception? It created? Who/what set off this explosion? Why has subsequent explosions not created? The late Prof. Fred Hoyle, the eminent British scientist said that there was a better chance of a Boeing 747 coming into being after a storm on a rubbish dump, than life being created by a bang. How right he is!If you cannot think of anything, you can always say that the explosion was caused by Dawkins playing with matches as a baby! LOL!

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-16 08:51

      Dork trolling his hit and run "technique" again: "I have asked many of your fellow deluded atheists this question and they all seem to shy away from it or deny, as old snake man has, that they believe in it." Lol Dork - lying for Jesus as usual? Show me where! "A bang normally occurs after an explosion." Duhhh! ;-) "What exploded to cause the bang?" Again Duh - the best current shot is quantum fluctuations. Would that be the same as what created your imaginary friend Dork? Or does "it" only exists in your empty echoing cranium? "How did this "big bang" of yours occur?" Ditto above. (Oh and it went BANG)! "Why has(sic) subsequent explosions not created?" Duh... which ones? "Explosions normally causes(sic) destruction, but this one was an exception? It created?" Ever heard of a singularity Dork? Nah I thought not! You seriously need some info outside your Ancient Shepard's Journal! "...the eminent British scientist said..." He he he. One of your 50 chickens in the coop? "...the explosion was caused by Dawkins playing with matches as a baby! LOL!" That tired senile "joke" you have now repeated 291 times. Lol! Faaark what a genius!

      Mark - 2012-03-16 09:13

      Bruning, You spoke of quantum fluctuations as a possible cause for the big bang. I'm not really extremely well informed on this topic, but bear with my ignorance...lol Quantum fluctuations suggests that a state of singularity exists, meaning an infinite amount of energy in an infinitesimal space, right? Energy can not be created or destroyed. Which bring me to the conclusion that energy existed for eternity, and will outlast our universe. This brings me to my question. Why did the energy 'leap' at the exact moment of the Big Bang? What was the catalyst for exactly that moment to produce a spurt of energy ?

      Paul - 2012-03-16 11:04

      @Dirk. Ag nee man Dirk. Here you go again, all guns blazing and all this anger, anger, anger!! It does not belong to a loving Christian. Please go pray for guidance and if that doesn’t work, try the scientific way, it’s called a valium. I have said this to you before. You can’t come to debate with informed people and only throw emotions and insults around. When you start name calling…snake oil sales man…ect…you lose any argument. The judge(not god) bangs his hammer and the council gather their books. You have lost the case and you are denied right to appeal. Get that anger under control, your shaking is going to spill your drink. Jesus will not enjoy you calling other people names! As for non believers selling fantasy, I think Harry potter has much less fantasy than your holy book. I mean, talking snakes, turning into stone, water into wine, raising the dead, born off a virgin, 40 days no food, walking on water. Fantasy did you say!!??

      Dirk - 2012-03-16 13:45

      Paul- Get a life. If you are able to read, you will notice that I directed a question to Karien, but strangely neither you or your fellow snake oil salesman, Bruinkuiken, attempted to respond. The snakeman, as usual, is only able to rattle empty snakeoil tins. What an intellectual?- this science groupie of unproven theories. So, if you are unable to respond, keep quite- until you are spoken to. That is the basics of good manners and should have been taught at home and any reasonable elementary school.Old snake of course, in denial again about the bang. Domestic science really confuses.LOL!!!!

      Karien - 2012-03-16 14:18

      Dirk At least we "oil-peddlers" don't subscribe to the notion of God creating the Flinstones no more than 7,000 years ago. The Flinstones are fictional characters Dirk! I could start talking about things like event-horizon, zero point energy, matter versus anti-matter, nuclear fusion, different phases in the life of stars, supernova, etc. etc. but it is apparent that it would be a waste of time and could only possibly draw more drivel from you. Dirk, please go play outside, the grownups are talking now.

      Paul - 2012-03-16 14:30

      @ Dirk. It’s not that they can’t respond to you, perhaps all those you mentioned doesn’t want to talk to you. We have seen that happen to previous conversations on the same topic in the past, haven’t we Dirk. In the end you are left all alone with nobody to talk to. What do you do on these pages when all you want to do is insult . Page down a little and look at conversations going down below. There are some civilized people engaged in huge different opinions but they do it without mudslinging and name calling. What’s wrong with you man?? Most important part of communication Dirk is….listening, not talking…listening. You are so busy selling your fear of god to the rest that they just have to sit back and watch you destroy yourself every time. Not because of your ideas Dirk, but because you are unable to communicate. I too know fold my arms and turn my back on you…sob…sniff!!. Get some anger management for your issues!

      Karien - 2012-03-16 16:14

      Prom You are suggesting that time is naught but a consequence of human perception? Please provide proof.

      Karien - 2012-03-16 16:33

      Prom "...relativity combines the time dimension with the three dimensions of space to form what is called spacetime. The theory incorporates the effect of gravity by saying that the distribution of matter and evergy in the universe warps and distorts spacetime, so that it is not flat." Quoted from: The universe in a nutshell, page 35, by Stephen Hawking (the Nobel prize winner).

      Karien - 2012-03-16 16:52

      Prom Thereby, the dimension of time is determined as directly connected to three dimensional space in our universe by accepted scientific theory, the General Theory of Relativity. Your view of time is utterly unfounded Prom.

      Karien - 2012-03-16 17:05

      I guess Creationists will now have to try and kick both the Theory of Evolution AND the General Theory of Relativity out of school, hey?

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-16 18:42

      Mark your assumptions are spot on. I don't have time to react now. Will catch you later

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-16 18:45

      Thick Dork's absolute inability to react in a way even remotely approaching relevance simply confirms that he has been destroyed logically as usual. ;-)

      Dirk - 2012-03-17 05:21

      Why should I become involved in the debate itself? Those who have taken a stand against the deception and fraud of the theories of evolution, seems to be doing an exceptionally good job. In fact, they are making fools of you and the only ones who fail to see this, are the fools themselves, which of course reminds me of Prov.12:15- "The way of the fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel, is wise" Bruinkuiken, you did not realise that the Bible talks so much about you, did you?

      Dirk - 2012-03-17 05:30

      And by the way, none of you explained how it all began! What I did see, were little silly remarks(rubbish in Bruinkuikens case)to avoid the question. I always say that if all else fails, you can say that baby dawkie ( Nobel prize winner, nogal) played with matches.Bang, bang!!!

      Karien - 2012-03-17 05:33

      Now, thanks to Bruning kindly providing a link, I can say that CERN has issued a press release stating that the ICARUS neutrino speed experiment has confirmed new readings, and the readings are in fact consistent with the speed of light. Just in! http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-17 10:10

      Dork "does not want to get involved in the debate itself"! He simply want's to "debate" by throwing around ad-hominems, insults and making false statementslike a true YL supporter from the back of the crowd, exiting without accepting any responsibility for his drivel when he is called to account. A true clueless hero and warrior, lying for Jesus! Lmfao

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-17 11:06

      Delusional Dork: "I always say that if all else fails, you can say that baby dawkie ( Nobel prize winner, nogal) played with matches.Bang, bang!!!" 1. There is no more authoritative proof of being wrong than losing every single court case in the world in your quest against evolution. ;-) 2. The dumbest and most delusional are always those to repeatedly "quote" themselves. A last resort when you are unaware of anything outside your myopic single dimensional universe... 3. As for the juvenile "matches" crack Dork - that looks like self repeat number 292!!! ;-) 4. I avoided a question Dork? Lol! Where? Lying for Jesus as usual? 5. Errr - talking about avoiding questions - Could you show me where you DID NOT do so? Lmfao!

  • Doc - 2012-03-12 11:01

    "If you are against evolution, you are pro-apartheid." Therefore Creationist=Racist? Good one. Will definately use this one next time the seven dayers come knocking.

  • Linda Fisher Weatherall-Thomas - 2012-03-12 11:01

    We are still divided, NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS!! And it's sad!

  • Theodor - 2012-03-12 11:02

    Evolution is a religion and has nothing in common with true science. Science is based on facts not on fictitious fairy tails...

      mbossenger - 2012-03-12 11:16

      Ignorance is bliss..

      wesleywt - 2012-03-12 11:18

      What doesn't it have in common with the other sciences. Name them please. Just because you say so doesn't make it true.

      Theodor - 2012-03-12 11:22

      #mbossenger You're right worm, or did you evolve from nothing?

      mbossenger - 2012-03-12 11:25

      Evolve from nothing? What are you talking about?

      Ec - 2012-03-12 11:27

      Yip Evolution rules. Although still believe that we were created by God. But then, if you choose to believe in evolution of man from ape to human, be my guest and look around you ... then choose which one you want to be!

      zaatheist - 2012-03-12 12:38

      It interests me that most of the creationist chorus are so poorly educated they cannot spell of write a grammatically correct sentence. They have obviously not done any kind of study of evolution. They just look willfully ignorant.

      Merven - 2012-03-15 08:23

      @Zaatheist, there is a proven link between IQ and religion, the lower the IQ, the more prone people are to believe in mystical beings. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html Remember, what ever people don't understand, gets the 'god' stamp and well, dumb people got more things they don't understand so more 'god' stamps.

  • jody.beggs - 2012-03-12 11:09

    Just like in the 1600 when the church interfered with scientist of the time only to have to apologize later. Keep your cults at home, away from school or teach them all with no preference for anyone of the evil things. Damn the man.

      J-Man - 2012-03-12 11:15

      Amen.

      jody.beggs - 2012-03-12 11:32

      Any religious people wish to put reasons for not wanting the children to learn all the religious cults ? Please leave a comment.

      Bob - 2012-03-12 12:36

      Perfectly happy for kids to learn about all world views. Just don't choose one of them and call it science.

      jody.beggs - 2012-03-12 12:52

      @Bob I agree if your talking about Creationism.

      Paul - 2012-03-13 11:43

      @jody.beggs Damn the jody-beggs!!!

      Prom - 2012-03-14 02:13

      You mean like science caused the death of million of Jews?

      Sunshine - 2012-03-14 03:42

      Science don't kill Jews, Nazi's do

      Prom - 2012-03-15 01:45

      And religion doesn't kill people. People with other motives do. ;)

      Merven - 2012-03-15 08:25

      'And religion doesn't kill people. People with other motives do' backed by their bibles as motivation.

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-15 14:04

      Prom what sort of denialist BS is that? Of course religion kills people. People practice religion. And 2000 years of persecution lies behind us by unbalanced hicks in the name of religion. Was the Inquisition imposed by secularists? And 9/11? The IRA? The Crusades?

      Prom - 2012-03-16 06:40

      @Mervin: Backed by selfish desires of which atheists are just as guilty. @bruning: Go learn a bit about what you talk about or STFU.

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-16 08:04

      Lol - are you playing the denialist game once again?

      Dirk - 2012-03-16 13:53

      Old Snake here? Up to his usual tricks- trying so hard to appear intelligent, but fails every time. Hundred % for effort, zero for content

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-16 19:20

      Dork describing himself to himself as usual. ;-)

  • Nell - 2012-03-12 11:14

    Jurie Please explain your hypothesis to Nazis. They view Aryan people as an ubermench and black people us an untermench. This was based on their evolutionary believe that white people was further on the evolutionary path than their darker fellow human beings. While you are at it please explain what these evolutionary heroes of yours did to the 6 million Jews and all the rest of the camp inmates who did not fit their view of ubermench.

      mbossenger - 2012-03-12 11:16

      Total hogwash - comparing "social darwinism" to evolutionary theory. Another thing - Hitler ordered the burning of several books in Nazi Germany, "Origin of Species" was among those books.

      jody.beggs - 2012-03-12 11:20

      Hitler was Religious and often quoted the Bible as a source of justification for abuse against gays , woman , other races and the Jews. Where did you get your facts ! Damn the man.

  • Wikus - 2012-03-12 11:24

    Atheism has claimed evolution as such a strong cornerstone of their "faith" that atheists cannot face the inevitable conclusion should evolution not scientifically substantiated. Science and religion are NOT diametrically opposed.

      mbossenger - 2012-03-12 11:37

      There are many scientists who accept evolutionary theory yet retain a belief in god - how do you explain that?

      Phoenix - 2012-03-12 11:40

      Oh dear... the 'Atheism is a religion'/'evolution is a belief' police again. If that makes you happy, then feel free to live in your dillusional world.

      zaatheist - 2012-03-12 12:40

      You guys make such silly statements. Anyway, don’t you love how some Christians will praise science when they (wrongly) think it justifies their faith and bash it when they don’t like its conclusions?

      Mike - 2012-03-12 15:03

      What a load of crud, have you ever read Darwin or any of the peer reviewed papers on evolution. Do you have any science qualifications, there is nothing worse than having a strong opinion about something you know absolutely nothing!

      Grant - 2012-03-12 18:14

      //Atheism has claimed evolution as such a strong cornerstone of their "faith" that atheists cannot face the inevitable conclusion should evolution not scientifically substantiated. Science and religion are NOT diametrically opposed.// So you have gone from not understanding evolution to not understanding Atheism, keep reading your babble and soon you won't understand anything. Evolution is not a religion, it's a biologically proven concept. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. But I guess it's too much to ask for you cretards to actually do some research before hand.

      Mark - 2012-03-13 06:49

      Grant, Maybe you fail to see the point. In my personal opinion, neo-atheism may be equated to a religion, due to the vigorous, and almost evangelical manner in which it is presented. It is a comparison.

      Prom - 2012-03-14 02:28

      Well done to Mark for being the only one to state the obvious here.

      Sunshine - 2012-03-14 04:56

      Good point Mark, I guess after thousands of years of religious social indoctrination some kind of pull in the 'opposite direction' like neo-atheism was inevitable. The first rule in communicating with someone is to speak in a language they understand. Personally I see neo-atheism as less of an 'opposite' position to religion and more of an attempt to break through the indoctrination to try to communicate and bring the debate to a wider audience. Some of it though is a little too militant for me. I see it more as anti-theism than atheism. If someone doesn't understand or has never encountered the concept of 'no-belief' how else do you get your views across to them other than to try to mimic their social paradigms? As can be seen often in this debate, theists struggle to decouple 'belief' from everything else.

      Mark - 2012-03-14 07:20

      Sunshine, Although I am fully theistic, I try to remain objective and open minded. I can see no point in exchanging one antagonist (the fundamentalist) merely with a different one (the neo-atheist). I believe that neither extreme of the religious continuum will harbour any positive result, whether in debate or in life.

  • Graham - 2012-03-12 11:28

    Dr Jurie van den Heever, you have screws loose to say that. To believe in evolution, you must be crazy. What has apartheid got to do with evolution or creation. It is mans depraved mind.

      mbossenger - 2012-03-12 11:36

      Evolution has nothing to do with belief - it is based on evidence from multiple lines of scientific analysis.

      Nicki Labuschagne - 2012-03-12 13:56

      I also completely fail to see what the connection is between evolution and apartheid. Pretty illogical and unscientific is what I see. God is real and God made us all and everything in our beautiful world. Evil twisted men's minds and made them blind - that fact is even stated in the Bible for anyone who is willing to search for the truth.

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-12 14:07

      Nicki, we should stone homosexuals, non-virgin brides and enslave and rape our enemies as the spoils of victory in war!! These are also "facts" stated in the bible... or do you just choose to cherry pick like most christians?

      Mark - 2012-03-12 14:17

      Nutty, Scientist 'cherry pick' from outdated theories only the relevant parts. So, what's wrong with cherry picking?

      Nicki Labuschagne - 2012-03-12 14:28

      @ Clive - you are being as illogical as the author. I did not say anywhere that I advocate those things. Those practices were common in the Old Testament and before Christ died for our sins and gave forgiveness. Everything changed after that. I doubt whether you have ever given the Bible much study or thought. We should all respect one another and we may hold different viewpoints, but don't put words in my mouth.

      Nicki Labuschagne - 2012-03-12 14:31

      Sorry Clive - my reply was meant for Nutty.

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-12 14:32

      Mark, are you playing devils advocate here? You know that there is a vast difference in discarding outdated scientific theory and choosing which parts of the bible to believe! Besides, I don't really think you believe Christians should be stoning homosexuals as the bible commands anymore than I do :)

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-12 14:37

      Nicki, I actually know quite a lot about the bible... The Bible (in it's entirety) is either the word of god or it isn't... you can't have it both ways! If it is the word of god, then you should follow it word for word, if only parts are applicable, then it is obviously not the word of god, and therefor none of it can be seen as credible!

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-12 14:37

      Nicki - Nutty = Clive

      Mark - 2012-03-12 14:45

      Nutty, My point is that, the Bible is NOT the word of God. It is human experiences of God. So why should it be sacred? I am not playing devil's advocate, but atheist needs to realise that not all theist are inherently bad, stupid, ignorant or of low intellect. The concept of sola scriptura is pure nonsense to me. I primarily ascribe to the teachings of Christ, and especially to His ultimate teaching - Love thy neighbour as thyself.

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-12 14:54

      MArk, I do not think all theists are "bad, stupid, ignorant or of low intellect". As I have pointed out on many occasions, the majority of my friends are Christian, a couple muslim and a couple hindu. I do have my doubts as to whether an actual person, the jesus, did walk the earth, but have no problems with the basic tenets of Christianity (the teachings of jesus, if you will). I do get irked however, by Christians who are wilfully ignorant about the Theory of Evolution and then spout the biggest load of nonsense in these forums, and then expect us to respect their viewpoint, when it is blatantly clear they are not entitled to such a viewpoint due to sheer ignorance.

      modo - 2012-03-12 15:00

      Mark, one doesn't need to be a Christian to 'love one's neighbour as oneself'. In fact this notion isn't even original to Christianity.

      Mark - 2012-03-13 06:51

      Modo, Why is the source important? Nutty, I completely agree. Knowledge is power, and to be ignorant to proven theories such as evolution, is plain stupidity.

      charl.hobson - 2012-03-13 08:43

      Dr Jurie van den Heever is no fool, that's for sure. Try to have an intellectual debate with the man.

      Prom - 2012-03-14 02:49

      @NuttyZA: When you use those classic debunked examples you show that you actually now nothing about the Bible. Your comment that we "should follow it word for word if it's the word of God" shows your own ignorance of the bible and that you haven't tried to understand it. We are not willfully ignorant of the theory of evolution. We have looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that it's not true. The constant ad hominems used against us by atheists like you in fact shows your willful ignorance on both subjects. Well done for driving home your point that you too possess that "superior" knowledge that atheists have.

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-14 13:15

      @Prom... sorry, but I committed no ad hominem attacks against you personally or against any christian in general.. However, if you have as you claim, studied the evidence for evolution, you will know that evolution is fact (it has more evidence supporting it than the Theory of Gravity), therefor you are being willfully ignorant becuase you believe that evolution contradicts your religious belief system... I do not see Christians attacking the Theory of Gravity (which has far less corroborative evidence) becuase it has no impact on their religious beliefs whatsoever.

      Prom - 2012-03-15 01:56

      @Nutty: "However, if you have as you claim, studied the evidence for evolution, you will know that evolution is fact" Bull. Evolution is as much fact as superman is. Ignorance is not wanting to know and not trying to learn something. Your statement of willful ignorance is an ad hominem against christians that some know more about evolution than you do and have doen more research and came to a different conclusion. YOU are being willfully ignorant of ideas you prefer to not even think about.

  • Pieter - 2012-03-12 11:34

    A very interesting argument but very stupid to make such a statement. We forget sometimes about the rest of the world and get so carried away with apartheid. Evolution has never been proved although many people think so. Standing up for what you believe in and what you want your children to learn about does not take you back into apartheid. Its a case of integrity. This article serves no purpose

      Ec - 2012-03-12 11:37

      Yip Evolution rules. Although still believe that we were created by God. But then, if you choose to believe in evolution of man from ape to human, be my guest and look around you ... then choose which one you want to be!

      Nicki Labuschagne - 2012-03-12 13:40

      Absolutely agree Pieter.

      Nicki Labuschagne - 2012-03-12 13:48

      @ EC The Bible has no contradictions and if you believe God created us, evolution, a mere unproven theory, has no place in a Christian's life. The difference is between Macro-evolution (Darwinism) and micro-evolotion. There are small subtle changes in species but these are mostly to the species' detriment. Why has there never been a creature half dog and half cat? All the different breeds of dogs and cats are still just dogs and cats. How could our amazing diversity ever have evolved from nothing? And if we are descendents of the apes - and we are evolving - moving forward, developing: why do apes still exist? God made us in His image and the God I serve and trust is no ape! God bless you.

      modo - 2012-03-12 14:03

      @Nicki - Another one who know nothing about evolution but think they know it all. If a 'half dog and half cat' was ever found, it would actually DISPROVE evolution, since their lineages are too far removed from one-another. "And if we are descendents of the apes - and we are evolving - moving forward, developing: why do apes still exist?" I honestly can't believe there are people living in the age of the internet that can make such a ridiculously uninformed and ignorant statement. It has been brought up many times before, but this is the equivalent of saying "Europeans colonised America, why are their still Europeans?" Us and modern apes share a common descendant that we all evolved from. And no contradictions in the Bible?? The gospels can't even agree on the virgin birth, details of the resurrection or the genealogy of Jesus (and don't even get me started on the old testament); issues that should not be present in a book supposedly authored and dictated by an all-powerful, all-knowing being.

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-12 14:09

      Nicki, I agree, and this gravity thing, a mere unproven theory as well... this also has no place in a christians life... I say bugger gravity... lets all just float up to heaven right now!!!

      Phoenix - 2012-03-12 14:54

      Nicki! Unproven theory??? Do you have NO CLUE what theory in science means, even though many people have stated it here? A theory in science is by definition correct! When it is unproven it no longer exists as a theory. Seriously get educate before you make sych comments.

      Mike - 2012-03-12 15:10

      What about the theory of heliocentricity , didn't see that in the Bible, so you cannot then believe that the earth revolves around the sun. We live in the 21st century alongside stone age buffoons!!!

      Grant - 2012-03-12 18:15

      //Evolution has never been proved although many people think so// The overwhelming majority of scientists working in supportive fields have provided evidence for evolution. Your ignorant opinion doesn't hold the same weight.

      mbossenger - 2012-03-12 19:12

      nicki - Macro evolution is defined as evolution above the level of species and has been observed in both plants and animals. As for the rest of your train wreck post, I don't even know where to begin. Suffice to say it would be better if you were to educate yourself on the theory of evolution and the scientific method before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

      jerry.pres - 2012-03-12 19:53

      @nicky God made as to his image, which one, was he Asian or Arab or white or black or American Native, what was his image?

      David - 2012-03-12 20:17

      @ Nicki Go find yourself a priest with a degree in theology. Hear about this from a Christian who has it his life's work to understand his religion. Spend some time with him, discuss the origins and translation of the texts now incorporated in what you call the Bible, as well as the texts that were (deliberately) excluded when it was decided what would comprise the Bible. It is not a history book. It is a collection of texts written well after the event, after being passed down by word of mouth for generations. And then poorly translated...

      Elton - 2012-03-13 08:21

      What makes you think evolution has not been proven?

      Paul - 2012-03-13 13:12

      @Elton What makes you think that evolution has being proven?

      Elton - 2012-03-13 13:40

      @ Paul. Ermmm, science.

      Bharath - 2012-03-13 16:10

      Ha Ha Ha HA HA ! That's the BIGGEST joke of all. Evolution is scientifically unverifiable ! No scientific experiment exists to test and prove the THEORY of evolution ! Evolution is the religion of atheistic scientists who have written a philosophy - not scientific fact ! No scientist has PROVEN evolution by conducting a scientific experiment to cause evolution, nor did a single scientist conduct any experiment to prove evolution occured in the past. You have been hoodwinked by atheistic philosophy !

      Karien - 2012-03-13 16:25

      Nicki You claim very explicitly that "The Bible has no contradictions". I have some questions in this regard, and you as a self-suggested expert in what the bible proposes might be able to help me in my quest for honest understanding. I have many questions and I cannot ask them all here, but I shall start with a humble one. I don't understand why God would make us as we are, and would then expect us to kill His son in order that He may be allowed to forgive us for what we would have done by our inherent created nature?

      Peter-Peter - 2012-03-13 16:35

      Bharath, explain the appendix then. http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/10-why-do-we-have-an-appendix.html perhaps its proof that we evolved from the primates?

      Bharath - 2012-03-13 23:29

      Really ! You're questioning design principles ???? using the human appendix as an example. I can remove my nose and still be able to breath I can cut my eyelids out and still be able to see - till I die I can remove my ears and still hear for the rest of my life Is that all - does this mean that ears, nose and eyelids are left over parts parts from apes???

      Prom - 2012-03-14 03:16

      @Modo: And what would you call this "common descendant"? ;) @Phoenix: "A theory in science is by definition correct! When it is unproven it no longer exists as a theory." So it's believed until disproven. Well done for illustrating the "scientific" bias. @Grant Coffey: Evidence is not the same as proof. Many scientists have provided evidence for evolution yet NONE of it proves the theory. Some of that same evidence supports creation as well so it's not something you can own or lay claim to. @mbossenger: I have never seen an evolutionist make that claim about macro-evolution. Indeed they all claim macro and micro the same in order not to prove something unproven. Any reference to this "observed" macro-evolution. @David: And the theory of evolution has been passed down for generations by whom? Oh that's right, it's all been interpreted after the event. The wrong interpretation imo... @Elton: Science doesn't prove anything one way or the other. It's all interpretation done by fallible people with their own agendas and personal desires. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman ;) @Peter-Peter: You use one of the oldest debunked examples. Do you really believe the Appendix is just a ticking time bomb that gives no advantage? Many doctors will disagree with you.

      mbossenger - 2012-03-14 09:35

      Prom - the definition of macro evolution can be found here - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html "Indeed they all claim macro and micro the same in order not to prove something unproven" - the reason for this is that it is the same mechanism. Speciation (macroevolution) happens when two lines of the same species become seperated (e.g. geographically) and evolve to a point where they can no longer interbreed. Examples of this can be found here: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

      Prom - 2012-03-15 01:57

      mbossenger, you prove my point

  • Arthur - 2012-03-12 11:42

    Whether evolution was expelled from schools as part of the Dutch Reformed Church politics of apartheid does not make it part of racism. Evolution is rejected by Christians because it teaches contrary to the Bible. It is a subtle attempt to discredit the Bible and is accepted by many atheists to explain away the need to believe in God.Color has very little influence here, and that is why white and black Christians all over the world opposes it. It trample's upon the truth without having been observed properly. Science observes things and by repeated observations declares things as facts. And even those facts then are not accepted as ABSOLUTE truth. Who observed a ape for instance bringing forth offspring that could become humans? It supposedly takes place over millions of years thus no observations can be made. But the Bible God is eternal and is the only one who observed all things. He is thus the only true scientist who gave us a short historic record [Genesis]of His works. Moses went into the presence of God and spoke face to face with Him. From those meetings he could write Genesis. We accept that history told unto Moses by God Himself as true just like many history books are accepted in schools as true. The so called evidences evolutionists offer has been repeatedly debunked by other very able scientists. The past is impossible to observe unless you can travel back in time. Thus any scientific claims explaining our past has this disadvantage.

      mbossenger - 2012-03-12 11:52

      "The past is impossible to observe unless you can travel back in time" - so according to you all forensic science is useless?

      zaatheist - 2012-03-12 12:42

      In other news, uneducated utterly useless buttwhistlers encourage people to stay uneducated.

      modo - 2012-03-12 12:51

      @archibald - But the claim that Moses spoke face to face with god is true and verifiable? Are you aware of how absolutely ridiculous and contradictory your argument is?

      Phoenix - 2012-03-12 14:04

      It has never been debunked... that is why it is still a valid theory. how can that be so difficult to understand?

      Mike - 2012-03-12 15:15

      Not a single challenge to evolution in 150 years except by creationists who never publish their so called works for scientific peer review, why because they are a bunch of gutless charlatans. Even in the USA the constitutional court has struck down every attempt by these anti education theocrats, to bring their religious crud into the science class.

      Grant - 2012-03-12 18:24

      //Who observed a ape for instance bringing forth offspring that could become humans? It supposedly takes place over millions of years thus no observations can be made.// Sorry to break it to you but genetic evidence shows the link between ape and human, also genetic clocks show the timescales at which individual changes took place, which support evidence from the fossil records. May I suggest softer sand for you to hide your head in?

      jerry.pres - 2012-03-12 20:12

      Who is your daddy Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html Anthropologists say they have discovered the 3.6 million-year-old partial skeleton of a creature that came from the same species as Lucy, but was 400,000 years older and at least as good at walking upright. Their analysis suggests that upright walking, the trademark trait for humans and their extinct kin, goes back further in time than some might have assumed. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/21/4539675-lucys-great-grandfather-found

      David - 2012-03-12 20:31

      Archibald.... "Moses went into the presence of God and spoke face to face with Him. From those meetings he could write Genesis" You are basing an entire religion on one man's account? This one chap says he saw God, and was told all this, therefore it must be true? Moses is credited (with some dispute) for being the author of Genesis. Do you really think the Genesis Moses told is the same that you see now, passed by word of mouth for generations, before being written down, and then translated?

      Mark - 2012-03-13 07:39

      Archibald, There are blatant contradictions in Genesis, for example the order of Creation. So, I would rather vouch that Genesis is no scientific journal, rather an allegorical beginning.

      Romano - 2012-03-13 07:44

      The author did not say it is part of apartheid he said it is LIKE apartheid please people read

      Karien - 2012-03-13 16:37

      Logic 101 according to Archibald: 1) We have physically observable and even tangible evidence that proves that dinosaurs and modern species walked the earth 2) We could not possibly have been there at the time of the dinosaurs Hence - Dinosaurs did not exist because the bible does not mention them! YAY!!! Archibald has solved all our questions thanks to the bible under his arm!

      Prom - 2012-03-14 03:37

      @Phoenix: It doesn't need to be debunked absolutely because it's NEVER been proven. The truth of it has never even been considered by the abundant majority of scientists. How can that be so difficult to understand? @DanielDennett: Great! Let's label everyone that challenges evolution as a creationist so we can dismiss it as unchallenged. There has been many anti-evolution and/or creation peer reviewed articles over the decades. Creationists DO publish. Most often going by different terms due to the bias creation receives. Shall we bring up just one such case that almost resulted in the editor getting fired? Well done for your "credible" scientific peer review that "never" publishes anti-evolution because it refuses to accept publication of anti-evolution. Obviously from this article our courts differ from the USA one. Which one is objectively right? @Mark: The assertion that Genesis contradicts itself on the order of creation has been shown false long ago.

      Mark - 2012-03-14 07:23

      Prom, Really, please enlighten me.

      Prom - 2012-03-15 03:03

      http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions

  • John - 2012-03-12 11:44

    Does evolution not promote specie diversity? Does this not contradict the mad man's own statement?

  • Bob - 2012-03-12 11:46

    To my mind, it is easier to fit equality of races into a creation framework (created different but equal) than into an evolutionary framework (evolved differently, but by coincidence still equal).

      jody.beggs - 2012-03-12 12:08

      So in your mind easier is better ? I think you hit the nail on the head there , so many people believe in God because its easier than actually trying for yourself. Damn the man.

      Bob - 2012-03-12 12:31

      Yes. Easier to fit to a theory, as in more logical, is better. Perhaps if I word it differently you might better grasp my point: if you want to argue that races are equal, then evolution is not the easiest starting point.

      Grant - 2012-03-12 18:18

      //Yes. Easier to fit to a theory, as in more logical, is better. Perhaps if I word it differently you might better grasp my point: if you want to argue that races are equal, then evolution is not the easiest starting point.// "In your head" is not a theory. It's an idea. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. Please tell us exactly why you think evolution is more of a race problem than: //created different but equal//

      Ec - 2012-03-13 06:32

      Yes, my point earlier... but the decendents of the apes (evolution) will not understand this concept!

      Mark - 2012-03-13 06:53

      Jody, Okram's Razor deals with the concept that, quite often, the simplest solution to a problem is also the most efficient one. Now, I'm definitely not refuting the theory of evolution. But a creator would solve alot of the prevalent questions.

      jody.beggs - 2012-03-13 08:52

      @Mark would it actually answer the questions or just wish them away ? God did it is not a reason at all.

      Llewellyn - 2012-03-13 14:35

      Mark - //But a creator would solve alot of the prevalent questions.// Science has never claimed to know everything. We are a long way away, but still learning, thank goodness. For those who do not want to think, or do not have the answers, a creator is there to fill the gaps. I shudder to think where we would be now if we only had christian/religious scientists in this world.

      Mark - 2012-03-13 14:56

      Llewelyn, Nonsense. I do not ascribe to the idea of a God of the Gaps. Thing is, science can not have an opinion on God. Because it does not address the question. We can not claim to be unable to prove a double negative, but in the next comment back up atheism with 'scientific proof'. If science does not address the question directly, why bring it into the equation at all?

      Prom - 2012-03-14 03:52

      @Jody: Aliens did it would not be a reason either. But it is still an answer even if you continue closing your ears to some answers you don't like to hear. @Llewellyn: Absolute nonsense. If you continue to stick your head in the sand when confronted with difficult questions you can't claim to be learning. Very easy to do for those who do not think or don't want to know the answers.

  • Horst - 2012-03-12 12:03

    I am a supporter of evolutionary theory, but this sort of arguing and bringing apartheid into this is crap.

  • rambo919 - 2012-03-12 12:17

    bhahahaha so much for intelligent life, pro-evolution means pro-apartheid. Evolution needs natural selection to work. It's natural selection that supports the different types (races) of animal that are inferior/superior to each other, and evolution that says humans are merely advanced animals. The most hilarious thing about modern socialism(liberalism) is that the same geniuses that espouse evolution still scream at the tops of their lungs that no human type is above the other. Hitler did not abuse evolution, he merely followed it's logic.

      mbossenger - 2012-03-12 12:22

      See my comment above about the burining of "Origin of Species" in Nazi Germany.

      rambo919 - 2012-03-12 12:31

      Because it conflicted with his mythology of, loosely put, the the German man being perfection. Does not measure how much he disagreed or agreed with it.

      mbossenger - 2012-03-12 12:44

      So he agreed with it and ordered the books to be burned anyway?

      zaatheist - 2012-03-12 12:46

      Hitler was a very good Catholic and his atrocities and those of his people were committed in the name of your god. I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord" --Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf He believed in evolution did he? "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief." —Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi You should check your facts. You have just looked really, really stupid.

      rambo919 - 2012-03-12 13:19

      U forget that most of what he said was propaganda and I look stupid? And besides why focus on one sentance of the entire paragraph so much? It was Hitler, grow up and move on already sheesh. Hardly the worst example of humanity ever and I merely used him to emphasise a point. He was neither particularly religious nor a great believer in evolution, he used what he could where he could find it. Seriously what does he matter so much? Stalin was much much worse and I don't particularly care about him either.

      Andre - 2012-03-12 14:08

      @zaatheist. “The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.” -Adolf Hitler source(Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk). “The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.” - Adolf Hitler source(Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk). We are the joyous Hitler youth, We do not need any Christian virtue Our leader is our savior The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone We want to be pagans once again.” - Song sung by Hitler youth

      Mike - 2012-03-12 15:18

      And the SS belt buckle has god is with us engraved on it....try again

      Grant - 2012-03-12 18:20

      // Seriously what does he matter so much? // //Hitler did not abuse evolution, he merely followed it's logic// Don't bring Hitler into an argument, then try and cover your butt when it gets kicked. Your assertion on Hitler has been shown to be false.

      Mark - 2012-03-13 07:42

      Grant, The point is, most atheist are quick to point out that alot of atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. But when confronted with Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc, they are quick to point out that these psychopaths murdered for a political cause only. So let's be consequent and declare that despots such as Hitler, Stalin, etc are psychopaths, regardless of their religious agenda.

      maydont - 2012-03-13 10:47

      How does bringing Hitler into the conversation prove or disprove any science? It's a grade school debating hack. Using that logic: Hitler was a vegetarian so all vegetarians are Nazis. Hitler had a moustache (as did Stalin and Saddam Hussein) hence all moustache wearing men are genocidal?!?! For those familiar with falacious reasoning, I think it's a clear case of "Poisoning the well" and non-sequitur.

      Prom - 2012-03-14 04:05

      Well done Mark @maydont: Hitler wasn't just brought into it. The so-called atrocities committed by "religion" was. Atheist are quick to be judgmental but then cry foul when someone uses their own tactics against them as an example to show how wrong they are. Just like their belief that evolution is true yet they're judgmental towards people that hold other beliefs.* In the same vain I then see them calling christians they don't know from a bar of soap on judging people with different beliefs. *Disclaimer: Most atheists I've met are in fact not like this. I get along fine with the majority. It's only a few rotten apples. :)

      Eli - 2012-03-14 08:41

      @zaatheist.... Catholiscm is not Christianity. Just as a matter of fact. They may say they serve the same God, but they also practice Idolatry, and believe in Purgatory, which are all not biblical, just like Islam too, they believe in God, and Jesus' virgin birth, but their God teaches them that its ok to beat their wives, Phaedophilia and sexual perversion, Killing of unbelievers, and that is a sharp contrast to what the Christian God is. So do not confuse True Christianity with other religions. Actually do your homework and then you'll see how completely perfect Jesus is. The story of God coming down do die for His creation, is not a concept that man could ever think up. Man is to self centered and could never conceive a story of grace. Thats why Christianity is the truth, because all other religions say you can earn your salvation through good works, but the true God says, you can never earn your way and so i have given you a gift of Salvation... its the only way, and the only truth.

  • Arthur - 2012-03-12 12:39

    @Mbossenger. I never said forensic science is useless. I spoke about the disadvantage of us being unable to observe the past, while the God of the Bible did. Who would you believe more? An eyewitness account of a very credible person or forensic science that has to construct a scene based on the available evidence? What about the evidence that is NOT available anymore? THIS IS WHERE THEY MAKE UP THE GAPS. We believe the Bible not just because we read it and it sounds like a reasonable explanation. We believe it because most Christians MEETS the Bible God very personally in their lives. When they were drunks, addicts, hopelessly in sin, they spoke to Him in prayer and He delivered them. No one then can convince them other wise through some fallible science. Many other Christians were sick even to death and then MET God when He healed them. The testimonies of that is countless. Now that is present evidence to the Christian to which those things happened. To any atheist such evidence would not even count. The presnt works of God is denied. Countless doctors can testify to radical changes in patients which science could not explain. But to the one who wants to be blind such evidence does not count. Who is more blind than the one who refuses to see? Besides God saving people, and healing them, He also prophesied things that did come to pass. Through those countless prophecies we know He is truthful, the One who knows the end from the beginning.

      Phoenix - 2012-03-12 12:53

      "which science could not explain"? You mean "which science could not explain YET". So because you do not understand something it is automatically magic?

      Francois Swiegers - 2012-03-12 13:05

      \Who would you believe more? An eyewitness account of a very credible person or forensic science that has to construct a scene based on the available evidence?” \r\n\r\nIt is actually quite well-known in both legal and scientific circles that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and that forensic evidence is much more reliable to ensure convictions.

      Piet - 2012-03-12 14:08

      Why let them get sick in the first place?

      Grant - 2012-03-12 18:21

      //Many other Christians were sick even to death and then MET God when He healed them. The testimonies of that is countless// Testimony is not evidence. And you are lying, unless you can validate this, which I doubt you can?

      Grant - 2012-03-12 18:27

      //Who would you believe more? An eyewitness account of a very credible person or forensic science that has to construct a scene based on the available evidence?// Oh good, were talking evidence, finally, please provide some evidence for your eyewitness.

      jerry.pres - 2012-03-12 20:21

      @ Archibald And he also kill them. Only God wipe out whole civilization.He is jealous, blood thirsty creature. Bible should be available for reading to person over 18 years of the age. You cannot find more violent and immoral book like Bible is in any fiction.

      David - 2012-03-12 20:40

      "We believe it because most Christians MEETS the Bible God very personally in their lives. When they were drunks, addicts, hopelessly in sin, they spoke to Him in prayer and He delivered them." So most Christians were at some time drunks, addicts, hopelessly in sin? I'm guessing you "found" God in a rehab centre? Do not paint an entire religion with your perspective.

      Sunshine - 2012-03-12 22:13

      Archi, saying 'God did it' IS WHERE YOU MAKE UP THE GAPS (or should that be caps)

      Prom - 2012-03-14 04:18

      @Phoenix: So you have absolute faith science will be able to explain it? Either way you can't win with that statement. @Grant: There's different kinds of evidence. Using the same reasoning as you I can dismiss your evidence.

  • Arthur - 2012-03-12 13:05

    Daniel lived in Babylon and said God spoke to him. He sees 4 world empires coming one after the other and describe Babylon, followed by Persia and Greece and named them. The fourth is Rome and it happenes. He sees in Daniel 9:26 Jerusalem will be destroyed as well as it's temple [sanctuary] 70 AD that comes to pass. Jesus said the same thing 37 years before it happened [Matt.24] and refered to Daniel. Jeremiah 11:25 said the nations would serve Babylon 70 years. History records Babylon destroyed the last remnants of the Assyrian empire 609 BC. In 539 BC exactly 70 years later Babylon fell. Isaiah 44&45 sees Cyrus would conquer the Babylonians and even mention him by name almost 200 years before his birth. Ezekiel, Jeremiah 16:15 and other prophets sees the Jews would be scattered but again come back into their own land. There they are today as said. Isaiah 53 sees the Jesus crucified 53:5 and all the the things that happened to Him that day. Then the gospel writers confirmed all of that. I could go on and on showing you prophecy upon prophecy. This is partly why no atheist will shake the faith of the true christian. The evidence of Him being real is just too overwelming once you look at the Bible. Now if God could prophecy thousands of years into the future, why would He be wrong about the past we know so little about?

      Francois Swiegers - 2012-03-12 13:18

      With enough poetic license, any prophecy lacking sufficient detail can be interpreted to concur with some real event (see Nostradamus as an example). In the case of many bible prophecies, you even have a problem of verifying that the prophecy was actually made before the event took place.

      rambo919 - 2012-03-12 13:21

      The united nations is basically impotent....I rather doubt he would have given it such a high rating.

      modo - 2012-03-12 13:24

      What about all the prophesy that didn't come true, do you even know of these or simply choose to ignore them? Jesus repeatedly telling everyone that the end of days was within their lifetime, Joseph in Genesis dying in Egypt rather than Israel, Josiah dying from an arrow wound in battle, not "in peace" as is promised, god not driving out the Canaanites as promised. Never mind the contradiction of the bible - the separate genealogies that are given of Jesus in the new testament, the conflicting accounts of the resurrection, the fact that two of the four gospels don't even mention the virgin birth! I could go on and on and on... You have been selectively fed 'prophecies' that even when fulfilled are vague and unimpressive. You have even misrepresented some of them here, because in their basic form they are simply not exceptional. Many people make equally valid claims using the holy books of every single religion that exists, the writings of Nostradamus and even episodes of television shows. In all cases only indoctrination and selective teachings can make one believe them.

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-12 13:27

      I predict that I will be having lunch soon. All hail Me.

      rambo919 - 2012-03-12 13:29

      personally i do not expect anything written more than a thousand years ago to survive perfectly intact today, does not mean the bulk is false

      modo - 2012-03-12 13:38

      @Rambo - If god is all-powerful, and those are his words, why would they not survive perfectly intact? Seem like a pretty minor task for him compared with creating the universe.

      rambo919 - 2012-03-12 13:47

      Because humans suck at keeping a story straight?

      Francois Swiegers - 2012-03-12 13:49

      @rambo –I find it somewhat amusing how (some, not all) believers use the imperfection of the bible as excuse when confronted with its oddities, while at the same time demanding its uncompromising acceptance regarding other topics like the age of the earth, homosexuality and abortion. Surely if you accept at least some imperfection in the word of god, then you are obliged to study the rest with a critical view?

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-12 13:57

      Ryan... I hope your prediction came to pass... and that you enjoyed your lunch!!!

      modo - 2012-03-12 14:10

      But rambo, god is all-powerful! Wouldn't it be really really simple for him to ensure that the account of creation, Jesus, history etc would be totally accurate and be easily verified with evidence without contradictions and confusion. This is not a tough task at all, god easily persuaded Abraham to (nearly) kill his son, and persuaded the Israelites to commit genocide, surely it would be small fry for him to persuade and guide authors and translators to maintain the authenticity and accuracy of a few scripts? How could this be beyond him?

      Arthur - 2012-03-12 15:50

      @Modo Joseph actually knew he was going to die in Egypt and asked the Israelites not to leave his bones behind when they go from there. GENESIS 50:25 And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence." He also knew they would be led out, and knew the resurrection would be in Israel in the time of Jesus, thus he wanted them to carry his bones there. Concerning Josiah-He was told he would be gathered in the grave with his fathers in peace. If they write on the graves of people-rest in peace-do they mean those who died, has died in a peaceful way? or whether they should merely have a peaceful rest after death? Josiah was promised peace after death which is a greater promise than dying peacefully and then going to hell.The mode of death was not the promise here, but that he would have peace after his death with his fathers. He was saved from a very sinful generation which he tried to reform just like the one we have now. What is vague about prophesying a nation shall arise to conquer the present one and then naming it, such as Daniel named Persia and Greece? What is vague about naming the man who would conquer Babylon such as Isaiah named Cyrus? Even before his death he already named the future ruler before he was born! What is vague about Daniel saying Jerusalem would be destroyed and also the temple long before it happened? What is vague about Jesus saying it 37 years before it happened?

      Francois Swiegers - 2012-03-12 16:10

      Daniel’s prophecies were written after the fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Book_of_daniel). The gospels were also written long after Jesus’ death. Put this lame argument to rest already.

      Sunshine - 2012-03-12 22:15

      Archi, how does the unshakeable faith of all the other religions fit into your paradigm?

      hein.huyser - 2012-03-13 11:16

      The ignorant will not believe these things even if they see it with their own eyes. God Yahweh the Creator stood firm in spite of these so called empires, and then Jesus came (as prophesied) and a mere 300 years later have conquered the mighty Roman empire, and is still going stronger than ever before. Luckily we know how it all ends, (we have read Revelations),so does Satan, just a pity most ignore this fact. Shalom

      Eli - 2012-03-13 13:27

      @ Modo, you have no understanding on what you speak. See ignorance plays a big part in people not understanding and being able to grasp the truth of Christianity. Compare Christianity to any other religion, and it wins hands down. No contest!

      modo - 2012-03-13 15:00

      @Eli - There really isn't much to understand. "Compare Christianity to any other religion, and it wins hands down. No contest!" I'm not comparing christianity to other religions. What a futile exercise! I am comparing it to science, and science absolutely decimates it.

      Mark - 2012-03-14 07:24

      Modo, Why don't you compare your television to a bulldozer? Same argumet.

      modo - 2012-03-14 10:06

      @Mark - I don't understand what you are trying to say. Science and all religions are both attempts at explaining reality. Of course they can be compared.

      Mark - 2012-03-14 10:29

      Modo, I disagree. Science is empirical, religion is based on faith. So the fundamental characteristics are not compatible.

      modo - 2012-03-15 08:05

      @Mark - Exactly. Religion is based on faith. Something that science doesn't depend on. Faith is just an excuse to believe what you want. It can be and is used as an argument for Christianity, Islam, Scientology, Astrology, Mormonism, you name it.. The fact that people have faith in these things doesn't make them any more likely to be true. Whether something is true or not depends on the evidence (science), not on whether you want it to be true (faith). Faith simply has no place in our day and age, and if it faith is required for your beliefs I suggest you seriously re-evaluate them.

      Mark - 2012-03-15 08:48

      Modo, Your view is a bit extremist and nihilistic for my liking. Faith is a cornerstone in our society. Why do you trust Nike more than R50 shoes. Reputation, which equals faith in a brand name. Why is it so wrong to have a different view than you have? I am not evangelising, proselytizing, or damning you. I simply believe in the existence of some kind of deity. Your strong antagonism is indicative - to me - that either you are extremely close minded, or you feel threatened by my beliefs. Why?

      modo - 2012-03-15 11:18

      Please explain how my views are nihilistic. The truth is the truth regardless of whether you like it or not. It is cowardly to hide behind faith and ignore evidence to the contrary. You are confusing faith with evidence-based expectations. One goes on a lot more than faith when deciding whether a pair of Nikes is better than a R50 pair of shoes. There is a huge difference! Reputation is 100% evidence-based, faith is the exact opposite. I don't see how I'm being antagonistic. I haven't provided a single argument without evidence. If I said I believe in evolution because I have faith in it that would imply there is nothing to suggest that it is true and that it is just what I want to believe. I would never use faith as a gauge for the truth of something as this would be ridiculous. The entire scientific endeavour would be meaningless if faith was regarded as equivalent to evidence. I am definitely not close minded, this is really a case of pot calling the kettle black. Your beliefs are indeed threatening when they impede on the progress of science. I used to be a Christian myself and was fed lies about evolution and how atheists are essentially evil, so I understand where you are coming from. If you are willing to discard decades of hard evidence and scientific inquiry and believe the opinions of non-scientists when it comes to evolution simply so that it doesn't challenge your faith (belief without evidence), then it is you who is close-minded - and extremely so.

      Mark - 2012-03-15 12:47

      Modo, Reputation s based on marketing, which is half truth, selective interpretation, etc. Thus requires faith. You are lavishly demonstration your close mindedness and predetermined ideas by attributing to me that I don't believe (?!) in evolution, and that my believes are blocking the way for science. As a point of interest, please quite me where I'm rebuting the theory of evolution, or provide examples how my faith, as an individual, hampers the progress of science, or where I discard 'decades of hard evidence'. I subscribe to the theory of evolution. I do NOT subscribe to the theories of Abiogenesis, Panspermia, Big Bang, Superstring, etc., simply because I have not seen conclusive empirical data on these. If I'm outdated, I am happy to change my views. But to rant and rave about My religion this, and MY religion that without asserting what exactly my religion constitutes is pure myopia

      gordcragg - 2012-03-15 17:23

      Well I'm not quite sure why you are arguing with me then Mark. I am particularly and specifically arguing against those theists who fail to recognize the theory of evolution. Have you read the comments to this article? Do you not see how many people are simply dismissing evolution on religious grounds? This kind of public misunderstanding can affect scientific support and funding drastically. So, no your faith as an individual doesn't impede science, but there are many people on this forum whose faith definitely impedes it and if you look back you will see that this is what I am arguing! This purely 6 day creation vs. evolution argument and I have been trying to show why one holds far more water. In that sense religion and science are definitely comparable since they both make attempts at explaining how humans came into existence, and that was my initial point that you had an issue with! By the way, reputation isn't based solely, or even partially on advertising. Advertising in itself is a form of evidence.

      Mark - 2012-03-16 09:01

      Modo, I admit, after some retrospection last night, I do realise that I came over a bit strong when replying. But generalisation is foolproof way of getting my revs quite high, if you catch my drift. :-) So, I apologise if I made any ad hominem remarks to you. That is not my intention at all. My original argument was that religion and science are two vastly different fields, and should never be in competition with eachother, as the one is a philosophy and the other a science (by lack of better word). Just to give you a bit background of my views. I regard the better part of the Christian dogma as utter BS, invented, distorted and disfigured by man to manipulate fellow man. That is why I don't really use much of the old testament. Christianity, in my opinion, can be summarised by Christ's two commandments, namely love thyself and love thy neighbour equally. Whether He was/is divine, is a matter of personal opinion, and irrelevant to science. I also like his mount sermons. So, in the Creation debate, I admit that I'm somewhat of an agnostic. Not really sure what to make of Genesis, as it is quite contradictory, and frankly, not extremely coherent. This is not really relevant to me though. Lastly, I disagree with your statement on marketing, but let's have that discussion another time. :-)

  • Ryan Holland - 2012-03-12 13:24

    Does anybody remember being forced to watch \Image of the Beast\, \Hell's Bells\ and other such crap during science class in the 90's? This is what they mean when they say \teach the controversy\. Scare the hell out of little kids so they are easier to control. Now that reminds me more of apartheid then a denial of evolution.

      rambo919 - 2012-03-12 13:38

      I just remember endless drug specials

      Karien - 2012-03-14 02:57

      I remember Rodney Seale and the whole backward masking thing. I always thought that those musicians had to be absolutely brilliant in being able to write, produce and perform music that was intelligible when played either way round.

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-15 09:17

      Ryan did you know that the main reason SA was the only country in the world not able to watch the moon landing was a religious one? The relevant minister would not allow TV because of it's bad influence, and immorality like pop music!. Not only that - on a daily basis christians were critizing the entire concept as meddling in and mocking "God's" affairs by going where no man was supposed to go" and therefore amoral!

  • Marius - 2012-03-12 13:38

    If this does not confirm the war on science, I don't know: "However, the document also recommends two weeks for learners to be taught about alternatives to evolution, including creationism and intelligent design. The document specifies "different cultural and religious expalanations for the origin and development of life on Earth" (sic)." Dark ages anyone? So we are entertaining notions as to not hurt anyone's feelings? Since when is the truth a democratic concept?

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-14 13:31

      Are you saying that all evolution taught in schools is factual; have you read any of the modern science books being used in schools? If you take all the non-facts out of the text books, you end up with no evolution.

      Grant - 2012-03-14 20:15

      //Are you saying that all evolution taught in schools is factual// Yes, are you saying that creationism conforms to the same high standards that evolutionary science does?

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-14 21:55

      Thanks for clarifying Grant, I saw a current science text book last week with Haekel’s drawings there as evidence for evolution...those were proven fraudulent over a hundred years or so ago, also pictures of Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and Java man; all proven frauds... I guess that's what passes for evidence in the evolutionary world.

      francois.swiegers - 2012-03-14 22:12

      Java Man is no hoax - homo erectus was an important stage in the evolution of man.

      modo - 2012-03-15 08:43

      @Ckrums - Which textbook was this??

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-15 10:13

      @Francois Swiegers "Java Man is no hoax" Did you know that all Eugene Dubois found was a skull cap, then a year later about 15 meters away he found a human thigh-bone, and later 3 teeth. 2 of the teeth were proven to be from an orangutan, there was NO proof the bones were from the same individual; but Dubois was desperate to find a missing link, so he claimed that this discovery was a transitional fossil. Dubois also hid the fact that he had discovered 2 human skulls in the same location & level (later called the Wadjak skulls), because he knew it would detract from the readiness with which his ‘Java man’ find would be accepted as man’s ancestor. It's MUCH more likely that the skullcap belonged to a large extinct ape, & the leg bone to an ordinary human. There is nothing to suggest otherwise, unless you're seeing what you want to see. Dubois himself eventually claimed that "Java man" was actually "a gigantic genus allied to the gibbons"...but none of this has been proven. Now why do the text books not explain these issues and facts around the dubious "Java man"; why do they put this forward as irrefutable fact? Again, the propaganda machine of evolution. Piltdown man was a TOTAL fraud with bones being chemically stained to appear old, and teeth being filed down LOL. For Nebraska man, all they found was ONE tooth (have you seen the drawings of this man from one tooth)...later the same tooth was found on the skull of a wild pig! Many other frauds!

  • James - 2012-03-12 13:59

    Wahahah what a funny article, must be april fools day. Evolution is a science ha ha that's hilarious. tell me another one. I'd much rather believe in God. Thanks

      Franco - 2012-03-12 14:21

      We are free to believe in god or understand science. If we understood god we would have one religion. If we believed in evolution we would have thousands of Darwins.

      maydont - 2012-03-13 10:58

      Knock yourself out, James.

      Grant - 2012-03-14 20:16

      The only thing that's hilarious is that James thinks his opinion outweights the majority of biologists worldwide.

      Merven - 2012-03-16 08:37

      @James As said before, what ever dumb people don't understand, gets a 'god' stamp.

  • jurgen.eksteen - 2012-03-12 14:08

    Dr Walter J Veith also worked at Stellenbosch University believing the same nonsense until he came to his sense and successfully argues SCIENTIFICALLY against evolution. Look him up on the web and listen to his arguments and then re-examen the view of evolution.

      Phoenix - 2012-03-12 14:59

      If ANYONE has come up with ANY proof that shows Evolution to be incorrect, even insthe smallest way, the theory of evolution will not be valid anymore. Currently it is still vallid, in other words, NO-ONE has shown any scientific fact that disproves it - ever in the history of the world. Please understand how scientific theories work.

      Grant - 2012-03-12 18:29

      //Dr Walter J Veith also worked at Stellenbosch University believing the same nonsense until he came to his sense and successfully argues SCIENTIFICALLY against evolution. Look him up on the web and listen to his arguments and then re-examen the view of evolution.// Please provide his published evidence for his standpoint.

      mbossenger - 2012-03-12 18:43

      Want a good laugh at the world renowned Walter Veith? Go here http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/10/31/dark-fantasy-world-walter-veith

      Elton - 2012-03-13 08:31

      Show me is published papers...

      Bharath - 2012-03-13 16:18

      Elton - there is a magazine called PLAYBOY which is published in society! Just becuase something is published and appreciated as good in "certain circles" - does not mean it holds any weight in society ! So-called published scientific "peer-reviewed" papers about evolution do not contain a single shred of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE based on experiment and result ! Evolution is junk science and atheistic philosophy ! It should not be taught as SCIENCE but preached on the palpit of the International Atheists Convention.

      Grant - 2012-03-14 20:27

      //Elton - there is a magazine called PLAYBOY which is published in society! // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal In academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research. There are thousands of scientific journals in publication, and many more have been published at various points in the past (see list of scientific journals). Most journals are highly specialized, although some of the oldest journals such as Nature publish articles and scientific papers across a wide range of scientific fields. Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality, and scientific validity. Although scientific journals are superficially similar to professional magazines, they are actually quite different. Issues of a scientific journal are rarely read casually, as one would read a magazine. The publication of the results of research is an essential part of the scientific method. If they are describing experiments or calculations, they must supply enough details that an independent researcher could repeat the experiment or calculation to verify the results. Each such journal article becomes part of the permanent scientific record.

      Bharath - 2012-03-14 23:57

      Still waiting for a SINGLE result of scientific experiment causing evolution in ANY species. Yet the whole scientific community "supposedly accepts" it as scientific fact - WITHOUT the proof Wow !

      pieter.bosch - 2012-03-15 14:25

      Bharath: "SINGLE result of scientific experiment causing evolution in ANY species" Radiation in parents caused a lott of bad mutations in their children due to the Chernobyl disaster. When these children breed their ofspring would have similar problems. Fortunately the changes only influence a rather small percentage of the population in Russia or humans as a whole, but the long term effects of this is unknown.

      Bharath - 2012-03-15 19:34

      Heh heh Heh - I was expecting this - so here it is : Genetic defects passed on to children like tumors and skin defects are NOT evolutionary - they're damaged DNA strands genetically passed on to offspring! The children are STILL human but scarred. Certain DNA strands cannot be repaired and replicated to offspring in it's pure state. Now, your only point is that DNA can be interfered with which causes death and defect (NOT EVOLUTION) in living organism - this is a well known fact - DNA can be f*d with the same way a binary code on a flash disk can be corrupted. This is not a result of scieintific experiment - this is nonsense !

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-15 21:40

      Bharath are you actually attempting to tell us that the ONLY results from mutations are "deadly" currymouth? Where did you get that hogwash from? Your creationist websites?

      Bharath - 2012-03-15 22:35

      (*The cheerleader and the Krack addict are back again, they really seemed pee'd off - watch them tag team each other through the posts) Mmmm - "currymouth" and sphincter - god damn now I'm insulted. NOT !

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-16 02:26

      Currybeak I asked you where you got that bit of brilliant insight from regarding the transmission of "cancerous cells and tumors" you genius? A lucky packet? Or was this one of your own "unique" inventions? Lmao!

      Merven - 2012-03-16 08:42

      Lol @ jurgens Professor Walter Veith is a zoologist, that is like saying a psychologist is a expert on heart transplants.

  • Andre - 2012-03-12 14:10

    @zaatheist. “The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.” -Adolf Hitler , source(Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk). “The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.” - Adolf Hitler, source(Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk). We are the joyous Hitler youth, We do not need any Christian virtue Our leader is our savior The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone We want to be pagans once again.” - Song sung by Hitler youth

      Grant - 2012-03-13 06:15

      //Song sung by Hitler youth// Cite references please.

      Andre - 2012-03-13 18:46

      @Grant Coffey Here it is: "We are the joyous Hitler youth, We do not need any Christian virtue Our leader is our savior The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone We want to be pagans once again.” Education in the Third Reich: a study of race and history in Nazi textbooks By Gilmer W. Blackburn

  • Den - 2012-03-12 14:59

    im quite sure some how apartheid is also to blame for global warming..

      Franco - 2012-03-12 15:41

      Well, the racial friction bla bla bla bla .....

  • Leo - 2012-03-12 15:11

    Evoltion is a religion. It is faith based and not facts. I have documented proof from many scientists to the facts of creationism. The truth is, this educator is an atheist who doe not beieve the first verse in the bible. Someone onece said " atheism is a parasite on society" why does this educator not take evolution and start their own school. Why come in with their faith and looked to ruin others, Stalin and \hitler and their ilk believed in evolution and the survival of the fitest and looked what it brought to mankind. Death and destruction. Keep evolution out of schools and fire that educator!

      Franco - 2012-03-12 15:24

      Leo - go ahead and state one single piece of evidence that proves creation. In your own words and not by discrediting another theory. And once you have done so, and I cannot refute it with evidence, I will immediately convert. But I expect you to do the same. Shoot.

      Phoenix - 2012-03-12 15:28

      Once again, if what you say is true, scientists around the world will gladly accept that and the Theory of Evolution will not be a valid theory anymore. However, it is still a valid theory, in other words, no shred of evidence exists on earth that negates it. Keep living in your dreamworld.

      mbossenger - 2012-03-12 15:29

      " have documented proof from many scientists to the facts of creationism." - let's have 'em then...

      Mike - 2012-03-12 15:54

      Why is it that people with zero science knowledge have the strongest opinions about shyte they know absolutely nothing about. Darwin gave humanity back it's destiny as opposed to the crud in fairy tale books of ignorant goat herders of the bronze age.

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-12 16:10

      Didn't you realise, Leo is a pastor at the Faith Baptist Church... in is in his financial interest to "lie for Jesus"

      Grant - 2012-03-12 18:31

      //I have documented proof from many scientists to the facts of creationism// Awesome, which journals are they published in? Nature? Science? Please provide links!

      Zing - 2012-03-13 14:11

      "atheist who doe not beieve the first verse in the bible" It doesn't take an atheist to disbelieve the bible. There are at least 5 scientific errors on page 1 of the bible, including the first verse.

      Bharath - 2012-03-13 16:22

      To Phoenix - you have set yourself up Dont blame me. - I am using your logic here : Since science cannot disprove God - God exists ! No single shred of evidence negates God. Therefore atheism is UNSCIENTIFIC

      Karien - 2012-03-13 17:50

      Bharath Please provide us with the natural means by which we may detect that which by definition is "super-natural". You have to do at least that to be relevant on scientific grounds, not so?

      Bharath - 2012-03-13 23:39

      Yeah - and atheism has to be relevant on scienftific grounds also - why do you have double standards for religion and atheism ??? Honest scientists admit they are agnostic not atheistic - because science cannot do experiments on God - that is impossible from a practical point of view - therefore science has to remain eternally agnostic to God and NOT atheistic. Yet atheistic scientists who cannot scientifically prove or disprove God claim athiesm as scietific fact. Science is absolute - it needs scientific verification of facts - it cannot claim something does not exist absolutely if it cannot conduct scientific experiments on the object first. It is a logical and scietific shortcoming - something atheists cannot get around no matter how hard they try. God has defeated them logically even before they get off the starting block.

      Karien - 2012-03-14 00:45

      See Barath, personally I am agnostic like you said science should be but neither my own or your personal beliefs are really relevant. As far as the atheists go, who I tend to side with when it comes to logic in science, they do not claim to have the inside track on the ultimate culmination of all knowledge based on the "super-natural" like you do. You insist that your supernatural beliefs should be regarded as scientifically relevant by default, not them. The only difference between myself and the atheists is that they do not choose to believe in a potential creator while I keep my options open in the lack of any evidence. I will have to add that I FEEL that god would not be such a child as proposed in your bible if a creator exists.

      Grant - 2012-03-14 20:31

      //Yeah - and atheism has to be relevant on scienftific grounds also - why do you have double standards for religion and atheism ???// Under what authority do you assert how science is applied, or are there different standards for you and for nonbelievers. You seem like a nice poe, pleas there are ignorant people who will take your lead, go post something about Malema rathere.

      Bharath - 2012-03-15 00:13

      Grant you must be disabled - in the head The authority of science is experiment and result - did you pass high schoool ?

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-15 11:42

      And the authority if Hinduism is?

      Bharath - 2012-03-15 22:38

      (*Check out Crack addict with his knickers in knot- wonder where'e the cheerleader and the Deluded) Eh - NO - Krackmeister- there is no such thing as Hinduism

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-16 02:13

      Lol - what you call it is irrelevant Currybeak. As far as I am concerned you are a hypocritical yellow tailed Hindu devotee talking about "God" as if you are part of the fraternity in an attempt to curry favour with them (if you'll excuse the pun). But you are actually a peacock dressed as a clown. And a very loud and stupid peacock at that! ;-)

      Bharath - 2012-03-16 18:48

      (* I told you he would)

      Bharath - 2012-03-16 21:57

      You're soooo right master Oh please forgive this lowly hired help, please don't beat me master I promise I'll be good (* told you you'll see his true colours)

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-17 00:58

      Lol Curriedbeak. Your most juvenile excuse for your failing to make any impression yet! ;-)

      Hugo - 2012-03-17 13:37

      Grant you probably have a big poster of Malema just above your bed,what has he to do with this? I wonder.

  • Charles - 2012-03-12 15:32

    Evolution is a lot of crap. No-one can convince me that we all evolve from the same genesis. There are just too many differences in the creatures of this earth. Noah's ark was a spaceship that landed on earth.

      Phoenix - 2012-03-12 15:33

      Cue Twilight zone music...

      Franco - 2012-03-12 15:49

      I know - I was there.

      Mike - 2012-03-12 15:57

      Pleading incredulity is not an argument and no one in the world of science gives a rats ass whether you are convinced or not.

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-12 16:13

      Wow, in one post, you state Evolution is a lot of crap, and then you go on to spout nonsense about Noah's Ark being a spaceship??? and we're supposed to give your post and your viewpoint any respect??? What evidence do you have that Noahs ark was a Spaceship??? If this is true, why does the bible tell of noah building an ark out of wood???

      pieter.bosch - 2012-03-12 18:13

      I rather believe evolution than believe that Noah was the best biologist ever collecting two of every specie in the world for his ark while thousands of biologists working the last few centuries have not yet managed to describe half of the species on earth.

      Zing - 2012-03-13 14:14

      There were 2 dinosaurs on the ark. Noah ate one of them.

      Karien - 2012-03-13 17:59

      Shucks! The bible must be true then! Noah built a spaceship that could span the lightyears to collect species from other solar systems thousands of years before a few NASA dudes walked on the moon. AMAZING!!

  • clem.robertson - 2012-03-12 15:32

    Evolution is one of the most wonderful aspects of creation. Also the most necessary. Some believe "God" is a creative force, thus life is a living, changing art-form by the creator and those who manifest divine will in the material world.

      Franco - 2012-03-12 15:48

      Clem - next you will find a reference in the bible/koran/torah that supports this interpretation. I suggest you first find concensus among all other believers before trying to even remotely associate creationism with science.

      Mike - 2012-03-12 15:58

      Where did your creator come from? Nobody has ever answered that question no matter how many times it's been asked.

      Nicolas Havenga - 2012-03-12 17:31

      Quantum physics supports the theory of other dimensions and to be honest, science does not support how our universe came into being. By the laws of physics that we understand there shouldn't be existance however here we are which makes me believe that the world wasn't created from within itself, but from another dimension where the rules are either just sifferent or opposite.

      Karien - 2012-03-13 21:53

      Ok Nicolas, thank you for your invaluable contribution to the modern sciences.

      Bharath - 2012-03-15 00:16

      Karien - thanks for your meaningless "cheerleading" Still waiting for a SINGLE result from your "peer review papers" of scientific experiments that caused evolution

  • tian.versfeld - 2012-03-12 17:30

    Another strawman argument by an evolutionist... The Bible does NOT condone racism, as it clearly describes all human beings as being of “one blood” (Acts 17:26). This of course emphasizes that we are all related, as all humans are descendants of the first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), who was created in the image of God. The Bible does not use the word 'race' in reference to people. Evolution is the true cause of much racism in the world. If you don't believe this, then look at the historical cases of the mistreatment of Aborigines, the holocaust in Germany (where Jews and Blacks were seen as less evolved, inferior races). Darwin himself thought of certain groups of dark-skinned people as closer to apes than their melanin-deprived counterparts. It's funny how inconsistent evolutionists are when they claim to be against racism, but when a biologist calls mankind an evolved ape, that’s seen as a scientifically accurate statement! Evolutionists get angry when it's pointed out that evolution is responsible for racism. That’s because most evolutionists today aren’t racist, because the science (modern genetics) has caught up with what the Bible has clearly said all along—that all humans are incredibly closely related. But a century ago, they claimed that their evolutionary ‘science’ was correct, and such views were taught in the majority of the Western world’s public schools. But if they got it so badly wrong then, why would we trust their interpretation of science now?

      mbossenger - 2012-03-12 18:33

      You cunningly ignored my post above where I pointed out that copies of "Origin of Species" were burned in Nazi Germany.

      pieter.bosch - 2012-03-12 18:43

      I do not equate anti-evolusion directly with apartheid but i do agree that there are an association with regards to the mindset of its followers. It is well known that there are thousands of religions due to the different ways their handbooks are interpreted. In South Africa the Bible was notoriously interpreted during the apartheid regime by Christians to support the apartheid laws. Some Americans, for example radical Christians in the Clu Clax Kahn movements, used scriptures from the Bible to support their campaign against the Black people. The Roman Catholic German Hitler used the building revolt against Jews (anti-semitism) in Europe to garner support for his expansionism wars and genocide. Conservative and far right Christians were mostly involved in these atrocities and today it is also the more conservative Christians who are anti-evolutionists. All these people along the line share a similar mindset where religion was used to justify their actions and beliefs.

      tian.versfeld - 2012-03-12 19:43

      @ mbossenger, firstly please note the timestamps of our posts. My post was posted before yours, so how could I have cunnincgly ignored your post. Hitler was not Christian, but had a big interest in the pantheistic religions of the east. This was also one of the reasons the Nazi's sent an official expedition to Tibet between 1938 and 1939. He used the burning of books to gather the support of germany's religious (including christian) sectors. Dr. A.J. Pennings wrote that Nazism grew out of “a deeply held mystical paganism … strengthened by the teachings of Darwinism and the pseudo-science of eugenics.” Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, said: ‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ In Mein Kampf, Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing "lower human types." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions..." He also said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable."

      Zing - 2012-03-13 14:18

      Tian, you had to go all the way to the new testament to find a verse that doesn't condone racism, while the entire old testament is about racism. Israelites vs. (Insert all other races here)

      pieter.bosch - 2012-03-13 16:51

      Tian Hitler was a Christian that believed in evolution.

  • Grant - 2012-03-12 18:01

    Hahaha! So funny to see so many of you cretards defending your RACISM! Yes, it's RACISM because someone on the internet had an opinion about evolution. No they didn't have any scientific backing for their opinion, nor did their opinion represent the findings of the majority of educated researchers in the respective field. By using your own standards, because he has a published opinion, it's therefore fact, and you therefore are supporting the racist policies of apardheid and are therefore all RACISTS! Who knew twisted logic could be so much fun?

  • Brenton - 2012-03-12 18:37

    Evolution is rubbish. There are natural variations in species but they all still have many common characteristics. All humans still look like humans. These minor variations however cannot cause an entirely new species to be present as they are dependent on the genetic code handed down through generations. Humans were created as humans by a creator.

      Marius - 2012-03-12 18:57

      So are you saying speciation is a lie?

      pieter.bosch - 2012-03-12 19:03

      Brenton please learn more about evolution, reading between the lines some things you said actually support evolution. You mention natural variation in species. Did you know that the classification into species is human based with many grey areas. Some animals regarded as the same species today may be classified as a different species tomorrow. There are many such grey areas. Some species might also look very much the same but their genetic code may differ such that it is classified into another. Nature have many different key "species" with grey species in- between. Study the Genus Haworthia, your eyes will be opened to science and the many possibilities.

      Brenton - 2012-03-12 19:16

      There are infinite possible variations in genetic code as each individual has a unique genetic code. This isn't evolution. As for the classification having grey areas - this is a clear sign that human error is present in science and that science is not infallible.

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-12 19:54

      Brenton, of course science is not infallible... science makes mistakes all the time, and then learns from them... that is part of the scientific method... it is far better to say "we don't know, yet, than to say, I do not understand, so 'goddidit'"!

      Phoenix - 2012-03-12 20:20

      Rubbish? LOL Oh wow. Yes clearly magic MUST be the answer!

      Brenton - 2012-03-12 20:29

      Why are so many people anti-God. Are people so afraid that God exists that they do everything possible to disprove him and then try to drag as many people down as they can with them? Then to hide their insecurities that make fun of the people who are believers.

      Phoenix - 2012-03-13 08:54

      To say people are anti-God is like saying people are anti-snow white or anti-sata claus. 'Believers' open themselves up to being rediculed, in the same way as Christians normally laugh at the beliefs of black people in the country. Eventually all religion will be explained away by science.

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-13 12:44

      Brenton, for someone to be anti-god in the context that you mean, would require a belief in that god in the first place... I will concede that it is possible that a creator-god exists, although this is improbable an unlikely but what I find highly, highly improbable, is that the god of the abrahamic faiths, is that creator-god.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-14 11:29

      Speciation is not a lie, but it's only occurred within the different taxa or kinds; there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the notion that the small variations and adaptations within each taxa caused the emergence of all the taxa themselves. Common descent from the original created kinds fits all the evidence and data.

      Grant - 2012-03-14 20:34

      //Speciation is not a lie, but it's only occurred within the different taxa or kinds; there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the notion that the small variations and adaptations within each taxa caused the emergence of all the taxa themselves. Common descent from the original created kinds fits all the evidence and data.// Except for genetic evidence linking the different species together, with genetic clocks showing when the changes occured. All suspiciously agreeing with evidence from other fields like paleontology. Hmm, the overwhelming majority of scientists worldwide accept evolution, must be a conspiracy. Where's the tin foil, I need to make a hat, hope Nan didn't use the last of it for the chicken.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-14 22:28

      Grant...don't just follow the current popular theory, investigate ALL evidence including the evidence against your belief... there are many scientists that don't agree with evolution and there's much controversy among the scientists that do...but it doesn't matter anyway if the evidence doesn't support it. The only reason evolutionists are resorting to genetics and DNA to try & find evidence is because there's nothing in the fossil record to support them, no unequivocal transitional fossils, macro evolution has NEVER been observed, etc; just no evidence. But...the similarities in the genetic code is better evidence for a common designer, than a common ancestor. DNA "evidence" is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. This approach often contradicts more traditional Darwinian "proofs." DNA similarities as evidence for evolution is at best circumstantial. The real issue is whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. Even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist. Quick question: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-14 22:32

      Arguably the leading evolutionist in the 20 century is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation".

      Grant - 2012-03-15 06:32

      //Grant...don't just follow the current popular theory, investigate ALL evidence including the evidence against your belief... // Tried to, thing is, there is no evidence, not one single person has ever linked to a scientific journal dsproving evolution, despite their wild flailings online. Really, you guys are like a prudish date, at some time you need to put out. //there are many scientists that don't agree with evolution and there's much controversy among the scientists that do...but it doesn't matter anyway if the evidence doesn't support it.// You have been caught out lying on this topic before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[27] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[29][30]

      Grant - 2012-03-15 06:32

      //The only reason evolutionists are resorting to genetics and DNA to try & find evidence is because there's nothing in the fossil record to support them, no unequivocal transitional fossils, macro evolution has NEVER been observed, etc; just no evidence.// Well of course the entire field of paleontology is a ruse, just because you say so. I mean your evidence to support this is where? //But...the similarities in the genetic code is better evidence for a common designer// So substantiate your view with evidence then. Please be sure to provide explanations for the exact insertions of ERVs across common species which support phylogenetic trees from the fossil record. Also show how genetic clocks detailing when a change occured match the timeframe for the strata layer in which the fossil was found. Because that looks a lot like evolution, and nothing like a common designer. Of course I could be wrong and I welcome (as always) your links to scientific articles proving the common designer.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-15 10:44

      Again Grant: The real issue is whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. Even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist. Quick question: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics. Grant, we can go back and forth with statements & argue forever...the point is that there are ZERO irrefutable intermediate fossils for, let's pick one... human evolution (there should be millions; logically, given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion, the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved. Where are they?). The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world. Regarding the law of entropy...it is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best-proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

  • Ver - 2012-03-12 18:56

    Apartheid was strongly influenced by Nazi ideology which in turn was based upon the theory of evolution. To be fair to the Nazi's Social Darwinism was popular amongst the intellectual elite in the USA and Europe and was motivation behind government sanctioned experiments on black people in the USA. It remained popular until the end of Second World War when the horror of the concentration camps was exposed. Does our esteemed doctor not know that the full title of Darwin's seminal work is: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life?

      mbossenger - 2012-03-12 19:05

      I'm sure our esteemed doctor does know the full title of Darwin's book, but does the esteemed Ver know there is no connection between evolution and social darwinism?

  • Hugo - 2012-03-12 19:03

    thats a first

  • Michael - 2012-03-12 19:03

    Michael The writer of this letter has forgotten that Darwinism which is used to support Evolution was the same system which was used to issue hunting licenses for hunting of Aboriginal people in Australia because they were seen as an inferior species. http://www.africawithin.com/rashidi/destruction_aborigines.htm If you really want to find out if the Evolution THEORY has any truth in it watch the DVD’s of Prof Walter Veith whom came from the same University. The DVD’s are Called “The Genesis Conflict” and SCIENTIFICALLY shows that the Evolution THEORY is not possible. You do not have to believe in the Bible or my God, but you will surely be convinced that the Evolution THEORY is a system created by certain religious groups and is scientifically not possible. Please stop being lazy and start thinking for yourself. Don’t just accept everything that you are told by teachers, preachers and professors. Investigate and study all sides of the Theory’s and make your own educated decisions. Start learning about other religions and you will clearly see that the evolution theory is the basis of certain religious systems. I know as I was part of some occult group before I was saved.

  • John - 2012-03-12 19:25

    hahahahaahahahahahaha

  • Vaal-Donkie - 2012-03-12 21:31

    I note that every year after the "Woordfees" in Stellenbosch, the faculty starts making deranged statements. Maybe it's the ingredients in those lovely brownies the one lady sells that causes this. Unless this guy is an undercover "creationist" and is trying to make the pro-evolution camp look ridiculous. ANyone want to take bets?

      Hugo - 2012-03-17 11:14

      Bet my sunglasses

  • Gustav - 2012-03-12 21:53

    Different species of humans existed together in history. Interbreeding changed the composition of different races. The article does not make sense in relation to apartheid. Ancient humans have been classified by scientist into specific groups - It is not a result of apartheid. We are what we are and should be proud about it. http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/september-2011/article/modern-humans-interbred-with-archaic-humans-in-east-asia-study-says: It is well-known today, based on various genetic studies, that some of the ancestors of modern humans interbred with Neanderthals, a closely-related human species or sub-species that lived 130,000 - 30,000 years ago in Eurasia. Less known is information that has recently emerged about the possibility that modern human ancestors were also busy with at least one other archaic human species. Additional information comes from a new study by researchers at Uppsala University. The study yielded findings that indicated people in East Asia share genetic material with archaic humans known as Denisovans, suggesting that the modern human ancestors of East Asians interbred with them about 20,000 years ago.

      Sunshine - 2012-03-13 00:13

      Hold on Del :) I think when Gustav said //Different species of humans// he meant 'different members of the genus Homo'. His underlying point though is valid and accurate and for all the obvious reasons it's usually hated by the religious crowd. Homo (genus) Sapiens Sapiens (species) is the last surviving member of the genus Homo. In the last 2 million years we know of about 15 different members of the Homo genus on the planet and often living concurrently just like we did with Neanderthalensis and possibly Floresiensis and Denisova as well, if not more. If they were all still alive today it really wouldn't be that hard to see the evolutionary path we've taken. It would be much easier to understand we really are just another animal on the planet, as if that's some kind of insult!!! I think the difference between Sapien Sapiens and other animals can appear so big in certain contexts that for some people they just can't comprehend that they aren't as special and unique as they think they need to be. The fact that we're the only species left within the Homo genus is probably why it took until Darwin for us to see how obvious Evolution is once someone gets over their delusions of grandeur.

      Bharath - 2012-03-13 16:28

      Sunshine - I challenge you to scietifically prove what you have said! Produce one single result of a scientific experiment carried out to start evolution in apes. Merely using academic words to say "science thinks" apemen produced humans through varying degrees of changes over millions of years is utter crap. This is NOT science - science is absolute - prove it - dont merely talk about it !!!!

      Mark - 2012-03-14 10:31

      Bharath, Science can not be absolute, because then it would not be falsifiable.

      Bharath - 2012-03-14 20:39

      If complex science is falsifiable then what to speak of "simple" atheism? It is non-existent ! Adherents of atheism have no platform to stand on whatsoever

      Karien - 2012-03-14 21:20

      And I quote Barath: " "simple" atheism? It is non-existent !" I beg to differ Barath, you have been conversing with them and still you insist that atheism doesn't exist? What!? No point arguing with you then...

      Bharath - 2012-03-15 00:03

      Mmmmmm - again verbiage with no actual point of contention - definitely a female thing I am still waiting for a single original thought from your brain without falling back on "peer review papers" that contain ZERO experimental proof of evolution You're a cheerleader and nothing more - prove me wrong !

  • Johan Blom - 2012-03-12 22:00

    Evolution - its like breeding domestic animals , only Gods the selector ;) Science only explains a tiny bit of God for us . It definitely does not stand in opposition to him.....

      Morne - 2012-03-12 22:22

      @Johan, i fully agree with you. Humans think they are so clever, yet we know so little of this God given life. Look around you @DB and see what God has given us, which is an truely amazing world! or havent you evolve enough to grasp it!?

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-12 23:04

      Good thing we don't follow his lead. Can you imagine, farmer does not want to breed from Daisy so he infects her with parasites and leaves her to starve to death in a pool of her own waste while the sun dries her eyes and mouth to the point where even if she could cry, nobody would see any tears.

      Sunshine - 2012-03-12 23:09

      Ja but which God are you talking about? There are so many.............

      Johan Blom - 2012-03-12 23:40

      @sunshine that's the thing.... Does it really matter ? People like to argue about such infantile things . They should rather work at making themselves happy and leave the rest to do the same . Living in harmony is possible , just ask me , I'm a born again practising christian , gay scientist......

      Sunshine - 2012-03-13 02:17

      Hi Johan, //Does it really matter?// Well not to me but it seems to matter so much to religious folk that they deliberately try to introduce non-scientific interpretations into Science class in an attempt to promote their religion, and that really annoys me. As a scientist I'm sure it would annoy you if you were say teaching students in your field and someone interrupted because their religious interpretations say you're talking rubbish. Why? 'Well because God did it'! When I say 'non-scientific interpretations' I mostly mean the Creation argument that says 'if it's not A it must be B'. For example 'if it's not Evolution it must be our Religious view'. In order for that to even approach being scientific they must first show that C, D, E, F, etc are not possible and in this context C, D, E, F etc are all the other religions of the world plus all the knowledge humans don't yet have. It's not something that belongs in Science Class. We must leave religious knowledge where it belongs, in Religious Class and in church/mosque/synagogue/temple/spaghetti palace, as we said it doesn't really matter. I don't personally see any relevant connection between Evolution and Apartheid (other than extinct fossils).

  • Wayne - 2012-03-13 06:34

    Quite a few people in these comments say that Christianity is a religion. This is not quite true. Christianity is actually a relationship with a living God. Religion is man reaching up to God. True Christianity is God reaching down to man. In fact, evolution fits the definition of a religion more appropriately. Check out this link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/lie/evolution-religion Furthermore, evolution has all the characteristics of a pseudo-science - http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience

      Franco - 2012-03-13 07:35

      Wayne, are you willing and/or able to make an arguement in your own words or can you only paste links?

      Wayne - 2012-03-13 08:14

      @Franco You are possibly right. Perhaps I should summarise the info in the links. In any event, you are commenting on the fact that I post links, and not on the essence of the point that I make, so can I assume you are in agreement with the fact that evolution is a religion ?

      Franco - 2012-03-13 08:54

      Wayne, the theory of evolution is as much as religion as the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity. The latter don't threaten your cult though.

      Karien - 2012-03-13 18:38

      Wayne In modern scientific Psychology, we have found two phenomena in human behaviour that refers to what you are doing. Please go check out: Selective Attention - and - Selective Exposure. There are others as well but these will do for now. Those who believe in Allah, Brahman, Vishnu, Odin, Zeus etc.etc.etc. will ALL claim that their god/gods is/are the one/several reaching down to man and thereby could not be as the other gods in religion.

      Grant - 2012-03-14 20:37

      //True Christianity is God reaching down to man.// True Christianity (TM) - because those 38000 other Christian sects don't know squat compared to you and your personal introspection.

      Bharath - 2012-03-15 02:12

      Eh, Karien in real life there is a term for people who believe everything they read in books They're called easy !

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-15 11:36

      In life there is also a term for those who talk a lot without being relevant. They are called pretentious morons!

      Bharath - 2012-03-15 19:39

      (*heh heh heh heh - just watch this kriekinbeak guy closely - I've got is rounders in a knot - very soon he's gonna explode and then watch the fireworks happen)

      Karien - 2012-03-15 21:29

      Nah Bharath, we all think you're a pretentious, and vulgar... moron!

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-15 21:49

      This vulgar hindu clown employs identical techniques to his "christian" chum Dork. They are so tightly plugged in that they act in unison: Hurl abuse, troll and run. Lol!

      Bharath - 2012-03-15 22:43

      (* now the atheists have resorted to name calling and religion bashing - I wonder what they'll do next) There is no such thing as Hinduism and I am not "Hindu"

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-16 01:01

      So now you turn to whining Currybeak? Can't handle your own medicine too well lol? I guess you find women to be a much safer target with your vulgar curried slurs do you? What was that you said to the effect of "if you can give it you have to take it" with reference to Karien? And challenged to show where she was in any way sexist or vulgar towards you, you turned tail as usual and fled like a runny gut while continuing to hurl abuse! Time to exchange your waiter's tray for the keyboard and carry on with your trolling and pretense at being a "scientist" Currybeak. Stop whining. Have a nice day! ;-)

      Bharath - 2012-03-16 18:58

      (* Hope you're enjoying the fireworks.) Hey FreakyBeek - Is that all you got ? YOU still have ZERO experimental proof of evolution in any of the 500 000 theory papers written by your "peers"

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-16 20:43

      Lmfao - Attempting to save face from your juvenile whining session Currybeak?

      Bharath - 2012-03-16 22:56

      (* now lets go in for the kill - the final encore) What ever do you mean ? I don't understand .. its not making sense to me...how did you win. A crackhead with a superiority complex surely cannot win !

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-17 00:55

      Curriedbeak: "I don't understand .. its not making sense to me...how did you win." Lol you are obviously so cracked up Curriedbeak, that you don't know what the difference between whining and winning is you moron! (Or is it just that you have not covered the difference in the school curriculum yet?) But tell me - did you think you were in there with a chance of winning? Ha ha ha ha! And then you point fingers calling others crackheads! Faaark. Lmfao!

  • Wayne - 2012-03-13 06:46

    Following on discussions about the number of creation scientists versus evolution scientists, here is a list of current creation scientists (Over 200 and growing) - http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation. Another set of lists show scientists in the past that have believed in a Creator. http://creation.com/scientists-of-the-past-who-believed-in-a-creator#early http://creation.com/scientists-of-the-past-who-believed-in-a-creator#newton http://creation.com/scientists-of-the-past-who-believed-in-a-creator#befdarwin http://creation.com/scientists-of-the-past-who-believed-in-a-creator#afterdarwin http://creation.com/scientists-of-the-past-who-believed-in-a-creator#modern It is very difficult for a creation scientist to get peer reviewed and published in contemporary journals, since there is a lot of discrimination against them - There are a number of articles her - http://creation.com/discrimination-against-creation-scientists. However, creation scientists are producing their own journal - http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-formerly-technical-journal-tj

      modo - 2012-03-13 07:52

      @Wayne "It is very difficult for a creation scientist to get peer reviewed and published in contemporary journals, since there is a lot of discrimination against them" This is simply a lie. The reason creationist 'scientists' struggle to get published is because their research is flawed and unscientific. If you had any idea how thorough and transparent the scientific method was you would realise how fundamentally flawed this assumption it. Dishonestly and discrimination is not tolerated in scientific circles, and if these 'scientists' were being discriminated against and they had evidence to prove it, the people doing the discriminating would undoubtedly be excluded from the scientific community. This kind of argument can only made by someone who is completely ignorant of science and its methods. 200 scientists is NOTHING! not even a fraction of a percent of those qualified to debate this topic.

      Franco - 2012-03-13 09:13

      Wayne, science is not a democracy. If it was we would still think the earth is the centre of the universe (a view that was held by 100% of all scientists a few centuries ago). Secondly - science has absolutely nothing to do with what scientists believe.

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-13 12:58

      Another point, the scientists who existed BEFORE the theory of evolution (such as Newton) were not given an alternative to creation (as obvioulsy, the theory had not as yet been postualted), so obviously, they would accept creation... for much the same reason that scientists used to think the Earh was the centre of the universe. There was no alternative!!!

      pieter.bosch - 2012-03-13 17:08

      Wayne maybe you should also make a list of how many scientists that were originaly Christians because they were indoctrinated as children came out of the closet and became agnostic or atheist. I also think there are many more scientists that are not announcing their atheism due to fear of opression by family, friends and work.

  • Wayne - 2012-03-13 06:51

    @Sunshine. I do not believe that God used evolution. Believing this is a very serious indictment on Christianity - more info available at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/couldnt-god-have-used-evolution

      Franco - 2012-03-13 07:45

      Wayne's idea of a constructive discussion. Wayne "I believe god used evolution to create life." Wayne's friend "I don't believe that." END OF DISCUSSION

      Wayne - 2012-03-13 08:11

      @modo, Not sure what the point of your statement is ? are you attacking me or the argument ?

      Merven - 2012-03-19 08:37

      So Wayne, you actually believe that 7 people fit 10 million species (X2=20 million animals etc) onto a wooden ark, feeding them, cleaning their shait etc on a regular basis?

  • Don - 2012-03-13 07:27

    What a load of nonsense. Evolution and apartheid have absolutely nothing in common. One is political the other a scientific theory about the origins of humans albeit a pathetic one that says you are an ape !. Get something better to write about, at least with a bit of some common sense.

      Franco - 2012-03-13 07:52

      Don, so its pathetic because it says you are an ape. Not because there is no evidence to support the theory, its just that you don't like the idea of being compared to an ape. Well, don't read further cause it goes on to say you are a fish.

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-13 13:06

      actually Franco, even further than that, it says you are a worm!!!

  • Wayne - 2012-03-13 08:09

    @modo //The reason creationist 'scientists' struggle to get published is because their research is flawed and unscientific.// Please provide your evidence. How did you come to the conclusion that the research of 200 scientists is flawed and unscientific ? //This kind of argument can only made by someone who is completely ignorant of science and its methods// What kind of argument ? Have you read the links ? Not sure how you conclude that this someone is ignorant of science and its methods. //200 scientists is NOTHING// Really ??? These are all scientists with doctorates. To me 200 seems a big number to reckon with. What about all the names from the past ?

      modo - 2012-03-13 08:35

      "Please provide your evidence. How did you come to the conclusion that the research of 200 scientists is flawed and unscientific?" There are many well known cases where creationists have created a stir because their research never made it through the peer-review process (the deceitful movie 'Expelled' showcases this), but clear reason are always given for this. If a paper doesn't make it through the peer-review process, by definition there is something fundamentally flawed about it. "What kind of argument ? Have you read the links ? Not sure how you conclude that this someone is ignorant of science and its methods." I was actually talking about you. The arguments YOU made (creationists being discriminated against etc) can only be made by someone that is ignorant of the scientific process. "Really ??? These are all scientists with doctorates. To me 200 seems a big number to reckon with." I see your 200 scientists and I raise you 235740 published papers advocating evolution as of 2009. If you are unaware of the amount of scientists that back evolution in comparison to intelligent design, check my post about Project Steve further up. So no, 200 is not a big number, not even close - it is comparatively tiny. The "names from the past" is a dishonest and deceitful trick since most (if not all) of these scientist were alive long before evolution was even hypothesised, and often lived in a time when disbelief in religion would be severely punished.

      modo - 2012-03-13 08:36

      I wrote an article last week detailing some of these falsehoods and misapprehensions. http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Should-Evolution-Be-Taught-in-Schools-20120308 //Shameless self-promotion// :P

      Llewellyn - 2012-03-14 10:08

      % wise, that's about 0.08% of scientists in Wayne' corner. A very large number indeed. Wayne, why do you so desperately want to believe what these 200 "scientists" have to say, and not the rest of overwhelming majority? Is it because they are on religion/jesus/god side, so that makes them right? I do not think for one second you can be THAT thick.

  • reza.daniels1 - 2012-03-13 08:49

    Yes Charles Darwin was nothing other than a racist bigot. He came up with this theory of evolution to justify his racist ideals. His offspring took it a step further and tried to prove caucasians were superior to other races using genetics - which ofcourse is false. Hey anyone is welcome to embrace his theory - it's their choice to be racist. Here's a banana....

      Franco - 2012-03-13 08:58

      Reza - all you need to do then is debunk the theory to save humanity from this racism.

      reza.daniels1 - 2012-03-13 09:14

      Franco it is your choice to be racist. I'm not here to change anyone's beliefs. I just like to know who I am dealing with. I don't have the need to debunk anything. I just don't want my kids exposed to racist ideals.

      Franco - 2012-03-13 09:40

      Well there is certainly no danger of you exposing them to rational thinking.

      reza.daniels1 - 2012-03-13 10:10

      Stupid sarcasm.....here's a banana.

      mbossenger - 2012-03-13 10:29

      "Yes Charles Darwin was nothing other than a racist bigot." - please substantiate this assertion "He came up with this theory of evolution to justify his racist ideals." - please substantiate this assertion "His offspring took it a step further and tried to prove caucasians were superior to other races using genetics" - please substantiate this assertion

  • Steyn - 2012-03-13 09:30

    My humble opinion is that Van Den Heever is trying to be the next Richard Dawkins. There is no evidence for the evolution story (theory is based on probability, which evolution can never be) Van den Heever is now also using the apartheid cliché to further his own agenda. I will not let my children learn fact less stories at school and I will oppose this idolatry. By the way, does Van den Heever (and his friends) REALLY believe that they came from nothing? Thus meaning they are worthless...?

      modo - 2012-03-13 09:44

      I really am tired of people saying things such as "There is no evidence for the evolution story". Seriously, what rock are you hiding under? Have you actually done the research and examined the evidence or is this just what your preacher says?

      Steyn - 2012-03-13 11:12

      Hi Modo, please be kind. I'm not hiding under any rock. The so called evidence that you refer to is probably changes within a kind, which is not evolution, but adaptations. (and it's definitely not "macro evolution") It is just scientifically impossible... Dr. Colin Patterson (world renowned paleontologist and curator of the British Museum) “Nine tenths of the talk of the evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observational data and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of the proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all of this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.” Evolution is bad science, period. You can easily separate it from Christianity. Maybe you can answer these simple questions: How did life started spontaneously? How can one kind change into another? By what mechanism can information in a living cell increase to induce change from one kind to another? Where are the millions and millions of fossils to prove your theory? And please, let philosophy not impede on your scientific objectivity.

      modo - 2012-03-13 11:52

      A quote from one scientist who does not agree with evolution and macro-evolution does not prove anything. Scientists who hold this view are ridiculously outnumbered, and it wouldn't impress you if I had pages of quotes that state the exact opposite. Macro-evolution is not impossible, and creationists have to make the ridiculous assumption that the earth is 7000 years old to try and refute this. There are many transitional fossils that display macro-evolution, and considering how rare fossilisation is this is pretty astounding. Fossils aren't even close to the most compelling evidence for evolution. Even though not a single fossil has been found in a strata or area that would contradict the theory, the claims of evolution have been separately verified with such diverse evidence as genetics, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution of species, human-aided artificial selection, and through the practice of every field of earth and life science. You really betray yourself by displaying your ignorance in the question 'How did life started spontaneously?'. The origin of life has NOTHING to do with evolution! Don't believe me? Go do some actual scientific research. Your questions are all standard creationist obfuscations. I can rebut each one individually if you really want, but instead research what actual scientists have to say about them first rather than trusting creationist websites and orators who don't even have elementary understanding of evolutionary claims.

      Franco - 2012-03-13 12:58

      Steyn, if that was how I understood evolution I would also reject it.

      Eli - 2012-03-13 16:04

      Steyn, just forget them man. The atheists complain that we are ignorant sheep being fed our Christian nonsense from our pastor and believing in stuff without evidence, yet they do the exact same thing. They are ignorant sheep just following the crowd... I dont know if they have any evidence that the articles they are getting their info from hold any merit either. Scientists who do not believe in a intelligent Design are clearly very arrogant indeed. There is no use in arguing with these people. let them find out the hard way... when it is too late.

      Karien - 2012-03-13 19:00

      Eli This argument has actually been tested in court three times in the USA. In each instance, the last of wich was in 2004, the courts have found AGAINST creationism/Intelligent Design. It culminated in Creation/Intelligent Design being BANNED from being taught in schools as a viable alternative to Evolution. Are you saying that we should convert to christianity just because we should fear the hypothetical existence of hell, and thereby should suppress what we find as true for the sake of MABE?

      gordcragg - 2012-03-13 19:10

      @Eli - There is a very real difference between the arguments set forth by the two different parties. Those who promote evolutionary theory tend to use scientific arguments, and since we are debating a scientific point, only scientific arguments should be valid. Scientific arguments refer to actual evidence, which I, along with many others, keep providing. The majority of people arguing against evolution (including you) don't seem to actually understand the concepts and mechanisms behind it. This immediately puts you at a disadvantage, but also ensures that our evidence-based arguments fall on deaf ears. The fundamental problem is that you don't even understand why certain arguments hold more merit than others, or have any concept of why the scientific method is the way it is and why that renders it superior. This ignorance of scientific principles and inability to assess the merit of evidence are made clearly apparent in comments such as your previous one.

      Eli - 2012-03-14 08:56

      @Karien, dear girl, that does not mean anything to me. Satan can deceive even the greatest of minds. I will never allow him to deceive me. I am full of Gods Holy Spirit and i see past all the lies of the men in "Power Positions' They are controlled by satan and are blinded to the truth, and then they feed their lies as information out to a foolish bunch of people who are searching for the meaning of life. But all the answers are in The Bible. And you cannot disprove the Bible, I dare you , any of you to try... You will end up converting to Jesus, because you will not be able to deny Him any longer. I do not care what argument you give in defense of Evolution, I know that it is a lie from the devil. The Devil controlled Hitler too, and He controls many today still. People in power are to prideful and arrogant, and satan gets in, and takes over. But not me. I have the true, Living God, Jesus Christ to keep my eyes seeing the truth, and my heart from being deceived!

      Llewellyn - 2012-03-14 10:28

      Eli - reading your rambling is evidence of your very high IQ and the ability to understand scientific evidence. I am in awe. Not.

  • christopher.caine - 2012-03-13 09:46

    Religion should be kept out of school curriculums. Let the parents teach their children about religion at home if they so wish.

      Eli - 2012-03-13 16:09

      Evolution should also be kept out of schools, as we Christians have the right to not have our children be subjected to the Lie of Evolution. So rather keep quiet christopher. Lack of the true Religion is what is wrong with the world today. People that do not believe in God, do not believe in consequences, and therefore feel that they can do whatever they want without having to be judged one day. Its a COP OUT. Religion is exactly what is missing form the schools. Evolution is the Devils work. and i will not let my children be taught that crap. Evolution is a load of crap and you all know it. You are just to arrogant, and now stubborn to say you were all wrong. but one day you will be sorry, when you are suffering in hell for eternity.

      bruning.vankriekenbeek - 2012-03-13 19:29

      Eli you don't have that right actually. 1. SA is now a secular country, therefore no religion in government schools. 2. Religion is not science. Neither is creationism. (Confirmed by many court cases all over the world). 3. Evolution is science. (Also confirmed by the above cases). 4. Science is a school subject. 5. Hence evolution will be taught in all government schools.

      Llewellyn - 2012-03-14 10:37

      Eli, please please please supply proof that evolution is "a load of crap". Your opinion does not count. I am sure, with all of the millions and millions of christians out there not believing in evolution, SOMEONE must have the evidence disproving evolution? Once again, the bible is NOT proof, unless you can prove it to be true. Waiting...

  • Edwhynot - 2012-03-13 10:03

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Shame, poor babies fighting in the comments while the Author of the article eats the lolliepop while watching you muppets fight. Yea, ill follow this one for laughs :D

  • Bram - 2012-03-13 10:12

    "expalanations"??? Well done News24!

  • hein.huyser - 2012-03-13 10:52

    van den Heever, you chop. Explain me how dead matter can "create"living beings and you will get an Oscar. The very basis of evolution is grounded on the Darwinian belief that one species is the master of others, not the way you try to highjack ignorant people and their beliefs. And you are getting paid for this? You make the tenderpreneurs look like ammateurs. Sies vir jou!!

      mbossenger - 2012-03-13 10:55

      "The very basis of evolution is grounded on the Darwinian belief that one species is the master of other" - this is pretty much completely incorrect....

      Franco - 2012-03-13 12:29

      Hein - are you going to avoid DB's very valid question or just move onto another? God is watching you and he doesn't like dishonesty and denial.

      Mark - 2012-03-13 12:49

      Delusion, Extremely valid question, and one that baffle theist and scientist alike. Because, as if we teleport pre-Big Bang, we find ourselves on the border between the metaphysical and the scientific. Science and mathematics does not fully understand the concept of eternity. I think, the answer will haunt mankind for quit some time.

      Sean - 2012-03-13 13:43

      @DB God is eternal - Eternal has no cause!

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-03-13 13:47

      Sean... The Universe is Eternal... The eternal needs no cause!!!

      Bharath - 2012-03-14 20:43

      NuttyZA - this is religious philosophy - - both God and matter are eternal ! Go do your research - you have just agreed with religion You have defeated yourself!

  • Rudi - 2012-03-13 11:07

    Fun fact, the six days of creatation roughly summarises the course of evolution. This tard, Duncan Alfreds, is nothing but a troll and Van den Heever is an even bigger troll. Please stop writing stupid crap about evolution and Big bang vs Creation.., its getting old... sorry it has been old for the last 10 years.

      jeffdanielp - 2012-03-13 11:28

      DelusionBuster - March 13, "All the members of The Academy of Science - the best of the best on the planet - subscribe to these stupid crap scientific theories. Which is confirmed daily (cumulatively and consistenly) by a vast body of empirical scientific evidence." Never read any scientific evidence on the start of evolution. Is it thin air? Wonder how that evolved, maybe some great scientific mind from The Academy of Science will provide the answer, have they? or now filling thier papers with irrelevant garbagge. Jeff

      jeffdanielp - 2012-03-13 12:50

      Contrarily to what you think we are encouraged to study outside the biblical teachings. 3 interesting things you point to.1.We do not know 2.hypothesis 3.(your) god Think you are only person to admit to 1, agree with you because I also don't know. Do I want to know, maybe not beacuse life is a journey into the future. 2.hypothesis is not fact I may call in make belief. 3.(your) god, greatly accept it My God and in order for me to accept the teaching of faith which I interpet as "seeing those thing that be not as thou they are" I have to accept the God created life. I have accepted the answer to your "We do not know" is that there was and still is a supreme being. Jeff

      Rudi - 2012-03-13 13:50

      Look at all the pseudo-intellectuals. "Delusionbuster"... funny. Poor Christians are trying to defend something that is super natural whilst the science geeks troll the living crap out of them. Stop abusing people because the disagree dude. Sheeesh faith > science > faith > Science > faith etc etc