News24

Religious views threaten knowledge

2012-03-07 14:28

Cape Town - Conservative views that forbid the study of modern scientific concepts threatens understanding of knowledge, particularly for school students, a mathematical behaviourist has said.

"Yes, I would say so, but I wouldn't be alarmist, but it is most certainly a threat because people are being taught something which, to the best of our knowledge, is not correct," psychohistorian Auke Slotegraaf told News24.

It has emerged that some schools actively discourage teachers from teaching concepts like evolution by natural selection.

Conservative commentators in the US have argued that because evolution is regarded as a theory, other theories such as creationism should also be taught in science lessons.

"When people hear that [caution] they interpret that uncertainty as being some mistake or something fundamentally missing," Slotegraaf said.

Media

He said that science communicators and the media should do a better job of educating the public about scientific concepts, but insisted that factual content could not be disputed.

"Everybody's entitled to their own opinion, but not everybody's entitled to their own facts. I believe my wife may be pretty - that's my opinion, but if the fact I believe is that everybody in the world must think that she's pretty - that ain't going to happen," said Slotegraaf.

Some argue that teachers who are believers do no harm to the children they teach because they impart a balanced world view, despite the lack of evidence in the content they teach.

Slotegraaf took a dim view of this argument, saying that teachers, in particular, were entrusted with ensuring they taught the facts, not their beliefs.

"It is very difficult to measure in a number the 'badness' of the outcome of being taught this nonsense, but it is very difficult to see how it could be good. Nothing particularly positive could come from this kind of indoctrination.

"That teacher should be held to a high standard. This is not a matter of opinion."

A science teacher who was reprimanded for teaching evolution in an upmarket Cape Town school said that the religious mindset in education was worrying.

Constitution

"What worries me is a whole mindset. There's nothing included in the curriculum that allows understanding of evidence; of how to weigh up evidence, of what counts as evidence," the teacher told News24 on condition of anonymity.

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".

"There should be a disconnect between state and religion. If you look into the laws how you should run a school, therefore that means you should not be able to enforce any worship as part of the school. Every state school I worked in has had assembly with hymns and prayers.

"As far as I'm concerned that's illegal, and yet nobody is questioning that," the science teacher said.


- Follow Duncan on Twitter

Comments
  • Godfrey - 2012-03-07 14:44

    This peddling of the falsehoods of creationism is very much an American Jesus inspired campaign which lauds willful ignorance, bigotry and backwardness. The fairy tale they punt is based 100% on lies and deceit. The belief they espouse is pathetic and patently false superstition which supersedes the evidence and the informed evaluation of virtually all the scientists in the world

      Stephen - 2012-03-07 14:49

      So they can live in a little dream world, it's pathetic. It's the number one cause of suffering in the world today. Mentally abusing kids.

      E=MC2 - 2012-03-07 15:14

      GODfrey - this thread is going to end up in a series of back & forth just like the last one... let those who believe, believe & those who don’t want to, don’t have to.

      ryno.rousseau - 2012-03-07 15:18

      @e=mc2 Most people are more than happy for that to be the case, but its when you start propagating your superstition as fact, and on top of it teach it in school, that reasonable people must object.

      Fredster - 2012-03-07 15:24

      godfrey...all your comments include blaspheming. Can you not have a normal conversation without name calling?

      Fredster - 2012-03-07 15:24

      This means 1 thing only.... We need more Christian schools that teaches the Truth....Yes, the truth. Can you handle the truth?

      ryno.rousseau - 2012-03-07 15:30

      Having come from a Christian school, I would not wish such a fate on anyone. It is an institution mired in idiocy and sanctimonious zealotry. How can you go to a school to be taught superstition as fact? It boggles the mind how seemingly reasonable people can subscribe to such utter nonsense.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-03-07 15:42

      The truth that you are a f*cking moron Fred?

      spartanx93 - 2012-03-07 15:45

      @Fredster69 - the truth is there is no god! If god showed his might back in the day. Why does he not show it now? Don't come back with some hoo haa story unless you have evidence to state.

      Nic - 2012-03-07 15:53

      What is science but man's feeble attempt of convincing fellow man that we actually know where we are and where we are going. Why is it so difficult for evolutionists/atheists to fathom that a Christian's idea of truth goes far beyond science or any of man's other measurable ways of thinking. I find it unbelievable that these so called guardians of logic and reason STILL try and convince themselves that existence and the perfect harmony in nature and universe originated from a chemical reaction??? The strictly science approach is one dimensional and disregards to many information which is not explainable in scientific terms. Christianity will never die, accept it.

      ryno.rousseau - 2012-03-07 15:59

      Lol, I'm sure the greeks were just as certain of their deities, and the persians, and the mayans, and any other religion that has ever stained humanity.

      E=MC2 - 2012-03-07 16:08

      DelusionBuster - my view on Christianity is WAY different from yours apparently.... "magic, telepathic revelation and the superstition of your cult"? anyway, not getting dragged into this... the only way this argument will ever end is if Science can prove without a doubt, without using "probably's", "more than likely's", "could be's" etc etc etc that i came from a 5cm long, flat worm, OR, if (in my case WHEN) Jesus reveals himself to everyone for those who dont believe to get that "seeing is believing" revelation... when that happens, & only when that happens can this argument be settled once & for all.

      Rainbow - 2012-03-07 16:10

      @godfrey... Lets rephrase this .....This peddling of the falsehoods of EVOLUTION is very much an Atheist , satanic inspired campaign which lauds willful ignorance, bigotry and backwardness. The fairy tale these evolutionists punt is based 100% on lies and deceit. There is no proof of evolution it is a figment of unbelivers imigaination and an excuse not to conform to the laws of the bible and thus enables unbelivers to live sinful and unmoral lives

      Robsschele - 2012-03-07 16:37

      Dawkins's book, The God Delusion, was a best seller but that didn't make it a handbook to atheism. In Rethinking our World it was said that Dawkins's book was largely based on an invalid argument, which seems to have two parts. Part 1: Religion is responsible for a great deal of evil in the world. Therefore: We would be better off without religion. Part 2: Religion is based on the belief in a God who made the world. There is no empirical evidence that this God exists. There is terrible evil and suffering all around us. We know that God did not make the world. Therefore: There is no God. Neither of these arguments is valid. Then the book goes on by giving the reasons why his reasoning is invalid. There was a lot of suffering but also a lot of good. He should have stated numbers on both. So part 1 is simply a statement of opinion. Part 2 is also simply a statement of opinion. If you cannot detect God with your senses it doesn't mean He doesn't exist. The book then stated that Dawkins's argument, then, fails on both empirical grounds and on logigal grounds.

      dave.tarrant2 - 2012-03-07 17:37

      Firstly, science and faith are not mutually exclusive, no matter what extremists in both areas may believe. Secondly, I'm an engineer and man I wish I could design a machine that would adapt to a changing environment and change accordingly - what a design! And that's what evolution does, essentially. Thirdly, reduced complexity is one shortfall of evolution as a catch-all theory of origins of life on earth. It cannot, despite the attempts of the most celebrated scientists in the world, explain how single-celled organisms can develop e.g. eyes and ears as a result of environmental pressures, and become cats and dogs, or dinosaurs - or man. Fourthly, the fossil record does not support evolution as anything other than a brilliant method of organisms/species improving themselves and/or adjusting to a changing environment. There is a vast explosion of varietals in the fossil finds in the pre-Cambrian era (I think - my apologies if it was pre- or post that) that have no fossil record that can be used to explore their evolutionary path. Fifthly, scientifically calculated odds of conditions in the universe randomly aligning to allow for even one planet to develop only one life form are 1 in 10 to the power 26 (i.e. 1 chance in 10 followed by 26 zeros chances - not great odds). I don't have the answers, I'm just saying - to me, it takes a significantly greater leap of faith to believe the universe happened randomly than to believe it was rather cleverly designed...

      nsinovich - 2012-03-07 18:47

      Virtually all the scientists in the world ? See http://www.reasons.org/ Godfrey, these scientists don't believe you ! Why not ?

      Hugh - 2012-03-07 18:53

      I urge all creationist to take a long hard look in the mirror. You don't believe in evolution OK then why do people have their wisdom teeth removed? They were given to us by god right? Why does my Xhosa mate have dark skin? If you can answer these questions rationally I might take you more seriously. Incidentally I never got any wisdom teeth. May be it was Gods intention or maybe I'm further out the tree than most.

      Terrence - 2012-03-07 19:22

      @dave.tarrant2 : I find your viewpoint very interesting and insightful. I am a non believer in the traditional sense as I do not follow a specific religion as such, but do believe that there are greater powers at work. You do however make a valid point that evolution can coexists with a belief system whether Christian or Hindu or whatever.What I would like to add is that people should stop trying to convince others that they are right and have all the answers. None of us do. On this specific article I would say that they should in fact teach creationism and evolution and any other theories out there they feel they need to - The key however would be to present these as different theories and teach kids to decide for themselves.

      Jason - 2012-03-07 22:21

      Godfrey, you do realise there is no difference between your behaviour and that of a God believing person right? Blind faith, lack of evidence, maybe a warm fuzzy feeling inside, sound familiar? Yip you're a zealot the exact same kind of person you and your new atheist buddies seem to dislike so much. You're an embarrassment to atheism...

      Alfred - 2012-03-07 22:21

      @dave.tarrant2 Your ignorance of evolution is spectacular. If you want to argue against evolution the least you can do to avoid looking like a complete idiot is read a bare minimum on the subject. Darwin the founder of evolution in his book 'The Origin of Species' explained exactly how something as complex as eyes could evolve. Never in the history of evolution has the claim been made that single cell organisms developed eyes or even that such a creature exists. This is what's called a strawman. Look up strawman. And your knowledge of paleontology is equally pathetic. So do us all a favor and at least pick up a book on evolution before posting again. Try http://www.talkorigins.org/ @Fredster69 You can jump up and down claiming something to be true as often as you want, it will not make it true, what is required for claims of truth to have any relevance is evidence. @Nic Isn't it ironic that you would be questioning the ability of science to tell us about the nature of reality ON A COMPUTER, POWERED BY ELECTRICITY, CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET, all kept functioning by SCIENTIFIC EQUATIONS. Moron.

      Steward - 2012-03-07 22:37

      @Alfred, you talk a lot but you say nothing. Instead of giving criticism try giving counter arguments backed up by facts. Recently I read about scientists managing to create a single celled life form. All it basically proved was that life could not have happened by accident. Richard Dawkins seems like quite a bright fellow, however he has a habit of adding 1+1 and getting 6.

      Fredster - 2012-03-08 08:38

      Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation...", The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230.

      J-Man - 2012-03-08 09:03

      @ rainbownation: "...satanic inspired campaign which lauds willful ignorance, bigotry and backwardness. .." You have a serious problem.wow. Do you still think that the earth is flat? Pathetic.

      Paul - 2012-03-08 10:54

      Evolution is theory that has and will never be proven, it is a fairy tale developed by Darwin because he was so angry at God that his young daughter had died, that he decided to try prove that God does not exist. he died a bitter man ,unsure of his own theory !!!

      george.vanderwalt - 2012-03-08 15:30

      #### Conservative views that forbid the study of modern scientific concepts threatens understanding of knowledge, particularly for school students, a mathematical behaviourist has said. ### Is this really true? It is almost a mantra among Darwin's most devoted followers: Intelligent Design is a "science stopper." High Priestess of the Darwinian faithful Eugenie Scott insists that "Intelligent design is a science stopper. It stops science in its tracks because you stop looking. And I don't think that's a very good lesson to teach students" What is a much worse lesson, however, is to teach students that the philosophical underpinnings of an argument can be sloughed over and that history doesn't matter. Yet that's precisely what the "science stopper" argument does -- it ignores its own a priori philosophical assumptions and actually stops historical inquiry as if the past doesn't matter. It, in effect, loosens science from its logical moorings and strips it from all historical context, making it into little more than an ideological tool for a dogmatic methodological naturalism (MN). For another perspective on this read: Intelligent Design as a "Science Stopper"? Here's the Real Story Michael Flannery August 20, 2011 www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/id_a_science_stopper_heres_the049811.html

      Lindani - 2012-03-08 19:29

      blasphemy is a victimless crime!

      Oliver - 2012-03-14 00:05

      Actually macro-evolution is based on 100% lies and deceit. Everything we see in biology points to a common designer.. even Dawkins touched on that point but he just couldn't admit it was God otherwise his credibility falls flat.. Dorkins is your God and due to the fact that he admitted to a possibility of a designer, your atheistic notions hold no credence whatsoever. Your God has failed you if haven't got it yet. Thank You

      Alcastilian - 2012-03-17 10:58

      Atheist: Ignorant Apes under the Delusion that they Evolved into Intellectual Scientists.A Secular,covert movement for the Anti-Christ. Sorry!,the Baby Jesus Theory sounds more plausible! ps To me, however, I find the much controversial relation between Evolution and Religion as being quite futile,the problem I have is that the relation between Evolutionaries and Atheists is synonymous,and thus should be banned unless Atheism is as much banned from Tertiary education as State controlled religion.Let the Christians rely on their faith that their God's "idle" threat of eternal damnation proclaimed on those who propagate against Him be fulfilled by the destination of their own free will!Selah!

  • Craig - 2012-03-07 14:47

    WHAT IS RELIGION? AN ARCHAEOLOGIST’S ANSWER Archaeologists often talk about ancient religions. But what is ‘religion’? Professor David Lewis-Williams, Professor Emeritus and Senior Mentor at the Rock Art Research Institute at Wits University, will tackle this subject in a talk at Origins Centre on Tuesday 20 March 2012. The address follows a lecture he recently delivered at Lambeth Palace in London, seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Professor Lewis-Williams will outline an account of religion that has appeared in many of his acclaimed books, such as 'The Mind in the Cave'; 'Inside the Neolithic Mind' (with David Pearce); 'Conceiving God' and 'Deciphering Ancient Minds' (with Sam Challis). He will address questions like: Why do people believe in a supernatural realm? Is religion really a social glue? The speaker is the author/co-author of 25 books and has published widely on rock art, prehistoric belief and the ancient San people. He has won numerous awards for archaeological research. Date: Tuesday 20 March 2012 Venue: Origins Centre Time: 18h00 for 18h30 Cost: R45/R35 Wits students and staff Bookings essential: ask@origins.org.za

      Fredster - 2012-03-07 15:37

      ...or you came come to church with me on Sunday, it is FREE!!! and you will go away a changed person

      Godfrey - 2012-03-07 16:03

      I don't think Craig set out to address cretins.

      Randomhero6661 - 2012-03-07 16:03

      freddie that just sounds dodgey!

      ryno.rousseau - 2012-03-07 16:05

      The only change would be an unrelenting need to shower, in a vain attempt to wash the filth of your superstition away.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-07 16:19

      @Craig; Religion is finite man's best effort to search for infinite God...True Christianity is the infinite God, coming to finite man through Jesus Christ. True Christianity is NOT a religion, but a relationship with a Living God... I have no issue with the theory of evolution being taught in schools, so long as it's taught as one of the theories or interpretations of the facts. Evolutionists observe the facts and then interpret them through their framework of naturalism; ID's observe the facts and interpret them through their framework of an Intelligent Designer. The facts are facts and the interpretations are the interpretations... The problem with the evolutionists is that they generally try to put their theory or interpretation forward as fact; which is NOT the case. Have you seen how whale evolution is described as fact in the text books...whales from hippos? This is a very dubious theory at best as the so-called vestigial bones are NOT vestigial, they are VERY useful to the whales during mating, which is widely known...why the evolutionists try to put their theory forward as fact can only be explained as propaganda. Rather tell the whole truth and let the kids decide for themselves. There is MUCH evidence which contradicts or brings the evolution theory into question and these should also be clearly explained in the classroom...evolution is one theory and should be presented as such, as should the other theories.

      SaintBruce - 2012-03-07 18:53

      Guys 'n Gals - No amount of science, maths, biology , digging in the dirt can prove or disprove the existence of God. The one field is ONLY concerned with the physical world around us - Science and all it's branches. The other field is ONLY concerned with the supernatural world around us - Faith in a living personal God. These two worlds have no connection other than people. However, when the supernatural has an effect on the natural, the one school of thinking says "Baloney!" outright and even shuns to do what they claim to do best - that is INVESTIGATE. When a claim by science is logically challenged - ie: where did the data contained in DNA come from ? - this is pounced upon by the science lobby as "IRRELEVANT!" Yet - these questions are at the core of life itself. Whoever said there should be a separation of Church and State couldn't be more wrong in their hypothesis! Both deal with the needs of people, both handle cultural and economic values that affect all of us on a daily basis. If the State submitted itself to the guiding principles contained in the Bible, we would have prosperity, peace and goodwill between us all. There was a time when some States / Countries did this - and they prospered greatly. Now would you - Craig - take a chance and visit a vibrant, anointed (means the presence and power of God flows) church and listen to the testimonies of ordinary men and women about their relationship experiences with a living, loving God? I dare you.

      Dirk - 2012-03-08 08:40

      WHAT IS ATHEISM? GODS VIEW "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God" (Ps 14:1) "The fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Prov1:7) "The way of the fool, is right in his own eyes"(Prov 12:15) "But the folly of fools is deceit" (Prov 14:8) Date : Any day Venue: The whole world Time: All the time Cost: Free Booking: Not required

      J-Man - 2012-03-08 09:04

      @ Fred... Changed? Or misled and brainwashed? No thanks.

      arno.west - 2012-03-09 16:48

      @Dirk if it was not for us who you consider fools, you would not be living in a house with running water and have any technology at all, for all this you see today was inspired and made by the fools (Atheists), the ones who dared to challenge the way the world works and thinks, so be carefull who you call a Fool, keep being a good sheep and follow the herd! i'm rather a fool than a sheep!!!!

  • Tony - 2012-03-07 14:49

    in the begin GOD created heavens and the earth.....it takes less faith to believe that than to believe evolution.......

      Quentin - 2012-03-07 14:54

      Excep no-one is asking you to "believe" evolution on faith but on facts. You can offer no facts in favour of creationism, ID or whatever pseudoscientific BS is du jour.

      Matthew - 2012-03-07 15:04

      Erm, would that be Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, Mithra, Buddha, Allah, Krsna, Quetzlcoatl, Mamon, Belus, Asmodeus, Ahura Mazda, Jehovah (forgive the vowels, but aint been struck down yet), oh yeah, sorry, you are an atheist as far as other peoples beliefs go, just your GOD is right. It really is inexplicable that people that believe such monstrous lies and legends manage to function at all in a secular world. I wish all the religious minded could all sod off to an island somewhere and inflict their stupid irrationality and self-inflicted misery and guilt on themselves.

      Stephen - 2012-03-07 15:11

      Mentally abused as a child Tony?

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-03-07 15:17

      How do you blindly dismiss FACTS? When you look up to the night sky, and see all those stars... do you believe that they are all gods like the ancients believed (though your religion is an ancient bag of steaming bullsh*t), or do you KNOW that they are an enormous mass of hydrogen and helium, because science has PROVEN it to be true, shown by SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?

      Ruggad - 2012-03-07 15:22

      Actually Quentin Evolution is a theory, not fact. And therefore to believe it requires more faith in a random, mindless, opportune and undirected selection. Opposed to an intelligent creator.

      wesleywt - 2012-03-07 15:28

      @Ruggad Why must I explain this again. The meaning of the word "theory" in science is different from the everyday meaning. In science a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon based on testable facts. Natural selection over time (evolution) explains how species differentiate. In everyday language and not science it means a guess. I have a theory that the Stormers are going to win on Saturday. Stop commenting and go and learn something.

      matt.rieman - 2012-03-07 15:31

      Ruggad - Seriously, are you going to try the old "evolution is just a theory" nonsense? Try opening a middle school science book for once will you! Evolution is one of the most well established and well supported (by evidence) SCIENTIFIC theories in all of science. And yes, I said SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Which is completely different from the layman's definition (an unproven hunch). "A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory." Damn I'm tired of this bronze age, ignorant nonsense!

      Quentin - 2012-03-07 15:36

      @ruggad: "theory" does not mean what you think it means in a scientific context. The rest of your post is drivel.

      Guy - 2012-03-07 15:40

      @Ruggad = another idiot that has no understanding of a scientifically proven theory, yes a proven theory. Not a theory as in an idea, you ignoramus. I wish this argument would just die, its propaganda that is simply untrue and to suggest that it is not fact is patently false and quite simply makes you look a fool.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-03-07 15:44

      @ruggad: a theory that has been tested, over and over since the 1800's, with no evidence DISPROVING the theory.

      Jason - 2012-03-07 15:51

      Doesn't take faith because science has all the proof required, no need to imagine it or take someones word for it.

      malibho - 2012-03-07 16:02

      Actually. natural selection does not explain evolution. Natural selection explains the preference of traits within a species over competing traits. Evolution reuires mutation from one species to another. So the evolotion of the world to the way it is today is not like dawkins explains to be a shortcut round the back of a mountain but rather like walking blind into a maze and you can only go forward. Evolution is impossible without intelligent design and thats a FACT. How intelligent people cant figure that out is beyond me. Its simple scientific reasoning.

      wesleywt - 2012-03-07 16:10

      @malibho Actually......No. You have a crippling misunderstanding of how evolution through natural selection works. You clearly you haven't even tried to read anything regarding the subject. Yet you have the ability to condescend on people who have dedicated their lives studying it. They are a lot more smarter than you, and have a lot of experience over you.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-07 16:24

      @Quentin Kalis; Please provide your top 5 observable, repeatable, and testable examples of evolution. Can't wait for this!

      malibho - 2012-03-07 16:27

      Actually I have studied evolution at University level. You make claims without substantiating. Answer this. How does an amoeba become a hydra without mutation? There is no way of getting from the chromosomal structure of fish to the chromosomal structure of a human without mutation. Thats not natural selection. Thats random chance. And each wrong step in a evolutionery path would lead to a dead end. like in a maze. So if you enter a maze blind and can only go forward. you wil not make it to the other side without a guide knowing the way. thats intelligent design. get it? think about it. Simple really.

      matt.rieman - 2012-03-07 16:56

      malibho - ID? Really? Ugh... Here, enlighten yourself: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

      matt.rieman - 2012-03-07 16:59

      ckrums - Here you go: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

      wesleywt - 2012-03-07 17:39

      @malibho hahahaha....You wasted your money because you clearly didn't learn anything. If I gave you a detailed answer about gene duplications,frameshifts, fragile chromosomes or transposon mutagenesis. Or extend my explanation to founder populations or convergent evolution of traits. Or perhaps explain how geographical separation leads to speciation like Darwin showed. I would leave you in a spin. You leave just as ignorant from this as you did from university. So just go and believe that God did it.

      Mano-Lee - 2012-03-07 20:50

      I remember reading about this bone they discovered in a dig somewhere. It was a bone no bigger than my thumb. The scientists and evolutionists wrote a whole thesis on how this was a form of early man. They went the whole way by drawing what this man possibly looked like from that same bone no bigger than my thumb. Not only that, what he ate, what he looked like, how he lived etc etc. When DNA and genetic testing came to the forefront, they discovered the bone was not of early man but a common pig. Simply put, you can believe you came from an ape. I believe i was designed.

      Alfred - 2012-03-08 00:01

      @Ruggad Heard of the 'Theory of Gravity. Just a theory? Do us all a favor and jump off the nearest tall building. The 'atomic theory'? Go camp near Chernoble for a few days. The Heliocentric theory? Just a theory? I suppose to an idiot like you geocentricity is just as likely to be true.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 08:45

      @matt.rieman Sorry, Dr. Theobald's article has been debunked, see http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp Small Exert: "Dr. Theobald contradicts his claim to argue for common ancestry without regard to any particular mechanism by including in his definition of macroevolution the requirement of gradualness. He states, “Macroevolution, as I will use it, is the theory of common descent with gradual modification” (emphasis supplied). He states further that “[g]radualness concerns genetically probable organismic changes between two consecutive generations, i.e., those changes that are within the range of normal variation observed within modern populations.” There is no reason to believe that the range of variation observed within modern populations can account for the creation of new organs, structures, and systems as required by the hypothesis of universal common ancestry. In restricting the mechanism of macroevolution to observable degrees of genetic variation, Dr. Theobald lets in the back door the very debate about mechanism that he tossed out the front. He thereby assumes the burden of proving that accumulated observable variation can account for universal common ancestry. Since he makes no attempt to meet that burden but rather repeatedly disavows the relevance of any particular mechanism of modification, I assume he did not intend to specify accumulated observable variation as the mechanism of macroevolution, despite what his definitions may suggest."

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 08:46

      Something else to mention about Mr. Theobald's article, is that he keeps altering it as the criticism pours in: "The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article—and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded. Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp’s response to Theobald’s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold’s on-going adjustments and modifications."

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 08:54

      So again: Please provide your top 5 observable, repeatable, and testable examples of evolution. You still haven't provided this; but I can already answer for you, is that there are NO examples. ALL (THE ONLY THING) we see are variations limited within the different kinds of animals, as the bible predicted...to say that these small variations within the different kinds was the mechanism used to produce all the taxa or animals we see today from a single ancestor is unscientific and a fairy-tale. If macro-evolution was true, the fossil record should be FULL of transitional fossils; but there are NONE. All the current animal kinds appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record...why is this? For interest sake, please list your top 5 examples of transitional fossils that led to homo-sapiens?

      Paul - 2012-03-08 10:33

      @matt.rieman Never the less it remains a theory! There is no proof, for ever scientific theory on evolution there are many questions that cannot be answered !!!

      Elton - 2012-03-08 13:06

      @Paul. Not so. In science a hypothesis is an unproved idea. A theory defines something that is accepted as fact. The term theory is used differently in science as in everyday life. For example, there is a theory of gravity also. Gravity has been observed and accepted, just like evolution, and now there is research into how it works.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 15:08

      @Elton In science we talk about the LAW of gravity, not the THEORY of gravity. The theory of evolution is an unproven theory, which is NOT like the LAW of gravity, which has been proven as fact. When evolution finds observable, repeatable, testable evidence to support it; it will become a scientific law, until then it remains a THEORY based on the framework of naturalism. Hope that clears up laws and theories in science for you.

      Elton - 2012-03-08 15:41

      @ckrums. Very wrong. First gravity was a hypothesis. (We think it is true, but not sure) Then science accepts it as true. Then it becomes "The theory of gravity" which exists still today. (We know it is true, but doesn't know how it works) Then laws *can* be created. Such as the Newton's and Einstein's laws of gravity. (How it works). Einstein has shown that Newton's laws are wrong. (We are still taught and still use Newton's laws, because it is very accurate). Laws are just a way to explain something precisely with a model, such as in mathematics. It is OK for a Law to be wrong, it is just the best what science can do with our limitations. Gravity though, still exists. We might never understand exactly how gravity or evolution works. Science however, already accepts evolution and gravity as fact. Note however, that they can be disproved, but the processes in science is of such a nature that it would be extremely rare. To say that evolution will be disproved is the same as saying gravity will be disproved, there is just too much proof for it. In easy terms one can say that evolution has been elevated from idea to fact (hypothesis to theory) in order to invite scientist to research the workings of it. The highest level any empirical observation can achieve is a theory. Laws will most probably never be applied to evolution because it cannot be modeled mathematically such as gravity. Or in other words, science is not advanced enough in order to model evolution. Get it?

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 16:27

      @Elton Einstein never proved Newton wrong, he just built on Newton's discoveries with his theory of relativity. Gravity, however, is a general physical law derived from empirical observations and is a fact; how gravity is calculated is being refined although it's pretty set. The theory of evolution is COMPLETELY different as it has NEVER been observed beyond variations within a taxa or kind. So there have been ZERO empirical observations and there is ZERO empirical evidence...not in the same league as the law of gravity. If evolution on a macro scale, please provide the observed empirical evidence so we can settle this once and for all.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 16:29

      "If evolution on a macro scale, please provide the observed empirical evidence so we can settle this once and for all." Sorry... If evolution on a macro scale is FACT, please provide the observed empirical evidence so we can settle this once and for all. We observe gravity everyday, no one has EVER observed evolution across taxa or kinds. Sorry!

      Lindani - 2012-03-08 19:36

      the ancient egyptins believe in the begining there was only water and the son god Ra came from that water and his kids made the other kids, a central nigerian tribe believes the first man and woman were sent down to earth from a rope now i ask wht makes you have so much more faith to believe the myth you do instead of these two?

      Elton - 2012-03-08 21:31

      @ ckrums, before you comment on science, first go study science. You are clueless... ...General Relativity has replaced the vast majority of Newton's work. Newton did a great job coming up with close approximations, but it didn't explain things like gravity affecting time, or gravitational lensing of light. Newton's work, for example, where completely off in the situation where there are very high velocities. A low velocities Newton's laws is still good. Evolution has been observed in science, as you put it, just like gravity. That is why there is a 'theory of evolution'. If you don't believe me, feel free to go and talk to any scientist about this...

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 08:46

      @Elton "Evolution has been observed in science" Provide examples or you just made it up. Provide examples of where new taxa or animal kinds have been observed emerging. You throw that statement out like it's fact, now back it up with evidence. Gravity is observed everyday all the time...if you son't believe me, go onto your roof and jump off; there is no question about the FACT of gravity (as I said) (I already said gravitational calculations are being improved and were improved by Einstein based on Newton's work); but gravity is a fact, no question (observable, repeatable, testable evidence). Evolution on a macro scale has NEVER been observed, hence the theory (I can't believe I'm having to spell it out to you like this). If I'm wrong, then provide 5 examples of observed macro evolution across taxa or kind. Seriously, show me I'm wrong, PLEASE!

      Elton - 2012-03-09 10:45

      @ckrums Remember, I told you already that science accepts. All these questions you ask are all nonsense gobbledygook crap you copy and pasted from radical christian websites. You wouldn't know what an observed macro evolution is even it it crapped on your head. I can see you know nothing about science.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 12:51

      Oh Elton; I guess having a decent respectful conversation or debate is beyond you, resorting to name calling & personal attacks. This is generally the response of someone unable to deal with or refute the evidence presented, so just attack the source. If you don't have any evidence to support your macro-evolution claims, then just say so and move on; no need to get ugly about it. I made a perfectly valid statement regarding gravity, which you clearly cannot refute or deny, so name calling is your next bet. I guess this is the end of this discussion; unless you have valid evidence to present?

  • richardpj22 - 2012-03-07 14:51

    Why aren't we naming and shaming the institution?

      E=MC2 - 2012-03-07 15:15

      because it was "religion" that made her quit... according to the article.

      Glyn - 2012-03-07 15:33

      What is the name of THAT SCHOOL?

      Jason - 2012-03-07 15:54

      I had this at my kids school as well, teacher told my kids that evolution had been had been proven wrong? Well considering he wasn't even qualified in that area to making such statements he was soon "transferred"

      SaintBruce - 2012-03-07 19:17

      No she quit of her own accord - perhaps could not present the basis for evolution correctly? I surmise that if you are applying for a job at a Church School as a biology teacher, you may have to moderate some of the material you present as the theory of evolution ( while it may not) seems to have been touted as some sort of 'proof' that God does not exist. That would not go down well with the core principles of a church school or Christian education provider. There are too many loopholes in the 5 major evolutionary lines of thought anyway and , added to that, the perception raised by God bashers , like Richard Dawkins, has given Evolution a bad reputation among a large community of folks who have experienced the supernatural for themselves and want to distance themselves from this group who try to jam a "no God" theory down their throats. Now I have written this before - their is a chasm of difference between Religion ( institutionalised man made philosophies)and Christianity which is a living lifestyle. To those who think God dictates every aspect of our lives, think again. The only thing God asks of you is to do and be what is RIGHT in HIS eyes. Naturally if your life revolves around what is not Right, then you will disagree with everything else that is wrapped up in that concept. I was one of the first scholars to write Biology for Matric. I loved the subject and still do. To evolve, where does the DNA code come from and how did it get started anyway?

      Paul - 2012-03-08 10:37

      Yes name that school, I'd like to send my son there , they stand up for what they believe in ... in this age of everyone feeling the need to be so PC ... we need more schools like that !!!

  • Francois - 2012-03-07 14:54

    You don't need to study evolution to understand evidence, how to weigh up evidence or what counts as evidence. You can study like even the decline of fish species in the Atlantic to try and establish possible sources. The point is that the SA constitution ( and I know this article was written with the US in mind) does not allow discrimination on the basis of religion. Thus you cannot force any religion to study evolution as they may decline to do so and then you will discriminate against those children who did not participate or answered the question. There are enough place outside schools where all parents including Jewish, Christian, Islamic etc can expose their children to evoluation if they want to, it does not need to be forced down the throats. Evoluation was not part of my school curriculum and some of my fellow students went on to became world renowned experts with PHDs in various fields of science. Thus evolution is not the know all and do all, let us cut each other respect and not concentrate on evolution on its own. Like stated there are enough topics that can teach the required skills.

      Quentin - 2012-03-07 14:59

      I suggest you read the Constitution,. It does not say what you think it says. Teaching science in a science classroom is hardly discrimination, and if you think it is, then I can assure that it does not mean what you think it means.

      qhuggett - 2012-03-07 15:25

      You dont understand a thing Francois. Fact and beliefs are too different things. the facts should be taught. Honestly i believe everyone should have a right to believe what they want. But i think religion should not be taught to anyone under the age of 18. Indoctrination should be stopped. If people choose to believe in a religion after the age of 18 then they have made an informed decision.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-03-07 15:28

      Too true Quentin. Evolution is science. Science is the foundation of countless careers, as well as the progress of humanity. Back in the day, when the catholics pretty much ruled, and disallowed, shunned, tortured and killed anyone who had a scientific theory that went against the bible (Galileo hypothesising that we live in a heliocentric solar system, not geocentric), the progress of humanity was slowed. Places that didn't shun science based on religion, thrived...

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-07 16:30

      @Quentin Kalis; Teaching science in the science classroom is NOT equivalent to teaching evolution. Evolution is an interpretation of the science based on the framework of naturalism...so evolution is a theory based on a slanted interpretation according to a framework... The same can be said for Intelligent Design; but my point is that your statement above is the problem... Evolutionists like to put their theory forward as fact through propaganda, which indoctrinates the kids toward an interpretation. Both views should be studied and the children decide, based on the evidence, which framework or interpretation they will support.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-07 16:34

      @qhuggett; I FULLY agree with you; the facts should be taught; of which evolution is NOT one of them. Both interpretations of the facts (evolution and intelligent design) should be presented (with pros, cons, issues, strengths, problems, etc) and let the children decide which interpretation best fits the evidence. I've studied both interpretations of the facts and found evolution wanting...Intelligent Design fits the facts much better than evolution.

      baldersnatch - 2012-03-07 18:02

      @ckrums: The "evidence" for Creationism aka "Intelligent Design" is a lot like Aristotle-era first principles. Just because the universe is stable and many things have adapted to survive in it, does not mean it had to have a creator. There are many plausible scenarios to explain this which do without supernatural powers. Why do you need to invent invisible magical things when something simpler could explain it?

      Karien - 2012-03-07 20:29

      The problem with your christian mythology is that most of its followers keep on insisting that not only with regards to them selves, but their childern and other individuals as well, that everyone basically should know ever less and disregard even more so that christian theology may remain in a possition of seeming truth. Thus, it insists that christianity is true, not until proven wrong, but invariably true and ANYTHING that contradicts it is invariably wrong or misunderstood. Sorry, I'm not that dumm.

      Karien - 2012-03-07 20:34

      P.S. Hell does not exist, there is nothing to be affraid of except for the concept of hell itself. You lot often ask me, "Are you willing to take that chance?" Well, most certainly YES! I would rather have true, fearless and authentic beliefs that thry to force myslef to believe a book of nonsense just in case it "might" be true and I "might" end up in hell. If it were to require courage to overcome that irrational fear, I would gladly invest such courage over and over again for the sake of basic reason.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 09:00

      @baldersnatch Okay, great...please explain the natural mechanism that created all the information within DNA. Even the simplest single cell lifeforms are unimaginably complex; so I'd love to hear from you, the "plausable scenario" that got life started from non-living amoral chemicals...and produced living, self-replicating life capable of morality, thought, reason, emotion, etc (from DEAD chemicals). Please provide that plausable scenario; I really would like to know.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 09:10

      @Karien Your statement is empirically false; the fathers of all modern science and the greatest scientists that ever lived believed in God and a 6 day creation; so are telling me that Newton's belief in this somehow prevented him from making even more scientific discoveries, or Robert Boyle, or Louie Pasteur, etc, etc...these men believed in God and a 6 day creation and contributed more to science than any modern scientist that believes in evolution. So belief in God doesn't prevent the advancement of science; it prevents the advancement of evolution; all those Christians and creationists discovered most of our scientific laws...Darwin came up with a theory that is so full of holes, and so lacking in evidence, that it seems that belief in God actually supports the advancement of science. Science involves observable, repeatable, testable data, of which evolution is not (I'm excluding variations within taxa from my definition of evolution to compare apples with apples). Variations within a animal kind are a given (as the bible predicted); but nothing beyond that has ever been observed or proven beyond reasonable doubt. Sorry.

      Elton - 2012-03-08 15:47

      @ ckrums, your understand of science is embarrassing.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 16:32

      @Elton... LOL...you're resorting to personal attacks because you can't defend your theory, that's embarrassing! Let's keep this to facts and evidence; please support your statement with evidence.

      Elton - 2012-03-08 21:58

      @ckrums - I am just a scientist trying to educate you a bit. We scientists don't study evolution just to piss off people like you. We do it because we want to make the word better. Already, a better understand of evolution has made advances in biology and medicine that directly affect you. My research area is in computational logic. So, we are trying to make computers as smart as you. The question is, how can a being make something as smart as himself? The answer is: evolution. Thus, it is becoming more clear now that the way to do it is with logic that evolves in order to improve it's own logic. What is amazing is that the logic can evolve withing milliseconds, not over millions of years as our own brain.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 09:04

      @Elton I hear you, and it's taking an INCREDIBLE amount of INTELLIGENT DESIGN to produce such a computer (which I've read is not even close); computers that can reason, experience emotion, make decisions based on emotion or values, protectiveness, etc. A belief in evolution does not lead to advancements in science, as there are many, many scientist that have & are making HUGE advancements in science, & they believed or believe in Intelligent Design. All life did NOT come from a single simple common ancestor (as science has already shown; fossil record, never been observed, genetic information, etc) All the species we see today are variations within the original basic taxa or kinds of animals that were created by God. That's what the fossil record demonstrates, that's ALL that is observed, & it's the ONLY explanation that fits ALL the evidence. I respect your scientific knowledge & expertise, but after 20 years of studying all the various areas of science & examining all the evidence, it's become clear to me that evolution is man's best effort to try & explain everything in a naturalistic way (naturalism) & is more about the framework than about the science; I'm sorry if that offends you, but that's been my observation & experience. I've asked countless times on these forums for 5 examples of observed macro evolution (as I'm told repeatedly that macro evolution has been observed); but all I'm ever presented with are examples of variations within a taxa as this is ALL we see.

      Elton - 2012-03-09 11:05

      @ckrums As for your question, sorry dude, I am not going to stoop down to your unreasonable and unscientific level. In any case, you should not believe what I tell you. I could be lying just as much as those radical Christian books and websites you are reading. However, since you have asked the question and you are truly interested in the answer. Go and read up on reputable science references, and stay far far away from those radical websites. I will leave you with this thought. Science is a process which tries its hardest to disproof things, not prove it. For a small scientific paper to be published, it takes years of research.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 13:00

      @Elton Oh, okay, I get it now...you only read websites and articles that agree with your belief and your framework; that explains a lot. I was at Sterkfontein Caves a while back and spoke to a number of guides their that were in the same boat as you; as I started to reveal and explain the facts and evidence that contradict what they were told about evolution, and also why the dating methods they were told about don't actually work in real science, they began to realize they had been deceived, and were never given all the facts. Maybe you should do some research on the issues and problems with the evolution theory compared to scientific facts; maybe your eyes will be opened as well.

      Elton - 2012-03-09 13:35

      @ ckrums I have the perfect solution. Stand up for what you believe in. Take your claims and logic to the scientific community, by writing a paper using scientific notations, logic and processes. You can publish the paper here and send it to a couple of journals. Then I and all of the scientist who review for those journals will give you feedback, once again using scientific processes. I will even give you the name: "On the failings of Evolution" Crums, your logic here is the same as: the moon is round, cheese is round so the moon is made out of cheese. Please don't insult the scientific community with your nonsensical ramblings. The only way you can EVER argue in a scientific way is within the realm of scientific processes. Any fool can contradict science within an unscientific environment. The irony of it all is, scientist love to contradict, that is what they live for. Thus if a scientist is able to contradict and disproof evolution, he/she will become very famous. If you are so sure of yourself, I dare you, go and write that paper...

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 14:06

      @Elton You finally admitted it; "unscientific environment", which for you is anything outside of a "naturalistic environment"; Here's a quote by one of your own evolutionists, Professor Richard Lewontin, which reveals a lot: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 14:07

      Loren Eiseley stated: “The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.” C.S. Lewis wrote: "“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts, i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents."

      Elton - 2012-03-09 20:32

      @ckrums - Read the good old prof's statement very carefully because you don't get it... ;)

  • justin.schonegevel - 2012-03-07 14:56

    Well all parents are gaurdians of the children, they sign a code of conduct on behalf of the child and run the PTA. A school that has prayer is a school who PTA allows it by majority. There is no teaching of religion in any state school unless the school is based on religion(private normally). Then to point out it is those that have belief that are the wealthy in the country who support these schools and churches. It is those that do not believe that require governments and privates to fund their work. Scientist want money from the religious so they can prove the religious wrong?? Just see what the US election is about. The world is not supporting scientist in evolution science because the end fact is that there will be no finite answer and will cost billions to get that answer. Inventing electricity had merit and cost little to prove hence the support. I think scientists and Christians could work together in finding better use of funds in science research rather than to widen the fight. If I was a scientis, prove that Christianity or another religions facts are true and seek answers for missing books. Then you may get the support you wanted.

      Godfrey - 2012-03-07 16:05

      Piffle!

      clivecorbz - 2012-03-07 19:08

      Thanks for the image you put in my head... Scientists in lab coats standing around a snake, trying to converse with it. As for the rest, I think you're trolling :/

  • clivecorbz - 2012-03-07 14:59

    "Yes, I would say so, but I wouldn't be alarmist," So news24 makes it the main article, above nationwide strikes...

      Georg Hendrik Laing - 2012-03-07 15:12

      Even the title of the article is alarmist.

      E=MC2 - 2012-03-07 15:16

      sensationalism is the news24 way man!

      Paul - 2012-03-08 23:55

      The editor of News24 has got an agenda he is pushing, there have been quite a few of these anti christian articles lately, they stay in the Most Commented section for way longer than news stories that carry much more immediate concernes for us ...eg: Malema, crime, the finacial crisis ans so on. So my fellow christians expect more of this drivel as long as the current editor is in place, I bet this editor has not being in this postion that long , because these types of articles are only a recent trend. WHAT IS YOUR AGENDA MR EDITOR ??????

      Llewellyn - 2012-03-09 05:59

      Paul - so that everyone can see the BS you believe in.

  • Stephen - 2012-03-07 15:02

    Religious views are threatening knowledge" they are threatening all life on earth. What do you think 9/11 was about.

      E=MC2 - 2012-03-07 15:17

      dude... 9/11...seriously? you think it was about religion?? lol

      ryno.rousseau - 2012-03-07 15:19

      Science flies us to the moon, religion flies us into buildings.

      Fredster - 2012-03-07 15:28

      Religion is man made. To be a true Christian, is having a relationship with God. That is not religion

      wesleywt - 2012-03-07 15:29

      @E-MC2 eh? Are you serious? You can't be that slow?

      david.daniel1 - 2012-03-07 15:29

      Stephen, have you considered that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao et al were anti-theists? If a person claiming to be Christian were to act so wickedly, it would be in contradiction to the teaching of Jesus; the blame can't be laid at the door of Christianity by inference. Similarly, if Islamic radicals murder innocent people, does that mean ALL religion is evil by inference? The claims of religions are so vastly exclusive, especially Christianity, and someone has to be wrong (perhaps even me; I'm not foolish enough to believe I have infinite knowledge- perhaps you should question yourself too)- we can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

      modo - 2012-03-07 15:31

      Yes E=MC2, no one would willingly fly into a building if they didn't believe they were doing right by their 'creator'. It has everything to do with religion.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-03-07 15:49

      How do you have a relationship with someone that doesn't exist? Is it like the relationship between a child and his imaginary friend?

      Godfrey - 2012-03-07 16:06

      Fredster69 is the only true™ christian on the planet. The billions of others are all wrong. Really!

      Carl - 2012-03-07 16:17

      Stephen, by that argument we should ban science because of napalm...great reasoning

      Liam - 2012-03-07 16:33

      David Daniel - you need a history lesson. Mussolini was a Catholic. In fact fascism in the case of Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain were simply the Catholic right wing in power. If Hitler was an atheist eh ? Why then did every German soldier have on their belt "Gott Mit Uns" - God With Us ? Why does he say how he is doing God's work from about the first chapter in Mein Kampf - which you've clearly never read ? Why did every German soldier swear an oath under God Almighty allegiance to the Fuhrer ? Hitler was a Catholic to the end. His first treaty was signed with the Vatican. Catholics across the globe prayed for him on his birthday by order of the pope. And the Catholic church helped to smuggle Nazi war criminals out of Germany at the end of the war. These are simply historical facts. Mao and Stalin were atheists sure. But they had their own 'religion' in the dogma that was communism - complete with miracles from charlatans like Lysenko. The thing with atheism is that it doesn't prescribe any behavior - good or bad, moral or immoral. As an atheist, when deciding upon your ethics you need to think for yourself. Novel no ? Very undogmatic, very unreligious.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-07 16:39

      @Wesley Bischoff So true Wesley...how can billions of people have a relationship with someone that doesn't exist? Rational conclusion: God does exist!! Just because you've never met him, doesn't mean He doesn't exist...meeting Him is one prayer, with integrity, away!

      Carl - 2012-03-07 16:46

      Liam, you can teach a parrot to say "I am a Christian" Jesus said that we shall know them by their fruit. Jesus also referred to "tares amongst the wheat" ie people who call themselves Christians but who deny the power of God in their lives. The problem is not about teaching evolution in any event. The problem is the message of metaphysical naturalism that is slipped in deviously along with teaching evolutionary theory.

      Liam - 2012-03-07 17:28

      Carl: Ah good, the reliable old "no true scotsman" routine. Sorry mate it doesn't hold any water. As for "metaphysical naturalism", I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that there is a problem in suggesting that evolution and speciation occurs without supernatural intervention ? Because that is where the overwhelming evidence points. Care to give any evidentiary examples of "metaphysical supernaturalism" relating to evolution and speciation ? Look, an objection to hypotheses about abiogenesis I could quite understand. Religious people have their contradictory beliefs and the science about abiogenesis is speculative at this point in time. Objections to evolution though ? It's based on overwhelming evidence, there is no debate, and religious people who have contradictory beliefs are quite simply WRONG.

      Carl - 2012-03-07 17:58

      Liam, I think if God does exist, then He is the one who defines what it is to be one of His followers, not the individual. No, i'm not saying that natural selection and speciation require supernatural involvement. What I am saying is that it is flawed logic to assume that because they don't necessarily require supernatural intervention that God does not exist.

      Liam - 2012-03-07 18:59

      Ah, well we can agree on that. Evolution is not evidence that god doesn't exist. I'm not sure that anyone has suggested that it is though ? We seem to have been talking at cross purposes. As for people who call themselves christians. Well, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and take them at their word. All kinds of crazy things are prescribed in the bible. I've no reason to believe that your interpretation of it is more valid that someone else who calls themselves a christian. It is after all the great big book of pick and choose. As I said, this no true Scotsman business doesn't fly.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-03-07 22:26

      @ckrums So if a billion people believe that reptiles secretly rule the world, that would make it fact? Evidence that he exists? lol shame you are crazy

      Carl - 2012-03-08 08:14

      Liam, granted there are some things in the Bible difficult to understand even for believers who have been in the faith for decades. That of itself does not make it an invalid book as you seem to be suggesting. The theory of evolution is sometimes presented as "evidence" that life can originate, multiply and diversify without the need for a creator. The theory is often packaged and presented along with metaphysical naturalism as the implicit worldview. We need to expose the metaphysical assumptions in alot of the teaching of Neo-Darwinism / the blind watchmaker thesis. If we look at worldviews rather than mere theories, it is obviuous that the theory of evolution is hopelessly inadequate as far as formulating a comprehensive worldview goes. The facts that Neo-Darwinism does not and cannot possibly account for seriously undermines its philosophical underpinnings. You should be careful about taking everyone at their word. Surely you don't do that with the person who wants your bank a/c number and claims to be a representative of SARS? Wolves in sheeps' clothing - you get them.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 09:18

      @Wesley Bischoff; Yes Wesley...reptiles...childish comparison... LOL! If a billion people, from all across the world said they witness a flash of light through the sky at the same time...the reasonable conclusion is that there was a flash of light across the sky; or a billion people across the world had the same hallucination at the same time :-)

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 09:19

      @Wesley Bischoff It's called deduction. I recommend watching a bit of Sherlock Holmes dear chap!

      Liam - 2012-03-08 11:10

      Carl, you seem determined to set up a straw man in evolution. Evolution does not talk about how life started; that is called abiogenesis and is fairly uncertain. Evolution is not a "world view", it is a description of the process of adaptation and natural selection which gives rise to speciation. Evolution is about, as Darwin's book title clearly states, the origin of species. What you imply evolution claims, are not claims that could have been made by anyone with any real knowledge of evolution (even more reason to actually have it taught so that people can discuss it intelligently). As for the bible being a good and moral text. Is it moral to sell you daughter ? Is it moral to stone people to death for planting the wrong crops ? Is it moral to own another human being (even Jesus was OK with slavery) ? Is is moral to kill someone for wearing the wrong clothing ? All of these things and more are mandated in the bible. To avoid the accusation of creating a straw man myself: consider the ten commandments. Is not creating graven images really the second most important rule for moral conduct ? How about ""be kind to children" instead ? Do you see how easy it is to improve on bronze-age morality ?

      Carl - 2012-03-08 13:30

      Liam, you clearly do not understand my point. I know that the theory of evolution is silent about the origin of life and that it is a scientific theory and not a worldview. That is exactly what I am saying. The point is that everyone has a worldview which largely governs the way in which they live. So much is left unexplained by the theory of chance mutation and natural selection that when viewed against the backdrop of the bigger picture, such as Why is there a universe rather than no universe? what caused the Big Bang / how did chemical and physical law originate? where does consciousness come from? Why do we have an inherent sense of right and wrong, which often goes against the principle of self-preservation? etc etc the hidden message that is often coupled with evolutionary theory (ie that life can arise and diversify BY PURELY NATURAL MEANS) begins to look highly dubious - in other words, the philosphical presuppositions that people like Richard Dawkins try to slip in along with the teaching of evolutionary theory are clearly brought into question when seen against the facts we encounter in everyday life. As far as the ten commandments go, they were not given to be obeyed by rather given to show us that we can't obey them. God is after a change of heart, not legalistic obedience. Augustine said it well: Love God and do what you will. (the point is that if you love God, you will obey God and love mankind) There is no higher morality and it is what Jesus preached.

      Liam - 2012-03-08 18:28

      Carl, you point is incoherent, and, ironically, pointless.

      Carl - 2012-03-08 20:08

      probably only to you Liam. The point is the whole evolution/creation debate is a red herring. It should be taught in schools - along with other competing ideas.

      Llewellyn - 2012-03-09 06:07

      Carl, how can an idea be taught as fact in school? Keep your ideas in your church and at home. There are many other religions that think your idea of how things happened is BS. Would you like the idea of jihad to be taught in your schools?

      Carl - 2012-03-09 08:13

      Llewellyn, ok - along with other facts - like the fact that we have only ever observed code to originate from intelligence and DNA is a very advanced code. Really dude, there are many brands of "evolutionary theory". Students should have to pass a course in Philosophy of Science before-hand.

  • Lucky Manaswe - 2012-03-07 15:08

    I don't know how legal is this but when I was in high school, our teacher gave us a choice to answer evolution question or decline if you believe in the bible. If I still remember correctly the question contributed 10 or 15 marks, so we all decided not to answer the evolution question because we were still going to get full marks(citing our believe in bible) rather than risk getting less marks by attempting to answer the evolution question.

      Guy - 2012-03-07 16:22

      That is the saddest thing I have read in a while.

      Tony - 2012-03-07 16:32

      Unfortunately then Lucky, this leads me to the conclusion that the theists who promised you higher marks for going their way were so unsure of their position that they had to resort to subterfuge to persuade their victims not to think about the probability that sentient beings in the sky do not exist.

      Lindani - 2012-03-08 19:40

      in the beginning, according to the Judeo-christian bible, God created adam and eve, and then they were chased out of eden after adams copulated with eve. they then had two sons, the obviously spoilt, annoying brats Cain and Abel. and then were told that cain and abel had wives............wait a minute were the F@#$ did these "wives" come from? eirther a blip or some brother were F@#$%^ their sisters

      Llewellyn - 2012-03-09 06:09

      Abel was an alcoholic. Cane was the death of Abel...

  • Donald - 2012-03-07 15:09

    Geeees, its hard to believe that this is 2012! It SOUNDS like 1612 FFS...

  • Shaun - 2012-03-07 15:10

    It is ok brothers and sisters in Christ, Revelations tells us that we will be ridiculed in the end of days....

      ryno.rousseau - 2012-03-07 15:41

      Can you please call your god to come get you lot. Really, it could be so much better without you and your superstition.

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-07 15:43

      It seem that you guys can't wait for it to happen too - the destruction of this world. What a strange bunch you lot are.

      ryno.rousseau - 2012-03-07 15:47

      I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the planet will still persist long after you lot and your silly notion have dissapeared from existence. (barring nuclear devastation, cosmic colisions or something along those lines)

      spartanx93 - 2012-03-07 15:49

      lol

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-03-07 15:54

      Lol and where is your proof that it is the end of days? Wasn't the rapture supposed to happen twice last year? You are ridiculed because of your stone aged beliefs... it is your right to believe what you want, but then must accept the consequences thereof.

      Godfrey - 2012-03-07 16:08

      @Xexo Isn't rapture wonderful. All of those people out there who believe in Jesus that constantly espouse their faith to the detriment of others would just disappear. All those delusional people that continue to hold back the intellectual development of our society would not longer be around.

      ryno.rousseau - 2012-03-07 16:21

      Lol, Adam I would not only say it to your face, I'd autograph your face afterwards. Your god is a joke. And the fact that you don't get that its a joke, makes it all the funnier.

      Guy - 2012-03-07 16:30

      @Adam, how christian of you. Way to love your fellow man. If I were a homosexual I'd also hate your god. he/she/it clearly hates them. it says so right in your rule book

      pmbadenhorst - 2012-03-07 16:34

      the ultimate COP OUT ....

      ryno.rousseau - 2012-03-07 16:40

      Lol, how novel. I look forward to it champ ;) Go forth and slay the heathens with your righteous fury. It just keeps getting funnier.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-07 16:41

      @ryno.rousseau "barring nuclear devastation, cosmic colisions or something along those lines" Doesn't sound like you're so certain!

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-07 16:45

      @Wesley Bischoff: Let's examine these stone age beliefs: -Love your neighbor as yourself -Consider others better than yourself -take care of widows and orphans -be generous -caring, gentle, kind, compassionate, patient... -be self-controlled... -husbands and wives love each other -children respect your parents -build others up with your speech -be merciful -look after the poor Are these the stone age beliefs you're referring too?

      Guy - 2012-03-07 16:46

      @Adam why don't you start a religious hate war against everyone that disagrees with your narrow biggotted point of view. I mean hey, if you can't convert them may as well kill them right? Or at the very least threaten them as you are doing. Coward

      Hans - 2012-03-07 16:58

      WHAT a BUNCH of NUTCRACKERS! I agree with Ryno. For petes sake, we can travel faster than sound and we've walked on the moon. Why ARE we still believing in fairy tales??

      baldersnatch - 2012-03-07 18:13

      Why do people say religion promotes good when it clearly does not. Simply reading the bible would make any rational person sick: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

      SaintBruce - 2012-03-07 19:46

      There are two kinds of people on the planet earth. 1) Those under the influence of the spirit of Evil 2) Those under the influence of Jehovah God (not to be mistaken with man made gods) Pretty simple, hey? Both groups will disagree with each other without resolution - ever. Until you experience the supernatural, to you it does not exist. Once you have had such an experience - as millions have - it does, and you cannot deny it. You can walk away without exploring it but it no longer is unreal to you. It's a bit like being a virgin - once you have sex, you now know what it's like. You can choose never to have sex again, but you cannot say you are still a virgin! Instead of bashing at everyone, I expect to respect both sides equally and to continue being both a scientist and a Christian, because I can!

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-03-07 22:37

      @adam Firstly, you seem to be quite the honourable christian hey? Insulting ryno and his family like that, showing hateful tendencies toward me and my fellow gays. You are delusional. And pathetic. All we can do is show pity for such a loser. Secondly, the rapture is a dream that one of your 'brothers' had in a fit of craziness. This homosexual MAN pities you, you sad, deluded c*nt.

      Mike - 2012-03-08 13:34

      Yip, Christians will be ridiculed and persacuted in the last days, laugh at us all you want, try prove us wrong, show evedince to prove God and Jesus false, do whatever, it wont sway us from the truth. The end is near people, i challenge all non christians to study up on what the bible says about the last days, you will be so surprised as to what is said and whats happening right now.

      Llewellyn - 2012-03-09 06:13

      Mike, if you show us the method of proving all gods are false, we will use that method in proving yours false.

  • Johan - 2012-03-07 15:10

    And then the devil said, "good work Slotegraaf, good work".

  • wesley.bischoff - 2012-03-07 15:10

    If the religious people don't want their children to be taught FACT, then they must put them in schools based on religion. Now the rest of the children are being prevented from gaining knowledge that has MANY years of evidence to support it. These people need to wake up and smell reality. Thank you conservative americans for forcing schools to disregards evolution and advocate a fairytale of creation, based on your stone age beliefs.

      Fredster - 2012-03-07 15:29

      Yes Wesley, and when something goes wrong in school, you will be the first one to say "Why did God not stop that" yet you are the one that does not want Him in your school

      ryno.rousseau - 2012-03-07 15:37

      God wouldn't have been able to do anything anyway, because ... wait for it... he doesn't exist -_-

      spartanx93 - 2012-03-07 15:50

      believing in god is like believing in the tooth fairy....

      ryno.rousseau - 2012-03-07 15:55

      truth fairy > god. At least the tooth fairy isn't a sexist, genocidal madman with a taste for blood.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-03-07 15:57

      I don't believe in him so why would i say/think that lol? Jeez, use that stuff in your skull. FFS Religion has and does screw up so many things, causes hate and bigotry. Therefore, i do not want it in schools, because i want my children to learn FACTS, and when they are mature enough, to make their own decisions regarding their own beliefs. That should not be decided by anyone but themselves.

      Jason - 2012-03-07 16:04

      Fred really you saying that house holds, schools, institutions that accept god won't have anything bad happen to them. I seriously suggest you go do some research as bad things happen to those who believe or don't believe. If its God's will he really doesn't care what you believe if you in the wrong place at the wrong time he works in "mysterious ways"

      Hans - 2012-03-07 17:03

      I'd like to add to that Jason. Isn't it funny how the 'bible belt' in the US is also known as 'Tornado Alley'! Damn those people did something to piss off their god.... harhar

      baldersnatch - 2012-03-07 18:16

      @Adam: When something good happens, you thank your god. When something bad happens, you blame infidels. Clearly your god is not all powerful, or he is not listening to your selfish prayers. Not to mention that praying for change goes against your god's all-encompassing plan. So much for free will.

      Mano-Lee - 2012-03-07 21:16

      I recall darwin repenting on his death bed and claiming his theory was just that, a theory. You guys probably believe that osama bin ladin was real too

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 09:27

      I agree, let's get evolution out of the schools and start teaching facts, real science! Let's teach the difference between fact and theory, let's present the children with the evidence and clearly state; "these are the facts, and these are ALL the theories about how this came to be." Let's teach the children about all the HUGE problems with evolution, the missing transitional fossils, the MASSIVE problems with dating methods, the MANY assumptions made in evolution, etc. Let's teach the FACTS!

      Llewellyn - 2012-03-09 06:19

      Obviously, ckrums, reading your posts here, you have no clue WTF you are talking about. Your kind of ignorance is by far the biggest threat facing young minds. Education, *ssh@le, does not just come from church, religious websites and christian tjommies.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 09:19

      @Llewellyn Great argument there! What astounding evidence to back up your statement! You can name call and ridicule all you want and you're entitled to your ignorance; but the fact remains that I'm right. There are many evolutionary examples still in science books that have been proven wrong or to be a fraud (Haekel’s drawings are still in science text books even though he was convicted of fraud for them, Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis, even Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man, Orce man, and Neanderthal, etc); now you have to admit that these are all frauds, so why are they still being taught to our kids. You take these away, there are ZERO transitional fossils for human evolution? There should be millions if it's true; where are they? All we see are humans appearing suddenly, in our current form, in the fossil record. Do you deny this? If you do, please provide some irrefutable examples of human evolution in the fossil record. I understand the naturalist want to believe that everything came about by itself, naturally over billions of years; but the evidence just doesn't support it.

  • Georg Hendrik Laing - 2012-03-07 15:11

    I agree that evolution should be taught in schools as a legitimate science, and that these Evangelical fundamentalists are depriving children of important scientific knowledge. \r\n\r\nHowever...\r\n\r\nReading this follow-up article, it seems that the teacher is less concerned about teaching evolution in school than she is about having public worship in schools abolished. That is disconcerting.\r\n\r\nShe's trying to use science to get rid of religion, but the whole science vs. religion phenomenon is a false dichotomy.

  • darryn.havenga - 2012-03-07 15:11

    I went to a state school, where the teachers were generally christian, but we were taught all theories of any avenue - the fact that this teacher remains anonymous makes me doubt how truthful they are being with the FACTS!

      Georg Hendrik Laing - 2012-03-07 15:15

      I also attended a state school, with teaching staff that were for the most part devout Christians, my biology teacher being among them. Yet he happily taught us evolution theory in class and did not consider it in conflict with our faith. Neither do I.

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-07 15:35

      Did that include the Stork theory of conception?

  • Nic - 2012-03-07 15:11

    People will be shocked when they know how many 'assumptions', not facts, are made in formulating the theory of evolution. Not so long ago the cleverest people in the world claimed the world is flat... Of course most scientists will ridicule religion, their careers depend on it. Religious people

      qhuggett - 2012-03-07 15:28

      No actually they wont. They will be more shocked by the bull that comes out of religious rhetoric.

      wesleywt - 2012-03-07 15:32

      Name one assumption. The theory of evolution has been confirmed over several scientific disciplines by many scientist at different times. It has been confirmed by fossils, genetics and agriculture. Antibiotic resistant TB is a prime example of evolution being confirmed. When making big claims like you are Nic, you should bring a little evidence with you.

      Nic - 2012-03-07 16:04

      What has been confirmed by fossils!? What? Evolution is the assumptions scientists needed to explain those unidentified fossils. Assumptions mate. There is a weekly documentary on Discovery, How The Universe Works and it is staggering how many terms scientists dreamed up to explain things they haven't got the foggiest about. They needed those terms just to further their extreme theories and there egos, just ask Steven...

      Godfrey - 2012-03-07 16:10

      Assumptions like these According to Genesis, humans created before the animals? Genesis 1:25-27 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind ... And God said, Let us make man ... So God created man in his own image. Genesis 2:18-19 And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

      Nic - 2012-03-07 16:36

      Yes Godfrey,I do, but not as literally as the way that you are trying to ridicule it.

      wesleywt - 2012-03-07 17:42

      @Adam... To stupid to debate? Have to resort to name calling like a little 5 year old. You have the scientific understanding of a toddler, so I guess its not unexpected.

      wesleywt - 2012-03-07 17:44

      @Nic I said it was confirmed over several disciplines. Yet you still go on about fossils. But you still don't explain why fossils do not show evolution. Just because your priest says so does not make it true.

      baldersnatch - 2012-03-07 18:18

      http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

      Karien - 2012-03-07 22:01

      Evolution doesn't even have to be correct to prove the bible wrong. The bible says God created everything in six days about 7000 years ago. We have fossils that are DEFINITELY much older than that, argument done! The bible is wrong, finished and klaar!

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 15:58

      @Karien Let me provide some framework; Carbon Dating doesn't work as the earth is NOT carbon saturated; have you seen some of the dates that carbon dating has produced for things we know the age of? Even the inventor of carbon dating knew it couldn't work, and it troubled him as it meant the earth is actually a lot younger than he originally thought! Layers date the fossils also doesn't work as then how are the layers dated? It's been proven that it doesn't take long for things to fossilize (turn to rock); so your statement about fossils disproving the bibles age of the earth is incorrect.

      Karien - 2012-03-08 16:31

      Ok ckrums, Adam and Eve sent their boys, Kain and Able of to work in the morning on the backs of a pair of Rhinodons so that they would have a better chance at getting away from T-Rex on their way out to watch the sheep, about 7,000 years ago. You know... REALLY??? Besides, o.k., T-Rex turned from flesh and bone into FOSSIL in about 7,000 years. Yes man, you got me on that one, I'm sooooo sorry for my ignorance and arrogance in believing that T-Rex actually lived 65 MILLION years ago. You have convinced me, take me to your church, I'M SAVED!!!!

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 18:18

      @Karien Not quite sure what you're on about, but you haven't even attempted to refute the fact that fossilization can and does happen quickly; your childish response demonstrates your inability to address the evidence. Are you serious about debating or discussing on this forum, or are you just trolling?

      Karien - 2012-03-08 21:01

      ckrums, radioisotope dating, geology, comparative studies between MANY different fields of science including the study of other religions which have history too. Paleontology, archaeology, sociology, biology, chemistry, physics... all having independant approaches that in convergence find common ground that refutes the truth of the young-earth ultimate creation myth. Hovind this, ID that, fossils form in a few years here, Adam lived while having to defend himself against T-Rex no more than 7,000 years ago that... you just have no idea of the VAST VOLUME of scientific data you have to argue away that is beyond simple carbon isotope based dating and a very simplistic look at geological strata. If dinosaurs lived during the time of Adam, why did they become extinct? How did Noah get Kangeroos on his arc, and how did he get the back to Australia? Where did all the water go? If the great flood is responsible for the death of the dinosaurs (and I know we are treading into silly-land here), why did no swimming dinosaurs survive? (perhaps mabe for the loch ness monster, lol). With your absolute creationist view, how old is the earth. God made the entire universe about 7,000 years ago right? With reference to meteorite and lunar samples, using radioactive dating (not carbon isotope based but rather lead content in uranium base material), the earths' age has been determined to be at 4,54 BILLION years with a possible variance of a maximum of 1%. Again, Genesis is wrong!

      Llewellyn - 2012-03-09 06:26

      Adam - \\and the word is going to spread once i have published this deception on tv and radio ..along with the photos of the people who diss Christianity!// Interesting! So you are going to start persecuting people who "diss" christianity? In what century do you think we live in? Ignorant fool.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 10:04

      @Karien Yay, finally making an argument... Okay, let's first look at uranium to lead and potassium to argon dating methods using the isochron technique. It makes 3 fatal assumptions: 1)The conditions at time zero...it assumes that there was none of the daughter elements in the rocks when they were formed. Now let's look at what science has proven: Lava flows (new rocks being formed) that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, & they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected. when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form & cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years! Similarly, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years using these dating methods. So it is logical to conclude that if recent lava flows of known age yield incorrect old potassium-argon ages due to the extra argon-40 that they inherited from the erupting volcanoes, then ancient lava flows of unknown ages could likewise have inherited extra argon-40 & yield excessively old ages. Science proving the dating methods wrong. To make matters worse for the claimed reliability of these radiometric dating methods, Grand Canyon basalts that flowed from the top, yield a samarium-neodymium age of about 916 million years & a uranium-lead age of about 2.6 billion years! They don't work!..

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 10:08

      ... Assumption 2: No Contamination: The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks. The radioactive “clock” in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. Similarly, as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it. Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years! 3 different radio isotope dating methods producing massively different dates. Again, science has proven they don't work & the rocks are actually MUCH younger. My question is, are you interested in the truth & can you admit that you were wrong? You can check this information out if you don't believe me! Now for number 3...

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 10:13

      Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate: Physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories over the last 100 or so years & have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). Furthermore, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical & magnetic fields. So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years. However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. Nevertheless, geologists insist the radioactive decay rates have always been constant, because it makes these radioactive clocks “work”! New evidence, however, has recently been discovered that can only be explained by the radioactive decay rates not having been constant in the past. For example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite yields a uranium-lead “age” of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals. This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking. The rate of uranium decay must have been at least 250,000 times faster than today’s measured rate! "Dr. Andrew Snelling" Your thoughts Karien?

      Karien - 2012-03-09 13:47

      ckrums 1) Please take note of the time spans you mention. They do still NOT suggest that God made the world in six days, about 7,000 years ago. 2) A limited number of theories or laws in science as a whole are universally applicable. Very specific and isolated anomalies can be found for the majority of scientific theories in any field. That does not make them generally valid in any given situation. Even the speed of light, which was previously believed to be constant in a vacuum at 299 792.458 km/sec has been found to vary with variations in gravitational forces. Thus, if the speed of light passing a massive star thousands of lightyears away is different to the speed of light from the sun passing the earth, that does not mean that the speed of light in a vaccum here on earth is utterly unreliable and not constant. 3) The atoms that make up the lava, that finally cools into rock are not newly formed when a volcano errupts. Lava is invariably old atoms in a combination of old and some newly formed molecules, in turn varying due to variations in pressure, heat, chemical composition etc. This is not a brand new wonder discovery. Variations in the meassured age of different molecule compositions IN THE SAME ROCK is naturally TO BE EXPECTED. One is dealing with determining MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM ages within mathimatically calculated variances from where one may ESTIMATE approximate ages within a calculated variance and calculated probability factors. To be continued:

      Karien - 2012-03-09 14:35

      4) Where did you get your facts from? You read your facts from the very same science-oriented group of people on this planet that used the data that you now quote to calculate and publish the ages we now believe or soon will believe to be accurate. You are trying to refute the scientists' findings, using their scientific data as a counter argument in over-simplistic generalizations and all new assumptions. How can you say with certainty that the latest findings have not been made while having taken your argon-40 adjustment into account? That along with several other problems specialists in the field know about but you haven't heard of yet, but will surely use to try and refute their findings in the future when you do, while assuming that all the people in the field are ignorant to the factors that you are aware of. 5) Today we have complex computer programs that calculate the figures based on the input of teams of specialists in the specific relevant fields, who in turn have studied thousands of different scenarios and at least over a centuries worth of in-depth research. Do you expect us to find ckrums here in South Africa to be such a wunderkind that he can now come and refute all their work on a local news forum. Credibility ckrums, credibility. 6) You only mention a small range of very specific problems while trying to refute an army of corroborated and comparative evidence in fields of scientific enquiry you have no grasp of whatsoever. Continued:

      Karien - 2012-03-09 14:47

      7) What exactly do you believe? So, let's assume for a moment that you are right? Tell us now what you believe the truth is so that we can kick back and shoot down your propositions from our lazy chairs. Come on, when did the dinosaurs walk the earth? Why are they extinct? You don't even have to give us anything resembling absolute accuracy, minimums and maximums will do.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 15:11

      @Karien I hear you...but the age is calculated by comparing the amount of daughter isotopes to the amount of parent isotopes, based on the assumption that there was zero daughter isotopes to begin with. So all dating methods should reveal the same ages; this is NEVER true, so which method is the most accurate and why are they often different by hundreds of millions of years? So in the science books, when they say that a particular rock layer is such and such an age; what dating method was used, and what dates did all the other dating methods produce? Do you get my point? When they dated new lava flows in the Grand Canyon, and compared them with the oldest layers in the canyon, they got roughly the same dates within each of the dating methods (ie.potassium-argon isochron age for the new and old rocks were the same); but they were massively different across the different dating methods: a) 516±30 million years (the potassium-argon isochron age) b) 1,111±81 million years (the rubidium-strontium isochron age) c) 1,588±170 million years (the samarium-neodymium isochron age); How can we know for sure which is the correct age when there is no independent cross-check? Where there is an independent cross-check, these radioactive dating methods fail completely.

      Karien - 2012-03-09 18:58

      Ckrums, according to your example then the problem basically is that they don't know which of the dates amongst those determined to pick. Originally I said that irrespective of evolution being absolutely correct or not, Genesis is certainly wrong already as that which we have as fact already disproves it, and you challenged that. Now, correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not a geologist or paleontologist but rather a Religious Scientist and Psychologist, but all dating methods you refer to, though they do not correspond, consistently indicate time spans exceeding the time between now and when Adam was supposed to live by multiples of hundreds of thousands or even in some cases billions of years. Would it not be logically reasonable for a non-geologist like myself to believe that mount St.Helens for example is WAY older than 7,000 years? Hence, by all measures at my disposal with reference to what those in the know show me, Genesis is wrong and God did not create the world in six days at approximately 7,000 years ago. By the same reasoning I would surmise that the fossils of dinosaurs are far older as well, whether evolution theory is an absolute or not. That seems probable to me, not just by the token of the dating methods used, but by means of recorded history as well. There is no indication of a V-raptor or T-Rex as examples running around amongst modern man in ANY form whatsoever anywhere in recorded history including all historical religious texts. Continued:

      Karien - 2012-03-09 19:00

      Thus: I find it rather safe to say that an absolute litteral protrayal of the story of Genesis as accurately representative of the means by which the world came to be as absurd.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 19:03

      @Karien So your argument is that everyone must throw there brains away, never question anything a scientists says, and just follow blindly...because they are the clever ones that have all the answers, LOL... Well if that's all you can say to the EVIDENCE I presented here, then you're a blind sheep...think for yourself for once and refute the evidence I presented. Saying "I'm sure the experts are aware of that and have a solution" isn't an answer. Clear and simple, there are MANY scientists that ARE aware of it and have changed over from naturalism to intelligent design or creationism, because of the EVIDENCE. They were thinking for themselves. Sorry Karien, but the dating problems are real, and you haven't addressed them at all.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 19:08

      And I can assure you the evolution scientists are aware of it, but sidestep it because they don't have an answer; the whole evolution theory rests on the accuracy of their dating techniques, to admit they are flawed would bring the entire evolution theory into question, which they cannot allow!

      Karien - 2012-03-09 21:07

      ckrums, You referring to ToE is irrelevant in our specifc argument as from the start I have put the hypothetical inaccuracy of evolution as a premice. I.e. for now the inaccuracy of ToE is assumed for the sake of clarity in this argument. I can do this because I stated it as a premice in the argument that you chose to attack. Dating methods used are, by the same token, irrelevant to the agrument as I am stating evidence of other sources than paleontology and geology as my primary basis re. the time from Adam to now falls within recorded history, there are fossils of T-Rex that according to you are simply young as opposed to old. Thus T-Rex must have lived between now and 7,000 years ago with the bible as time reference. Consequentially, T-Rex and modern man had to coexist on this planet within recorded time if you are correct, while there is no indication of any T-Rex living within recorded history. Recorded history is independent of the methods of dating that you refer to and thus any further references to them is naturally irrelevant. The real-world scenario that you are suggesting by your argument is one where dinosaurs and modern species had to live together on this earth at the same time, all during recent history which in turn is actually recorded. Again, that scenario is absurd.

      Karien - 2012-03-09 22:14

      I re-paste a comment by Johann: "I am a law lecturer. SA does not have a secular constitution. This however does not imply that teachers can incalcate pupils with their personal subjective views. Pupils attend school involuntary and to use this forum to subject them to non scientific teachings however, is not sanctioned by the State. In the USA the Steward case forbid teachers to teach Creationism in the science class which became a national prohibition. After this case in 1987 prof Behe tried to re-introduce religion by substituting Creator and Creation with Intelligent Designer and Intelligent Design. In 2004 the court rejected this with contempt in the Dover case and ordered that it be prohibited. Evolution is an accepted fact, also by Dr Roland Williams, the head of the Church of England. You can watch it on a recorded program by BBCW. I am in possession of this DVD for anyone to see. Religion belongs at home and in the various churches. State sponsored schools should not be allowed to further religious views on pupils who may differ from teachers' personal preferences. Education should be education in the disciplines of the various subjects, free from subjective views. The comment on irreducible complexcity as proof could only come from a non scientist. The Dover case rejected this doctrine after extensive evidence was given"

      Karien - 2012-03-09 22:35

      Again, arguing religion with religious fundamentalists is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. No matter how good at chess I am, the pigeon will just knock over the pieces, crap on the board and then strut around like its victorious. (I borrowed this again because I just love this ;-)

  • matt.rieman - 2012-03-07 15:20

    Religion has always attempted to stifle any scientific discovery that contradicts it's mythological fables. Sometimes it takes centuries before logic, reason and evidence break through these antiquated barriers and see the light of day (see Galileo). With the advent of easily attainable knowledge through the internet, we are in a new age of enlightenment, where our quest for knowledge can no longer be held back by religious dogma. I'm optimistic that in the next few decades my children will live in a country where religion is pushed to the fringes of society (like the rest of the civilized world), and logic, reason, and tolerance rule.

      Georg Hendrik Laing - 2012-03-07 15:35

      The same-old pseudo- pop-culture history reiterated by the new atheists. For someone who espouses \logic, reason and tolerance\, perhaps you need to do some further reading. Try the works of professional historians, not amateurs like Dan Brown and his ilk. You'll be amazed to discover that religion, and in particular orthodox Christianity, is the great ally of science.

      matt.rieman - 2012-03-07 16:00

      Georg - I agree, to some degree, that religion was an ally to science. As the main source of education in the ancient world, many scientific discoveries were made by religious sources. But as technology and scientific knowledge increased, and religious interpretations of our natural world were challenged, in many cases religion attempted to (and still does today)stifle it. Also, I don't read Dan Brown.

      Mark - 2012-03-07 16:38

      I'm not sure I agree. Religion has on occassion attempted to stifle scientific discovery (and some religions more than others). But on the whole it (I speak mainly on behalf of Christianity here) has been a supporter, protector and encourager of scientific discovery: not only by maintaining and protecting 'classical knowledge' during the middle ages, but also by creating the modern scientific mindset (largely thanks to the Reformation) that, as the Reformers put it, the created world is deliberately ordered and can therefore be understood and the order of things can be uncovered. This contrasts to other worldviews at the time which held that life was meaningless or cyclical and either arbitrary or governed by fate and therefore scientific enquiry was pointless. It is interesting that modern athiests tend to hold to the latter world-view, precisely the one that held back science for generations!

      matt.rieman - 2012-03-07 16:54

      Mark - I (and all atheists I know) don't conform to the worldview that life is meaningless or cyclical and either arbitrary or governed by fate. I have found just the opposite to be true. I feel my life has meaning because I am a productive member of a civil society, doing what I can to make society better, and raising productive children that will continue to do the same. And the path I take in my life is governed by the choices that I, and the people I choose to surround myself with, make during the journey.

      Mano-Lee - 2012-03-07 21:22

      Before mankind discovered the earth was actually round and not flat, 3500years prior to that event, the book of proverbs clearly describes the earth as being round and floating in space.

      Mark - 2012-03-07 22:50

      You surely do conform to the view that life is arbitrary! To say otherwise would be to say that there is some reason for existence. For there to be a reason for existence, that reason must be prior to existence, and therefore prior to the natural observable order... perhaps I should have said'...unwittingly conform [to above worldview]'

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 09:34

      Oh MAN...tell that to Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Louie Pasteur, etc, etc that are the father's of modern science and believed in God and a 6 day creation...it seems the opposite is true, that to believe in naturalism hinders the advancement of science because you've already decided how the evidence is to be interpreted. Our scientific fathers (Darwin is NOT one of them) who discovered the laws of science believed in intelligent design...please explain how that hindered the advancement of science. You have a theory, which many facts of science don't support...the problem is that you're so committed to naturalism, that you refuse to see it or admit it... Therefore...naturalism is the greatest hinderence to science.

      Karien - 2012-03-08 16:48

      ckrums, again with his allmighty "laws of science". This law of science thing must be magnificent in its' awe inspiring splendour. How come all these super christian-scientists seemed to diminish in numbers the closer we got to the 21st century. It looks to me like the findings of the contemporaries you mentioned needed some time to settle in and gradually de-christianise science. It's not even done yet but progress is being made... it's not long now... I really hope that logic will prevail before we have to listen to you waiting for Jesus to come on the clouds for the next 2,000 years, and then for the following 2,000 years after that.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 18:55

      @Karien It's like debating with a child...your'e so desperate to sound intelligent, the sum total of your comments are generally personal attack...probably because of your inability to defend your theory. I take it you don't understand the difference between scientific laws and theories or how the dating methods work? Maybe read up on those things and let me know when you're ready to have an intelligent conversation.

      Karien - 2012-03-09 16:03

      ckrums, I repeat the fact that you are still waiting for Jesus to come on the clouds after 2,000 years and then you call me childish for stating that fact? Do you or do you not believe that Jesus will come from the heavens, even though it is now a few years short of two millennia since Jesus departed? Is it also not true that the people you like to mention including Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur etc. are all long dead and certainly not to be considered modern or post-modern up-to-date scientists? Where is your long list, that is sufficient in numbers to be considerable, of scientists of current stature that would underline you beliefs unquestionably? They must be current, they must be credible amongst the main body of peers and they must be accepted specialists in the relevant field of argument. I do not claim to be a geologist or paleontologist so I have to see references to contemporary and credible people who must be believable by their credentials beyond question.

  • Tony Lapson - 2012-03-07 15:23

    This is true, but the biggest enemy of science is money and civilization as it stands. Research should never be hindered by a budget. Money is a fiat system which doesn't take nature and recourses into account. Where a shiny metal of no use to the average joe is still considered to be valuable and worth killing/dying for, you know you are dealing with a sub-par and barbaric species. I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

  • Glyn - 2012-03-07 15:26

    What is the name of THAT SCHOOL?

  • Ben - 2012-03-07 15:35

    Read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted world... Awesome. The fact that people in charge of us has no idea when it come to science, is scary. We live in a world that revolves around science and technology yet there's so many people that just don't want to know....It's weird.

      Godfrey - 2012-03-07 16:12

      They are scared of death and don't want science to continue to prove the falsehoods of the silly books on which they base their faith.

      Mano-Lee - 2012-03-07 21:33

      Knock the bible all you want. Knock the Almighty all you want too. How ever, for a book of fairytales, with out it, Neil Armstrong would never have walked the moon. (scientists used it to calculate trajectories for the trip there) This fairy tale book also confirmed the earth as being round and suspended in space (proverbs) long before your great scientists could work that out. This same fairtale book holds one of the most amazing hidden codes the world has seen, prooven by your scientists. For a fairytale book, over 300 prophecies recorded there in have materialsed to the T. Including the formation of the euopean union and its current finacial crisis. All this done 4000 years ago. Me thinks the bible is more than just a fairy tale book.

  • Dakey - 2012-03-07 15:35

    Jeesh. I learned evolution in biology 20 years ago, and my Christian biology teacher was very open about this. That said I would have loved to also learn about the theories of creationism at the same time and had the opportunity to form an opinion at that point in time, instead of assuming everything I was taught was true. I didn't see Christian groups rioting and claiming schools refused to teach creationism. Get some perspective Duncan, the entire scientific community is up in arms about whether or not Dark Matter exists and whether half their theories are even remotely correct. There is NO FACT of Evolution, just as their is ZERO proof of abiogenesis. I would have loved my biology teacher to explain to me that neighter Watson, nor Crick (google them) believed that genetic material could have evolved on Earth, but then again I had to find this out for myself... no one bothered to teach me. So unfortunitely Duncan, that's life and until schools are willing to teach both theories, you have no valid case for moaning about it.

      Godfrey - 2012-03-07 16:14

      Creationism is not a valid scientific theory as their is not a whit of evidence for it. Nix, nana, zero. When Galileo demonstrated that the earth wasn't the center of the universe the Christian traditionalists freaked out and did everything they could to keep the theory silent, but they eventually figured out that they could accept that the earth revolved around the sun and still be Christian. The same thing will happen with the theory of evolution. Both will survive.

      Dakey - 2012-03-07 17:35

      @Godfrey Godfrey, your argument is akin to finding an empty bottle of Nederburg Baronne 2010 in your basement and not only claiming it came into existence spontaneously, but that it never contained any wine in it to begin with. Of all the basements in the universe surely somewhere this must have evolved? Darwin did not even understand the complexity of genetics, did not even know DNA was. The very complexity of DNA and ABSOLUTE LACK OF EVIDENCE OF ABIOGENESIS is more than ample evidence that we did not randomly come into being. The again the ever evolving theory of evolution deliberately distanced itself from abiogenesis because… wait for it… there is Nix, nana, zero evidence to support it. Your TOE is the logical equivalent of me walking into my sons room and finding a lego space ship… claiming that it randomly evolved into the spaceship and ignoring completely 1. My son and 2. Who created the lego blocks? Regarding Galileo, are you truly are as ignorant as many of these anti-theist are. Do you even realise WHY the CATHOLIC church and the rest of the 'scientific community' adopted the belief that the Earth was the centre of the universe? Try Aristotle, the atheist for good measure. PS Aristarchus had actually proposed that Earth revolved around the sun more than 1,600 years earlier, but this was ignored by 'science'. Galileo, Copernicus and a host of other famous scientists that proposed the heliocentric model of the solar system were VERY pious Christians.

  • zane.zeiler - 2012-03-07 15:38

    I don't know why it's still debatable... It's quite simple really. If you reject a factual based scientific theory that is backed up with loads of evidence and then rather subscribe to a young earth hypothesis (not even a theory) without any peer reviewed or accepted evidence then you are... well sorry to say... either dumb as dirt or an extremely misguided individual in dire need of a proper education.

      Dakey - 2012-03-07 15:57

      Hey Hondbyt, How easy do you think it is to get an article peer reviewed when it directly contradicts what they are current teaching at the university. You're particularly ignorant if you don't believe there is academic, financial and social pressure to release papers that agree with the norm. Do you really think UCT's science department will be credible to the majority of institutions world wide if they support creationalism? Do you think companies like GSK will continue funding them? Even in business, the entire process is corrupt. The head of Harvard school of business is PAID hundreds and thousands of US Dollards by third parties with a vested interest to produce papers which support their agenda. I can only suggest you watch the inside job to get 'some' idea of how political these things can be. Creation vs Evolution is even more serious that finance.

      mbossenger - 2012-03-07 16:43

      Dakey - actually if someoone found credible evidence that refuted evolution that would be one of the biggest scientific discoveries of all time. Hardly something to be hidden....

      Dakey - 2012-03-07 17:08

      @Mboss: No it wouldn't Mboss, it would simply 1. Assumed to be incorrect 2. Explained away as being in contrast to 1000 other bits of information, so clearly wrong. Do you even understand the implication of refuting evolution? PS, Watson and Crick, upon discovering DNA to be so complex that they (both athiests) concluded that there was no way it could possibly have evolved on Earth. Yet you seemingly haven't even heard of them?

      zane.zeiler - 2012-03-07 17:30

      "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." - Francis Crick "Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles." - James Watson

      Dakey - 2012-03-07 19:08

      @Hondbyt Well done, you've managed to google Watson and Crick and posted the most out of context quotes you could find. As I stated and let me state ... again ... "Watson and Crick, upon discovering DNA to be so complex that they (both athiests) concluded that there was no way it could possibly have evolved ON EARTH" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia Curious, where did DNA come from?

      Juan - 2012-03-07 23:05

      It is simple really... Faith = Noun: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. or Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof

      Dakey - 2012-03-08 00:07

      @Juan Faith is simply a belief based on evidence that cannot however be proven. I have faith that my wife loves me (belief) because she tells me so (evidence) and from experience she is a honest person (further evidence). Additionally her actions are one of a loving wife (more evidence). There is no way to prove or disprove this claim however. If we had to live in a world where we can only believe things we can prove scientifically, well, that's just not a functional world at all. At some point common sense should prevail. This does not suggest that there is no place for scientific proof, however one must be carefull when attributing something as proof when discussing something like the ToE, which importantly also CANNOT be proven. It is, just like a faith in God, a faith in a theory.

  • fortune.mabasa - 2012-03-07 15:48

    The biggest challenge is truly religion and Christianity is classified as a religion, however it is not a religion. Religion seeks to find God while our Christian faith points to the fact that God found us and that all humans are special in God’s sight. Many evolution theorists are hell bent from destroying any truth that the is a God so that they may do wrong with a clear conscience that there will be no consequences for their actions and that they won’t be answerable to a Greater being than themselves. The fact that people go hungry is not as a result of any faith but the religion of the worship of money, greed and self-indulgence. A case in point is the issue in Libya were a leader was deposed from his position for financial gain. Was religion the cause or was it greed and opportunism. Many factors are to blame for many challenges that we face in the world today and quite clearily we cannot only point at religion. Finally Science is supported by the Christian faith and in any case some of the great scientists of time past whether Religious or not believed that the was a God. This website allows you to see some of the greatest scientists who believed in a God and not necessarily religion. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

      Lwando Zondwa-Ziintshaba Poni - 2012-03-07 16:03

      Dude, Christians like yourself always imagine themselves as superior to other religions. The FACT of the matter is, Christianity is a religion regardless of how high you people clim on your horses.

      Lwando Zondwa-Ziintshaba Poni - 2012-03-07 16:04

      Dude, Christians like yourself always imagine themselves as superior to other religions. The FACT of the matter is, Christianity is a religion regardless of how high you people clim on your horses.

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-07 16:22

      What kind of morality do you advocate? One that relies on big brother watching you? That is rather telling I must say. More of an appeal to authority than morality. Personally I try to see how my actions affect other around me and do my best to be fair and reasonable. As for god, well my theory works without that assumption thank you very much.

      Mandu Ngcobo - 2012-03-07 16:50

      Religion is a belief in and worship of a God or gods, so christianity is a religion. I really don't understand why christians keep trying to deny that

  • Zion - 2012-03-07 15:48

    I am satisfied that I have taken to science or scientific pursuits rather than that of the cul-de-sac of religion. I earnestly and honestly believe my veering away from religions is directly due to those religious fanatics found all over the country, the world and these forums. At a younger age I was directly attacked by religious fanatics and those fanatics were of the Rhema type. The entire sermon went about money, money ,money and nothing else other than miraculous cures which never seemed to materialise. There is an NG kerk directly over the road from my house. I really enjoy sitting on my front stoop on Sundays listening to the singing. I truly respect them so I just hope my opinion can be respected too. If that is not the case then I may change my opinion.

      Zion - 2012-03-07 16:09

      So it looks like the christians cannot respect me then: To hell with them and their gods.

      Zion - 2012-03-08 07:54

      I find it demeaning to get involved in arguments where it is obvious that both sides hardly know the facts yet argue about them and in some cases the "facts" are fabricated to suit the situation and often to be one-up.

      Dakey - 2012-03-08 09:22

      Zion, I've been to a number of churches that I did not like for good reason. Your 'religion' seems to have been based on people and not God, nor the Word of God which I'm sure you can see the flaw in. It's like saying you don't want to be a vegetarian, because although you don't want to eat meat, you were attacked by vegetarians once. Martin Luther had the same view on the Catholic Church and eventually broke away from it. We actually happened to mention 'well off' chuches recently and how we hate what is called the 'prosperity gospel'. You don't need to find the right church now, but open your Bible and pray, eventually (like me), you may well find a church you actually want to go to every Sunday.

      Zion - 2012-03-08 10:06

      Dakey, What I have seen in religion and churches is enough to make you vomit: Pastors seducing 13yr old girls, Pastor raping 10yr old girls. Pastor raping boys. Pastors getting so drunk and standing behind the pulpit. Congregations have affairs with their own members. And no I will not be opening a bible. I have done that just too many times in the past and today am a happy Atheist. Remember that Joshua guy from Nigeria, kamma the prophet Joshua who scammed people to get instantly well and had a following of millions yet could not put a band-aid on. Disgusting' Gods people. And them Roman Catholic priests.... Shall I go on?

      Dakey - 2012-03-08 13:45

      @ZION, Well Zion, I sincerely hope you reported these multitudes of rapists and child molestors to the authorities, but I highly doubt you ended up doing so did you? Wait, no-one would believe you right? I know over ten people, men as well as woman that have been abused by neighbours, fathers, uncles, cousins or teachers. This has nothing to do with religion or any church, but clearly your agenda is to pretend this is the case. Your logic is akin to stating you saw a teacher abuse a pupil, so now you refuse to go to any school because teachers clearly abuse children. I went to a school where at least four teachers were 'suspected' of approaching boys. A relative of mine was abused by a teacher, yet I hardly go around hating and slandering teachers just because a couple of teachers are bad. Right now you're just reveling in slander and while MY CHURCH will continue to raise funds for soup kitchens, you and your athiest ilk can just continue to do what you do best... nothing.

  • Gar - 2012-03-07 15:49

    Religion has no place in school or politics.

      spartanx93 - 2012-03-07 15:55

      have a bells.

      ryno.rousseau - 2012-03-07 15:56

      Religion has no place. Anywhere.

      Mark - 2012-03-07 16:24

      A difficult concept to enforce (if not impossible). Because the notion that 'no religious world view should be allowed' is in fact a religious world view (albeit one that asserts that no religion should dominate or that all religions are equal, or even that God and/or the spiritual realm doesn't exist). By rights therefore, this view should also be excluded from schools and politics.

      Pdevillet - 2012-03-09 10:28

      alcohol,tobacco, sex is unlawful for minors because they cannot understand the consequences of it and thereof society protect them.religion should also fall in this category under child molestation

  • spartanx93 - 2012-03-07 16:08

    How can you believe in something that allows you sell you own daughter?? When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11

      Mark - 2012-03-07 16:19

      Like capitalism you mean, or the free market!

      Kathleen - 2012-03-07 16:35

      Typical of those who slam Christianity. Take the Old Testament out of context and give no thought to the love of Jesus in the New Testament.

      ryno.rousseau - 2012-03-07 16:41

      So Kathleen your argument is that your "god" is inconsistent?

      fboto - 2012-03-07 16:56

      How enlightening. I'm so glad I'm not associated with this kind of bull dust called religion.

      Mark - 2012-03-07 22:57

      My point given above is that we shouldn't be so quick to jump on our high horses. Certain interpretations of free market economics would argue that morality should have no place in the market, so if a man wishes to sell his daughter he should be allowed to (if someone will buy her). And we all subscribe to some form of free-market economics (unless you're posting from N. Korea), so we all subscribe to a concept which, when interpreted in a certain way permits 'selling one's daughter'. Hence just because certain interpretations of it are extreme doesn't mean that the entire concept must be debunked! That is how one can believe in something that'allows you to sell your own daughter'

      Dakey - 2012-03-08 14:24

      @spartanx93. It is called labola or bridal price these days. The passage simply deals with conduct after the daughter has been sold. 1. she may not be sold on to foreigners who have no laws. 2. if she is purchased to be a bride for the man's son, she becomes his daughter and gets these rights. 3 if he marries her and finds another wife, he may not cease to treat her as a wife. 4. If he does mistreat her, she is free to go. You've basically quoted a verse intended to teach people with very limited moral values (kinda people who have been known to have sex with animals or fellow family members) some basic laws around more ethic treatment of daughters sold into marriage. In fact although not a full fulfillment of how God wants the world to work, it is in itself revolutionary woman's rights for the time! Just because God 'allowed' this, does not imply (as you seem to) that it is God's will. Matt 19:8 "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning"

  • fboto - 2012-03-07 16:13

    In this day and age, it amazes me that people still believe in Heaven and Hell, oh wait.....and obviously, in Father Christmas too!!!

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 15:46

      @fboto No, belief in Father Christmas is dwindling...belief in heaven and hell is growing, and it's in this day and age...Sorry!

      Llewellyn - 2012-03-09 07:31

      ckrums - yeah, it's sorry that to have that many gullible people (sheeple) around. Luckily, with education levels on the increase, our position of assertion is growing too, despite zealots like you.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 10:22

      One Zealot to another :-)

  • Ian - 2012-03-07 16:20

    All you dumb idiots fell for it. Please tell me what physical evidence we have that God exists? and what physical evidence do we have that evolution is true? We don't have either. That said, I believe in GOD and I believe in evolution - yes it is possible if you consider that the any stories we have about that time (teh Bible) was written by man and have been reinterpreted by various other men and relogious bodies for centuries. In short, if you believe in relogious views, it is your right as it is your right top believe in evolution - neither can be wrong if that is what you beleive. However, if you want your kids to learn about either in school, instead fo at home, them have the common sense to se3nd them to the appropriate school, e.g. a christian, non-christian or even muslim school

  • ckrummeck - 2012-03-07 16:20

    @Craig; Religion is finite man's best effort to search for infinite God...True Christianity is the infinite God, coming to finite man through Jesus Christ. True Christianity is NOT a religion, but a relationship with a Living God... I have no issue with the theory of evolution being taught in schools, so long as it's taught as one of the theories or interpretations of the facts. Evolutionists observe the facts and then interpret them through their framework of naturalism; ID's observe the facts and interpret them through their framework of an Intelligent Designer. The facts are facts and the interpretations are the interpretations... The problem with the evolutionists is that they generally try to put their theory or interpretation forward as fact; which is NOT the case. Have you seen how whale evolution is described as fact in the text books...whales from hippos? This is a very dubious theory at best as the so-called vestigial bones are NOT vestigial, they are VERY useful to the whales during mating, which is widely known...why the evolutionists try to put their theory forward as fact can only be explained as propaganda. Rather tell the whole truth and let the kids decide for themselves. There is MUCH evidence which contradicts or brings the evolution theory into question and these should also be clearly explained in the classroom...evolution is one theory and should be presented as such, as should the other theories.

      Mike - 2012-03-09 10:03

      I have read through many of your comments here and I am convinced that you have severe mental illness. Get help.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 10:27

      @Mike Another personal attack...can you provide some evidence to support your claim...You have your opinion and I have mine; and according to you (evolution) they are the result of random chemical processes in the brain; so why should anyone trust your random chemical processes forming your opinions more than mine? Think about it.

  • Kathleen - 2012-03-07 16:25

    Imagine the outcry if Islam was being attacked in schools! Christians the world over are being persecuted because of their beliefs and yet these beliefs have stood the test of time. My God reigneth.

      Garth Baldwin - 2012-03-07 19:05

      Christianity is not being attacked, ignorance is! The only thing that passing the test of time proves is that ignorance stands firmly on the shoulders of stupidity!

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-07 21:50

      Correction, he did reigneth. Shoe on the other foot, hey Kathleen. The only difference between the old atheist and the new is that we are'nt afraid of being burnt on a stake or forced to drink hemlock.

  • Martin Myburgh - 2012-03-07 16:46

    In the Bible it is written that for those who do not believe it is utter noncence. I believe because I have experienced how God works through His Son , Jesus in my life. I know that a lot of people do not believe in Him , especially a lot of scientists ( not all ) , but I know that He believe in them and love them unconditionaly. It is us who look at people and judge them.

      Karien - 2012-03-10 09:46

      So, for those that do not believe the bible, the bible is utter nonsense hey? WOW!!! Dhur!!!

  • Martin Myburgh - 2012-03-07 16:50

    We must be carefull that religion and science do not keep us from the real truth that Christ died on the cross for all our sins even if some don't believe. I say that Jesus is my saviour at NOT my religion.

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-07 20:42

      Hi Martin, sorry but this keeps comming up and I'm trying to get my head around it. Are you saying that if someone murders my wife then that is OK because God made Jesus a scapegoat for his sins? Why is that a good thing and why did he not include not believing things on bad evidence?

      Martin Myburgh - 2012-03-08 11:10

      Hi Ryan, you ask a good question. I would never say that it is ok if someone murders anyone. In the end we as humans have got something called free will, one may use that free will to choose to follow God and believe in his love or not to. That murderer can also choose to accept Christ and ask forgivenes for his deed and if he truly repent I believe he will be forgiven by God. We then must choose to forgive aswell and that is not that easy. I believe that God use tragedy to bring people closer to Him . It is surely not His will that people be hurt in any way. But we have a choice to believe or not

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-08 12:10

      Thanks for the answer. I understand the value of forgiveness and it is something I try to live up to, but I still don't understand the part where Jesus had to die in horrible pain. When I what to forgive somebody I simply make a choice to do so. I would never even think that killing an animal or human or my only son as being necessary or moral. So what is going on here? What is the moral connection between forgiveness and a third party death?

      Martin Myburgh - 2012-03-08 13:21

      Pleasure Ryan :) I believe that Christ died for all our sins and that is the greatest act of love . For the rest, it seemed right for the Isralites to offer annimals to God as forgiveness for their sins. When Abraham was told to sacrifice his son , God tested his faith and then spared Isack's life. There is a lot of things in the old testament that leave a lot of questions. I think we must ask God when we get to Heaven :) but I don't think it will matter then. It is easy to get destracted from the One truth by the "truth" of the Bible. That is that Christ is the one true Lord and Saviour...again, it is up to you to choose :)

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-08 14:46

      OK thanks, well it seems immoral to me to destroy something beautiful or innocent for self gain so I guess, based on that, I have to reject the offer of vicarious redemption and risk the hell fire. You can prey for me if you want but please don't sacrifice anything on my behalf. There is enough suffering in the world already without piling on more death and sacrifice. A good day to you.

      Martin Myburgh - 2012-03-08 14:58

      Hehe , Ryan , I promise not to sacrifice anything but I will pray for you :) you must have a great day , keep well

      Karien - 2012-03-10 09:51

      Hehehehe Ryan

  • Craig - 2012-03-07 16:52

    @all those keep talking about evolution as a theory...Evolution is a theory much like the theory of gravitation! Right now, there is more scientific data to support the Theory of evolution, than there is scientific data to support the Theory of gravity...FACT! Look up theory in your dictionary's people!

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-03-07 22:53

      Bravo craig!

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 12:16

      Ha ha ha ha ha...gravitation is a theory, ha ha ha!! Stand on top of a building and jump off...now do it a billion times, and the same thing will happen...observable, testable, repeatable evidence; this is science! Evolution my deluded friend, is NOT.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 12:19

      Our scientific fathers like Newton, Boyle, Pasteur, etc all believed in intelligent design and discovered the LAWS of science; not theories, laws. Evolution is not in the realm of science, but is rather a very weak desperate theory to try and explain the observable facts in a naturalistic way. Sorry!

      Karien - 2012-03-10 09:57

      Ok ckrums, don't you have to go smear blood on your door or sell your daughter into slavery or something? Science is obviously not your thing.

  • Michael - 2012-03-07 17:11

    The BIG problem with this sort of discussion is the fact that it obscures one VERY important detail - the view that there is no God is as much a "religious" belief as the view that there is a God. In fact, if one moves back from precise doctrines or theology, and looks at the universe from an Intelligent Design perspective, believing in God makes more sense than believing in no God. Yes there are tough questions around belief in God, but the atheist has to explain how nothing produced something, and how that something became more and more complex, on its own, without any form of "divine" direction.

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-07 19:45

      That has already been done. (Lawrence, Charles, Stephen et al )Try to keep up. There are other mysteries to be solved now.

  • jeremy002 - 2012-03-07 17:15

    Please put aside the religious aspect to all this for a while and take a look at the enormous amount of scientific (yes scientific)evidence and data available that if not totally debunks then at least puts huge question marks over evolution/natural selection in it's various forms. Too many people attack the religious aspect without even looking at the evidence. Go do some reading first. Mopst of it is on-line. Then if you think you can argue away the evidence against evolution in an intelligent manner, fine. If not, see how the evidence fits in with the biblical account. Oops, maybe that will not fit in too well with some peoples so-called open minded approach?

      Liam - 2012-03-07 17:56

      "Mopst of it is on-line." LOL. What on creation.org ? superstition.com ? Please. There is no debate in the scientific community about whether evolution by natural happens. Get a grip dude.

      Liam - 2012-03-07 19:22

      Adam, you must have me confused with someone else. I haven't posted on any climate change debate. Love the ad hominem by the way. Cute.

      Karien - 2012-03-07 21:32

      Wait 'till we create babies from chemicals in the lab, then we'll watch you squirm. Well, you lot are probably going to make it illegal before the time because your faith would not be strong enough to take it. That's what you do, when we prove you wrong you jump up and make it illegal.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 15:54

      @Karien; Yes, that would be amazing...unfortunately for you, it wouldn't disprove God's existence as you would still be using DNA information in cells to produce the baby; presently science hasn't got the foggiest on how to get dead amoral chemicals to come alive, let alone produce a baby...don't think it's going to happen. For evolution to be true, somehow dead amoral chemicals, came alive and produce all life, reasoning, thought, morals, emotion, etc...science has demonstrated that this can not happen on it's own, which is powerful evidence for an intelligent designer. Sorry!

      Karien - 2012-03-08 16:56

      O.K. Adam, you're too clever for us. You win, YAY!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 18:57

      Well Done Karien; excellent argument! You really know how to make your case! LOL

      Karien - 2012-03-10 10:04

      Please, taking Genesis to be absolute is absurd.

  • Ntokozo Cyprian Shezi II - 2012-03-07 17:16

    There is no such thing as religious views threaten knowledge. This is just the same 'alarmism' we have seen played out in America whereby the 'magisterium academia' speaks hogwash that by teaching anything but the scientific facts of the day we somehow destroy our children's minds, or make them incompetent or we threaten knowledge never forgetting the irony that knowledge is also more than scientific facts (heck even teaching the holes of many major scientific theories is considered taboo as it will destabilize the mental acuity of our children).\r\nAs for Mr Stotegraaf's point on \When people hear that [caution] they interpret that uncertainty as being some mistake or something fundamentally missing\i.e. we may not question the 'facts' of that science (especially evolution in this case)... that sounds awful and I guess in Mr Stotegraaf's own words \It is very difficult to measure in a number the 'badness' of the outcome of being taught this nonsense, but it is very difficult to see how it could be good. Nothing particularly positive could come from this kind of indoctrination\ Indoctrination indeed!\r\nI agree with the anonymous teacher that \there's nothing included in the curriculum that allows understanding of evidence; of how to weigh up evidence, of what counts as evidence\ but that razor cuts both ways I have found. What I have learnt as a student is that outright in academia only the accepted scientific status quo is right and anything else is wrong, no matter the evidence, the bias inherent in a major theory... it is evidence only if you agree but dare disagree from this indoctrination 'uzowukhomba umuzi onotshwala'!

  • barth.helmut - 2012-03-07 18:54

    We have the Dark Ages to prove the validity of this story.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-03-07 22:56

      jesus christ, you are a moron adam!

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-03-08 11:22

      I can talk about whatever the hell i want adam. Just because i don't believe the dude was an almighty creator doesn't mean i don't have that right. That's like saying i can't talk about buddha or sheeva. You are a moron, face the facts. Clearly your mother drank heavily while you were in the womb, coz something went wrong....

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 12:25

      @Adam; Sorry bud, I am a Christian and I can't support you on these forums; you need to learn how to engage the culture we live in on a rational and reasonable level without the judgmental rhetoric. Paul reasoned with the Greeks that Jesus was the Christ with evidence... I fear you're not representing Christ or Christianity very well here. Faith is NOT a blind leap into the dark (blind faith), but rather a step of understanding into the light based on evidence...and we need to be ready in and out of season to give a reason for the hope we have! Trust you hear my heart in this!

      Karien - 2012-03-08 17:07

      Go for it Adam, get militant and you'll get the same treatment the Talliban and Al-Qaeda got from modern secularist society. Good luck. If you believed your bible and that these were in fact the end times then you would realise that your God is about to hand you over into the hands of the anti-christ. You will LOSE, until Jesus comes on the clouds and saves you from evil rule. You Adam won't win any war, unless you can deny the truth of your bible and admit that these are times are in fact NOT the end. Just a thought in line with your way of thinking, but I think that there will be no war and you'll keep waiting for the skies to part until your time on this planet is up just like all the generations before you.

      John - 2012-03-08 20:57

      Is this Adam guy for real? "they would never say "evolution" out load in the street" - I do it at least once a week when I can. Preferably on Sundays outside my local Church... Personally, somebody that claims to be a warrior for God sounds more humiliating and stupid to me.... But hey apparently according to Adam, I'm satan's little b****. Funny though, if I worked for the devil why in hell would I work for News24 as well??? That's some iron-clad logic right there Adam. Please don't breed...I fear what would happen if you had to dilute your stupidity into mankind's gene-pool.

  • Andrew - 2012-03-07 19:47

    Its blatantly obvious that most adults have already decided for themselves on this issue and aren't going to change their view anytime soon. What's important here though is what options are presented to our kids in school. Anyone with a basic understanding of evolution can clearly see the clear ignorance of the theory of evolution presented by many of the critics in the posts - surely guys who were denied the facts when they were in school. It is never a good thing when kids have to make decisions based on imposed ignorance. Teach our kids the facts, and let them make up their own minds.

      OzzyIn - 2012-03-07 23:34

      Andrew, you are right. If a child is raised in a Christian family, he/she/other should not be forced/dictated to accept that religion. The child should NOT be baptised in a certain religion. That was never the will of God. They shouls take in knowledge and accept God after taking in that knowledge and the should be baptised should they wish so. This whole baptising babies is in total contrevening of God's will.

      donne.conradie - 2012-03-09 09:11

      Actually OzzyInSA, parents christen babies as a promise to God that they will raise that child and teach them about religion etc, its not making that child an automatic christian with a free pass to heaven. That child can then one day decide by themselves if they want to be baptised or not, ie be a christian or not. You obviously aren't a christian thus don't practice it, so please refrain from telling us how we should do practise our faith. Each person has the right to raise their children as they see fit and teach them the values and principles they see as important.

  • Jason - 2012-03-07 21:50

    "Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data. This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science, though much material is published by evolutionists under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced scientific inquiry" delusionbuster, howz the proselytising going bro? You missionaries seem busy these days...

      Karien - 2012-03-07 22:11

      Hello troll. I guess the only way for us "evolutionists" to see your logic is for us to get just as stoned as you are so that we too can have hallucinations of non-existant beings. Dude, the bible says that God created everything in six days about 7000 years ago. We have fossils that are DEFINITELY much older than that. I mean their so old that they have turned into ROCK. No special science needed there, thus, the bible is wrong, argument OVER! Done! Irrespective of ANYTHING else, your bible is wrong!

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-07 22:15

      The only presupposion that needs to be made is that the human mind is capable of percieving reality. I think that is fair enough, don't you? The rest can be worked out slowly through imperical evidence and reasoned logic while always considering our human limitations and accepting when we are wrong and then moving on to greater wisdom. Not a perfect system but a humble one and an effective one and better than just giving up and declaring \god done it\. That is a statement no human could know even if it was true.

      Sean - 2012-03-08 14:37

      @Karien. I just have to ask where in the bible does it say everything was created 7000 years ago? I need you to show me where?

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 15:17

      @Karien How do they know the age of the fossils? Please explain? Did you know that it doesn't take long for things to fossilize at all; they've found thousands of fossils of things that are clearly only 10's or hundreds of years old. So fossils don't prove age, they prove that something died. But I really do want to understand how they date these fossils to get the ages. Thanks!

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 15:22

      @Karien Let me provide some framework; Carbon Dating doesn't work as the earth is NOT carbon saturated; have you seen some of the dates that carbon dating has produced for things we know the age of? Even the inventor of carbon dating knew it couldn't work, and it troubled him as it meant the earth is actually a lot younger than he originally thought! Layers date the fossils also doesn't work as then how are the layers dated? It's been proven that it doesn't take long for things to fossilize (turn to rock); so your statement about fossils disproving the bibles age of the earth is incorrect.

      Karien - 2012-03-08 17:44

      @ Sean, it's not explicit but implicit. In Mat 1:1-17 you will find that the bible says, very clearly, that from Adam to Jesus you will find 3 times 14 generations. It even lists the individuals from Adam to Jesus. I have neither enough space or time here to lay it out, but if you now go ahead through the bible and lay out an interconnecting timeline showing the life spans of all the guys back from Jesus to Adam, you should get to the creation of Adam at 4004 BC/ 5th millennium before Jesus. Add the last 2012 years and you get 6016 years. Since there are some arguments regarding the actual ages attained by some of these guys and that there might be some un-accounted for gaps in between, we'll add a thousand years for the sake of leniency. Thus, according to the bible, from the creation of Adam (i.e. the six day creation if you take Genesis' explanation) and now, approximately 6,016 years, excluding the six days of creation and the unknown number of days between today and Adams’ annual birthday, have passed. With an extra 1,000 years to cover any arguments you get plus/minus 7,000 years.

      Karien - 2012-03-08 18:19

      Ckrums, you have a few ID and absolute creation idols whose theories and ideas you like to repeat over and over and over again irrespective of any explanations or contradictions of any kind that might come your way. I have commented and explained some, but so has many other people in these forums with a better grasp on science than you have, many times. If you really looked at what you are saying, you would have realised that by trying to sell both Intelligent Design of an old world and trying to sell absolute creationism and a young world from Adam, you are in fact contradicting yourself in a very explicit manner. Which one is it now, ckrum? I am not going to get drawn into any further arguments with you as it is utterly pointless.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 20:26

      @Karien You still haven't addressed any of my comments, statements, or questions. Again, do you actually know anything about science; or do you just troll these forums writing nonsense. Make an argument, if you can, supported by evidence otherwise I don't have the time for childish banter.

      Karien - 2012-03-08 22:04

      ckrums, I have asked you but you don't answer, do you believe in absolute creationism or Intelligent Design?

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 10:39

      @Karien Okay, you answer my question, which I asked first, and then I'll answer your question. I think you're avoiding my question because you don't really know, but let's wait and see. My question was: how do they date the fossils? Please explain the process? Are the ID and Creationist idols you're referring to people like: -Isaac Newton -Robert Boyle -Louie Pasteur -Blaise Pascal -Lord Kelvin -James Clerk Maxwell -etc Who formed almost all modern branches of science? LOL!

      Karien - 2012-03-09 14:59

      ckrums, how many of the guys you've mentioned were aware of, let's say, lets use on of your examples, argon-40 levels meassured when attempting to calculate the age of volcanic rock/lava?

  • Juan - 2012-03-07 22:58

    I will take my chances with the one & only almighty & righteous God , and you blasphemous atheists can go worship your calculators,stars,chemical sets or whatever you guys use to keep yourselves busy before the flames of hell will engulf you...!Please enjoy & take lots of sunblock with !!!BOOM (:

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-07 23:23

      We know we can. We weren't waiting for your permission. Thanks.

      Karien - 2012-03-08 00:48

      So Juan, what you are suggesting is that we should suppress that which is logical to us because we should be affraid of a hypothetical "Hot Rock" somewhere out there in wonderland where a red guy with bad manners is going to grill us all the way up to well-done, MABE? Uhmmmm, nah! I'll take my chances and go with authenticity and contemporary, observable, provable, peer reviewable logic. Thanks anyway ;-)

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 15:28

      @Karien "I'll take my chances and go with authenticity and contemporary, observable" Please provide examples of evolution that has been observed, other than variations within animal taxa or kinds? Please, please, please; this would settle it for me! I've yet to be presented with ONE example of observed examples of evolution across the animal taxa or kinds. As far as anyone knows, the ONLY things science has observed are variations within the kinds (as the bible predicted); there are no transitional fossils to suggest otherwise, all the taxa or kinds appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record; how does evolution interpret that? If I'm wrong, please give me some examples of transitional fossils leading up to homo-sapiens? PLEASE!

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 20:28

      @Karien Still waiting for your evidence; or are you all bark and no bite.

      Karien - 2012-03-08 21:14

      ckrums, I believe that according to earlier arguments, you refute the fossil record as a whole as that which it is based on is apparently inaccurate (dating methods, process of fossilization, methods of interpreting the age of geological strata etc. etc.) So, what is the point?

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 10:45

      @Karien The point is for you too prove me wrong, if you're right! I've asked you many times now to explain the process of how they date the fossils; are you avoiding the question because you don't know, or you're embarrassed by the answer? If you can demonstrate to me that the process of dating the fossils is "rock solid", excuse the pun :-); then I'll admit I'm wrong; but I think you know that the process of dating fossils and rocks is severely flawed... Here, I'll provide some evidence, and you refute it:...

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 10:48

      Okay, let's first look at uranium to lead and potassium to argon dating methods using the isochron technique. It makes 3 fatal assumptions: 1)The conditions at time zero...it assumes that there was none of the daughter elements in the rocks when they were formed. Now let's look at what science has proven: Lava flows (new rocks being formed) that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, & they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected. when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form & cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years! Similarly, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years using these dating methods. So it is logical to conclude that if recent lava flows of known age yield incorrect old potassium-argon ages due to the extra argon-40 that they inherited from the erupting volcanoes, then ancient lava flows of unknown ages could likewise have inherited extra argon-40 & yield excessively old ages. Science proving the dating methods wrong. To make matters worse for the claimed reliability of these radiometric dating methods, Grand Canyon basalts that flowed from the top, yield a samarium-neodymium age of about 916 million years & a uranium-lead age of about 2.6 billion years! They don't work!..

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 10:49

      ... Assumption 2: No Contamination: The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks. The radioactive “clock” in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. Similarly, as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it. Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years! 3 different radio isotope dating methods producing massively different dates. Again, science has proven they don't work & the rocks are actually MUCH younger. My question is, are you interested in the truth & can you admit that you were wrong? You can check this information out if you don't believe me! Now for number 3...

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-09 10:50

      Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate: Physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories over the last 100 or so years & have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). Furthermore, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical & magnetic fields. So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years. However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. Nevertheless, geologists insist the radioactive decay rates have always been constant, because it makes these radioactive clocks “work”! New evidence, however, has recently been discovered that can only be explained by the radioactive decay rates not having been constant in the past. For example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite yields a uranium-lead “age” of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals. This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking. The rate of uranium decay must have been at least 250,000 times faster than today’s measured rate! Dr Andrew Snelling Your thoughts Karien?

      Karien - 2012-03-09 15:12

      ckrums, why? I have never claimed to be a geologist or paleontologist. I am in the fields of Religious Science and Psychology. I believe those in the mentioned fields who have... credibility amongst others in their fields! Unless you can claim and prove that you yourself are God and thereby know everything, you will invariably have to accept the word of others sooner or later. When that time comes I take the word of specialists in the respective fields who are most recent and up to date on developments. For example, I would rather believe Stephen Hawking than Isaac Newton when it comes to contemporary physics. I would rather believe Richard Dawkins than Charles Darwin when relevant. Now, if we assume that you are right, when did T-Tex walk the earth?

  • veritas.odium.paret - 2012-03-07 23:09

    Correct me if I'm wrong but, the christian "truth" is that jesus is going to descend on a cloud during his 2nd coming and everyone in the world will see him. Now, I dont know how that's gonna work, what with the earth being round and all, with some countries being on opposite sides.

      OzzyIn - 2012-03-07 23:27

      Yeah, your wrong. Speak to someone with a Bible based knowledge and they can explain this to you.

      Teboho Mphaloane - 2012-03-08 00:47

      Well OzzyIn, why don't you share YOUR \bible knowledge\ on the matter?\r\nAdam, no need for labelling (i'm sure jesus doesnt teach that to his followers). It's just a logical debate. And, say, where does it mention in the bible that he'll make the earth flat? Or are you just speculating that he will?

      Karien - 2012-03-08 00:51

      And Adam is calling Veritas a moron? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      Teboho Mphaloane - 2012-03-08 01:05

      And btw Ozzy, read Acts 1:9-11, then Matthew 24:27-31. Says pretty much what I said. \Bible based knowledge\...

      Des - 2012-03-08 10:25

      @veritas, i take it you were in New York when the planes hit the towers, i take it you were in Italy when the ship sank recently, modern technology for modern era. I am a Christian and not afraid to say it but I don't get into stupid arguments about creationalism and evolution because what good can come out of it except heated tempers and hatred for one another, we all have freedom of belief and expression so stick to your own beliefs. We are subjects of our own choices and we will one day have to face our own consequences. I can never convert anyone to becoming a Christian as the Lord tells me that it is not by my might but by His spirit, I won't talk against evolution as i have never studied it and it is open to many different interpretations. What i will do however is to continue to reach out to those less fortunate in life and make their existance on earth an enjoyable experience. That is called love, it is worth living for and believing in. To all the Christians fighting on this website, why? God says the battle is His. We are told that the fight is not against flesh and blood but against spirit. Stop fighting and arguing against flesh and blood. To those that have misquoted, God does not hate man but hates their actions(in relation to homosexuals), just the same as murderers, rapists, etc. Unless you have actually experienced a supernatural act then don't criticise what you can't explain or understand. To the scientists/biologists keep on discovering an awesome world

      Pdevillet - 2012-03-09 11:14

      ya but only to some political party followers....

  • Louise - 2012-03-07 23:27

    Religious beliefs aside - surely the Department of Education is supposed to decide on the curriculum?

  • rlong1952 - 2012-03-07 23:50

    Here we go again, pointless debate Atheists vs Believer number 100,432 since January 2011 on News 24, GIVE IT UP PEOPLE !!!, boring and absolutely pointless.

      Pdevillet - 2012-03-09 10:46

      ok let's go back to malema

  • Pauline Hanekom - 2012-03-08 06:52

    Point 1: Auke Slotegraaf is talking about US. In RSA the department of Education decides on curriculum and Creationism and religion is only mentioned as a one liner on other views in the Life Sciences curriculum. \r\nPoint 2: Just about every school in Cape Town allow there Muslem learners to leave early on a Friday to go to mosque - and I don't hear anyone complaining! Some schools close early on a Friday for all to minimize disruption\r\nPoint 3: A very small % of Christians believe the Creation-only story. Just as a very small % of Muslems believe in suicide bommings! \r\nPoint 4: Does anyone in their right minds think that they can expect 7 000 000 000 000 people to all believe the same constantly changing scientific theories? Grow up, mr Auke Slotegraaf, your opinion is just that - your opinion. And without variation in thinking mankind is doomed if your evolutionist theory proves to be right!!

  • stephanie.v.rooyen - 2012-03-08 06:54

    Religion had its place 2000 years ago, when society did not have a better understanding of science. When you were ill, you were plagued by demons and it was the devil's fault and you had to go to the priest to be 'saved. Science has since then taught us that it's a virus that causes you to feel sick, and you take medicine, which was also invented by science. All of you dogmatic believers surely take medicine at some point? Or do you still go to your priest for an exorcism of the demon that caused your toothache? If there's anything religion has taught me, it's to be an atheist. Surely no god would allow such cruelty that we see on this planet. You may keep your imaginary friends, I have more faith in science.

  • Taofik - 2012-03-08 07:40

    So sad. You all misunderstand the importance of the moral compass a balanced religious background offers. True religious belief in it's extreme is negative, but can the billions of people over generations who have found inspiration, guidance and support in well grounded religious faith be wrong??? If you are truly scientific, look at the empiric evidence for the positive value in religious belief with an open mind. Fanaticism is not confined to religion alone

      Llewellyn - 2012-03-09 09:15

      Adam - how many times are still going to post this exact same thing? Not getting the responses you would like? Trolling? Why would you want to publish the photos of people "dissing" christianity? Want to burn them on a stake? Feel like going on a crusade? With your primitive mindset I am not surprised. Just a hint.. this is the year 2012, not 1220.

      Mike - 2012-03-09 10:29

      Taofik: Are you suggesting that morals and religion are connected? I call "bollocks". The USA is the most warmongering nation in history and their motto is "In God we trust" so there goes that theory.

  • Stephan - 2012-03-08 07:49

    There was a time when science stated that the world was flat and religion ironically are the once who punished those who opposed that idea. ..but science evolved and then we stated that the earth was the centre of the universe...but again science evolved...science, like all things, is on its own course of evolution. "Facts" are relative to our understanding. Religion has been around for a little bit longer than science yet its evolution is encompassed in our understanding of religion. To deny "God" would be as wise as to deny the concept of the atom. A lack of understanding is the only "fact" that is revealed here. Science and religion are long lost brothers and only through proper education will these two brothers reunite. The one does not threaten the other. And those who are so passionate about defending their own "exclusive truth" , whether it be "science" or "religion" are usually those who feel the most insecure in their "truth". Peace to all.

      Lanfear - 2012-03-08 08:42

      I don't agree Stephan. Yes, science and religion can probably co-exist, yet not while there are a dearth of young earth creationists and the ilk around who try to "disprove" everything that science works so hard for.

      ckrummeck - 2012-03-08 09:39

      @Lanfear; "everything that science works so hard for" Correction...everything that NATURALISM works so hard for.

  • Zion - 2012-03-08 08:18

    ai can say with some satisfaction that I grew up in the 1960's. The teachers in that period were very much better trained than those of today.Religion was a subject although no tests etc were applied. The classes consisted mainly of the history of the Bible and the trek of the Israelites through the desert. Dogma and religious perceptions were never part of the learning material or discussions of the deity. Yet tyhese very same teachers could give an interesting discussion of evolution on a watered down scale. One wouldn't want to throw a standard 4 pupil with natural selection. Those teachers could make it interesting but today the teachers prefer to toi-toi. If a link could be found to relate the subjects in question then there cannot be dissension.

  • Edwhynot - 2012-03-08 08:54

    Oh here we go again. Know, all of you posting arguments in favour of either religion OR science, you are equally idiotic. Just leave each other be. Beleive what you want, stop trying to force your beliefs or opinions on one another. What a load of jackasses.

      Ryan Holland - 2012-03-09 12:53

      Ja Ed, who cares what our kids are being taught in school. Don't fight for what you believe is right; we all know that social media is an inert platform anyway. Just relax at home with a beer and the Fast and Furious box set. Ideas and knowledge - why talk about these things? If you can't solve something in 10 minutes, just give up. You don't want to look like a jack ass.

  • Rudi - 2012-03-08 09:15

    Some peoples understanding of science astounds me.