400 000-year-old human remains found

2010-12-27 22:14

Jerusalem - Israeli archaeologists say they may have found the earliest evidence yet for the existence of modern man.

A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said on Monday they found teeth about 400 000 years old. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half that old.

Archaeologist Avi Gopher said on Monday further research is needed to solidify the claim. If it does, he says, "this changes the whole picture of evolution".

Accepted scientific theory is that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and migrated out.

Sir Paul Mellars, a prehistory expert at Cambridge University, says the find is "important", but it is premature to say the remains are from modern man.

He says they are more likely related to man's ancient relatives, the Neanderthals.

  • Loren - 2010-12-27 23:47

    Evolution is bullsh1t! That is why the "puzzle" will never be solved! You are chasing your own tails!

      Pragmatist - 2010-12-28 01:46

      yes - the aliens made us - read the bible - it tels you exactly how they did it!

      Kudubul - 2010-12-28 06:07

      Yes Loren mud and water!

      Konsoomer - 2010-12-28 06:08

      You are right. Those are my dentures I lost them rock climbing in 1957.

      ArtGee - 2010-12-28 07:50

      koonsomer.... I thought they were NOAH's dentures!

      alsitrader - 2010-12-28 11:28

      @ Loren - religon is bullshit ! Evolution is fact , broaden your view!

      deon.botha1 - 2010-12-28 14:35

      @alsitrader - I think the verdict is not in yet...the non-religious scientist think they know it all but are proven wrong everytime and then have to change/adjust their theories. Much to my delight....and if you believe you evolved from an ape...then please do so but don't insult me or many other people out their. And yes I do believe in the big bang...and there was nothing and now there is is not man made, whe are just trying to figure stuff out, it is like a meccano set from God to give the really bright people something to play with;->

      141mat - 2010-12-28 14:42

      @alsitrader - No bud, evolution is theory, not yet fact. But i doubt that it will ever be proven. Whether or not it did happen.

      Kyle_logan - 2010-12-28 14:58

      @deon.botha1 umm no the verdict is in, there is over whelming evidence to support evolution, and almost no evidance to support god.... go read the bible again.. actually read it and think... there are so many lies though out.... and also go study evolution, from what you have written you have a very basic grasp of how it works but you still have alot to learn.

      alsitrader - 2010-12-28 16:42

      @ deon strange how religous folk can insult an atheist that they are without morals , our beliefs are bullsh!t etc etc , turn it around and insult the religous camp , and we need to be respectful!! Deon don't forget the bible forget to mention the dinosaurs , that soon needed to change on that belief , oh lets not forget that the zealot believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth! @ 141mat no boet evolution is fact - try read up on darwin , expand the mind a little Remember religon flies us into buildings , while science flies us to the moon!!

      jwill - 2010-12-28 18:25

      Blah blah blah blah....... This debate is getting soooo tiring! Any person with a bit of scientific background and understanding of its jargon will realise that the concept of "theory" does not equate to non-negotiable fact. Just because they found these teeth and are talking about probably revisiting the theory and/or age of Homo Sapiens does not mean that they have found proof of God's existenc and/or non-existence. Please stop turning all of these scientific findings into this very predictable debate that's going nowhere. So what if humans have been around for 400 000 years? So what if we evolved from apes? So what if God created us out of nothing? So what, so what? To feel soooo intimidated and threatened by harmless science does not say much about your faith! And vice versa: to be sooooo antagonistic towards faith/religion because of science is equally childish and indicative of major personal insecurities.

      Tina - 2010-12-28 21:00

      So I take it that you do not like your ancestors to possibly be called Neaderthals? Go look in the mirror: See the hair growing out your ears and nose? Now go look for your ancestral tail - it is there.

      craigkaos - 2010-12-29 00:34

      I trust you are an academic of sorts with evaluation...

      Mike - 2010-12-29 13:09

      Loren, I dont know about you, but my people evolved beyond the need for tails millenea ago...

      Nonbeliever - 2010-12-29 13:59

      @jwill, Yup blah, blah, blah so why add even more blah, blah crap?

      lean - 2010-12-29 14:52


      lean - 2010-12-29 15:14

      Of course there is no God we will all die like flies.......There is no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval. ...We die daily. ... Our time is all to-day, to-day....No matter how qualified or deserving we are, we will never reach a better life until we can ....

      lean - 2010-12-29 15:18

      God is no more valid than any one of his creations. He just has bigger tricks.

      lean - 2010-12-29 15:19

      Life has no other discipline to impose, if we would but realize it, than to accept life unquestioningly. Everything we shut our eyes to, everything we run away from, everything we deny, denigrate or despise, serves to defeat us in the end. What seems nasty, painful, evil, can become a source of beauty, joy and strength, if faced with an open mind. Every moment is a golden one for him who has the vision to recognize it as such. -Henry Miller

      freeflyshannon - 2010-12-30 12:28

      Well, Loren, I guess we're about to find out the truth hey? What will you do when everything you were led to believe turns out to be a lie?

      freeflyshannon - 2010-12-30 12:42

      @ Jwill, How can you say "so what"? If ,after carbon dating etc, this fossil turns out to actually be 40 000 years old, it would just prove yet another hole in the bible - a BIG hole!

  • Johann - 2010-12-28 00:27

    I agree

      k1dbl4ck - 2010-12-28 21:48

      It's so easy to have uneducated opinions in this world. its called ignorance.

      lean - 2010-12-29 14:55

      No it called - STUPIDITY ...

  • kylemarkwilliams - 2010-12-28 01:35

    How can you say evolution is bullshit? Have you ever read about it, do you know the fact, do you understand how it works? Or do you just believe in fairytales?

      marvin.welbysolomon - 2010-12-28 04:32

      Long ago and far away, a rock mineral met a water molecule and magically came together via a burst of lightning and formed all 20 perfect left-handed amino acids, also miraculously causing them to connect without RNA transcription and form proteins...but the amino acids could only have formed along with tar and toxic carboxylic acid which would render it useless. Design 1 - Evolution 0

      Zion - 2010-12-28 07:34

      The time has come to rather evaluate our own perceptions of evolution and religion and maybe if we are wise enough we will find a way to reconcile the two. A typical case arising out if ignorance is The very first comment here on this forum. "Evolution is Bullsh**t" It is clear that this person knows NOTHING about evolution but is forced to say something to "keep face". As we progress down with the comments ,too, we find much are repetitions of what has already been stated. If we compare the forum with comments from other forums we see the same arguments, without fail arise time and again. One of the main reasons here is people feel by admitting to evolution they are betraying their god. The danger ground for the non-believer of evolution is the fact that evolution may set their belief in Bible facts in disarray. Further, the person who knows little of evolution will hide that ignorance by resorting to the bible. In many cases religious adherents are not aware of the shaky ground on which the Bible is constructed as a result of its journey through history and forces in ancient history which distorted the bible contents for their own national interests. This is a long and tortuous story fit for another forum. What we see is the proverbial candle being placed under a bucket in order not to see the light(of reason)due to its blinding effect.

      Hoofbite - 2010-12-28 08:38

      @marvin. That's not evolution. What you are hinting at is something called "abiogenesis". You clearly don't have an understanding of either. Your understanding of biochemistry, too, is lacking. Amino acids can, and do, form bonds in the absence of RNA. And please explain to me how carboxylic acid (the functional group is present in amino acids by the way) is "toxic" to amino acids? Again, this is nothing more than a layman trying to use scientific terminology and who ends up looking like an idiot. Science 1 - Marvin 0

      wartmonger - 2010-12-30 01:35

      @all hoofbite 1 marvin 0

      Lanfear - 2011-01-20 14:54

      @ marvin.welbysolomon - long ago and far away there was nothing, which suddenly spewed an all-powerful being that "created" everything out of nothing. Design 0 - Evolution 1.

  • LUFC - 2010-12-28 01:46

    Oh here we go again haha

  • Nick Schuster - 2010-12-28 03:05

    It's true. Human alone have evolved even in modern time. School kids from today are more intellectual than most human of 500 years ago. That's only on a very small scale. Evolution is possible IMO.

      marvin.welbysolomon - 2010-12-28 04:26

      So you believe everything came from a rock and on it's way violated the law of biogenesis and the first and second law of thermodynamics? I think not. Yes, kids may be smarter, it's because we're in the information age, genius.

      141mat - 2010-12-28 14:58

      I agree with marvin. We can access information so easily these days, when we gain something we loose something somewhere else.

      Kyle_logan - 2010-12-28 15:02

      Marvin... if i were youI'd stop posting... people have already shown how idiotic you are.... PS look at the common cold for proof of evolution....

      lean - 2010-12-29 15:02

      I do not see any evolution in KZN or Limpopo ... this ppl did not develop to a fool potential, they are still behind 400 years...

      SiphovdMerwe - 2010-12-30 01:39

      @lean, I'm neither from KZN nor Limpopo, but your feeble attempt at humor sucks big time. Not only can't you spell, your grammar is fcukt. How can people be behind 400 years? What does that mean? Learn the difference between this/these fool/full. What does evolution have to do with a species full potential?

      ir8m8 - 2010-12-30 12:17

      @marvin.welbysolomon, so you would rather beleive i a superstition (which has zero basis in the scientific world), i mean to quote the book "god spoke and it appeared", i mean really if such a magical being was around, then surely he is a kid with an ant farm and i hope he has a hell of a sense of humour...justify your god with the masses of children (the innocents - even according to your book) that are being made to suffer, come on tell me that you, at the face of these ills in the modern world can beleive.

  • marvin.welbysolomon - 2010-12-28 04:00

    400 000 years old? That would mean over a 100 trillion buried human remains (if you study population dynamics) with artifacts buried in the earth, yet we find less than 4000 fragments... One thing is right, it will make us rethink evolution, perhaps even put it in the trash where it belongs.

      luke.kannemeyer - 2010-12-28 05:00

      Pseudoscience will not win your case for you. Spurting out tired 'creation science' arguments which have long since been debunked is a disservice to intellectualism in the country. Evolution is a beautiful and intricate process with abundant evidence throughout the living world. Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive concepts. You are evidently not an idiot, but I beg of you to take your head out of the sand for the sake of freeing your mind.

      mikekokot - 2010-12-28 06:12

      I suppose you believe in homeopathy and "healing hologram bracelets", too? Shame!

      Alfred - 2010-12-28 06:51

      Oooh! Population dynamics, big word but you still don't have a clue. 100 trillion buried remains, math's not your strong point? The human population grew exponentially. Today there are 6,8 billion, in 1960 there were only 3 billion in the late 1800's less than one billion. Total humans that ever existed less than 20 billion. Unlike Luke, I think you are a total idiot, probably an american. Nothing worse than an idiot who thinks he is more intelligent and knowledgeable than the entire scientific community. So what's your theory? Oh, I know! your god who was not created therefore has existed for infinity decided (after an infinite period) to magically poof the entire universe into existence less than 10 000 years ago because he/she/it was bored and needed some entertainment. Yeah that sounds like a reasonable, rational, intelligent, intellectual, knowledge based, evidence based, plausible explanation. Idiots like you are evidence that while Homo sapiens is the most intelligent species on earth it is not a particularly intelligent species.

      marvin.welbysolomon - 2010-12-28 07:40

      I'm still waiting for one piece of empircal evidence... You supply and I'll worship your evolutionary 'beautiful' God, and they are mutually exclusive, read Genesis. I took my head out the sand a long time ago, i suggest you look at the evidence and do the same. Instead of attacking me, attack the science because there is none in evolution. And applying and exponential curve over 400000 years is would yield trillions of births just like we've yielded 6 billion over the last 4 millennia

      Zion - 2010-12-28 07:47

      Alfred, In your own vein:You have wasted quite a lot of bytes to indicate your disagreeable personality and your ignorance. The forum has hardly begun and you are your typical belittling self. you don't come over as "cool" or knowledgeable in any discernible way.

      Alfred - 2010-12-28 09:24

      The evidence is absolutely overwhelming. Mountains of fossil evidence, complemented by genetic evidence, anatomical evidence, biochemistry, etc. You just need to read science. Thousands upon thousands of scientific papers on evolution published in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals, not a single creationist paper published, even the Discovery Institute that has existed for 20 years with millions of dollars behind it has not managed to get a single scientific paper published. Evolution is the foundation of all of biology. Species classification is evolution. Residual organs like whale hips and thigh bones, cave fish eye sockets, ostrich wings. How about the development of animal fetuses mirroring evolutionary stages. Human fetuses have tails. Drug resistance? The age of the universe, the age of earth. The fact that we can see galaxies over 13 billion light years away is empirical evidence that the universe is over 13 billion years old, but this is above your level of intelligence. Do some reading, And empirical evidence for creationism? The bible? A collection of ancient manuscripts written by primitive goat herders over four thousand years ago then translated into Greek, then Latin all along the way extensively edited. You call this book of primitive superstition and mythology, empirical evidence?

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 09:55

      "[A]pplying and exponential curve over 400000 years is would yield trillions of births just like we've yielded 6 billion over the last 4 millennia." @ Marvin: You still have to take into account that we have no idea just how large the population of Homo sapiens was at 400 ka. Even Homo neanderthalensis, at approximately 50 ka, is thought to only have an estimated population size of ten thousand individuals. The truth is, we have no idea how many of these individuals were around at that point in time. DNA studies of Homo sapiens in African equally highlight population bottlenecks around 80 ka. How do you account for these? How do you know many more did or did not happen? It is unlikely that many of these individuals would survive in the archaeological deposit anyway, as the means by which organic matter is preserved is very rare. So I doubt your comments would make us rethink evolution. Especially since the artifacts used around 400 ka would be Acheulian artifacts and these were notorious for there constant reuse and reduction. Most lay individuals find it difficult to spot stone artifacts, anyway. Wood and other perishables just don't survive that long. @Alfred: While I agree with almost everything you've said.. I just have to point out that not all scientists like classifying species according to evolutionary principles. A few yet still cling to classic Linnaeus born systems of classification. They'll come around eventually. ;)

      alsitrader - 2010-12-28 11:36

      @ Marvin one piece of evidence uh lets see ummm FOSSILS ! DINOSAURS ! oh wait are they also imaginery just like your religon. i/c with 100 trillion buried - only one thing to say , best to say nothing and possibly appear an idiot then say something and remove all doubt!!

      Kyle_logan - 2010-12-28 15:04

      @Marvin, you want empircal evidence yet you read genisis... which is and has been shown to be pure fiction.... bible is and always will be a way of explaining to the uneducated how the earth formed and how you should behave... for the educated amongst us, it's just a fairy tale told to children, like santa clause....

      141mat - 2010-12-28 15:09

      @all. Hi guys, i see this is again getting in to a bit of a "facts match". But whatever i thought that if there is anyone out there that has got a BIT of an open mind you should check these links. please note that i am a christian and i do belive that the Earth is a lot older than what we say the bible says it is. Please people do not attack christianity itself. I for the life of me cannot find in the bible where it says that the earth is only 6000 years please people. GEN 1:1-2 (1)In the beggining, God created the heavens and earth. (2)The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep..." I am not saying that i believe we came from apes (even Darwin doubted it) what i am trying to do is to show that there is more to this than meets the eye. Please see the links and let me know what you think. God Bless Just to let you all know i believe in the gap theory.

      alsitrader - 2010-12-28 16:58

      @mat I am an atheist , I don't believe in the bible anymore then I do in little bo peep, to quote the bible to try and prove a point is like quoting Lord of the rings to prove Middle earth. Matt as long as Christians attack atheists on their "lack of morals" amoung others (for that matter I know many atheists that have a higher moral value then many "faithful " ) , we will continue to critize the "faith" Please your faith is not immune from critical comments.

      jwill - 2010-12-28 18:30

      Marvin, Ever heard of decomposition? Do you realise that it's a blessing to find intact skeletal remains (of any animal) due to decomposition. Please sir, your knowledge and grasp of basic science is shocking.

      141mat - 2010-12-28 19:01

      @alsitrader, with regards to the bible quoting i was merely trying to point out the fact that the bible does not give a age to the earth, it is us humans that gave the earth a "bible age". I too know a lot of really moral atheists and many more immoral Christians. And you are right my faith is not immune to critical comments, just trying to say that not all Christians are as closed minded and "religious" as people think. And i do know that its because of Christians hat Christianity is so looked down on.

      Siranne - 2010-12-28 23:05

      @ Alfred Its called faith. Enough said

      people.3000 - 2010-12-29 11:34

      No no no, did you all hear, we were brought here by this alien war lord, can't remember his name (I think he lives/lived on planet X) and thrown in a volcano... We were really p*ssed off about that and attached our selfs to monkeys/apes and they evolved, something like that. replies, please be gentle...

      Irené - 2010-12-29 11:37

      Marvin, you say you are waiting for empirical evidence from the evolution corner. If the thousands of ancient artifacts, dinosaur and other exctinct fauna, human bones etc cannot convince you, there no point arguing with you. What empirical evidence do youi have to support your make believe theory??? Just because your small brain cant comprehend evolution, doesnt mean its not the truth.

      SiphovdMerwe - 2010-12-30 01:57

      @Alfred. I think you are an idiot. Peer reviewed evolution write ups don't mean jack. It's like quoting one Biblical verse to prove another verse right. Science has absolutely no way of validating the age of the fossils let alone that of the universe. Science deals with causes and effects, but God needs none of that. By the way, I thought light years was a measure of distance as opposed to that of time. Too much Discovery channel can be bad for your health.

      mr.clever.pete - 2010-12-30 09:40

      @Marvelous Marvin: Who told you "less than 4000 fragments" Please get out of the church and step into the light of truth. Rid yourself from the lies and deceit the religious community propogates and go do some digging yourself. You alone will probably be able to find 4000 "fragments" yourself

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 09:44

      @ SiphovdMerwe "I think you are an idiot." I don't agree that Alfred is an idiot. I'd like you to prove this beyond the points you've already raised. Because below I will challenge them and posit that they are insufficient to accuse Alfred of idiocy. "Peer reviewed evolution write ups don't mean jack. It's like quoting one Biblical verse to prove another verse right." All scientific articles have to be submitted to accredited journals and undergo a rigorous review process by the very best scientific minds on the planet. It is not only evolution articles which undergo the review process. If you are going to argue that review articles in the case of evolution mean nothing, then you are also arguing that the system is flawed with all other articles is flawed as well. Especially since evolutionary articles (as in PNAS) are published alongside every other scientific field. Further to this, articles are not (contrary to popular belief) judged on content. If you have ever written a dissertation, you would know this to be the case. There are rules everyone has to follow. Logical conclusions drawn from a sound argument supported by verified evidence is only one such rule. "Science has absolutely no way of validating the age of the fossils let alone that of the universe." So you would argue that our entire understanding of the geology of the Earth is just plain wrong? You would argue that over two centuries of Geological science must be thrown out? And chemistry too? Why?

      Irené - 2010-12-30 13:14

      Hey CTscientist why is it that i should be respectful in these debates and you are allowed to call people idiots? Your not as cool headed as you might think. And the reason i and many other non believers ger worked up about thede arguments is because we atleast expect people to use reason when engaging. I have tried for the life of me to get my head atound what creationists believe, but a tatioonal thinking human would know that you cant actually believe any of it without a huge amount of faith, as opposed to tescience corner. I see you want to play mediator and head debater. Point is, until tge religious stop the selfrighteous i am better than you because my god is better than yours, i find it difficult to be all cool and levelheaded. @ marvin Go back and study population dynaics because somebody lied to you. 100 trillion human remians?? Agh please, how do you Ccount for the other thousands of early human remains found???

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 14:07

      @ Irene I didn't call anyone an idiot. I quoted someone else calling Alfred an idiot. And then responded on behalf of Alfred. And I understand your frustration. I don't believe in any god, singular or plural. But I know many non-believers who are as dogmatic and close-minded as many believers. The truth is.. we all need to have some respect for an ideology that harms no one. It wouldn't hurt if we were the first to do so.

      orionangel - 2010-12-30 15:13

      Wow, Marivn. You really don't learn, do you?

      orionangel - 2010-12-30 15:16

      * Marvin You've been proven incorrect in your grasp of scientific concepts a number of times in this thread already. Let it go.

      Alfred - 2011-01-04 14:33

      @SiphovdMerwe if a train travels at one hundred km/h and it covers 200 km arriving at its destination at 12 o'clock, when did it leave its starting point? It left at 10 o'clock. If light arrives from a galaxy that is ten billion light years away it must have left that galaxy ten billion years ago. You are an uneducated, ignorant, stupid moron. A typical creationist.

  • Richard.Westran - 2010-12-28 07:15

    I believe and worship God our Creator - If I am wrong what do I lose? If you don't believe in a Creator but rather in man's theories, what if you are wrong?

      Poaul Zwarts - 2010-12-28 07:30

      Pascal's wager is a sick, intellectually dishonest reason to believe in nonsense...

      Alfred - 2010-12-28 07:44

      There are thousands of gods out there. What if you believe in the wrong god. A god that threatens punishment to those that do not worship it is a god not worth worshipping.

      HAYNE, Mark - 2010-12-28 07:49


      fx - 2010-12-28 08:15

      Richard you are a coward sir.

      Richard.Westran - 2010-12-28 08:36

      That's where faith comes in, some people have faith in man's theories, others in their Gods. I have faith in the Grace of my God.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 10:00

      Last I checked, all gods were created by human beings? Does this not make them theories of human beings? Or are you going to tell me that your single god is an exception to the rule here..? P.S. You can't really say "man's theories" because I'm pretty sure that woman were around at the time, as well. Just a thought.

      sceptic - 2010-12-28 10:09

      Do yorselves all a favour and watch a documentary called "religulous". It looks at world religions and actually you will find it surprising how similar they all are, with one exception: some stories mentioned in the Koran and indian scripts bear very similar resemblance to Christian scripts. So who is copying from who, since hinduism and islam are much older religions than christianity??

      jacowium - 2010-12-28 12:26

      So Richard, you only "believe" in God because you want to be sure you get to heaven (in case there is a heaven, as you imply) when you die - and not because you truly, honourably believe there is a God-being being somewhere in this universe. A God so stupid that he wouldn't notice that his servants only believe in him because of Pascal's wager. Yeah, right.

      141mat - 2010-12-28 15:14

      Richard still has the right to beleive in whatever he wants regardless of what anyone thinks and so do you. So leave others and let them be. BOTH SIDES.

      Byron - 2010-12-28 15:53

      @sceptic, Islam older than Christianity, are you shure of that? Historicly Mohammed only existed about 400 years after Jesus died. Not to say that that is where Islam started, bt it is his principles/teachings upon which the religion is based. However most of the big religoins overlap. Christianity is a direct decendant of Judaism, and the same counts for Islam. All three share similar trates, and infact in some instances the exact same characters. As for the debate between religion and science...I think we should all be open minded and not view both concepts as mutually exclusive. I believe in God bt I think that the creation as described in Genesis was just mans' way of explaining a concept which they did not understant "creation". Some would say that I might be contradicting myself because of my religious beliefs bt I think religion and science can be linked.

      141mat - 2010-12-28 16:01

      @Byron. I am 100% behind you. Science is the art of looking for Gods hand in action, which is not easy.

      Siranne - 2010-12-28 23:09

      Amen Richard

      Irené - 2010-12-29 11:38

      That is the worst argument I have ever heard from the religious crowd, although they use it all the time. Way to go showing your 'faith'. Moron

      lean - 2010-12-29 15:03


      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 11:41

      @Cameron Unfortunately, you also have to look at the political environment within which many of these early scientists were working within. The hegemonic Catholic regime did not take kindly to being questioned, as Galileo may attest. Coming out of this political economy, many scientists had to try to marry their religious views with new views that they were discovering through scientific inquiry. Darwin himself struggled with his own evolutionary theories as well as his earlier faith. Yet later in his own life he rejected, formally, Christian doctrine. Many suspect, as I do, that his 'religious convictions' were little more than lip service to survive within this dogmatic political landscape. Myths that he renounced his theory on his deathbed have never been substantiated. So when you quote Darwin, you should consider this political landscape that would be inhospitable to his ideas. Darwin was not believed to be an Anglican by the time he had married, as this was a major concern for his wife once he revealed his religious doubts to her.

  • OlderbutWise - 2010-12-28 07:34

    First off, I'm not a creationist, nor an evolutionist - absolute views are, in my opinion, short-sghted. But here's one important little question - how did they arrive at an age of 400,000 years old. Radio carbon dating is notoriously unreliable for dating bone because of the vast number of factors that can affect this. This piece from a recent study: "Although it has been conclusively demonstrated that reliable radiocarbon ages can be obtained from various constituents of bone organic matter, it has also been shown that this is only true for bone from geochemical contexts that favor organic preservation (Holliday et al., 1999; Stafford et al., 1987, 1991; Taylor, 1994)" I always find it facinating that people will latch on to an absolute date, when it is well known that this could be out by a factor of magnitude! Always reminds me of that old song "How small we are, how little we know"

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 09:38

      You can use Pottasium-argon dating techniques on tooth enamel.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 09:39


  • herold.heine - 2010-12-28 07:48

    How do they know it is 400 000 years old? I agree with Loren. The theory of evolution changing now? Start to believe in creationism.

      jacowium - 2010-12-28 12:29

      Herold never heard of carbon-dating. Or maybe Herold did, but the only things he heard were those fabricated tales of carbon-dating being inaccurate. Suustog.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 13:10

      It is widely accepted that carbon dating techniques are inaccurate past the 40 - 50 ka mark. But there are multiple other methods of dating that are used by archaeologists etc to get accurate absolute dates as well as good relative dates. The article above does not say which of these techniques was used to conclude that the teeth were 400 thousand years old. It is premature to assume that they used Carbon dating, as they would be aware of the techniques shortcomings in this time period. Tooth enamel is usually dated with Potassium-argon or Argon-argon techniques.

      Irené - 2010-12-29 11:40

      Another lost case. Just because one theory isnt watertight in all aspects (because we are still learning every day) doesnt mean you throw the entire theory to the wolves in support of friggen fairy tales. I agree sheimpies

      mr.clever.pete - 2010-12-30 09:49

      @Her old heine: You will find one day, that your crackpot creationism leaders will start rethinking some of their theories...NO WAIT, HOLD THE PRESSES, they already did and it seems there is discord, what creationist theory do you follow? 1. Young Earth creationism 2. Gap creationism 3. Progressive creationism 4. Intelligent design 5. Theistic evolution 6. All of the above 7. 1,3 and 5 8. 3 and 4 9. None of the above

  • ArtGee - 2010-12-28 07:50

    To think that there are people that believe GOD made humans!!! SAD!!!! I feel for you guys! Life on Earth is just a VIRUS.... evolves CONSTANTLY!!!! If this "BOOK" is what you believe, you mean to tell me that there was NO DINOSAURS? There was NO ICE AGE? That the earth was made 4000 years ago? Some people just cannot geddit! Take those BLINKERS OFF.... there is MORE TO LIFE than some "book" that you people have placed your trust in!

      Fredster69 - 2010-12-28 08:45

      The problem with your thinking is that you do not want to acknowledge that there is a Creator, because then you will be held accountable for your actions. The word Dinosaur was only thought of in the late 18th Century, that's why you will not find the word in the Bible.It was called Dragons. If you think you know so much, just sit and think further.. if you do not know more that 50% of EVERYTHING in this world, how do you know that God is not in the other 50%...just a thought.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 09:41

      What was a gene called in the bible? Or an atom?

      141mat - 2010-12-28 15:23

      @ArtGee "If this "BOOK" is what you believe, you mean to tell me that there was NO DINOSAURS? There was NO ICE AGE? That the earth was made 4000 years ago?" Wrong, wrong and wrong my friend. First off, i do not believe in a book but a living God. Sencondly the bible does not talk about AIDS, so what are saying if the bible does not mention it it does not exist? And number 3 the bible NEVER gave a date for creation, remember that the biggest mistake a lot of creationists make is to assume that the earth was "created" on the first day. Read it again it had already been created, hence the gap theory, and the bible does not tell us how long it was there for. As you can see my friend i am not the average bible bashing bastard. My blinkers are off and i see clearer now than ever, i will not lie the creation was always my biggest problem in the bible. Read if you are an evolutionist. It actually argues for your point. Trust me its an interesting read.

      Ribbittt - 2010-12-29 07:54

      @artgee- 141mat is right, being a Christian doesn't mean one is against science, you actually embrace it because it is also a pusuit for truth! Sometimes I think Christians can learn something from scientists in the way they handle proof and their own prejudices. But to say the Bible is just another book is very narrow minded because you ignore an overwhelming amount of evidence for the accuracy of the Bible. Oh and another are not a virus, you are precious to your Creator, and He loves you.

      Ribbittt - 2010-12-29 08:03

      @CTScientist-your comments are really contributing positively to the debate here, and would like to direct a question. Is it possible for you to see evolution as part of an Infinite (outside of space and time) Creator's way of creating?

      CTScientist - 2010-12-29 08:49

      @ Ribbittt Thank you for your comment. I always hate going through these threads and seeing the "God vs Evolution" debate spiral into a festival of hatred and bigotry etc. As for your question.. not every single scientist who studies/teaches/contributes research to this debate believes in only one or the other. They are not, and never have been, mutually exclusive. This is, of course, reliant on certain religious/scientific premises. You cannot believe in both God and Evolutionary theory if you, say, believe the Earth was literally made within a week. Then evolution is excluded, because we're talking about millions of years. If you believe in Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, I think as a scientist, you'd find it difficult to believe in a Creator. And then there are scientists who are not religious at all who don't want to see a Creator. But I think if you're truly a human being you've got to see both sides of every coin. While I'm certainly not religious, I don't see what harm there is in allowing for the possibility that God guided evolution. I can't prove or disprove this. While there are certainly no visible facts to support the notion that God created Evolution, at least not that allow me to believe this, I have no right to deny this avenue to believers. I do not claim to know the truth. I, as you do, search for the truth. Or variants of the truth. In any regard, you could easily marry Evolutionary theory to a Creator, provided the premises allow for this.

      Ribbittt - 2010-12-29 09:51

      @CTSientist-Thank you, I appreciate your kind answer. I see the evidence for a Big Bang and evolution, and for me as a Christian it doesn’t provide any danger to my faith in Jesus. In actual fact science helped me a lot, stating that the universe had a beginning is probably the greatest "proof" for God. Saying that complex life began out of puddles of chemicals is mind bending in the highest degree and surely enough it was proven by Craig J Venter …but there is another dimension to all of this. Science cannot touch this, - it is almost like space-time, if I can use this analogy, we can measure space and distance but when we start to think about time we necessarily need to bring a little subjectivity to the table. So, my next question will be then, what if science proof evolution totally wrong in, for example, 20 years, would that damage your worldview in such a way that you will need to believe in some Creator, or should the evidence you need be more personal of nature? (PS. see "evolution" as a collective of objections to the existence of a creator)

      CTScientist - 2010-12-29 10:25

      @ Ribbittt I don't think evolution can be proven wrong, to be perfectly honest. This is not that I'm trying to avoid your question. I'll get to that. But there is just so much evidence which supports evolutionary theory that it is inconceivable that it could all just be plain wrong. Many sections of the theory could we be rewritten, moved and/or change. No doubt about that. And I'll be there trying to do what work I can to advance our knowledge of evolution. No matter where that takes us. Paradigm shifts happen.. so let me answer your question. "[W]hat if science proof evolution totally wrong in, for example, 20 years, would that damage your worldview in such a way that you will need to believe in some Creator, or should the evidence you need be more personal of nature?" I am, without any doubt, a scientist. If science did not exist, I think I would have been a philosopher. I want answers. I ask questions. I push boundaries. So if evolution would be debunked, I would not be disheartened. This is what I have dedicated my life to, this finding of answers. This asking of questions. And to disprove evolution would throw up new and equally exciting questions that need to be answered. No doubt I'd be in the mix of this debate come twenty years. If all the available evidence pointed to a Creator, I would be naive not to consider it. I honestly doubt it would, from a purely personal perspective. I want to help find the most supported truth. No matter the discomfort.

      Ribbittt - 2010-12-29 12:09

      @CTScientist-I salute your way of thinking, if you can inspire more people to think the way you do the world will truly be a better place! A sincere seeker of truth is not scared nor afraid of letting himself get in the way of truth. Being humble is the only way of getting prejudice out of the way, and you showed this clearly by all the good feedback you received from other commentators here. You stated "If all the available evidence pointed to a Creator, I would be naive not to consider it. I honestly doubt it would, from a purely personal perspective." and that brings me to my previous point,and a next question.Knowing God is a personal issue/relationship and all the evidence in the world will not convince anyone. Searching for truth could mean that evidence could manifest in a way that is not expected. Maybe science is not what it takes to get to the ultimate truth. How about purely personal evidence? Surely you cannot argue against it when you are personally convinced?

      CTScientist - 2010-12-29 15:38

      @ Ribbittt I have to admit that this is where I reach a personal limit in my capacity to search for the truth. As a practitioner of the scientific method, with its basis on observed empirical phenomenon, it is difficult to consider the personal as evidence. This is especially true when you throw psychology, culture, power, ethics, philosophy, etc into the mix. There are so many factors which are so entwined within what is personal, and what is public, that is is hard to discern what is even real. It could be that the truth is only within each and every person. But I should need science to expose such truth. To explain such truth. Or else I fear it may not be true. We each ascribe to certain value systems. To alternative worldviews and ideologies. I give value to the truth as drawn from empirical evidence. And I do not see much empirical truth in any personal statement. That isn't to say that it isn't there. Only that, at this time, it has yet to be found. You must remember that we've seen people believe the craziest things. Sometimes they're visionaries, but other times they're just plain crazy. Just because you have a personal conviction based on personal evidence does not mean that you're actually right about it. There are so many plausible explanations for the occurrence of false personal convictions that it is unrealistic for me, personally, to give such evidence credence. Yet this is only a choice that I make. It may too be wrong. :)

      CTScientist - 2010-12-29 15:42

      @ Ribbittt Let me just add that I hold the tenant that belief is insufficient evidence close to my heart. But this does not, in any capacity, diminish the role that belief plays in the hearts and minds of millions of human beings. I am in no way going to undermine that. While personal convictions and evidence may be insufficient for me, they may be more than sufficient for others. And it is their right to freely choose what evidence they feel is adequate. I have no doubt that belief, however valid as evidence it may be, is still meaningful. I can never say that belief A is less meaningful than belief B, for example. In any regard.. belief is obviously important to people. And I would not ask that they abandon these in the name of my standards. As I said above.. my own standards may one day prove to be wrong. Or insufficient. Yet I do not think so. But the role of evolution is certainly not to debunk or diminish the role of belief in other people's lives. If anything, it offers the most advanced and plausibly supported scientific understanding of the way by which life is constantly changing and adapting. If people do not accept it, that is their choice. But you cannot ignore a burning building for very long. Especially when you are trapped inside it.

      Ribbittt - 2010-12-29 19:42

      @CTScientist-A beautiful example comes from one of my all time favorite movie"Nightmare before Christmas", remember the part where Jack dissects Christmas tree decorations to determine what Christmas is all about? I am fully convinced that not all in this universe could be subjugated to scientific rigor. To assume that what is true for a part is true for the whole is a logical fallacy, and is exactly how people lose money, makes accidents and belief the neighbors with the new car are rich. I respect your view about belief not being evidence and I can relate to that, after all, I too, was an unbeliever! But after being faced with what the Bible really said, in quite a spectacular way I must add, I found myself changed for the better. This is all I can really say, because evolution, and physics and philosophy never satisfied my hunger for more. There is so much more, the origin of logic, existence and morality are all clues but cannot convince, for if we look at Gödel 2nd theorem (if a fully provable, describable universe is possible), we cannot prove the system from within. We can easily see when somebody is crazy or just plain wrong. Millions of people died because Hitler and Stalin were crazy. I stopped smoking because it is crazy to slowly poison yourself to death, and how did I get this idea from? CS Lewis said something about it; "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line" In any case, the message Jesus gave is so much different from anything else I ever encountered that I am first of all, personally affected. Science, I must admit, really couldn't do that for me.

      darkwing - 2010-12-29 20:57

      Why can't everyone discuss the issue civilly like Ribbittt and CTScientist? There are certain facts which affects our physical lives every day and then there is faith, whatever it is you believe or do not believe. Arguing over that must be the most pointless waste of energy there is. Must say, if you look at someone like Lean you wonder if human evolution occurred at all.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 09:12

      @ Ribbitt I completely appreciate the role that religion plays in your life. And the lives of countless people all over the world. And I am not just saying this because I'm trying to be politically correct. You have to be somewhat naive to think that every single person who follows a religion is a Type A, Type B, or Type C individual. Human beings are varied and make decisions for a whole boat load of reasons that we usually aren't even aware of. In any regard, yours is a story that I could never damn. I have no doubt that your religious conviction plays a major role in your life. But we have to be able to admit that this role could, in all possibility, be a role filled by other avenues. As religion showed you a way that could "do something for you" that science could not, equally then, science could fulfill X in ways that religion could not. There are often times when I wonder what science cannot answer. But given time, I think the Universe and all that we have yet to see will be found, analyzed and answered. There is no reason that we cannot answer every question. If we just look at the advances we've made in the last Century we have to believe that we will know so much more in another Century. Provided of course we have another Century left! You said that you were "faced with what the Bible really said" and you found yourself changed? That type of personal evidence could be answered without recourse to gods. That is our problem with using it as evidence.

      Ribbittt - 2010-12-30 12:17

      @CTScientist- I just cannot accept that science could answer it all, because it neglect a vital part of reality just by definition, we can have mathematics of love and a formula of beauty, and I can imagine a future society having all this. But it feels like we are going to lose something precious. When my children tell me they love me I can see in their eyes it is not because of basic needs or genetics, there is something tangible, deeper and more meaningful than just psychology. Taking a chemistry set to a Rothko is futile. Counting on science alone will cut the heart out of humanity's chest and at the same time demand it's function! How will such a society look like? We will be actors fooling ourselves, saying stuff like ' we know that faith plays a major role, but it is not real' Tell a woman that you love her only because there is chemicals released when you smell her hair or that it is a herding instinct that is advantageous to both parties involved and see her reaction! Science is blind for these things, and I did not even start mentioning the real hard problems of morality and the origin of logic, even though we see a wave of these very poor science papers emerge. We cry foul when we see genocide and war but at the same time we defend woman's right to kill babies, we see people dying of hunger and we see people dying of eating too much. We just do not have the answers and the problems are getting bigger and more vicious. The problem is sin and the result of that is death (and everything associated with it). We just need to admit that we need help, but that is very very tough to do if one feels self sufficient.

      orionangel - 2010-12-30 15:20

      @ Fredster69: Let's put you in a whale for a couple of months and see how well you fair. Can you people honestly tell me that we are supposed to take everything in the bible as metaphorical but we're not allowed to believe in the possibility that intelligent design is metaphorical as well?

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 15:44

      @ Ribbittt But don't you think that we could know the cause (chemical, biological, or whatever else it may be) of love and yet still marvel at it? We could attain the knowledge and retain the humanity all at the same time. Just because we may eventually know more, does not mean that we will certainly become less human. Both function and form can play together. As for the issues of morality, logic, epistemology, etc.. I am happy to leave those to the philosophers for sometime still. We have so much more to find out - and I doubt we will ever know everything. But we will know more! And the more we know, I think we'll find so much more that we don't. There will always be mysteries for us to ponder and marvel at, even as we solve ones closer to home. There is no evil in knowledge, only the abuse of knowledge. Don't you think so?

      Ribbittt - 2010-12-30 23:15

      @CTScientist-Yes, you are right. The greater the knowledge the greater is the potential for havoc. Just look at the Cold War thing. Knowledge/information cannot be evil, just people with the moral obligation to choose, you need to be conscious of yourself and your environment before you can impact it, and I believe that is one of the great wonders in our cosmos. Just think about it, clumps of chemicals and matter being self aware looking for truth! The problem with all the gained knowledge is that it tend to focus on one aspect of reality, we get a warped idea if we only look at the science part of it. People could take love for example and bottle it, sell it and make people happy. But something is bothering about this, and what it is I cannot explain. People could also takes human embryos and have pigs carry it full term if the parents are unable to. But again something is repulsive about this even though we help someone. We need something more to add to the equation to have the full picture… But enough of that already. I can only say one thing which I already said; If you are a true sincere seeker of truth there is only one thing you can really do, and that is to ask God himself. He is a living, loving God and He will answer. But be prepared to be changed. He doesn't ask for a big part of your time or your work or your money but He wants you, not to change your old you, but to kill it. All the old thoughts and desires and even the things you think you did well. He will give you a new self, Himself. It really is a blue or red pill scenario!

      Ribbittt - 2010-12-30 23:24

      @CTScientist- Answer to your first question of your last post: No, when you mastered something it becomes ordinary. My parents do not cry of happiness anymore because I can stand up and walk, but when I was a little baby it was something special! I sometimes marvel at the mind bending distances between stars precisely because I realise I cannot comprehend it! The stuff that makes your mind fizzle out at the edges, that is the stuff of wonder.

      Ribbittt - 2011-01-02 07:11

      I must do a revised version of this... "No, when you mastered something it becomes ordinary." What I mean is that when you "think" you have mastered something you could be misled into thinking you've cracked the code. The Black Swan by Taleb is a personal favorite of mine in this regard. Philosophically speaking there is a classification of knowledge, and confusing them bring all sorts of errors. Like the one I made in my previous post..

  • Tigra - 2010-12-28 07:54

    If there is no such thing as evolution, then we can stop worrying about viruses and bacteria evolving and medication like penicillin and antibiotics becoming useless... I'm sure those with drug-resistant TB will be thrilled...

      grocer - 2010-12-28 10:17

      Probably the most pertinent and relevant thing said on this forum.I'm amazed(actually i'm not) that something so incredibly powerful can be ignored by these cretinus creationists. Yup, the bible is for insecure people who need an instruction manual and comfort blanket to get through the day. Be brave. The sky doesn't fall down.

      Siranne - 2010-12-28 23:14

      @ Grocer I really feel so sorry for you. I'm sure you're clever enough to work out why.

      Irené - 2010-12-29 11:42

      Beautifully said, lets see how the creationists arhue this point

      lean - 2010-12-29 15:09

      You will just die Irine - like a cow.......

      Linz-e - 2010-12-29 15:54

      Yes, and this explains why you have evolved into an idiot after your mother gave birth to you!

      Linz-e - 2010-12-29 15:56

      Wonder what your children will evolve into! Would be interesting to know! Wait....maybe a virus...or better yet, an alien. Or will give birth to bacteria that evolves into boogers....

  • Graham - 2010-12-28 07:55

    "Radio carbon dating is notoriously unreliable for dating bone because of the vast number of factors that can affect this" and the Bible is reliable? 1000 years from now the lords of the ring will hold as much credit as the bible. Its just a story told by hundreds of different people over hundreds of years. I don't believe current leaders when they talk and tell stories why should one believe in the bible!!

      Zion - 2010-12-28 11:03

      In this case it was teeth not bone. Teeth have enamel which would prevent the ingress of substances in solution or other contamination.

      ir8m8 - 2010-12-30 13:37

      you see i dont nessesarily agree, in a 100 years from now, we will still have accurate record of who wrote what and our enlightened society would have kept track of real history...the internet etc etc. the problem with the bible is that it is merely a fraction of the story (folk story to be frank), if you consider the books that were not included into the final book and the rest of the folktales that are comming in from the rest of that particular area, one has to assume that this is all they are, loose accounts of history that found their way together, formed the basis of a culture (hebrew), formed a cornerstone of a religion, its a given fact that the romans forged the so called bible into its current form and its well known that they did it for political means. Come on people, why do we celebrate christmas in the middle of the northern hemisphere winter, when according to the bible he was born in june / july. The December festival of the pagans to worship the solstice and the birth of a christian god, seemed like they belonged together, make 2 parts of your society happy at one. religion...Opium of the masses.

  • sceptic - 2010-12-28 09:57

    What really surprises me is how everyone marvels at evolution, yet does not stop to think about certain facts. For example: The pyramids of egypt remain one of the worlds biggest mysteries in terms of how they were constructed. If evolution means the progression of mankind from ape to what it is today, will someone please explain to me why humans have become stupid?, Certainly if we have evolved to smarter homo sapiens than our ancestors of 10 000 BC we should know exactly how the pyramids were built what tools were used, how many people it took to construct etc, etc? Instead, we marvel and say "oh my God that is just a total mystery!" Bullshit to evolution!! It is not quite making sense at all. And I am not saying that religion has it right either, since the time line does not allow it to be. My conclusion. Worry about issues that concern us today and how we are going to survive amongst all the chaos in the world, it will most definately ensure the survival of humans more that dwelling in the past.....

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 10:19

      "f evolution means the progression of mankind from ape to what it is today, will someone please explain to me why humans have become stupid?" Evolution doesn't imply the "progression" of mankind from ape to what we are today. Not at all. In fact, evolution points out that we share a common ancestor. A progression implies a linear movement. An advancement. But human beings are in no way more "advanced" than apes. We're different. As we should be, considering the 4 - 8 million years since divergence. In any regard.. anatomical human beings arrived on the scene between 100 - 200 ka (and with further substantial evidence, perhaps even 400 ka as the article above suggests). These anatomical human beings were, for all intents and purposes, exactly like us. If you are a supporter of Richard Klein's considerable work, you would then believe that circa 50 - 60 ka human beings suffered a mutation or some such which resulted in greater cognitive ability. Art, personal ornaments, burials, etc, all become common place from this time. In the last sixty thousand years, however, we have had the same brain. The same abilities. What you are talking about, is knowledge. Not a morphological or genetic ability to a priori 'know' how to build a pyramid. Knowledge can be lost. There are entire civilizations lost to time completely. It doesn't mean we're stupid. It just means the methods were lost and cannot be remembered. It doesn't make us any 'less' advanced. We live in different times.

      141mat - 2010-12-28 15:41

      @CTScienctist, hi, you do seem to be the most clued up and that is why i am posting this question to you in the hopes that i can find a better understanding in the way that you (and people like you) think. If evolution is true then why do we not see the different stages of it? How is it that we (humans from all over the world) are almost in the same state of evolution? or am i missing a point? I would really like to see your reply as you seem to know evolution. And i am not trying to be funny or anything like that. Thanks.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 16:05

      @141mat: I am in no way the most clued up about evolution. To be perfectly honest, anyone worth their salt who knows anything about evolution will point out that they cannot know everything. Evolution concerns so many different fields and branches of the scientific community that we cannot each know everything there is to know. Each minute detail. We rely on the shared knowledge that we all accumulate to understand the process. With most people who don't have a background in geology, earth sciences, etc, I usually find that what is hard to understand is the notion of deep time. Evolution is a process that works over hundreds of thousands of years. Homo erectus hits Africa circa 1.8 million years ago and only around 400 - 600 thousand years ago do we start to see significant changes in hominin morphology in the fossil record. Evolution, like geological processes, takes time for massive changes. That isn't to say that all changes take this amount of time. From year to year, the common cold changes and adapts to the ways by which we try to kill it off. So when you look the humans, you have to look at us as a biological species. It takes one human migrating between isolated populations to keep their genetic material similar. In other words, mixing once a generation retains similarity. Evolution between human beings (increasing difference) will only happen if we cease genetic flow between groups. But cultural practices ensures that this does not happen.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 16:09

      So to see change, we have to look at the stages over deep time. Not just in our generation, or the last twenty generations. We cannot expect to see change in human beings when we haven't even moved into a 'new' or 'changing' environment. We're still an agrarian society. But there are changes, small as they may be, that you can see in our society. Sickle cell anemia and its relationship to Malaria in African countries is only one example. Evolution is about the degree of change. Not so much the kind of change. We're shouldn't expect to see a new tail within a generation. Not that this is impossible. I can't say that. But we tend to think that much of evolutionary trajectory of many species is actually one of stasis. Life has millions of years within which to change. Not just fifty. Or sixty. Anyway. That is just my stab at it. Some of Richard Dawkins earlier books (not the God Delusion) on evolutionary biology really hit the nail on the head in an enjoyable manner. I'd suggest those.

      141mat - 2010-12-28 19:08

      @CTScientist. thanks for that i really enjoyed reading it. Although i did enjoy your post and kinda "got it"(for lack of a better word) i don't think i would be able to sit through a book like that:) I am a Christian, but i have always thought a bit too much. Not that i doubt my faith in God or Jesus at all(just seen and been through too much to doubt), i just wonder if there is more to the creation story. Is that blasphemy, some would most likely say so but whatever i have questions. Thanks again. Happy new year

      william.botha - 2010-12-28 23:00

      @141mat-You can see evolution at work in species even today. Although you will not see any changes as that takes place over long periods of time as CTscientist pointed out. But examples like foxes and wolves is worth mentioning. Foxes and Wolves can interbreed, but they have developed into different directions to such an extent that they do not interbreed in nature. Also look at Donkeys and Horses. They can interbreed but their offspring is sterile in most cases. Yet there is already significant differences between their DNA. Sometimes evolution does happen in a short period of time, when a genetic mutation enhances the mutant's survival and this then gets passed on to it's offspring. As CTscientist pointed out, drug resistant bacteria have adapted to their new habitat and favors their survival. This is a huge subject and cannot be discussed here in detail. But whats important is our ability to learn. Creationists have imposed on themselves a restriction to knowledge and hence do not qualify to argue this subject.

      141mat - 2010-12-29 09:17

      @William.botha. I suppose you could also bring in the fact that some babies are being born without a appendix as this organ is not needed anymore. Am i correct in sayin that?

      Zion - 2010-12-29 09:44

      sceptic, The mysteries of how the pyramids were constructed was sorted out a long time ago. The only possible method that could be used is the ramp. A ramp is built to the point of construction As the pyramid increases in height so the ramp is lengthened and its hight increased too. Given that the Egyptians did not have helicopters, cranes and other fancy equipment Then the only logical explanation is the ramp.

      Zion - 2010-12-29 09:51

      CTScientist. You don't get clever people or stupid people. You do get the odd genius now and again. People who we term stupid have all the brain cells and equipment but are just too lazy to use it. IQ is determined by environmental and genetic factors. Environmental factors far exceed that of genetics.

      william.botha - 2010-12-29 10:09

      @141mat-Think about it, the appendix in humans have shrunk to the point of having no function. Did God make a slight mistake there or is it just the remains of the greater mold? It might very well seize to exist in the future. But I have come to the conclusion that your opinion is a product of your own reasoning the same as everyone else on the site including me. But if we humans collaborate and stop our hostile intolerance to the opposing opinions of others, this world will become such a better place. I do not condemn religion, but even as a child that was brought up in a highly religious family, I had my doubts and failed to acquire a need for deities and religion. That certainly does not render me evil. But I had and still have a fervent desire for knowledge and I'm passionate about my work and science in general. The same passion many have for religion. It comes down to the nutshell "Different strokes for different folks" saying. I and other atheists are not your enemy, we just think different than creationists.

      william.botha - 2010-12-29 10:13

      @Zion-You forgot to add the "obsession" part of it. Egyptians were obsessed with the after life. Labor was a tax imposed on all male citizens of Egypt, almost like conscription. This labor was used to build these elaborate structures along with the hired contractor and maybe even some slaves.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-29 10:35

      @ Zion: I didn't say that you get stupid and clever people. The quote I used is from the News24 user 'Sceptic' who wrote: "If evolution means the progression of mankind from ape to what it is today, will someone please explain to me why humans have become stupid?" In order to answer that question, I commented in the way I did. My comment attempted to debunk the notion of clever or dumb via discussing evolutionary "advancement" of species. This is the typical degree vs kind debate you'll find almost anywhere. You'll even see my following quote: "Knowledge can be lost. There are entire civilizations lost to time completely. It doesn't mean we're stupid... It doesn't make us any 'less' advanced". But to reply to your post anyway.. I think that you will find the measurement of the IQ to be only way by which we can measure intellectual ability. Psychologists are consistently battering at the door of ad hoc IQ tests as these have proven inefficient at providing researchers with real 'brain power'. A musical genius can have an IQ of sixty. And environmental factors have never been shown to "far exceed" genetic factors. In fact, they are often considered to be equally important. The nature/nurture feud is one which, I think, is drawn out to the point of meaninglessness. When you say that people have all the facilities but are just lazy, I'd disagree. Often there are very real and very obvious differences in the make up of the brain.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-29 10:37

      Edit: But to reply to your post anyway.. I think that you will find the measurement of the IQ [is not the] only way by which we can measure intellectual ability. Psychologists are consistently battering at the door of ad hoc IQ tests as these have proven inefficient at providing researchers with real 'brain power'. A musical genius can have an IQ of sixty.

      141mat - 2010-12-29 11:00

      @William.Botha. Thanks for the answer. I believe that the appendix is as you say part of a greater mold, but due to the fact that it is not needed anymore i believe that God has given the room for an evolution of sorts to take place. I have also heard that in quite a few generations we will no longer have blondes or red heads. The darker genes are stronger and will eventually root out all others, so if i am correct this can also be seen as evolution.

      141mat - 2010-12-29 11:06

      @william.botha. And yes brother i agree with you. I will be honest in saying that this article has not changed my personal faith at all, but one thing this topic has opened my eyes to is the fact that we creationists and evolutionists can sit and have an open and honest debate. And that for me is AWESOME. Thanks again. And i do not look at you as an enemy and never will. Just someone that has decided that he is not happy with the answers you were getting and decided to look somewhere else, and for that i salute you.

      Irené - 2010-12-29 11:47

      @ matt yes we can maybe have civilised debates with creationists, but meanwhile we are laughing into our sleeves that fullgrown adults can have the mental capacity of a 6 yr old in Sunday school. Saying that evolutionists and creationists can debate means that your side has credible evidence. Not just blind faith, I am yet to see ANY evidence from the creationist side

      141mat - 2010-12-29 12:42

      @Irene, I am of sorts a creationist, but i do not follow the creation idea in the bible completely blind folded. putting the creation debate aside for a second, I as a Christian do not bind my faith on the creation as that is not what the basis of my faith is. In fact it has got nothing to do with the creation. But in any case even in the bible they mention things that cannot be explained like who was God warning when he put the mark on Cain (assuming for arguments sake that it happened the way the bible say). Who was there and how did they get there? But that is a WHOLE other story. All i am trying to say is that there are things that we as humans will never know and we must accept that or we will never find peace.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-29 15:48

      @ Irene That anyone can so utterly reject an ideology which has never been disproved is not in the spirit of the scientific en devour. While we respect your right to reject the religious point of view, you have absolutely no reason to say that "... meanwhile we are laughing into our sleeves that fullgrown adults can have the mental capacity of a 6 yr old in Sunday school". If anything, I am disgusted that a "full grown adult" can insult another human being over something as personal as the choice to practice a free religion. Do you really have to preach a kind of intolerance to religious choice? Any philosopher worth their salt could defend a religious ideology easily. As science is only one more ideology. For us, the most plausible. Yet an ideology none the less. We don't know everything. We know nothing. It is inconceivable that you would laugh at another person because you think you know better.

      Irené - 2010-12-29 16:43

      @ CTscientiist A person may beleive what ever makes them happy, but I just think it laughable that people think the evolution vs creationism thing is still a debate, like the verdict is still out there! I am tired of being treated like a 2nd class citizen because I am not religious, certain issues should not be a question of faith, but facts, like the origin of the earth, evolution etc. There is very little evidence supporting any of what the creationists believe. If you have facts to the contrary, please post them here, would love to hear. I did not claim to know everything, I am quite content with knowing nothing, but I maintain that the creation theory is childlike and laughable... say what you want

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 09:01

      @ Irene @ CTscientiist I am glad we both agree that freedom of believe should be preserved at all costs. It is what makes us a truly unique species, our acceptance of alternative world views and different ways of life. But we differ on our appraisal of the "evolution vs creationism" debate. And a debate it most surely is. But I think that far too many people view it from the side of "who is right" and "who is wrong". There is no wrong and right in this debate, is there? Surely Descartes, if he has taught us anything, has taught us that reality is subjective. It isn't, as far as I can see, a laughing matter that religious people believe in god (or gods) and that they believe he/she/it/them thus created the world. We all believe crazy things, don't we? We're all learning, aren't we? While you and I both agree that evolution is the most plausible scenario or mechanism to explain the change evident within biological species over the last few hundred million years, we do so because we adhere to scientific principles. Take that away, and our interpretations must seem to a religious individual what God seems to us. How is that to be laughed at? Is that really going to help..? And creationists, as well as the ordinary religious, have ample evidence for their beliefs. Evidence that is good enough for them. As evolution is good enough for us. I just don't understand your mirth, I suppose. It smacks of elitism. Much like eurocentrism did during colonialism.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 09:02

      Terrible mistakes in the above post. Apologies. It is early. :D Edit: @ Irene I am glad we both agree that freedom of belief should be preserved at all costs...

  • alsitrader - 2010-12-28 11:20

    It really stuns me that people will rather believe that some cosmic jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master , so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib woman was cinvinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree. , then in science , fact and truth.

      Siranne - 2010-12-28 23:17

      I really feel so sorry for you. I'm sure you're clever enough to work out why.

      ir8m8 - 2010-12-30 13:43

      totally agree, and whats very ironic to me is that the people who have concieved all hell and true evil can repent in the last 10 seconds of their lives and still make it into heaven, yeah so much for Vengence is mine hey...

  • ccronje20 - 2010-12-28 12:37

    If you strictly believe in evolution and that there is no greater force in the universe why do you have morals or aspirations?? If what all what evolutionists say is true it means once you die there will be just nothing you will be forgotten what will you 'evolutionists' tell your 8 year old child dieng in you arms "sorry son you meant nothing and once you die everything is over there will be nothing else" I believe that is why we have the lack of morals in our country because people are pushed to believe in evolution and therefore they will suffer no punishment for their actions here on earth. I do not say religion is right but atleast believing in something bigger then yourself creates moral values and increases quality of life especialy for those in need and struggling to get through daily life. If evolution is preached and people stop believing in any life after life here on earth it makes it so much easier for them to take there own lifes in a moment of desperation because they have no religion no faith to hang on to.

      Alfred - 2010-12-28 13:03

      It sends a cold shiver of fear down my back when christians and other religious types come up with the 'if there is no god, why be moral?' argument, because it means that the only reason that they are moral and do not go on a wild rape, plunder and murder spree is because they fear infinite punishment from their god and they also do not seem to have the intellectual capacity to decide for themselves what is moral and what is not, and then they blindly follow what they are told by their priest, church and scriptures. What a sick stupid species I belong too.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 13:20

      Your desire for belief is not necessarily shared by every single person on the planet. There is nothing more complex and more amazing than life. The fact that you look elsewhere for something "bigger" implies, at least to me, a certain lack of morality. You need something "bigger" to be moral? That sounds ludicrous. Millions of people are not religious and are subject to the same moral standards as the rest of us. The religious and non-religious commit atrocities. Not just one or the other. People can appreciate life, and morality, without a singular god or multiple gods. Look up Secular Humanism, even. Evolution is not "preached" per say. Just as "electricity" is not preached. It is taught to educate. As all science should be. There are no conversion movements. Scientists do not knock on your door to force a new Dawkins book down your throat. You are free to choose as you will. But do not expect a scientist to throw out over a centuries accepted work based on a need for something "bigger".

      FrankLee - 2010-12-28 13:56

      @CTScientist Strange, isn't it that there's nothing more complex than life. Yet you can sit there quietly and say that life [and it's subsequent development ]happened by chance. Have you actually examined just how impossible it is for chance to create anything at all? Here's the most simple test of evolutionary theory: If evolutionists do not know where life comes from [ and they readily admit that they don't], just how do they know that it didn't get here in more or less the same forms we currently encounter on earth - no "evolution" required? The answer is that they don't - and neither do you. There's no one that can bring eye-witness accounts or documentary proof that things started out as singular cells and then evolved. Currently scientist ASSUME that it did and are now trying as best as they can to make sure everyone believes that it did evolve. Unfortunately the physical evidence can be interpreted just as well for a once-off creation. But this is not ALLOWED by "science". As for morality - it couldn't have evolved because one must know or at least be able to predict the consequences of actions before moral knowledge can accumulate. In evolution such a lack of knowledge would have led to the extinction of the species before it got around to surviving.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 15:46

      @ FrankLee I wouldn't say that the subsequent development of life happens by chance. Not at all. As you've no doubt read, evolution is a mechanism which drives (and seeks to explain) adaption. Mutations are random. But their selection is not. But to answer your question: "...just how do they know that it didn't get here in more or less the same forms we currently encounter on earth - no "evolution" required?" Simple. Fossils. We find them everywhere, from every period, from every walk of life. Simple geological principles of stratigraphy highlight that which are older, and which are younger. Coupled with our understanding of sedimentary sciences, we can discern which formations are in what age ranges. To garner absolute dates, we use scientific processes. Carbon dating techniques are only one of those applied in the earth sciences. Anyway.. fossils show difference. If you only want to go back 200 ka, we also use genetic evidence. Genetic evidence highlights similarities as well as differences between existent species and extinct species. The physical evidence here cannot confirm to a single 'creation' event for a multiplicity of reasons. The time depth is only one. Immeasurable change seen within a single genus is another. You cannot ignore the depth of difference that is seen in the fossil record. This is as much evidence as anyone could ask for. As for morality.. I'm not a philosopher. I'd leave that stab to them from here on out. It isn't in my expertise to consider.

      lmduplessis - 2010-12-28 23:05

      CTScientist, you seem to be destroying every loaded question and every counter-argument the Fundamentalist Creationists seem to be able to dish up. Good on yer. It makes me so depressed sometimes to see these Uber Self-impressed "religeous" people pronounce a, what seems to them to be, insurmountable problem with any kind of scientific theory which doesn't run absolutely with creationists viewes and then beam with Glee in the certain knowledge that they have stumped you and expect an instant conversion to the Religeious denomination of their choice, when the problem in actual fact has quite probably been awnsered quite comprehensively about a decade ago (usually), and this info can be freely accessed on the internet with a bit of effort. I refer specifically to thequestion of "If evolution is real, and the eye evolved to where it now is, what use was 1/2 an eye 1/2 way through the evolution?" That one always makes me chuckle.

      william.botha - 2010-12-28 23:10

      @FrankLee-You state nothing is more complex than life? This points to your lack of knowledge. Just the subject of quantum physics alone could keep you busy for a lifetime. I urge you to get educated in science with an open mind. Religion is a powerful social mechanism that can drive people to commit mass suicide. Science is not a social tool, its education. Religion can be an unnecessary evil.

      Irené - 2010-12-29 11:49

      A cronje It is called survival instinct. We humans know we have to work together to do something, thats how we could advance as a species, read the Selfish gene by Dawkins. This has nothing to do with frigeen morals, were talking about 400000 yr old human remains. Stick to the point, and there is no evidence that noon believers have less morals than believers.

      ir8m8 - 2010-12-30 13:47

      dont agree, i came to my own conclusions, my kids will come to thiers, i have many religious questions posed at me and i am very careful how i answer, but they have asked me outright and i have been honest with them, but they still go to church with their mother. The fundamental Christian issue is that of choice, i have the right to choose to beleive and i have the right to reject it. I have found no reason whatsoever to choose to beleive.

  • Soapbox - 2010-12-28 12:57

    Can anyone please explain the existance of the Coelacanth to me? A fish that has not evolved in 200 million years. Does only some species evolve and others dont?

      Alfred - 2010-12-28 13:34

      if a species is in a stable niche where there is no competition there will be very little evolutionary pressure driving it to adapt. There are probably few changes that would make a Coelacanth more likely to successfully reproduce. Sharks have also not evolved much in the last 400 million years, probably because they are at the top of the food chain and because often a change that has a particular benefit also has drawbacks, like bigger means slower and less agile etc. Sharks have probably reached maximum efficiency for their niche, with few possible improvements.

      Alfred - 2010-12-28 13:42

      if a species is in a stable niche where there is no competition there will be no evolutionary pressure driving it to adapt. There are probably few changes that would make a Coelacanth more likely to successfully reproduce. Sharks have also not evolved much in the last 400 million years, probably because they are at the top of the food chain and because often a change that has a particular benefit also has drawbacks, like bigger means slower and less agile etc. Sharks have probably reached maximum efficiency for their niche, with few possible improvements.

      FrankLee - 2010-12-28 13:47

      Very good question Soapbox. Can someone explain the 400 million year old shark?.... What exactly is evolutionary stasis? Oxymoron of the first kind.

      Soapbox - 2010-12-28 13:53

      Would this then imply that humans dont have to evolve based on the assumption that they are on the top of the foodchain?

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 14:07

      @FrankLee I don't understand how evolutionary stasis is an oxymoron. Could you explain this to me? As far as I'm aware, evolution (as Alfred has highlighted) is very often coupled to an environment. Or an organisms niche. If there are no pressures on an organism, it would not make sense for it to change. Evolution isn't a mystical dot to dot. Changes don't just 'happen'. Millions of genetic mutations are encoded in the DNA of all complex life. Not all of them are selected. And often the ones selected can drive a species to extinction. This isn't a simple process. Evolution is not simple. In any regard.. I agree with Alfred. If there is no pressure on the organism, then there is no need for a mutation to be selected for. The Coelacanth is the only surviving species in its genus and, from fossil evidence, been wiped out from every other habitat it could previously be located in (circa 65 mya). It stands to reason that those Coelacanth which survived, did so in the environments that you find they remain in today. But as this environment is inaccessible to paleontologists, it is difficult to document the species evolutionary trajectory over the last 65 mya. It is possible we just don't know what changes could have, and did, happen. Evolution doesn't provide answers for us. It is a mechanism to explain change that relies on factual evidence. If we just don't have the fossils, we need to acquire funding to find them.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 14:10

      And further to the above, evolutionary stasis can also lead to organisms which cannot easily adapt. These organisms have become so specialized (much like the robust Australopithecus hominins) that great environmental change causes mass extinctions. Such that an eruption of Mount Toba could wipe out 95% of all life on Earth. And those that do survive are the organisms that can quickly adapt to the new inhospitable environment. Evolutionary stasis and punctuated equilibrium seem to be very much plausible mechanisms to me.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 14:17

      @ Soapbox The 'top of the food chain' example is simplified. You'd also have to consider viruses, parasites, etc. The example of the Mosquito is most revealing. As too is the common cold. Each evolves to best the other. Like an ongoing species battle. Human beings always do evolve, but the question is to what degree does this happen? Great changes require greater evolutionary pressure to drive this adaption. Smaller changes could be due to smaller pressures. Although even this is a simplified explanation.

      Alfred - 2010-12-28 14:21

      the evolutionary pressure on humans came from other humans. Different tribes and even species like the competition between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals competing for limited resources. At the moment humans are getting stupider because stupid people are less inclined to limit their fertility and are outbreeding intelligent people, so the species as a whole is getting stupider. This is especially noticeable in the USA with the resurgence of fundamentalism, growing anti-intellectualism and declining educational standards.

      Soapbox - 2010-12-28 14:43

      Thanks for the info sofar. Maybe I'm one of the dumder ones for asking these questions.

      william.botha - 2010-12-28 23:14

      Who says the Coelacanth did not change? It is probable that the deviants of the Coelacanth did not survive. Now that we are on this topic of change. Creationists are adamant that everything known to man was created. So who created your creator, and his creator add infinitum..

  • Tj - 2010-12-28 14:19

    please watch ancient aliens on history channel..

  • nikondaniel - 2010-12-28 14:56

    Does this mean Africa might not be the "Cradel of Humankind"? Eish...

      CTScientist - 2010-12-28 16:14

      Not at all!

      Mike - 2010-12-29 14:24

      If you take a gander at the related articles displayed on this page there is a link to the following:

  • 141mat - 2010-12-28 15:52

    It is unfortunate that we as humans will never be able to debate the origin of our species and the planet which we call home. The main problem is that you either believe in one or the other and you do so on some kind of faith basis. We creationists put our faith behind an all powerful God and evolutionists put their faith in science itself. The problem with this is no one side will ever believe the other and therefore a debate is of no use in this matter. We must just all accept that there are things that we will never know and what does it matter in any case.

      Deon - 2010-12-28 17:52

      One does not have to believe in either the one or the other. You can believe in none of these theories, or both. I am a practicing Christian, but also an evolutionist. I cannot believe that people think you have to believe in the six day theory to be a Christian. Genesis was written to explain creation to people living milleniums ago.Some of us are more advanced today. Bad news guys : Noah did not sail along in an Ark, Jonah was not swallowed by a whale and Lot, after being saved by God from Sodom, did not fornicate with his own daughters.Good news : God loves us, and He sent his only son to die for us.

      141mat - 2010-12-28 19:12

      @Deon, i think that you might like the links i posted in my other postings. Thanks for your comments and you are right He does love us, regardless of the beginnings. I also like that you say you are a practicing Christian, always growing:) Cheers.

      Deon - 2010-12-28 22:01

      Thanks 141MAT God is Great!!!

      william.botha - 2010-12-28 23:16

      Scientists do not put their faith on anything. We do not have faith, we have knowledge and an open mind.

      Siranne - 2010-12-28 23:22

      Amen to both of you!

      Deon - 2010-12-29 08:14

      @william.botha. Moning William. You do not speak for all scientists. Many, if not most scientists,believe in a supreme being at least.I know some scientist who believe in Christ but not the Church. They certainly believe in God though. This is not a Christian vs science issue. These two terms are not mutually exclusive. Hebrews 11:1 explains that to believe means :to be sure of the things we hope,and to be convinced of things we cannot see.(own translation from Afrikaans). From a religious point of view this certainly does not exclude Christians to believe in evolution. And certainly William, not every thing about evolution has been proved, and still I believe in the theory.

      william.botha - 2010-12-29 08:57

      @Deon-Last time I looked Stats showed that over 80% of scientists is atheist. Subscribe to the American Scientist. Great magazine to interface the scientific community to the average Joe Soap

      Deon - 2010-12-29 09:30

      Hallo William Botha.20% is material, not ignorable. I am sure more than 20% of Christians believe in evolution. Christianity and Science are not mutually exclusive!!!!!!!

      Zion - 2010-12-29 12:04

      One of the principles of conservatism states that there is a natural law to which any society should conform. This law being either of a divine source or natural source is common to mankind as a whole. The tenets of this law correspond closely to the ten commandments of the bible such as Theft, murder, Eyeing your neighbours wife,etc, etc. The problem of this law is it is found universally. From the portals of sophisticated legislation to the primitive tribes of Africa or the remote south Sea islands, to tribes in the Amazon who have never come into contact with civilazation. The question now is: What are the origins of this natural law? Some claim it is the work of a divine God while others claim it is an evolutionary trait to prevent mankind from wiping himself out or weakening the social structure with incestuous relationships. As in the 10 commandments any trespassing results in a social deficit and possible destruction or dissemination of the social structure.

  • jwill - 2010-12-28 18:38

    It's absolutely amazing to read all the comments....who needs soapies???? So what if these teeth do belong to Homo Sapien? It's very normal incorporate this knowledge into existing knowledged and hence, adjust the theory. After all, this is the purpose of theory....constantly changing and adjusted until non-negotiable truth emerges (if any). Further, this find is speculated to be Homo Sapien....not proven yet. Amazing, all this knee-jerk reactions....

      lmduplessis - 2010-12-28 23:13

      Unfortunately, what i'm beginning to suspect is that Creationists argue so vehemantly against Evolution and similar theories is the fact that scientists are constantly changing and refining their theories, and the fact that someone can base their sphere of beliefs in a constantly shifting and changing knowledge base must seem an affront, an abomination, a complete horror to them. They feel superior for believing in what they claim to be an "absolute incorruptable, unshiftable fact which no-one can argue against since argueing against it only proves it all the more (i HAVE actually head this from creationists out there, i'm still scratching my head about that one).

      ir8m8 - 2010-12-30 13:56

      u see it engages a debate of whether a mystical magician is actually out there, or whether we are actually the masters of our own disasters, if the former does not exists that essentially means that after 60-70 odd years, its all over and done, your conscience (soul) is extinguished. if it is the latter, then we are worse off them we were, because then we as the human race, have failed on every level and we are just a parasite. The human evil is collectively owned by the human race and we are responsible for it. Now imagine going up to a average family who do mostly everything by the book and telling them that they are partly responsible for Hitler's actions. Our society drives us to beleive in a higher powere because our society lacks the ability to handle responsibility for its actions.

  • Vernon - 2010-12-28 21:53

    People knock the Bible as rubbish, but if it was not for the Lord Jesus Christ, I would be dead by now. He said seek and ye shall find. I did, and found. I know he is faithfull and true, from experience. It has now been 37 years and my life becomes beter and beter everyday.

      Alfred - 2010-12-28 22:34

      Could you give us a bit more information. I would love to know how a two thousand year old zombie god myth managed to save your life.

      Siranne - 2010-12-28 23:24

      Oh grow up Alfred! Why knock what other people believe? Do you need to feel better about your insignificant life?

      william.botha - 2010-12-28 23:24

      Religion has shaped mankind for thousands of years and has resulted in the deaths of millions of people as a direct result of religious intolerance. Then on the extreme side we look at cult suicides. The scientific community do not kill each other if there is difference of opinion. Religion in my opinion will seize to exist as man progresses. If religion has had a positive effect on your life, so be it, but please understand that not all humans need religion in their lives. And looking at all the comments, I have noticed that the true scientists can co-exist with creationists, and we expect the same respect from creationists.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-29 09:00

      @ William.Botha "The scientific community do not kill each other if there is difference of opinion." Have you ever seen what competing scientists will attempt to do to each other in order to gain a prestigious tender position? :D But, in actual fact, I agree with the latter half of your statement. Educated human beings should be able to see compromise. To see reason. Religion is not evil anymore than Capitalism is evil. Educated individuals should here be able to see how the two spheres, science and evolution, need not be mutually exclusive. Under certain conditions, they most certainly are. But those conditions are, in my opinion, entirely unreasonable. @ Alfred The point is that Vernon believes that his life is better for his belief in his lord. That should be enough for you. There is no reason to drag your own name through the mud challenging his personal convictions, is there? He isn't hurting anyone. All he is saying is that for him, the bible held true. You could request that information with a little more sensitivity.

      141mat - 2010-12-29 09:26

      @William.Botha. And that whi i am giving you that respect, i for one will not bash your theories and your beliefs and respect you for respecting me. Thanks. @CTScientist. Thank you, you really do show compassion and this should show christians and atheists alike that we can and SHOULD understand each other and in doing so could maybe even open a whole new branch in this debate. But again, thanks to both of you and all the others from both sides that are trying to keep calm and talk about this like adults.

      Irené - 2010-12-29 11:52

      good on you vernon. just you know, there are millions of christians whose lives do not improve ever, they suffer and suffer. Why isnt jesus good to them?? Must they still learn a lesson?? Glad god sees you as one of huis special projects.

      ir8m8 - 2010-12-30 14:00

      u see my story is exactly the opposite, as i get older i have endeared to find the man, i have found more and more evidence in archiology and science to tell me that he/she/it cannot exist, i am happy for you, but cannot share your joy.

  • TruthSeeka - 2010-12-28 22:48

    Last time I checked it was still the Theory of Evolution..not FACT!..Study the eye and you will believe in a creator

      Alfred - 2010-12-28 23:12

      its also called the theory of gravity or how about the atomic theory, ave you perhaps heard of the heliocentric theory. I suppose you think those theories also lack evidence and are just futher examples of the ignorance of scientists and if you want to know about science speek to priests. You ignorance of science and what a scientific THEORY is, is depressing. Like the man said "best to say nothing and possibly appear an idiot then say something and remove all doubt!!"

      craigkaos - 2010-12-29 00:22

      If you took the time to read a dictionary to start with you will know that that a scientific theory and 'layman' theory have two distinct and separate meanings. Typifies the literalist ignorance that still plagues our society today.

      FrankLee - 2010-12-29 08:43

      @Alfred: The theories you mentioned are all in the realm of operational science. That means that in the here and now we can go and observe, test, verify and falsify them repeatedly. Not so with the theory of evolution which lives in the realm of historic or forensic science. One can only go and make claims and then try to substantiate those claims by making even more assumptions. One cannot go back in history to observe, test, verify or falsify repeatedly. Now since the theory of evolution fails on those accounts, one should seriously question as to whether it's scientific at all. One can only explore it on the grounds of an a-priori philosophical decision: There is not God.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-29 09:07

      The point that Alfred and Craigkaos are making here, I think, is that in the scientific community there is no such thing as a fact. In a discipline where we are always pushing the boundaries and questioning our own knowledge, a fact is nothing more than wall to be broken apart by the apparatus of the scientific method. All we know is that we know nothing, as Socrates would say. This is why we have theories which differ from the lay definition of a theory. Why a hypothesis and theory do not mean the same things. Why the method has so many stages. Why whatever is published has to go through so many peer reviews. Because it is a courageous discipline that seeks to question everything and accept nothing with only a method at its disposal. Just think how difficult it was for the very first scientists, in Catholic Europe, to question the authority of the Vatican? What courage. Please don't attack science for asking questions and refusing to assume a mantle of hegemony. It just isn't fair.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-29 09:25

      @ FrankLee This is where, I think, you are wrong. You've just pointed out that "the theory of evolution [which] lives in the realm of historic or forensic science." Explain the relationship between sickle cell anemia and malaria please? Explain the genetic evidence which is used to consider the Eve Hypothesis? Explain the relationship between human beings and the ever changing common cold? And, worst of all, you say that "one can only explore it [evolution] on the grounds of an a-priori philosophical decision: There is no[t] God." This I have to argue vehemently against. I, sir, doth protest! Countless threads I have seen you comment in. And you seem ready to ignore such protests. Firstly, a prior means to know without experience. I really doubt you are going to find any psychologists who are ready to stand with you to say that a baby is born knowing your specific god. Secondly, I think you too easily throw scientific theories together. I do not. The Big Bang does not magically = Evolution. As has already been said, Evolution is the *mechanism* by which we seek to address/explain/consider change through time. It is NOT and NEVER has been a mechanism to explain how life began. That is not what evolution does. We discuss change, adaption, mutations, etc, but we never discuss the origin of life. So your assumption that we, as scientists, make assumptions, is false. PLEASE, for the love of the atom, do not marry theories carelessly. I wouldn't marry religions carelessly.

      TruthSeeka - 2010-12-29 11:29

      Alfred..If that is the very easily depressed. Google is a wonderful should put your statement to the test..while you at it..let some of your elders know you sitting on the internet unsupervised trying very hard to look smart...but really contributing shit.

      ir8m8 - 2010-12-30 14:05

      And again, where is there reference to any fact in the bible that heralds a god, or that Jesus was the mesiah, or that Mary magdelene (the Feminine god) was actually a whore...your very argument can be turned against you, for the facts in the bible are merely historical facts, there are still no empirical evidence that there is a god or a messiah walked this earth. Jesus is still contended in many spheres as a man, nothing more, nothing less.

  • craigkaos - 2010-12-29 01:28

    Again a few old bones have the uptight creationist bandwagonners striking at the first opportunity, wholly threatened by scientific advancement and human enlightenment. Evolution is not a religion or a belief system requiring faith. It does not profess to be the saving of mankind nor need evangelical pleas for membership. The facts are freely available to all. Evolution is a measurable dynamic process happening all around us, and ably supported by the sciences of history, cosmology, geology, archeology, biology, physics and chemistry. Denying evolution, and effectively biology, is ignorant enough, but denying all of the supporting sciences is simply deluded. It is unbelievable that we have this argument in the 21st century, and 150 years after Darwin did no more than make simple observations with respect to obvious processes that have, and always will be, part of the fabric of living organisms on this planet.

      Alfred - 2010-12-29 07:15

      Well written.

  • Spyker - 2010-12-29 02:38

    OOOOOHHHHHH YEEEEESSSS --- this may just become shear entertainment!!! I _ C A N N O T _ W A I T _ !!! Oops, so we are ALL from Africa..? Silly teeth, wandering soo far off track and soo far back in time..! Better make sure it is old iniquitous Neanderthal again - dropping his false teeth. We do not want to upset the entire lefty empire now do we... PS - I cannot see that we have yet the foggiest idea where we come from, but guaranteed, as we move closer – the more uncomfortable it is going to become...

      Alfred - 2010-12-29 07:11

      Right now the evidence points to Homo Sapiens emerging in Africa but that could change. Science does not attach any significance to where humans first emerged. In the big picture its actually irrelevant. Its only sniveling little hardcore racists that would react with glee at the mere mention that maybe Homo Sapiens emerged somewhere else.

      Spyker - 2010-12-29 11:35

      Alfred, What do you call the kind of stereotype that always stereotypes others..? The substratum of science is emotional detachment. Foremost it contains the knee’s coordinates within narrow confines during transients. Pertinently it offers 20:20 to eliminate the “white noise”. As such, my dear Alfred E. Neuman, you did not merely fail, you managed a grand ZERO... You see bru, in this case the “white noise” literally- and laterally tanked you in the bane of your own ‘Black Hole’, of overwhelming gravity that is ‘Circular Reasoning’. If I did indeed present hilarity, it was by no measure scientific – as such you would have gauged, bar your knee’s unrestrained extravaganza, rendering all your faculties of reason instantly incapacitated. Mine was instead a shimmering parallel skimming the surface of the lowest known form of life – the “governing politician”. The regional extant subspecies of the aforementioned is a particularly peculiar paleolithic anomaly. Taxonomically homo sapien is separated from the genus of bipedal primates, by a developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, introspection, and problem solving – no such traits are evident in the above-mentioned stratum... I must express though gratitude for the entertainment provided by tour introductory sentence – a dog chasing his tail would have frozen in awe... In parting shall I quote some indiscriminate wisdom "best to say nothing and possibly appear an idiot then(sic) say something and remove all doubt!!"

      Alfred - 2010-12-29 12:09


      Spyker - 2010-12-29 13:26

      My point exactly...

      Mike - 2010-12-29 14:08

      Sunshine as amusing as your overtly verbose ramble is, unfortunately it is largely devoid of any point beyond being a public display of you stroking your own dillusional ego. But far be it from me to chastize you for playing with yourself....

      Alfred - 2010-12-29 16:41

      @Mike Brilliant

      Spyker - 2010-12-29 21:51

      Mike, Your lack of Couth in no way compensates for your lack of Comprehension.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 09:15

      @ Spyker Do you honestly think that if you cover sewerage with roses that it'll stay swelling like roses forever? There is nothing in your statement to Alfred that contributes to a point other than an attempt to verbally attack yet another News24 member. I have yet to see you attempt to make any significant and positive contribution to this thread. Each and every post has been negative. And in the larger schemes of geological deep time, utterly devoid of use.

  • Colin - 2010-12-29 08:12

    Yeah pragmatist...From the dust and from a rib.... Hey, somehow that alien theory is seeming more plausible...

  • FrankLee - 2010-12-29 08:29

    We're still playing the old game: My fossil is older than yours.

  • FrankLee - 2010-12-29 08:37

    The theory of evolution sounds incredibly just like a fairytale. If you take things to the logical conclusion it works like this: Since the theory denies that God made everything alive more of less the way we find them now, it actually denies there is a God. So if there is no God, then everything made itself - right from the Big Bang on. And big bang started from a singularity - which strangely enough is a thermodynamic dead end given the known laws of physics. Nothing can arise out of that singularity all by itself and yet here we are!!! How wonderful! How marvelous! How absolutely fantastic! Something from NOTHING! If you want to argue that big bang and evolution have no connection then maybe you should go and do some serious introspection as to just what it is you believe. By the way, if evolutionists do not know where life comes from, just HOW ON EARTH do they know that it didn't get here in the forms we observe currently, without having gone thru the so-called evolutionary process? They don't. But because they don't believe God created it either, they are stuck having to have something from nothing. Fabulous.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-29 09:33

      @ FrankLee Please address the threads in which you've already posted comments. You should really answer the questions posed to you, or the comments posed to you, as you seem all to ready to pose comments and questions to others. Almost nothing you have said in this comment has not already been said by yourself above. And these have all been engaged with. Please join us. And as an afterthought, to be honest, scientific theories do you deny that a single god or multiple gods made everything. Science cannot deny any god. Science merely refrains from considering gods. As there are logical reasons to refrain from using gods. "If you want to argue that big bang and evolution have no connection then maybe you should go and do some serious introspection as to just what it is you believe." No one is saying that there is *no* connection. There may be. Certainly there are proponents who support just such a connection. But it is not the only possible connection. What we are saying is that it is unfair to assume that there is an *absolute* connection. And that all evolutionary science *must* be judged upon such a hypothetical connection is unfair. All other points in this post has been addressed elsewhere, as you've brought them up. Continue the debate there.

      Alfred - 2010-12-29 10:52

      FrankLee And your god game from......? By the way the god that you worship is a mass murdering, genocidal, tyrannical, maniac with a massive inferiority complex. Actually genocide does not adequately describe your gods' crimes. It murdered by drowning every single human on the planet that includes women children, infants, babies and fetuses (which you christians find so very precious). By the way if your claimed god is omnipotent then this universe has turned out exactly as your god wanted so every mind blowing cruelty observed is the product of your god. If the universe is not exactly like your god planed then your god is not omnipotent but I doubt you have the intelligence to follow that logic. And what about the less pleasant life like leprosy and the thousands of pathogens that contribute to massive human suffering. I suppose they evolved or is your god a twisted sadist that makes Hitler look like a boy scout. Also I would love to hear about your theory on your gods motivation for creating this entire universe. Was it bored, did it need entertainment? Are you just a bit player in your gods 6.8 billion actor soap opera? I can image that after existing for infinite time one would get a little bored. And another thing the average male human ejaculation consists of 300 000 000 sperm cells, what kind of a so called intelligent designer would create such a ridiculously inefficient system? And another, this entire universe is over 13 billion light years across with trillions upon trillions of stars and all this just to make humans?

      Irené - 2010-12-29 11:55

      Ive told you before Frenklee, as a creationist you hgave no right to call evolution fairy tales!! Only fairy tale is about your psycotic creator who was fine with slavery, genocide and incest. no one ever said something came from nothing! thats not evolution. Go and read up on evolution before you go and comment on the science and technology page. You making yourself sound like an ass.

      Irené - 2010-12-29 11:55

      big up alfred!!

      Mike - 2010-12-29 12:05

      Frank without entertaining your delusions too much you need to bear in mind that prom a scientific perspective the concept of "nothing" is a white elephant. We are but at the cusp of discovering dark matter and dark energy (And no just because the term "dark" ius used does not mean its the work of the devil) and as for the concept of a singularity I invite you to read up on quantum entangelment theory before further embarrasing yourself. "[Entanglement] is not one, but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought." —Schrödinger, E.

      Educated - 2010-12-29 15:17

      Yeah, the talking snake, immaculate conception, people made from sand and the jewish zombie all make much more sense than that silly proven and calculated science stuff, hey FrankLee? If ignorance really is bliss then you, my friend, must be in heaven.

      orionangel - 2010-12-30 15:27

      @ FrankLee: You claim that the theory of evolution denies the existence of God because it denies that God made all things exactly as they are, but who says God didn't create things that are meant to evolve into bigger better things...? And please, for the love of all that is holy, do not quote that book at me.

  • 141mat - 2010-12-29 09:37

    This seems to be the best creation vs evolution debate i have ever seen. I see a few 'mal' guys but for the most part things have gone pretty smoothly. This is how we should be talking about these topics. Thanks.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-29 09:49

      I have to agree with you, 141mat. Most of these debates on this topic on News24 spiral out of control and before you're half way down the page you've seen more hate than you care to admit. There are so many paths forward in life. We should try to pick our own and not give into the bigotry that is all around us. We can all learn from each other. We can teach each other just a little bit more about topics that we may not be so familiar with. Heck... if my comments just make one person pick up a book about evolution and give it a fair shot, then I'll be happier. Because I think we don't want to be ignorant. We want to learn. But we don't want to learn in an inhospitable environment. And I'd like the religious individuals to know that evolution is not an inhospitable environment. That it is not the "Great Enemy". And equally, that Scientists do not claim to know everything. That, as Scientists, we do not claim to know whether your personal god or pantheon of gods exist or not. We search for so much, and half the time we just don't know what we'll find until we do.

      william.botha - 2010-12-29 10:22

      You're welcome and thank you too for being civil about this.

      141mat - 2010-12-29 11:34

      I have to laugh at the whole "great enemy" concept, so completely ignorent. Humans are exactly that, humans. We all want our voices to be heard and understood regadless of creed, colour or faith, and i think topics like this force us out of our comfort zones and that can never be bad. One thing i hope Christians can take from Scientists is your open mind and your ability to adapt and learn. If you look at the history of Christianity (not the bad stuff) you will find that even Christianity has adapted and changed (google the toronto blessing, very interesting read for thise that can handle it). I am what one would call (i do not really like calling myself anything as it puts me in a box) a charasmatic christian (the happy clappy) and one thing that i find is that we are more a new age kind of Christianity that has this open mind in general. And you will also find that this mind set is sweeping and infiltrating every denomination around the world. Cristianity is changing and most will see it soon. Peace guys and thanks again. Please note, not all christians are like me, but they do exist and not as few as one may think. Happy new years guys. Peace.

      141mat - 2010-12-29 11:39

      Just an after thought. Science is the process of trying to find and explain Gods hand in action. Bro I love science and i love my God. These are just my thoughts. I could go on and prove to you that there are things in the bible that we do not know about eg. Enoch, how was God warning when he gave Cain that marking (assuming it happened of course).

      141mat - 2010-12-29 12:00

      Holy moly, i did not know that a South African preacher was involved with the toronto blessing. Cool beans man.

      Spyker - 2010-12-29 14:54

      CTScient..., Verbal masturbation, as indeed its physical cousin, leaves you with only two tangibles – (1) a rigid statuette serving no more than solitary admiration, (2) the spillage of precious biological matter missing its evolutionary intent by the absolute measure... Debate per definition is “opposing points”. How then can we claim ANY scientific interpretation if we conveniently (or otherwise) limit the spectrum of inputs – eg the ‘141...’ character calling it “...things have gone pretty smoothly...”. It is a travesty of reasoning with few equals... This obsession with what is perceived as ‘pleasing’ has created a world of political correctness that has painted itself into a corner. We have even gone as far as formalising the insanity by calling it “Emotional Intelligence”. Paradox par excellence..! We have not yet grasped the entry level principles of reasoning – yet it is 2300 years old, viz Aristotle. Should we then still be surprised we created a world of entirely self-induced exile, let alone solve the matter of our own origins... Ayn Rand demonstrated (yet again) app 60 years ago - mathematical verities can be solved by models of reasoning. Are we then surprised kids hate maths – they have no meaningful connection with it. It is only the class-freaks who stick it out... The deductive thread from the leading article had vanished so overwhelmingly (by the first comments already) - there is even a “mad hatter” below, following us with his doggy’s poop scoop...

      Spyker - 2010-12-29 14:55

      CTS........., With the benefit of even a peripheral inkling of the concept/s of reasoning, one would be stumped by the shear lack of substance here. It does not even serve to insult ‘shear, utter, reckless bullsh*t’ – including, with respect, the superfluous BS you have so uninhibitedly spilled (as per the leading ‘biological-matter’ parallel – to keep things simple, ie I will provide the toy with the battery...). So sadly, in my case, your aspirations of “...just make one person pick up a book about evolution...”, yours had rather inspired me to offer my library as fuel for a New Years ritual of fire, raw meat, inebriated indulgence and if I am lucky my girlfriend will allow me, at least not to present certain precious biological matter, to the surrounding atmosphere... Kindly take a short course on the much vaunted subject of “Logic, Reasoning and such matters”. Man, we are in desperate need of some f*cken critical mass here...

      CTScientist - 2010-12-29 18:19

      @ Spyker I'm glad you could find a single definition of debate. However, there are multiple variations on the definition. Nonetheless, there don't always have to be opposing view points. A debate can be around an issue or a single point. Implying a lack of being situated within directly oppositional camps. In any regard.. what you are so skillfully referring to is, no doubt, concerned with what Dawkins calls the "religious apologist". At least credit the man with his ideas. But I do have to disagree with almost everything you've said. Only for two reasons. First, this thread has actually allowed for engagement of an issue that is well known for its ability to reduce human beings to the most aggressive creatures on Earth. This aggression usually being directed at each other. Secondly, you don't have any evidence to back up anything you've so brilliantly pointed out. A few examples: "This obsession with what is perceived as ‘pleasing’ has created a world of political correctness that has painted itself into a corner." "The deductive thread from the leading article had vanished so overwhelmingly there is even a “mad hatter” below, following us with his doggy’s poop scoop..." I am sure that since you've attended a few philosophy courses yourself, you'll remember that any well defined argument should always put forward evidence to support claims. Since you hold in high regard a need for "logic, reasoning, and such matters" I'd suggest you follow your own advice.

      Alfred - 2010-12-29 18:55

      @styker Ayn Rand? Okay that explains it, you're an Objectivist, the main philosophy of the Project for the New American Century and the neo cons, like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, George Bush and the rest of those shining luminaries of human intellect. The question is; why does someone with your delusions of superiority defile their obviously far superior intellect by stooping so low as to bother reading and commenting on this site. With your pretentious, pompous overblown, verbose, condescending postings you are desperately trying to compensate, by overcompensating, for the intellectual reputation of your fellow rightwing peers. Say hi to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck for me.

      wartmonger - 2010-12-30 02:56

      @ctscientist nicely put.we can only truely live harmoneously if we avoid bigotry

  • Mad Hatter - 2010-12-29 11:19

    Just a thought : take a look at that mongrel you call your pet dog (chiwawa ect) , that thing would never survive in the wild but through multiple generations of selected breeding (eugenics of sorts), the result is that cute but absurdly impracticle dog you call 'whatever' . This breeding to enhance specific attributes of a breed can be seen as artifical evolution , now nature doesn't care about looks or personality but survival ,the animal with specific attributes which increase the chance of survival and procreation in a changing environment will pass on those specific attributes just like little 'whatever' . Now extend that process over a period of a few billion years (an inconceivably long time) and you come up with some interesting crreatures especially the hairless bipedal monkey who believes traits are carried over generations but refuses to see the logical evidense of extrapulating this notion further .

      Mike - 2010-12-29 11:34

      Susinctly put!! Incadentally, as a short term example, if you take any two dog breeds (I.E. a bulldog and a great dane) and cross them, then cross the crosses and so forth (without interbreading!!) withing 8 generations of crossing the grosses you will arive at a greyhound/whippet type dog. (One would need 16dogs of each breed to do so successfully) This susbtantiates the theory that the greyhound/whippet is the base dog archetype, with all other species being a result of selective breeding.

  • Mike - 2010-12-29 11:21

    @ Franklee.. Look Frank, you sadly are an imbecile. The majority of participants here are engaged in an adult discussion, whilst you sir are argueing like a child. Proving one aspect of a persons statement to be incorrect does not vicariously validate your arguement. If you had once ounce of faith in your paltry ramblings you would be able to follow up on the responses to your pseudo-intellectual drivel. It just sadens me to see that as a man of faith living in this day and age that you cannot grasp that science and religion are not mutually exclusive concepts. I invite you to drop the holier than thou act, get off your soapbox and actually challenge your intellect for once. Or just keep poking your head in the sand...

  • TruthSeeka - 2010-12-29 11:44

    What if God created Evolution? This question gonna blow some fuses amongst the mushroom eaters and pagans. Everybody likes a position that is cemented....problem is we humans know jack. Truth gets revealed on the last breath. 70 years not too long to wait. But use it wisely and go through this period as a traveller. You cannot afford to gamble everything on one position. If you feel a god that needs to come through a womans birth canal to save mankind from a devil he created doesnt make sense..then venture on. Only a fool believes he knows everything.

      Irené - 2010-12-29 11:59

      then your bible is highly inaccurate and deceiving. Theres no fence sitting in this debate, not that evolution is proof of no god.

      TruthSeeka - 2010-12-29 12:10

      Got your badge waiting for you..Irene

      Maverick - 2010-12-29 14:20

      In my opinion Evolution is the means and God is the reason/initiator. That is why it is so difficult to marry the two, no reason why both cannot be believed in? Funny how the ones most intolerant of the others beliefs manage to be the least civil. I think it has something to do with IQ

      Maverick - 2010-12-29 14:27

      In my opinion Evolution is the means and God is the reason/initiator. That is why it is so difficult to marry the two, no reason why both cannot be believed in?

      TruthSeeka - 2010-12-29 15:48

      Maverick..I agree..Heres a list for you to recap: African Slave Trade: 10 million lives Colonial Wars: 20 million Crusades 1 and 2: Take a wild one on this one Christian Hitler: Go for for it..take a number South Africa Apartheid: Yip Yip Yip Google is a wonderful tool, also has online IQ tests!

  • v3 - 2010-12-29 12:40

    Loren, you got it wrong. The fundamentalists (anti-evolutionists) keep saying "where's the proof? where's the missing link?" Now these archaeologists may have FOUND some proof. Read more, rather than showing your ignorance and bigotry. A good place to start is "Lucy" (Johanssen) which is a bit outdated but still describes the science behind paleo-archaeology as well as some of the findings.

      Alfred - 2010-12-29 13:25

      Yeah, that whole missing link canard is a disingenuous lie. Whenever a "missing link" that they claim disproves evolution is found, they then claim two missing links and if those are found then they claim four missing links. Because evolution is a continuous mostly gradual process, every fossil is a actually a 'missing link'.

      Loren - 2010-12-29 19:04

      I am not ignorant! I just dont believe in evolution!

      Alfred - 2010-12-29 19:23

      @Loren Well then, that leaves stupid.

  • Nonbeliever - 2010-12-29 13:57

    Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday dear Oldie, Happy birthday to you.

  • Maverick - 2010-12-29 14:15

    In my opinion Evolution is the means and God is the reason. That is why it is so difficult to marry the two, no reason why both cannot be believed in? Funny how the ones most intolerant of the others beliefs manage to be the least civil. I think it has something to do with IQ

      Spyker - 2010-12-29 18:55

      Yep Maverick, very insightful. Very smart, Well done, very clever... It is indeed IQ. It stands for the Intolerance Quotient...

  • cromagnon - 2010-12-29 14:16

    Ha! I think I should blog about this again! maybe tonight.... Evolution isn't magic, that is the beauty of it, it is like a river flowing and taking the best route to flow, not guided by intelligence but guided by natural forces. it is a process that allows the organism which reproduces the most successfull to survive. If it was magical I am sure woman whould have given birth easier, and still be fully bipedal. Hey, who knows? Evolution may have been God's biggesty truimph. About changing scientific theories all the time - science is the evaluation and rigorous testing of a theory in order to prove it incorrect, never to prove it correct. If you prove a theory wrong, than it is actually a good thing - you have more truth than you had before. I for one am very exited about these finds, since I had in incling that Homo sapien came from that region while I was studying Paleoanthropology, and compared different fossil dates with each other, locality etc.... One last thing, forget the word "The missing link" - it has lost all meaning due to articles abusing the original concept of the word.

  • KingKong - 2010-12-29 15:53

    Stupid cosmic zombie jew believers are gonna keep us in the god dam dark ages, we really should remove them in order for humanity to progress. You have to be a product of insects, handicapped or both to believe the world is 6000 years old and made by a guy on a cloud who watches our every move, IDIOTS!!!

      Alfred - 2010-12-29 16:58

      while considering myself as a fairly militant atheist, you scare me. You sound just like the fundamentalists that I point to, to deride religion.

  • Stanley - 2010-12-29 16:23

    "Modern" science cannot explain the X factor that creates life- they have the recipe but cant instill life to it. "modern" science finds new species of insects and mammals every day on our very own planet yet arrogantly claim to know how the whole wide universe was created..... to all those who reject the idea of God basing their argument on "modern" science- thats one hell of a big risk to take considering "modern" science hasnt even scratched the surface.... show me one athiest scientist who can create a living form (not clone Gods work- create it with science)- even a single simple cell that lives.....

      Spyker - 2010-12-29 18:45

      Stanley, Sigh.., Not only [quote] "Modern" science cannot explain the X factor that creates life [unquote] – in fact no f*cking science can explain it. Rather frustratingly so... You see, it is a bit like two kids watching a ventriloquist – they both know something is not quite right, but they cannot explain it. The one kid will accept it, make up a fairy tale and will live happily ever after. He is the good kid, he does not annoy anyone – he has everything going his way – eg the little boxes on the hillside... The other kid is the problem child; he will ask annoying-, probing questions. He will irritate everybody and often spends afternoons writing repetitive messages on the black board. He makes silly guesses (he calls them theories) and they are more often wrong than right. Stanley, most kindly enlighten us: who of the two kids has the better chance of finding out that Achmed is the Dead Terrorist..?

      Alfred - 2010-12-29 19:47

      @spyker actually you forgot about the third kid, the intelligent kid, the one that investigates, collects data, takes measurements and lets the evidence lead him to a conclusion which he and his other bright friends then rigorously test finally arriving at the talk in the throat and misdirect theory which he then demonstrates. So mister spyker which do think is the superior method, the fairytales, the blind speculation or the scientific method. Your silly little post actually suggests that flat earth and/or geocentricity is equal to heliocentricity. Yes the scientific method is superior at explaining the workings of nature, the computer you are using and the electricity that it runs on, should make that self evident to anyone with more than candy floss and bling intelligence.then rigorisly test finally arriving at the talk in his throat and misdirect theory which he then demonstates. So mister spyker which do think is the superior method, the fairytales and the blind spectulation or the scientific method. You silly little post actually sugests that flat earth and/or geocentrisity is equal to heleocentrisity. Yes the scientific method is superior at explaining the workings of nature, the computer you are using and the electrisity that it runs should make that self evident to anyone with more than candy floss intelligence.

      Alfred - 2010-12-29 19:55

      While I often make cockups the above flawed post is not my fault. So I will post again and hope for the best. @spyker actually you forgot about the third kid, the intelligent kid, the one that investigates, collects data, takes measurements and lets the evidence lead him to a conclusion which he and his other bright friends then rigorously test finally arriving at the talk in the throat and misdirect theory which he then demonstrates. So mister spyker which do think is the superior method, the fairytales, the blind speculation or the scientific method. Your silly little post actually suggests that flat earth and/or geocentricity is equal to heliocentricity. Yes the scientific method is superior at explaining the workings of nature, the computer you are using and the electricity that it runs on, should make that self evident to anyone with more than candy floss and bling intelligence.

      Spyker - 2010-12-29 22:27

      Alfred E. Neuman, As before – keep it up bru, you provide consummate entertainment...

      Limpopoist - 2010-12-30 09:27

      To my understanding ,science is after what God have created,the only thing that scientist cannot understand is breathing mechanism in human being,OR else they will be creating their own people.

  • Irené - 2010-12-29 16:33

    @ lean- WTF Your attacks are irrelevant and childish. I think you're a troll because you are writting on behalf of both sides, just depending on who you want to annoy. Sad really. Did you even read any of the arguments before attacking?

      Mike - 2010-12-29 19:24

      Lean you sir are the single most valid arguement for the promotion of cannibalism i have ever encountered! And they say lean meat is good for you too...

  • Loren - 2010-12-29 18:58

    @ "alsitrader" Religion is not part of my argument. The idea of evolution is extremely faulty though! I believe in evolution in the form of adaptation & mutation, but the idea that all life forms originated from one unicellular organism is crap! All or most living things are able to adapt in order to survive & thrive in various conditions. However, they cannot change what they are! It has been said that only a small percentage of species that have existed roam the earth today. That could then mean that all these "missing links" which have been discovered existed at the same time as those which exist today. Survival of the fittest - what we see running around today is the strongest of what there ever was!

      Alfred - 2010-12-29 20:05

      @Loren make that stupid and ignorant. You need to read just one book on evolution before you can claim to know more about biology than the entire scientific community. I suggest the Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins even though I know there is virtually no chance of you actually reading it. And I thought that the only thing that could make people that dumb was religion.

      Spyker - 2010-12-30 03:01

      Loren, The quality of reasoning of the comments, in response to the very rudimentary précis that was the leading article, is indicative of the logical fallacy that has become the societal norm. We offer circular reasoning in a complete cognitive void and yet if you point it out in a somewhat flippant manner, even the benevolent scientist suddenly grows unsightly incisors and growls like a savage. I have said it before and have suggested it formally – words like “evolution”, “survival of the fittest” have found their way into popular culture – these are not only misleading, the terms are frankly WRONG..! The language used for everyday communication is not well suited for scientific purposes – eg you do not take a shopping trolley and attempt a Formula 1 race. Not merely the words per se, but the entire construct of everyday language are wholly inadequate in many disciplines. For this reason, we have developed languages like (eg) mathematics that lends structure to notions so ‘abstract’, it is inconceivable that it will ever be translated into pub-talk... In many ways the language “barrier” has resulted in the wholesale misinterpretation of the path life has followed. With respect - including the bane of the creationists... Very briefly: The dinosaurs present a unique case study. Eg for the ‘creationists’ argument – were the dino’s a bit of a mishap in the iteration, so the ‘higher hand’ killed off his silly little mistake..? I don’t think so...

      Spyker - 2010-12-30 03:07

      Was it not for a freak event – as the more plausible offering suggests – perhaps let your mind momentarily free and imagine what incredible beings could have walked the earth, viz if the dino’s did not disappear virtually overnight. Let us be honest, Noah is not the smoking gun (sober or otherwise), nor a single epic global flood - get real...! So no, ‘survival of the fittest’ it is not; and certainly not as it is in the Rambo movies... In fact I am busy writing a book called “Survival of the Unfittest” – in my little mind, not an entirely implausible derivative. As such, I think the perceived “fittest” are in many ways as vulnerable as the other end of the spectrum. In any event, the doctrine that has become our perception of ‘evolution’, is somewhat flawed. Re your sweeping dismissal of complex cellular constructs following a deep time path across more elementary constructs. Perhaps thinks again. Just consider the postulation of both you and I being the product of rather simple cells and we “evolved” remarkably quickly. The above is merely a postulation, but it serves the notion, what is perceived as “basic” cells, may not be so basic... The information locked in (eg) viruses (albeit not just cell/s, more like a strand of DNA/RNA, etc – it is still very small), in bacteria (highly adaptive forms of live), etc – viz we do not even begin to understand what we are dealing with... Again, its the Soap-opera language that is creating many misconceptions...

      FrankLee - 2010-12-30 08:19

      @SPYKER : "we do not even begin to understand what we are dealing with... " You do not understand it all yet you ( and all evolutionists alike ) can make the pronouncement that you KNOW that evolution is true. I take it you've already figured out just how a one cell can become a multi-cellular organism. You must please enlighten us because from the latest research papers around not one of the top and highly involved researchers make any claim of understanding just how that happened. There are just so many incredible obstacles to be overcome that they are languishing around in frustration. So let us not even go and ask how arteries evolved. Or blood which by the way needs an irreducible complex system for clotting at an open wound - and NOT clotting whilst in normal flow. How did the blood vessels learn to respond to stimulation to constrict or dilate, seeing that those commands originate somewhere completely removed from them? How did the body get along without a brain or a brain without it's blood supply? Did it all evolve together as a system? That would be the greatest miracle of all. It's quite clear you cannot have one smart bit evolve separately from the other - they all have to be in place at once. Oh, before you dismiss the irreducibly complex argument - go back and explain how a unicellular organism changes into a multi-cellular one. Please.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 09:28

      @ Spyker "I have said it before and have suggested it formally – words like “evolution”, “survival of the fittest” have found their way into popular culture – these are not only misleading, the terms are frankly WRONG..!" All academia, not just that which is drawn from the sciences, eventually find their way into popular culture. Especially when most graduates move from the academic world into the working world, inhabiting positions (often, but not always) of higher social, political and real value. We only have to look at words such as 'culture', 'savage', 'tribe', or 'diaspora' to see examples. "The language used for everyday communication is not well suited for scientific purposes – eg you do not take a shopping trolley and attempt a Formula 1 race. Not merely the words per se, but the entire construct of everyday language are wholly inadequate in many disciplines." The problem here is that academia often does not take the time, nor has the patience, to come down from the Ivory Tower and explain these terms sufficiently to lay individuals. Instead, they merely criticize from lofty heights that the plebeians know not of what they speak. And yet that is what discussions as these try to do. They try to break apart the argument, reduce the hostility, and perhaps provide small bits of information that can ensure some increased understanding or tolerance. Especially when such discussions usually boil over into naught more than intolerance. Intolerance is as guilty a party.

      Spyker - 2010-12-30 12:07

      CTS.., As is empty deductions, generalisations and typecasting... PR does not tend to have a natural affinity with being portrayed as the goat holding the horned hand.

      Spyker - 2010-12-30 12:31

      PrankLee, If somebody says “mathematics is boring because it is tedious and not very interesting” - it is called circular reasoning. Enjoy new-year and take it easy on the sins of the flesh...

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 12:33

      @ Spyker "As is empty deductions, generalisations and typecasting... " Agreed. Examples drawn from this thread please?

      Spyker - 2010-12-30 17:10

      With pleasure dude – in fact I do not have to venture much further than your leading post... In ea case = cause : effect, “Intolerance is as guilty a party” : empty deductions, generalisations and typecasting “Especially when such discussions usually boil over into naught more than intolerance.” : empty deductions, generalisations and typecasting “problem here is that academia often does not take the time” : generalisations “nor has the patience” empty deductions, generalisations “to come down from the Ivory Tower” : generalisations and typecasting “Instead, they merely criticize from lofty heights” : generalisations and typecasting “the plebeians know not of what they speak “ : empty deductions Shall I carry on..? I suspect you get my drift... If not ask the nearest plebeian. PS – allow me to add ‘pretentiousness’ to my short list.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 18:17

      @ Spyker You at least have to break down an entire argument before calling the conclusion "empty deductions, generalisations and typecasting". But this doesn't matter. I agree. Generalizations aplenty, based on experience of the Ivory Tower. But as for the rest, we could honestly break down every single sentence in any of your own posts to come to the same conclusions. If you want to be that picky about it. Because, believe it or not, I doubt you would find a strong philosophical argument anywhere on News24. But you already knew that. "The quality of reasoning of the comments, in response to the very rudimentary précis that was the leading article, is indicative of the logical fallacy that has become the societal norm." <--- Generalization "We offer circular reasoning in a complete cognitive void and yet if you point it out in a somewhat flippant manner, even the benevolent scientist suddenly grows unsightly incisors and growls like a savage." <--- Generalization "...words like “evolution”, “survival of the fittest” have found their way into popular culture – these are not only misleading, the terms are frankly WRONG..!" <---- claim unsupported by any evidence. Anywhere. Not that I could find, at least. In any regard. By all means. Add pretentious. I have no qualms about that tag, considering the posts I've made on this thread. Especially when we compare those to the quality of your repeated insults and lack of clear substance to the thread. ;)

  • darkwing - 2010-12-29 21:06

    What does the atheist scream at the point of orgasm? "Oh, my God delusion! Oh, my God delusion!"

  • runningman - 2010-12-29 23:50

    those that believe...only believe out of fear...

      FrankLee - 2010-12-30 08:07

      You can take it both ways. People fear begin castigated as idiots and flat-earthers, believers in fairytales and hence begin to believe in evolution. The fool said in his heart "There is no God". The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Time to wise up.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 09:30

      @FrankLee There is something very wrong that it is fear that begets wisdom, and not love. That it is fear which should guide you, instead of logic and reason. Because it is not fear that drives many to evolution. It is not fear that has driven many of us to search for alternative answers. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why your god is just not enough for those who have no fear?

      Plague - 2010-12-30 10:22

      Love that stems out of fear is the essence of sadomasochism

      Spyker - 2010-12-30 13:03

      PrankLee, With my very limited understanding of religion – in fact I profess to have zero understanding of religion – does afford me the opportunity to make observation without being tainted by any prior-learning. An arbitrary example - I have noticed that Christianity is today practiced in ways visibly different to 500 years, 1000 years ago, 1500 years ago... It would indeed be factually correct to say that in the last 2000 years, Christianity has branched into several ‘churches’, each changing as they went along. The same could be said about Islam, Moslem, Buddhism and many more. IS IT THEN POSSIBLE THAT RELIGION HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME..?

      Irené - 2010-12-30 13:50

      Shot Plague! Funny how chrostians confuse fear of eternal damnation witg love of an omnipotent god, just cant get my head around why a all loving god wants his children to burn because they question their existence. The christian god was made uo by man, that. Is why he has all the character flaws of man, angry jealous, sad, betrayed ag please people.

      FrankLee - 2010-12-30 14:27

      @CTScientist. Take the simmple case of a little child - the mother lovingly tells the small one to not touch the hot stove. The child refuses to listen to wisdom and goes ahead and touches the hot plate with her bare hand and gets burned. The searing pain thereafter instill a fear that reflects the new wisdom gained. She could have avoided that pain and suffering if she "feared" her mother's words of loving wisdom. God has told us things which we do not have any clue about: Hell, everlasting fire and gnashing of teeth. You can either respect [read "fear"] that or you can go ahead and experience it yourself. People are pushing God away when He's lovingly reaching out time after time, calling to you. But when God finally stops calling and leaves you to your own devices, the only destination you'll have is Hell. Hell is separation from Him who IS love forever and ever. You can choose - fear the words of God warning you about that separation or you can experience it for yourself - too late to turn back.

      Irené - 2010-12-30 15:16

      @ franklee, what i dont understand is if you live in south africa i am sure youve seen your fair share of suffering, millions and millions of people in just one country who suffer daily, go without food, medical care or education. Nevermind the rest of the world, or all the horrific things done to animals. Do you think god uses them as devices to teach the rest of us something, or have they sinned and now they must suffer? Be ause i know many good chrstians who suffer because of the world and life, and not because of a fear mongering god. Your argument is one dimensional and may apply to you, but not 98% of other people. I hate these lame analogies that compare god to a strict parent who just cares, open your window look outside, if there was a omnipotent god, he wouldnt be causinf so much suffering in the world. It unbelievable that people can be so naive.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 15:31

      @ FrankLee I think we can both agree on the example you've used, but we will disagree on the interpretation. Because that is what we are going to do here. We are providing an interpretation for what we think the child is instilled with after refraining from listening to her mother. So after the child burns her hand, you say that the pain, and fear of future pain, instills in her some newfound wisdom. Which she could have avoided if she listened to her mother. Here your analogy falls apart. First off.. the mother could have been lying. The mother could have been wrong. How was the child to ever know lest she try for herself? Yes - in this instance - the mother was indeed right. But is it always so? And to compare this example with one of your god or jesus being right? With no visible evidence either way? A poor analogy, I think. I would further argue that the child could have come to the conclusions gained through burning her hand through other means. Through scientific inquiry, deductive inquiry, or logic. The child neither had to listen to her mother, nor had she to put her hand on the line, to attain pleasing results. That being said, the child could have attained results. Which is impossible when compared to the analogy of religion. Again.. I would just like to point out that I think the analogies do not fit very well and would request an analogy which supports your argument in line with religious cosmology.

      orionangel - 2010-12-30 15:43

      @ Plague:...... lmfao! That is too true:) And FrankLee, my Dear, what is with this "Time to Wise Up" thing? You sound like an angry school teacher. How can you live your life following a blind belief in a mythical being that you essentially fear? Are you telling me that your only reason for believing what you do is terror of being struck down or sent to hell like a naughty child for your sins?

  • Z.B. - 2010-12-30 11:15

    Almal regoor die wereld wat al die nonsense glo oor die evolusie teorie, glo nie in God nie. Die hele evolusie teorie is geskep deur die grootste bedrieer ooit, nl satan. Die Here het die heelal geskep, plus minus 6000 jaar terug, ek daag enige wetenskaplike uit om dit verkeerd te bewys. daar is geen bewyse vir die evolusie teorie nie. hoekom gee bobbejane dan nie meer vandag nog geboorte aan mens babbatjies nie? Die evolusie teorie is geskep deur satan, om ons kinders deurmekaar te maak, sodat hulle moet twyfel aan God. Hoe groter die leun, hoe makliker glo mense dit. Z.B.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 11:43

      So Evolution as the Great Evil then..?

      Plague - 2010-12-30 12:04

      Dear Z.B., So is all scientists heretics and heathens or is it just biologists? So satan created a whole strand of science including genetics, molecular biology, microbiology, biochemistry etc - disciplines which has spawned numerous advantages for our civilization, including medical and technological, which has bettered and saved the lives of thousands of people - this is the work of satan? So what did god do for the world recently?? Your total and absolute ignorance of any information regarding any of the topics discussed here is astounding, you give me the distinct impression of someone who has not read a single argument against your position. Creationism and its disguised counterpart - intelligent design - has not only been debunked but also exposed and discarded judicially.

      Hello there - 2010-12-30 12:53

      So, ZB, what you're saying is that the reason so many people fall for the whole religion thing is that it's a lie ? Makes a lot of sense. To everyone who doesn't know, ZB gets 6000 years by going back through the various genealogies in Matthew which puts creation at about 6000 years ago. What he/she isn't saying is that 2000 after creation, the flood happened and reduced the population down to Noah, two sons, three women and possibly a car guard to help back out the ship from the parking lot. If this is the case, then in 4000 years time, considering the lifespan of stone age cave dwellers, how the f*ck can the population of earf be 6 billion ? And where the hell did all the water go and if seawater inundated all the fresh water rivers, why the hell are there still freshwater fish ? The point ZB, is that you can't prove that god exists and saying that it says so in the bible doesn't cut it. Your religion isn't even original. One your main talking points is "the blood of the lamb" which is stolen from Mithrasism whereby people converted to it had a lamb slaughtered and the blood poured over them. Saved by the lamb ? 12 disciples ? Mother a virgin ? Crucified between 2 thieves ? Raised from the dead after 3 days ? Yeah, done and dusted by Mithras long before christianity. Only insane people hear voices in their head. How the hell can anyone BEGIN to think they know what a timeless entity wants.

      Picasso - 2010-12-30 13:22

      "Hoe groter die leun, hoe makliker glo mense dit." Like christianity?

      Irené - 2010-12-30 13:43

      Oh ZB, dear ZB, Satan is not real, satan never fell out of the heaven, drilled a hole in the ground and set it alight to create hell. I do not expect you to open your mind to the truth, becuase you have a long way to go. But i ask you to reread your comment, and then go read some of e other comments on this page in favour of evolution. You sound like one of those bible bashingr hobos outside the mall shoutnig about the end opf time. Jys reg hoe groter die leun hoe makliker om dit te glo, daarom is christen dom die grootste geloof ,leun in die were,d. Jy daag die wetenskaplikes uit? Hulle het jou opinine oor en oor al verkeerd bewys, uh think dinosaurs, ancient artifcats, fossils, etc. Jy aan die anderkant het nie n enkele bewysstuk nie, net n boek oor n kwaai jaloerse bloedlustige god en fo**l proof. You might be suffering from a degenerative brain disease because your comment is plain dillusional and paranoid. PS satan made me write this too. Good thing there is an allmighty evil entityto blame for all the bad in the world

      FrankLee - 2010-12-30 14:11

      @Plague: "genetics, molecular biology, microbiology, biochemistry etc " Don't confuse the operational aspects of those fields with evolutionary theory. You can take molecules-to-man evolutionary theory and stick it into the dustbin and those fields will do just fine. People who hang onto evolution usually make excellent use of equivocation - saying one thing in one breath and meaning something else. That word evolution now means everything and anything the way it's being used by evolutionists. It now even means all of Science so if someone disagrees with the molecules-to-man evolutionary theory they're suddenly branded as not believing in Science. Same as calling someone a heretic that must be burned at the stake.

      Plague - 2010-12-30 14:41

      FrankLee, please try and refrain from making comments just the sake of commenting our sounding smart. The core of the natural science of biology is amongst other evolution, along with genetics, cell biology and homeostatis and more. You cant simply dismiss one part of a scientific discipline because you somehow don't like the implications of it on your belief-system - thats not the way science works. Molecular genetics and the genome project has not only sparked the most significant advances on several scientific disciplines and had a major impact on the medical sciences, but has also proved the original darwinian common descent theory to be 100% correct. You have to understand the scientific community would have discarded evolution in an instant if the DNA evidence suggested otherwise, but it only confirmed the inference. Synthetic life has been created successfully - this is old news, just google "Synthetic life"

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 15:35

      Well said, Plague

      orionangel - 2010-12-30 15:47

      Ai. This is the least rational comment I have seen to date. Z.B. you have ignored all prior arguments and have jumped to accusing science of being an abomination, basically. If Satan allowed us access to technology, science and the world of benefits it has offered us, I'm siding with him. But of course I won't because there is no such thing as Satan, just a half-formed concept meant to instill terror and thus belief.

  • ir8m8 - 2010-12-30 12:12

    @deon.botha1, your point is one of excellence but you dont seem to spread the judgement to Loren who insulted first, again it is that "pedastal complex" that seems to bother me in that bible punchers are allowed to insult anyone who does not beleive yet are not allowed to be insulted. Its gonna be a hell of a shock when some of us die and realise that its just dust after that.

      Irené - 2010-12-30 13:47

      Yeah why should we respect the religious crowed if they call us immoral and inferior. Not to mentioon threatening us with hell if we dont believe. Respect is a two way street, so until they start acting less selfrigtheous, i will maintain my stance towards them, tit for tat, as in the bible, hihi

  • Spyker - 2010-12-30 13:05

    My very limited understanding of religion – in fact I profess to have zero understanding of religion – does afford me the opportunity to make observation without being tainted by any prior-learning. An arbitrary example - I have noticed that Christianity is today practiced in ways visibly different to 500 years, 1000 years ago, 1500 years ago... It would indeed be factually correct to say that in the last 2000 years, Christianity has branched into several ‘churches’, each changing as they went along. The same could be said about Islam, Moslem, Buddhism and many more. IS IT THEN POSSIBLE THAT RELIGION HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME..?

      Hello there - 2010-12-30 13:53

      Mr Spike, yes. Festivus, a.k.a Christmas was not always celebrated in December. They also didn't always believe in god the father, son and holy spirit and it was only because of a vote at the second council on Nicea, that it is so now. Arian controversy I believe it is called. They change sh*t all the time. Before 1854, (mother) Mary wasn't even considered important. All of a sudden, they're talking about the immaculate conception which does NOT refer to Yeshua; it refers to the "vessel" that carried him and the only way he could be divine was if his mother was immaculately conceived. There's some other stuff about how he had to have been born in Bethlehem and had to have come from the line of David in order to fulfill the various prophecies and lay a valid claim to the title of messiah. He wasn't the only one by the way. The Sanhedrin would even listen to you and would take you seriously if you could prove some stuff. According to them, Yeshua couldn't prove his claim and that's why they brushed him aside. Anyway, all their various dogmas and behaviours and goody two-shoe wannabe tendencies comes from the bible. It is very easy to find tons of discrepancies that nullifies it as valid source material on which to base your life. It's BS, in other words. The old testament doesn't even apply to christians; it's Jewish history that provides an intro to the new testament. There aren't 10 commandments; there's 613 to be exact and they're called mitzvoh.

      FrankLee - 2010-12-30 13:57

      The accepted meaning of the word "evolve" is simply change. In that regard the religions of the world possibly did change as you observed. However, the one thing that remains constant is your need for a personal relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. You may know of him, you may believe in his existence but does HE know you? This is the question that will need to be answered at the end of time. Jesus said people will tell him how they cast out demons in his name but when the time comes he'll tell them "Away you, you evil doers, I don't know you!" That requirement hasn't changed. And I'll leave the question hanging - how does He get to know you?

      Irené - 2010-12-30 13:57


      Hello there - 2010-12-30 14:32

      Frank, but you can't prove that he exists. The only proof you have is the bible and that document is in question and thus, so must anything it espouses be. They change stuff in it all the time and when they do, they don't tell you about it. They were toying around with changing or "softening" genders in the bible ("and the lord said a man must do this" becomes "the lord said you must do this"). Your children or grandchildren will never know that it was changed and if it hadn't been spotted and people complained about it, it would have slipped into popular thinking. If they change even one thing, they could have changed two, or a hundred and you'd never know. The Protestant and Catholic bibles do not have the same number of books and who's to say that the bible that you're following is the correct one ? What if there's a book missing in yours that contains an important ritual or dogma or instruction and you aren't following it ? Doesn't that mean that not a true christian ? And how do you explain men deciding which books to include ? What if the Gospel of Yeshua (which exists by the way) talks about another form of god in the shape of a woman and it was left out because of the political climate of the day ? It is too easy to trash your source document.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 14:44

      @ Spyker You're talking about the meme theory here, yes? As first proposed by Dawkins in the Selfish Gene circa 1978? Styled upon but not the same processes as biological evolution to understand cultural transfer and/or change? It is enough to point out that biological and cultural "evolution" are not the same and thus the analogy is worthless.

      Irené - 2010-12-30 15:27

      @ franklee. So you think there is a dead guy who knows every single soul on earth, and he is waitih g to get to know us better, that must be exhausting, for someone who can throw together a lot of big words, you sure sound stupid. Show me some evidence today of where jesus christ affected your life, i am not talking about an unexplained incident or stroke of good lick, i want to see jesus visiting someone, personally to assist them in such a personal manner as peolle claim their relationship is with him. The thing is, jesus the person died long time ago, you was probably a significant person, or enlightened as they say, but he died, and having a relationshpip with a dead person makes one sound crazy. Thats just how i see it, in a world governed bylaws of physics, our beliefs must atleast parallel what has been proen to happen. Do you believe in john edward the psycic? Do you think it possible to talk to any dead person, or just jesus?

      Spyker - 2010-12-30 21:34

      CTSc.., Exhausting my anonymity: I was part of an exchange program. With it came the profound privilege of working under one of the greatest Russian academic minds (possibly ever). Getting p*ssed with such greatness is a religious experience, if indeed there is such a thing. I can imagine getting p*ssed with God, may in fact be alike. Let me therefore state unequivocally - SA academia has given us a generation of educated fools. A generation of (at best) blabbering parrots. We sing pretty little scholarly tunes, but we have not an inkling, of autonomous substance. Why the f*ck do you persist to reduce mine to plagiarism – because you cannot disseminate novel reasoning or are you just another condescending little pr*ck (like myself)..? If I ask a guy living in a grass hut looking after his goats, what the relevance of the Large Hadron Collider is, his response would be similar to yours... In fact, "p*ss off, you m*ther-f*cking idiot"; may well be his parting thoughts on the matter. The paradigm that is the fundamental abstract of the evolutionary approach to paleontology/anthropogeny/physical anthropology, etc was the essence I was trying hammer through the diamond skull of the snot-sucker in question... Evolution is a universal phenomenon; it is not a matter of debate – it is a simple, basic attribute of nature, as is the 2nd law of thermodynamics..! Re the matter of “biological evolution” – I have often asked myself - "I wonder why they are called 'wisdom teeth'"..?

      CTScientist - 2010-12-31 09:37

      @ Spyker You need to chill, laddie. No one accused you of plagiarism. To better understand the cultural evolution you were using, one needs to know who you are drawing upon. As you are familiar with biological evolution, you must be with social evolution as well. And since there are so many different 'types' of social evolution theories knocking about, it helps to know which one you're drawing from. Don't jump to conclusions. I asked because I wanted to know. You are so very very hostile. Which probably coincides with your need to insult everyone. All the time. I opt for being a blabbering parrot. In all seriousness. Who was the academic? Anyway... evolution is debated. In reality. By millions. Just because it shouldn't be, doesn't mean that it isn't. That is the reality here. Otherwise there would not be so many comments on this thread. But of course you won't agree. And you'll no doubt carry on with your insult fuelled festivities. Instead of using the considerable intellect you have at your disposal to try to navigate the multiple ideologies that do exist all around us, in order to actually contribute positively.

      Spyker - 2010-12-31 12:19

      CTS.., If this is a marathon – then plenty left in the tank here... But our little verbal fisticuffs will soon, undoubtedly, be ruined by the label – “IMMATURE”. And so, as you conveniently insist on authentication, no more than when it suits you most – let me substantiate my claim above: one of the plethora of characteristics associated with the condition commonly known as ‘immaturity’ is to disagree for the sake of disagreeing... Before your knee, connected via the little-head to the said defunct section of the cerebrum, engage the innate motor-action... chill, laddie... With regards to the teeth, by now as fresh as a morning-after-breath, half a millennium later – bar your self-confessed ‘substance-deficient-parrot-blabbering’, what have you [quote] positively [unquote] contributed, other than lustre for the monument of your shimmering ego..? Reminder: our 1st interaction was indeed regarding the matter of “SUBSTANCE” of reason, a matter you have after my own exhausting bantering, finally given validation. As such ‘mission accomplished’ - thank you indeed and a wonderful 2011 to you and yours. If you do respond, as your ego will invariably demand – kindly shock me: what is the base line for this incessant mania to “contribute positively”... In fact, what the f*ck does it mean..? Not even to begin to enquire who may well be the judge... In all seriousness... What are you trying to imply, Nice try, You are the weakest link, so goodbye...

      CTScientist - 2010-12-31 14:16

      @ Spyker And now he presumes to know my ego, as well. Is there anything you don't know? At least you write beautifully. I'm sure this serves you well. If you don't know what it means to contribute positively to this discussion, then we need say no more. Reading all your above posts, my opinion was that engagement with the issue was never your aim. That leveling insults at others suited you much better than trying to develop the discussion. Or even direct it elsewhere. If nothing else, you've gone some way in validating my opinion. As I've 'validated' yours. It is, all in all, probably a good thing we've had these little "verbal fisticuffs". There is a little immaturity in everyone, it would seem. Enough to see us out of 2010. ;) The ego would forbid that I say thank you. But I do thank you. Even intelligentsia can be devoid of compassion and humanity sometimes, it seems. No doubt we'll see each other again in 2011, when next you insult someone.

      Spyker - 2010-12-31 16:07

      CTS.., Thanks for the wishes, you insufferable noxious f*cking little oaf... Just kidding – look after yourself. My efforts to lift you from the concrete boots of conformity shall most certainly continue in 2011 – my acquaintance with your ego notwithstanding...

  • Arne - 2010-12-30 14:30

    Hmmmm... Well, I am a follower of the Vedic way of living. The creation as explained in the Vedas - namely the Srimad Bhagavatam, actually quite parralels that of modern science. At least in terms of time frames. I don't have many issues believeing in both, although evolution has yet to present me with enough evidence to convince me 100%.

  • Arne - 2010-12-30 14:32

    The Vedic point of view on creation is most interesting in that it very much forms a parralel with modern scientific theories of creation. At least in terms of time frames etc. Those interested should have a google and check it out. Of particular interest is the Srimad Bhagavatam.

  • chopie - 2010-12-30 15:39

    @Irene : You are already dead

      CTScientist - 2010-12-30 15:56

      @ Chopie You cannot be dead whilst alive. That makes very little sense to me. Unless you are a Zombie. And I'm not entirely sure they exist. If they did.. I doubt that they could use a QWERTY keyboard. Rigor Mortis would make it impossible to hit the right keystrokes. So I'm confused by your comment.. could you explain?

      orionangel - 2010-12-30 16:06

      What does that even mean?!

  • trueblu&real - 2010-12-30 18:20

    each new fossil find further muddies the waters of evolutionary theory However, we are basically dealing with an unfalsifiable theory in Neo-Darwinism, which is ultimately grounded in the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism ie that matter is all there is. Once you remove a Creator from the picture, all you are left with is chance as the explanation for the beginning of the cosmos. Science has shown in the Big Bang that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning there is alot of non-science in Neo Darwinism and atheists should be careful to avoid leaning on this "science" as if it leads inevitably to atheistic conclusions about the universe. On the contrary, there is alot of good science which supports a theistic worldview. Truly, you are a God who hides himself - Isaiah 45:15 God tests our seeking.

      Spyker - 2010-12-30 21:12

      O NO..!!! Run for the hills - there is one born every second...

      Plague - 2010-12-30 21:59

      Is that a typo? "each new fossil found muddies the waters of evolutionary theory"??? Where do you people get these crazy notions from? I suppose there is more and more of these creationism and ID websites springing up daily, whose sole purpose is to try and falsify the "theory" of evolution. The evidence from a paleontology point of view is so vast, and the fossil record dates so far back it is astonishing. We have fossils as far back as the Cambrian (500m years ago) period. We have fossils of species that were long extinct by the time we became aware of there previous existence. Each new fossil found strengthens the paleontological inference for evolution. You use the term "Neo-Darwanism" as if it is some kind of ideology or fanatical dogmatic belief?! Neo-Darwanism simply expanded the original darwinian premise to include genetics(mendelian) with a too strong emphasis on natural selection. The current correct premise is "modern evolutionary synthesis" " On the contrary, there is alot of good science which supports a theistic worldview" Give me ONE example

      Irené - 2010-12-30 23:33

      Truly weak dude. Big words wont necessarily make you sound smart. Show us one example of archeology and science supporting a theistic perspective, just one!! Please i have been asking this from xtians for the past decade and i am yet to get one exampke of science supporting a theistic perspective. What type of insecure manipulative and conniving creator "hides" himself? Think about ehat you are saying, do you really think the creator of all the universe feels like playing hide and seek witha bunch of homonids?

      Epicurius - 2010-12-31 11:27

      @ trueblu - "there is alot of non-science in Neo Darwinism and atheists should be careful to avoid leaning on this "science" as if it leads inevitably to atheistic conclusions about the universe" - the very same logic can be used even more convincingly against religion and the wholly babble, which is 110% non science, yet creationists punt the wholly babble as science all the time. For the umpteenth time, one cannot use quotes from the wholly babble as proof of god, as much as one cannot quote Stephenie Meyer to prove the existence of vampires.

      trueblu&real - 2010-12-31 16:49

      plague, 1. You didn't quote me properly in your first (non-sensical) question 2. As i pointed out, the theory of evolution is so phrased that it is made unfalsifiable, which is not true science. Secondly, there are some highly respectable creationist and id websites and your simply grouping them all together and dissing them smacks of a closed minded dogmatism - it goes against the whole principle of free inquiry and open debate 3. Everyone who knows anything will understand what is meant by the term Neo Darwinism - its used simply to exclude theistic evolution. 4. One example from science. No problem. The fine tuning for life of the universe (Steven Hawking). Another...2nd law of thermodynamics. Third example - Big Bang cosmology.

      trueblu&real - 2010-12-31 16:51

      Spyker, Do me a you even know me?? yet you get personal.

      trueblu&real - 2010-12-31 17:00

      Irene, you will have to explain why the fact that God hides Himself implies that He is conniving and manipulative. I don't follow your logic here.

      trueblu&real - 2010-12-31 17:06

      Epicurius, my intention was not to prove the Bible by quoting from the Bible. I do get that whole issue. I would use a different approach to give support for the truth of the Bible. Don't lose sight of the fact that "The Bible" is still a historical document that can be studied critically like any other ancient document. It is still a historical document in its own right and historians do look at it and use the same tools to study it as they use to study the writings of Homer or Tacitus or Plato.

      Plague - 2011-01-02 23:18

      TrueBlu, 1. I fail to see where I mis-quoted you. The two sections I quoted from your comment was a copy&paste. 2. (a) The theory of evolution is phrased to be unfalsifiable? What nonsense are you talking man? I would like to hear in your own words what the theory of evolution is, and why you deem it to be unfalsifiable. (b) Respectable creationism and ID websites? Such a thing does not exist. They all exist to further some religious zealots' agenda. The garbage is preaches has been debunked OVER and OVER again, even the judicial system has ruled it to be garbage and that it must be removed in all forms from the education system. 3. NO NO NO. It is not Neo-Nazism, or Neo-Marxism. It is simply the latest term to describe the evolutionary premise that includes genetics. Please get your facts straight before making such idiotic statements. And what on earth is theistic evolution?? 4. I ask again. Give me one piece of scientific evidence that supports a theistic world view. Simple throwing terms around unfortunately does not count - and the evidence cannot come from an ID or creationism website, as they are not scientific. What on earth does the 2nd law of thermodynamics have to do with a theistic world view?? Please try again or refrain from making these simple-minded statement

      Epicurius - 2011-01-03 10:52

      @TruBlue - The people who compiled the bible were clever enough to anticipate that people would one day begin to question it as the steaming pile of excrement that it is, and so they built into it statements such as the one you quoted in an attempt to respond to any free thinking individuals, in hope that they would say 'Oh, so god is a god who hides himself, that is why he is nowhere to be seen...' but, the compilers of the bible, being only slightly more intelligent than the goat-herders for whom it was written, did not anticipate that the average human who be far more intellectually superior to the average goat herder and still say 'yeah, right...' in response to such bunk. The bible may be a historical text, but is not the 'guide for life' it was once widely accepted to be. It is intellectually and philosophically inferior to text which were written before it.

  • fredjoseph - 2010-12-30 22:09

    This link is for those who have an open mind and are willing to question their assumptions about evolutionary cosmology: Scoffers can go have a look and have a field day debunking it. Perhaps some will scratch their heads and go look deeper into what they believe.

      Plague - 2010-12-30 22:35

      Really? A creationist website giving scientific "evidence"? Again? Still?? Don't you know that even the judicial system has ruled that intelligent design - which is the military arm of creationist - is to be outlawed from the collective civilization's intellect and education systems, and be confined to the religious indoctrination schools where they belong (or don't). This is religious babble which NO ONE takes serious anymore, and that you are promoting here. And why am I not surprised that right at the top of your AnswersInGenesis creationist website there is a link to donate some money?? Why do they always want your money???? Here is point 6 from their "Statement of faith" under "General": "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information" Point 3 also indicates that Noah's flood was responsible for all fossils we have found and will still find??? And the earth (and the galaxies/universe) is 4000 years old? Kindly, please, refrain from posting this nonsense. These fallacies and believing them comes down the intellectual fraud.

      Irené - 2010-12-30 23:44

      I should really report your ass for posting such tripe on the science and technology page. I dont even know where to start. Picking apart your argument. I actually think i will just wait and see what someone else comes up with. Search or if you really think anyone is going to take your website serious. Show me the evidence, and not from wikicreation. I find it hilarious that these religious entities always need donations, makes me wonder why theyre in it?? Or are they just so busy teaching dogma to innocent children to get a real f****ing job.

      FrankLee - 2010-12-31 08:45

      Irene, Irene, You really seem to be a very, very, very angry person. Do you always ignore that which is actually observed and make sense just because you don't want to believe in it. The evidence is right in front of you: it's all observable and testable, again and again. The only reason I can think of why you don't want to accept it seems to be that you have made up your mind that anything that contradicts current theory is from hell ;-) @Plague: The evidence comes from Nasa and other observatories - the interpretation comes from the Creationist camp. The physical facts remain the same, the interpretation differs from how evolutionists want to fit it into their world view. To you both: Have a good last couple of hours of 2010. I hope you have a much better 2011!!!!

      Irené - 2010-12-31 10:53

      Hey frank lee, the difference between me and you is i atleast read tohe opposing viewpoints. You tell me im not reading the observatioons by Nasa, well as a matter of fact i read through the whole answer in genesis, laughing out loud as i went. These guys are trying to make lies seem like science and real sceince seem like lies. I ppint to plagues point about their missoion statement, if a "scientist" goes into an experiment already believing the outcome, he will be biased in his findings. Thats what makes religious scientist crack pots, its like an oxymoron. So in answer in genesis case, they make their motive clear, and only write what will support that belief, how can you be so blind as this?? Especially if you want the trutg? Real scientist dont have a religious agenda, so who would you rather believe, the guy doing it in the name of scneicne, or the guy doing it in the name of religioon. Hwhat exactly about these theories are testable? Its opot of snot that the earth is 4000 or 6000 yrs old, not even your relugioous scientist can agree on the exact age, and come on there is a huge difference between 4000 and 6000 yrs, can you figurethat out?? Point is if the world was a couple of thousands yrs old, how did we get from adam and eve, to 7 billion peopl? Can your superior reasoning skills maybe explain that to me?? No? Because it is friggen impossible.

      FrankLee - 2010-12-31 13:37

      Dear Irene, "if a "scientist" goes into an experiment already believing the outcome, he will be biased in his findings. Thats what makes religious scientist crack pots, its like an oxymoron. " You are surely aware that most all evolutionist geologists and evolutionist cosmologists go into their experiments and observations with a very clear religious bias: There is no God. Hence everything they observe need to be explained from a naturalistic and uniformitarian point of view. Even if the physical evidence can be explained in a much simpler and much more elegant way if they believed in a creator. So the evolutionist will only write what supports their belief. Can you also see that? Sure people cannot agree on the exact age of the earth but consider this: Which is more accurate - the difference between 4000 and 6000 [ most people think it's somewhere south of 6000 anyway] and 4.5 billion years, give or take a few million. Are you saying the earth is "exactly" 4500000000 years old? or was that 4500000020 ? What do you mean by exact? As for the world's population - are you aware that a lot of scientists are pondering exactly why there isn't MORE people on earth? Given the geometric increase in numbers, 6000 creationist years is more than enough to produce the current population. Given the 100k years of evolution, you have the huge problem of finding all the graves or the missing people. Do the maths, dear, starting out with just 4 fertile couples people, 4000 years ago.

      Spyker - 2010-12-31 14:13

      Frank_ee, You can hardly blame anyone, within three time-zones of you, for being “...a very, very, very angry person...” – you have no known limits, dude... As the 2010 rigour mortis sets in, yours gave me (at least) a final jolt, of unbridled entertainment. Before yours, the lead contender was JuJu’s request for the prompt removal of the ‘bloody agent’ that appeared in the mirror, every time he walked past – apparently it was “...observable and testable, again and again...” So the outright winner for 2010 of the “pot-calling-the-kettle incorporating the missing-the-pot-completely” prize, is... ...: __FrankLee_I_am_my_own_worst_enemy__ and his brilliance – “you don't want to accept it seems to be that you have made up your mind that anything that contradicts current theory is from hell ;-)..” As for me – tonight.., instead of the rage of rituals of yet another festival of mass hysteria, accompanied by violent oxidation transients, we have chosen rather to be holistically releasing “Chinese lanterns” – not very evolutionary I admit, but certainly very prophetic (my small salute to the creationists). I have already christened (pun alert) my little lantern = “SH1TTING BRICs”... PS – can’t say where the crest was, perhaps the '70’s (the last time man managed a tangible pioneering feat); who knows...?!? Today however, we are on our way back to the caves, at a rate that may well be in the advanced phase, otherwise known as ‘free-fall’.

      CTScientist - 2010-12-31 14:23

      @ FrankLee Charles Lyell first, and over a Century of geological sciences afterwards, have helped shape our understanding of the Earth's age. Stratigraphy, especially, has helped associate fossil taxa with specific geological processes. These are well over millions of years old. It is impossible (scientifically) that the Earth is younger than the billion year mark. We don't need an absolute date of 6 billion years + to know that catastrophism has been debunked.

      Irené - 2010-12-31 14:30

      Hey fraklee, Science isnt about proving there is or isnt a god, science is just not biased by religus teachings, it is based on physics, mathematics etc. Science isnt the antithesis of god, its a whole different discipline, because as you can also admit, religionisabout faith, and science seeks to make senseofthe world based on sund principles. Show. E the scientists who cannot make sense of population dynamics. If you read through any history book you eill noticethat death was central to peopleslives, it was everywhere, infants died very eaily, mothers died during childbirth not to mention the thousands and millions of men who died during wars and donfrontation. The human population since damn of mankind was curbed by disease etc. So only in very recent years did human populations start exponential growth all ovee the world. You semm to have a firm grasp of xtianity, so explain this to me, How come all of us arnt inbred if we all came from the same parents, do you know what incestuous breeding does to any animal? Their genes become rcessive and weak, look at tge britsh' teeth and chins from living on an island for so long! How come we have such diverse genetics and dna if we are all from the same parents? How did the worlds animals and humans repopulate afyer the great flood. How did all the animals magically appear in their original habitats after the flood? Did they fly to their respective continents? How long ago did noah live?

      Irené - 2010-12-31 14:52

      Why did god only show himself to the middle eastern people? Are they his special little project? What about the mayans, indians, ancient greek mythology, are all the religions just a result of delusions by "primitive" people? What about ancient chinese culture that predates our supposed creation date? and many other cultures with artifacts from far back as 20000 years? Are they hoaxes? All of them? I dont want to overwhelm you, so ponder these and let me know, these are some of the very questions tha i asked upon leaving e church. Noone could ever answer it. Also, if the bible is the word of god, and the truth so to speak? Why are there literally hundreds of thousands of different xtians denominations across the world?? Check it out that number grows every day since people all interpret the bible differently. Not to mention all the cult like denominatioins, like the mormons. Are you fine with polygamy? And finally, no one ever said the entire worlds species came from a singular one celled organism. There is overwhelming evidence showing that meteors and other space dbris that landed on earth over the billions of yrs influenced life on earth. 4 billion and 4,5 billion might be quit far from one another, but not as way off as 4000 yrs. We will never be able to find all the remains from all peopke that died over 100 thousand yrs, its called decomposition, really i would love to see the science textbooks you let your children study. Do you believe in flat earth theory too

      Spyker - 2010-12-31 15:43

      Frank_ee and CTS..., FrankLee my friend, there is no known measure for “losing the plot” – you however do provide a useful baseline. However much there is an attempt to get you to shut-the-f*ck-up (albeit your limitless entertainment will be sorely missed) by peppering you with known scientific gen, such retorts are equally futile. CTScientist - that was a direct indictment against you, dude. With respect to your knowledge and/or formal background – the penny has not dropped yet. We have two issues here: (1) Biological matter viz 400k years old = known scientific fact and as far as the topic goes, end of the scientific discussion. If you deny it, frankly bru, we are FrankLee from 2 different planets. As such then - end of discussion. (2) Critical debates of how the biological matter fits into the realm – who are we, where we come from, bla, bla – is no longer a scientific matter, but philosophical. Sorry CTS..., but I reiterate – you are respectfully missing the point by equal measure. Philosophy per (rudimentary) def: “...the study of problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language...” I lifted this from Wiki so you can check for yourself... FrankLee my friend, for what conceivable reason would science deny the existence of your god, if it was in fact a scientific verity – indeed, how could it..? Science is NOT a dogma, it cannot be, else it would be another religion – the point you continue to miss deep time measures.

      Plague - 2011-01-03 06:22

      Please FrankieLee, The "evidence" comes from NASA? The one nice thing that religion has got going for itself is interpretation. ANYTHING is open to ANYONE's interpretation - and the flock shall believe! How ridiculous. None of these ID and creationism websites has ever published a scientific paper or research white paper or article in scientific journal( and no the Creationist Monthly does not count). ID and creationism and the young-earth- theories are not even a discussion in the scientific community anymore. Please stop trying to make anyone believe that besides from a handful of nut-jobs and ignoramuses, anyone takes this nonsense serious anymore.

  • Craig - 2010-12-31 08:56

    Evolutionary theory argues that everything evolves toward "perfection"...for lack of a better from a lower form to an advanced form...i.e first there was the cesspool of muck that somehow added certain atoms and nutrients what have you together and then something creeped out of the pool, eventually becoming a monkey and ending up with humans. Can one of the evolutionists please tie this back into the scientific LAW of Thermodynamics...specifically entropy. And secondly, if evolution is so real, why can it not be re-performed? Why do we not still evolve? I would rather live my life believing ther is a God, because frankly, the earth is too perfectly positioned away from the sun to be a random co-incidence of chance. Not to mention the perfect timing of the seasons year in and year out, animals that know when they should migrate/hibernate at specific times, heck...the complexities of the human eye alone is enough to make me realise that I am not evolved, but wonderfully and carefully made. Anyways...this argument is about as old as the Bible...

      Hello there - 2010-12-31 10:16

      Craig, in a woman's menstrual cycle, at certain times of the month she prefers men who look like, well, men. Muscular, stubble, with that typical manly sweaty smell. At other times, when she's either pregnant or has already ovulated, she prefers men who are more effeminate. We know this and it is not in dispute. The pill makes a woman's body think she's pregnant all the time. Lots of women have been on the pill since the 60's. I forget the details but it turns out that the long term effect of this is that many more women today who aren't on the pill, prefer effeminate men. Evolution is seen as adaptation towards something better based on external stimulus, which this is. We are still evolving. When someone scratches their nails across the board in a classroom, you flinch.The frequency of that scratch is the same as the frequency of the shout or scream macaque monkeys emit when they warn the troup of any danger. Goosebumps bru. Used to make you appear bigger to a predator, even more functional if you were hairier. Used for insulation, again, if you were hairier. You have a third eyelid which is not used anymore. It's that pink blob in your eye closest to your nose. Can you move/wiggle your ears ? Pretty useful when you had to hear danger from multiple angles. Not used anymore. Wisdom teeth and appendix. Useful when you have a lot more greens in your diet. Don't be stupid please. Evolution is still happening. It slows down as you reach alpha of your environment.

      FrankLee - 2010-12-31 14:12

      @Hello there: You do realize of course that following evolution back to the logical conclusion means that everything came from nothing? How often have you seen radios and cell-phones drop out of the sky or suddenly appear on your desk whilst you're working? You are using the same kind of logic in your reply to Craig. Just because you / scientists don't know the function of something it's now useless. Take a look at the triumphant naming of "junk" DNA - a supposed leftover from evolutionary development. Right now people are running helter skelter away from that notion because it's becoming clearer day by day just how much more complex the genetic and epi-genetic systems really are. That which used to junk has suddenly taken on life critical importance. Biologists are now beginning to stand in awe of what they so glibly dismissed previously. They way you're reasoning, if you were a man living 4000 years ago who found a digital watch on the beach you'd criticise it for being dented or not painted blue instead of marvelling at the fact that it was there in the first place.

      craigkaos - 2011-01-02 00:56

      Evolution is fact and can be performed. Look up Lenski's Experiments. Probably the most conclusive and fascinating study demonstrating the process over generations. There are hundreds of other examples using bacteria, plants, fish and mammals that support Lenski. We do evolve. Every time a child is born it is written into the genetic code. Nobody is perfectly made. Evolution is the reason people have different skin colours, physical traits, etc. Why do Oriental people have slanted eyes? Why has the average size of the European jaw bone diminished over thousands of years? Why do humans still have wisdom teeth and an appendix, though they don't serve any real purpose? You are right, Earth is perfectly positioned in space. It had to be in the 'Goldilocks Zone' around the sun in order to spark and sustain life. Migration is an evolutionary process - animals had to adapt over time for the simple sake of survival. How can an organ being 'complex' be an argument against evolution? If anything, it is a prime example of the effectiveness of the process. The eye is no different. p.s. monkeys never have evolved into humans, and never will - study the process please!

      carlkristen - 2011-01-02 16:23

      @craigkaos you say that evolution is "written into the genetic" code???? the question is Where does the genetic code come from??? The very word CODE implies an intelligence behind it. Only intelligence produces a code.