Ardi Evolution - Some More False Science

>> Saturday, October 10, 2009

A few months ago I created a post about Ida, the new fossil that was suppose to be the missing link for evolution. I haven't heard much about that fossil lately, but now intelligent people are getting bombarded with another fossil, Ardi (rdipithecus ramidus). You would think they just found this fossil, but in reality, it was discovered in the 1990s. Why are the evolutionist making a big deal about it now? Because this is how long it took them to get the bones together because they were in such bad shape. This fossil is a partial skeleton put together based on a smattering of bones linked with at least 36 ramidus individuals, and these bones are suppose to be 4.4 million years old.

If I smash my daughters doll house and buried it and someone else uncovered it after 20 years, is that person going to be able to put it back together and say, “This is a little girls doll house”. Why do we think that science can do that with fossils. Do these scientist have any idea how old 4.4 million years is, and do they honestly think that they can find a shattered skeleton of some kind, which takes them almost 20 years to put back together, and then be able to really conclude anything about it?

Where is the science here? The only real critics about this discovery are Creationist. Where is the evolutionary scientific peer reviews? Evolutionist have told me that all of the theories of evolution are valid because they have all been scrutinized by other scientists. I don't believe that for a second. I have read a lot of articles, and I have yet to see one written by an evolutionist that criticize any discovery that supports the theory of evolution. That is because they don't want to damage their already damaged theory. It is almost like the Democrats in Congress debating on a bill without inviting the Republicans. The Evolutionist peer review a theory that they already agree with. They aren't going to get any valid criticism from Evolutionist. You don't have to be a scientist to see the serious issues in what the news media and scientific community is proclaiming about this fossil. The image in the news is a full man with hair on it, but in reality, Ardi is scattered remains of some fossil which could be anything from an extinct or dead animal.

I was reading from another magazine about a scientist who had an experiment on one of the space shuttles that blew up. Her experiment contained some organisms to see how they react in space. Some of these organisms survived the space shuttle crash, and this discovery led to a theory that states, “Life didn't originate on earth, but original life came to earth on an Asteroid.” How can scientists even call this a theory? These types of theories make me lose faith in today's science. Modern science that enhances technology and cures illnesses is great science. But the science that is designed to understand where man came from is seriously flawed unless you start with the premise stated in the book of Genesis.

The evolutionist think that the Creationist are wackos, but with science like this, no wonder why the majority of intelligent people still believe in God.

If you believe in evolution, you need to seriously and objectively look at the other side because the Creationist view point makes 100 times more sense. The only reason why people still hold to the theory of evolution is because that is the only theory they have to justify their atheism.

Read More about Ardi
Read about the Asteroid Theory


Paul October 3, 2009 at 11:59 PM  

Thanks Greg,
Good article and research

Justin October 4, 2009 at 11:34 AM  

You haven't made one point in this article. You argue that no one has criticized the theory so it must be false, yet you have no argument yourself. The only thing resembling an argument that you stated is that the scientists must have put the skeleton incorrectly together. Your religious blindness disgusts me.

Greg October 5, 2009 at 11:01 AM  

Apparently Justin, you didn't understand what I was talking about. This fossil took 20 years to put together and my point is that is really doesn't tell us anything about evolution or how life evolved. And I will say the same thing about you, "That your religions blindness disgusts me". Again, you are as religious as I am. I am talking common sense. I am looking at this story objectively. You apparently will believe anything just because someone puts the label of science on it, but I think this story and your view point is unscientific, and more like science fiction.

Greg October 5, 2009 at 12:23 PM  

And another thing Justin, how many variables has been introduced into a fossil that is 4.5 million years old? How many earthquakes did the fossils experience, or floods, or other disasters. Science is about variables and my question to these scientists is, "Has all the variables been accounted for to give you accurate data?" The more variables you have introduced in an experiment, the less accurate it will be. That is why when a scientist does an experiment, they need to control it. Since they can't control what has happened to a fossil over 4.5 million years old, their data isn't going to be worth the paper it is written on. This really isn't about my religious belief, but about science and this isn't science.

James October 7, 2009 at 11:23 PM  

Sorry to burst your bubble Greg but when bone fragments are put under a microscope you can see how they match up with like a 99.9999% margin of it being correct. Just like how they can match fired bullets from the gun bore they came from. But your right it isn't's archeology.

Justin October 8, 2009 at 2:11 AM  

This really is a useless argument here. Its pretty obvious that during your lifetime there will not be enough evidence for you to believe in evolution. Although the opposite stance of creation doesn't seem to have much opposition by you... Since the words of god tell all. And that is impossible to be incorrect after switching languages over 2000 years... Eventually there will be overwhelming evidence that "God" is simply the dreams of men but until then, debating about brainwashed beliefs will not get anywhere.

For the record, if evidence came out that PROVED that this skeleton is not the descendant of man, It would not be hard for me to disregard the initial findings as false. That is simply the nature of science. But I must say it is nice to see fairly often a new discovery that HINTS toward the theory of evolution. It is far from proven I will admit, but it certainly sways a little bit with each discovery.

Greg October 8, 2009 at 10:55 AM  


I find it very hard to believe that a 4 million old fossil can tell us anything about evolution. And the fossil isn't complete. They don't have the full skeletion of Ardi to come to this evolutionary conclusion. The discovery channel is planning to air a special about Ardi.

This suggests that these science papers on Ardi have been coordinated with the Discovery channel which is what the scientist are really interested in.

Now Justin,

Of course it is going to take a whole lot before I start believing in evolution the same way that it is going to take you a whole lot before you would start believing in creationism.

Ardi and Ida are a joke.

All of these so called findings have all been disproven. Lucy, Neaderthall etc. have all been disproven but evolutionist continue to talk about them.

I don't worship science to the point that because a scientist claims something, I get all excited. You really should take a step back and analyze what you believe.

Justin October 8, 2009 at 2:54 PM  

Please cite your sources disproving lucy's connection with homo sapiens. Everything I have seen indicates that Australopithecus was in direct line with humans but I am very curious about your side of that story.

Neanderthals split off from our line and did not evolve into humans, though they did coexist. When they were first discovered, some believed they might have been descendants of humans, this has since been proved incorrect but it doesn't mean that all further discoveries must be discredited. So bringing up neanderthals does not strengthen your argument.

Greg October 8, 2009 at 4:23 PM  

See my new post where I list some sources for you.


Anonymous October 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM  

Greg, your arrogance through ignorance is astounding. You don't with any specifics criticize one archeological methodology used to reconstruct old skeletons. You simply presume that scientists just kind of haphazardly move the pieces of a skeleton around and say 'that looks right,' probably because YOU cannot fathom any method off the top of your head. That is where your arrogance comes in--if you don't know it or understand it, it must not exist (in your mind). There's a lot more to it than that...but you wouldn't bother to learn it in detail, would you?

Greg October 8, 2009 at 7:12 PM  


No, I am not an Archiologist. Either are you I presume. I get my information from what the news media is proclaiming and what I have read, and I have noticed how the scientist are making the rounds promoting their fossil. (by the way, I should mention that I have seen the Lucy fossil first hand in Ethiopia and let me tell you, I wasn't impressed.) It is kind of funny that after they publish their paper, that they are all over the news and the Discovery channel is getting ready to air its documentary which probably took them a year to produce. And the show just happens to air at the same time these scientists are making their rounds.

So they probably carefully planned all of this, but yes, I think they just throw something together, get into a room and start discussing how this fossil fits into the evolutionary model. Personally, I don't think they have any idea what they are talking about. They are more concerned about publishing a paper and appearing on the news than giving sound, peer reviewed science that contains good and solid evidence. Haven't you wondered why the scientist have stopped talking about Ida that was such big news a couple of months ago?

I am just pointing out the facts that this Ardi is very suspicious and it will be proven false just like all of the other fossils. You can see my most recent post for many of the fossil fallacies.

So, you can go on and believe in this science if you want, but if you knew how to critically think, you might be more of a skeptic.

What evidence about this fossil convinces you that it is another missing link for evolution?

Anonymous October 9, 2009 at 8:09 AM  

Excellent job Greg. It's very scary to see that some people will blindly except "evolution" even though it doesn't make any sense at all. It belongs in the same category as Greek Mythology. Evolution is not scientific, but rather the religion of athiests.

To all the evolutionists out there, where did all matter come from? How about the 1st law of thermodynamics, matter is created nor destroyed?

Justin October 9, 2009 at 9:02 AM  

Dear "anonymous"
Apparently you think this is an atheism/religion discussion. Its not, we are discussing how humans came to be. Evolution does NOT disprove the existence of a divine creator(s). How can you compare the evolution argument to mythology when you do not even realize that the presence of god(s) and the theory of evolution are two separate "questions" Not only can they coexist but god(s) can always be used to fill in the holes of phenomenon that science has yet to discover. Maybe there will be a point when we realize that god(s) created the universe as energy and let it go...what then, we would both be correct.

that being said, although I do not personally believe in a higher power, I do acknowledge the possibility of one. The reason I do is for the question you asked, we do not know the origin of the universe. But jumping to the conclusion of god does not make the question go away. Someday, we will understand the fabrics of the cosmos on a much deeper level, but until then we have to enjoy the fact that there are still huge mysteries left to be discovered.

I will take your question one step further, if "god" created the universe and all matter and energy, What created god(s)?

If you determine that this question is unanswerable given the present knowledge of the cosmos, why don't we save a step and conclude that the solution to beginning of the universe is also unanswerable given the present knowledge of the cosmos. This way we are still allowing room for future discoveries without automatically resorting to god(s) as the solution. [paraphrase of Carl Sagan]

Anonymous October 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM  

I opened my mouth in awe and amazement after reading this article. It is stuffed with more ignorance that the creationists themselves. You have no idea what you’re talking about and don’t seem to understand the process what-so-ever. YOU haven’t read any peer-reviewed papers because YOU are not a scientist and YOU are so obviously not educated in this sense. It’s unbelievably stupid to make the assertion that because a fossil was found years ago and now is popular means it is false. Many fossils and discoveries are found longer ago than realized, but it takes a LOT of scrutiny, peer-review, research, controversy, and consensus to have this discovery come out to the ignorant and uneducated masses. You claim that creationism makes sense and that there are holes and problems with evolution. Well, it is quite simple to make a theory that can’t be tested. You can say WHATEVER you want while having it restricted from scrutiny because nobody can test it. When testing the real natural world, it is never perfect because we don’t have a video recording of our history and evolution; however, there is overwhelming evidence that supports evolution, and ZERO evidence for creationism. All creationists like you do are take proven scientific facts that you TRUST and twist them to try and disprove other facts of science. It’s the highest echelon of ignorance and you soak right in to the masses of ignorant and arrogant Americans who will stop at nothing to dumb down society and encourage anti-intellectualism.

Greg October 9, 2009 at 2:57 PM  

So you honestly think that this fossil was scrutinized by other scientist? THESE FOSSILS ARE A SHAM! Why is it so hard for you to see it? I have already given a list of fossil examples that evolutionist admit are false, and if you did any research you will see that Lucy is a fraud as well, so why would you think that Ardi or Ida is anything different but a crock of bull crap! Give me a break. Open your eyes a little bit and use some common sense. NO, I am not a scientist, but I have some common sense. That is the difference between Creationist and Evolutionist. They have commone sense.

Creationism can't be tested? How is evolution tested? Do you even know what evolution teaches? Can evolutionist demonstrate how to change one species into another species by random mutations? Don't be so ignorant. Creationism can be tested as much as evolutionism. The Bible says, "You know there is a God by Creation." That is common sense. This complex and ordered world can't arise by randomness. Anonymous, you are an idiot who worships science. If a scientist claimed the world was flat, you would follow them like a lap dog without any question. As one evolutionist put it, "You don't need to question science, because it is science." If false science is your God, so be it.

Anonymous October 9, 2009 at 6:01 PM  

Greg, my heart truly goes out to your turmoil. You are trapped between blind belief and the cold light of your reality. You should never pass judgement on things you do not understand, and you do not understand science or archaeology. Science is not interested in common sense, science is demonstrable observation (direct or indirect) supporting or disproving theory. The study and furthering of scientific knowledge pervades our planet (with constantly increasing strength) as it allows all people who understand it to see the world as it probably is. You appear to be entitled to comment with authority that these scientists are wrong. To say that their science is wrong you must naturally be able to understand it. You state that it is common sense that it is wrong. What you mean to say is that "I don't understand it and it doesn't fit in the belief system that I have therefore it must be wrong". You choose to close your eyes, as the evidence frightens you too much. Ignorant denial is much easier. Open, relax, enjoy and accept the true glory of God (whatever you believe that to be). Understand that there are things that you will never understand, and leave those who do understand to do the commenting.

Anonymous October 10, 2009 at 5:27 AM  

You, my friend.. Are a RETARD. Think outside the box for a moment and look at hard evidence, religion aside. I understand you're on the defensive because this find only supports evolution. Perhaps you should actually watch the documentary and find out more facts before coming to these stupid conclusions.

Greg October 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM  

Again, you evolutionists believe in your beloved science blindly. You never ask any intelligent questions when an evolutionist makes a claim or statement. Of course, if a Creationist says anything, you would disregard it no matter how intelligent it is. This isn't even about religion. This is about science making false claims without presenting the truth.

Here are some questions that you should be asking:

1)What make the claim of Ardi more reliable than the other false claims about other fossils such as the Nebraska Man, Java Man, Pitdown Man etc.?

2)How many variables over 4 million years might have changed this fossil to give the scientist false and unreliable information?

3)How reliable is Ardi in the evolutionary model if it is just a partial skeleton? (the state of preservation is far less perfect than what media images portray)

4)What can we conclude about mans evolution based on one fossil? For all we know, this could have been a deformed monkey. This wasn't a tribe of people, otherwise they would have found more than one fossil.

So you evolutionist can blindly follow your evolutionist gods, but I would much rather put my faith in the actual Creator.

Anonymous, you are the retard!

Anonymous October 11, 2009 at 1:07 AM  

How did this guy become a computer programmer and not have any common sense :)

You may believe in creationist theories and not agree with evolution based theories, and that is fine.

BUT the way you present your points/argument(s) is absolutely stupid!!

Anonymous October 11, 2009 at 3:57 PM  

Again, you evolutionists believe in your beloved science blindly.

[No, we do not believe in it, as belief is not necessary. We assess the evidence (and counter evidence) and then form an opinion. At all times that opinion is open to modification. That includes modification of the fundamental validity of science. It is certainly beloved to me though. It saved me (and my money) from organised religion, allowed me to see the true beauty of my existence, and the true meaning of God].

You never ask any intelligent questions when an evolutionist makes a claim or statement.
[We see the evidence, accept that the reports we read may be biased, and then form an opinion. At all times is that opinion open to change if new evidence comes to light. In certain cases, the volume of evidence becomes so huge that we accept it as fact. At all times this fact is open to modification. We leave the questioning to other evolutionists, they ask ones more important than we ever could. These people (like scientists in every field) spend their entire lives learning about their science. We tend not to criticise things we don’t understand. I trust that what they say is true, but I always bear in mind that it may be inaccurate. I also don’t ask questions like yours as I think evolution is real. Please be assured that people who know about this kind of thing will be asking LOTS of questions (that's one of the reasons why science works so well)].

Of course, if a Creationist says anything, you would disregard it no matter how intelligent it is.

[Not true, all opinions are welcome that can be supported by evidence. Unfortunately Creationists tend to cite quotes from their bible as evidence. Unfortunately no evidence exists that the bible is in fact a historically accurate and reliable document. Little impartial information is known about the authors, the events/people they describe, the accuracy of numerous translations into different languages, the completeness of the text, or the assembly of the chapters in the book (some may have been removed from the original text). Due to these reasons, compounded by the fact that the bible describes many major breaches of the physical laws that govern our universe (thus making its accuracy even more questionable), the bible cannot be used as a credible source of information. Trusting the bible requires blind faith. You cannot expect others to trust the bible when they have no faith in it. Scientific evidence, in comparison, requires no faith.
However, to the discredit of scientists, they tend to get frustrated and arrogant with creationists as creationists tend not to be willing to learn or listen to anything that conflicts with the stories in the bible. In addition, creationists do not try to find evolutionary facts out for themselves. They listen to each other (i.e. biased sources of information) and thus keep repeating the same irrelevant arguments (e.g. the supposed lack of intermediary fossils being the main one, the hand-full of hoaxes another).

This isn't even about religion. This is about science making false claims without presenting the truth.

[Science presents evidence, people choose what truths they want to take from evidence. Misguided journalists and editors take scientific evidence and make it read as fact. This makes a better story. The original scientific paper is the best source of accurate information.
If you are trying to complain about mainstream media twisting scientific evidence into fact, then you are standing with almost all scientists.]

Anonymous October 11, 2009 at 3:58 PM  

Here are some questions that you should be asking:

I’m not an archaeologist but it’s great that you are actually asking questions. Now take the next step and buy an introductory best-selling book on fossils and evolution (Richard Dawkins has a new one just out). Alternatively use Google.

1)What make the claim of Ardi more reliable than the other false claims about other fossils such as the Nebraska Man, Java Man, Pitdown Man etc.?

[Ardi is an important find. In time, it will be closely scrutinised by the scientific community to prevent another of the hoaxes you mention above. One find may have been a hoax, but many different bones from many different individuals (one of which was Ardi) were found in studies over 17 years. It is thus probably not a hoax. However, even if the hoaxes you mention, and Ardi, had never occurred, the weight of evidence for evolution is still huge.]

2)How many variables over 4 million years might have changed this fossil to give the scientist false and unreliable information?
[I’m not sure what unreliable information you are referring to here. The question is not “how many variables”, it is rather “how significant could variables be on the data the scientists are presenting”. These variables, and their impact, are not clear until reading the scientific paper. The scientists returned year after year to gather additional evidence to remove and minimise variables. Additional evidence allows quantification and controlling of variables. This is standard scientific procedure and is a core activity in scientific research - data with uncontrolled variables is useless.]

3)How reliable is Ardi in the evolutionary model if it is just a partial skeleton?

We know a huge amount about the animals that currently live on this planet. As we are all related by evolution we know a lot about animals that walked the earth before us (as we share the same biological structure). We know that in order for an animal to do something (e.g. fly) their body must have a certain design – the same laws of physics apply today as they did millions of years ago. For example, we know from the design of Ardi’s pelvis that she stood upright. We do not need an entire skeleton to conclude that she walked upright. You are certainly correct that the artists impression of her appearance cannot be accurately determined. However, based on the environment in which she lived, and on other animals with similar bone structures, she probably (but not definitely) looked that way.

4)What can we conclude about mans evolution based on one fossil? For all we know, this could have been a deformed monkey. This wasn't a tribe of people, otherwise they would have found more than one fossil.

[This fossil adds another stone to the mountain of evidence for evolution. She is a snapshot of primate life millions of years ago. The creation of fossils is actually an extremely difficult thing to happen and very special conditions are required for it to happen. These conditions were common place during the dinosaurs, which is why we have many fossils from then. It is thought that if every human on this planet were to drop dead right now, none would ever be fossilised – the necessary conditions simply don’t currently exist. She may indeed be a deformed monkey, but as it is for humans, that is statistically highly unlikely.
Setting all of this aside, fossils from around 36 other humanoids were found at the same site (she was only the most complete one and has thus dominated the headlines)].

So you evolutionist can blindly follow your evolutionist gods, but I would much rather put my faith in the actual Creator.

[There is no evolutionist god. Only scientists and observation. Neither are gods, as no faith is required. The only god is truth. More accurately, you mean to say, “....I would much rather put my faith in what I believe to be the actual Creator.]

Anonymous, you are the retard!

[I don’t know Anonymous so I won’t comment].

Anonymous October 11, 2009 at 10:45 PM  

This fossel find was announced to the media when it was discovered years ago. This kind of meticulous study needs to be done by a team of researchers from various branches of science and it can't be done overnight.....unlike writing a myth story like many of those in the Bible.
I teach human evolution and the fossel record is still very much sound.
Come out of the dark Greg. The world is so much more beautiful when the demons are finally gone.
"Religions fear the advancement of science like a witch fears the dawn of day." Thomas Jefferson
The bottom line is that you are not required to believe evolution but since evolution is not a belief system it remains true weather or not a person believes it. Religion is a belief system based on myth stories. Science attempts to answer things in the natural world based on evidence and observations not superstitions.

Anonymous October 11, 2009 at 10:48 PM  

A final word. Please leave the science to the scientists and you can do all the preaching you want but you are not a scientist and are not equipped to make judgements within that field.

I'll pray for you. lol ;)

Anonymous October 11, 2009 at 10:50 PM  

Creationism has been proven in a court of law (Dover Trial) to be based on superstition and not science.

Anonymous October 11, 2009 at 11:11 PM  

Oh dear Greg, I know how you feel. I finally had to give up my denial of evolution when I started to truly study it in good faith. As to your reference about Lucy being disproved simply because there were no hands or feet is absolutly incorrect. Scientists have found many austrolopithicus fossels (Lucy's species) and many of those are hands and feet. Lucy is "alive" and well.

Anonymous October 11, 2009 at 11:20 PM  

I take it that since you work on computers you weren't required to take many biological science or history classes. I would like to challenge you to do a good faith investigation into the origins and evolution of religion and Christianity. "Christianity Before Christ" is a great book full of mind blowing information. Keep in mind that there have been many other religions and many other "bibles" that have evolved into yours. EVERYTHING EVOLVES

cicindela October 11, 2009 at 11:38 PM  

All I can say is that it appears that many of you have a lot to learn about science in general. And in regard to is simple to understand and is going on constantly. Ever wonder why certain antibiotics lose their effectiveness, or why insecticides do likewise, or even where this new H1N1 virus came from?

cicindela October 11, 2009 at 11:45 PM  

Another thing I need to mention is WHY it took so long for the discovery to be published. I have published many scientific articles in my lifetime. Scientific articles go through a rigorous review process in which other experts have the right to hammer every weakness in your study. If you want the article published, you must deal with the critics. I have had it take me three years to get one of my pieces published. And I fully agree with the previous person who stated that science and religion are to separate spheres of knowledge. Religion and faith CANNOT be tested using the scientific method, no matter what the ICS will say. But there are also questions that science is not designe to test, such as the supernatural.

Justin October 12, 2009 at 8:59 AM  

Here is an article claiming that the bible was incorrectly translated. This woman doing the research said that first verse in genesis was meant not to say that god created heaven and the earth, but that he separated them.

I'm not saying this is fact but this is certainly interesting. She is also religious so please don't disregard her research simply because it isn't what you were taught as a child.

an interesting read

"She said: 'It meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself.' "

cicindela October 13, 2009 at 1:00 AM  

Most of the books of the bible have been translated several times, and there is much debate as to why certain books were kept and others not. Many of the Old Testament books were handed down as stories over several generations before they were ever written down. Comparing the books of the Gospel one can see a number of discrepancies. I am not ripping, as I teach evolution, but still believe there is an all powerful God, in some form or another. If there is anything more important I wish for in my students is openmindedness and a willingness to think outside the box. Without that we would not have the technologies we do today. However, ethics have to come from somewhere...that's where faith comes in.

Greg October 13, 2009 at 10:47 AM  


I complete agree with you. There is debate over how the Bible was translated, however, out of all the ancient manuscripts, the Bible is the most accurately translated. For instance, the New Testament has over 25 thousands manuscripts to allow a detailed comparison. Now, people should think outside the box and they should ask questions. Christianity is one religion that teaches that people should ask questions about their faith. That is what strengthens their faith. I hope that these evolutionist who have never even considered Creationism as an alternate form of understanding how life began might take another look and seriously look at the facts. They should stop blindly following what any scientist says just because they put classify it as science.

Anonymous October 13, 2009 at 2:31 PM  

Here's a real hoax for you: Abraham live to be five hundred years old. Many more such hoaxes can be found in the most debunked science and history text to be championed by the likes of the Texas Board of education.

Anonymous October 13, 2009 at 4:06 PM  

Great, at least we all seem to finally agree that evolution is real. As for ethics, why do we get that from faith? How then do you explain the countless religious factions slaughtering each other on a daily basis? I have no faith, and I am much more ethical than most religious people. My one ethical rule is that I treat people how I would want to be treated. I will never go to war. Doesn't matter to me if you are gay or want to have an abortion. Ethics are a product of evolution that allow a group of people to live together to mutual benefit. Religion actually serves to divide humanity and enforces a control structure on human behaviour. If youre a christian your behaviour is governed by your CHOSEN interpretation of the bible (and it can be pretty brutal in places). Steven Weinberg said, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion".

Anyone fancy a stoning? Or shall we burn some nine year old witches instead?

phictionphanatic October 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM  

To the Anonomous who posted before me (btw, al the anonomouses are getting realy confusing. If you are gonna argue, I wish people would would leave some form of id. i.e. "phictionphanatic". I'm proud of what i beleve. r u?)

Yes. All religions make mistakes. If you claimed to be perfect, you would be lieing to yourselfand others.

Anyways, good work Greg! This was a fantastic change from all the Pro-evolution stuff i've seen lately.

random question for readers, Why are most of you getting all ofended by his post. The same way people (using an American example) vote for who they think is the best candidate for president, so too do people belive in(key word being belive) or think evolution is stupid. I personally think it's stupid.

Also, why don't ya'll disprove the Bible. Go ahead I dare you.


ps. microevolution can be proven. Differences in species, ect. macroevolutionis where the problem starts(such as the belief that chimps "evolved" into humans)

Justin October 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM  

While we are attempting to prove the bible wrong, why dont you attempt to prove me wrong when i tell you there was a 5 headed fire breathing dragon in my basement....before I killed it and sent the body to the sun in my rocket ship..... you can't prove me wrong there

but let me prove a portion of the bible wrong

The Latin term renes is related to the English word "reins", a synonym for the kidneys in Shakespearean English (eg. Merry Wives of Windsor 3.5), which was also the time the King James Version was translated. Kidneys were once popularly regarded as the seat of the conscience and reflection[6][7], and a number of verses in the Bible (eg. Ps. 7:9, Rev. 2:23) state that God searches out and inspects the kidneys, or "reins", of humans. Similarly, the Talmud (Berakhoth 61.a) states that one of the two kidneys counsels what is good, and the other evil.

Now explain to me why god would have no clue how the inner-workings of his own CREATION functioned....

Greg October 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM  

Steven Weinberg said, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion".

Commenting on this quote above, that person has absolutely no idea about the nature of man. The nature of man is to do the wrong thing, not the right thing. Faith directs you to do the right thing. But the question is, who tells you what the right thing is? Who dictates what is right and what is wrong? Do you trust man to know what is right and wrong without God? Man in its nature is sinful and the sinful nature will dominate without God. You really have no idea what Faith is all about and that is probably why you are an Atheist.

Justin October 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM  

so greg, are you telling me that when I help out a total stranger, I'm doing it because of god? The truth is, most people like other people feel sympathy and help out out of kindness. If you have to use god as an excuse to do nice things, then you are truly a terrible person that is only ACTING good to impress the all seeing

In the last line, he's referring to mass genocides that occur solely because of religious disagreement. The people doing them are not bad people, but they think they are doing what is right because they have been taught to hate other religions.

The one line he doesn't say in his quote is that religion doesn't stop an evil person from doing evil. An evil person acts on his own.

This also isn't an argument of whether man "sins" on his own, because depending on your views, a sin could come from many different. This is only referring to evil/hurtful actions and benevolent actions. The grey area in the middle, like smoking pot and having unprotected sex with strangers, is neither evil nor good. Those are sins to some and not to others. But murdering a neighbor, is considered evil across the board.

Arachonium October 23, 2009 at 7:50 AM  

Lol, this is hilarious. You know that all the evidence anyone needs to put evolution beyond doubt is in DNA?
We HAVE OBSERVED evolution happen in insects and bacteria IN OUR LIFETIME, what more proof do you want?

Greg October 23, 2009 at 10:44 AM  

To learn more about bacteria mutation from a Creation perspective, read this article: article

Anonymous October 28, 2009 at 6:21 AM  

Greg, the article you reference is a very bad joke. The "research" described has been published in a journal designed solely to push the creationist agenda. This journal is TOTALLY biased towards the publication and furtherment of creationist superstition and was conceived in a vain attempt to try and bring "science" to support the creationist beliefs (kind of ironic don't you think). I respect that you are taking the time to find new information but I beg you to seek your information from impartial sources.

If your reference was so credible why wasn't it published in a reputable, impartial, peer-reviewed journal?

Here is some peer-reviewed impartial research on the subject from one of our planets most credible and influential journals:

It basically destroys the article you reference as the research described here is far more comprehensive.

Anonymous July 10, 2010 at 11:09 PM  

Oh my. After reviewing all the blistering comments I just have to shake my head. Where to start.

Several of you blast Greg for not being a scientist, but never bothered to leave any of your credentials. Seems his opinion would be just as valid as yours about "not knowing how... bla bla bla" So, stop with all the attacks and present actual arguments.

Saying there is overwhelming evidence, etc. etc. is so completely false as to be ridiculous. The "evidence" you discuss is all completely controversial. There are no facts that prove either side. Each piece of "evidence" has simply been a "religious" argument to support or deny evolution. So if you want to blame Greg for being religious, please, acknowlge your own religion. You are not based on science. You are based on belief. As Justin mentioned in one of his posts the "evidence" "hints" at a conclusion.

Although I don't know you Justin, I have a feeling, your openness about there being a creator is bit of a red herring. Yes, God could have used evolution to make his creation. But, if He did, then there is no pratcial difference between Creation and Divine Evolution except for the span of time. Now is there?

But pure evolution... with no divine evolution. Now come on. Someone above mentioned DNA proves evolution. Lets put it in perspective. Equate DNA to the most complex computer program ever written. Now, randomly generate it. Cells have no memory, and no intelligence. (i.e. they change not based on a desire to be something) They cannot decide to grow a wing. So you want me to believe that completely random changes without intelligence and without prior programming (i.e. yes, some things mutate, but that is not evolution) created all the living creatures we know today.

I think you need to review what you really believe, and quit hidding behind the mantel of being scientific.

--- Gene

bora August 23, 2010 at 5:01 AM  

Darwinists have had to keep apologizing for the last 150 years; “sorry, that was a hoax,” they said, “our mistake, it was a pig tooth, not a human one,” they said, “sorry about that, the moths were deliberately stuck onto the trees,” “the skull had been planed down,” “feathers had been stuck onto the dinosaur by hand,” “it appears that this fossil is still alive and not an intermediate form at all,” and “the primordial atmosphere was not like that at all,” they said. “Embryos are not like this at all, the illustrations are fakes,” they said. “We said it was the ancestor of man, but it appears it was just an ordinary ape,” they said. They have kept on apologizing and retracting their claims. They have hurriedly withdrawn fossils from museums. Declaring something to be an intermediate fossil in one issue of a journal, they have issued an apology in the subsequent edition. And this has carried on right down to the present day.

The reason is this: DARWINISM IS SIMPLY A DEVIANT IDEOLOGY, WITH NOTHING SCIENTIFIC ABOUT IT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVEN A SINGLE PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. It is for that reason that Darwinists constantly manufacture false evidence. But their frauds are only short-lived.

Bob November 24, 2010 at 1:14 PM  

OK, some quick answers to the above. The proportionally tiny amount of fossil hoaxes is completely irrelevant. Fossils are only the "icing on the cake" of evolution's evidence. DNA provides complete proof. Anyway, following the same logic, as the Turin shroud is a hoax can we all then agree that jesus never existed?
As for the DNA quote above, your analogy is completely inaccurate and you should refrain from talking science (at least) until you understand the fundamental concepts (I hold and BSc and PhD in molecular biology). The reality of the situation is that it is completely pointless debating with creationists as they are so blinded by their faith, which, by its very nature, teaches them to believe without proper evidence and without in-depth questioning. If you were you truly open-minded then all creationists would stop believing each other's lies about evolution as well as the mountain of creationist propaganda on the web and actually go out and read some impartial and credible information on the subject. All of the creationist arguments above are based in complete ignorance of the demonstrable reality of how our world works. All of your questions above would not exist if you actually bothered to read impartial books on the subject. If you want to live your lives with your heads buried in the sand, too afraid to look at the real world, then you have only my sympathy and pity and I wont waste my time any more trying to persuade you otherwise.

Anonymous January 2, 2011 at 2:26 PM  

Carl Sagan sums it all up in one go:

"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' "

Greg January 2, 2011 at 5:39 PM  

This has nothing to do with a small god or a big god. It has something to do with understanding God. The theory of evolution is designed to do without God. If the theory of evolution is true, why believe in God?

Greg January 2, 2011 at 5:44 PM  

Quick Comment on Bob who apparently holds a PH'D in science.

I am a little curious how many books you have read that wasn't written by an evolutionist? The majority of the propaganda in schools are written by evolutionist. I might not have a PH'D, but many creationist scientist do. There are a lot of problems related to the theory of evolution and you blindly follow them.

Bob February 17, 2011 at 9:31 AM  

I am not quite sure why evolution means there is no point believing in god? Please explain how you come to this conclusion. When doing so, kindly reference your faith's previous assertion "the earth not being the centre of the universe = no point believing in god" (except this time you can hopefully refrain from the torturing and imprisoning part).

No books Greg, just the mountain of creationist information on the web. The bottom line is that you are telling us that "The majority of the propaganda in schools are written by evolutionist" when you know NOTHING about evolution.

I spent a lot of time actually studying both sides of the argument and drew the following conclusions:

1) Evolution is currently the best explanation to describe the relationship between all of earth's carbon-based life forms past and present. Or...
2) God deliberately set out to deceive us by placing overwhelming evidence for evolution on the planet in a premeditated fashion.

I am still open to either being wrong. The truth is Greg, you don't want to know the truth, and like most creationists I have met you will blindly argue against anything that challenges your established world. One thing I am certain of is that creationists are so completely blinded by their faith that it is pointless arguing with them. For example, your knowledge of evolution (the entire point of this discussion) is so poor that you actually think that fossils are the evidence for evolution? Perhaps the world would be a better place if people like you only commented on the things that they actually properly understand.

Greg February 17, 2011 at 6:26 PM  

Actually Bob, I do want to know the truth and that is why I am not an evolutionist. I think people believe in evolution because it is classified as "Science" and if you put the word Science in front of something, it must be true. Just like global warming. Everybody is running around saying it is true, and now more and more scientist are coming out saying it isn't. I think that evolutionist don't want to know the truth. That is why evolutionist spend so much time attacking creationist and Christians saying they are stupid. My point is that there are many scientists that don't hold to the evolutionist view and some of them aren't even Christians. Now to your question. If evolution is true, why believe in God? If we evolved, then that means that God isn't in control and he doesn't have a plan for us. Either God created us or he didn't. If we evolved, then why did God create us? If we evolved, that would make all religious text about God wrong because there isn't any religious text that talks about evolution. So if we have no religious text about God, then God didn't reveal anything to us so why believe in him.

Bob February 28, 2011 at 1:34 PM  

1) Now to your question. If evolution is true, why believe in God? If we evolved, then that means that God isn't in control and he doesn't have a plan for us.

- Why can god not be in control of the evolutionary process? Note that evolution is not a random process. On the contrary, "survival of the fittest" is very tightly controlled. Besides, I thought god knows everything, past present and future? Why can he not start evolution knowing that we will eventually arise?

2) Either God created us or he didn't. If we evolved, then why did God create us?

- That's a question for him (though I imagine that trying to second-guess an omnipotent being would be somewhat pointless) but let's presume you are correct about god. The planet would be about 6000 years old. The DNA of living things would prove this. No fossils or rocks would be older than 6000 years old. All universe-age experiments in space would prove this. Evidence for the great flood would be everywhere. There would be no evidence for evolution. Every single sane person on the planet would be a devout Christian. We would all live in utopia (let's presume that by now we would have got past the torturing, burning, drowning and killing part). Hell would not have had a new visitor for centuries. We wouldn't be having this discussion. God and satan would be somewhat bored.... Sound plausible?

3) If we evolved, that would make all religious text about God wrong because there isn't any religious text that talks about evolution.

- No religious text talks about microwaves, or gravity, or relativity, or electromagnetism, or spiral galaxies (I could go on listing for a very, very long time). So you don't believe in these things either?

4) So if we have no religious text about God, then God didn't reveal anything to us so why believe in him.

- Believe in him because it makes you happy to do so and because you want to. Not because a book and some humans tell you to. The book was written by humans in the same way that the church is led by humans. When humans (especially men) are involved then absolutely nothing can be trusted. Just please leave alone those of us who genuinely want to know the truth about the world around us, that's all we're asking....

  © Blogger template Palm by 2008

Back to TOP