44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults

44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults | evolution-460x295 | Faith Propaganda Science & Technology Sleuth Journal

The theory of evolution is false.  It is simply not true.  Actually, it is just a fairy tale for adults based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that hundreds of millions of people around the world choose to believe with blind faith.  When asked to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most adults in the western world come up totally blank.  When pressed, most people will mumble something about how “most scientists believe it” and how that is good enough for them.  This kind of anti-intellectualism even runs rampant on our college campuses.  If you doubt this, just go to a college campus some time and start asking students why they believe in evolution.  Very few of them will actually be able to give you any real reasons why they believe it.  Most of them just have blind faith in the priest class in our society (“the scientists”).  But is what our priest class telling us actually true?  When Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, he didn’t actually have any evidence that it was true.  And since then the missing evidence has still not materialized.  Most Americans would be absolutely shocked to learn that most of what is taught as “truth” about evolution is actually the product of the overactive imaginations of members of the scientific community.  They so badly want to believe that it is true that they will go to extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale.  They keep insisting that the theory of evolution has been “proven” and that it is beyond debate.  Meanwhile, most average people are intimidated into accepting the “truth” about evolution because they don’t want to appear to be “stupid” to everyone else.

In this day and age, it is imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves.  Don’t let me tell you what to think, and don’t let anyone else tell you what to think either.  Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.  The following are 44 reasons why evolution is just a fairy tale for adults…

#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

#2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered

“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

#3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following

“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

#4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

#5 Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs.  But instead there are none.

#7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

#8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…

“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”

#9 The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it…

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature.  In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature.  The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

#12 Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College

“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”

#13 Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has “scientific origins” is fooling themselves.  It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that can be traced back for thousands of years.

#14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no radiocarbon in it whatsoever.  But instead, we find it in everything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones.  This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense

It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.

In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.

#15 The odds of even a single cell “assembling itself” by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about.  The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret“…

Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”

#16 How did life learn to reproduce itself?  This is a question that evolutionists do not have an answer for.

#17 In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth.  Evolutionists originally told us that this “living fossil” had gone extinct 70 million years ago.  It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years.

#18 According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago.  But it still exists today.  So why hasn’t it evolved at all over the time frame?

#19 Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer.  This is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff.  The truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex.  The following is how a PBS documentary described the complexity of the human brain: “It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.”

#20 The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity…

“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”

#21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be a giant hoax.

#22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?

#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?

#24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

#25 Apes and humans are very different genetically.  As DarwinConspiracy.com explains, “the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.”

#26 How can we explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal?  No evolutionary process has ever been shown to be able to create new biological information.  One scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be required to transform microbes into men this way

“The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).”

#27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers.  This simply is not true at all

The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (“younger” and “older” layers found in repeating sequences). “Out of place” fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

#28 Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light enough to fly.  This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous.

#29 If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them?  The following is from an NBC News report about one of these discoveries…

For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

#30 Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?

#31 Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

#32 Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

#33 Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

#34 In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve?

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied.

#36 Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

#37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.

#38 Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old.

#39 If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves?  The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten

Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

#40 Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were.  They often speak of the “illusion of design”, but that is kind of like saying that it is an “illusion” that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed.  And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone.

#41 If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you.  Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality…

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

#42 Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution…

“Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.”

#43 Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution…

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

#44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?

For years, I have been looking for someone that can explain to me the very best evidence for the theory of evolution in a systematic way.  My challenge has been for someone to lay out for me a basic outline of the facts that “prove” that evolution is true.

Perhaps you believe that you are up to the challenge.

I’ll even get you started…

A)

#1

#2

#3

B)

#1

#2

#3

C)

#1

#2

#3

If you think that you can prove that evolution is true, please leave a comment below with your best shot.

Or if you would like to discuss additional evidence for why you believe that the theory of evolution is false, please feel free to share it by posting a comment below.

For those that would like to learn more, there are a couple of videos that I would recommend.  One is entitled “Evolution vs. God“…

The other one is entitled “The Case For A Creator“…

May we all keep open minds, and may we all keep searching for the truth.

Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and has a law degree and an LLM from the University of Florida Law School. He is an attorney that has worked for some of the largest and most prominent law firms in Washington D.C. and who now spends his time researching and writing and trying to wake the American people up. You can follow his work on The Economic Collapse blog, End of the American Dream and The Truth Wins. His new novel entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com.

About The Author

Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and has a law degree and an LLM from the University of Florida Law School. He is an attorney that has worked for some of the largest and most prominent law firms in Washington D.C. and who now spends his time researching and writing and trying to wake the American people up. You can follow his work on The Economic Collapse blog, The Most Important News, End of the American Dream and The Truth Wins. His new novel entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com.

    Related posts

    • Zen Rebeldiva

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha!

      • Burrow Owl

        My reaction too.
        This has got to be one of the most fact-free articles I’ve ever read.
        All hail the mighty Tiktaalik and the holy MRSA.
        No evidence for evolution my hairy anus.

        • Leo

          Then present the evidence.

          • Burrow Owl

            I already presented two proofs in my original comment. The fact that you choose to ignore them says volumes about your own intellectual dishonesty. But then, that is all that I have ever come to expect from Creationists.

            • alfalfa31

              I love the Dead Milkmen reference in your name.

          • alfalfa31

            I posted a pretty thorough rebuttal. Feel free to puruse it at your leisure.

    • Mark Ofthefamily Woolley

      In order to believe the theory of creation…you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from god?…
      and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself.
      Do you have that much blind faith?

      For years, I have been looking for someone that can explain to me the very best evidence for the theory of creation…in a systematic way.
      My challenge has been for someone to lay out for me a basic outline of the facts that “prove” that creation…is true.

      Perhaps you believe that you are up to the challenge.

      • Aaron Stephens

        And evolutionists must have blind faith to believe that cells popped into existence. If you want to use the flawed Abiogenesis theory then Adam being created is scientific. But abiogenesis is completely false, so God took dirt and breathed the breath of life into it to make man. Then when the fall of man came, we were cursed with going back to dust. Like we do.

        • alfalfa31

          I’m going to venture a guess that you know nothing about abiogenesis. If you knew something about it, you wouldn’t have said any of the above.

          • Aaron Stephens

            Actually I’ve learned enough to know that it says that it is the process of life coming from non-living matter. Kinda sounds like Adam is you ask me.

            • alfalfa31

              No, you have not. You know so little that it’s frightening to me that you can even begin to comment here. For a start, try watching the entirety of the linked video. I promise you that when your bible bias kicks in, you’ll shut it off (that is if you can even understand the big, scary, scientific words).

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrMuFpGlcpk

            • Aaron Stephens

              Ok that video is a joke. I’m not watching an hour long video on probably the most boring speach I’ve ever heard. Only 6,000 views and I’ve never heard of any of that stuff anywhere else. If that had anything truly groundbreaking then it would have a much higher view count for one. Also, commenters bring up flaws with the speech.

            • alfalfa31

              The video is not to entertain you, it’s to educate you. Since you have no desire to be educated, maybe you shouldn’t get on the INternet talking about things you’re not even willing to try to understand.

              It’s at this point that it’s certain there’s no reason to attempt to make you understand the error of your ways. You’re not willing to entertain it.

            • Aaron Stephens

              Why become educated on a theory with literally no real proof on it. Abiogenesis, microevolution, blah blah blah. If you see a monkey become a man, just let me know.

            • alfalfa31

              See, that’s the problem. You don’t understand what evidence is. The proof of that statement is that you posted links to AIG’s website but didn’t bother to read the arguments they no longer use. Let me help you with that.

              https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/

              As for evidence, how about we flip the script. There is absolutely no evidence that your god exists. Prove it, or shut up.

            • Aaron Stephens

              There is no evidence for evolution. Prove it, or shut up. There is no evidence against God. Prove it, or shut up. What a poor argument.

            • alfalfa31

              Clearly don’t understand ‘burden of proof.’ Allow me to enlighten you.

              You claim there is a god. I say that your claim is, at best, implausible. It’s up to you to prove your claim.

              As for evolutionary theory, you have no basis in the science or understanding about the subject. You simply reject all evidence provided out of hand.

              So, you either visit the sites I give you and learn, or look like a kid refusing to accept the unreality of Santa Claus.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw

            • Aaron Stephens

              Santa claus is a poor example to use against God. Everyone makes God to be a magical sky daddy when that is the complete opposite. He isn’t a genie in a bottle that will grant every wish, He is the one all powerful God, He is the great I am, He is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, and He has the power to wipe us all out of existence and He doesn’t. Why? We are wretched scum that defile His name and refuse to believe He exists. We’ve made up these theories and then backed them up with lies that you call evidence to justify our unbelieving selves. God created us and He has given us free will out of love.

              God’s Love Shown Through Jesus Christ

              John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

              Romans 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

              Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God. who loved me and gave himself for me.

              Ephesians 2:4-5 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, evenwhen we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—

              1 John 4:9-11 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

              God Loves and Cares For Us

              Zephaniah 3:17 The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing.

              1 John 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

              1 Peter 5:6-7 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.

              Job 34:19 who shows no partiality to princes, nor regards the rich more than the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?

              Psalm 86:15 But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.

              1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

              What God Says About Love

              Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations,

              Proverbs 8:17 I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.

              Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

              John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

              Why push away so much love and then blindly accept theories made by men? Why did you give up God is my question? You say you were raised with the Bible, and yet why do you refuse to accept Him? There is no evidence to give for evolution and yet you believe it because men who have high IQ’s and the public sees them as ‘smart’ make up some joke of a theory and then mix actual science with it to justify their belief. Cold, hard truth, but truth nonetheless.

            • alfalfa31

              Quote bible stuff at a person who knows the bible far better than you. Good work…

              Long story short, you keep saying there is no evidence for evolution, which is, at best, a delusional position to hold. At worst it’s an outright and willful lie. All the while you don’t hold your nonsense book to the same standard.

              There is not one shred of evidence for your god. Not one. You can claim to have absolute truth with absolutely no evidence, yet require a demonstration of evidence you won’t even look at for the opposite.

              You, sir, are the living definition of an idiot.

            • Aaron Stephens

              You obviously do not know the Bible far better than me, or you wouldn’t be saying these things. You say there are contradictions and yet you say you know the Bible more than me??? Call me an idiot, call me delusional, call me whatever. I don’t care at all. You are just saying it to Jesus as well and you are deciding your eternal fate. Enjoy life and I hope you find the truth before it is too late. God Bless.

            • alfalfa31

              The fact that you can’t see contradictions in the bible shows just how delusional you are.

              Romans 10:13

              Matt 7:21

              John 6:44

              You don’t know how to read.

            • Aaron Stephens
            • alfalfa31

              There is no misunderstanding as to the context of 1 Tim 2 when it talks about how to own and be slaves.

              We have arrived at the conclusion, as a society, that slavery is immoral. We did that despite the fact that your god is fine with owning other human beings. The fact that he did not make a blanket prohibition on the ownership of human beings makes him immoral. Your failure to see that makes every word you say suspect.

              Also, try representing the beliefs you have in your words instead of relying on clearly intellectually superior people to argue for you.

            • Aaron Stephens

              Don’t you do that? You rely on biased websites and biased videos…. Try explaining to me the basics of evolution and abiogenesis in your own words. Slavery is immoral and just because 1 Tim and 2 Tim accepts it, doesn’t mean it was a rule made for us. Back then was different. The Bible was written thousands of years ago and we just got out of slavery a couple hundred years ago. I mean really your arguments are childish.

            • alfalfa31

              No, I don’t rely on biased websites. I have read all sides of every argument I’ve made. You have not. You will not.

              You just said my argument was childish because I made the mistake of thinking your god, whom you present as the creator of the universe, could have written down in his little book of nonsense that owning people was wrong.

              If he could have and didn’t, that makes him evil. Childish is saying, “But that was the olden days.” as your only argument.

              Tour god is evil as described, and unnecessary.

        • travis.cottreau

          Not one evolutionary biologist has ever said that cells “popped into existence”. If you can point to one, I will give you a million dollars.

          The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Single celled organisms begin to appear around 3.5 billion years. So, if a billion years can be considered “popping”, you win.

          • Aaron Stephens

            Well how did that life originate?? And how did the universe suddenly explode? It was instantaneous, so don’t give me thay billion year stuff. Evolution has a few instantaneous events that can have the label “popped”.

            • travis.cottreau

              We don’t know how life originated. Everything else we’ve ever researched scientifically has a natural explanation. I suspect when we crack that one, it will be the same.

              As far as we know about how abiogeneis, it must have gone through a few phases or things that weren’t quite alive, but were more a type of proto-life. So no popping and no instantaneous life as far as our best analysis shows.

              I would have thought that you’d want to earn your million dollars and point to an evolutionary biologist saying that cells popped into existence. It’s probably hard to find because no one has ever said it.

              It is a frequent misunderstanding among creationists and intelligent design supporters that biology that discusses abiogenesis says cells popped into existence in their current state. That’s pretty much impossible and couldn’t have happened that way, so, it’s a straw man argument.

              It’s like me saying that you claim that God is a sky fairy who likes to wave His wand around and impregnate virgins. Clearly, that isn’t your position and making it sound that silly would be a bad thing to do.

              So, remember that claiming evolution says modern cells popped into existence suddenly is exactly the same thing.

            • Aaron Stephens

              Maybe using popped isn’t the best, but how life originated is unanswerable by science. It’s taken 150 years and yet there is no good answer from evolution. what is so bad about believing in intelligent design? You don’t even have to be Christian to see the proof. This site is from scientists explaining this: http://www.discovery.org/a/9761. Like I said, why can’t beliving in God be easy. Because people just want to have a better answer. It can’t be that easy they say. Why? Hundreds of years believing in this and it will go no where. Absolutely nowhere. Humans just have to have an explainable answer, but there are millions of things that science will never explain.

            • travis.cottreau

              Thanks for saying that “popped” is the wrong phrasing. 🙂

              I would say it’s “unanswered” by science, but I don’t know if it’s “unanswerable”. I suspect that it isn’t, since it’s likely that someone will probably find a process that will produce early proto-life in the lab. It’s certainly been well known that it’s easy to produce amino acids from some simple inorganic material and some electric charges. I don’t know how many scientists are working on this type of research. The vast majority of evolutionary biologists are not. In fact, I suspect that it’s not considered an evolutionary problem.

              There is nothing wrong with believing in God and a designer – you can believe that if you like and I can’t really claim that you are wrong, since it’s not possible to check and see, not via any of our current testing methods anyway.

              But, theists quite often extend their beliefs into the real world and make claims that are scientifically testable. Once that happens, and you are found wrong, say age of the earth or evil spirits causing disease, and science is allowed to look and see. If you are wrong, then you can’t really complain.

              I have read the discovery institute pages previously. That isn’t really science – it’s hand waving. We need real, testable evidence. Saying “fine tuning” or “specified complexity” sounds very scientific. In the end, ID is mostly a theological, judgement-based conclusion based on evolution not having the answer in a few specific cases.

            • Aaron Stephens

              You are a good opponent for a debate. I’ve been at it on YouTube for a while and the people who debate against me had to be blocked. I’ll leave it at that…

              Anyways there is actually a lot of evidence that points to a young earth. Here’s some major points found here: https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/

              I know Answers In Genesis is a creationist site, but that is a form of science too. There is evolutionary science and creation science. Take evolution out of science completely for a moment and then look at how creation holds up.

              #1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

              For Additional Information:

              The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation

              The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation (pdf)

              “Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past1 (pdf)

              #2 Bent Rock Layers

              For Additional Information:

              Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured

              “Soft-Sediment Deformation Features” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past2 (pdf)

              “Megasequences of North America” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past3 (pdf)

              #3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

              For Additional Information:

              Two: Those Not-So-Dry Bones

              More Soft Tissue in “Old” Fossils

              #4 Faint Sun Paradox

              For Additional Information:

              The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System

              #5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

              For Additional Information:

              The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young

              The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth

              “The Earth’s Magnetic Field” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past4 (pdf)

              #6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

              For Additional Information:

              Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay

              Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay

              The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium Content

              “Helium in Rocks and in the Atmosphere” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past5 (pdf)

              #7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

              For Additional Information:

              Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds

              Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth

              Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model

              “The Pitfalls in the Radioactive Dating Methods—The Radiocarbon Dating Method” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past6 (pdf)

              “Carbon-14 Dating” from Thousands . . . not Billions7 (pdf)

              #8 Short-Lived Comets

              For Additional Information:

              Comets and the Age of the Solar System

              Kuiper Belt Objects: Solution to Short-Period Comets?

              More Problems for the ‘Oort Comet Cloud’

              #9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

              For Additional Information:

              The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists

              “Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past8 (pdf)

              #10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

              For Additional Information:

              Bacterial Life in Ancient Salt

              That’s all I’ve got for now.

            • alfalfa31

              AIG is run by fools who wouldn’t know science if it bit them in the face.

            • Aaron Stephens

              So is Bill Nye and good ol Stephen Hawking. Answer those problems clearly brought up with good science and not the fake junk that is evolution.

            • alfalfa31

              Look, your arguments are based entirely in personal incredulity. That’s sad.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw

            • Aaron Stephens

              Believe what you want and I’ll do the same.

            • alfalfa31

              That’s just it. I don’t care what you believe. I do care when you assert your beliefs as true absent evidence, and refute demonstrable truth providing no rational argument as to why we should listen.

              I need not believe that which is true. That which you believe is flatly false.

            • Aaron Stephens

              How can you come at me for pushing my beliefs when you do the same by saying mine is false without actually knowing whether God is real or not. You have no evidence to prove He doesn’t exist and I don’t have physical evidence for Him. I just have His Word and the things He has done for me. God Bless.

            • alfalfa31

              Again, you don’t understand burden of proof. I need not prove there is no god. You, as the one making the claim need to prove that there is. You cannot, by your own admission.

              Adopting the null position on a claim is the rational place to start. If I tell you I have a flying magic carpet, you’d be wise to disbelieve me until I took you for a spin on it.

              You have a magical sky daddy. I rationally disbelieve until you can prove it. That’s how this works.

              I don’t have any beliefs. I have evidence based positions that are subject to change on better evidence. You should give it a try.

            • Aaron Stephens

              Don’t call Him a magical sky daddy. He is by no means magical. He isn’t some genie in a bottle and calling Him magical is denying everything the Bible says He is. You say you have evidence, but you have fiction mixed with science and the baby was evolution. I don’t need to prove there is a God, because it is all faith based. I have given you my explanation for my belief and I want to know why you reject God. Why did you come to this extremely biased opinion???

            • alfalfa31

              OK, I’ll call him immoral, useless, superfluous, imaginary sky daddy. Is that better?

              Your god does not exist until you prove he does. I’ve said it many times in this ‘conversation.’ Those of capable of extrapolation would say that the reason for my disbelief is the abject lack of evidence for your poor excuse for a god.

    • Jeong Wook Son

      Creationists mock those who believe in evolution simply because the bible doesn’t describe evolution. The bible doesn’t describe Dinosaurs either. Just as all of Man’s ideas are flawed, science has many flaws. Since the Bible was physically written by men, it too has flaws.

      • John Pangos

        Check out the book of Job

        • alfalfa31

          I have. Be as good as you possibly can and your god will still allow all of your kids to be killed, and all your wealth / health to be destroyed. Good lesson…

          • Beni

            AAANND you completely missed the point. Also, Job was blessed in the end with twice as much as he had before. Again, check out the book of Job.

            • alfalfa31

              Right, Job was blessed. What about his ten children? Were they brought back to life and likewise blessed? What a great lesson. If your god wants to teach your dad a lesson, you get to die, but it’s OK. Your dad will have new kids.

            • Aaron Stephens

              The devil is the one that killed the children. God tested his faith. Plus that takes part during the old covenant. That is any law that comes before the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. After He was crucified, the new covenant came along and anything after that point is a law that stands to this day.

            • alfalfa31

              Your god allowed everything that your ‘devil’ did. If you were my property, and I told a friend or enemy of mine that it was OK to do anything he wanted to you short of kill you, I’m the one who is guilty of everything done to you.

              Also, you clearly have not read your bible much. Your Jesus told you that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law. Not to mention the fact that if a serial murderer changed his mind and decided to stop murdering, he still needs to be punished for his crimes. Just because of the ludicrous notion that there was some kind of sacrifice does not mean your god would be absolved of all the bloodshed and murder that happened before said sacrifice.

              I’ll go so far as to require proof that Jesus ever existed, because there is no evidence that he ever did.

            • Aaron Stephens

              He was testing Job’s faith. I don’t know why, but God ended up giving Job double of what He had back. That verse you qoute is BEFORE Jesus was crucified. Possibly years before. Jesus says this in Mark 5. 5. Jesus’s crucifixion is near the very end of each book of His life on earth. Also all that bloodshed all happened for many reasons. Warfare was one big one. God gave the land to the Israelites and then these rotten to the core people came in and tortured them. God gave them many chances before ordering their destruction. Just like Ninevah. He was going to wipe it out, but He sent Jonah as a last warning. Also with Lot. It kept going until Lot asked if there was only 10 righteous people in the entirety of Sodom and Gamorrah. Just ten of who knows how many. That is how much forgiveness and grace God had before having them wiped out. I’m going to venture to say you have done very little study with theology or even just reading the bible. Nearly every single person I debate against uses the exact same argument you use, so do your research before coming at me with this ‘Jesus was fake’ stuff. There are numerous archeological discoveries that points to Jesus and many other stories in the Bible.

            • alfalfa31

              OK, Job. What you’re saying there is, that if I kill your kid, but give you two kids in return, no harm, no foul.

              My point is not Job and his faith, it’s the victims of that sick game played by your god and his unruly kid. Job had ten children, all killed with their wives, husbands and children in a tent. Job’s slaves were killed in heinous ways. For what? So your sick, twisted excuse for a god could prove to his unruly kid what a good man Job was?

              And you worship that?

              I don’t care one iota about where it appears in that book, the New Testament is as bad as the old one, and you don’t get to cherry pick the book. Timothy talks about how to properly own slaves, and how to properly be a slave. If you believe slavery is evil, you’re more moral than your own god.

              As for my knowledge of the bible, I was raised on it. Try agin.

            • Aaron Stephens

              God made sure all those people the devil killed would be in heaven once Job would die. They all were gifted eternal life and Job is probably with them now. They may have died in bad way, but they got eternal life. Is that so bad? Eternal life sounds good to our dreary existence on earth. No pain, no death, no sadness, etc. Pretty good gift to that family and slaves.

              Also you say unruly child. Do you mean Jesus???? Jesus was completely blameless. I have been raised reading the Bible, so try backing that up with quoted verses. One that says Jesus sinned or Jesus was unruly according to God’s law. Not the church’s laws.

              Also, if you actually read the Bible then why do you speak against it so much? If you actually read it then you get so much information on how to live life with love, joy, and righteousness. Also Timothy is an old testament book thus being under the old covenant. I took a six week class on that subject alone, so try coming at me with good proof on how the covenant thing makes no sense. New covenant is any rule made after Jesus was crucified. Some laws are still binding to us from the old testament like the ten commandments, but most are not binding anymore.

            • alfalfa31

              You’re defending the indefensible. If your god could murder all the people on earth and that act gives them a pass into paradise, then not murdering them and giving them that pass is an evil act. If you think otherwise, you are truly a case study in the ridiculous.

              Unruly child = Lucifer. You know, the one we’re talking about here…

              Your 6 week class on the covenants did you a disservice. Maybe you should go get your bible and look up exactly which testament the Timothies are in. Hint, it’s not the old testament. Let me help you with this, since I had to memorize the order of the books as a child. The new testament contains Matthew, Mark, Luke John, Acts, Romans Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, oh, and look at this… Timothy. Interesting that…

              I understand the arguments for super-dispensationalism, and the nonsense about new covenants. I know exactly what teachings of Paul make him a heretic. I know the failed prophecies in the bible. It doesn’t change what’s said in Matthew 5:18 by a man who most likely never existed.

              I’m clearly not the one who needs to study the bible, chief.

            • Aaron Stephens

              My bad on the whole Timothy thing. Here is evidence against that claim which brings no evidence against the covenants. https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/1Tim/Instructions-Concerning-Slaves.

              DON’T USE MATTHEW 5:18!!! EVERYONE USES THAT AND COMPLETELY LOOKS OVER THIS FACT—-> that is long before Jesus was crucified. The new covenant began after Jesus was crucified and that verse comes before. You need to actually read the Bible and stop going after one verse and completely disregarding the rest.

              If you simply Google the covenants, you find tons of information on them. Here: https://www.gci.org/law/oldandnew

              Anyways, don’t attack the Bible and completely disregard all other verses to make sure your argument stands true. You are fighting a battle you can not win when you go against the Bible and God.

            • alfalfa31

              No, you’re fighting a battle you can’t win by defending it. It’s replete with holes, failed prophecies, and over 25,000 outright contradictions.

              To say the words of your jesus were before his crucifixion so they don’t count is to make two statements. First, he lied, because he said ‘Till heaven and earth pass…’ That’s an all encompassing statement. Second, if that statement isn’t true, he’s a failed prophet and not worthy of your reverence.

            • Aaron Stephens

              Yet you completely disregard the overwhelming evidence I have been sending you on this subject. Do more research before you claim the Bible is full of contradictions because there are none. If even one has been found then I wouldn’t believe anything in it, but there are none. No one can prove any contradictions, I’m sorry.

              Jeremiah 31:31-34 “31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

              32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

              33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

              34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

              Hebrews 8:13 – “In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.”

            • alfalfa31

              You are truly a moron. You claim to know the unknowable and refuse to entertain any evidence to the contrary.

              You are not worth the time I took, nor the words I wrote. Good luck with your insanity.

            • Aaron Stephens

              Same to you 🙂

            • alfalfa31

              At least I actually look at evidence instead of saying it doesn’t exist.

            • Aaron Stephens

              I have given boatloads of information from the genius, Ken Hamm. I have given scriptures to back my claims and you give me videos and sites that are laughable at best.

            • alfalfa31

              Oh, and also, there is NO evidence that Jesus ever existed. If you have any, kindly present it, or stop talking about it as if it exists.

      • alfalfa31

        The bible doesn’t describe kangaroos, wombats, capybaras or ocelots either. The reason is the primitive people of the time never saw them. The whole book is nonsense.

        • Aaron Stephens

          So what it doesn’t describe them. Does it have to? The bible does actually talk about dinosaurs btw. There are parts in Genesis and Exodus I believe that mention leviathins. They were all wiped out by the flood. Also, the bible was written by men, but God gave them every single word to write. Kind of like a scribe.

          • alfalfa31

            So, if god gave every word to those men to write, kindly explain how there is so much wrong with the book as it pertains to the nature of the universe. How can the god who created the thing not know what the thing is? Stars can’t fall to the earth, but the bible says that they not only can, but a third of them will. It says the earth is a flat disc and stands on pillars. It doesn’t. It says that all you need to do to get striped sheep is carve stripes on the trees near them. That’s tree glaring errors off the top of my head. If you don’t think that’s nonsense, there’s something wrong with you.

            • Aaron Stephens

              In the end stars will fall to the earth actually. Revelations is yet to come and it will be catstrophic. The end of the earth. Those examples you give don’t pose many problems though. I’ll look into them more when I get back from work, but I’d like better details please. There is nothing wrong with the bible at all. You can’t read it when you are biased against it.

            • travis.cottreau

              It’s “Revelation”, drop the last “s”.

              NOTE: Revelation is a description of the time when it was written, in a code so that the Romans couldn’t read it.

              The 666 as the number of the beast is interesting, since it converts to “Emperor Nero” when using Jewish numerology. If you doubt it, there are some old manuscripts where the number of the beast is 616 and when converted, it translates to a different spelling of Nero.

              I think that’s proof that the beast was Nero and not something in the future.

            • Aaron Stephens

              No….Revelation(sorry about the mispell) is definitely what is to come.

              Daniel 12:4 …’even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.’ Even before Revelation, this points to today. Our knowledge has increased sooo much in the last ten years. In the next ten we may have artificial intelligence for all we know.

              Revelation 13:17 …’And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.’

              This is the scariest part for me. Look at all the recent events that points to this: Sweden close to being a Cashless Society

              Cash is Dead, are Credit Cards Next?

              Nigeria Deploying Biometric Technology Throughout the Banking System

              Mastercard Tracking Global Economies Heading for Cashless Societies

              Israel Leaders Pushing for a Cashless Society

              UN World Food Program Pushing Smart Cards and Digital Payment

              Cashless Society Drive Gaining Momentum in Rwanda

              Matthew 24:37 …’But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.’

              Luke 17:28-30 …’Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.’

              Sexual immorality is higher than it ever could have been. Gay marriage is oen big example. There is much much more evidence that the end times are coming at this site: http://www.signs-of-end-times.com/. It doesn’t claim a date, but warns people with signs and reminding them that it can happen at any moment.

              Also, that 666 argument barely proves anything. John used that number to predict the false prophet that will come and the number is supposed to foreshadow how truly evil he will be. The end time prophet will be a modern day Caesar.

            • travis.cottreau

              Thanks Aaron, but I think history and biblical analysis are against you on this one. You can fit any modern technology into your conspiracy theory. If no evidence can convince you otherwise, it’s probably time to put it aside.

              The 666 is definitive. 666 is Nero’s number. Unless you can figure out some meaning for 666 that fits history and the writers of the new testament, you don’t really have a case.

              I think it’s pretty convincing, since the 666 and 616 both spell out Nero’s name. If it was just one, it might be a fluke, but both?

            • Aaron Stephens

              It’s only 666 in the bible. 616 isn’t there. Did you even read the site with proof for it? I’m guessing not. I’m guessing you’ve never read the bible cover to cover or even done research on theology or Biblical history. Otherwise you would be speaking differently. Don’t be biased when reading the bible. You have to read and study it with no personal bias or you will come up with anything to refute it. Anything to try and get a better answer that satisfies you. Please go here for further proof: http://godwords.org/108/revelation-prophecy-past-or-prophecy-future/

            • travis.cottreau

              There is no proof on the Discovery Institute site. Besides, I’ve read the site previously and read multiple books by intelligent design supporters, Dembsky, Meyer, Behe as well as listen to their videos on line. They are very successful in the area of public relations, but don’t actually do any science. Not to say they aren’t scientifically minded, but really, ID isn’t science. It’s not testable at all, makes no predictions and isn’t really falsifiable. What they say is that XYZ looks to be designed. Debsky is supposed to have a mathematical

              You are right, I have not read the bible – ever. The original bible is in ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek – very few people have read the original. I’ve only ever read translations – 3 different ones.

              You might want to read more about the specific mentions of 616. It’s found in the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, which is one of the oldest known early manuscripts (5th century), which had multiple correctors, but that bit wasn’t corrected. Also, it agrees with Papyrus 115, a separate manuscript of Revelation that is from the 3rd century, but is only a few fragments.

              AND, on top of all that, using Jewish nemerology, both 666 and 616 translate to different spellings of Nero.

              There is no reason to think that 616 was just a bit of confusion. In both versions, the number is spelled out in full and it’s not possible to just mis-write a piece and end up with the other.

              Anyway – read a bit more – it’s really interesting. I’m pretty sure that both versions exist in really old manuscripts and that in itself is interesting.

            • travis.cottreau

              There is no proof on the Discovery Institute site. Besides, I’ve read the site previously and read multiple books by intelligent design supporters, Dembsky, Meyer, Behe as well as listen to their videos on line. They are very successful in the area of public relations, but don’t actually do any science. Not to say they aren’t scientifically minded, but really, ID isn’t science. It’s not testable at all, makes no predictions and isn’t really falsifiable. What they say is that XYZ looks to be designed. Debsky is supposed to have a mathematical formula to identify design, mathematicians haven’t received it well and it’s never been applied practically.

              You are right, I have not read the bible – ever. The original bible is in ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek – very few people have read the original. I’ve only ever read translations – 3 different ones.

              You might want to read more about the specific mentions of 616. It’s found in the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, which is one of the oldest known early manuscripts (5th century), which had multiple correctors, but that bit wasn’t corrected. Also, it agrees with Papyrus 115, a separate manuscript of Revelation that is from the 3rd century, but is only a few fragments.

              AND, on top of all that, using Jewish nemerology, both 666 and 616 translate to different spellings of Nero.

              There is no reason to think that 616 was just a bit of confusion. In both versions, the number is spelled out in full and it’s not possible to just mis-write a piece and end up with the other.

              Anyway – read a bit more – it’s really interesting. I’m pretty sure that both versions exist in really old manuscripts and that in itself is interesting.

            • Aaron Stephens

              Revelation is the future and I didn’t give you the discover pages. There are many parts in Revelation that shows it is the future. Here’s even more evidence towards that:http://daniel11truth.com/the-seals-explain-pre-tribulation-rapture.htm. The whole 616 things still doesn’t point to the past. Revelation is clearly set is the future if you really study the Bible.

            • travis.cottreau

              Thanks Aaron.

              I was reading sign of the times that you gave earlier. It’s complete conspiracy theory. How many times in the past have people predicted the end of the world? How many times have they been right?

              In fact, Paul in the New Testament is assuming the time will be soon. If he was wrong, why would we be? What makes the people doing the predictions right? I believe if someone is ever right about the end of the world, it will be by fluke and not by real revelation. If you look for signs and interpret the words loosely say “increase in knowledge” from the first link you gave me – that could have been a single discovery, of the enlightenment, or the end of the dark ages, or far in the future.

              If it could be anything, then it doesn’t mean a lot. Maybe it’s about the future, but it seems unlikely.

              I would like to see a clearly scholarly article that shows how it has been accurately predicting things rather than some of these conspiracy pages.

            • Aaron Stephens

              Well I’ll do more research to find more scholarly articles. Theologists who have found good evidence. They don’t claim to have a date though. The bible doesn’t even tell us. The Bible says it is soon though and since God is outside of time, we have no idea if soon is tomorrow, 100 years from now, or 1000 years from now. We just don’t know and that is terrifying. We Christians need to fulfill our task of sharing God’s Word to all people, so that when the day comes in Revelation we will be ready. People will go to hell in the end, but you have to make sure you aren’t one of them. It may seem like magic and a conspiracy, but there’s still the chance that it isn’t and if you’re wrong you lose soo much. I’ll pray for you man and hope that one day you find the peace and joy I’ve found.

            • Aaron Stephens

              I actually looked into that 616 issue. That number shows up on one single papyrus manuscript long ago. One manuscript is obviously a misunderstanding. The numbers are so close that a mistake was made since every other version says 666.

            • alfalfa31

              I arrived at my anti-bible bias precisely because I actually read it. You should do the same.

    • Richy Wilson

      Evolution vs God is an idiots guide to ignorance, There is no such thing as a change of kinds and ray comfort continually shifts the goal post to what a kind is. Are humans a kind (he says yes) So kind = species,? Okay. Change of species would be speciation events or Dog to wolf but then he says Dogs and wolf are the same kind, Now his definition of kind has shifted to family, Then the biologist mentions a change of bacteria then he says still bacterial kind. Bacteria is a kingdom which by ray comforts own goal post shifting all animals are the same kind thus he’s now just said that humans and spiders are the same kind. He’s so stupid it’s funny. Beaten with his own deceit.

    • Richy Wilson
      • alfalfa31

        I assume that was supposed to be at blogspot, but I can’t find the post.

        • Richy Wilson

          It was on tumblr.

          • alfalfa31

            Thanks

    • alfalfa31

      The initial claim that people don’t understand evolution is absolutely true. The evidence of this fact can be found in the questions asked in this article. It’s also true that people who believe a creation myth, by and large, have no idea what they believe, why they believe it, or where in their own books the belief originate. Feel free to visit churches and ask pointed questions. Where these groups differ is, if you ask a biology professor or graduate student, you’ll get pointed answers to your pointed questions. Of course asking undergrads and high school students will get you dumb faces.

      When you ask pastors and elders about their beliefs, on the other hand, you’ll find that they have not, for the most part, read or understood the bible (or other tome) at all. Exceptions are few and far between.

      No one says that evolutionary theory is proven beyond debate. Anyone who says this is not a scientist. No scientific theory is beyond debate, Beyond debate is a concept unique to religion and politics.

      One part of this article makes sense. It’s this part: “In this day and age, it is imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves. Don’t let me tell you what to think, and don’t let anyone else tell you what to think either. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.” If I confine my research to creationist websites, I’m likely to continue in my error that evolutionary theory is a fantasy. If I use scientific journals, I’ll likely come to the conclusion that creationism is wholly false. If I use both, I come to the conclusion that creationism is utterly unsupportable.

      On to the questions / points.

      1. & 2.There are loads of transitional fossils. In fact, there are so many that listing them all would take eons. The last time I was at UC Berkeley, I got to actually see thousands of them. They’re in drawers, and the entire thing is open to the public. Go look. Here’s a link to some for a few major species since not everyone can travel to the campuses.

      http://www.transitionalfossils

      http://pandasthumb.org/archive

      3. Dr. Patterson is oft misquoted. In fact, this is a creationist tactic called quote mining. I can do it too but I choose not to due to the fact that it’s completely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to do so. I only do it to prove how bad a tactic it is in argument. Couple the fact that Dr. Patterson is misquoted with the fact that the book from which the quotes were taken was published in the 1970’s and you have a nonsense claim easily dismissed by my answer for 1 and 2 above.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faq

      4. Gould, like Patterson is often quote mined. More nonsense and easily dismissed. In the example, Dr. Gould was arguing for the challenges of gradualism in evolution, not against evolution. Quote mining is bad form, and I can do it too. “There is no god.” – Ray Comfort.

      5. More quote mining.

      6. This one is a classic example of a complete lack of understanding concerning how evolution works. It’s understandable that this argument comes up frequently because people making it are genuinely lazy. Macro-evolution takes place slowly over time, and transitional forms which are maladapted die out. The forms that are properly adapted (even temporarily) evolve on. The mechanism for this process is contained in microevolution, as microevolution is exactly the same process as macroevolution only over a shorter period of time.

      7. This is a nonsense argument, as the fossilization process tends to occur around mass extinction events. For instance, the K-T boundary is formed at an extinction event. Also, this takes it back to the gradualism argument. Without some basis in the science, arguing that here is beyond the scope. It remains at this point, however, that this nonsense argument is another example of a complete lack of understanding around the actual theory and the evidence. Another fun fact: The Cambrian explosion (exactly what we’re talking about here) happened in the water after atmospheric oxygen levels skyrocketed. Oxygen hyper-accelerates adaptation, and prior to that period (which was several million years long) oxygen was all bound up in other molecules.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

      8. & 9. (as well as 7) are both examples of quote mining and absolute lack of basis in the science.

      10. The idiocy of use of the term ‘blind faith’ cannot be understated. There is ample evidence of speciation and in-laboratory evolution, all of which bears out the theory. In addition there is ample actual evidence in support of common origin macro-evolution, it’s just unlikely that creationists will actually read it.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faq

      11. & 12. More quote mining

      13. This nonsense is counter-factual, and because of the fact that the theory that it was pagan the claim was made that ‘evolutionism’ (which isn’t even a word) gave rise to war, murder, crime, divorce and other societal evils. The correlation is actually the opposite, as only about 0.07% of prisoners are non-believers, and the highest divorce rate is among baptists and pentacostals. Because natural order resembles paganism does not mean evolution supports paganism. Even if it were a pagan ideal, the reality of evolution would necessarily refute the abrahamic world view, and would mean that paganism was, after all, the one true religion. The problem with this notion is that paganism is a catch all term that encompasses nearly every polytheistic religion on earth.

      14. This is typical creationist nonsense, again. C-14 is not used to date anything older than 50,000, as at that point, any C-14 is expected to be gone. C-14 dating is the ONE method creationists have issue with, and they know next to nothing about it. They also can’t seem to wrap their heads around the notion of composite materials, but that’s an argument for another discussion.

      http://www.tim-thompson.com/ra

      15. & 16. This isn’t even remotely related to evolution. For some insane reason creationists can’t understand that evolution is not an origin theory, it’s a theory explaining biodiversity. This particular point is about abiogenesis. Apart from this fact, the math is not only wrong, but not even in the ballpark of reality. I’ll cover this at a later date, as it does not apply to this argument.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

      17. There are hundreds of new and old creatures discovered every year. Things thought extinct, things as yet unknown or merely hypothesized by science. What, exactly is the point to this point? It proves only that we haven’t explored the entire planet and that the coelacanth is a more resilient creature than it was given credit for being.

      18. Many creatures are found in the fossil record, and have evolved very little or not at all since that time. This fits the model in two ways. The creature in question is perfectly adapted, and further adaptations have not been more fit than the original. Cheetahs are an example of a modern creature with the same minimal diversity. They’ll either survive or they won’t.

      19. The simplest explanation of brain evolution is found in the fact that every life form that has a brain has the same brain building blocks, and with each succeeding evolutionary step, more complexity is added. This addition is a result of elimination of superfluous genetic material. The fact that natural selection tends to disfavor stupidity means the brain would necessarily become more complex. It’s not that hard to grasp, if you look at it without god goggles on.

      20. More quote mining.

      21. Piltdown man was an example of how the scientific method and peer review actually works. Constantly pointing out the fraud does little to advance creationist arguments, mainly because of the fact that if scientists refused new evidence (the way creationists do) there would still be scientists who accepted the forgery as truth. I find it funny that one of the creationist heroes is in prison for fraud, and you all bring up stuff like this.

      22. This is a physics question, and while easily explained, absolutely out of the scope of ‘proof or disproof of evolution.’

      23. This one is absolutely ludicrous. Of the four known forces (Strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravitation), the two that have absolutely no bearing on the life equation are the weak nuclear force and gravitation. Gravity is about 10^39 less powerful than EM, making it irrelevant. The fact that this made the list at all makes the list suspect in its entirety (even more than the notion that this list seeks to debunk the scientifically accurate evolutionary theory).

      24. More quote mining, and in no way a statement that there is no evidence.

      25. Common ancestry is a slam dunk as it pertains to human – great ape ancestry. Humans share 98% of genes in common, with a fusion of our chromosome 2 from two great ape chromosomes as one of the two main pointers. The other is the fact that retro-viral insertion points are exactly the same in both genomes. The notion that you don’t want it to be true does not make it untrue, and only one chromosome with significant difference does more to invalidate your point than prove it.

      26. As more advanced life forms evolve, genetic information is lost, not gained. The creature with the most genetic material is an amoeba. Given the thinking that generates this question, that amoeba should be the most complex organism on the planet. It is not. Human beings contain less genetic information than the common potato (and less than the great apes). Again, an abject misunderstanding of the science.

      27. This statement is, again ludicrous. If even one fossil is found in the fossil record before it could have evolved, the entirety of evolutionary theory is destroyed. The fact that this has never happened bears out the fact that the statement in this question has no scientific merit. If you (or anyone at all for that matter) has such information, write it up and submit it for publication in the Journal Nature or Science or any other, wait for peer review, then collect your Nobel prize. Until then, number 27 is nonsense.

      28. This one is a classic example of the logical fallacy of personal incredulity. Just because you can’t understand it doesn’t make it false. No one understands quantum mechanics, yet it works.

      29. This one is fun. There was an assumption that soft tissue could not survive for such lengths of time. This is now known to be a false assumption. Another example of science correcting error, and as such not as good for the creationist side as they may think.

      http://www.livescience.com/415

      30., 31., 32., 33., 34. & 35. are all exactly the same question, and were answered in number 19. Subsystems evolve independent of each other, and where the subsystems exist in tandem, the adaptation may prove advantageous to the creature. For instance, if human beings (and all mammals for that matter) had evolved hemocyanin instead of hemoglobin we’d be remarkably stronger than we are due to the fact that hemoglobin has a lower oxygen affinity than hemocyanin. Insects evolved to use hemocyanin. Clearly, at the divergence, our ancestors went a different way.

      36. The old riddle. Pro tip: it’s not a riddle. What it is, is a philosophical question that necessarily revolves around linguistic understanding of the word ‘code.’ The scientific application of the term varies markedly from the lay understanding of the word. This question is wholly invalid because of the way it’s posed. It’s a burden of proof logical fallacy. The answer to the question is DNA and RNA. Two examples of a ‘code’ created by nature. The burden of proof is on the querier, in this case, to prove that they are not naturally occurring. Here’s an example (not my example, BTW):

      1. Humans are a form of life.

      2. All life evolved naturally; there is no process known to science by which a god could create life.

      3. Therefore, humans evolved naturally. If you can provide an empirical example of a form of life that was created by process of a god (and can prove it), you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one. (It would also be nice if you’d describe the process used. We’re curious.)

      Can you see how disingenuous this ‘riddle’ is?

      37. Life is plastic to the environment, so this question is logically invalid. Life adapts to the place where it happens to have occurred. I hope you can grasp how sensible this statement is, but I’m not holding my breath.

      38. This is, again a fact that is quite easily explained, yet the explanation is routinely ignored by creationists. Calibration is the key.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/ind

      39. We haven’t dug everywhere, but everywhere we dig where evidence of communal societies exists, graves are found. What else ya got? Maybe if you go dig everywhere you can prove this a valid question when you find nothing.

      40. This is another false dichotomy argument. As stated in number 37, life appears designed because of the plasticity of it to the environment. A 747 is a machine, not an organism. Apples to oranges, and therefore nonsense.

      41. I fail to understand why this is a bad thing.

      42. And Discover, Scientific American, Nature, Popular Science, etc. all disagree with that ages old Time piece. Again, what’s your point?

      43. Malcolm Muggeridge was a staunch catholic, and for this reason his opinion is irrelevant to the scientific question. He doesn’t even rise in argument to an appeal to authority.

      44. This is another example of begging the question. There is less than no proof for creationism (and in fact, ‘intelligent design’ as a theory has been wholly disproved). So we turn this question around.

      For years I’ve been trying to find someone who can prove that ‘god did it’ but to no avail. The arguments against evolutionary theory do only one thing. They demonstrate an overt lack of scientific literacy. If creationists would objectively look at the evidence, this idiocy would not be necessary. Instead, they argue entirely from a position of personal incredulity. It’s incumbent upon the questioner to avail him / herself of the information already published instead of start from the position that all of the information that they refuse to read is false.

      It’s perfectly acceptable to question scientific theories. In fact, to question a theory is the height of understanding the scientific method. The part of this science fun where creationists fail is, with that question there needs to be accompanying evidence. Without evidence, the claim can and should be dismissed as a closed minded rant from a person resistant to change and real information.

      The difference between those of us who trust the scientific method and those who don’t is simple. When science is wrong, we admit it and move on. When religion and the religious are wrong, they undertake a campaign of apologetics to reconcile what they believe with the state of the real world. Rather than admit that things could be wrong, they act like young children at bath time.

      • Leo

        So that was too long to read but the deal is, imo, is that it is both evolution and intelligent design. The intelligent design part involves both an original Creator consciousness, which may have different tiers or levels of designer consciousness, and ET manipulation of DNA – specific to Earth and us.

        I really like how the film Religulous shows these bible thumpers’ complete stupidity on the subject. Stupidity, you see, is ignorance that has decided to not evolve and pursue the truth. This is why it is easy for me to call them stupid.

        • alfalfa31

          Intelligent design is absolutely not necessary. In fact, the groups working on the abiogenesis problem are finding that it’s far more likely that early self replicators are the rule, not the exception.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrMuFpGlcpk

          • Leo

            If people continue to deny the fact that they are multi-dimensional, energetic beings they will never understand the universe and how things manifest or are created. Intelligent design or Creator consciousness on the energetic level ALONG with the dynamics of the physical world are why we are here.

            • alfalfa31

              I don’t deny anything of the sort. I simply choose not to accept claims of that nature as fact until there is some actual evidence in favor of them.

      • Anonymous

        I read through your entire “proof” of evolution, and I don’t see any evidence for evolution. There are a lot of questions you answered with your own opinion, or accused the author of this post that they “quote mined” every quote they used. What is the real definition of evolution, anyway?

        • alfalfa31

          You clearly didn’t understand the purpose for the reply. First of all, the point was not to offer proof of anything, but to demonstrate that every one of the 44 points is based on nonsense.

          As far as quote mining, there’s a phrase for it in your book, and a whole commandment against it. It’s called ‘bearing false witness.’ It’s easy to take a quote from a conversation and pass it off as the other party’s opinion. The quote, taken out of its context, removes the intended meaning. Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, William Craig, et al. are consummate liars, because quote mining is flat out lying.

          If you want proof of evolution, take an introductory biology course. It’s impossible to refute the overwhelming evidence, and at present, it sounds like the entirety of your argument is personal incredulity. You’re suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and there is no amount of evidence that anyone can present to you that will actually make sense. You lack a basis in the science, so your incredulity is your own fault.

          Instead of attacking the most researched and well documented scientific theory, perhaps you should learn what it actually says. Instead of thinking you know, and attacking the nonsense you’ve convinced yourself that it is, go learn something. There are only two reasons you won’t. First, you’re genuinely afraid you’ll become convinced (like right thinking people) that it is, in fact, the best explanation for biodiversity (<– newsflash: that's the definition of evolution). Second, you're too intellectually lazy to learn something new.

          Long and short, you and your ignorance of science in general is the problem.

          • Anonymous

            Um, hello? I have taken many biology courses, and am an advanced student. I have done lots of studying about this topic, and I still don’t believe in evolution. And I don’t believe in millions of years, either.
            Did you know that there was actually a study done to test carbon-dating?
            When Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980, there was new rock (as lava) brought to the surface. Ten years later, scientists collected a sample of the lava (which was ten years old), and brought it to a carbon-dating facility and had them date the rock. They didn’t label it so that the test was not biased, and the result of the carbon-dating was that the rock was around 15 million years old – when in actuality, the rock was ten years old. Here’s a new question for you: if carbon-dating is unreliable for calculating small amounts of time, then why should we trust it for calculating the age of fossils?
            And since evolution takes millions of years, and the earth was dated incorrectly, then does evolution have a basis?
            And this question I have for you as well: If dinosaurs evolved into birds, to keep from going extinct, and along the line we somehow evolved from those birds, how come we still have birds if we are evolved? If birds are not a superior, extensively evolved creature, then why are they still around? Shouldn’t they have died off once they evolved into “higher” animals like apes or something? Because according to evolution, everything evolved from the same thing, right?
            Answer me that, and then maybe I’ll give you some more questions to answer, so you can prove that evolution exists.

            • alfalfa31

              You are obviously NOT a biology student, as nothing radiocarbon dated would ever be more than 50,000 years old. Maybe pay attention in class and stop reading Ken Ham for your talking points.

              Everything you wrote as an argument is on Answers in Genesis as an argument they no longer use, so do more research, please…

            • Aaron Stephens

              You could answer his questions though. They are pretty good and bring up problems with evolution. Ken Hamm is a brilliant man actually. Much better than *snicker* Bill Nye the bow tie guy.

            • alfalfa31

              I did answer his questions by pointing him to the Answers in Genesis website.

              He argued a bunch of stuff that even Ken Ham knows shouldn’t be argued. Maybe you should try reading that page as well.

            • Aaron Stephens

              I did read Ken Hamm’s page. Evolution is an idiotic belief and it is flawed. Answer the questions. Why do animals still exist to this day? Why wouldn’t they have died off to natural selection if they are the weaker species?

            • alfalfa31

              You didn’t read Ken Ham’s page. If you did, you would not have asked that question. It’s listed in the section called “Arguments we no longer use” precisely because it’s a nonsense question.

            • Aaron Stephens

              Well just answer it. I don’t care if it’s called a nonsense question. I’d like it answered no matter where it came from.

            • alfalfa31

              You’re not paying attention. A nonsense question either begins from a lack of understanding of the problem, or utter linguistic idiocy. If I asked you “What’s the difference between and elephant?” you’d know there was something missing. This is no exception. The fact that you clearly have no basis in the science of biology makes answering your question impossible.

              If you mean, “Why are there still monkeys when we came from monkeys?” that’s the problem. We didn’t come from monkeys. Because your question is so poorly worded, I can’t even tell if that’s where you’re starting.

            • Aaron Stephens

              We did come from monkeys/apes. That is exactly what evolution is. We evolved from monkeys. Why didn’t they die off due to natural selection? Why didn’t they evolve further? There is no lack of information, you are just avoiding an unanswerable question.

            • alfalfa31

              This is indicative of the problem. You think evolution is linear, and as a result, you can’t wrap your head around it. That’s not my fault. There is a tremendous body of work for you to read, but you choose to avoid it because it doesn’t jive with your confirmation bias.

              WE DID NOT “COME FROM MONKEYS!” To use that as an argument demonstrates your ignorance better than anything else you could ask.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnPcn8moS4

            • Aaron Stephens

              And you just simply can’t wrap your head around creation and an all powerful, all knowing God. We did come from monkeys. That is what evolution is saying. That we evolved from lesser animals into what we are today. What evolution are you studying because that is exactly what I studied in school years ago. We evolved from apes. Why can’t you see the validity of that argument??? Yet you still avoid the question since it is far too hard to answer I suppose. Enough of this and answer the darn question.

            • alfalfa31

              Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. We did not evolve from apes, we ARE apes. You simply don’t understand the process. You keep demonstrating that over an over with your idiotic comments.

            • Aaron Stephens

              “we are apes”…..okay I’m done here.

            • alfalfa31

              Yes, you are. You’re clearly too stupid for the conversation ,and you don’t even know your own book. You were admonished by that book to have a ready answer, and your answers are so inadequate you should be ashamed.

            • Aaron Stephens

              The Bible doesn’t teach me about how we came from apes, since we didn’t. You just use it as a way to believe in something that isn’t God. We are apes is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. I am not ashamed and never will be to believe such a stupid theory. I’m sorry, but it is completely flawed and there’s no evidence to back it up. What you call evidence, is lies made by people that took an old man’s theory and decided it was true. They then added a bunch of actual science and warped it to fit their own beliefs.

            • alfalfa31

              Taxonomically and phylogenetically, we are great apes. We did not come from apes, but we share common ancestry with all great apes and most closely with Bonobos. We ARE apes. Like it or not, you’re an ape. It does not cease to be true because you chose to ignore it.

              You have demonstrated, time and again throughout this conversation, that you don’t have the mental capacity to even have this conversation. You are the walking definition of voluntarily clueless, and I have no time for you or your ilk anymore.

            • Aaron Stephens

              There is no evidence that we are actually apes. We are human beings. Evolution clearly states that we evolved from apes. If you disagree with that, then you clearly have no knowledge of what you are debating. I have the full mental capacity to understand the subject, I just choose not to because it is uneducated, flawed, and all together idiotic to beleive in it. YOU are clearly clueless to be blindly following these people that our world has labeled as ‘smart’. you turn to people like hawking and nye to give you all kinds of answers, when really they are just as uneducated as kindergarteners. I’m sorry, but you are just bashing yourself as you continue to support such a laughable theory that still exists because it is the popular opinion. Christianity and creationism have survived thousands of years and people have yet to disprove it. Call me what you want, you are jsut blatantly denying the truth of the statements I have made. Darwin made the theory in a time where the theory was completely irrational and unscientific. Now it is suddenly science itself? When did the world become so helpless to believe such lies? When did the world turn to these false ideas when the truth was right in front of them. Through enough research, you can find tons of scientific information that has yet to be found. The Bible is a boatload of great information that is scientific and moral. I’m sad to see you have fallen into the bandwagon that is evolution and I hope that you see the truth someday. God will be waiting for you when you return. God Bless.

            • alfalfa31

              You are completely retarded, and completely wrong. Those two facts are likely related.

              http://www.britannica.com/animal/ape

            • Aaron Stephens

              I’m just done with you. Believe your lies and fiction. Have fun in your sin filled life.

            • alfalfa31

              Says the man who believes in talking snakes and talking donkeys.

            • Aaron Stephens

              You know what else? Why do people demand soooo much evidence to believe in something? Your entire life is faith based and so is mine. Do you doubt whether a chair will hold your weight or do you doubt if a car will work? Do you doubt if your food won’t be digested properly or do you doubt that your bed will hold you at night? No, because you have slept in that bed enough to know that it hasn’t broken yet so it obviously won’t all of a sudden. You know your food will digest since it has before with no issues. See what I’m saying here? You have faith that those everyday things will work and you won’t go into hours of research to make sure a chair will hold you. You just sit there. We Christians don’t need to do hours of research to believe in God. For some reason, most scientists decided that they weren’t okay with that and they slowly made things up and warped peoples minds to make evolution the ‘truth’ most see it as. When you accept Jesus, you see differently than others. Things that were ok before are vile now to you. You see the plain truth that lies before all and you try to spread the Word, but they come back with their ‘evidence’ and back it up with lies. That is the truth of evolution and you have been blinded by the people that made it up.

            • alfalfa31

              Well, look at you comparing apples to Volkswagen Beetles. The great flaw with your argument is, the faith in the chair, the bed, the car, etc is not misplaced. You can see, touch, interact with, all of the above. Your god is a figment of your imagination, and will never be anything else.

              Also, I’m not asking for ‘soooo much evidence,’ I’m asking for ANY evidence. Anything at all. No matter how insignificant that evidence is, it would be better than what you have now.

              Scientists made up nothing. The scientific method questions reality, makes predictions and adapts to reality. Your faith makes apologies for its failures. At no point in time has a scientific answer for anything ever been supplanted by a faith based one, and it never will be. Your god gets smaller and smaller every day, and eventually he’ll die like the rest of the gods in history. He’s as valid as Ra, or Zeus, or Mithra, or Wotan. That is to say, not valid at all.

              You’re a fool who can’t be convinced of the truth, and that’s your prerogative.

            • Aaron Stephens

              I learned about evolution in school and they clearly say we come from apes, and then you contradict that. It seems you know less about your own belief than you are putting off.

            • alfalfa31

              No, the truth is, you understand nothing about evolution. Every time you say ‘we come from apes’ you demonstrate how little you understand. You’ve constructed a tiny little straw man out of nonsense and misunderstanding, then you point at it and say, “See, it can’t be true.”

              Your personal incredulity does not make the converse of evolutionary theory true. In fact, if you found evidence that disproved evolution, wrote it up, had it peer reviewed, and won a Nobel prize for your efforts (which you absolutely would), that still doesn’t automatically make what you believe true.

              Sadly, all it would take to completely destroy evolutionary theory is one single fossil to be found in a geologic layer where it should not be. That has never happened. Feel free to actually look it up.

              In fact, you know so little about evolution that you think it means that one day a dog is walking along and it morphs into a duck. That’s not how it works.

            • alfalfa31

              Also, calling a man who willfully ignores data because it harms his case ‘brilliant’ is a bit of a stretch.

    • Darren

      After reading this there is no question that evolution is a lie. I just don’t see how people can believe such a lie as evolution.

      • alfalfa31

        See, you read the article, but you didn’t read the article. You certainly didn’t read any of the rebuttals, nor do you have any idea about the actual proof (which is simply overwhelming). You’ll keep denying facts and turn to your ancient and demonstrably false book, and reading blogs that support your confirmation bias.

        Have fun wallowing in your abject ignorance.

    • implicaverse .

      The most likely explanation is that neither evolution nor biblical creation is true. Both are facades designed by some hidden power elite to conceal the truth about our origins.

      For example, the Big Bang Theory states that the universe is only a few billion years old. It is correct to say that this is insufficient time for evolution to occur. Space scientists further argue that it is impossible for life to transmit across interstellar space. This limits evolution to a maximum planetary timescale of a billion years.

      If however the universe is infinitely old and life can be transmitted across interstellar space (say, by comets) then it doesn’t matter how improbable life is, it will eventually occur. You have all eternity to make it happen.

      The reason why we don’t find transitional fossil forms on Earth is because the transitional forms are on other planets. Cometary collisions can’t carry full life forms, of course. They can only carry snippets of DNA. Viruses, coincidentally enough, are capable of snipping DNA from one life form and implanting it in another. In this way, transitional forms can evolve across an entire universe over near-infinite amounts of time, but the end result is a snippet of DNA which is borne by a virus upon a comet and implanted in life on Earth when the comet strikes the Earth.

      • Hoy Hawkins

        I am a rock/fossil hound. I am here in Northern Wy. I was at a dig (dinosaur) 2 days ago. Exposed 4 ft long intact femur section and connected/scrambled hip section well preserved. Private dig site owner said 50 million yrs was a conservative figure and yet one would leave realizing that Basil I (850 ad ?) had bones far more dissolved into the soil (coffin and all) than this dinosaur. Petrification wasn’t an issue as linear bone strands were beginning to separate. Bone/soil iron content wasn’t an issue either as soil is heavy in Bentonite. Is time playing a joke on us?

    • ??????

      actually I’ve seen proof of the Bible at this site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2xv3XwOVaQ


    Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!



    Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


    Save