The Genius of Charles Darwin

The Genius of Charles Darwin

Ratings: 8.27/10 from 219 users.

The Genius of Charles DarwinThe Genius of Charles Darwin is a three-part television documentary, written and presented by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.

Life, Darwin and Everything. In the first episode Richard Dawkins explains the basic mechanisms of natural selection, and tells the story of how Charles Darwin developed his theory. He teaches a year 11 science class about evolution, which many of the students are reluctant to accept. He then takes them to the Jurassic Coast in Dorset to search for fossils, hoping that the students can see some of the evidence for themselves.

The Fifth Ape. In the second episode Richard Dawkins deals with some of the philosophical and social ramifications of the theory of evolution. Dawkins starts out in Kenya, speaking with palaeontologist Richard Leakey. He then visits Christ is the Answer Ministries, Kenya's largest Pentecostal church, to interview Bishop Bonifes Adoyo. Adoyo has led the movement to press the National Museums of Kenya to sideline its collection of hominid bones pointing to man's evolution from ape to human.

God Strikes Back. In the third and final episode, Dawkins explains why Darwin's theory is one of history's most controversial ideas. Dawkins uses this episode to discuss the opposition that evolution has experienced since it was first discovered. He starts by approaching various anti-evolutionists, ranging from John Mackay from Creation Research, Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, to English school teacher Nick Cowen. In order to address concerns they bring up, he shows the evidence for evolution, including fossil and DNA evidence.

More great documentaries

1,438 Comments / User Reviews

  1. This guy is doing exactly what he said he hates..He's MAKING us believe in something which shows how arrogant he is.He should inform us instead and let us think for ourself.And i do believe in evolution but I also believe in god(but not in the bible).Who/What created that first cell?

    1. Two faulty assumptions: there was a first cell and that this "first" cell was created. In addition,this is not evolution, but abiogenesis about which there is a detailed article on Wikipedia.

  2. it is quite simple. male and female.THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN DARWINISM or in any shape fashion or form. nothing would requiere another sex to make another of either. get in. a would always repurduce a and b would make b. not a and b to make either an a or b...

    1. If what your saying is correct, can you explain to me how the barramundi are all born male and at about the age of 5 to 6 years they change sex...?

    2. Care to write in intelligible English?

    3. That's wrong simply because sexual reproduction increases fitness of a species by increasing variation. An asexual species with the same genetic information for every individual essentially has "all of its eggs in one basket" and anything that can kill one member of the species would likely be effective in killing all members.

      Also, sexual reproduction prevents "overfitting" -- that is, getting overly adapted to one specific environment, because genes are reassorted with each generation. It is impossible, then, for the organism to be dependant on one specific set of genes--each gene must have its own merits because that organism's offspring will likely not have the exact same combination of genes. If every generation has the same set of genes, then it's likely that the genes will evolve to depend on one another in a very delicate way. It's better to have lots of independent genes than one set of intertwined genes, because then if one thing breaks the whole system doesn't collapse.

      Thus, sexual species have a decided advantage over clonal species and thus would proliferate after randomly arising via mutation. Randomness + selection = evolution. It doesn't disprove religion, so don't be so defensive about it.

      Oh, arguing about science on the internet. I should be ashamed of myself for wasting my time.

    4. You have nothing to be ashamed of. There are a number of posters (not to mention all the moderators) who are interested in what you write. Are you in biology or simply an afficianado?
      Let me just add two things. 1. Evolution goes against the bible's claims (if that's what you mean by religion) that all creatures were generated spontaneously and fully-formed. 2. You have brilliantly enunciated why social darwinism is not anywhere near biological evolution--variety.
      Keep posting.

    5. evolution. that is my whole point. it would have to be thinking to understand this***darwin sold the lie, you bought it. evolution would be asexual...

    6. What are you talking about?

  3. Thanks, brilliant documentary. Where on earth would we be without science and reason, still believing in old creation myths?

  4. darwin was just paid to make a foundation for genetics....what we called paid officials or a professor hired tor sale his theories are all bulls*it too bad it took 150 years to find out...he did more work and damage than he was paid for......

    1. could you provide proof for "darwin was just paid to make a foundation for genetics." ? also as for genetics could you please show me what was known at the time of publication of Darwin's work? and also explain why "his theories are all bulls*it" ? you make some pretty serious claims can you back them up with serious proof?

    2. Jah Ragga i assume you are a rasta,Consequently confuse.This was a great documentary Dawkins at his best. Base on the history of genetics, could you explain what would Darwin know, or anyone else living at that time know about genetics.

    3. Move on everyone... Jahwawah has been brainwashed by religion to ignore & despise science. All I feel for him is great pity and sadness.

    4. jahwawah not you can even prove the existence of god

  5. Hahaha, great movie.

  6. i have terminal brain and lung mellanoma and find myself tempted to hedge my bets but logic must prevail man made god in his image for an answer to the big question and im notbuying into such a destructive and viscious mallavolant indoctrination i would be worse than joining the nazi party .if there is something else im so sure its much more wonderful than we can articulate;-]

    1. What are you talking about?

  7. I feel very sorry for all creationists. The evidence of evolution is in every Natural History Museum in the world. Thanx Richard for such an enlightening and riveting Documentary

  8. Jesus is the sherperd, and people is his sheep., Hey, wait a minute, don't sherperds eat their sheep. well, it just sucks to be a sheep, doesn't it. or, one can choose to live without god, and not be his meal ticket, no scientist ever asked you for a donation, but priests always do. if god is so mighty, why does he need any money? maybe he is just broke today, or everyday? or maybe it's all a big scam, and there is no god, but no priest will ever admit that, not ones who need your money anyway. How anyone believes in "god" is beyond me.

    1. Hi, Alma. Nice to meet you.

  9. a christian wants to live forever, in heaven, and will stick to the dogma that gets them their ticket to heaven, science does not promise immortality, science shed light on reality, a reality that christian are terrified of. We will all die one day, but christian deny this reality, christians are cowards. Christians are too afraid to see the truth, they choose to be idiots.

    1. How true and the same thing for all religions.

    2. wow girl! that's a pretty heavy stereotype you put on all Christians.

  10. Darwin was quite a genius alright. He fabricated a huge hoax that most people still believe.

    1. And just how does someone who cannot even all right know this?

    2. Most people believe in Darwin, good, there is hope for the human race after all. Christians are traitors to the human race, cowards.

    3. People do not believe in Darwin,they simply accept the facts of evolution. Darwin great insight was the mechanism of evolution,natural selection, sexual selection.




    A review of the above titled book by Michael Henry Cook

    The preface of this book is a subtle brainwashing of indoctrinating the reader; in legal jargon it is known as “leading the witness,” a means by which Mr. Dawkins can convert the reader into believing in his God! Oops, I meant atheism, and his atheistic zeal in propagating it. He goes on to quoting prominent intellectuals to support his argument, pointing out, no doubt proudly, “that they too are atheists.” Those who choose to believe in God do the same, naming, as Mr. Dawkins does, elite members of society in support of their argument; claiming, “that they too are believers,” which simple counter argument negates his shallow reasoning

    Mr. Dawkins on page 27 of his book uses the analogy of atheists to herded cats, because they, (cats), tend to act independently and will not conform to authority, so creating a picture of himself and other atheists as unique, as standing out among the masses as independent in their thinking! Is that not a superior attitude bordering on the divine? Does Mr. Dawkins have his head in the clouds; does he aspire to a higher office? Or is his head somewhere else, for the smell is already offensive, and I have not yet come to the first chapter. Is this man not aware of those God fearing men throughout history who have stood by their own independent beliefs in God, going against the accepted doctrine of the time, knowing they could be burnt at the stake, disemboweled, and many were. Yet they stood firm in their personal convictions, and were willing to pay the ultimate price of forfeiting their lives, rather than lose that which they felt was more important than life itself, a trueness to ones own self, a personal integrity of belief, which without it, life to them would not be worth living.

    They did not hide, they had no protection from the authority of the day, they did not have a position of professorship to protect them, they spoke out in a hostile intolerant world, not in a medium of security as is afforded to the likes of the “brave,” Mr. Dawkins.

    The author quotes Microsoft word on page 28 of the paperback version of his book, which defines “delusion,” as “a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder.” Implying those who believe in a God have a mental problem! Is it not possible that atheists persist in a false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence! Having yet to begin to read the first chapter of this book, I am still in the pages of the puzzling preface, coming to the conclusion that this book should be re-titled, “The Dawkins Delusion.” He has the affrontry to call the billions of believers in God over the millennia, to quote page 25 of his book. “ When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.” He goes on to boast quite openly that those religious leaders who read his book would be an atheist when they put it down. That will make them like him surely? And when many people suffer from a delusion like that, does it not make them followers of “Dawkinism?” It is all right for them to believe in his book, but not the Bible? Is it better to follow Dick Dawkins, Professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, receiver of numerous honours; The Michael Faraday Award; The Shakespeare Prize, etc., or are people insane for following a man called Jesus Christ, Son of God, The Messiah, King of Kings, etc., compare the pedigree of Jesus Christ with that of Dick Dawkins the Delusional Don from Oxford! There is not a name in the whole of human history that has affected mankind more than that of Jesus Christ, as one commentator succinctly summed up Christ’s profound affect upon the lives of the people’s of the earth in these words;

    “ All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all the Kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man on the earth as powerfully.”

    Alexander The Great, Julius Caesar, Henry The Eighth, Napoleon, their combined impact upon mankind pales into the margins of history, compared to that of Jesus Christ! Even history’s timetable of events is determined by the life of Christ. B.C. or A.D. What delusional impression does Mr. Dawkins expect to leave behind? Mr. who? Where will you be in twenty years time Mr. Dawkins? I will tell you, forgotten, and that is no delusion sir! The self-righteousness of the man increases on page 22 of his book where he lays the blame for people turning to religion as the fault of the educational system, they have, he claims, not been properly taught “Darwin’s astounding alternative;” or is it Dawkins astounding alternative? I have read and studied both Darwinism and Dawkinism and find them offensive and delusional in the extreme that they could think that such staggering order, design, and law could originate by chance. His statement on page seven, a memoriam to a Douglas Adams, which says; “ Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” Mr. Dawkins has convinced himself that fairies don’t do gardening; but gardeners do Mr. Dawkins, and one can appreciate the gardener’s horticultural flair, even those deprived of an education can appreciate a well-managed garden! He further implies, that one does not have to believe in a God to appreciate a beautiful garden, he might feel that way but there are many others who see God’s green fingers in such beauty.

    The author goes on to say that many will be warned off from reading his book, as it will be looked upon as the work of Satan. He should be so lucky, my study of the Bible over many years, and the Devils past recorded behaviour, shows he would not touch Mr. Dawkins book with an Oxford barge pole? I know that Satan has had a go at Adam, Moses, the Kings of Israel, Jesus Christ, them I know, but Dick Dawkins the Delusional Don from Oxford? And this guy is a Professor? The forked tongue logic of Mr. Dawkins and his intellectual disciples is well summed up in the expression, “Thank God I am an atheist.” They all acknowledge the awesomeness of the universe, the beauty of a garden, the wonders without number that are all about us, they attribute it all to “nature,” “ natural selection,” “ evolution,” just as one speaks to a seaman or a miner, and I have been both, you will find they have a language all of their own that becomes familiar to you as you become one of them.
    So to has atheism, the one consistent theme of atheists language, is that there is no greater intelligence than theirs, making them the highest intelligencia of all?

    Does that make them Gods? Is atheism a smokescreen for the egotism of atheists to usurp God, so by becoming a God themselves?
    Is that the goal of Mr. Dawkins, for he is gaining a devoted following, will he establish churches, sorry, places of learning where people can be taught Mr.Dawkins interpretation of Darwin’s astounding alternative!
    Will Mr. Dawkins preach his message of salvation, which is, to save us from God and religion, to turn the Israelite into a Dawkinite, the Christian into a Darwinian? For remember Mr. Dawkins everything is made after its kind, a world filled with Dawkinite atheists, in contrast to a world filled with followers of Christ, Christians. These Dawkinite atheists remind me of the man who was presented with quisine of the highest quality, food prepared as works of art with the taste to match, enjoying meal after meal, day after day, a seeming endless banquet of beauty and tastes, with not a word of praise or thanks to the chef, as he could not accept that such excellence of craft could have a heart and soul behind it? There are none so blind as those who see! Mr. Dawkins and his disciples are praising the Emperor, atheism, and how astoundingly dressed he is, when he, the Emperor in his nakedness and swaying genitalia praises their finery, and they all march off naked and exposed to Mr. Dawkins temple of delusion to discuss how they can dress even more nakedly.

    My conclusions on Mr.Dawkins book are that he has admired the banquet, but not tasted of it. I agree with him about religions disgraceful history, and its hypocrisy, never more so than what we see today. That I believe in the existence of God does not close my mind to asking questions of both God and religion, whether people feel my questions are blasphemous or not, for how otherwise am I to learn if I am restricted in my curiosity of thought. I must agree with a former President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson as quoted on page 64 of Mr. Dawkins book, “Question with boldness even the existence of God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

    My feelings and my reasoning powers led me, like Mr. Dawkins to write a book called, “God, mans loving enemy,” under the pen name of Adam Bolton, and I, like Mr.Dawkins have asked many questions of God and religion which have so disturbed me. But unlike Mr. Dawkins I have not denied God’s existence, and as I say in my book on page 81, “I look and see God’s creation as staggering in its diversity, his universe as awesome, one cannot deny the obvious, but he seems to have difficulty with the thinking and reasoning element of his creation,” “Maybe a Creation to Far.” This is where he and I differ, his foundation for dealing with God and religion is to deny both, where as I accept their existence, but do not necessarily agree with both. It is like denying there was an Adolph Hitler and his Third Reich, we could strongly disagree with their objectives, but we could not deny their existence. That 12-year history of the Nazi Party, profound as its affect was on the world, is nothing compared to God and religions domination of human affairs, mainly I might add to man’s injury.

    Yet Mr. Dawkins is adamant in the non- existence of God, so then why challenge something you are so convinced does not exist. If he does not exist what is there to fear? Why write a book about a God who is non- existent? This non- existing God seems to have got Mr. Dawkins hot under the collar! I am sure Mr. Dawkins respects peoples right to believe in God’s, Ghosts, Phantoms, Devils, Demons and Atheism, it just seems to me that he is so convinced of his own beliefs, that he cannot understand others believing as strongly as he does, but to the contrary? This speaks to me of intellectual snobbery, superiority of thought, which seems to come about in those who feel they are part of an elite section of society, which position and notoriety seems to embolden and corrupt many men. What I find missing in his book, is an air of humility, also the lack of a becoming mind that is touched by soulful reasoning. When one reads the numerous ways in which Jesus Christ dealt with the many people he came across, one cannot but admire and be touched by his warm consideration of others! If atheism has made Mr. Dawkins what he is, then give me Jesus every time.

    On page 68 of his book Mr. Dawkins quotes Nehru, once head of state for India who said, “ Religion almost always seemed to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition, exploitation and the preservation of vested interests.” Mr. Dawkins is trying to justify his condemnation of religion by quoting celebrated figures of the past and present, what he cannot see, as he is blinded by so much hatred of religion, that if he was to take the word religion out of the quotation and insert atheism, it would prove that they who are atheists are just as capable of exploitation, bigotry, dogma, with their own vested interests close at heart? It is so easy to paint others black, as we seek to justify ourselves, and because of that we can find difficulty in seeing that we are no better than those whom we choose to condemn, it seems to be criminal to do it in the name of God, but not in the name of atheism!

    What if atheism ruled supreme, with Richard Dawkins as our atheistic King? Would that mean no more wars? No more hunger? No more disease? No more crime? What if some did not agree with King Richards’s form of atheism, and wish to set up their own atheistic agenda, with their own devoted followers, will King Richard make war upon them? Will he establish a set of laws for all to follow, “An Atheistic Bible, a “little red book,” a “Koran of atheism,” a “Mosaic Law,” or should I say, “Dawkins Law.”

    What would the reaction be, would there be atheistic sects springing up everywhere, hostility, differences of atheistic interpretation, endless debates on Darwin’s origin of the species, leading to division, even to war? A world divided, sound familiar Mr. Dawkins? Then we start to see people writing books on the evil of atheism, preaching that a belief in a God will solve our problems. Do you get the picture Mr. Dawkins? The cycle goes on? If God and Jesus Christ have not solved mans problems, who is Dick Dawkins the Delusional Don from Oxford to think that he has the remedy? This crusade by Dawkins with the banner of atheism as his emblem, followed by evolutionism, agnosticism, naturism, secularism, rationalism, and all the other isms, are no different from the opposing religious factions and their isms, Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, and Judaism. The reality is we are all in a lunatic asylum of dogmatism, idealism, meism, and I’m rightism.

    As Ecclesiastes says in chapter 12 v 12,” As regards anything besides these, my son, take a warning. To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.” And Eccl, 1v18 adds, “For in the abundance of wisdom there is an abundance of vexation, so that he that increases knowledge increases pain.” I would recommend to Mr. Dawkins the reading of Ecclesiastes; a powerful summation of life is within this brief, but moving book, that even the most ardent atheist could not but smile and nod with approval at many of its conclusions that sum up perfectly our brief time on this earth. A book written by someone who knew a great deal about life.

    My reading of Mr. Dawkins book has indeed been wearisome to the flesh, a book given to me by my daughter, who after reading less than two chapters, found it went off into a disturbing dimension of mental dysfunction that even a gaggle of psychiatrists could not unravel. To help you understand what I mean, I will re-phrase it in Mr. Dawkins language. "They had become lost in a hieratic aslant which disturbed their ataraxia." I am quite sure that if a survey was done on this book, most people would freely admit, providing they were honest atheists, that they never got past the second chapter! Even though Mr. Dawkins has by now convinced us, so he believes, that we came about by natural selection through “Darwin’s outstanding alternative,” in contrast to creation, but is perplexed by the fact that billions of people over millenniums and in all parts of the earth have desired to worship a God, and still do? What a powerful demonstration of the spirit of man, from the prince to the pauper, from the educated to the barbarian, from the richest to the poorest, from the jungle to the city, the belief in, and search for God continues? Mr. Dawkins himself was once a church goer as his book reveals, his about turn for what ever reason, and I believe there are quite a few, has not stopped his obsession about God. His life is taken up with that which according to him does not exist? His lectures, his writing, his broadcasting, he seems to be keeping alive that which is non existent, (God), he is making more people aware of God, does that make him an evangelical atheist? Is God using him to prod people’s consciences? What are they saying in the heavens, thank God for Mr. Dawkins? He has certainly awakened many people out of their spiritual slumber; it would not surprise me if church attendances increased, I know there’s one pew vacant, vacated by Mr. Dawkins, or is it?

    In chapter 10 of his book he uses the experiences of some children who make an imaginary friend for themselves, which he believes turns into God, as they grow older! The imagination of children is what childhood is all about, one could interpret this natural childhood characteristic into anything, and we could use it to justify all kinds of fanciful theories if we were so inclined. The apostle Paul said, and I believe his words speak for the majority of adults, “ When I was a babe I used to speak as a babe, to think as a babe, to reason as a babe, but now I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a babe,” and the evidence shows that Mr. Dawkins to has an imaginary friend, “Darwin’s outstanding alternative,” which has become his God as he has grown older! (1Cor. 13v11)

    He keeps grasping at straws to justify his belief in atheism, using expressions to impress, like those children’s imaginary friends who he believes are going through a psychological “pedomorphis,” look at the change that Mr. Dawkins has went through, from a believer, to a committed fire and brimstone firebrand for atheism; is that not a “metamorphosis,” deserving of a professorship? He goes on to swamp us with the, “bicameral mind,” the “Gilbert Pinfold voice,” whatever that is? Egyptian inscriptions of the God “Ptah,” the “paedomorphosis theory,” and there’s more! Surely this desperate don of delusion must be right, he is a Professor at Oxford? I cannot understand a thing he is talking about, but who could use such sophisticated language and be wrong? Does not the fraudster project an image of honesty, does not the prostitute project her fleshly wares, and does not the criminal project a legitimate front? The fool is soon parted from his money, as those in want of heart fall by the wayside in their pursuit of flesh, to be struck with guilt and shame, as disease now invades their body, and guilt their soul. So go all deceivers, it is our own personal responsibility to weigh up all that is put before us, and as I conclude Mr. Dawkins book I feel I should be compensated for having to read such ranting of thought by a disturbed mind, no doubt caused by past experiences that have filled the author to seek revenge. I am in no doubt as I look at the elite of our society, whether they be in politics, the arts, financiers, etc., has brought me to the indisputable conclusion that the lunatics are in charge of this world!!

    The staggering irony of it all which I have kept till last, and that is, if we were to accept Mr. Dawkins belief that there is absolutely no God, and he is utterly convinced of this, and no doubt his disciples feel the same. Then we must lay all the blame for the world’s troubles at the door of Darwin’s outstanding alternative, natural selection, evolution, call it what you will. For some intangible reason and no doubt to Mr. Dawkins annoyance, his beloved Darwin’s outstanding alternative, has spawned and spread throughout the whole of the world a belief in God!!! For if there is no God, where else could this belief come from? So then, Mr. Dawkins is talking about, writing about, and broadcasting about, his own beloved beliefs as the cause of all our troubles? Does he know this? Or is he well named, D*CK DAWKINS, DARWIN’S DELUSIONAL DON!
    Thank God I’m not an atheist.

    Contributed by Michael Henry Cook.

    1. Please edit your (D*CKS) your self next time you put extensive quotes on TDF, or better still just site a link to save time, thank you...(moderator)

    2. “Thank God I’m not an atheist.”

      Yeah, thank God I’m not one either. The Divine Dr. Dawkins and dear Friedrich are my Gods.

      Your wall of text means nothing and I could list dozens of positive reviews for it from the Hard Back copy I have on my desk but you’re not worth the effort.


      The Crucified One

    3. TL;DR: "Then we must lay all the blame for the world’s troubles at the door of Darwin’s outstanding alternative, natural selection, evolution, call it what you will."

      Indeed, we must. No rational thinker would argue otherwise.

      Humans are members of the animal kingdom, with all the flaws that an imperfect evolutionary process engendered along the way. No need to blame a supernatural being at all.

      Now that we've defined the problem ("the world's troubles"), what's *your* solution?

      Sorry to say, religion has been failing miserably for the past 10,000 years or more.

    4. Where did I offer a solution? I would not presume to have a solution to the insoluble. Many have tried to rule this world over millenia, and the many forms of human rule have ALL failed. So who am I to solve that which no man, or group of men have succeeded in doing! The evidence all points to we human 'animals' going the same way as the dinosaurs.

      No other animal has done what the human ones have done in destroying each other, and all the life support systems that sustain us. WE are the biggest threat to ALL life on the planet, and we have a history of destruction unmatched by any other known life form. A destructive nature, that now has the means to destroy itself many times over. Just as an individual commits suicide, and tens of millions have done so over the millenia, even mass suicides have taken place, pointing to a self destruct nature that has EVOLVED and shown its comtempt for life, and the life of others. So we have the scene set for global suicide, the evidence is overwhelming as to what is mans future. SELF EXTINCTION.

    5. So, I guess religion *wouldn't* be your answer?

      Based on scientific evidence, the world is going to continue in one way or another after humans are gone. Which we will be, one way or another. In a few million years if we're lucky, a lot less if we aren't.

      Every species does its best to make its environment answer its needs. We're the same. I think the worst we'll do is make our planet uncomfortable for ourselves and our closest mammalian friends; the cockroaches and quite a few other species will manage just fine, and...hmm, maybe the birds will stage a dinosaur comeback!

    6. Just like the dinosaur. Homo sapiens won't last forever; they'll go the way of other species.

    7. Homo Sapiens may last a very long time, no other species has populated the earth as we have. One day we will figure out how to travel to the stars. And populate the galaxy.

    8. What do you mean by "no other species has populated the earth as we have." However, I don't believe our bodies are designed to populate the galaxy, but I really wouldn't mind as long as we didn't bring our religions with us.

    9. @Alma Vasquez: For the record, the nearest star system is 4.3 light years away. (70,000 years at today's best speed for a one way trip) I hope for all our childrens sake you are right, but at the rate we are going, it is far more likely we will destroy the biosphere before we can attain this level of technological triumph. Perhaps the better question is if we can't live symbiotically with this planet, is it not better we don't succeed?

    10. Not so, there has never been a time where there has been so many humans alive at one time, we have mastered the environment, put it to our own uses, Even in our global wars (WWI & WW2) human population has soared despite the carnage. Life for humans have never been easier, our life expectancy never as long as it is today. Things are always been getting better for the human race. I expect that trend to continue.

    11. While our life expectancy has never been as long as it is now, by the same token, this has created other problems, such as over-population about which certain people, in particular Catholics, are in denial. When you look at it in this light, abortion and birth control are not such bad things.

    12. @Alma Vasquez: I appreciate your optimistic attitude regarding humanity, but for the record, the only reason humanity's numbers have increased so dramatically is do to the industrial revolution, in particular oil. When the oil runs out, so will the ability to transport, or culivate food at today's levels. If science is correct, and our technological triumph is destroying the planet, it is highly likely the trend will end, as will humanity.

    13. @Trueanglo: I agree that the likelyhood of your conclusions is highly probable. If this is true, is it fair to say that our perception of evolution is bassackwards? (we are de-evolving?) Perhaps Darwin was right about changes in species, just wrong about what direction it is going!

    14. And just what is de-evolving?

    15. We may go extinct some day but it would take a global calamity for this to occur,simply because we are so wide spread and adaptable. Pockets of us may hang on some were, to re populate the world someday,possible with a few genetic changes.

    16. I hope you enjoyed keyboarding this wall of meaningless and ignorant drivel. You've obviously not read Dr. Dawkins' book and so must rely on the "thoughts" of others as you have none of your own, except perhaps your idiotic religious fundamentalism.

    17. Yep. Its me again. Just wanted to tell you that there is a scientific theory of physiognomy which has to do with reading a persons body language. Its pretty subtle so as you are not an Englishman you wont be able to read Dr Dawkins body language too well. There is also a linguistic phonological audiology as well which has to do with phonemes, nuances and a variety of other phonological semantics, by which it is possible to comprehend the underlying motive of a persons intentions evident by the way they speak and structure sound. Still that may be just a little too occult for you as you are so biased towards empirical evidence.

      By the way Robert I notice that you have a habit of reporting people to the Moderators. I rather thought that was something one did in junior infants school.

      Only one question really. Would it be better for a man to talk about that which is good and lovely or to simply mock him? What do you think Robert?

    18. What I think you should learn is to back up your claims with hard evidence.

  12. And didn't Darwin convert to christianity before he passed?

    1. Look for his diary. The doco said it was printed after his death, and in it he was very scathing towards religion. Apparently on his death bed he said he had no fear of death, and not because he converted. It was the Church of England that tried to claim him, not the other way around.

    2. No.

  13. Where are the files/books Darwins daughter opposed publishing after he died? I am interested...

  14. see 38-40 and 44-46 minutes.. beautiful and fruitful points!!!

  15. i ve only watched like 10 minutes so far.. why this man is trying SO HARD to battle between evolution and religion??
    i thought that this documentary was all about THE GENIUS of Darwin!
    this man is trying to brainwash us and it is sad.. he truly overshadows such an incredible man for what? an endless debate??
    and pls do not get me wrong and think that I arguw in favor of my God, because I do not have one. I just point out that religion is irrelevant to the matter at hand, a scientist that indends to inform us about another scientist shouldnt confuse and become so offensively persuasive in a documentary that is meant to be informative.

    1. Why this man is trying SO HARD to battle between evolution and religion??

      To me: The battle is more about truth and fiction.

      How lucky are you after ten minute you can make this assertion.
      May-be you should watch the whole documentary before you make such wild claims.

      How can any debate occur if there is no oppossing arguements, without those arguements it become a lecture not a debate as I understand it to be. The response from those students required Dawkin to ask the question that he asked, to help them to open their minds to the evidence at hand to their opposition to the thought that not only are their belief being questioned, but sub-consciously has challenged the trust they have with the people they trust the most, their parents.

      An open mind should never take something to be true without evidence, which the christians are either un-willing or un-able to do.
      If at times that people need to be shocked into opening their minds to different possibilities and proven evidence, I don't believe that a bad thing.

      I'll be quite interested in your opinion after you watch the complete documentary.

    2. As I 've said this documentary is for mr Dawkins and his battle and he and his facts that we have to believe and not for the Genius of Darwin. This is the first point that annoys me in this film. If the religion stuff where just a part of it, it would be ok with me. But now he sacrifices the whole idea to the battle with religion and there is no battle actually. The fact though that he debates along the way and addresses such great matters is very nice and very fruitful and meaningful as i said.

      What i believe it to be a bad thing is that a very religious person desides to get informed about Darwin and stumbles across this documentary. is he gonna change his mind? is he gonna feel accused? well, yeah maybe he does! and that is very annoying! If mister Dawkins wants to be heard and people to explore his ideas, maybe he good put another title to this film and also respect other people's ideas because they do believe in them and they do live their lives just fine without Darwin.

    3. And I get along fine without religion and all the idiocy and ignorance that go with it. So what?

      I don't respect ideas for the sake of ideas and belief itself is not entitlement to respect.

    4. you shall respect ideas though for the sake of people that come with them. And the reason I commented in the first place is for making the distiction that there may be a lot of different perspectives. No one is in place to qualify one idea as right and all the others as trash and surely a person that does that isn't open minded. Choose what u want but dont make everyone else think they re wrong. That is what upsets me with mr Dawkins and even more upseting that he is being so fanatic when that is exactly what religion does to people and not science..

    5. "You shall respect ideas though for the sake of people that come with them." First of all, don't you dare try to tell me what to do and secondly, a stupid, ignorant idea, such as creationism, is just that and the person who propounds or expounds it is entitled to no respect at all.

    6. The word shall implies a suggestion for giving thought into the fact that you should not offend people that you dont know and you don't have the right to criticize.

    7. Ignorance and stupidity are offenses against intelligence and deserve all the scorn heaped on their propounders. Politeness has nothing to do with it.

    8. "Shall" implies some form of implication. I believe "should" has no relation in any form to the term "shall"... shall is as owned.

    9. The science community as a whole have validated Darwins thories not just Dawkin.

      Whats more offencive someone trying broaden our knowledge with facts and evidence to prove those fact, or someone triing to control you with their beliefs not based on facts.

      If a religious person is going to "feel accused", what are they being accused of? Stupidity, gullibilities, or just plain ignorance.

      Even their "holy" book will say one thing in one part and the oppisite in another. I've once heard the bible discribed as the book of lies, which I have found personally to be the most accurate discription of the bible to date. "GOD" loves you all equally except if you dont believe in him or your gay. These religion organisation can not even agree on the same god.

      If your going to address Dawkins by his title it sould read Professor Dawkins, as Mr Dawkins live down the road from me and is by no means an authority in evolution. Professor Dawkins investigated this subject all his adult life and his peer have had to review all his finding and they make the call if its fact or fiction. The same can't said about the bible (the book of lies) can it.

    10. It is not about facts. It is about letting every individual deside what suits him better. In everyday life we choose not to see or to ignore facts all the time. It is all about giving room to others to have their own opinion and what is wrong with that? It is such a shame to blaim people for what they are! Even at that point we re driven to react like this! Would you call stupid a gay person for his preferences? then why call stupid a person that believes in sth different than you do? and Professor Dawkins does?? It is not the one or the other, it can be many things. And I believe that we still have so much to learn that maybe evolution is not even the whole truth! It is a wholly truth but we still have a lot to discover. Facts are being ignored even by scientist and sometimes lead in miraculous results Plus, in a way I feel that religion has some key points that are in harmony with evolution. So maybe we all believe in the same thing through different ways, having different Gods that they all mean the same to us. So different religions may lead to the same coclusion though different ways but religion in general may also accept scientific facts and express it in a highly symbolic way.
      We all are still so close minded that they actually have to manipulate us in being open minded in every sector no matter if we believe in science or God or plants or to our own selves. So sad.

    11. Evolution may not be the whole truth? Well of course not it does not describe the formation of the universe or the beginning of life, but; it is wholly true. You may argue against it, but the evidence is 100% against you if you do.

      The point is inserting fantasy into any gap in our current knowledge is deeply flawed and harmful for 2 reasons. First, it assumes that since we have a fantastical answer we need not search for the truth. (in fact in religious examples it actively discourages it) Second, it explains nothing about the actual thing itself. Other than pretentiousness, it is identical to saying 'I don't know' and is ultimately dishonest because it simultaneously denies that 'I don't know'

      Ignoring the importance of truth, and dishonest and harmful assertions or actions are not respectable qualities. Respect is earned, not bestowed, as is ridicule. It is ridiculous to believe anything without tangible evidence.

      Interesting that you would use homosexuality as an arguing point. Can you name me one modern religion that does not stand firmly in the homophobic camp? So you wouldn't call them stupid, good for you, but you will disrespectfully assert their nature is sin, as if they had any choice in the matter?


    12. "maybe we all believe in the same thing through different ways, having different Gods that they all mean the same to us. "

      This sounds like you believe science is a religion, which posits the supernatural, rather a method for examining reality (facts).

      (Edit for clarity)

    13. It is all about facts and "maybe" doesn't count. And as long as we're on facts, a person's sexual preference has nothing to do with his intelligence.

      It is not just opinion. It's what's behind the opinion and it is no vice to blame a wilful ignoramus for being a wilful ignoramus and for trying to propagate his wilful ignorance.

    14. "So different religions may lead to the same coclusion though different ways but religion in general may also accept scientific facts and express it in a highly symbolic way."

      I fail to see how a 6 to 10 thousand year old earth is only a symbolic difference to a 4 Billion year old one.

      It seems you probably only watched the first of the 3 parts? Did you see the part how in Kenya the church was protesting the opening of the national museum displaying their collection of ancient hominid species fossils? They didn't want any mention of 'non religious ideas' associated with those fossils. In effect, they were trying to suppress even telling/showing the scientific evidence.
      Religion historically doesn't easily accept scientific facts, religion has tried very hard to control and suppress science, because it ends up showing religion for what it really is, BS.

      The reason decent, intelligent people like Prof. Dawkins seem to be 'at war' with religion, is because Religion will NOT stay out of science, or politics, unless forced to. They're not fighting against religion as much as defending sense and reason (read science) from religion.

      That is not arriving at the same destination via different routes, as you suggest. Religion does not search for truth, it strives to maintain relevance and control. Science only searches for the truth, what we do with those facts we discover is up to us.
      They're poles apart.

    15. Without presenting all the available facts, how can any individual
      make an inform decision.

      There is nothing wrong with people have their own opinion at all, although without considering all available evidence, they are not making an informed opinion.

      I have meet quite a few gay poeple and find them to be no different than you and I. That dooes not mean I haven't meet some stupid one but thats not because of their own sexual preference in any way its because they are stupid individuals. When people don't except facts base on proven evidence then in my opinion they are stupid.

      Evolution may not be the whole truth however it is 100% true base on the evaluation of the evidence available.

      Please give me an example of when science has ignored facts. I have no doubt that indivual scientist have ignored facts. but I believe they have got their agenda in most cases. At least whole scienctific communities are not ignoring evidence but trying to find that evidence to make their therories fact.

      To this date no religion has not shown any evidence to prove their "beliefs".

  16. Where is th documentary?

  17. It seems Richard Dawkins has taken up a fruitless battle since even teachers cannot or dare not convince their pupils to start thinking for themselves. I have all the more respect for him and I hope he is and will be an inspiration to many. He has inspired me greatly, though I had many doubts about him initially.

  18. My observations after watching the first part:
    1. My respect for Richard Dawkins, however great it had already become, continues to grow. My initial impression of him was that he was a blind materialist ignoring unexplainable phenomena. Now I am convinced he is fighting for the noblest of causes: "Think for yourself and look at the facts."
    2. It takes an extreme wilfulness to ignore the evidence presented here and elsewhere and deny evolution. Creationists have nothing remotely resembling evidence to counter Darwin's theory.
    3. Maybe it will be mentioned further on in the documentary, but the step that Darwin took was a very audacious one. His theory was very revolutionary, more than those of his fellow scientists of the time.

    1. That's why you have wilful ignoramuses such as BradlnFL on the comment thread of "Why I am No Longer a Christian."

      Slight correction to item 3. Darwin's concept of natural selection was pretty much rapidly accepted by the scientists of his time, so I really can't say that he was all that revoluntionary or audacious, except to the ignorant religees.

    2. Thanks for the correction.
      I still believe it took guts to take such a point of view. His fellow scientists may have appreciated his work, most people at the time surely couldn't.

      BradInFL seems to be earnest and not trolling. I don't think he is the same guy that calls himself BradH that commented on this documentary. I may disagree with him, but he has yet to learn to think for himself. I guess BradH or his direct offspring will win a well earned Darwin award. ; )

      Just finished part 2. I think I agree on everything presented in this part and I'm very delighted by it. There's still unexplored territory where it comes to altruism (must be because it's one of my favourite themes to ponder upon).

    3. By the time of publication of "On the Origin of Species," Darwin was pretty much assured of the support of many influential members of the scientific community. As a matter of fact, the first 1,250 copies were oversubscribed.

      As for the appreciation among the laity even today, we have BradlnFL who probably hasn't even read the work, much less any part of it, and probably never will, yet believes himself qualified to comment not only on the nature of evolution, but on its validity as well. Such an individual deserves no quarter and only seems to be in earnest. I suggest you examine his agenda more closely.

    4. His agenda seems clear to me, but as his logic is flawed, he won't convince many people reading his comments. Still, I can feel sympathy as I once was not very different from people like him. As a boy I almost became a christian by the indoctrination that my generation underwent. so who am I to blame him?

    5. As he considers his form of religion the only correct one (this without evidence) and distorts everything to conform to this conceit, he deserves no sympathy, only blame.

    6. It's sad you think ' his ' science is a form of religion. Religion is man-made, and science can stand before any God as truth, without any fiction or dogma attached. I guess 9 out of ten scientists are in the same religion, then. But Pat Robertson needs $$ too. Wouldn't it be great just to accept that God has the power to create science and evolution and it's a beautiful thing ?

    7. Not without proof. Blind acceptance is intellectually insulting.

  19. Evolution is not true!Cats do not chane into Dogs and Horses do not turn into Ducks.Man did not evolve form being a monkey! Why does evolutoin tell you that your brain bacame smaller while you grew smarter? Does less brains mean we can retain more thought.And never forget the title ;The ''THEORY'' of Evolution.

    1. Once again, everything in your post is dead wrong and bespeaks your woeful and wilful lack of education. Why don't you read up on evolution before making such brainless and ignorant comments? And while you're at it, why don't you try to learn what a scientific theory is?

    2. Brad H
      are you trolling?

      if not please show me where Darwin or the theory of evolution states
      - cats evolve into dogs
      - man evolved from a monkey
      - evolution states that there is no god
      -"you need not worry about, or concern yourself with, your neighbour, your friends and,or your family."
      - "If you kill/murder someone you have only but yourself to answer to."
      and so on

      there are many religious people and denominations that accept god AND evolution. you on the other hand show a complete lack of basic understanding of the theory or even what a theory is. if you are going to oppose something please understand it first.

    3. You are really putting his intelligence to the test with this rhetorical question. : )

    4. Giacomo della Svezia,
      lol no pain no gain. it might be just me but religion is basically the only topic where i am frequently not 100% sure if someone is serious or trolling.

    5. I don't even bother to consider whether the poster is trolling. I simply take the statement at face value and go from there.

    6. robertallen1
      i do not have that luxury. if the person is trolling they need to be told to stop

  20. Darwinisim is a Religion.It says there is NO god and there-fore you need not worry about, or concern yourself with, your neighbour, your friends and,or your family.If you kill/murder someone you have only but yourself to answer to.You need no conscience to get through your life you only need determination,drive and luck.You need no love for or from anyone but yourself.There is no god so there are no cosequences!
    Someone should have shot Darwin twice in the head!

    1. Every statement in your post is dead wrong, thus maximizing the effect of the ignorance behind it. Your last comment is especially despicable.

      Believing that you need some supreme being whose existence you cannot prove and about which you know nothing to keep you on the straight and narrow shows you up for the troglodyte that you are.

    2. This is why the republican states are the worst educated, most violent, and poorest, welfare states. Is Gravity a religion? Newtonism a religion? And if you need an ancient book ( one of dozens ) to tell you right from wrong you're denying your own internal and societal nature to do for the greater good..which is survival of the group YOU live in. Axe murderers ain't good for the group....don't need no bible to know that, or be moral. Evolution takes care of Axe murderers.

    3. You were doing fine until the last sentence. Now just how does biological evolution take care of axe murderers?

    4. We lock them up as a society of man-made laws. It's not good for the health of the group if the dude sitting next to you at McDonalds is swinging an axe. Society quickly evolves standards for its survival...even if they are tribal and involve legends and mysticism to encourage it. This is not the same as ' social darwinism ' which was an excuse by some to contain a permanent working class during the a new industrial era...which is ' natural selection and survival made me the kingpin and you work for me and that's how nature intended it '

    5. Your statement was, "evolution takes care of Axe murderers." What type of evolution did you have in mind? Perhaps sequestration is more accurate.

    6. yes...and animals will shun members of the group and kick them out of the territory if they eat the babies, etc.

    7. And other animals such as grizzly bears couldn't care less. So what? One way or the other, this is not biological evolution.

    8. sure it is ...bears are alpha predators and don't care if their cubs make all the noise they want or draw attention. frogs have learned that they are appetizers and if they are seen or heard, they are eaten. this is a behavioral adaptation passed on genetically. just as rattlesnakes know how to coil for a strike as kangaroos know to crawl up into mom's external sac when they are little worm-like things...and girlfriends slowly aquire your CD's in the cards. a little bit of code in the grand scheme of codes.

    9. So axe-murdering is a behavioral adaptation passed on genetically. Where is your evidence?

    10. Not an internal genetic trait, but it is natural selection within their environment. they don't breed as often because they are locked up or shot by the authorities. The group is an organism that naturally wants to survive....just like the early church wanted to maximize its population by banning extramarital sex and birth control, as well as invading other religion's land. Same thing with corporate expansion and the ousting of CEO's that screw up.

      People who refute the evidence of biological evolution do so because they deem it a threat to their faith or their religion has nice clean convenient explanations for all mysteries and origins. The literal interpretation of their bible cannot allow for any science to conflict, as that would undermine the validity of the religious organization. It is sad when people can't balance science and religion and jetison one or the other; black or white. The two can be completely independent or intersect without harming each other.

    11. It is selection, only not "natural selection" which Darwin defined as a passive process.

    12. true. good discussion, though. this series is great. shouldn't have to be debated in the 21st century but that's life in the slow lane.

    13. more specifically biologically....few people want to marry axe murderers and they don't pass on axe murder genes. and if one frog baby is splashing all over the place with ADD or a hyperactive disorder ..drawing attention from pike and turtles and predators....big daddy bullfrog gonna eat that little frog to save the group....hence genes aren't passed on.

    14. First you have to prove that there is a gene common to all axe murderers.

    15. there is a specific segment in the DNA chain that gives a propensity to pike-wielding, sword swinging, axe swaddling and so forth. I just haven't got it handy....though it might be A-T-C-G-A-C-A-T-G. this is completely different from grenade throwing and suicide bombers, which evolved from sappers,etc....a whole different part of the code.

      an antisocial gene hasn't been discovered to my knowledge but an evolving society can spot these threats and ' sequester ' them or make them join the NRA, prior to their spree so they can be tracked more easily.

      a societal trait emerged in our evolution.....something less than ants and bees but greater than tigers which keep strict 20 mile territories. I would say our need for an explanation for our societal morals is how religion evolved.

    16. When you locate it, please let me and for that matter the rest of the world know.

    17. A person does not need to believe in the judeo-christian-islamic god to have morality or feel a connection to the rest of life. That is pretty arrogant of you to assume that just because a person doesn't believe as you that they are incapable of being good people or adhering to a moral code.

  21. Why can't they both be true,one not having any relationship to the other. Can't a religion with erroneous theologies still be everlastingly true. And hasn't science itself eared time and again. Why not just stick to science if that's all there is, what's all this urgency about. Are you nuts!

    1. What is an erroneous theology? And if there were such a thing, wouldn't a religion possessed of one or more be fatally flawed?

      No, science has never spouted aural appendages, but it has corrected itself based on influx of new evidence.

      Did you ever think of taking up education as a hobby?

    2. The difference is that when a scientific theory is proven to be false, it is discarded in favor of the new truth that has been revealed. Religion on the other hand does not change its dogmas even as they are proven to be false.

    3. Dogmas cannot be proven false because they wouldn't be dogmas if they could.

  22. There is definatly a bigger power than us out there , whos to say that a higher power didnt create the big bang? Whos to say that our universe isnt just a molecule of a bigger creation?

    1. How do you know that there's a bigger power out there? Employing the word "definitely" does not constitute proof. If you aver that a higher power created the big bang, then you must prove it. If you aver that our universe is a molecule of a bigger creation, you must prove it. If you can't offer proof of them, all your assertions are silly and worthless.

    2. One can intuitively believe in a higher power that created our universe and not be able to prove the existence of that higher power to another person through the scientific method. But the inability to prove a higher power doesn't make the assertion of a belief in a higher power "worthless."

      Humans believe things all the time with no ability or obligation to "prove" them to others. I strongly believe in a "creator" (so to speak for lack of a better term), and my belief is fully consistent with evolution, physics, and more generally, science. I intuitively believe in a higher power that gives live to all of existence, and to which all of life is connected. That higher power is the source of all time, space, and matter. My belief is not based on the bible or any religious text or authority. My belief is based on my own life experiences and relationships.

      I know many highly intelligent people who share that belief, and who also believe strongly in scientific progress. No science has EVER disproved my belief, and I am totally comfortable with others who disagree with me as an atheist, agnostic, christian, or whatever.

      We humans can be pretty arrogant sometimes in our effort to reach definitive conclusions about the existence, nonexistence, and nature of god. But our human egos are nothing but miniscule blips amidst the vastness and beauty of our universe.

    3. PeterMollyman
      "One can intuitively believe in a higher power that created our universe and not be able to prove the existence of that higher power" i agree. but if someone wished to have their beliefs taken seriously proof is needed.

      if your " belief is fully consistent with evolution, physics, and more generally, science." then it must be a neutral phenomenon or you are mistaken.

      "I know many highly intelligent people who share that belief," that is an argument from authority and useless.

      " No science has EVER disproved my belief, " that is because science does not care what you believe only what you can prove.

    4. "if someone wished to have their beliefs taken seriously proof is needed." Taken seriously by who? My point about other highly intelligent people who share similar perspectives is that they take my beliefs "seriously." They understand that the mystery of our existence is often unexplainable, complex, and subjective. We have great discussions in which we take each others beliefs "seriously" even though we may not always fully agree with or relate to such beliefs.

      I am not mistaken about my belief being consistent with evolution, physics and science. While science has certainly proven that beliefs about "god" that exist in various religious traditions cannot possibly be true, science has never proven that "god"/creator/supreme being doesn't exist. Never. If my own experiences and relationships convey to me a belief in a supreme being, that is "evidence" of my belief from my perspective, even if I cannot convey that evidence to others in a tangible way. My belief would only be inconsistent with science if my belief contradicted science. It does not. I love science and learning about the mystery of life.

      Again, my comments about other 'highly intelligent people" who share similar beliefs is not to prove that god exists. I'm fully aware of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. My point out that a belief about a creator is not "worthless" simply because that belief cannot be objectively proven in a scientific way. I can discuss my beliefs with others, and they can appreciate and relate to them, even if we are not sharing objective evidence.

    5. If you're claiming that a supreme being exists, you must provide the hard evidence, not interpretation, not intuition, not inference). Science is not required to disprove you and your experiences, your relationships, your intuition, your vacuous concept of evidence and your god of the gaps to explain the mysteries of life simply don't cut it. If you can't communicate your beliefs in a tangible way, you have nothing to communicate.

      And by the way, objective evidence is the only type of evidence.

    6. PeterMollyman
      "people who share similar perspectives is that they take my beliefs "seriously." so you are only interested/able to preach to the choir. that is the best way to never learn anything new.

      " am not mistaken about my belief being consistent with evolution, physics and science." yes you are. unless your explanation is demonstrable and natural it is not consistent with science. so is it?

      "science has never proven that "god"/creator/supreme being doesn't exist" that is not the way it works. if you make a claim you prove it not the other way around. please look up "Russel's Teapot"

    7. "only interested/able to preach to the choir." Nope. I never said or implied that. I can have great discussions with people who have all kinds of perspectives. I'm always learning new things.

      Nope. My belief is fully consistent with science. You must not understand what "consistent" means. You and I may disagree about whether God exists. And science may not be able to prove the existence of God. But one can have a belief that is not proven through science that is fully consistent with the provable. Science does not prove atheism. Science does not really address the question one way or the other. My belief is fully consistent because it does not contradict science.

      "That's not the way it works." That's not the way what works? You don't set the rules here. Russel's Teapot is not relevant to this point. I came to believe in a creator through my own conscious experiences. Those experiences support my belief that a creator exists. I can watch this documentary and fully appreciate the genius of Darwin's theory, and the evidence that Darwin was likely absolutely correct. It is wonderful. I appreciate that this objective, scientific proof is solid evidence of evolution. It's great. At the same time, I appreciate my own experiences that intuitively support an equally strong belief in a creator that is fully consistent with Darwin's theory. You may not relate to my belief at all and think it is totally false. That's fine. But I would be dishonest if I pretended to be an atheist (or even an agnostic, which I was for many years) just because I can't prove my intuitive beliefs to others.

    8. PeterMollyman
      "I can have great discussions with people who have all kinds of perspectives" great then please share some of these experiences with me so we can discuss them. and please make sure they are consistent with science.

      " My belief is fully consistent with science" and " God created and creates life NOW" so he/she/it interacts with the universe and also is consistent with science? if so he/she/it either follows the laws/constants described by science and we would be able to test and demonstrate that, or he/she/it ignores/is not governed by these laws/constants and therefore not consistent.

      " That's not the way what works? You don't set the rules here" no i don't but the burden of proof always lies with the person making a claim. not the other way around. also could you explain " Russel's Teapot is not relevant to this point." ?

    9. " . . . one can have a belief that is not proven through science that is fully consistent with the provable." Certainly, Santa Claus created dinosaurs long before he created mankind.

      In short, you're placing your own subjective (intuitive) experiences and beliefs on the same level as science. That's pathetic.

    10. A belief that Santa Claus created dinosaurs long before he created mankind is not consistent with science. Such a belief contradicts evolution, physics, astronomy, and so much of what we have learned through application of the scientific method in various fields. The more I learn about science, the more excited and convinced I am about my belief in a creator. So your Santa Clause/dinosaur example doesn't apply.

      It really boils down to whether our universe arises from something or nothing. Is there a force that transcends the physical universe (time, space, and matter) giving rise to the Universe, or does it spring into existence from nothing?

      Tracing its existence to the big bang, Hawking theorizes (I'm paraphrasing here) that time continues to slow down, and eventually, would stop. He concludes that because time does not exist before the big bang, nothing could have preceded the big bang. From that, he leaps to the conclusion that a creator could not exist, and that the universe sprang from nothing.

      I agree with Hawking the universe sprang from "nothing" that exists within our universe, which includes space, matter, and time. However, Hawking's theory ignores what many "believers" have been saying for centuries - that the creator transcends time. The creator does not exist within our universe. The creator transcends our universe. So Hawking's theory on this point does not really move science any closer to proving the existence or non-existence of a creator.

      So why would I believe in a creator if science cannot prove its existence? Science tests objectively provable information available in our objective universe. Here's where consciousness is critical to my perspective on this. You suggest that my role as a "conscious ... experiencer of life" does not matter. I strongly disagree with this point. My role as a subjective experiencer is fundamentally relevant. My own consciousness proves to me that I am not a mere OBJECT in this universe. I am a SUBJECTIVE experiencer of existence. My entire understanding of this physical existence is conveyed through my subjective, conscious experiences.

      My own subjective experiences, especially my relationships and interactions with other conscious subjective beings, suggest to me that a creator exists, and that all conscious beings arise from the same creative source of existence. I love science and everything we learn from it. Yet, much of the richness and meaning of life comes from subjective experiences that are not provable through science. Sure, science may be able to demonstrate or at least theorize about the chemistry and mechanics of love, quality of life, purpose, passion, happiness, etc. But a research paper discussing such matters is no substitute for actual experiences. And again, science cannot prove why I am even existing within this universe as a subjective experiencer. Again, much of this is truly intuitive.

      Our creator is not a judgmental, angry being that plans to punish and reward humans according to their deeds. Our creator loves all of its creation. Our creator is experiencing live through its amazing creation.

      Some of our disagreement might be semantics. And in many ways, I agree far more with Stephen Hawking and other atheists/agnostics then I do with most fundamentalist religious practitioners.

      alright, I've got to go to work! Peace :)

    11. You certainly pretend to know a lot about the nature of an entity whose existence you cannot substantiate. "Our creator is not a judgmental, angry being that plans to punish and reward humans according to their deeds. Our creator loves all of its creation. Our creator is experiencing live through its amazing creation." What it all boils down to has nothing to do with whether the universe arises from something or nothing or whether there is "a force that transcends the physical universe (time, space, and matter) giving rise to the Universe," but rather with the transmogrification of what you characterize as your subjective beliefs into "facts," the "proof" of which lies in your claim that they are consistent with science, your intuition and your personal experiences. Well, again, so is my claim that Santa Claus created dinosaurs before he created mankind.

      "My role as a subjective experiencer is fundamentally relevant. My own consciousness proves to me that I am not a mere OBJECT in this universe." How can you be anything other than a mere OBJECT in this universe and how does your consciousness go about "proving" that you are not? "I am a SUBJECTIVE experiencer of existence. My entire understanding of this physical existence is conveyed through my subjective, conscious experiences." Previously you claimed that objective science adds to your understanding of this physical existence, but this latest statement factors science completely out of the equation. Do you have any idea what you mean? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

      "Yet, much of the richness and meaning of life comes from subjective experiences that are not provable through science." So how does this tie in to belief in a superior being?

      In short, you write walls of text in a vain attempt to rationalize your subjective beliefs which you've now turned into facts.

    12. I'm not pretending to "know" anything. I'm asserting my "beliefs" about a creator.

      Of course I am not a mere object. Again, my own consciousness is perfect evidence of my subjective, conscious nature as an experiencer of life. Yes, I have a physical expression of my own existence - my body - that can be objectively verified. But who is consciously experiencing existence through this body? "I" am. I am the actor. The protagonist. The "I" is what drives me. That is no mere object. Science simply does not know who "I" am! :)

      You do not believe that Santa Claus created dinosaurs. Nor do you have reason - objective, subjective, intuitive, logical, otherwise - to believe such a thing. That analogy simply doesn't apply.

      You make a good point about my apparent contraction when I said that objective science is further evidence to me of a creator. Because science does not really provide evidence of a creator that I can use to persuade others (just like science has never disproved a creator). So that is somewhat of a misstatement. But it's not totally inaccurate. I'll try to explain.

      I grew up in a very dogmatic religious environment. After recognizing the numerous logical flaws in the dogma of my and other faiths while in college, I left my religion. I became a "staunch" agnostic. I concluded that devoting a chunk of my life to beliefs about beings that cannot be proven, and that contradict science and rational thought, was a horrible waste of energy and brainpower.

      I eventually completed college and graduate school and began working in my career. I was married with a family. On the surface everything seemed great. I earned great money and had great family and friends. But things were not great.

      Without going into detail about my personal life, I began having experiences that made me realize that the pursuits toward purported "happiness" were futile. The ego is never satisfied. It always wants more. It always believes that "happiness" is right around the corner. But it's not. The human ego is fighting a losing battle. It never succeeds. Whether it be wealth, success, fame, sex, intoxicants, physical health, the ego cannot be satisfied. Ever. And it will eventually die, thus losing its ultimate battle, the battle to survive.

      My experiences - lasting a few years - slowly transformed my perspective on life. None of that stuff mentioned in the previous paragraph ultimately matters. I am spiritually connected with all of humanity. That's what matters. It's beautiful. Just like all physical forms, this body will die. That's ok. The force that gives me life breathes life into all of existence. I do not "know" the nature of that force, but I strongly believe it exists, and I strongly believe it has certain attributes. That believe arises intuitively as a result of my experiences. Because of this new perspective, I view things like science in a whole new light. I now appreciate science as further expression of the creator's creation. So from my perspective, it is, in a sense, "evidence" of the creator even though it is not objective evidence that I can prove to others who do not share the same perspective as me.

      It has been more than 20 years since I first declared myself an agnostic. My perspective transformed only a few years ago. I am now happier than I've been in several decades. And there are plenty of people who share my perspective. I didn't "learn" my perspective from others. But I've had amazing experiences when others have expressed things that strike a chord with me because I realize they understand.

      Yes, I cannot "prove" to you that a creator exists. It takes a completely different perspective on life to intuitively understand where I'm coming from. But that's ok. I'm comfortable with all kinds of beliefs and perspectives. Because I know everything is ok. We have nothing to worry about. We are all on different paths. I don't judge others as dumb, uninformed, or "pathetic" because they might not see things the way I do.

      Also, human language itself is inherently flawed. Words nearly always contain some level of abstraction that interferes with true communication. As I mentioned earlier, much of my disagreement with you or others could have a lot to do with semantics and the imperfect nature of language.

      Again, the key is your own consciousness :)


    13. "Our creator is not a judgmental, angry being that plans to punish and reward humans according to their deeds. Our creator loves all of its creation. Our creator is experiencing live through its amazing creation." Is that a belief or an assertion?

      "Of course I am not a mere object." "Of course" does not constitute proof and neither does the gibberish that follows.

      By your own admission you have no objective reason to believe in a supreme being. So why should I need one to believe that Santa Claus created dinosaurs. You've admittedly confined your validation of a supreme being to the subjective and the intuitive, so why shouldn't I do the same with Santa Claus creating dinosaurs, for that's where my subjectivity and my intuition are leading me. As for logic, my belief in Santa Claus creating dinosaurs is just as well-founded as yours in a supreme being creating the universe.

      Your puling biography, replete with your equally puling "experiences," is completely irrelevant to your inability to scientifically prove the existence of your version of a supreme being, much less anything else that you have asserted.

      "Also, human language itself is inherently flawed. Words nearly always contain some level of abstraction that interferes with true communication." And just what is "true communication" and what's the matter with abstraction? Or this another of your subjective claims rooted in your intuition?

      I don't judge others as dumb, uninformed or pathetic because they don't agree with me, but rather because, like you, they can't back up their assertions except through their own worthless subjectivity which they endeavor to place on a pedestal.

    14. I believe in a creator. You don't really believe that Santa Clause created dinosaurs. Nobody believes that. That itself is a fundamental difference that makes your analogy wholly inapplicable.

      I never said I could "scientifically prove the existence" of a supreme being. I can't. Nor do I have any obligation to do that. Likewise, you have no obligation to believe me. I share what I have experienced, what I know, and what I believe. I know my position is far from "worthless." Indeed, my perspective on the existence of a creator may be the most meaningful discovery of my life thus far. And it is especially profound when others can relate.

      On the other hand, I learn from those who don't share my perspective. Humans like to believe that we are super smart, logical beings. We really aren't as smart as we think we are. Logic alone is pretty empty. And logic applied to human experience often fails us. Moreover, the frailty of human language is part of the reason for our inability to perfectly communicate ideas.

      The topic of human communication and its imperfections takes a discussion much longer than I feel like or have time to address. But there are plenty of studies on that topic. I refrain from judging others who don't understand me because we all view life from our own subjective consciousness. I may not be able to adequately communicate to you my perspective on a creator that transcends the boundaries of the universe, but I am confident that the basis for my belief in such a creator is informed, meaningful, and reasonable even if you don't see it. And there are plenty of other thoughtful, intelligent people who can identify with my perspective. Not that my belief depends on such people. It doesn't. But discovering common ground with such people is an enlightening, meaningful experience that strengthens my conviction about it.

      It begins with the subjectivity of consciousness. If we can't see eye to eye on that, we will continue running in circles :)


    15. It doesn't matter what I believe. My contention that Santa Claus created dinosuars has as much validity as yours that a supreme being created the universe--and just as much scientific provability, the only type the matters.

      "I know my position is far from 'worthless.'" And just how do you know this or are we confronted with yet another of your subjective observations based on what you consider your intuition?

      And now you insult the intelligence with your biggest unsubstantiated claim yet: that you've discovered the existence of a creator.

      "I may not be able to adequately communicate to you my perspective on a creator that transcends the boundaries of the universe, but I am confident that the basis for my belief in such a creator is informed, meaningful, and reasonable even if you don't see it." Well, I am confident that the basis of my belief in the tooth fairy is informed, meaningful and reasonable even if you don't see it.

      "And there are plenty of other thoughtful, intelligent people who can identify with my perspective. Not that my belief depends on such people. It doesn't. But discovering common ground with such people is an enlightening, meaningful experience that strengthens my conviction about it." So chicken little claims the sky is falling and others of his intelligence believe him. And, by the way, who are these thoughtful, intelligent people who identify with what you term your perpsective. Saying that there are plenty of them is saying nothing.

      "Moreover, the frailty of human language is part of the reason for our inability to perfectly communicate ideas." And just what is this "frailty of human language" which interferes with "perfect communication of ideas?" You sure like to sling terms around.

      As long as your idea of proof is no proof, we will never see eye to eye and there is no logical reason why I should believe anything you write. But I forgot, because " . . . logic applied to human experience often fails us," I should take your statements at face value, that is to say on faith.

    16. See? More running in circles. Peace :)

    17. See? More assertions that you can't back up.

    18. A Creator that gave us brains that learn and grow and evolve and change the world HE created certainly has the power to create genetic change, variation/ mutation, adaptation..scientific disovery and be corrected and updated in truth. Change....just to keep things moving along, even ? Give the Guy some credit. He's watching his creation change and isn't that a tad more interesting for Him ?? Unless you perceive God as a farmer just going around the universe throwing seeds, filling a quota, and the mold is cast in stone and it's the same from boring day one. My God smiles in the constant change in his glory. To shut out science because it disagrees with the religion you were taught or born into doesn't show a lot of exploration...mentally or spiritually.

    19. PeterMollyman
      "It really boils down to whether our universe arises from something or nothing" why? what modern theory states that the universe came from nothing? a singularity is something. you put forward a false dichotomy and then inject your "god into one of the options without any proof or reason.

      "that the creator transcends time. The creator does not exist within our universe. The creator transcends our universe." again do you have any proof for this?

      "my relationships and interactions with other conscious subjective beings, suggest to me that a creator exists, and that all conscious beings arise from the same creative source of existence." can you explain the process in some detail that made you reach these conclusions?

      "Our creator is not a judgmental, angry being that plans to punish and reward humans according to their deeds. Our creator loves all of its creation. Our creator is experiencing live through its amazing creation. " how do you know any of this?

    20. See my response to Robertallen1 below. I'm getting tired of writing!

      Peace :)

    21. If you can't prove your claims (e.g., "That higher power is the source of all time, space, and matter" ) through the scientific method, your intuition, "life experiences and relationships" and the beliefs they spawn are not only so much trash, but as great an insult to human intelligence as your attempt to place these beliefs on the same level as science.

      What "miniscule blips amidst the vastness and beauty of our universe" have to do with the existence of a supreme being is beyond understanding and stating that you believe in a higher power based on nothing more than your intuition renders you intellectually pathetic.

    22. Haha. Well, your name calling is certainly not "on the same level as science" by any measure.

      When I experience love, beauty, peace, life connections, etc., I cannot necessarily "prove" that I've experienced those things. Nor do I ever have any obligation to do so. And yet, I can share my experiences with other intelligent human beings and have a meaningful experience. Our discussion is not "worthless" simply because we cannot use science to prove that we've had such experiences. Indeed, such discussions are often among the most worthwhile life experiences. In that sense, my experiences of love, beauty, peace, life connections, etc., and my discussions of such experiences, are even more REAL than many objective advancements that have been made through science.

      Likewise, my experiences and relationships that give rise to my belief in a "creator" are more REAL than the evidence proving that as we get closer to the big bang, time slows down and eventually stops, thus rendering it impossible for any existence prior to the big bang. That is all very interesting. But it doesn't feel as real and meaningful as those real life experiences I talk about above.

      That being said, I totally AGREE with Stephen Hawking when he reaches this conclusion about time and the big bang. And again, my belief in a creator is totally consistent with this because that creator did not exist "before" the big bang. There is no "before" the big bang because time, space, and matter all exist within the universe. The creator in which I believe transcends all of those things. God created and creates life NOW. All of life and existence is the result of the creator. Life beautifully unfolds through every single event in the universe as God's creation. I intuitively believe that. Sorry, I can't objectively prove that to you :)

    23. You know that this creator of yours did not exist before the big bang because time, space and matter all exist within the universe; yet you believe a creator transcends the big bang. You believe that god created and creates life now. You believe that all of life and existence is the result of the creator. You believe that life beautifully unfolds through every single event in the universe as god's creation. You sure have a lot of beliefs for which the only proofs you can offer are your emotional experiences (which, by the way, are scientifically measureable, hence their existence is provable),coupled with what you consider your intuition.

      One way or the other, you're attempting to use the subjective to substantiate the objective, i.e., that a supreme being exists, and it just won't wash.

      In sum, you make claims which you can't substantiate except merely to state that they are your beliefs which you share with others, as if that means anything. In sum, your beliefs amount to no more than one great big puerile god of the gaps.

    24. I totally agree that emotional experiences are scientifically measurable. But that's not my point. Science does not prove why I (with a capital "I," haha) am the experiencer of life. Why am I even conscious? My own consciousness is the big (thus far) unprovable mystery in all of this. Science may be able to break life down to its smallest elements and discover complex cause/effect explanations and relationships. Science can address the mechanisms and chemestry of life. But why does MY OWN consciousness exist WITHIN life? Science does not answer that question. And while I certainly can't answer that question either, my own cumulative conscious experiences are evidence to me of an amazing creative life force that drives all of this.

      Ultimately, all of life is subjective. We make decisions all the time based on subjective experiences. While I may not be able to use objective evidence to prove to you the existence of a creator, my experiences supporting my intuitive beliefs about a creator are more compelling to me than suggestions by others (I say "suggestions" because there is not evidence that a creator doesn't exist. Science doesn't address it one way or the other) that a creator does not exist.

      Sharing my beliefs with others is not meaningless. Indeed, it can be profoundly meaningful. If I find a piece of music amazing, I may not necessarily be able to explain all of the science behind why I subjectively find it amazing. But I know that I do. If I share my appreciation for that music with someone else who ALSO expresses similar appreciation for the same music, the experience is magnified. Neither of us may know a damn thing about why we love the music. True, there may be a scientific explanation for the physical mechanisms and chemistry behind it. But my friend and I might have zero understanding about that. Of course, we don't need to know a damn thing about that to still find the music, and the shared experience itself, amazing.

      This is no God in the gaps that I'm talking about. God permeates life everywhere. The key evidence is your own consciousness :)

    25. How and why has the universe created conscious beings(humanity) that can ponder its own origins?......a self-reflective universe. To think that the universe has developed a consciousness of its own without any apparent cause is indeed quite a stretch. Hopefully science can solve this mystery one day.... maybe consciousness is simply the origin of everything as you suggest Peter Mollyman.

    26. You state that science cannot tell you why you are "the experiencer of life" (not that it matters) and why you are conscious (not that that matters as well) and then admit that you don't know why either. Then you bring in some supreme being to explain away everything which you claim not to know. Your inability to appreciate the world around you without invoking some overweaning, fairy tale third party is tantamount to a child with an imaginary friend. In short, your beliefs are no more than a textbook example of the god of the gaps.

      "God permeates life everywhere. The key evidence is your own consciousness." This glaring non sequitur goes beyond the pale of subjectivity and is as groundless an assertion as your contention that all life is subjective and as weak a justification for your belief (which you've now converted to fact) in a supreme being as your subjective appreciation of music--at least you know the music is there.

      The damning thing is not that there is no evidence that a creator doesn't exist, but rather no evidence that one does.

      Throughout your posts, you've done no more than list your empty beliefs. What's compelling to you is only so much hot air.

  23. You still have to combine science and spirituality.......

    1. Complete nonsense. You can't prove there is such a thing as a spirit.

  24. A thoughtfull temperary genius will eventually will be succeeded by an advancement and the enlightenment of even more modern logic and truth as it surfaces. But, with restrictments in money systems and religious ferber, Gods don't and refuse to accept new advanced methods in higher culture that bring mankind out and away from dictator enslavement. There comes a time to revalue what your told to believe, and open your mind to the modern facts of life, and how things really evolve.

  25. :) Goodnight guys!

  26. If my reply to Epicurus is not posted, I will stop posting here!
    This will mean that you cannot have a fair debate!

    1. It was. So stop crying.

    2. You put on a link and all links have to be checked and approved by mods, read the "comment policy" above.

  27. My comments need approval by the moderator now! I wonder why??

  28. @gerardbaya:

    Are you omitting talking to @robertallen1 on personal grounds?

    No room for personality clashes or personal agendas here on TDF, posts are open open for everyone.

    As robertallen said you fail to provide sources for your quotes, I would like to see them also.

    1. It's of no importance whether gerardbaya responds to me, as this is a public site and he's not the only one reading the responses.

    2. Hi,

      since you are asking, yes I am not replying to that person. Is there a rule against that?

    3. @gerardbaya:

      If you do not want to reply, that is your prerogative, you do not have to, but it might seem to others that, that, is childish. But like I said, it is up to you of course.

    4. Hi,

      Well, thanks for your opinion and for caring about what others might think of!

    5. It doesn't matter to me. Whether or not you reply to me directly, I will keep posting responses to those of your posts that I feel inclinded to respond to for anyone to read.

  29. Dear OTE,

    thank you for pointing the policy of the site out. Since you are not keen to talk about other topics of sciences as this one is dedicated to evolution and moreover since as you point out yourself, you are not willing to talk about "Faith" here as an atheist and as your past experiences. I do respect that and thank you for your objectivity.

    Where I sure you made a mistake though is about philosophy as it is a science, a natural science. From what I have understood, modern sciences, namely physics, derived from philosophy. Well I stop here since I am already out of topic :). (History, anthropology and ect)

    I personally think that it is quite sad that you think "Faith" should not be considered as a science. The global population comprises more believers, certainly of different faiths, than atheists. Many natural sciences are centered on the behavior of societies, sociology for instance. Out of context, I am again! I'm out! :)

    Best regards!

    1. Stating that because early scientists were known as philosophers , philosophy is a natural science is as boeotian claiming that faith is a science because there are more believers than non-believers. As it is antithetical to science, faith is not a science. However, there is nothing to militate against an OBJECTIVE study of it, including its sociology.

    2. just because philosophy gave birth to science so to speak does not mean that philosophy is a science.

      Alchemy gave birth to chemistry and astrology gave birth to astronomy. but you wouldnt say alchemy or astrology are a science.

      faith can not be science because faith is belief in something without or in-spite of evidence.
      science is the systematic search for the evidence and explanation of phenomenon.

      completely opposites.

    3. Dear Epicurus,

      thanks again for your posts.
      Well you have heard about "natural sciences" and "modern sciences for sure!
      Both kinds are called "sciences"!
      I think personally that "Faith" should be studied as a science. I think science is studies, through experiments, observation and all, for a better understanding of "things" and the abstract. Well "Faith" is abstract and I will say yes lets study it as a science.

      You might not approve this but that's my point of view!

      Your comments are welcome!

    4. Stating that something is your point of view does not cover up the ignorance and stupidity behind it.

      It''s one thing to say you don't believe in a supreme being because so far you've met with no convincing evidence. It's another to trumpet that you believe something based on nothing and expect to be respected for it.

    5. The natural sciences are branches of science that seek to elucidate the rules that govern the natural world by using scientific methods. The term "natural science" is used to distinguish the subject matter from the social sciences, which apply the scientific method to study human behavior and social patterns; the humanities, which use a critical or analytical approach to study the human condition; and the formal sciences such as mathematics and logic, which use an a priori, as opposed to factual methodology to study formal systems.

      I dont think you are using the term "natural sciences" in the way it is meant.

      how do you propose creating an experiment on faith?

    6. Dear Epicurus,

      thank you for your reply. You are right, I was not using the right term but the idea was there.

      So if I understand well, there are many sciences. One of the main branch are "natural sciences" which study subject matter and the other branch "social sciences" which study human behavior and societies.

      "Modern" science is referred as the era during which ,"The Scientific Revolution established science as a source for the growth of knowledge."

      Coming back to "social" sciences, one science under its umbrella is Anthropology.
      "Anthropology is the holistic "science of man," - a science of the totality of human existence."
      "The goal of anthropology is to provide a holistic account of humans and human nature."

      Where "holistic" is defined as, "Characterized by comprehension of the parts of something as intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole."

      Many social sciences including history shows that "man" is inclined to believe in a God or Gods.

      "Faith" is the core of one's belief and I lot of scientists, anthropologists ans so forth have to deal with this Reality, that "man" in a great majority has "Faith" in a God or Gods.

      Etymologically talking, sciences is "knowledge", derived from Philosophy which is, "the love of wisdom". My point is that the quintessence of sciences is to acquire wisdom.

      "Wisdom is a deep understanding and realization of people, things, events or situations, resulting in the ability to apply perceptions, judgements and actions in keeping with this understanding."

      Therefore, to come to a point with science, the "natural" one, to say that things just happen and that's what we have come up with is sad!
      I am saying this as my first post here was,

      "I have a question or two; why did life start and how did it happen? If you are replying by the big bang theory, then why did the big bang happen? All are invited to reply!"

      To answer to your question, I will say that "Faith" is a gift. To experience it you have to ask for the grace of receiving it!

      To me my "faith" can be explained like so, we receive life as a gift and to be a believer is to live under the "promise" that this life is insignificant to eternity.

      You cannot test or experiment it be only experience it!

      I will answer to your other posts!

      Thank you to tell me what you think at this point!


    7. First of all, when you quote, you are required to provide the source. This you have failed to do thrice.

      Etymologically science is indeed knowledge, but in case you missed it, modern science does not derive its knowledge from philosophy, but rather from hard evidence, the only type of evidence that counts.

      And just what is so sad about saying that something just happened. Is it your intellectual vacuity and sense of insecurity which impels you to try to yoke a cause to everything?

      Faith is simply the copulation of ignorance with stupidity to produce a false virtue, making it one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated, as clearly demonsrated by the ignorance demonstrated in your posts. If you can't test or experience it, it is worthless, no matter what most people say.

    8. My major is anthropology.

      Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present. To understand the full sweep and complexity of cultures across all of human history, anthropology draws and builds upon knowledge from the social and biological sciences as well as the humanities and physical sciences. A central concern of anthropologists is the application of knowledge to the solution of human problems. Historically, anthropologists in the United States have been trained in one of four areas: sociocultural anthropology, biological/physical anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics. Anthropologists often integrate the perspectives of several of these areas into their research, teaching, and professional lives.

      now as for your rant on faith. you are saying that faith only comes to you when asked. well i have asked. and i know many people who had faith who lost it.

      faith is not given to you, faith is the ACTIVE behaviour of believing something which you cant prove.

      most likely you have faith in the same religion your parents do. and the same religion that is dominant in your culture.

      why dont you have faith in shiva? or zeus? why dont you have faith in one of the many other gods? why do you insist on believing something which has NO PROOF and is clearly wrong about most of the things it claims?!

      you seem like a nice, smart person. i wonder how you have been so tricked into believing something that is not true.

    9. gerardbaya
      again i never claimed you were going too far off topic. if you do it will be pointed out to you. faith cannot be a science unless it follows the rules and definitions of science. that does not make it wrong just not science. may i ask why do you want/need faith to be included within science? what purpose would violating the guidelines of the most reliable path to the workings of nature be? also do you have any questions concerning evolution?

    10. Dear OTE,

      I thank you for telling me if I am abiding or not to the policies. I appreciate this.

      The reason why I think that "Faith" should be studied as a science is simply due to the fact that as you can see in the documentary, "Faith" is most of the time in opposition to the "theory" of evolution.
      The only big intervention where Richard Dawkins had to face with a different response was when he was talking to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to what the narrator qualified as relativism of some sorts.

      I personally think that it is possible to seek deeper with the help of science, since I am for a logical approach, to see why "Faith" is such a strong opposition to the acceptance of the "theory" of evolution. I have seen other documentaries on T.V. in which some are doing it! I cannot remember the titles unfortunately.

      Well, I see that "Faith" is a taboo for many who are fond of science and specially who adhere to the "theory" of evolution. Though, in the documentary, religious or "Faith", again for me they are not interchangeable, is treated but not to the extend that I would like to see. My guess, is that it was more about Darwin's life and work and what he had to face once he came forward with his "theory".

      Denial or refusal, as footed in the documentary, are other obstacles to the acceptance of the "theory" of evolution.

      Shouldn't we shed light on everything? Hence my will to have the "theory" of evolution face to face to "Faith" in a full length documentary under studies.


    11. How many times do you have to be told that evolution is science and faith is the very opposite and that therefore faith cannot be studied as science, no matter what you think, no matter what you wish for?

      P.S. Again why do you put theory in quotation marks when coupled with evolution?

    12. lets say i dont accept the theory of photosynthesis, and i insist that it is wrong BECAUSE i have faith that there are invisible fairies which makes plants grow. how is this science? how would we test this? and WHY do you think you can just dismiss what we observe in scientific experiments and then you get to make up your own explanation which has no basis in reality and no evidence or reason to support it?

    13. Dear Epicurus,

      well that one is quite interesting, especially because you have the words "photosynthesis" and "fairies" in the same sentence.

      I never dismissed anything! Did I?

      However, I am opinionated and so you are!

    14. The difference is that Epicurus' opinions are based on knowledge and yours are based on nothing. So please don't try to equate yourself with him.

    15. im as not opinionated as i am educated and informed.

    16. gerardbaya

      you state "The reason why I think that "Faith" should be studied as a science is simply due to the fact that as you can see in the documentary, "Faith" is most of the time in opposition to the "theory" of evolution." i sort of agree. fundamentalists/extremeists and young earth creationists (among others) are in opposition to the theory of evolution. there are many (in my opinion most) scientists who also have faith. they just look at holy books differently than you and see no problem claiming evolution as a tool of god. if you wish to see what happens when faith tries to be scientific see "intelligent design" and the group of liars and cheats that head that so called movement.

      when you say ""Faith" is a taboo for many who are fond of science and specially who adhere to the "theory" of evolution" i disagree. it is the desire to inject something that has no demonstrable evidence, ignores contrary evidence and demands inclusion despite being completely unqualified that is taboo.

      you also state ""theory" of evolution face to face to "Faith" in a full length documentary under studies." there are many documentaries that deal with exactly that. again i will ask do you have a specific evolution question? we are dancing around everything here and no offense i am not interested in doing that.

    17. Hi OTE,

      thank for sharing your opinion on my post. I will try to check the "intelligent design" documentary as soon as I can. Thanks

      I don't see the issue, frankly! Can you be more direct or precise. I have the feeling that we are dancing with many things around evolution! Where did I lose focus?

      How is it diminishing the level of the debate?


    18. gerardbaya
      "How is it diminishing the level of the debate? " i never said it was. it is just not the kind of debate i wish to have. i am sure others will.

    19. Dear OTE,

      thank you for you answer.
      Okay, so you want me to talk according to your liking?

      As the moderator here and in compliance with your written policies, can you please tell me if my posts are okay only if they are to your linking?

      You are saying "others will", do you mean that you are inviting me politely to stop posting here?

      I wait for your answer!

      Thank you!

    20. gerardbaya
      i have no issues with your posts whatsoever. you are fine and i do not wish you to stop posting. i do not know how to make it any more clear. if i gave the impression that you should not post i apologize. all i meant by "others will" is i am sure others will wish to engage in the discussion nothing more.

    21. What he's miffed about is that those who've responded to him have shown him up for the ignoramus that he is and thus do not take him as seriously as he would like to be taken. So as far as I'm concerned, you don't owe him an apology.

    22. Dear OTE,

      thank you for your explanation. No offense taken!


  30. I have a question or two; why did life start and how did it happen? If you are replying by the big bang theory, then why did the big bang happen? All are invited to reply!

    1. Who said there has to be a reason?

    2. Dear robertallen1,

      thank you for your reply. My answer to your question is simply that to my understanding, we eat because we are hungry, "stomach aches'; because we need energy to do work. The essence of Physics and sciences is to have a better understanding or as my Physics teacher used to say, "to appreciate", appreciate by observation of phenomena, natural and through experiments.

      I have always been told that Physics is the study of abstract things. The reason of studying is to acquire knowledge. Psychologists and many will agree that the human's brain is so complex and that his behavior can be explained by analyzing both his consciousness and unconsciousness.

      Therefore, there is always a reason. May I ask you why you felt the need to watch this documentary and moreover answer to my questions? We are not bound or obliged to watch this or to write this, yet we do it. I believe that in is not in vain.

      Nature and even more, the universe itself does not do things in vain.

      Please explain you point are view with more arguments. Thank you!

    3. "Nature and even more, the universe itself does not do things in vain." Where is your proof?

      "The reason for studying is to acquire knowledge." Agreed. But it does not logically follow that "Therefore, there is always a reason."

      And your physics teacher was right about appreciating. So just appreciate and learn. There does not have to be a reason for everything.

    4. Thanks,

      well you gave the answer in your question! We study for understanding in order to appreciate! Who will study if it will be in vain? Will you work for no salary, 8 hours, 5 working days?

      Why do you think that this is a fallacious thought? i did not do any population sampling and any assumption! I have made a demonstration!

      On contrary, you have just said right and wrong! No argument and though you are asking for proof! It is quite paradox!

      As I have said in another post, i am not interested in intellectual debate that is empty of arguments and personal! Please don't take this as a personal attack as it is not! I have a reason to be here!

      I'm here for scientific views and talks!;)

    5. And just what is so vain about appreciation? And what does this have to do with working for free?

      If you state that there is a reason for everything, you have to prove it and positing the circular argument that without a reason everything would be in vain does not even come close to a proof, population sampling or no population sampling.

      Whether you're interested or not, you keep posting, you're going to get an intellectual debate.

      P.S. If you're here for scientific views and talks, why did you bring up Jesus and your faith in your last post?

    6. Hi,

      well foremost, I cannot say that you are a nice person as you are quite aggressive in your posts, disrespectful and even vulgar! Sorry but seems like evolution did not occur here through education! I am more for a civilized talk otherwise I am not interested!

      Concerning your post scriptum, I did not address that post to you. So please don't feel concerned! As a principle of mine, I don't talk about everything with everybody! The person who answered me gave me a very interesting answer!

      As a matter of taste I prefer to debate with someone else than you!

      Please don't be offended, I have my personal reasons!


    7. With whom you prefer to debate is of no consequence on a public forum.

    8. Well your self-esteem is of no consequence!

    9. You're right. It isn't. It's the accuracy of my statements.

    10. gerardbaya
      you touched on multiple subjects in one very short post.
      -"why did life start and how did it happen?" there are multiple possibilities but i will go with (how)abiogenesis and (why) chemical reactions
      -"If you are replying by the big bang theory," why would anyone reply that way? the BB has nothing to do with the origins of life.
      -"why did the big bang happen?" my personal answer is " i do not know"
      can i ask a couple of my own questions? why bring up abiogenesis and the BB theory on a doc concerning Darwin/evolution? what is your alternative if do do not accept these theories? arguing against the BB theory/abiogenesis does not do anything to disprove evolution. and even if you disproved all scientific theories that will not add credibility to a competing explanation

    11. Dear science mate,

      thank you for your reply. I really appreciate that you took time to voice your opinion and of course to give a response to my post.

      The documentary exposing Darwinism, the main protagonist and other scientific (biologists, naturalists and so forth) actors is all about Evolution of Life through natural selection and self gene.

      If you want to talk about Evolution, I believe you have to talk about life! I think decay, erosion and natural degradation/disintegration is out of focus here, unless this process can be considered as evolution of a sort. It is not an attempt to revoke the "theory" or since widely accepted by its adepts, the principle or natural law. I hope this answer to your question, "why bring up abiogenesis and the BB theory on a doc concerning Darwin/evolution?"

      As a small parenthesis, I don't think a few questions can disprove the work of so many scientists. I did not even make a statement! With all respects, I am not that good!;)

      More seriously, when you say, "and even if you disproved all scientific theories that will not add credibility to a competing explanation", you are right. I did not take offense here as this is not my aim. I want to talk about sciences instead of having an intellectual debate for the sake of pride or anything. I am not pinpointing anyone! However, thus statement of yours above make me think that you are not an unbiased scientist or adept of science or layman. The fact that you are a radical person make you closed to new theories. Darwin himself was not a radical to my belief since he opened himself to a new way of thinking in the quest of seeking a better understanding of life and "why we are here". Yes, again, evolution of something else is something that is out of subject here as a personal view of mine.

      I sincerely did not learn about "abiogenesis" before. Thank you for doing my education :).

      I have heard that there are some other theories like the brane theory or commonly called the M theory. Well, why am I talking about cosmology or something I still don't know how to call, you might say. Well it just that the "theory" of evolution does not give a complete picture. If sciences are discrete, then there are not that helpful here. I think that science is all sciences together giving the best guess about how things are and work. On the other hand, the more we learn, we discover that we know less and that the bigger we find things are the more insignificant we might feel.

      I believe there is a God, Jesus. God is much much more than what we are at least that's how I feel and in who I have Faith. I believe that life is not a matter of probability to survive and procreate. Life is a grace. To answer your question, the here and now is temporary and death is the transition to "eternity" according to my faith. Is there a science that can explain what happen after death? However, Jesus says by himself what was before, is now and what is coming next! This is bold "Truth" don't you think so?

      I am grateful to scientist like Darwin and others as they dedicated their entire lives to leave a legacy to Human kind. This is very helpful in the sense that it avoid us to waste time, to waste our life which is a grace!

      As a conclusion, I think that "Faith" should be a science if it is not already being studied!

      Please share what you think. Thank you!

    12. gerardbaya
      the reason i compartmentalized the areas of discussion that i did is simple. i feel that when a discussion is broadened to encompass areas like evolution,abiogenesis,BB theory and so on it muddies the waters to the point of uselessness. any one of these areas of study take years to a lifetime to understand. attempting to discuss them all at once will only lead to frustration,confusion and misinformation in my opinion.

      you stated "thus statement of yours above make me think that you are not an unbiased scientist " and you would be right. i am biased towards actual science but many competing ideas call their proposals "theories" but do not apply the scientific method or even provide any demonstrable evidence so i reject them with prejudice.

      the cosmology section of your reply i will have to refuse to address due to my lack of necessary knowledge of such things and stick with "i do not know"

      as for the religion part i will go completely out of character and withhold comment for now. i usually jump all over such claims as not only an i an atheist but i have done sufficient study to have an informed debate on that subject. take my refusal to discuss that as a compliment as i see a rare possibility to discuss evolution with a religious person who may be open to the facts and i do not wish to squander such a possibility. if you have any evolution questions i will attempt to answer

    13. Dear OTE,

      thank you for your response. I am glad to have the opportunity to debate with you as you sound assertive and objective.

      I am almost sorry that I had to talk about my faith, "not religion" for me it is different and maybe you will agree with me, as it limits the debate to higher level and eventually from physics to metaphysics since you are not keen to good on this ground!

      The "theory" of evolution unfortunately shows its limits here when it comes the very basic of existence, with a existential question like, "what are we here for?"

      I think personal growth is important and sciences is not that muddy for me as it is classified with overlapping sometimes. However, as a Moderator, I can understand that we might have had a hard time before!

      The documentary taught me more about the "theory" of evolution and I will be glad to talk more about it, if only I would have more related questions to this very specific topic, evolution.

      I would be gald to deepen the conversation about life itself and the theories around it! Please let me know where I can do so if you know any nice place like here to discuss!

      Kind regards

    14. You don't get it. Science has nothing to do with "what we are here for" and asking this question assumes that we are here for a purpose--this you cannot prove.

      P.S. Why do you place theory in quotation marks?

    15. gerardbaya
      i did not limit what you could discuss. i was not replying as a moderator but as a fellow poster. i do not feel that you have violated the comment policy ( but i do suggest everyone read it). i limited the discussion to evolution based on personal knowledge and my ability to have a productive discussion. i would suggest if you have a detailed question concerning another topic you post it on an appropriate documentary and i am fairly certain someone will attempt to address it.

      when you ask "what are we here for?" from an evolutionary standpoint the answer is to replicate ourselves as effectively/efficiently as possible. anything outside of that is entering philosophy/religion.

      as to your statement "I think that "Faith" should be a science if it is not already being studied! " if you mean why people believe in things i believe it has been studied. if you mean that religious faith should be treated as or accepted as science i completely disagree. the basic purpose of science is to provide natural explanations for natural phenomena. while providing observable,testable repeatable explanations that do not conflict with the scientific laws and facts we already have ( or demonstrate why these laws and facts are false). supernatural and untestable claims are not science by definition and therefore cannot be included.

    16. gerardbaya,

      It seems that all you want to do is cement in your mind your own position of your beliefs in your gods, and you want to see if we can talk you out of your beliefs, forget it!

      I for one will not fall for it, am not here to talk you out of anything, don't care what you believe in.

      We all can talk about science until the cows come home, will not do one iota of good.

    17. Hi Achems_Razor,

      well thanks for your message. You are wrong about my aim and the "s"!
      Thank you for writing to tell me you don't care! :)

      I appreciate it!


    18. i was wondering if you could explain to me what you think a theory is.

    19. Dear Epicurus,

      thank you for your message.
      I am not sure about it, i have to look for the exact definition in the the dictionary.

    20. If you're not sure what the term theory means, why did you use it in the first place--and surrounded by quotation marks yet?

    21. it just seems that because you keep using quotation marks around it that you dont really know what it is.

      a theory is the strongest position something can take in science.

      so by saying something is a theory you are saying it is pretty much accepted.

    22. Dear Epicurus,

      thank you for your message.
      You have made you own assumptions and conclusions.
      I unfortunately don't share them.
      Did you see in the documentary that people are more willing to accept the "theory" of evolution?
      Nonetheless, i thank you for providing me with a definition for the word "theory"! I think it's quite accurate.
      Can you tell me what is a "principle" in science please?
      From an "assumption" to a "theory" is there anything that fill in the gap? I wait for your answers and thank you in advance!

    23. What are Epicurus' assumptions?

      What people are willing to accept has nothing to do with science or scientific theory.

      Your comment about assumption going to theory, together with what you believe to be the definition of scientific theory, demonstrates a complete ignorance of the workings of science. Why don't you read up on science BEFORE you post? That way you can at least give the illusion of knowing what you're talking about.

    24. from an assumption you create a hypothesis. from the hypothesis you create an experiment to test the hypothesis. the explanation of the results of this experiment should provide a theory as to why what we are examining behaves the way it does.

      i dont know what you mean by the question "Did you see in the documentary that people are more willing to accept the "theory" of evolution"

      remember that gravity is a theory so is atomic theory and germ theory. theories are explanations of facts.

      if i show you allele frequencies changing in organisms through reproduction and show you that those changes result in changes in the organism, all i have done is shown you facts about evolution....when i explain HOW those changes occur and am able to create accurate predictions then i have a theory. a working explanation for the facts that we observe.

      now for the definition of principles.

      The Scientific method is the principle used in science=You see a problem ,you do a test,you obtain a result,draw a conclusion from the result.

    25. Hi Epicurus,

      So here we go with this other post. First big thank to you for setting this frame of discussion. I am personally enjoying it, I hope it's the same for you. I believe that you must be working in a scientific field in biology by reading you.

      "Did you see in the documentary that people are more willing to accept the "theory" of evolution"

      My point is Richard Dawkins is being rejected in a general way. Quoting you,
      "so by saying something is a theory you are saying it is pretty much accepted."
      I don't think, quite certain, that the theory is well accepted. You are welcome to debate on it.

      "allele frequencies", genetic! Not my field but I am glad to learn something new. Thanks you.

      If this is your field of study and you want to share some docs, I am eager to read your work!


    26. Typical of those of your ilk, you make claims you cannot back up such as that Dr. Dawkins is being rejected in a general way. Once again, what the general public thinks is of no import in determining the truth of a matter, especially in science.

    27. not only is evolution "much accepted" but amongst scientists (especially biologists and anthropologists) there is NO DEBATE. evolution is a known fact.

    28. Hi Epicurus,

      thank you for responding to my posts. According to you, scientists are pro evolution and it will be interesting to have a rough estimation of the percentage of atheist, agnostic and believer!

      It appears that the Truth about the existence of human kind is accessible to an elite of scientists and intellectuals. Although, i have heard that in some liberal countries, children are being taught about the "theory" of evolution at Junior/High-school levels. That was not my case and thus I don't know the effect of such an educational curriculum on a young mind. By that I mean, I know know to what extend a young brain can grasp and what kind of critical thinking can be applied on the "theory" of evolution.

      As I have been taught, theories are considered acceptable until a new theory proves its limits by surpassing it.

      In the documentary, "The genius of Charles Darwin", one can understand that some people do accept the "theory" of evolution and keep their faith. In other words they are saying, "This is the new theory that surpasses the "theory" of evolution. Faith provides the answers to all science cannot explain, although the biggest brains have been working on it". (It's like the duality of wave, exhibiting the classical wave theory and the quantum theory.) Of course, the scientists and evolutionists reply, if I put it in a polite way, "where are your evidences?"

      Scientists and evolutionists sound quite aggressive when faced to a diverging opinion, ( by the way, I don't understand how education stopped you from having an opinion. I would be glad if your could explain that to me! Thanks), and this is my personal opinion derived from my personal experiences. It is only entitled to me and I am not generalizing neither. I have quoted on the net, "If science is too hard, try religion". I am only paraphrasing here!

      The thing is, to be able to study sciences and appreciate its theories, one has to be of at least standard cognitive in order to follow the logic/mathematics, scientific principles and so on. ( Again, the reality and truth appear to be accessible to the elite and intellectual in this sense). The common layman is bound to worry about the daily life affairs, eating, working and so on. (Lets say, his brain did not evolve enough yet to feel concern about the "theory" of evolution.)

      Let me put it like this, "an evolved bacteria building a rocket to explore the cosmos", that's something exciting!

      Please note a this point in my post that I am not making a satire or caricature of science or the "theory" of evolution. I am only setting free my cognitive abilities to talk about it!

      Speaking about cognitive abilities, one of the most respected scientist of all time, Albert Einstein, criticized Atheism. (I am referring to atheism here as, please correct me if I am wrong, most evolutionists are atheists.) Albert Einstein preferred to call himself an agnostic, an "attitude of humility" he said!

      When a genius is making such a statement, it is quite difficult to reply to him, given that you don't share his point of view, you are an air-headed person. I have read some posts where scientists diminish, "people of faith", on a base of I.Q. and thus of divergence of opinion. Now went you make Albert Einstein, a respected scientist and genius speak for you, it makes the difference for sure!

      The genius was agnostic. He knew that our intellect, our faculties are limited. As an agnostic scientist, I believe he was thirsty for the evidences of God.

      *I have been talking about evolution, science, a great scientist and faith & god opposing the "theory" of evolution, I am believing that I am still in agreement with the policies of the website.

      Epicurus, you will excuse me, but I don't think i am ranting on faith. Let's call a spade, a spade!

      "why dont you have faith in shiva? or zeus? why dont you have faith in one of the many other gods? why do you insist on believing something which has NO PROOF and is clearly wrong about most of the things it claims?!"

      Since you are asking, I will answer you.

      First, faith is a grace, just like life is a grace! But you don't have to agree with me on this!

      I don't think believers have the same faith or the same relation with God. Faith for me is personal.

      Where there is man, there is imperfection. I don't think it's wise to follow other men. I think that the best is to seek for your own Truth!

      Jesus says he is the truth! If you assume this is right, so you might find Jesus when you find the Truth!

      Thank you for reading!

    29. "have heard that in some liberal countries, children are being taught about the "theory" of evolution at Junior/High-school levels. That was not my case and thus I don't know the effect of such an educational curriculum on a young mind. By that I mean, I know know to what extend a young brain can grasp and what kind of critical thinking can be applied on the "theory" of evolution."

      I live in Canada and we are taught the basics of evolution early on. A young mind has no problem grasping it at the level it is explained.

      you keep putting theory in quotations and have not explained the reason for this.

      "As I have been taught, theories are considered acceptable until a new theory proves its limits by surpassing it."

      sometimes. MOST of the time a theory will not be surpassed by something, but more information will be added to it.

      "In the documentary, "The genius of Charles Darwin", one can understand that some people do accept the "theory" of evolution and keep their faith."

      there are many people who accept evolution and still have faith in a god. nothing about realizing that evolution is true makes god false.

      "In other words they are saying, "This is the new theory that surpasses the "theory" of evolution. Faith provides the answers to all science cannot explain, although the biggest brains have been working on it""

      what is the new theory that surpasses evolution???

      "( by the way, I don't understand how education stopped you from having an opinion. I would be glad if your could explain that to me! Thanks)"

      an education gave me KNOWLEDGE. the ability to know something and then explain why i know it. an opinion is not knowledge. an opinion is as good as a guess. one does not get opinions when evidence is presented.

      "The thing is, to be able to study sciences and appreciate its theories, one has to be of at least standard cognitive in order to follow the logic/mathematics, scientific principles and so on. ( Again, the reality and truth appear to be accessible to the elite and intellectual in this sense)."

      it is not ONLY accessible to the elite and intellectuals are not born. one has to work had at being intellectual. you have to go to school and study and understand that your beliefs and opinions have no weight on the reality of any situation. One of the problems these days is that people are not being taught critical thinking and the philosophy of logic. perhaps with those lessons taught earlier we would have people who are better at becoming intellectual enough to follow the science.

      now if someone doesnt get to be intellectual perhaps they should trust those smarter than them rather than making up their own uneducated opinions.

      "Speaking about cognitive abilities, one of the most respected scientist of all time, Albert Einstein, criticized Atheism. (I am referring to atheism here as, please correct me if I am wrong, most evolutionists are atheists.) Albert Einstein preferred to call himself an agnostic, an "attitude of humility" he said!"

      and agnostic is an atheist. both do not believe in a god.

      "Since you are asking, I will answer you.

      First, faith is a grace, just like life is a grace! But you don't have to agree with me on this!"

      you didnt answer me.

      and what is grace?

      and why would you believe that jesus said he is the way if it wasnt jesus who wrote that? and why dont you believe the other holy books when they claim that THEY are the way?

    30. At bottom of your post, you contradict yourself.

      you said..."Where there is man, there is imperfection. I don't think its wise to follow other men. I think that the best is to seek for your own Truth!"

      and then you said..."Jesus says he is the truth! If you assume this is right, so you might find Jesus when you find the truth!"

      So are you in essence saying to follow your Jesus (considering if there even was such a person), who because he was a mere mortal, not a god, would be an imperfection? so are man to follow imperfection? You say you do not know much about evolution, I think you know even less about religion.

    31. First you ask for statistics as to how many scientists are atheists, agnostic or believers, not that it matters, and then you claim without evidence that most evolutionists are atheists. Even if true, so what. The overwhelming scientific evidence, the only type of evidence that matters, supports evolution and your inability to read up on this from scientific sources bears witness to the disgusting wilful ignorance so common to religees such as yourself.

      Your "cognitive abilities" are clearly a joke, as they are based on faith which neither provides no answers nor can it, for it stands for abrogation of the intelligence and the ability to reason in favor of blind acceptance. Judging from your example, this is far from a grace.

      Considering your almost complete ignorance of even the basics of science, what makes you think you are qualified to state anything as to whioh abilities are required to study it? And please don't take refuge in the opinion card. An opinion is only as good as what's behind it.

      You're right. Einstein was an agnostic, but on what do you base your belief that "he was thirsty for the evidences [sic] of God?" One way or the other, his genius was confined to physics and mathematics, NOTHING ELSE!! So his theological beliefs are completely irrelevant.

      You don't seem to understand that no one cares about your personal opinion or your superficial personal experiences or for that matter Jesus' bloated opinion of himself as "the truth," (assuming he ever entertained this thought) for belief and conjecture are worthless without proof, something you seem so proud to be unable to provide.

      Once again, why do you place theory in quotes? Why do you persistently refuse to answer this question? Is it because it exposes the vacuity of your thoughts?

    32. What you believe and what you think are worthless; it's what you can prove--and I seriously doubt whether you can scientifically prove the existence of a supreme being whom you know no more about than a peacock or peahen. So don't claim that you do and don't offer the Jesus crap as proof of anything, especially an afterlife.

      Faith and science cannot be juxtaposed, as one is antithetical to the othe--and as blind acceptance is at the heart of it, faith is ignorant and pathetic.

      I believe that I can speak for over the edge in stating that he is not opposed to "new theory" provided there is hard, tangible proof and not just mere assertion. So don't play the narrow-minded scientist card.

    33. I will reply to you in your latest post above!

  31. Meg,
    You are by your simple words indeed a blind religious follower.
    Saying evolution is a theory is the same as saying gravity, oxygen and water are theories too. Just like any intelligent creature, Darwin grabbed a thought and proved it with science. Just because it's not in the terribly written fictional book people call the bible doesn't make it less true.

    Dumb dumb.

  32. My name Meg. I have been studying Evolution since i was highschool. Very few highschools in America teach about Evolution and the concept of Intelligent design. I am now 33 but i am also a Christian. I studied this because alot people assume that Christians are blind followers of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

    I found this movie interesting but there are a few issues that i have with it. First the Professor speaking mentioned that he does not believe in God or any of kind of religion. I guess it is so he can be objective but he failed. His religion is Evolution. He puts his faith, hope, and understanstanding in a man who created the theory of Evolution who only collected evidence for adaptation.

    He has poor understanding of what Bible says about Creation. The story of Genesis says that God created the earth, animals and people to show his glory. He wanted to have a personal relationship with humanity but sin entered the world thus separating man from God. It effected all aspects of life concerning the earth. How animals interact with each other, social institutions like family, marriage and what not. Sin was death in every sense of the word. Death was physical, mental, emotional.

    He mentions that we were created in God's image but he does want to acknowledge man's sinful nature. This is not the idea that humanity have two natures. We all humans have had internal wars in their souls. For example, you want to show love but another desire in wants to be selfish.

    The narrator also indirectly lables God as being the one who causes suffering in the world. Forgot the fact that man kind is responsible for the selling of woman world wide. He did an interview with a woman who had never contracted Aids even through she has been a prostitute for 25 years. She even acknowledges that God has protected her.

    This movie does a poor job in showing the edvidence for Evolution that teaches an animal turns completely some other animal over time. They talk about how fossils which basically are foundation of the idea that the earth is million and millions of year old. But already there is a problem. It only takes a short time for something to die and decay. How is it that Evolutionists can say that the earth is millions and millions of years old?

    The movie talks about DNA which seems to be the only supports that an animal turns into another animal. DNA would actually seem to support the concept of Intelligent Design. The fact that four genes can be used in the design of so many . They talk about breeding but that in itself is still not evolution. True that fossils that were collected and they did change but again this has to do with adaptation.

    At best What Charles Darwin presented for Evolution was a theory. It has no point, no goal and excuses how humanity behaves. There is alot more i could share i have a feeling it would not do any good.

    I am really glad i watched this movie because it really gave me a clear understanding what Evolutionists believe. It helped me to see that Evolution has no real evidence to support it.

    1. 1. Evolution is not a religion. Like all science, it is based on evidence which makes it superior to religion and the faith which goes with it, both of which are based on nothing.

      2. Darwin (I believe this is the person you're referring to) did not "create" evolution--no one did. The concept of evolution was around before Darwin. Darwin's contribution was natural selection.

      3. Darwin spent 20 years studying the myriad samples he brought back with him BEFORE positing natural selection--it was not the other way around.

      4. You know nothing about radiometric dating, but you assert that the age of the earth is determined by fossils--well, it's not.

      5. You haven't the faintest concept about DNA, speciation and phylogeny, but you assert that evolutionists believe that one animal turns into another--no, this is not how evolution works nor is it anything close.

      6. You have deluded yourself into believing that by confounding doctrine with knowledge, you somehow "know" more about "god" than anyone else. You can't even prove the existence of a god and you know as little about your own bible and the history behind it, which is as important as the collection itself, as you do about evolution and science in general.

      It's obvious that your "study" of evolution comes from what you have read on creationist websites and this does not say much for you. Whether you like it or not, whether you acknowledge it of not, evolution is a fact verified by oceans of evidence and at least five scientific disciplines. On the other hand intelligent design is not science, but religion masquerading as such, its proof consisting merely of conjecture. Evolution plays a large part in medicine, especially immunology, and computer science. Intelligent design plays a large part only in intelligent design. So what you happen to believe is of no consequence and again says little about you.

      You're right. It won't do any good to "share" any more of your nonsense. So why not take the time to learn about evolution from those who know about it and while you're at it, look up the scientific definition of theory.

    2. Sorry to say you never learned very much at all when you were in school, grown up's should not be following fairy tales that are written in some books without any type of evidence.

      Because of people with your frame of mind (dumbed down), I see no hope for the human race, and I am being polite.

    3. Hi Meg. You forget a simple thing. Science demands proof while religion only wants faith. If you want to compare them you have to do it on equal footing or you will never see reach a conclusion. The existence of an omnipotent being is derived from one book that itself was written by people that had an interest in pressing their point of view. It is propagated by institutions that haven't come up with one factual clue in two thousand year. Instead they have suppressed and even persecuted anyone that didn't agree with them. The theorie of evolution is derived from thousands of clues, meticulously pieced together by tens of thousands of scientists in hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed articles and books. Scientists invite criticism as it will either prove the theory or make room for an improved one. If you quote the one source of your religion as the proof that you are right, it is you who poorly understands both science and religion.

    4. " First the Professor speaking mentioned that he does not believe in God or any of kind of religion. I guess it is so he can be objective but he failed. His religion is Evolution. He puts his faith, hope, and understanstanding in a man who created the theory of Evolution who only collected evidence for adaptation."

      no faith is needed. he has EVIDENCE. he looks at the material evidence. he studies the field.

      "he story of Genesis says that God created the earth, animals and people to show his glory. He wanted to have a personal relationship with humanity but sin entered the world thus separating man from God."

      why did god ALLOW sin to enter the world? couldnt he stop it if he really wanted to? didnt god already know what was going to happen?
      this is the problem. its clear that god either doesnt know everything, cant do everything or isnt real. why do you insist something is real that has no evidence and constantly goes against logic and reason like christianity or god?

      "The narrator also indirectly lables God as being the one who causes suffering in the world."

      if god knows everything, is all powerful, and all good then he wouldnt let suffering to happen. especially suffering on the scale of the holocaust or other genocides. the amount of pain and suffering on this earth doesnt make sense if god is real.

      "They talk about how fossils which basically are foundation of the idea that the earth is million and millions of year old. But already there is a problem. It only takes a short time for something to die and decay."

      you know there are dating techniques used to tell when the fossils and other minerals are from right? you also know that some things take very long to decay and fossilize depending on their environment? you also realize that not everything fossilizes?

      "The movie talks about DNA which seems to be the only supports that an animal turns into another animal. DNA would actually seem to support the concept of Intelligent Design."

      DNA supports a non-directed self assembling system. nothing about intelligent design is suggested by DNA. in fact why would god need something like DNA? why would a god make it so that the smartest people he makes, and the people who dedicate their lives to studying this stuff, would all look at biology and conclude that evolution is true? what kind of a sloppy god would do that?

  33. If i built it would u believe even if i lived only in a skin suit and noting else did i possess but all creations wisdoms of truth to all knowledge, hummm test my god, and i will baffle you....

    1. Just what are you talking about?

  34. I have had two already. Earth and Geo. And right now i am taken phycis and Environment. So uncivilized

    1. Like I said, I do not believe a word you are saying about college. You adherence to Kent Hovind I believe although.

    2. what math problem do you want me to do??

    3. Prove Abel's theorem with respect to solutions of equations of degree higher than seven by radicals.

    4. While it's a horrible thing to believe, we must face it.

    5. i don't see why you even bother to go to college.

  35. Bye maybe agian next week

  36. Phycis right now, and I have taken or am in four different scientific courses. Yes gammer is important, and it is a skill I am working on as of now.

    1. I don't believe that you're currently taking four different science courses in a term and I think you're wasting your time with PHYSICS because with your outlook, you'll never learn anything. So how about stepping aside and giving someone who really wants to learn a chance? You'd do better to visit Kent Hovind in prison.

  37. I am going for Civil Eng. Which is off topic. and i added the site to my favorites.

    (ps) math geek thats am why me grammeringed aren't too well.

    (that is why i'm not very concered with my English.)

    1. So what type of math are you studying? And yes, your grammar is important no matter what subjects you are taking or majoring in?

      Considering your refusal to improve your scientific knowledge, I suggest that if you want to post, stick with what you might know, such as civil engineering.

    2. I really do not believe a word you are saying, I think that you lie, anybody who does not know how form simple sentences with proper grammar is too dense to be a candidate for college courses.

      I betcha' English is not even your second language. You still have to pass English as credits to enter college.

      You say you are a math geek? prove it!

    3. How about this.

      For all


      then times both sides by A


      Then subtract a B^2 to both sides

      A^2-B^2=AB-B^2 or

      then I will factor out a (A-B)
      So now i have


      and sicne for all A=B I sub A for B

      B+B=B or

      now I will factor out a B

      Making 2=1

      hows that for a math geek
      or pi tells i get real then i tells pi get rational

    4. Big deal you only ended up with what you started in the first place.

      You have to be kidding. Giving me that pi and i routine, their are t-shirts that have that on them

      Means be rational, change to an real number and visa versa.

    5. Thats a fun math trick, but its also very common (the equivalent of a magician sawing a helper in half)... I wouldn't doubt that was copy-pasted; if it wasn't then bravo, you found a website and clicked back and forth to copy the entire thing by typing.

      Every step in a mathematical algorithm is defined by a mathematical proof (everyone reading this was taught this in 9th grade algebra, and likely remembers how much they HATE proofs).

      The "simple" math we do is defined by proofs that cover every modification of the equation shown. Think of a proof as a means to creating a shortcut. The mistake made here is taking advantage of peoples lack of knowledge about how to factor. A^2-B^2=AB-B^2 IS NOT (A-B)(A+B)=B(A-B)

      I won't call it your mistake because you did not invent this, you copy-pasted it, and therefore are technically innocent. You are like an audience member who really believes that the girl was cut in half.

      With appropriate curiosity you will see that magic does not exist, physics does. You will see that 2 does not equal 1 because mathematical proofs are there to prevent such an outcome.

      You may not see this or know why immediately; all that matters is that you have the curiosity to search for deeper answers.

    6. It's your factoring that's the problem. Any junior high school student could have figured this out. So for a math geek, you are not doing so well.

    7. except you divided by 0.

    8. Achem I will say that I've known numerous college students in the sciences who were "too dense" to be taking college classes. Visit an introductory Bio class or even O Chem at your local university, and you'll be shocked (I promise).

      Some simply don't make it; others pass without truly realizing the content or magnitude of whats being taught; others still, have an awakening moment, see through their veil, and become critical of ALL things henceforth.

      Its important to remember that even Isaac Newton (who discovered the physics of optics, reinvented the laws of motion, and invented calculus ALL BEFORE HE WAS 26) accomplished what he did to prove the majesty of God. Newton also was an avid seeker of the Philosopher's Stone. In fact, Newton was more preoccupied by the search for the Philospher's Stone than he was by planetary motion.

    9. Yeah could be I do not know, maybe qwerty is an id**t savant? it seems to me there has to be some level of smarts to even set foot into college.

      Again do not know, I am self taught in basically everything, English is not even my first language, did not have a chance to get much sitting behind a desk type of schooling.

    10. There are two ways to learn.

      1. Pay $20,000 a year to learn a subject by listening to a professor.

      2. Pay $200 a year to buy books and listen to programs written by a professor.

      You chose a path that is 90% cheaper (99% in this example), and results in the same understanding. For $19,800 more you'd get a piece of paper signed by a Dean; thats about it.

    11. I don't know to what extent this applies to math. Some of these professors write poorly and express themselves poorly.

    12. Haha very true. To have mathematics as your calling you are pretty much guaranteed to be... different. This usually results in some poor public relations abilities, which ultimately means very few genius mathematicians write accessible books.

      Understanding the intricacies of mathematics requires a unique brain. Relating said intricacies to average folks is even more difficult. This narrows the field of non-institutional learning quite thoroughly. I'll readily admit that when I see a mathematical theorem written out (and explained) in front of me I'm still mostly clueless by the end.

      None the less people like Brian Greene and Brian Cox do exist... although, they're both physicists, not mathematicians, which is a difference far larger than many would expect.

      Mathematics is to physics as chemistry is to biology. The physicists stand on the shoulders of mathematical theorems, and built a larger structure.

    13. That's the problem--you don't want genius in a textbook; you want clarity, clarity clarity. You as a teacher must agree. I had to go through at least three different textbooks and a number of other sources before I could understand line and surface integrals. This is entirely the fault of the writers and there is simply no excuse for this. This is what gives mathematics a bad name and turns people off to one of the most vital disciplines in the whole of academia. I would love to get together with a mathematician and write the calculus book to end all calculus books, one that would be a joy to learn and teach from--and from there to abstract algebra. The books are horrible, horrible, horrible.

      Now, what do you think caused the extinction of all hominds (humans) except for homo sapiens?

    14. Your desire to write the ultimate Calculus and Abstract Algebra textbooks is noble. I recently read Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow", a complete anthology of studies in psychology (written in Nov 2011 its also unrelentingly up-to-date; a must in psychology). Anyway, I mention it because there's a chapter in which he recounts in exquisite detail his attempt to write a textbook.

      After a year of planning, creating a syllabus, and writing several chapters the team met to estimate when they'd complete their textbook. Keep in mind this man is one of the most respected and knowledgeable psychologists living today. The entire team agreed that they'd finish the textbook in another 2 years. The team then turned to their curriculum expert who had been involved in the writing of numerous textbooks. He stated that, statistically, a textbook takes over 7 years to complete, and 40% of said projects FAIL (never get completed). They reacted to the dismal info by... well... I'll quote the book "If so many teams failed, and if those that succeeded took so long, writing a curriculum was surely much harder than we thought. But such an inference would have conflicted with our direct experience of the good progress we had been making. The statistics that Seymour provided were treated as base rates normally are- noted and promptly set aside. We should have quit that day. None of us was willing to invest six more years of work in a project with a 40% chance of failure... The book was eventually completed after 8 years."

      Writing a textbook involves not only the desirable, and by means of enthusiasm "easier" parts of the text, but also the entirety of the subject, to the most mundane. Criticizing the faults in a textbook is easy from an outside perspective, but from inside writing, much less perfecting, a textbook is a feat of diligence and perseverance.

      In terms of why there aren't other Hominids that would require the writing of my own entire textbook. It (as you already are aware) would require an incredibly lengthy chronology including a number of different deceased lineages spaced over an incredible time span. I may elaborate later, but, in general, the further back you go the more strongly abrupt environmental changes factored in. As the timeline progresses hominids were successful enough to require competition amongst themselves. With the beginning of the Anthropocene Epoch we have entered a time where natural changes are indistinguishable from our own impact. Looking at charts of population, fishery exploitation, soil depletion, fossil fuel depletion, fresh water depletion, etc. it seems that this particular species of Hominid has exceeded its natural carrying capacity.

    15. I agree that it's a pipedream, but with all the time and effort spent, I can't understand why textbooks on higher math are not better than they are, except that their authors do not beta-test their material, don't care about clarity and are oblivious to their intended audience.

      When you decide to flesh out your last paragraph, please let me know. I would like to read more about this.

    16. How did you learn English?

  38. Sorry the last post was rude.

  39. Thank you all You all have proven why i disargee with your little therory because it makes the person who believes it an animal because thats what you believe and the way you act. With one expcetion and that Over the Egde
    who stayed on topic. and the rest of you just did the gain pile tacit on one person. Then you all start to attack someone who cheated on his tax return. Who hasn't cheated or lied on this site??? quick to point the finger but doesn't relize that three are pointing right back at you. Sorry for getting off topic.

    1. Kent Hovind hasn't cheated or lied on his site??? Everything he has posted is a lie. And just why shouldn't we attack someone who has stated that he resents his tax dollars being spent on the teaching evolution and then gets nailed for felony income tax evasion? If you're so devoted to him, why not arrange it with his equally nefarious son to visit him in the prison which now comprises his little dinosaur park?

      I really had hopes for you, but they've all been dashed. When you state that you disagree with something because it makes the person who believes it an animal, you're hopeless and intellectually substandard. I really wonder why you're in school in the first place.

      You need not apologize for getting off topic, only for posting your twaddle.

    2. I am sorry that I lashed back. robertallen1. I didn't think that post through, and it was in anger. I say that was not a very nice thing for me to say about people who are just voices their veiws on the matter. I do believe that the theory has a lot of hole in it. Just like you believe about mine. And Yes everyone lies and cheats you know that as well as i do, so he mostly did as you said. And thanks for the information i will be more up to date next time.

    3. How dare you place me in the same league as Kent Hovind. I don't cheat. I don't lie although based on your statement that you used to believe in evolution, it's obvious that you do.

      As you have no knowledge on any of the pertinent subjects, what you believe is worthless.

    4. "i disargee with your little therory because it makes the person who believes it an animal because thats what you believe and the way you act."

      ....yaaaaaaa thats not true.

      and what did i say that was off topic or that would make you think i acted like "an animal"

  40. The people that claim that their ancestor are rocks are the people who say they believe in all six aspects of the Theory of Evolution. (I’ll post if you need them) Which I hope if you believe in this theory you already know them.

    If you need farther reasoning why this faith (Darwinism is a religion or faith) believes that they came from a rock is… Well lets just trace Evolution backwards.

    We are Human, which came from Apes (since apes are mammals) Apes came from reptiles, and reptiles came from amphibians, and amphibians came from fish, and fish came from (the videos doesn’t go this far) muti-celled organisms, and muti-celled organisms came from signal-celled organisms which came from a unliving source or bluntly a rock.

    Now your going to ask how do they think this happened? Well over billion of year as the surface of the Earth began to cool then it started to rain (I do not know where the rain came from, but they say it did) on these cooled rock and then lighting stuck the rock and made life (that’s why when a movie brings something to life it was struck by lighting [Frankenstein] [Igor] just something funny) and this made the first living organism ( there are probably more theories or this but this one is the most accepted one) Which that is what a Scientific theory is. A Scientific theory is “a well-tested and widely accepted view that the scientific community agrees best explains certain observable facts.” That in the tarbuck lutgens tasa Earth science book the 12th edition.

    But now there are problems now, since only one aspect of Evolution has facts the Evolutionist believes this proves their case. Everyone knows that species are kin. A species can come in a very great amount of ways. Lets take the canines species for an example. There is a vast number of different kind of them, there is short ones, tall ones, some have long ears, some pug noises, and some are fierce hunters and others can fit in a tee cup, but here’s is a very interesting fact they all are still dogs.

    Evolution also has holes like the missing fossils. Interesting fact they found the fish that supposedly became the first amphibian, but a major problem was that it was not even a shore line fish but a deep sea one therefore it could not have become the first amphibian. Another hole is the circular reasoning behind Evolution. Like this How old are the fossils in the ground? Well it depends on what rock layer they are in. Well, how old are the rock layers? Well the geological time line tells us that. Well, How does the geological time line determines the age of the rock layers? Well by using index fossils which lived only for a brief time. How do we know the age of the index fossils? We know this from the rock layers they are in. and this can go on and on and……

    I’m sorry I carried on.

    To the next question there are other ways other than what the atheists and the creationists believe there are the people that believe in many gods and the people that believe that all of reality is not really here and it is just a subordinate function of our brains.

    So I have to apologize for saying that their were only those two way, but they are (well at least in my own mind) the top to conflicting ones.

    And to the third question “what are your issues concerning [this] area of study?” I like this kind of question because it is to the point of way I posted this. Well one of my issues is that this had a lot of unanswered questions that I myself am searching for. Another is that this guy says that he is right in a way that is a little to boisterous for my liking. I don’t like anyone putting down what anyone believes without trying to do it in a nice way and showing how they are wrong. And all they do is attack Creationist. It seems to me that atheists talk more about God than most Christians in know.

    Thanks for your time and if you want to know more of how I believe go to the Kent Hovind web page just type in Kent Hovind in google and you should find him.

    Sorry this post is so long I’ll try to answer any other questions when I receive them. But if you go and listen to Kent Hovind I don’t think that I will have to answer any cause most of what I know is form him.

    P.S I used to believe in Evolution. And i am sorry if anyone was offend by this post. I do know that animals have different features and that some die out. But they still stay the same kind of animal not change to other.

    1. So you're getting all your misinformation from a jailbird and a fraud. There isn't one thing you've stated either in this post or your last one which even remotely approaches the truth. To put it simply and I hope understandably, everything you've asserted is absolutely, completely and unequivocally wrong.

      And please don't pull that old Kirk Cameron trick of stating that you used to believe in evolution because from the ignorance reflected in this post and your last one, it's a flat-out lie.

    2. Please put a side the rude remarks. Thanks. The you tell me where I am wrong. Am i right about Human to signal-celled organism right and you cannot tell me the all matter in the universe was put in one place less than the size of this dot.

      Please tell me where i am wrong. I just told you want you believe, and if isn't how you believe then you tell me how you believe.

    3. Everything you have written is completely wrong. So be a good boy and take the advice given by Achems_Razor: grab some real science books and start reading. Kent Hovind is no more than a convicted felon and fraudster. If you do not do so and continue to post your twaddle, I suggest you steel yourself against the type of comments which will probably assail you.

      P.S. Please don't insult the intelligence by stating that you once believed in evolution.

    4. Kent Hovind? it figures, nothing you have said has anything to do with science facts, grab some science books and read. Don't know where the rain came from? I wont tell you. It will probably go in one ear and out the other. Or is it maybe because your gods took a leak?

      Funny, (probably bible belt) religee's!

    5. I guess the mountains came about when the gods took a crap.

    6. My my my. I can tell how immature you are. Don't you relieze that you think the whole universe came out of all most nothing??

    7. "Stephen Hawking" says the universe came out of absolutely nothing!

      Are you going to call him a liar? and I have sources, read his book, "the grand design" not saying you ever will of course.

    8. My my my, how uninformed you are. You don't even know what I think, but I know what you think and it's mo*onic. Along with reading books about science, I suggest some titivation of your English.

    9. I'm not writing an essay. and my english isn't on the topic at hand.

    10. But it's a sign of the level of your education NO MATTER WHAT YOU'RE WRITING.

    11. Do you know that there is no final truth in science. And for you information i have two books right beside me.

      And about the rain thing. I like you to tell me where the First water (or rain doesn't matter) came from??

    12. most of the water came from the bombardment of comets, meteors on the earth, when the earth was first forming from the dust and debris circling around the star, our sun.

      There is and was a lot of H2O in space. And where did all that come from? the BB and where did the BB come from? from Branes colliding forming parallel universes, Re, string theory, M theory, many worlds theory/multiverse theory, 10^500.

      At least they are bonafide "theories" not some pie in the sky beliefs, about some invisible gods.

      Edit: by the way how old are you? you do not seem to know very much of anything. Hope not another 13 year old?

    13. ya i wouldnt waste too much time and effort on this one.

      i wasted maybe 5 mins and that might be too much

    14. Epicurus
      sometimes it is nice to pick the low hanging fruit lol. by the way i posted a link and details for Aronra/Comfort debate (i noticed Robert let you know) on the "The Atheist Experience: Ray Comfort Interview" doc if needed. sorry for not including you in the post i blame the meds

    15. i hear ya. i went for a nibble.

    16. Everybody blames the meds--and the economy.

    17. You are right of course, am done with @321qwerty:

    18. Let him visit Kent Hovind in prison.

    19. I am in my 3rd semester of college.

    20. Studying what?

    21. what are you taking and what college? Im at the university of toronto doing my second degree, this time specialist in paleoanthropology

    22. Are you going for a doctorate? What's your first degree in?

    23. I have a Bsc in psychology. going for a masters and we will see from there.

    24. The paleontology sounds more intersting. Good luck to you.

    25. dinosaurs.

    26. I'm disappointed but still supportive.

    27. You have two books of what beside you?

    28. The Tarbuck lutgens tasa Earth Science 12th edition and 13th edition introduction to geography By arthur getis, judith getis, mark bjelland, jerome d. fellmann

    29. Now you'll be able to locate places, but you need so much more. How about a standard textbook on biology and another on physics. I'm sure Over_the_Edge, Epicurus or Achem can provide some viable recommendations which you can buy used for a pittance over the internet. How about it Over_the_Edge, Epicurus and Achem. Just put Kent Hovind and the like aside and engage on a real course of study. You'll be glad you did.

    30. i would suggest

    31. Good idea, but why the false conditional?

      Now, do you think qwerty will go anywhere near it?

  41. There are two views.

    1: I believe a higher being made us (God)

    And the other

    2: I believe my first ancestor was a rock (or before that nothing) and time molded us to what we are.

    Its one or the other.

    1. 321qwerty
      just a couple of quick things
      1. who claims ": I believe my first ancestor was a rock (or before that nothing)"?
      2, why are these the only two answers? why is we don't know how (fill in gap in knowledge here) happened and i will reserve judgement until sufficient evidence is collected?
      3. as this doc is about Darwin and the theory of evolution what are your issues concerning that area of study?

  42. --those big dinosaurs what if they died in a simmilar fashion about a problem in metabolism or virus or any other way in a period of 1week or a month after origin so fossil don't count.--

    I honestly have to giggle. I know next to nothing about evolution, (the reason I guess I am still able to enjoy these videos) and it seems to me that this statement, no matter how true or untrue it is would only strengthen the validity of "survival of the fittest." Ok that's all.

  43. over the edge
    my last and final post here.First the theory doesn't contradict but you said that my knowledge isn't explaining darwin and not according to evolutionary theory.Did i say evolution didn't exsist?All i say is that their are alternates to darwin's theory. and you can't deny darwin's theory or proove it for you don't have anything surviving from past other than fossil which could have alternate.what we find in fossils appear to exsist before or at the time of primitive man.They also appear to be strong and having much of the capabillity to survive in harsh conditions.How is it that they got extinct and humans survived.No.It is greatly possible that these organisms never lived.During course of evolution they died off without having some part of them left incomplete.WHat darwin did?His theory of evolution has alternates and they do come to use and are still studied.You see just you can't give any proof to darwin's theory yet you think it's the right one.That reasoning is illogical.It's a theory no more than that.If i give you alternates you cant prove them wrong or i to prove them right.But if you cansider darwin to be true then by same reasoning you could consider mine true.You see at the alternates to darwin's theory you will find not all of them are proved wrong.Scientist lost intrest in it but they will come back just like the fact when no intrest was taken in cosmological constant even eintein who used it in his theory called it a biggest mistake.but now again i think in 1992 intrest was again generated.
    robert allen
    you are illogical and again absolutely illogical.I read something of course if it's from the books and not just one than it is quite clear to me that what i said isn't wrong.It's not ignorance but you fail to admit the fact that you just can't prove darwin right or me wrong.
    Kateye 70
    why should i prove my ideas validity.I simply said it as a joke you know it.Darwin never could prove his idea could he.You can not prove his theory for his theory needs evidence like how evolution stopped today or when an ape today turns to man i will 100% agree that darwin was the most brilliant person.You look at big bang or other theories their formers were never given nobel prize because their theory never became a with it.If i say ape evolved from a man it is just as good.Or if i say that we came into exsistence suddenly all at once due to rapid changes it would also be just as good.

    1. If this is your "last and final post," good, because your ignorance and refusal to learn are getting a little cloying and maybe you can use the time wisely to learn something and perhaps improve your English--but I dream.

      Why do you demur when asked to list any of the books from which you obtained what you consider "knowledge." Why are you so hesitant to enumerate what you consider alternatives to Darwin's theory and offer proof of their validity? Why are you so ignorant of what a scientific theory is? Why do you keep challenging people to disprove your idiotic assertions when it is you who must offer proof to support them? Why do you ramble on and on about matters of which you know nothing and want to know nothing? Is your idea of verification the statement, "It's quite clear to me that what I said isn't wrong." And you call me illogical!

      Why do you perennially lie and distort such as you did earlier today when you quoted from the article in Wikipedia on the Piltdown Man, conveniently omitting the paragraph which gave the lie to your assertion? Why do you lie about Darwin who offered several books full of proof in the form of observations. In short, what do you have offer? Nothing except walls of unintelligibility, misinformation and deception.

      It's really disgusting when an ignorant pipsqueak like you tries to go up against his intellectual betters and refuses to realize when he has been outclassed.

    2. robertallen1
      we have had a stream of people who seem to think like Khalid (not same theory but same thought processes). my head is actually starting to hurt. if you wish to better understand his motivation and sources look up his debate with Vlatko on "science and islam". you think he makes wild claims here

    3. When I feel like getting sick to my stomach, I will. Which string?

    4. Khalid
      do you think all the evidence supporting evolution is fossils? also you make claims and do not back them up. you can play that game if you wish. your analogy contains no proof and for you to claim that it is equal to evolution you need to provide equal proof. i even tried to accommodate you but when i asked for clarification you never gave it. again even after multiple corrections from others you say "ape today turns to man " that is not a claim of evolution nowhere in the theory will you find a claim that modern humans evolved from modern apes. again what would you accept as proof for evolution? and theories do not become laws now you are showing your ignorance of science as a whole

    5. Khalid.

      You can't prove your idea's validity. It isn't valid. However, based on what you've just said, then you must accept this:

      Thunder is caused by angels bowling in heaven.

      I said so, it's my idea, so it is as valid as anything you've said.


    6. Kateye70
      thanks for the video suggestion it was good. as for Khalid i can't believe people still make some of the arguments he does.

    7. How wrong can you be? Everyone knows it's angels banging in heaven. "Bowling" is a mistranslation of something or other.

    8. *Edited for six-year-old, lol!

      But it's MY theory and therefore you MUST accept it! 'Cause I SAID SO!

    9. And if you don't, I will lie, cheat and libel you until you do--unless my god does it for me.

  44. kateye 70
    you are not familliar with the fact that speed of light is faster than the speed of sound.I think any science person will tell you that.The right and logical one will be the one who might understand what i am saying.i MADE MYSELF QUITE CLEAR AND I KNOW I AM RIGHT.
    all your previous comments say the same thing THAT i don't have enough knowledge ETC ETC ETC.
    but i have it.AND I GOT THOSE FROM BOOKS I DOWNLOADED AND SOME I HAVE.YOU SEE for you truth is better lost than found for it will ruin whatever you believe in.All my argument to all of you is this that darwin's theory has alternates and they will be considered one day.Darwin was never the only one.
    You have to consider through everyone perspective.I KNOW YOU CAN'T PROVE MY THEORY WRONG FOR YOU DON'T HAVE ANY THING OF THE PAST THAT MIGHT SPEAK AGAINST ANY THEORY OF PAST.MY theory does not make much sense i know it as i told you but you cant dissprove it.Same is the case with darwin you have no prove.He was always the outcast and it takes little spark to ignite a fire.He scribbled down simple concept which is still a theory which was believed in by a large number of scientists who started to twist facts into theories and did not look for alternate.That's all.His work is still a theory you can't change that.

    1. Of course I'm well aware of the science behind thunder.

      My father gave me a 'theory' about thunder that satisfied my six-year-old mind's need to overcome fear. Not the same thing as Darwin's scientific theory, any more than your own 'theories.'

      My only proofs about thunder were that a. My father told me. b. My father was a civil and structural engineer and therefore could be considered an expert on such matters as the structural and engineering properties of clouds, and c. I could visualize the process. Is that scientific proof? Hardly.

      My initial point was that anyone can come up with any idea about anything, and claim that it is valid, no matter how illogical science proves it to be.

      But you have to *prove* your idea's validity before anyone else is obligated to disprove it.

      You've been told this over and over by others on this board.

      Robertallen and I both gave you examples that disprove Lamarckian evolution, but you don't have the grace to admit you were mistaken.

      And saying "His (Darwin's) work is still a theory" just shows how little you know about the definition of "scientific theory."

    2. So YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE RIGHT! Well, that statement alone establishes your wilful ignorance and stupidity beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Now which books did you get your "information" from? Or are you too embarassed to answer, just as you're too embarassed to respond directly to everyone else's questions?

      As Kayeye has informed you, Darwin spent over twenty years in research backed by his peers before "scribbling down" his theory, which is obviously more than you've ever done. And speaking of theory, do you have any idea of what a scientific theory is? Until you grasp the concept, don't try to pass off yourself off as someone conversant with science.

      You are obviously too obtuse to understand that the burden of proof rests on the one who asserts. So your challenge to refute your basically ignorant statements is an empty one.

      In short you're no more than a laughing stock.

  45. kateye
    i am saying you can't dissaprove mine simply because you don't have the facts of that era.You only have a fossil and anything else.FOSSIL is the remains of an organisms in its era of life but what if that animal never excisted what if during the course of evolution it couldn't get complete developed or metabolism didn' work it soon after birth.those big dinosaurs what if they died in a simmilar fashion about a problem in metabolism or virus or any other way in a period of 1week or a month after origin so fossil don't count.
    About rats i know perfectly well what i read and i think some other people must also have read it and it must be on the net.
    AND ABOUT your theory listen simply an old saying where there is thunder there's lightning.Due to sudden changes in electric potential the lightning discharges are produced which gives energy in many form it must also produce energy in sound.Also i must also say due to conduction molecules do vibrate hence forth could have effect in producing sound.So why do lightning shine not much at the same time of sound production.The answer is simple light travels faster than sound.
    Over the edge
    i really dont want to write any more comments.You see you say that my knowledge is contradicting with your theory of evolution WHILE i am perfectly sure i told you about darwin's theory.SO WHEN you say evolutionary theory do you mean oparin and haldane evolutionary theory or evolutionary theory which states rapid changes being responsible for life on planet.
    robert allen1
    i think i know what i say about and i really don't want your advice.AND OF COURSE IF YOU HAVE A GOOD ARGUMENT AGAINST what i say then bring it.

    1. First of all, your old saying is no more than an old wive's tale. As thunder and lightning are independent phenomena, you can have one without the other--but I guess you've never seen a storm.

      Your knowledge of paleontology and meteorology is as empty as your knowledge of everything else, especially basic physics and biology (evolution), not to mention science in general.

      You probably don't want to write any more comments because deep down inside, you realize you are outclassed and from your penultimate line, desire to remain ignorant. Well that's your decision, but when you start promulgating your wilful ignorance, you're going to hear from a lot of angry people who know a lot more than you do--and the burden will be on you to furnish proof which your ignorance prevents you from doing.

    2. Why do I need to disprove anything of yours? You haven't even offered proof of anything, just made statements that we are supposed to waste our time chasing down. You're not even providing references to back your own claims. You've not even been very clear about what your claims are, for that matter.

      Re: Thunder:
      You made some statements about electrical potential and then theorized it must also produce sound, then threw in another statement about molecules.

      How does that disprove my father's claim that angels are bowling in heaven? I know what a bowling alley is, and that angels are humanoids with wings; I can easily imagine them bowling in cloudy lanes, since I've gone bowling, myself.

      Your own claims rather preposterous and vague. What are molecules, anyway? Can I see them? And you claim light travels faster than sound. How do you know this? Can you prove it to me?

      Re: Lamarck
      Your only answer to my question about what happened when Chinese women stopped binding their feet was referencing a novel. You didn't even have the guts to say that the daughters of those women had perfectly normal feet, with no structural changes at all, even after generations of foot binding. All you said was "IT BECAME ALL OKAY" and left us to wonder what you meant by "OKAY."

      You haven't even addressed robertallen's circumcision question. If men whose ancestors were circumcised stopped that practice, will they no longer have foreskins? Can't wait to hear the answer for that one.

      The point of all this, is that you can't compare your own off-the-wall ideas with Darwin's life work, which has continued to hold up as an explanation, even if our understanding of the mechanisms involved changes.

      And if you even bothered to read to the end of the wiki article on Lamarckian evolution, you find this:

      "While Lamarckism has been discredited as an evolutionary influence for larger lifeforms, some scientists controversially argue that it can be observed among microorganisms. Whether such mutations are directed or not also remains in contention."

      Key words: "discredited" "controversially" "microorganisms" "remains in contention"

      The theory about microorganisms is based on fairly new research, and is still being worked on, and is still controversial.

      I fail to see where Lamarck's theory is equal to Darwin's--in fact, since Darwin's theory came three decades after Lamarck's death, it has been posited that he would have agreed with Darwin's theory, himself, as a better explanation.

    3. Khalid
      i think that it is a good idea for all involved that you state "i really dont want to write any more comments".(i am not telling you not to comment) because when you say "oparin and haldane evolutionary theory" i don't think you realize it does not confirm or contradict the theory of evolution regardless of whether oparin and haldane are right or wrong. when i say evolutionary theory i mean the theory scientists use today to explain the mechanisms involved in the complexity and variety of life as we know it. i did make an effort to disprove your alternative(even if i don't believe it is my job). but if a person is excluded from asking questions concerning an idea or the idea is incomplete in explaining itself i cannot address anything involves in the idea. just in case you are not done could you expand on this "rapid changes being responsible for life on planet" as i think i know what you mean and if i am right you are again just parroting creationist nonsense without understanding that it is wrong.

  46. katye 70
    you just said that if thunder was caused by angels i know you don't believe it but i can still prove you wrong because of factual evidence we have and you know it.But what factual evidence will you give on evolution specifically explained by darwin and simillarly mine.Heel theory is lamarck not me.I say it has been a good and dominant theory for a century at least.

    1. So prove me wrong about thunder, angels, and/or bowling in heaven. Where's your factual evidence?

      I quoted your own theory, below.

      You still haven't given me an answer on Chinese women and foot binding. What happened when they stopped doing it?

  47. Robert allen 1
    I REALLY don't understand how simple is my english in previous comment.
    I am saying that there are alternates to darwin's theory and better aplicable.Is darwin's theory the only one.Lamarckism even when disproved is still studied.I KNOW IT'S DISPROVED YOU CAN IMAGINE ME SHOUTING AT HIGHEST POINT. BUT IT'S STILL NOT THE ONLY ALTERNATE.There other surviving every evidence.

    1. You don't get it and I doubt if you ever will. Alternate theories are a dime a dozen. Proving them is something else. Now what part of that don't you understand?

  48. robert allen 1
    what am i saying is that I AM NOT ADVANCING ANY THEORY.I am saying that if charles darwin' s theory can't be disproved than my theory which wasn't the result of thinking but imagination of which i don't totally accept.But i am saying can you disprove it.It is very simple question none of you is either reasoning logically or answering.Why i ask you to dissprove it is this that just like you can't dissprove darwin you cant dissprove me take your fossil record or any other argument.So there could be many other theories like the theory of exsistance by rapid changes a competent of darwin introduced as an alternate.Thinking broadly means having every possible consideration.
    If tomorrow scientist fail to prove darwin then they will always come to the alternate.

    1. You also said this: "I am not saying that i also beleive in my theory but can you prove it wrong."

      Why should anyone bother to prove it wrong before you even proved it right? I already debunked your theory about high heels, which you then weaseled out of: "I never said that we get new muscle but we really improve it" I even debunked that statement.

      Charles Darwin's theory took more than 20 years to develop and refine. It has been tested, falsified, expanded upon and refined for over 150 years.

      You expect anyone to take seriously the off-the-wall ideas you're throwing around?

      I could claim that the reason for thunder is that the angels are bowling in heaven. Prove me wrong.

    2. Khalid
      what you stated is not a theory in that scientific sense. in order for it to be a theory on par with evolution you have to (paraphrased)
      1. develop a hypothesis based on what we know
      2. make predictions based on hypothesis and develop tests to support or refute hypothesis that hypothesis is not in conflict with established theories and laws. if it is in conflict disprove existing theories or alter hypothesis to bring it out of conflict
      4. retest and allow others to test and get similar results.
      5.when enough of these tests are done and confirmed answering all predictions made by hypothesis put hypothesis and results up for peer review
      6. pass peer review and gain acceptance from a significant portion of scientists in relevant fields
      then and ONLY then can you state your alternative as a theory in a scientific sense. until then do not compare your unsubstantiated claim to the theory of evolution. and please stop asking others to prove you wrong as that is not how it should be done. again look up "Russels teapot"

  49. robertallen 1
    you are wrong here.wikipedia first paragraph on piltdown man
    These fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan that had been deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human.
    Now to lamarckism i know that if you are disproving it than it must be due to
    ae housman's experiment of tails of the rats but you see it has it's significance.Darwin knew something but you should mention what.What else did he say other than finding simillarity and selective breeding phenomenon leading to better survival.Lamarckism might be discredited but you see that not all are discrediting it.Some scientist still find it suitable for some factual explaination.It is just out of the headlines right now.You remember vaccination.first edward jenner introduced it then it was completely rejected because of some primitively thinking doctors but he still continued and time proved him succesful.Later on louis pasteur REDISCOVERED It.So you cant say it's discredited 100%.And even after that i say there could be many many other alternates to his theory.So don't take darwin as the first point of cojecture.Enough said.

    1. From the same article. "As early as 1913, David Waterson of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcelin Bode concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape."

      You are a liar and a cheat and everything you have written is colored by this attempted deception.

  50. robertallen 1 what did i say wrong.

    1. Everything.

  51. Kateye 70
    you don't get it again.I didn't say any theory on heels check my previous comments.It was lamarck the name familliar to almost every evolutionist.

    1. Quoting you: "You see the woman who wear the heal shoes develop these muscles but not the woman who don't wear these heal shoes.
      Its a good example of what lamarck said."

    2. Once again, Lamarckian evolution has been disproved. Which part of this sentence don't you understand?

  52. kateye 70
    i am still waiting for the answer in previous comment.And you still don't get it.You must know hoaxes exposed or not do stop the scientific development and you know if you counterfiet such bones you could get more than 15 million dollars.So don't you think that scientists wouldn't try this.Even if it does get exposed how do you say the people will again trust it if it's really found.

    1. I'm still waiting for my answer about the Chinese women who are the daughters over many generations of women who had their feet bound, to produce a structural change to the foot.

      What happened when they stopped binding their feet?

  53. robert allen
    exactly you are right this is what i am trying to say.Darwin gave a concept which is not completely approven this doesn't make him genius.There could be many alternates to his theory but still his is in the spotlight and other scientists are adding there work in it.

    1. Wrong. That's the complete opposite of what I wrote. It's obvious you need courses not only in biology, but in remedial reading and basic English. You have decided to remain ignorant--well, that's your choice.

  54. Over the edge
    You simply did'nt understand me.Do you know how are argument started.It satarted on me saying darwin wasn't a genius.YoU said he was.I said that i could give many theories that would support any evidence they find in support of darwin AND I GAVE YOU ONE.What i asked you was simple that you prove mine wrong and you win.Now say no to irrational.What i say about evolution of humans from ape is exactly the concept.You see darwin's theory is like general relativity which started off pretty simple but later scientists expanded it.General relativity by einstein had 2 postulates but now you will find more than nine.Simillarly darwin's theory started off initially with 2 points selective breeding was one of them the second was physical simillarity.Slowly and gradually scientists came to think that it says that humans could come from ape.plants could come for algae.and so on.So the point is you must reading the work of scientist other than darwin which is naturally accomodated in his theory.What i said was right.Now what your next move to win is to prove my
    theory about viruses wrong which even i don't completely beleive and i will admit that darwin gave the one and the only theory with no alternate.ACcording to me there are just like there are to general relativity but it is the only theory in headlines.

    1. I guess you've decided to remain ignorant. Why?

  55. kateye 70
    seriously do you seriously think that i need education.First of all i didn't say a word wrong.All is in the books.I did not give the heel theory at all it was a proof of lamarck.I think over the edge might explain it to you as well.Structural modification according to you does not do genetic modification then what did.Radiations?or selective breeding you tell me.I think you didn't read my theory.It is a theory made by me in few minutes which is as good as darwin's for it explains all the evidence of darwin's theory.I don't say it's true but i do say that if i say that you cant prove me wrong which is very simillar to darwin's that's all.
    now kateye 70
    here's a question by which i will really understand how much knowledge you have it's about concept.
    Does earth revolve around the sun?If it does why?OVer the edge don't answer this one for it's specially for kateye 70 something you don't et pretty easily by the net.

    1. I said "Body Modification"

      You never provided an answer to my question about Chinese women who are the daughters over many generations of women who had their feet bound, to produce a structural change to the foot.

      What happened when they stopped binding their feet?

      You answer that question then we'll discuss the earth revolving around the sun, which is a different field completely.

      If you propose a theory, its up to YOU to defend it.

    2. No, she's pulling your chain. She really considers you brilliant and original and hangs on to your every post.

      You don't know what you're talking about. SO GET AN EDUCATION!!!

  56. Kateye 70
    you say not a priority but do you know that it was considered an attack against european religions mainly christianity.I agree that there were amateurs but still if you go on any science website i think you will find that this hoax was cosidered a challege by every paleontoloist of the world.Do you also know that arthur conan doyle the author of sherlock holmes was considered to be involved in it.Do you really think that press was not attracted to it.

    1. I'm pretty darn familiar with the whole scheme, it was an interest of mine years and years and years ago.

      The point is, it was one hoax. It was debunked. It has been irrelevant to the field of evolution for 60 years.

      Come up with a more current hoax (there have been some by the way, and they've likewise been debunked), if hoaxes are your pet theory.

      Can people be fooled? Yes. Do they figure it out? Yes.

      We are evolved to be highly socialized, which means we all want to fool each other and we also are very sensitive to being fooled.

      It's why lying is so prevalent and also so difficult to get away with for very long. The more public the lie, the quicker it gets found out.

      THAT is evolution at work.

      P.S. What does Sir Arthur Conan Doyle have to do with anything? So what if he got fooled along with the rest of them?

    2. So what? Conan Doyle was not a paleontologist--and no it was not considered a challege by every paleontologist in the world. As a matter of fact, most of them saw through it immediately. It was British nationalism that promoted the hoax.

  57. over the edge
    tell me truly if you are familliar with the evolutionary theories did'n't you find incnsistencies.You see i don't say my theory is accurate but i do say that you cannot prove it wrong just like darwin's.What proof do these scientists have that can prove darwin.You see what they find can always have someother logical explaination.This is the answer of your first question.
    As far as the second question is concerned in it you are probably testing my knowledge.You see darwin told us about our simillarities with ape and how better chracteristics were induce through selective breeding right.According to his theory some special species belonging to genus homonidae mated which resulted into first homosapien and so on.Ultimately primitive developed to modern this is the second.As for third I don't deny evolution my religion supports it.
    But darwin links monkey with human and other completely different species.
    I believe in minor sort of evolution like development into better shape and accomodation such that they could be said as different species, a too closely linked evolution not monkey to humans for that change can't be observed even today.It's stupid.I believe humans are directly different and they evolved from none.

    1. Khalid
      so you did provide answers so
      1. you admit you do not have any proof then invoke "Russels teapot" but i do not have to prove it wrong to dismiss it you need to prove it right
      2. as i suspected you don't understand evolution or you would have never stated "monkey to humans" because that is a creationist claim not an evolutionary one
      3. so if i give you an example of species to species evolution that would satisfy you?

    2. Considering that you have no background in biology (evolution), no one cares what you think. The choice is do you want to acquire knowledge or remain a wilful ignoramus?

  58. Kateye70 and over the edge
    also i forgot to mention that if darwin was so correct in the evolution of man from ape then how is it that no ape of today turns to human today.

    1. Dude, get an education and come back later. You truly have no idea how evolution really works.

      This is serious advice by the way. There is so much information readily available on the internet there's no excuse for ignorance, particularly if you are going to post on a site where there is so much knowledge.

    2. No doubt about it, you have to read. Your question shows that you know absolutely nothing about evolution. I suggest that you spare yourself the embarassment of further posts and embark immediately on a course in self-taught biological education.

  59. Kateye70
    I am not saying that i also beleive in my theory but can you prove it wrong.
    I never said that we get new muscle but we really improve it.Think at it this way.We have appendix.It according to scientist had some purpose.Now suppose that we rarely used it.IT GOT less developed and this happened to childeren and so on until it really lost it's function.

    1. Put on a pair of high heels and test your own hypothesis. I doubt you'll find much improvement but certainly foot pain, knee pain and back pain.

      I'm already well-acquainted with high heels, thank you very much. Not at all analogous to the appendix.

      Lets go further and examine what happened to Chinese women who for almost a thousand years were subjected to having their feet bound during infancy and childhood to deform them into to the 'lotus' foot.

      Generation after generation of women were subjected to this deformation. What do you suppose happened when the practice was abandoned?

      Body modification is not the same as a genetic modification.

    2. You have it wrong. If you advance a theory, you must support it. It is not for others to prove you wrong. I can see that you also need some training in critical thinking. There are two documentaries on the subject on this site.

  60. Kateye70 yes i am.If the technology of those days enabled someone to make the scientists confused for about 45 years then don't you think it is possible for a person with today's technology to fool down the scientists of today.

    1. Much harder.

      The Piltdown man hoax was predicated on more than just jumbled-together fossils; it also relied on the scarcity of finds at that time and the desire of the other English researchers who desperately wanted to find such a fossil in the British Isles. The hoax was actually a rather crude one, by the way.

      Furthermore, at that time (the early part of the 20th century) most archaeological work was being done by talented amateurs, not trained scientists whose professional careers depended on their peer-reviewed and tested submissions.

      Nowadays, not only are new finds subjected to much more advanced and rigorous testing; but they are placed in context with finds from other fields of study, and subjected to peer review that is much more demanding than was happening in the earliest part of the the 20th century.

      You might remember there were a couple of world wars and a great depression going on in that 45-year span, as well. I don't think the Piltdown man was high priority for significant periods of time, especially in Great Britain.

    2. Once again, the Piltdown hhoax was debunked in 1913, shortly after the "discovery." Also, British nationalism had a lot to do with the hoax's perpetuation.

    3. Scientists were not confused for 45 years. By 1913, shortly after the "discovery," the whole thing was debunked. And with modern technology, it would be very difficult to fool scientists of today.

  61. Over the edge
    you are right about the tail phenomenon.But don't you know the fact of the heel muscles that is the quickest one.You see the woman who wear the heal shoes develop these muscles but not the woman who don't wear these heal shoes.
    Its a good example of what lamarck said.About hoaxes i dont think you read my full coment I wrote an example.this example confused scientist for 45 years.It was the piltdown man hoax.If a scientist had discovered a hoax then it would be known so.I don't have the abillity to get there and prove that hoax is there.I have a number of theories which explain how did the life origin.
    But you must first explain the fault in mine I know it is not that good but you will see that it is just as good as darwin's.Darwin's theory gained attention of scienctist and so what ever they found the explained it in terms of darwin's theory.If my theory had been before him it would have gained some reputation dont you see how true it sounds and how it explain the fossils even.Also it has no difficulty in explaining the peking man fossil.He could be a man suffering from the virus i explained but i know it does not sound true but you certainly cant argue against it just like you can't against darwin.
    Also you can give the fossil proof but i didn't want you to give that for i already know.There only two fossils on which scientists are still working.You might explain to me and i might explain the alternate.

    1. So, the only reason it isn't Khalid's theory of evolution is because Darwin got there first?

      Women who wear high heels don't get a "new" muscle...All that happens is that an already-existing has its shape changed by the angle her foot is at. It is not a permanent change, either. I know this from personal experience.

      The shape of her butt muscle is changed, as is her gait, but again, this is only due to the completely artificial change in foot angle in relation to the rest of her skeleto-muscular structures. By the way, I'm assuming you're a guy...put on a pair of high heels yourself and see what happens to *your* legs and butt.

    2. Do women still wear high heels?

    3. Some women do. I don't anymore, after 3 knee surgeries.

    4. I guess beautification has its drawbacks.

    5. It does indeed.

      I notice Khalid is ignoring both my answer about Chinese women's beautification procedures and the effect on evolution.

      He's also ignoring my father's theory about angels bowling in heaven (ok, my hoax is exposed, it wasn't really my idea but my dad's, from when I was about six and scared of the thunder).

      Since my father was a civil and structural engineer, this should have given his explanation some real scientific weight, should it not? Surely he was well aware of the structural and load capacities of clouds.

    6. I think it would be enlightening to apply the "evolutionary" concept of Chinese women's beautification procedures to circumcision--Khalid style.

    7. oooo I like your idea!

      Khalid? Thoughts?

    8. Sexy, isn't it?

      P.S. You never gave me your thoughts on George Eliot.

    9. I've read George Eliot. I have to admit, that for my light reading I prefer authors who are not concerned so much with social injustices (ya ya, I'm a girl, I like my romances, ha ha! but they do need to be well-written, at least). I have to be in the mood for the more weighty novels.

      Dickens also addressed social injustice, but in a less depressing way, so I've read and enjoyed his work as well. I searched out Frances Burney's gothic novels (they were pretty awful!) after reading Austen's Northanger Abbey, which people do not always realize was a satire on the popular fiction of the day.

    10. Like Maria Edgeworth (I've also read all of her--she didn't write that much), Frances Burney was a hack. You're right about Northranger Abbey--and if you're into literary satire, you might want to try "Nightmare Abbey" of Thomas Love Peacock.

      I find light fiction to be as much of an art form as the heavy stuff because, as you so accurately state, it still has to be well written and there are a number of authors who managed to transcend the genre. Have you read, "Charlotte's Web" of E. B. White?

    11. Khalid
      just so i know can i expect proof for your theory? not an analogy or an attack on the theory of evolution but actual testable repeatable proof that is consistent with all the evidence we have? your heel muscles example can be explained by epigenetics which is in line with the theory of evolution. again i do not have to "first explain the fault in mine" as the burden of proof is on the person making the claim not the other way around. just so you know the theory of evolution has nothing to do with "life origin" so i will ask again and i will not respond again til these questions are answered as we are not ever going to get anywhere until they are addressed.
      1. give me testable repeatable falsifiable evidence for an alternative that is consistent with all evidence we have
      2. explain what you think the theory of evolution claims for the evolutionary process of humans and the mechanisms that drive evolution. i think you misunderstand
      3.what would you need as proof for evolution
      i am sure as the day goes by others will join in (Kateye70 already has) and maybe they will be interested in a discussion without these questions answered but i am not

    12. No, your explanation is not as good as Darwin's. Darwin knew something; you don't. So once again, I suggest you start reading about Darwin and evolution before making more uninformed statements.

      P.S. Lamarckian evolution has long since been discredited. Read about it before offering it in support.

  62. over the edge
    Lamarkism states that if an organ is not used for a long time than it does no longer work and so when genetically passed it is no more than structure.LAMARCK gave example of muscle of foot as an example you must be familliar with it.I gave you no evidence but darwin also has no evidence.
    HE HAS fossil explaination which even my theory which i just made in few minutes explains it.I just don't consider the fossil record to be evidence and i think scientist are still working on the fossils that appear to be supporting darwin.You know there was once a hoax involvin it in which arthur canan doyle the creator of sherlock holmes was involved.

    1. Khalid
      Lamarkism deals with traits gained or lost over a lifetime and epigenetics might lend some credence to that but there is no evidence that for example our tailbone is a result of us losing a tail over a lifetime. again you state "darwin also has no evidence" and you bring up hoaxes but name me one hoax that wasn't discovered by scientists? you dismiss fossils (i will save that for future debate) so other than fossils what would you consider evidence? the reason i ask that is i could present you with walls of text containing evidence but if it is just dismissed then i have wasted the time of both of us. also how do you think we and all species came to be? not an analogy but what you hold as true.

    2. Seriously, Khalid, you aren't bringing up a hoax (Piltdown man) that was debunked 60 years ago, are you?

    3. Actually it was debunked 99 years ago.

    4. Thank you. I think it took that extra 44 years for the Brits to admit it, though.

    5. David Waterson, the first debunker (1913) was British. No, paleontologists were not at all deceived. They knew a hoax when they saw one.

  63. Over the edge
    You would hardly find fossils tell you anything more than the date of an age of exsistance of an organism which is related to human.Some say that it's ordinary human and some say no it's a mutated human and some say it's chimpanzee or soMETHING.In the end nothing.You must be familliar with the peking man.They could never say that it was an ape.You will never find fossil evidence but here is a good theory made by me on your special request.Suppose that men lived before monkeys.AND you must be familliar with different disease causing agent which make it difficult to think and some like leprosy disfigured.You must also be familliar with a genetic disease in which a human woman is almost fully covered with hair (it still exsists).Alright now suppose a special virus or bacteria having special chracteristics in special conditions affected human and caused deformities in skeleton ultimately leading to species of monking and apes.It's not too complex is it.Those who survived gave birth to human.
    And i make many theories for fun if this doesn't fit i will give more.And be adviced I am here to learn.So I would also like to ask for some of the so called evidence that supports darwin's theory of evolution other than selective breeding for it's more of genetic thing than evolutionary.And kindly be early in your post for it gets difficult to sleep in all the excitement.
    Also in reply for your question that why didn't any one else thaught of it the answer is simple there were a lot of religious controversies no one could dare.And there is another botanist whose name i don't remember but i am pretty sure you will find him on net.He was going to introduce his theory one day before darwin but when darwin came familliar with his work he published his before him.I only credit him with being the first to discover selective breeding.
    AS far as vestegiality is concerned i must tell you that they have nothing to do with darwin.It's lamarckism introduced by millitary scientist before darwin.If you are familliar with lamarckism i am sure you will find the answer to your own question.

    1. Khalid
      but you provided no proof. why do i have to provide explanations and evidence when it is you that is making claims? yes i am familiar with lamarckism but i fail to see how it explains vestigial organs could you enlighten me on that one please? Darwin was not " the first to discover selective breeding." as we have been doing that for a long time. i am beginning to think that you have a skewed idea of what the theory of evolution says. but i will ask could you please state what you think the processes of evolution are and how humans evolved according to the theory )who/what we evolved from)? you asked "I would also like to ask for some of the so called evidence that supports darwin's theory " i will answer but first i need to know what you would consider evidence?

    2. You need to read something about basic biology. So I suggest that you give your blogging a respite and start with the fine article on evolution on Wikipedia, complete with references to other works, all accessible to the general public. Maybe a little education will stop you from making uninformed statements.

  64. If you analyze charles darwin logically you will find no genius in him.Any man can see simillarities in nature he was first and i respect him for standin by his ideas.However you could give thousands of different explainations.
    If i say that a virus or a single celled organism somehow evolved that grouped together the nucleotides,proteins and nitrogenous bases to make DNA and then these took over the surrounding organic bulk and then arranged the cells and cells constituent around it and made up an oranisms and variety of organisms were introduced due to evey dna being not the same no one would contradict me.Would anyone try to contradict this if i say that instead of human evolving from ape ape evolved from human simply due to high radiations or sudden changes.

    1. Khalid
      you state "If you analyze charles darwin logically you will find no genius in him" really? then why hasn't anyone else come up with it? then"However you could give thousands of different explainations." ok here is your chance what are your different explanations? please provide peer reviewed evidence for these claims. make sure that your claims are backed up by the fossil record,genetics,Vestigial organs,observed instances and so on. if it doesn't take a genius and you have the benefit of all the advancements of today that Darwin did not please show me? if you make a claim it is not on others to contradict you . it is on you to back up these claims.

    2. Darwin as not the first to see similarities in nature. As a matter of fact, at the time of his famous writings, the concept of evolution was not new. What was was natural selection.

      And no, one explanation is not as good as another. It's the knowledge and evidence behind the explanation that gives it its validity.

  65. notice how everyone he interviews talks fast and nonstop, interrupts, never listens... i can almost SEE the wall in front of their faces. you can see the difference in his face - curious, perceptive, deep, observing, taking everything in, where everyone else is just spewing out. it's pretty remarkable.

  66. This documentary is pure science. Somewhat like the pure science of palm reading. Everyones palm is different. Everyones life is different. Therefore all you have to do is read someone's palm to determine how their life will turn out. It would be wonderful if someone would compare everyone's life to everyones palm, but no reason to waste a bunch of resources on something that is an accepted fact. Personally I love the religion of evolution. As long as God is nothing more than pure chance we can murder the whole planet to get petroleum, and there are no consequences. Why don't the creationist wake up. They are standing in the way of progress.

    1. HDThoureau
      do you have anything factual to say or just trolling ?

  67. had 2 put in anotha comment afer reading some more u people need read books about the universe i red a comment dat a creator!! must influance d world 2 cause change wat a load off bull change happens because of weather patterns or natural disaters not by this all powerful being all through history religon has been used as a means of contral witout it there wud be know empires or goverments

  68. there is no god some all powerful been that we should kneel b4 and any1 looking for a god should worship the sun dat is what brings live and death 2 planet earth and any other planet that may have life will have a sun 2 in other words energy contrals everything we do and everything that happens in our universe. maybe dads god!!!

  69. These so called people who call themselves scientist, are missing the whole picture. If you were to take things into their context, "GOD is the Ultimate Scientist." Our knowledge cannot abound to his." How can you comprehend when such a Divine Creator who makes matter out of nothing "SPOKEN AND IT IS SO. " We are only now starting to understand how sound waves involves matter.
    Imagine toddlers trying to solve Quantum physics or breaking the human genome code, that's our level to GOD.
    To say that we we didn't have a Creator we might as well be swinging in trees. Like our Divine Creator we create as well.
    Remember the late Charles Darwin "A Christian," renounced Evolution on his death bed.

    1. "To say that we didn't have a Creator we might as well be swinging in trees." Where is the logic behind this statement? Or is it a typical creationist non sequitur.

      And just how do you know so much about god, much less if there is one, two, three, etc.? "SPOKEN AND IT IS SO."--Do you still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy?

      To top it all, your last statement is a complete creationist lie which only shows where you're getting your "information" from.

  70. do cars just drive out of the scrape yard.... no . someone designed and created them in all different sizes shapes and colors. Man did not crawl out of the mud and neither did billions of other creatures and insects. Science will never find God because there is no funding that can be generated for research and development, of course you do know that this is how they make a living. So be careful of the theories and developments.

    1. What do cars have to do with anything? Not clear at all on what you are talking about, for one thing no scientists are searching for any gods.

      And nothing crawled out the mud, but they sure as heck were not instantly made by your creationists gods, crack open a textbook, instead of your dusty old bibles.

  71. Not very profound. Darwin discovered that things change ... so what. The real question is who, what , how, did all of this come into existence. If anything it substantiates the need for a creator. Evolution does not do away with God.

    1. Barry Satori
      i will give you the benefit of the doubt even if i think you are a troll please elaborate on "If anything it substantiates the need for a creator."

    2. Complete nonsense. The beauty of the whole thing is that there is no need for a creator.

  72. This is why I laugh at Black Baptists. Your god is incredible.

  73. A really a brilliant documentry that offers compelling evidence that cannot be denied by any rational person. Although the science is complete believe there is more to contemplate at the quantum level of creation and beyond the quantum level.

    I am thoroughtly convinced thru intense invovlvement of eastern mysticism and study of the world religions that there is far more beyond the realm of our existence in this world.

    These answers may well lie beyond parables found in the bible but it may be incorrect to assume that the finest product of evolution is our own awareness as this point in time based on science.

    The mysteries of the universe and our experience are expanding and revealing new possibilities in every moment.

    1. And it's all down-to-earth scientific.

  74. Amazing insight into one of the most brilliant minds of our species.

    Like Darwin and Dawkins, I feel sorry for those who cannot marvel in the natural processes that guide our world, and for whom superstition guide thier lives.

    To reach the end of your life knowing that the sum of what you are is what makes up all living things, is certainly a supreme pleasure. Any notion of supernatural life after death is a hamper on the enjoyment of one's existence.

    "But this they fail to add; that after you expire. Not one of all these things; will fill you with desire"

  75. Does anyone have any info on what Darwin said about smiling? I’m sure I read something about this years ago but alas I can no longer remember or find anything.

    The Crucified One

    1. only thing i found was this phrase: In old age Darwin stooped a great deal. He had a hearty laugh, often raising his hands or bringing them down with a slap on his thighs.

      was taken from AboutDarwin dot com

    2. Yes I heard he would do it often, even when on his own, in the dirt looking at worms. What a man!

  76. Can't we all just agree that religions are myths meant to give us an introspective view of our own psyches using symbolism?

    That way we can all agree that religious texts are not to be taken literally, but also have tremendous value when used as a mythological story that reveals our own humanity to ourselves.

    God isn't real, nor is Odin, Osiris, Shiva, Allah, El, Mars (the God... not the planet), etc. but the symbolism these figures represent for their various cultures can have a positive impact on the individuals within these societies.

    Otherwise, we can just believe Hell actually exists (even though the Old Testament never mentions "Hell," it suddenly appeared in the New Testament) and keep killing each other in the name of fiction.

    1. I for one don't subscribe to the concept of the noble lie.

  77. Ok im going to leave this alone. Lmao @Achems.

    Im just going to leave a quote. Who can guess the person who said this? Hmm.

    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

    If the history-deniers who doubt the fact of evolution are ignorant of biology, those who think the world began less than ten thousand years ago are worse than ignorant, they are deluded to the point of perversity. They are denying not only the facts of biology but those of physics, geology, cosmology, archaeology, history and chemistry as well.

    I mean come on people.

    1. @eireannach666

      Hmm indeed. Shall I say, dare I say? Perhaps not today?
      Just like streams of memes that lead to rivers of dreams?

    2. Come on ppl really. Wow. Im going to have to start smackin heads. Lol.

    3. Went to your facebook and saw your name...LMAO
      Tell me that's not your real name.
      What does the big A stand for?
      Good night...time to retire with a smile on my face.

    4. Lmao... dang. Thats the A that is used by Richard Dawkins Foundation for reason and science.....its quite the cool little symbol i think so i use it as well to promote. RDF is a great orginization to support as well as FFRF (Christopher Hitchens) ..AAI..The Brights(Dan Dennett) Also look up the University of X... im sure youll find them worth while. 'Doctors Without Boarders' also. They are a secular group that does alot for diaster relief and aide.

      Thanx for the laugh. Im glad you liked that. Thtd be an awesome name though. However no kitten it is not. Lol ill tell you but add me on facebook and ill tell u what you want to know.

    5. Mr Hawk, You'de be bored "stiff" with my facebook page, it's all baby photos and family chats. The only reason i keep it, our whole family is spread all over the place.
      A is a great letter, so is 1...the beginning of two very different world but the best is O, it's in both.

    6. Ok. Thts cool. And i dont get on there often but im going to say lets leave this topic so vlatko doesnt get us for being so far off topic. But yes i hear you.

      Dawkins is who i quoted. You have quoted alot of people. I dont think anyone knows who coined that. Iknow nietzsche said it, its also a play but i dont know who coined it.

    7. @eireannach666

      Thanks for your answer re Dawkins. (I knew) And you were right about Nietzsche.

      ”You have quoted a lot of people.”

      Where? Just so there are no misunderstandings, I always put quotes in quotation marks or use italics, mostly I use both together. I found your Dawkins quote (and other parts of his writings) interesting in that he sometimes has a certain Nietzschean style about them.

      The Crucified One

    8. Theres nothing wrong with quoting people. Almost everything that can be said has been said.

    9. @eirannach666

      Lol. Please don’t smack my head and besides I was right!
      Here’s one for ya. Who said this? (No cheating)” Who cares if I am right! I am much too right. And he who laughs best today will also laugh last."

      Just Sayin... Charles Darwin.

      The Crucified One

  78. Only thing I don't like about Dawkins Docs is there's too much religion in them. It's like somebody giving a serious lecture and then stating, "and thats why there's no santa clause". OK I get it, there's no santa, lets get back to science please!

  79. I must say this is hillarious. I have no issues whatsoever with the fact that species develop by way of an evolutionary process. Still Atheistic Darwinists fail to answer the question of how life began. A false dichotomy is created between faith and science. The only problem with faith is the fundamentalist and the atheist who who each insists that Scripture be read in every regard (especially the creation accounts) as a literal news report. Neither has a basic understanding of genre!

    1. "Atheistic Darwinists" do not posit how life began (abiogenesis). That's for another scientific discipline.

      I like to think that I have a basic understanding of the genre and what scripture says is irrelevant to science.

  80. Channel 4 has claimed copyright on this one. Shouldn't Dawkins, the fundamentalist atheist, be more keen to get the truth out there?

  81. evolution and islam, one of the only religions that does not openly reject evolution, go hand-in-hand.

  82. Most folks refuse to admit where "evolved" from Apes. HOWEVER, just WATCH THEM as they respond to their babies! Thare's NO difference. WHY? Just because evolution (aka DNA) has yet to find them the "power of speech;" doesn't mean we're not related. While I don't consider myself an ape; I DO consider I am a DESEiNDENT ! Just as there are SO many different types of birds, fish, and apes, WHO has the right to say which is which. As a matter of fact, I consider the Queen of England to be a reptile! There are things going on BEHIND-THE-SENES THAT WOULD BLOW THE MIND OF EVERYONE WHO IS NOT "IN TRHE KNOW."I will say no more.....BUT YOU'll see!

    1. damn fat fingers.....SENES

    2. The queen is a reptile,ooo man you need some serious help!!.I laughed so hard i nearly wet myself bravo i do hope your statement was intended as a joke,if not you need of some special doctor sweeties.

  83. I was reading further back on the posts are saw people asking were cells came from.This is a rely simple answer the universe is teaming with the chemistry to make cells.If you want to look further many scientists have proven by heating and cooling substances Seawater water with no life forms present or adding any other elements create the building blocks of life.Then take the earths history over a few hundred million years it is simple to equate that life began in this simple fashion if a scientist can make from nothing just sea water the building blocks of life.We are all formed from elements of the universe every single atom that man animal plant rock liquid is abundant,so nothing rely special going on just chemistry and unimaginable amount of time.I hope you go and look this up as you seem to be very unaware of what is available to answer these simple questions.

    1. "Rely" isa spelled "a "REALLY" simple"......:RELY" aint even close! Yet you show a photo of a high-ranking OFFICER of the US Navy! No wonder we lost in Viet Nam!

    2. Vietnam not Viet Nam. The word ain't has no place in any rational comment. Why the dash between high and ranking? Obviously, you understood what he was saying and as that is the point of communication, his spelling, however incorrect served its purpose. Debate something of worth. Not your believed spelling of a word.

  84. In some ways you could even use the church and how it has evolved and forgotten its dark past to become the new church of the 20th century to prove evolution.As for the creationists idea you cant do that in science (make things up)proof the whole idea and basis upon what the church is based false.On a final note the Vatican has accepted that life might exist on other planets i wonder if god spoke to the pope directly and what parts of the bible he was told to erase.It would be nice if science could just make things up also NOT RELY!!! science is built on many levels of scrutiny and rejection until proven.Science 1 Lunacy 0.

  85. Evolution is very slow so to witness it in real time is impossible but,the evidence and fossils are proof of this process luckily we have found the paper trail and this cannot be refuted by any rational argument.I would like to say to those who believe in a god dependent of your religion or church that you should enjoy your life and happiness that faith brings you satanic or other this is your freedom of choice.I do not have the luxury to just take the words of many men and scribes that wrote a book with no solid evidence,although the bible is a good book in some parts i feel humanity would be further evolved if religion had not existed.The dark ages witch burning wars more wars taxation brutality and land ownership refusal to accept the world was round the earth was the center of the universe life only exist on earth early free thinkers being called heretics and murdered in the name of god and the churches ultimate goal total and all controlling power over human actions and lifestyles i could go on but i think i made the point ...

  86. @Achems_Razor

    Have you finished "The Creationists" yet? I'm now reading Genie Scott's book and science and creationism, a volume every creationist should.

    P.S. Is creationist a phylum, a genus, a chordata or what?

    1. @robertallen1:

      A creationist is all three with a subfamily of organisms thrown in.

      Did not have a chance to read the creationists, inter library book, they wanted it back, but will get it out again in the near future.

  87. Of course evolution doesn't explain everything. It describes a single mechanism. It'd be like arguing that a manual for a specific device is wrong because it doesn't explain every device.

    1. Actually it describes five: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, recombination and gene flow.

  88. i guess we still have to figure it out ...and i'm not saying that god created us to fulfill some kind of special mission..far from it..but there may be things we dint catch....entirely my humble opinion

  89. i think the theory of evolution is correct but not complete or it does not explain everything

    1. What does?

  90. I wish I could get to read the origin of the specie. It seems to be a most compelling story. Darwin was never part of my formal education.

  91. many of those "viruses" are man made by monsanto . all Life is under attack by these creeps .. the parasitic psychopathic elite rulers are using "survival of the fittest" to justify only them surviving ....... do check out Dr Vandana Shiva . please

  92. I felt like doing this, so on the behalf of 911... who's ID has been blocked by the Admin and he (911..) cant even enter the site any more, and to respect his right of freedom of speach I am doing this.
    From 911_was_an_inside_job @Admin:
    I am sure you are having problem with sleeping may be because this time i got you infront of all these people whom you see as inferior to you simply because you thing you know "everything" but the fact shows something else doesn't it?
    In the beggining you were just editing my post then you started deleting them and flaging them, offcourse you are allowed to do it as you own this site however by practicing you right you ignore mine. Because i did not accepted that my acestors were monkey you start runing behind me and does not matter what i posted here you were ready to block it or counter it with your over cleaver answer and the same attitude made you dig your own grave where you are dewelling right now with the pain of humiliation.
    As usual you replied my last post by calling me "Troll" but at the end you realize that it was you trolling not me. You just assume you knew what i was talking about but in reality you had no cclue what-so-ever.
    "What Darwin Didn't Know" is not the only video available with the same name, the video i was talking about does challenges what ever crap darwing has ever told about evolution and has made dumb out of thousands like you.
    Now that you have blocked me from entering your site, i somehow found a way to tell you how pathetic you are and your existence who denies the right of otehrs to make sure no body can stand and disagree with your dumb ideas about every thing, yes about every thing.
    You are perfect example of those stereotype, who will never listen to some one else because they are brainwahsed from head to toe about almost every thing.
    Still i wish you all the best and keep runnig your site with the iron fist like a dictator.

    1. See, you haven't been blocked. Your ignorant twaddle appears here nested among the more intelligent, informed comments.

      Now, how about improving your English as well as your knowledge, especially of evolution, and then post?

    2. i hate when people attack you as a person just cuz they have a diff opinion , how many languages do you know , if you know more languages then your generally smarter, do you know more about the world i think u proved yourself arrogant , no dissrespect intended it's easy to throw rocks

    3. It's not so much a difference of opinion as a lack of education.

      Every bit of disrespect intended.

  93. i have one question..
    ok! there is ample amount of evidence that life started from a single cell...but where did that single cell come from?God?physics?

    1. Hi Vikas,

      You misunderstand, there is ample proof that all life living today with the exception of viruses evolved from a single celled creature. The beginning of life must have occurred some millions of years before that creature evolved, but that creature is as far back as our evidence allows us to make any reasonable judgement.

      If we are talking about an event that occurred in physical reality, then it can only be a creation of physical laws, in as far as anyone can reasonably posit with all current knowledge.

      Regards, Sam.

    2. The cell ,according to those who believe in evolution, came out of nothing. Now it is upto you to believe if it possible or not.

    3. @sameer
      first off you are wrong evolution does not state anything about the origins of life. that would be abiogenesis looking at your claim from that standpoint oh you are still wrong abiogenesis does not say life arose from nothing. also the first post (i assume you are just forwarding someone else s opinion) could you pass on that he/she is wrong there is no claim in evolution we came from monkeys .

    4. @sameer:

      We don't have to believe in anything, we leave that to the religee's. Empirical evidence is all we need.

      And yes, cells and all that is, the universe all the multiverses et al,, came out of absolutely nothing, says Stephen Hawking in his book "The Grand Design".

      Read it for yourself, do not expect us to do all the work for you.

    5. The problem is that so many people want to remain ignorant and not only do they want to remain ignorant, but they want to ensure that others remain ignorant along with them. I guess intellectual starvation loves company. Their questions are not really questions but denials predicated on nothing. Their expostulations are not empirically-based statements but wishful thinking at its most idi!tic. I'm not a doctor, but to me this seems sick.

      However, I have a thought I would like to share with you and hopefully others. In their justification for what cannot be justified, i.e., a supreme being, creationists and the like characterize the universe as fine-tuned. It seems that if it were, all probabilities would be certainties. Think of it; we could predict the next earthquake, the next tidal wave--why, the next everything because all we would have to do is discover the simple mechanics and work from there--and the beauty of it is is that such fine tuning would militate against anything ever going wrong (read no disease) and there would be no need for malodorous entities such as chaos theory and insurance companies--hedging would be unheard of. What a wonderful world it would be--boring and lifeless perhaps, but nevertheless wonderful.

      Your thoughts.

    6. @robertallen1:

      Ah yes, fine tuned, have said this many times, but will repeat it again.

      The universe (including the earth) and its constants are not fine tuned for life and humanity.

      Instead life and humanity, through evolution, are fine tuned to the universe (especially the earth) as it is.

    7. I believe you're saying that creationists and the like have it backwards. Am I correct? If so, it's obvious, for no life as we know it could have existed on the earth as it was 4-6 billion years ago.

      In this respect, another pet peeve--and scientists with evangelical leanings make it all the time--seeing design in everything. When you ask them what they mean by design, they are generally hard-pressed for an answer. So they restrict themselves to a few examples which generally turn out to be false (e.g., Behe and his flagellum). Me, I see design in probability and chaos, but I'm a pervert.

    8. Epicurus is right. You know nothing about evolution and probably nothing about a lot of other things that you think you do--and worse yet, you seem to enjoy spreading your ignorance around.

      Read the article on abiogenesis in Wikipedia and try, try, try to learn something.

    9. There's a fine article about abiogenesis on Wikipedia. If you are truly interested, I suggest you read it.

  94. This is great irony right here:

    "The refusal to believe in anything you can't see yourself is absurd." - Richard Dawkins

    1. He did not mean 'see for yourself' meaning the naked eye alone, but through whatever means of detection are available within a particular field of study or discipline.

    2. It does make sense after all. Well said after all.

  95. why do atheists always rely on Evolution and Darwin to support their own theories, Even Darwin himself Believed in God and after his original biography was released he expresses beliefs that reflect Deism.

    Deists and Darwin Believe evolution is all the more reason to believe in God, its that much more complex and magnificent.

    (everyone thought the earth was flat and we were the center of the universe, give it a rest, its all just a guess)

    1. Darwin renounced god (of any kind put forward by men) for many reasons, one of which was his collection of evidence in support of his theory of evolution, another was that upon critical examination of the theist belief phenomena he slowly became absolutely sure it was nonsense. There are many quotes in his autobiography that attest to this. His wife was devout, but he as a scientist could neither refute nor ignore the evidence. Yet another reason may have been the death of his 9 year old daughter. Why indeed would anyone want to worship a god who inflicts pain and suffering then death on an innocent child? with gods like these, who needs devils?

      If you want to base your worldview on a solid foundation you can do little better than evolution theory, it has a vast and increasing ocean of evidence behind it and is adequately proven by the more recent discovery and analysis of DNA and subsequent tests involving breeding. We can be surer about evolution than gravity about which we have yet to satisfactorily explain.

      Evolution is all the more reason to thoroughly doubt any and all human inventions of supernatural forces or beings be they gods, unicorns or [insert supernatural invention of your choice here]

      So my guess is no gods or unicorns.

      regards, Sam.

    2. richard dawkins is one of my heroes... and i'm guessing he is one of urs too... prolly a lot of people on this site... so ur style of reasoning made me smile... HOWEVER... there is a lot of strangeness about NDEs, Wave Function Collapse, and even memories of previous lives from very small children. i did read and pay attn to the part where u said "my guess" ... (ill dig up examples of weird (as in absolutely no logical explanation) NDEs or "reincarnations" if you like and wave function really IS a mystery (just poorly explained by quantum decoherence)...

      anyways... something from nothing is somehow absurd to me. as absurd as existence itself is... and how i can barely wrap my small little brain around it... but nothing is even more... absurd. infact, if the M theory's multiverse is correct, there is no nothing, just an infinity of somethings... and even our own universe is like a game of Space Invaders... where if u reach the "end" of a universe u pop out on the other side... all i'm saying, keep an open mind my friend (just not so open that ur brain falls out... lol...)

    3. i am NOT tryna go Deepak Chopra on ur ass... the guy pisses me off...

    4. oh and the something from nothing comment isn't meant to imply or be a reason for the existence of god... existence itself is weird enough without god i was just thinking outloud

    5. I can only speak for myself as an atheist, David Solo, but I don't 'rely on evolution and darwin' to support my position of atheism. I agree with the theory of evolution as an explanation of speciation. My atheism is based upon the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of god. The two aren't related, except in that the theory of evolution contradicts directly many religious creation myths. However, the facts about evolution don't rule out a god. There simply isn't any evidence to support one's existence.

  96. Mr. Dawkins states that our ability to think is a biproduct of evolution. Clearly, intelligence of some form exists within many species, the extent to which we are only recently beginning to understand. I wonder if intelligence, and perhaps even self-consciousness, could be a natural evolutionary progression in virtually all living species. Any thoughts (evolved or not)?

    1. Only when higher intelligence directly results in higher survival rates. There are no 'goals' as such like super intelligence, super strength etc. with evolution. In many environments, intelligence can enable a species to better survive, in others maybe stronger or faster muscles are better for this purpose. There are myriad approaches - high reproductive rates are an obvious advantage for example, but the fact is all adaptations carry detriments as well as benefits so in this instance faster breeding also means shorter lifespan. Our higher intelligence appears to coincide with the decline of our physical strength as well as the sensitivity of our senses, and may well yet prove to be a dead end of itself on an evolutionary scale. Creatures are simply as intelligent as their natural environment has required their species to adapt to be. Being more intelligent would not help a wolf who had a weak sense of smell, and being extremely physically strong would not necessarily help a human whose intelligence was abnormally low.

      So yeah for me, intelligence is evolved. Maybe it can go further in our direction, but only if it helps us to survive better, and at the moment we do rather well on that front with what we have already.

      Regards Sam.

  97. It amuses me that you 'would-be scholars' can only insult me, and muddle together incoherent 'sound bytes' of things you read or someone told you.

    I reiterate my challenge:

    "So if one of you learned chimpanzees could explain why evolution would dead-end some creatures' evolution at BIRD, DOG, GORILLA, OR FISH, and not let them evolve on to HUMAN, I might just buy this fatally flawed 'theory'."

    Some chimp wrote:

    "i just explained it above for you. your problem is you think evolution has some conscious goal to create an organism like humans. but that is very wrong." [No writing skills, no capitals - VERY learned!]

    My answer to the above ludicrous proposal, that we are NOT the most highly evolved species on earth, is this; Why are you not debating with a goldfish? Why aren't you watching videos made by dolphins? And if you don't believe you are the most highly evolved species, then why would I take you seriously at all?

    Insult away - it amuses me. But I would prefer genuine responses from someone who has a clue.

    Remember they once thought the earth was flat, and killed anyone who thought differently.

    And for record, I am as far removed from a Christian as one can get.

    1. You are also as far removed from an intelligent, educated person as one can get.

    2. "incoherent sound bytes"? ummm, no. Actually, Epicurus made perfect sense and is correct in everything he said - just because you don't understand it doesn't make it incoherent... That's it - the entire field of abstract algebra is incoherent because I don't understand it. That's completely logical (note: this is called sarcasm).

      And really, we are still explaining what a theory is? *sigh*

      I am not going to sit here and write some insanely long post explaining these concepts to you because you are not listening. Look the information up for yourself- it is there, waiting for you. I promise. (note: I am being completely serious)

    3. Just for your information, abstract algebra is pretty much an umbrella term for various branches of mathematics such as set and group theory. It's fascinating, but all the textbooks are terrible. Also, you have no need to apologize; Daryl and those like him deserve the condescension which he so complains about.

    4. lol, there was no apology there - I was joking with him in those last posts (trying to be over condescending)... perhaps it didn't work...
      ah well

      I have always under-appreciated math. I was never terrible at it, just average. But quantum physics and statistics made me realize there is a lot more to it than I ever thought. Physics did this because if I had known how interconnected everything was, then I probably would have paid more attention to both it and calculus. And statistics because of how it applies to research regarding the significance of your observations. Also, some documentaries on this site about math, numbers and patterns are fascinating.

    5. If you want to gain a real appreciation for math, go to your local supermarket and look at the soup cans. They're designed mathematically.

      You are right about the interconnectedness. It took several thousand years for mathematicians and scientiststo realize and understand this. (I make the distinction because science is empirical and mathematics (even the mathematics of statistics) isn't).

      The problem with math is the way it is taught and written about, especially on the fairly basic college levels. If math professors teach the way they write, no wonder why mathematics is such a turnoff to many potentially fine mathematicians. This from a non-mathematician and someone far from a mathematical genius.

      Just out of curiosity, what is your background?

    6. Well...
      I started off in art and art history, but then went into nursing, decided I wanted to be a vet instead and finished my BSc with an hons specialization in biology -- at first I focused on physiology (vet), but then switched to ecology/evolution. At one point I also wanted to get into primatology so I took some anthropology as well.

      I decided that being a vet is monotonous, so now I am looking at a college program for wildlife management (I used to be a rehabber and loved every second, even the heartbreaking ones) -- I'm an education sl*t. LOL! I'm 28 now and it would be really nice to settle on a course of employment, but there are so many fascinating careers out there, how do you choose? But I think I've got it this time! *finger crossed*

      Actually, I wondered the same about you, you seem to have varied interests and knowledge in a lot of areas.


    7. you are like a female version of me..... *stares in awe*

    8. you mean I'm not alone?????? that's the best thing I've heard in a while!

    9. actually i went to university and got my Bsc in psychology planning to get my masters and then phd in evolutionary psychology. i got bored with psychology and am now doing a bachelors in anthropology.

      i hope to either travel to africa or south east asia and work with primates or stay in north america and do archaeological work on first nations people here in canada.

    10. Why are all the intelligent and well-informed ones on this site from Canada? You leave my country in the dust, probably where it belongs now.

    11. maybe it's our health care -- we don't have to worry so much about spending our money on that, and so have the time and ability to focus our attention on other things, like extended learning. ( ? just an idea); it is also comparatively easy to get a post-secondary education here (although it would be nicer if it were paid for, like in some countries - Australia, I think *jealous*)

      It also helps that the school year is between Sept and May -- winter's can get long and boring after awhile. Idle minds and all that....

      Edit: "comparatively" to other countries, not necessarily US

    12. I have heard that in general your educational system is better than ours. Obviously, we don't have it all and as time goes on, we'll probably have less and less; yet, we just love to tell other countries what to do.

      By the way, have you ever been to the U.S.?

    13. I'll be in PA in two weeks for a wedding! lol
      I have family there and have visited quite often.
      Have you been to Canada?

    14. Once to Montreal in 1964,

    15. That's the year the Beatles were in Montreal, but according to one of your past comment, i take you didn't go to Montreal to see them.
      Was it for the pleasure of travelling? How do you remember Montreal?

    16. Only how beautiful and clean it was.

    17. man... while i do believe ur partially joking... i really just feel like americans are totally misrepresented by loud obnoxious people all the time. and it kinda gets on my nerves when europeans and canadians blame everything on america and always talk shit...ill admit in general u see a lot less BS comments from canadians but its really a numbers game... america 400 mill... canada 40mil? i mean obviously there are other factors too but thats at least part of it... please don't hate on us...

    18. I was wondering if you were interested in primatology! I haven't taken that option off the table -- I am interested in starting off in wildlife affairs here in Canada, but eventually taking it abroad. (I still haven't reaaally chosen a career, just a more specific direction -- working with aye ayes would be a dream!)

      My cousin is a cultural anthropologist working with first nations people regarding land ownership changes in Sault Ste. Marie -- very interesting. If you are looking for a contact, let me know (he's a great guy!).

    19. Aye-ayes sure look cute, but I wouldn't want to have one as a pet. I hear they really smell.

    20. have you ever worked with bats? LOL! *phew!*
      yeah, I tend to like the cute smelly ones.... I LOVE skunks too (...and so does my dog o_O)!

    21. On the bright and least smelly side of things, I have a red-fronted macaw named Boris.

    22. if u end up going to vet school (for like a wildlife residency) watch out... bunch of my friends were vets and there exams put some of our med school exams to shame (in terms of difficulty... they start doing surgeries in friggin 3rd yr, its crazy)...

    23. Have you ever read The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond? ...

    24. yes sir.

    25. You certainly have the rudiments of a fine education. Although the efforts of animal rehabbers amount to only the proverbial drop in the bucket, I applaud their efforts, at the same time appreciating the vagaries of nature expressed through evolution.

      I am more than double your age and my background is in the liberal arts with only a fairly recent interest in the sciences, especially paleontology which I have the highest respect for.

      But getting back to you. Would it be indiscrete of me to ask which area of the world you inhabit?

      P.S. Education sl*t--what a delightful oxymoron.

    26. @DarylTJ
      Ok let me try again. Living things don't evolve to become more intelligent. They evolve to better survive within their environment. More intelligent does not equal more evolved. So i will ask again are you or a fish more suited to live in the ocean? who would survive better in the arctic circle you or a Polar Bear? things evolve we have seen it . but instead of only having one side of the debate might i suggest a level playing field. What is your alternative theory? or are you to afraid to expose it to scrutiny?

    27. Smart questions are always a good way to retort. That one is great:
      What is your alternative theory?

    28. thanks az now lets see if it gets answered. i don't like the odds lol

    29. I have two evolutionary dollars that say he won't.

    30. I will post a link to my alternative theory above.
      But even this is not the 'ultimate truth' - for that, one must read Advaitic literature such as "I AM THAT" by Nisargadatta, "TALKS WITH RAMANA MAHARSHI" (comilation of daily talks) and other such pristine works.

    31. @DarylTJ
      Ok i went to your link (part1 and most of part 2. i couldn't take it anymore).
      first off the ignorance of evolution in this video is amazing. it states (most of these examples in the first five minutes)
      -evolution describes the formation of the earth
      -evolution has something to say on origins of life
      - evolution tries to explain how grand canyon was formed
      and many other things. while the scientifically accepted explanations of these events are compatible with evolution. evolution itself has nothing at all to say on these subjects
      if coal was formed by the injection of Uranium wouldn't it be radioactive?
      finally the world wide flood by means of "hydroplate theory" is impossible. if you do the math of the mass of the land over this layer of water 1 km thick 10 km beneath the surface. the rapid release of pressure would cause the super heated water to immediately convert to steam and sterilize everyone and everything on the earth. also the speed and height this water was ejected to on this video would exceed the escape velocity of the earth. so any water expelled would leave the earth never to return.

    32. But you forget that god can do anything, including making pi a rational number.

    33. @robertallen1
      i keep forgetting that young earth creationists are immune to the effects of logic.

    34. High intelligence does not mean highest evolved.

      if we are the highest evolved how come we cant fly? because intelligence or flying are not the pinnacle of evolution.

      the fact of the matter is that you dont understand what evolution is and you have never taken a single biology course. im not TRYING to insult you. im trying to inform you.

      stop pretending people were insulting you when you are TRYING to insult others by calling them chimpanzees that is pathetic. it makes you look like a child.

      we are apes. we are actually members of the great apes. we are not chimpanzees but they are very closely related to us. only different by 1% of our DNA.

      i gave you genuine responses. i dont understand how you think they were not genuine.

      so you dont believe in evolution and you dont believe in how did life get here? did it magically pop into existence? did all animals just appear as they presently are?

      listen. evolution is a fact. perhaps you should re-read y last post to you. i didnt insult you other than by saying that you really dont understand evolution. and you do not.

    35. You call yourself an ape. This is your right. I call myself a human being. This is my right.
      Evolution is an unprovable, speculative theory. Do you understand what the word 'theory' means? It means a concept, an idea, a guess. NOT a fact.

      You want to start with a 'big bang theory'? Fine. Who created the matter and the event of the big bang? Does your evolution theory cover this?


    36. Before you run your mouth any further, look up the scientific definition of theory and secondly, the big bang. Then find out what evolution is all about and after that read up on abiogenesis. Not that you'll do these things because it's obvious that you'd rather remain ignorant.

    37. @DarylTJ
      i know this post was directed at Epicurus but i couldn't let it stand. yes evolution states that we are apes but not in the way you seem to think. evolutionary theory never claims that we evolved from any animal still living. only that if you go back far enough we share a common ancestor. next "Evolution is an unprovable, speculative theory". really? not only am i willing to compare actual physical evidence for evolution with your ideas but i would also like to see any predictions that your idea has made that came true (reverse engineering from the answer you want doesn't qualify). look up the "long term e- coli evolution experiment" it shows evolution happening under direct observation in a repeatable, testable and verifiable manner. the theory of evolution remains a theory but do you know what is involved in becoming a scientific theory? has your alternate answer been accepted as scientific theory? evolution itself is a fact. ask experts in the related area of study and that will be confirmed. the theory is the description of how that fact occurs. much like the theory of gravity describes the manner in which the fact (gravity) works. i have no desire to discuss the origins of the universe,origins of life or the origins of our planet as they have nothing to do with evolution in general or this doc in particular. what i would like is answers to the questions i have asked without the ignorance, strawmen and downright avoidance you have shown so far

    38. "...but do you know what is involved in becoming a scientific theory?"

      Or, maybe even more importantly, what it takes to REMAIN a scientific theory, right? As soon as a theory is really out there, it's jumped all over like a honey-covered dog in a bear colony... And it has obviously got to be a pretty ferocious dog to make it through a ringer like that.

    39. @Brennilthos64

      I’ve just spotted this post and it caught my eye. (Not my evil eye)

      Theory huh...What about the “Theory of Evolution” One of the giants of the Scientific community still standing tall, hard and fast after all these years. Even though those rabid dogs of creationism and hounds of the young Earth have attacked over the decades, they have all broken their teeth on this pillar of granite. I love the way that it has also been adapted by fields such as aerodynamics in aeroplane design.

      This is just my theory; I believe it also applies to peoples writing style. And credit where it’s due, I’ve noticed this quite a bit of late, your mastery of metaphor is quite eye catching. Your sensitivity is touching (sorry, couldn’t resist it) and your wit is as sharp and as shiny as a silver spoon ;-) Oh btw, your honey covered dog sounds delicious, I might try I or 6.

      The Disinherited One

    40. Thank you. I try hard to make my comments interesting, without being overtly (meaning, pretentiously or condescendingly) literary, which can be a real gamble sometimes. The truth is, on a lot of these subjects I've forgotten (if I ever did know) a lot of the dry and sciency details... so what I'm left with then is attempting to dress up a quite plain girl to her best advantage, lol.

    41. There is nothing plain about her.

    42. thanks guys, i have been really busy as of late.

      you said it better than i would have.

    43. Evolutionists also state that we have genetic similarities with a banana (50%) too.

    44. Wrong. It's all evolution.

    45. CommentatorFJ, you've got to realize that the vast majority of processes happening in your body are carried out automatically on the cellular level.

      The machinery that copies DNA (polymerases), enzymes that transcribe RNA, the composition of ribosomes, the production of ATP, and the hundreds of necessary biomolecules and enzymes these biosynthesis pathways rely on are identical in all organisms.

      It is a verified fact that around ~15% of the genome of common rice matches human DNA. The key realization is that the most basic, autonomous processes occurring in your cells have little variation from even an E. coli cell (we share 2% of our DNA, but remember that E. coli only has 4,400 genes, and humans have over 23,000 genes). The genes that match E. coli are referred to as "housekeeping" genes. Google search that term with an honestly open mind, and you'll have a breakthrough. All life on Earth uses DNA and RNA and carries out cellular processes by means of protein catalysts (enzymes). All life on Earth uses ATP as a means of energy currency. All life on Earth... well you get the point.

      You don't look like a banana, you eat meat and have legs, a banana photosynthesizes and has roots, etc. I get that, and its great anecdotal evidence, but your body is made of cells just as a banana is, and those cells undergo some processes that are identical. This is why scientists have successfully used C. elegans as a model organism for half a century. Its a flatworm, but its genetic code works in an identical fashion to ours.

  98. Y'all are being so nice to DarrylTJ, but sadly, every single comment he made shows the misinformation about what science is and how it works being spread by fundamentalist Christians.

    But I'll be nice, too, and offer Darryl one of Ray Comfort's bananas.

    1. Why can't you spell Daryl, chimp? Even THIS is too hard for you?

    2. You learn first and then you keyboard, not the other way around. But I guess, this is too hard for you.

    3. "Why can't you spell Daryl, chimp?" -- umadbro?
      "Some chimp wrote:"
      "So if one of you learned chimpanzees"

      --for someone who keeps referring to other posters as "chimp" with the obvious intent to insult them, it's a little precious to be concerned about a typo, don't you think?

      It's very interesting that you got so concerned about an extra 'r' as if you aren't the one spelling "Darryl" with an alternate ("Darryl has 7 variant forms: Darrel, Darrell, Darryll, Daryl, Daryle, Daryll and Derryl."--from ThinkBabyNamesdotCom).

      See, even chimps can do internet research, its easy.

      Also, all you have done is make one fallacious assertion after another (as opposed to "fellatious insertion") about science on a board populated by scientists and educated laypeople alike.

    4. Bonobos can also do internet research on chimps and Daryl's (all seven of them).

    5. Now bonobos are a primate after my own heart!

    6. But can they mate with chimps? I can't seem to find the answer.


    8. Thank you. Yours is the first definite answer I've received. Now, is the offspring viable?

    9. yes

    10. That's interesting. Then why are each classed as a different species or am I perhaps misinterpreting?

    11. because we class things as different species if they are not going to mate by geographic distance alone.

    12. But as I understand it, chimps and bonobos are close both genetically and geographically.

    13. not close enough geographically that they would ever come into contact with one another naturally.

    14. I don't mean to sound dense, but how close is close or perhaps to phrase is in a more sophisticated fashion, how is closeness defined in this instance?

    15. <3 Wikipedia (with all the usual disclaimers). Bonobos and chimpanzees are both species in the the genus Pan. Interestingly, according to the wiki article,"Bonobos are capable of passing the mirror-recognition test for self-awareness."

    16. I'm not a bit surprised. Gorillas have been shown in general to have better short-term memories than humans. I guess we're not the acme of speciation as someone would have us believe.

    17. Please correct me if im incorrect... but check it... First they said nope no Neandrathal DNA in humans (my favorite anthro book third chimpanzee said it was cuz the gestation time was 12 months instead of ten)... then they said oh yes they were!! oh woops bad lab practice someone got there dna in the DNA machine lol... but the last thing i heard was a study after that where 8% of humans have neandrathal DNA (except sub-saharran africans)... doesn't this mean by the technical definition of the world (ability to mate and produce fertile offspring) neandrathals and sapiens are the same species... @Epicurus please take a stab at this too

    18. sometimes two species close enough can still breed. they will be called different species because usually they wont breed due to geographic barriers. however being humans we got through those barriers and mated with neanderthals who at the time were not long enough separated from our lineage.

      also I love some of the stuff Jared Diamond does but you gotta remember anthropology is not his specialty, its more of his hobby. however i do enjoy the third chimp, collapse, and guns germs and steel, which we have on this site btw.

    19. hey Epi, thanks for the quick reply. the god/existence comment and deepak chopra comment was for samuel morrissey not you i'm sorry i'm not good at posting and rather scatter brained... which actually helped me come to realize something (thanks to the doc) that probably all of you smart people theorized quite a while ago in ur own heads... this is anthro, Epi, right up ur alley...

      so, we have two major genetic bottlenecks in sapiens A)all living descended from one woman 150k ago B)all living descended from one man 50k ago...

      You see, this upset me for a long time, because it made me believe these two conditions were the result of conscious selective breeding and social structure (and obviously its still possible this could have had a role to play) , you know the way alpha wolves are the only ones allowed to mate ect ect...

      But when dawkins was interviewing the sex worker and alluded to the homozygous CCR5 mutation providing immunity the light bulb went on in my head. i would say, and i feel many of you would agree, that genetic bottle neck A & B was not due to a flood, or a volcano, or an ice age or an earthquake or a meteor or selective breeding. Nay, its a scarier thought even... i say genetic bottleneck A & B were brought about by a Virus... and that implication is actually scarier to me than all the other alternatives (which im sure could/would have played a role). I hope i've stated my wild hypothesis clearly, i won't go any further for fear of being redundant.

    20. the third bottleck ive always heard about was that everyone alive is the product of roughly 600 something breeding couples... but ive never fully understood if this was an actual third bottleneck or another way of explaining the first two.

    21. Can they? Not sure.

      Would they try? Probably!

    22. Epicurus informs me that they do.

      But you're right, those horney little devils would try.

    23. and KooKookacho, Epicurus, Over_the_Edge, Achems_Razor:

      Speaking of fallacious assertions, see how many you can spot in this message backed by former governor Fob James which appeared in public school biology textbooks used in Alabama from 1996 to 2001.

      "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals and humans.

      "No one was present when the life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact.

      "The word 'evolution' may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths for, for example, may 'evolve' into gray moths). This process is microevolution, which can be observed and described as fact. Evolution may also refer to the change of one living things to another such as reptiles into birds. This process, called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be considered as a theory. Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.

      "There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including:

      "Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil record (known as the 'Cambrian Explosion')?

      "Why have no new major groups of living things appeared in the fossil record for a long time?

      "Why do major groups of plants and animals have no transitional forms in the fossil records.

      "How did you and all living things come to possess such a comlpete and complex set of 'Instructions" for building a living body?

      . . ."

      I stopped counting at ten.

      The omitted conclusion bears the admonition to keep an open mind. So how in light of the foregoing drivel and the age and education of the students for whom this is intended, how can this be accomplished?

      Fundamentalist antics such as this contribute greatly to the stereotype of southerners as no more than ignorant hicks.

    24. Well the stickers were going into the textbook of Kenneth Miller. Not only is he one of the top evolutionary biologists of our day but he is also a practicing catholic who goes to church every sunday.

      When questioned about his reaction, Ken Miller said, to the reporter’s surprise, that he actually liked the sticker. However, he did come up with a more accurate disclaimer, which I have quoted below:

      DISCLAIMER: “This textbook contains material on science. Science is built around theories, which are strongly supported by factual evidence. Everything in science should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

      Theories are to scientists higher than facts, because theories serve to explain the facts. Every scientific theory, should it be evolution, gravity or atom theory, must always be approached by students with an open mind. Science is not a discipline that seeks to close minds. It does not build itself on certainties, but rather on the foundations of evidence.

      So i find it amazing that they would put that sticker in just to warn about the theory of evolution but not the theory of gravity or germ theory or atomic theory.

      now if i were to take apart that statement it would go like this:

      "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals and humans."

      only controversial to people with little to no education in biology or any science.

      "No one was present when the life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact."

      no one was present when most of the people on death row committed their crimes so we are only killing them based on

      "The word 'evolution' may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths for, for example, may 'evolve' into gray moths). This process is microevolution, which can be observed and described as fact."

      Yes it is observed and is a fact, however HOW it occurs is what we refer to as the theory. the theory explains how and why those changes occur.

      "Evolution may also refer to the change of one living things to another such as reptiles into birds. This process, called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be considered as a theory."

      macroevolution HAS been observed in many organisms just not specifically reptiles to birds. however there is enough corroborating evidence such as genetics and anatomy to point to birds coming from reptiles....and much much more evidence of birds coming from reptiles than there is of birds or reptiles just popping into existence in their present forms.

      "Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things."

      not undirected. very very directed. and it actually says that it produced a world of DIVERSE living things. abiogenesis produced living things. evolution diversified that life.

      "There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including:"

      that is an issue of abiogenesis not evolution.

      "Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil record (known as the 'Cambrian Explosion')?"

      there was a mass extinction and that left lots of room for animals to radiate into and fill niches.

      ""Why have no new major groups of living things appeared in the fossil record for a long time?"

      there hasnt been a mass extinction.

      "Why do major groups of plants and animals have no transitional forms in the fossil records."

      they do.

      ""How did you and all living things come to possess such a comlpete and complex set of 'Instructions" for building a living body?"

      take biochemistry and you might understand a little better. not a first year high school biology class.

      lol politicians are stupid.

    25. Congratulations. You get an A--and if I could give you a higher grade, I would, for you immediately got to the heart of the matter: "Why should biology be singled out?

      At least, the author's disclaimer was intelligent. The earlier disclaimer which mirrors others I have read contained not one grain of truth. And this passes for an education?

      Well, you're right, politicians are by and large stupid, except when it comes to the pseudo science of social Darwinism which fits them to a T and in which they excel, considering the intellectual caliber of most of those who elect them.

    26. I am only respecting your own opinion of yourselves when I call you 'chimps'. I myself consider us all to be Homo Sapiens, sentient human beings.

      I have indeed seen men who look a lot like monkeys, but I have not seen a monkey who is almost a human. Nor will you ever see such a thing.

      The spelling of my name is obvious to anyone with a 2nd grade education. How can I take those who can't even spell a five-letter word seriously?

    27. you are so confused as to what the theory of evolution is.

      why would anyone waste their time arguing against your straw men?

      we dont think we are chimps. we know we are primates same as chimps. but chimps are not humans and humans are not chimps.

      wolves are not dogs dogs are not wolves, but both are canines.

  99. And one other thing - Darwin's proposed "Transitional species" have NEVER EVER been found. Not a single one.

    1. Did it ever occur to you that every species on earth is transitional?

      Did you know that museums are chock full of so-called "transitional" species?

      Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

      Where did you get this drivel? It's so trite and threadbare, that it certainly didn't come from you?

    2. LOL Look in the mirror Jack

    3. Is this the best you can do, Darryl?

    4. oh my! that is very wrong. Instead of doing the work for you, I will tell you how you can find this information yourself (it may be a life lesson, you never know)

      1. Type "Transitional species" into a google search bar; you will notice that "Transitional FOSSILS" appear - this is the terminology you want to search (because robertallen1 is completely correct, we are all transitional species)

      2. One of the first links you will see is for wikipedia -- this is a good start for anyone looking for general information on any topic (but keep a skeptical mind, it is the internet after all; Tip: check the sources at the bottom and research those a little further if they are questionable)

      3. Read

      4. Ponder and compare against your current knowledge base; consider if your ideas need revising based on new information

      5. Grow intellectually and save face.

      Cheers and good luck =)

    5. Just have him google drug resistant TB. You can pretty well follow this transitioning of a species in real time. Pretty hard to argue the "transition" thing.

    6. Nice condescension - it becomes you!

    7. You're right about the condescension. All the intelligent ones who've responded to you are merely slumming, including yours truly.

    8. @DarylTJ:

      You say you are far removed from a christian, what are you then, an ID proponent? You must be attached to one of the thousands of religions out there.

      A book you should read is..."The Creationists"...By Ronald L. Numbers. Should give you some insight. Which I am just starting to read, thanks to @robertallen1: suggestion.

      And another thing, don't mess with our @KookKookaChoo: mess with her and you mess with us all. She said nothing that was really that condescending.

    9. *blushes* aww shucks, love you too TDF friends!

    10. So you started the book, too. Isn't it fascinating? Are you reading the regular or the expanded edition? Please let me know your thoughts.

    11. Threats now! Wow, you are sounding more and more like the Dark Ages Catholic Church. "Don't mess with KookKookaChoo" LOL!
      " mess with us all..." There is safety in numbers, huh?

      I imagine you to be the kind of person who would make Socrates drink poison for disagreeing with the theories of the time.

      Keep guessing bud......

    12. @DarylTJ

      Look up definition of a joke, and that is what it was, a joke plain and simple. And everyone knew that except you religee's. The only time that religee's can be happy is when they are doing their happy- clappy thing.

      A person has to scrapping the bottom of the barrel to use what I said as an argument for your creationist balderdash!

    13. *gasp* I was giving you advice, clearly no one taught you how to search for information on the internet (or you would not have made such an erroneous statement)

      But seriously, did you look up the information? or is that "too hard for you"?

      P.S. NOW you can say I have been condescending. (just letting you know, because it escaped you before)

    14. Keep up the good work. This fool and his loud keyboard deserve it!

    15. ive been reading thru this entire page... i decided to put it here to so somebody might check to see if it was an attack on Kookookachoo... (it's not) ... and it's @DarylT as well...i hope u read this... anyways i just gotta say... i love neurology... i really hope i get to specialize in it once residency comes around... so please don't start telling me i'm full of s*** what i'm giving IS AN OPINION (shared by many neurologists) not a fact)... but DarylT is partially onto something... the Cortex is a whole lot more sophisticated than it needs to be to survive in the ways that we have been (not the past 2000 years... lets say 50K? or 100k? or cortexs were just as big...) so it IS confusing... in that DarylT ur point is not completely dumb (just u claiming there are no transitional species is)

    16. (no worries! I didn't feel attacked at all)

      I didn't read the comment on the cortices of our brains, just the transitional species one.

      But I think your point is a neat one. Could you elaborate? Isn't the largest part of our brain the frontal lobe, where judgement and higher mental functioning occurs (which of course we have in comparison to other animals and even closely-related primates). Does neurology have a correlation between the amount of sophistication of the brain and the expected complexity of survival (i.e. that at a certain point an organism should be living a certain kind of existence vs another)? Would that not imply that there is some "goal" to evolution (which there most certainly is not)?

      (PS -- this is not an attack either! lol, I am actually curious, I hope it doesn't sound sarcastic or anything, because it is not meant to!!)

      (PPS -- I did a nursing rotation on a neurology unit and loved it!! we had to go through all the physical and mental assessments because you never know what might be affected -- so much learning! It is hard work compared to the other units because you have to be so diligent, but the rewards are worth it -- plus any unit you are on after that will seem like a breeze! best of luck!!)

    17. Thanks vikash!

    18. serious? dinosaurs had feathers brah... like the raptors from jurrassic park, fact not fiction

  100. People who believe they are animals may laugh at my post. I don't care.
    But my comments follow plain logic.

    Something made an amphibian crawl out of the swamp. Something made it turn into a mammal. Something made the mammal turn into a primate. Something made the primate turn into a human.

    Humans are supposed to be the most highly evolved species on earth.

    So if one of you learned chimpanzees could explain why evolution would dead-end some creatures' evolution at BIRD, DOG, GORILLA, OR FISH, and not let them evolve on to HUMAN, I might just buy this fatally flawed 'theory'.

    People seem to confuse 'adaptation' with 'evolution'. Remember one thing, Darwin's theory is a THEORY.

    1. How about reading up on evolution and especially what a scientific theory is before keyboarding a squib as uneducated as this? Your post is unique in that everything in it is wrong.

      Other than ignorance, what are your qualifications for going up against evolution--"plain logic" won't do.

    2. "Something made an amphibian crawl out of the swamp. Something made it turn into a mammal. Something made the mammal turn into a primate. Something made the primate turn into a human."

      Mutation, Gene Drift, Gene Flow, and Natural Selection. all those things "made" those organisms change.

      "Humans are supposed to be the most highly evolved species on earth."

      this is absolutely wrong. there is no such thing as the most highly evolved. all species are highly evolved to fit the niche they are in. humans are not the end goal of evolution. there is no goal. there is only constant change and adaptation.

      "So if one of you learned chimpanzees could explain why evolution would dead-end some creatures' evolution at BIRD, DOG, GORILLA, OR FISH, and not let them evolve on to HUMAN, I might just buy this fatally flawed 'theory'."

      i just explained it above for you. your problem is you think evolution has some conscious goal to create an organism like humans. but that is very wrong.

      "People seem to confuse 'adaptation' with 'evolution'. Remember one thing, Darwin's theory is a THEORY."

      a theory is an explanation of a fact. you know germ theory, atomic theory, gravitational theory. all theories. all explain the facts of germs, atoms, gravity and evolution.

      so maybe instead of pretending you understand science enough to scoff at people who dedicate their lives to it you could take the time to actually learn it and understand it? might keep you from making such ignorant posts for the entire world to see.

  101. Poor dumb Wendy Wright....

  102. Lol at DarylTJ. Why would every species evolve into humans? Who says we are succeeding? Some scientists speculate we might have already killed ourselves.

  103. Darwin was an idi*t. If his theory was correct, EVERY species would have evolved into Mankind by now.

    1. @DarylTJ
      i am hoping you are just trolling. if not wow. it is obvious that you do not understand Darwin's theory at all . species evolve to better survive within an environment. are you suggesting that fish aren't better suited to survive underwater, cactus aren't better suited to survive in the desert, bats aren't better suited to hunt at night and so on and on and on? please tell me you didn't pass biology in school because if so there are some that should be left behind

    2. troll or ignorance?

  104. I feel like the altruistic behaviors of humans, and other mammals, probably stem from the fact that we must care for our young for a long time in order ensure their survival. We must care about our offspring or else they will die (a child cannot care for itself obviously). And if we have the ability to selflessly care for our children, then we have the capacity to care for others as well. I just feel like that seems so obvious. Nonetheless, I enjoyed watching this.

  105. In this world, all the beings are classified into four categories: (1) Andaja, that which is born out of an egg. (2) Pindaja, that which is born out of the mother's womb, (3) Uthbhija, that which is born out of the earth (4) Swedaja, that which is born out of sweat. Under each category, there are 21 lakh types of species. Hence, it is said that there are 84 lakh species in God's creation.

    Today man is subjected to hardships because he has forgotten the source of his origin. Fish is born out of water. It cannot survive even for a while without water. It is happy only when it is in water, the place of its origin. What is the source of man's origin? Lord Krishna declared in the Gita, "Mamaivamsho Jeevaloke Jeevabhuta Sanathanaha." (The eternal Atma in all beings is a part of My Being.) From this it is evident that man is a spark of the Divine. He has originated from the principle of Atma. Having been born from the Atma, man should always contemplate on the Atma. He will become restless and face hardships if he forgets the Atma. So, never forget the Atma, the place of your origin. Have faith in the Atma. Respect it and revere it. Treat Atma as the basis of your life. This is the Dharma that man should adhere to. You may occupy positions of authority. You may have wealth and prosperity. But none of them can protect you. Only faith in the Self can protect you. You may involve yourself in any work you like but you should have unwavering faith in the Atma.

    1. Religious crap on a Dawkin's documentary, u must be out yo mind foo! We do not take kindly to your dogma, and the point of this documentary is to hopefully wedge it out of existence. Good try to sound scientific and knowledgeable however most of the intellectuals on this site do see right through it, and to the heard and core of the BS that it is. My point is... You missed the point.

  106. Darwin was an british eugenic fack

  107. Within the last 45 minutes, I have received 15 of your rants in addition to the religious drivel you have been sending out all afternoon and into the night. Your comments to Over the Edge and Epicurus, among others, epitomize the ignorant and superstitious attempting to go up against the educated and enlightened and, as expected, failing miserably.

    Furthermore, it is a waste of my time and everyone else's to be pestered by someone like you with nothing to offer. I doubt if anyone here cares what you think you believe or for that matter, what you "think." I also don't believe that anyone here is interested in your fairy-tale concept of a supreme being which is entirely ungermane to this documentary or your untutored ejaculations about fields of study you know nothing about.

    I suggest you read article 9 of the comment policy which militates against using this thread as a personal pulpit such as you have been doing. Failure to discontinue the practice might result in one of the administrators curtailing your posting privileges--and no one would be more delighted about it than I.

  108. In response to more of your posts:

    1. The word god does not have to be capitalized, e.g., music is my god.

    2. Repetition is no evidence of lack of randomness. Suppose one tosses three heads in a row? It strains the senses to regard this as preordained, the same with evolution.

    3. Which ancient historians mention Christ (and by these I mean those fairly contemporary to him)? For your information, there are only two non-biblical sources and both of these are just a few words and, if I recall, they don't even use the name Jesus Christ.

    4. Do you have any idea how unreliable hand-me-down testimony is? Do you realize that, contrary to what you write, we have no eye-witness testimony of the crucifiction or for that matter of anything else pertaining to the person called Jesus and that Gospels were not named for their attributed authors until later? Have you ever taken a course in biblical history or read up on the subject?

    5. There's a fine documentary on this site entitled "Lost Gospels." Perhaps if you were to view it, you would see how your beloved "essence" changed radically throughout the first two or three centuries.

    6. When you have to justify the concept of a god by stating that it cannot be approached rationally (i.e., we have to take your word for it) then your whole "thinking" is no good, for by pushing for the abrogation of all reasoning, you render yourself pathetic and inferior and a poor one for telling people how to lead their lives and what to think as you have been doing all afternooon in your posts.

    1. 1. The word God has to be capitalized when used as proper noun, you gave me an example of common noun.
      2. When the same(=identical) fractals appear again and again that is exactly the opposite of randomness.
      3. Search for yourself the name of ancient historian, you have internet or go to library
      4. I believe the Bible and the testimony of saints who had the vision of crucifixion. If YOU don’t accept what is in the Bible that’s YOUR problem.
      5 I was enrolled in theology classes for three years, we studies the “lost” gospels, their message is not canonic. (Why would you believe the apocryphal writing and not the canonic ones?)
      6. Rationality doesn’t suffice, through enlightenment we can have a different type of knowing, the divine one. I can testify it is amasing.

    2. There may be such things as Gnosis...but bc it is not the kind of information others can share in and so has no place in science. Religion divides people into tribes and has no place in the modern world being held up as an image of morality. Just like nature and science does not discriminate, and the same vaccine works on all people. So have DNA studies just how closely related we all are,

    3. I get it. 1984.

  109. @Alelei

    You seem to get things wrong. I never said there was no creator--I stated that there has been nothing so far as to make me believe in one (or two or three), but that stating that something is irreducibly complex (which is impossible) and then a priori attributing it to a creator is intellectually dishonest and certainly not science. I hope this clarifies this issue for you.

  110. @Alelei

    In response to your various posts:

    1. Science only in science classes. Non-scientific religious nonsense such as intelligent design has no place in the classroom.

    2. You can also ask why believers are bothered by atheists? Personally I'm bothered by religionists not only because most are basically ignorant, but because they try to spread their ignorance. I refuse to tolerate dogma, conjecture, superstition and lack of scholarship passing as knowledge.

    3. In general, modern day atheists (unfortunately there's no better or more accurate term for them) are in general much smarter and better educated than religionists. I'll pit Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris against any one of them.

    4. What do you mean by religious scholarship, biblical scholarship perhaps or comparative religion or religious history. Now, these are valid fields of study. Anything outside this general purview (i.e., anything normative) is not scholarship.

    5. How do you know so much about "god." And don't mention Filocalia. It's authors knew no more about "god" than anyone else.

    6. What do fractals (or fractal geometry) have to do with with a supreme being or for that matter with religion as you seem to assert?

    7. While we're on the meanings of words, syntax does not mean the words themselves, but rather the order in which they are placed. The only time syntax affects semantics is when the order of the words changes meaning. This happens in non-inflected languages such as English, French, Spanish. It could never happen in Latin.

    8. What makes you think that things don't happen at random, that everything's preordained, ergo there is no such thing as probability?

    I will not treat what I believe to be the depth of your knowledge for we have been admonished by the administration to be civil and polite.

    1. You just proved that atheists are not that smarts.

  111. I would never enter into a discussion about the existence or non-existence of a deity via Darwin's theory of evolution. One of the greatest scholar in history of religion I. P. Culiano - a true rennaissance man with a very broad education at one point studied fractals and said that paradoxically in the Middle Age religion and physics became divergent and slowly physics gained authority over the belief in God, but physics at one point will be able to prove that God exist.
    Things are not randomly happen, that should make us think seriously!

  112. One, considering the fact that religion is not so much as SUGGESTED in public schools offers a rather biased view. Public schools end up suggesting evolution and natural selection, but never religion. What's "scandalous" is that only one side of the argument is presented. Presented, not forced, but only one nonetheless. Plenty of the Bible has content written about Jesus while he was alive. Secondly, did you know that Christians say "OH MY DARWIN!!" when we're freaked or something? Yeah, true story. Thirdly, not once had Mr. Dawkins ever present a single piece of viable evidence to support his case. It was all mostly theory and concept after theory and concept. One cannot consider an idea of concept a "fact" until proven, and nothing can actually be proven in the scientific realm. Time does indeed change things, but not the way animals breed. Humans make love because it's fun. Animals breed whilst keeping a hierarchy of sorts in mind: elites breed with elites. This allows for a section of the said species to possess a higher rate of survival. Fourthly, I really would love to see some data, charts, and flowsheets. Any form of data, hit me with it. My Christian belief system is completely based on faith. Well, not entirely. Many towns, cities, locations, and landmarks (usually large boulders) have been mentioned in the bible, THEN discovered. Do the math; I'm sure you know what I mean.

    I saw a post someways down a-there about how the early Christians "broke" from the Jews. Sadly, most of you have never actually READ the Bible at all. It really is very obvious. Please don't even try to argue with me on this one. Go read it. Then you know that, based on faith, 12 dudes (they had jobs and girlfriends) left their lives to follow some stranger who wasn't famous, good-looking, strong, or anything physically special. This dude apparently healed people who were lame, sick, maimed, dying, and even dead. I believe that? I believe that in faith. So yeah, this dude named Jesus blew the ideas and not-entirely-true teachings of highly esteemed teachers (basically, the rest of the population were kept stupid - but it wasn't like that for the majority of the Judaic population) out of the water, pissed 'em off, and so they killed him because he made them look like complete morons. He died for us. At least, that's my faith speaking. You know, most people imagine. We dream, we think. We aspire. We hope. And we rationalize. But hope and dreaming always win the fight. That's why we're human, not heartless s.o.b.'s.

    I've got just as little (and much, if you want to speak on actual terms here) [VIABLE] evidence to support my claims as evolutionists do. I don't believe either side will win until the end days. Then we'll find out.

    I formed, ohh, roughly 80 counter-arguments against Dawkins during he first hour of this show. And the surprising thing is that they were formed effortlessly.

    One question: How DID apes "evolve" into human beings? I've read over 12 Biology books over the past four years. They've all stated that there is no "link" between Apes and humans. None at all. Until I see actually hard evidence, based on viable research with results agreed upon by 100% of all the types of scientists in the world, the theory of evolution is kaput. If it's a theory, it isn't a "cold hard fact". That logic just fails me. Gravity is a theory, sure. How do we know it's not the idea of being pulled to a large object being constantly transmitted via brainwaves from all across planet earth, that's doing it? Like a telepathic signal? Stupid concept, yeahhh, but the same principles apply. Don't say it's a cold hard fact. It isn't. In all honesty, BOTH sides of the argument has serious gaps in walls of evidence. Oh, by the way, the fossil contained in the rock one of the students found was a giant, calcified milipede. Milipedes, when in their death throes, often curl up into a spiral with their head placed at the center.

    I'd rather believe that when I die, it ain't gonna be just a dead, black, empty stop for me. Nah. I'd think that, as such intelligent creatures that we humans are, we're here for a much greater purpose than just tiddle along and live our lives, as if they were worthless.

    In short, if the theory of evolution really is indeed the "cold, hard, undeniable [UNDENIABLE, he says. Psh, I'll come up with a counter-example for every argument you raise up] truth [truth? really? Watch your choice of words, please]", then most everyone would have accepted it by now. But see, the only reason only 32% of scientists (not even talking about the normal population of the world here) actually have a firm faith in this theory is that there's no evidence VIABLE evidence.

    I think I should sleep now. Way past my bed time. xD

  113. Also, carbon dating is a handful of cat puke. I'm sure we can all agree on that. Secondly, during the ages also known as the "Bible times", they didn't have printing presses. You wanted paper? You killed a goat, gutted it, skinned it, dried the skin out, and boom, 6 sheets of crappy paper right there. This took 8 months to do. Then, you had to make the ink by crushing seashells, then mixing the powder with camel piss and wheat soaked in water. Thirdly, if you wanted to shoot your buddy an e-mail, you'd walk 20 miles. It would take you a day or two, if you were lucky. These manuscripts weren't in great condition by the time they reached their final destination, and even then, a good amount of them were lost or destroyed. Of course they'll vary, no duh. A brick could have pointed that out. Also, the changes were minor. Very minor. As in, what color clothing what person was wearing. And considering that King James had his OWN version of the bible written (based on what they had previously, yes, but still a different version), and considering that most churches (mainly the Catholic church, which 1. places Mary as a goddess of sorts, putting her above God, and 2. believes you can get to heaven by being good [wait, whut? Really? If that's the case, we're all screwed over. Times ten.], thus making Catholics NOT Christians at all, by definition) uses this copy, dang. Of course it's gonna be blurry.

    I'll come up with more sound defenses tomorrow. Time to sleep.

    1. Why?

    2. You need more than sleep, such as courses in radiometrics and organization of thoughts.

  114. One, considering the fact that religion is not so much as SUGGESTED in public schools offers a rather biased view. Public schools end up suggesting evolution and natural selection, but never religion. What's "scandalous" is that only one side of the argument is presented. Presented, not forced, but only one nonetheless. Plenty of the Bible has content written about Jesus while he was alive. Secondly, did you know that Christians say "OH MY DARWIN!!" when we're freaked or something? Yeah, true story. Thirdly, not once had Mr. Dawkins ever present a single piece of viable evidence to support his case. It was all mostly theory and concept after theory and concept. One cannot consider an idea of concept a "fact" until proven, and nothing can actually be proven in the scientific realm. Time does indeed change things, but not the way animals breed. Humans make love because it's fun. Animals breed whilst keeping a hierarchy of sorts in mind: elites breed with elites. This allows for a section of the said species to possess a higher rate of survival. Fourthly, I really would love to see some data, charts, and flowsheets. Any form of data, hit me with it. My Christian belief system is completely based on faith. Well, not entirely. Many towns, cities, locations, and landmarks (usually large boulders) have been mentioned in the bible, THEN discovered. Do the math; I'm sure you know what I mean.

    I saw a post someways down a-there about how the early Christians "broke" from the Jews. Sadly, most of you have never actually READ the Bible at all. It really is very obvious. Please don't even try to argue with me on this one. Go read it. Then you know that, based on faith, 12 dudes (they had jobs and girlfriends) left their lives to follow some stranger who wasn't famous, good-looking, strong, or anything physically special. This dude apparently healed people who were lame, sick, maimed, dying, and even dead. I believe that? I believe that in faith. So yeah, this dude named Jesus blew the ideas and not-entirely-true teachings of highly esteemed teachers (basically, the rest of the population were kept st*pid - but it wasn't like that for the majority of the Judaic population) out of the water, pissed 'em off, and so they killed him because he made them look like complete m*rons. He died for us. At least, that's my faith speaking. You know, most people imagine. We dream, we think. We aspire. We hope. And we rationalize. But hope and dreaming always win the fight. That's why we're human, not heartless s.o.b.'s.

    I've got just as little (and much, if you want to speak on actual terms here) [VIABLE] evidence to support my claims as evolutionists do. I don't believe either side will win until the end days. Then we'll find out.

    I formed, ohh, roughly 80 counter-arguments against Dawkins during he first hour of this show. And the surprising thing is that they were formed effortlessly.

    One question: How DID apes "evolve" into human beings? I've read over 12 Biology books over the past four years. They've all stated that there is no "link" between Apes and humans. None at all. Until I see actually hard evidence, based on viable research with results agreed upon by 100% of all the types of scientists in the world, the theory of evolution is kaput. If it's a theory, it isn't a "cold hard fact". That logic just fails me. Gravity is a theory, sure. How do we know it's not the idea of being pulled to a large object being constantly transmitted via brainwaves from all across planet earth, that's doing it? Like a telepathic signal? Stupid concept, yeahhh, but the same principles apply. Don't say it's a cold hard fact. It isn't. In all honesty, BOTH sides of the argument has serious gaps in walls of evidence. Oh, by the way, the fossil contained in the rock one of the students found was a giant, calcified milipede. Milipedes, when in their death throes, often curl up into a spiral with their head placed at the center.

    I'd rather believe that when I die, it ain't gonna be just a dead, black, empty stop for me. Nah. I'd think that, as such intelligent creatures that we humans are, we're here for a much greater purpose than just tiddle along and live our lives, as if they were worthless.

    In short, if the theory of evolution really is indeed the "cold, hard, undeniable [UNDENIABLE, he says. Psh, I'll come up with a counter-example for every argument you raise up] truth [truth? really? Watch your choice of words, please]", then most everyone would have accepted it by now. But see, the only reason only 32% of scientists (not even talking about the normal population of the world here) actually have a firm faith in this theory is that there's no evidence VIABLE evidence.

    I think I should sleep now. Way past my bed time. xD

  115. any chance we could be nice to each other on here???

    1. Why?

  116. Note to self: Subtle sarcasm, falls upon deaf ears of the "supposed intelligentsia.

  117. I enjoyed watching this very much. Although, I think Mr. Dawkins was a little rough on the teachers who don't openly challenge their students beliefs in god or the bible. The teachers present the material and it's up to the individual to either accept it or not or to do more research or not. Other then that, I found the doc to be very well done and a nice tribute to Charles Darwin. I learned a lot and I am grateful for that. Thank you!

    1. i think the teachers are meant to teach the material not just present it. they are to teach what is correct.

      until we start teaching kids logic at younger ages we still need to instruct them on what is correct or we will have them deciding for themselves that storks bring babies.

    2. For God sake, NO! What you say opens the door for manipulation! Teachers need to teach students critical thinking! If they start to teach what is "correct" (what is correct?) the students will be a pack of brainwashed semi-apes.
      We know bits of truths, who can have the claim that is in the possession of truth?

    3. Why?

    4. Because God/nature likes diversity.

    5. when we teach geology, maths, sciences, etc we are teaching objective observable facts. we are not brainwashing.

    6. Try to read again my post so you don't waste my time.

    7. you said if the teachers teach what is correct then they will be brainwashed.

      I agree we need to teach them critical thinking but after that, we teach them what is correct.

      dont be so rude.

  118. @ vlatko, epicurus and achems
    thanks for another year of great work and the education. if as admin and moderators the the comments you see before moderation are crazier than the ones posted you all deserve a couple of drinks lol. and merry xmas to all the posters here (even those i argue with lol)

    1. Merry Xmas to you also, yes, before moderation some of the comments are....I don't think crazy would describe it. lol

    2. lol just saw this comment today. thanks for that. you have a great new year also and hope you had a good christmas.

      lol you have no idea how crazy some of the comments are...but achems is a machine when it comes to moderating. he seems to be doing it by the hour sometimes lol.

  119. How can I take the cotent of the Bible seriously, when only one of the major books of the bible speaks of an earthquake on the day of the crucifixion and the three others do not. Or why is it that there isn't a story told of Jesus in any other text from any country or culture, untill the third century? Or why is it that there wasn't anything written about Jesus while he was alive? And why do believers believe a document that was supposedly inspired yet includes so many contradictions? Maybe because none of the authors the bible were alive when any of these myths would have taken place.

  120. Robert Allen - thanks for your comment.

    I agree with your assessment of "Satan". I understand the title: "The Satan" was an honorable title among ancient Jews which meant what you mentioned and more.

    A phrase deriving, or an echo, of that ancient time is: "Devil's Advocate." Meaning a person appointed to give the minority view on a subject or more appropriately, to ask the hard questions others are afraid to ask.

    In the Book of Job see how Yahweh and Satan are buddies sitting around bull****ting when a friendly argument ensues about the nature of worship so they bet each other on how much s*** can be piled on Job and still have him respond as a obsequious twit.

    It was not until the early Christians broke from the Jews and found the specter of Satan ideal for 'demonizing' those who did not agree with them did "The Satan" gradually stop being an honorific and become a constantly embellished myth to frighten children and adults.

  121. I am so fed up with the religulous refusing to accept evolution in spite of the mountains of evidence that proves it.

    If you wish to believe Yahweh (or the entity It created; Satan {interesting Yahweh is not powerful enough to control Its own creations}) was a prankster deity and hid fossils to make believe evo happened when it really (in your view) did not, than do so in the privacy of your own home not the public schools.

    It is bad enough you religulous are screwing up your children's minds, you do not have a right to warp every school child in America to your dark side, superstitious, bronze age misinterpretations of your so-called holy book written by men to hold down anyone who did not look like them and subjugate women.

    If you want to believe in religion in spite of all the evil it has caused, than go right ahead, it is your right to do so. However do as your Jesus told you and pray quietly in your closet, quit forcing it on the public.

    Peace and Love

    1. Hooray! I like your exposition of Yahweh's lack of control via Satan. Interestingly, the term Satan is Greek for accuser and in older literature he wasn't the sinister being he later came to be.

      As for the schools, the term religious education seems almost like an oxymoron.

      On a more personal note, I like subjugating women. The problem is that I'm not very good at it.

    2. That must lead to frustration.

    3. Religion didn't cause evil but humans who used it inappropriately. Those who really changed and became spiritual did a lot of great things.
      I believe in evolution but that doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. I take the book of creation as a metaphor.

  122. I am starting to realize that people don't read posts past the first line or two. Then they formulate these amazing arguments...

    I have had a few people agree with me in their reply, while yelling at me, as to how misguided my ideas are in the most vehement terms....hmmmm

    Oh well, I'll keep plugging away. After all, my take is still only an opinion.

    1. I have no idea what you believe and I don't like jokesters.

  123. Squirrels eat acorns because it is GOD'S WILL. Set your blasphemous 'science' aside for one moment and look at this example with unbiased eyes.

    In all the forest probably the least tasty thing to eat would be acorns. They are very, very bitter. There are lots of berries and edible fungi, are there not? So why would squirrels CHOOSE to eat something unpleasant? Do you really thin an animal would EVOLVE to eat something it doesn't like simply to retro-prove Darwin's ill thought out theory?

    Why do Darwinists insist on trying to prove an unbelievable nonsense that only serves to make them unhappy?

    1. They eat them for nutrition. Did it ever occur to you that what might taste bitter to us might not taste bitter to squirrels or perhaps that squirrels like the bitter taste?

      Evolution has nothing to do with what animals eat.

      So leave your ignorance of evolution and your idiotic religion out of it.

    2. Why are atheists bothered by someone who believes? Why not practicing tolerance?
      We have free will and we can choose.

    3. Careful pan thor; Yahweh's will (or as you say:"GOD'S WILL ") is a sophistic argument. If your neighbor runs over your child playing in his driveway; is that "GOD'S WILL ?"

    4. Two possibilities, both epitomized in the OT:

      1. God is benevolent.

      2. God is p.o.'d about something.

    5. Maybe God allows it for a reason, He has the big picture we don't.
      As light and darkness exist, God and dark angels exist. When we are losing our divine protection because of sins, the evil can harm us.
      If you can access the Filocalia volumes the pure wisdom of the early Christian saints, you will not ask such questions anymore!

    6. read a book please

  124. I don't think that Darwin's Theory is exactly correct. If Natural selection says for say " due to squirrels eating a trees acorns, a tree will only produce so many acorns at a certain time." am i right? But trees can't think. Why does evolution say that we are all once made from nearly the same embryo millions and millions of years ago? Humans are clearly different than than other animal. Animals may be closely related,and even with the nearly the same genetics. But evolution is only an idea its not the only way. The world being made of a hot,dense, microscopic piece of matter? and then suddenly bursting? I believe these are just sciences best ways to explain how things are and how its orginated.

    1. You must learn to know something about what you write before you write about it and pay no heed to the type of people I think you have been listening to.

      1. The most elementary study of biology and especially comparative anatomy would demonstrate to you that man is really no different from the other animals, except for one ability--and this does not make him "clearly" different.

      2. A cursory look at natural selection (which is what I think you are referring to) would make you realize that it deals with survival based on adaptability to environment. Squirrels eating acorns has nothing to do with it.

      3. Contrary to what I believe you have been told, evolution is the only scientifically proved explanation of life's processes which we know of today. If you can come up with anything else as scientific and more accurate, more power to you, but it is highly unlikely. However, remember, anything unscientific is worthless.

      4 Try to put a little sense into what you write. "The world being made of a hot, dense, microscopic piece of matter? and then suddenly bursting?" is not only an incomplete sentence but shows an appalling lack of education and logic. How can the earth be a "dense, microscopic piece of matter?"

      So far, you are typical of many of the ignoramuses who post here, but you can cure that.

    2. I like your response. I still have to suggest that, regardless of your argument, you are still battling 1000's of years of indoctrination.

      Science still has to prove itself...even though it has 10's of 1,000,000's of years of provable facts.

      The "bible" don't you know, needs no explanation. It IS the word of GOD. Therefore, right or left, or in between...we'll never know till God tells us.

      Til then, please accept it as the "truth

      Kind regards,

      Some other guy with an opinion

    3. I hope you're not serious!

    4. I think he's serious

    5. How could I be serious? We are talking about the serious argument of Faith...

      Yewah, I take it all back.

      The Bible should be taken as fact. Nothing else on earth matters....

      How silly of me, to suggest otherwise. Now I will pray for forgiveness...

      Dog(oops, dyslexia, I meant OGD), told me, I am forgiven. Now I can go back outside and play.

    6. Again, I wonder if you're serious.

    7. Poor soul.

    8. "you are still battling 1000's of years of indoctrination". Which religion do you refer to? Christianity exists for more than 19 centuries, Budhism more, Islam about 13 centuries, Hinduism is older, make it more clear please. Why associating religion only with Christianity?

    9. Well. I am pretty "neutral" in my pick. You failed to mention Tao, and Buddism.

      But either hold no candle to Christianity. This is the ONE religion. All others must bow to it.

      Christian religoin requires us to believe in a God that contols our every action. We can talk to him and expect, what?

      Got a problem with it? Call on God...your Granny died, no problem...she's in a better place.

      War killed millions? It was ordained by God.

      A snake talked to you? You're missing a rib? Well, stop complaining, Jebus, is coming to relieve the questions.

    10. Sory but your ego is bigger than the amount of knowledge.
      These are not strong arguments that dismiss God's existence.
      Don't live with the illusion that atheists are the smart guys and the religious are ignoramuses. The more you will read you will meet the writings of highly educated religious scholars!

    11. Your comments are educating me in countless ways.

    12. Neither can squirrels. Evolution is a mechanical process. You are basically taking a robot with a certain software which is chemically programmed, shaking up the programming via sexual reproduction, and then seeing which software (DNA) survives to shake up another branch.
      Also, it isn't a "theory" as in postulation, it is a "theory" as in the "theory of gravity". Evolution is a cold fact. We know that absolutely. Almost all modern medicine is based on it, and all genetic science confirms it. You do not have the wiggle room to not believe it and to square your world view with reality.

  125. Psychologists and anthropologists are scientists and computer scientists are not? Which subject in psychology and anthropology taught you about programming languages? Are you the only one around who have studied biology? It is a requirement for most of us too. I am the one who is qualified to talk about programming and you are not.
    The psalmist says, "In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God." Psalms 10:4
    I would suppose if evolution does not work on chance, it must be based on some kind of natural law or design? Glad you are coming around to my side. I do believe that there are many well designed natural laws.

    1. @rickydisqus
      first lets call it as it is. you are a creationist. judging from your posts you believe in god , so lets drop designer and just say god. second computer science is as much a part of science as political science is. the term is used to define a way of collecting knowledge and approaching a subject .i was a programmer and i am not insulting the knowledge or effort required. can you please show me where evolutionary theory says we came about by chance? also your examples of a program or a piece of paper are irrelevant. you compare living to non living .next evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe or the origins of life . instead of showing your ignorance of evolution how about you provide your empirical evidence for your beliefs and i will show the empirical evidence for evolution and we will compare notes lastly (so i know what flavor of creationist you are) how old do you believe the earth is and were we (and all living things) created at the same time and as they appear today?

    2. First of all God is with capital letters, Over The Edge.
      Loosen up you ego.

    3. @Aleteia
      out of everything i posted the fact i didn't capitalize god is what you choose to bring up? followed up by "Loosen up you ego. " really? i believe we (humans) are completely insignificant when you look at the age and vastness of the universe. you on the other hand believe that everything was "created" just for us and i have an ego ? also "We should not forget that it was by word of mouth eye witnesses transmitted the story, the essence is important" so you know they were eye witness testimonies? why then are there so many contradictions with itself,logic and history? and if it only the essence that is important then it is not a book of facts only moral tales.

    4. I can offer you a motto:
      "If you cannot convince, confuse"

    5. @Aleteia:

      Who said your gods should be written in capital letters, Hmm?
      Are you going to tell the inquisition on us, burning at the stake is so passe. Are you afraid of thunderbolts from the sky maybe?

    6. We write names with capital letters, we name the deity God or we could call it Jahve, or Eli, or Elohim or Adonai.
      Why do we write names with capital letters? because they are proper nouns, and because we show respect.

    7. As usual, you have it wrong. As I have elucidated in a previous post, the word god is not always capitalized. e.g., "He does not believe in a god." So get off it!

      Now, we capitalize the initial letters of names as a sign of respect, e.g., Richard Nixon. Is that why "I" is always capitalized, out of respect for the ego?

      Where do you get your "information?"

    8. What's to respect, no one has ever seen a god/gods, they are invisible, only in peoples minds. Show me a god.

    9. No, considering you name I think you are more into that.

    10. That my dear is considered an "ad hominem" attack.

    11. One possible answer: touche
      Other possible answer: you've been hurt dear?
      Need counseling?

    12. Counselling? You do not even have a clue to what you are talking about on our beloved TDF. never mind being a counsellor.

    13. "I would suppose if evolution does not work on chance, it must be based on some kind of natural law or design." What an ignorant non sequitur--and from a computer programmer yet.

      However, I'm happy to see that you approve of many of the natural laws, just as I approve of many computer programs.

      In the future, spare us your puling, irrelevant quotations!

    14. "Psychologists and anthropologists are scientists and computer scientists are not?"

      computer sciences do not relate to the life sciences. very different.

      "Which subject in psychology and anthropology taught you about programming languages?"

      linguistics did and linguistic anthropology.

      "Are you the only one around who have studied biology?"

      in university with a focus on evolution. you literally can not learn biology without evolution, otherwise nothing makes sense. could you explain to me why god would design our eye upside down, or give us wisdom teeth? i know evolution can!

      " I am the one who is qualified to talk about programming and you are not."

      yes computer programming. not DNA.

      "The psalmist says, "In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God." Psalms 10:4"

      yes so what? in the quran it says "If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).

      they are both JUST BOOKS. they are not inerrant.

      "I would suppose if evolution does not work on chance, it must be based on some kind of natural law or design?"

      that is as stupid as saying that water turns into ice in cold environments because an intelligent force is making the molecules slow down....NATURAL SELECTION, works on mutations to create evolution.

      go back to school and take something that is worth while and will actually let you understand the world you live in rather than just useless degrees that get you money.

    15. Well put, as usual.

      But for my own enlightenment, I don't see how liguistics as I know it relates to programming languages. Also, what is linguistic anthropology?

      As for your last paragraph, you're right; most people equate learning with the dollar--this makes Cantor and Abel failures.

    16. oh goodness linguistic anthropology is possibly the only thing more tedious and boring than just plain linguistics.

      it looks at how languages in different cultures influence those cultures. pretty complex but VERY interesting.

      if you havent, check out the documentary, Stephen Fry's Planet Word. it is basically linguistic anthropology. we used to have it on the site but it was taken down. im sure you can find it as a torrent.

    17. Thanks for the reply, but there seems to be a contradiction. In your first paragraph, you describe linguistic anthropology as tedious and in the second very interesting. Which is it? (And yes, I know the judgment is subjective.)

      My own studies, however superficial, indicate that basically culture influences (reflects) languages, not the other way around. Your thoughts.

    18. tedious to begin to grasp then once you get the core theories it is interesting.

      also learning it in a lecture hall by a boring dry professor is tedious but watching Stephen Fry explore swearing makes it interesting.

      if you look up the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis you will see that they suggest it might be the other way around.

      take the example of certain languages that use masculine and feminine to describe particular nouns. think of the word Bridge in German, it is die Brücke, which is feminine. when asked to describe a bridge they give it very feminine features such as beautiful, fragile, peaceful, etc.

      whereas spanish speakers use the word el puente for bridge and it is masculine. when asked to describe a bridge they will use terms like strong, sturdy, dangerous, tough.

      look up studies by Lera Boroditsky.

    19. Perhaps I was unclear. When I meant language, I implied its structure.

      However, I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that in general, a Mexican will describe a bridge in basically the same way as a Castillian, a Peruvian in the same way as a Puerto Rican, a Chilean in the same way as a Fillipino? Even if this generalization is correct (which I gravely doubt), German has perfectly idiomatic ways of describing a bridge in the "Spanish" style and vice versa as to Spanish. In English, bridge, like almost all nouns, neuter.

      Under this hypothesis, again generalization aside, does this influence how an Englishman would describe a bridge, as opposed to an American, as opposed to an Australian?

      The word force is feminine in French. Does that mean that Frenchmen or French speakers will generally describe it in what might be considered feminine terms? I doubt it.

      Thus, what you refer to are merely word choices which have little to do with language itself and are perhaps more the result of social conditioning.

      As for language (or linguistic) structure, in Spanish the verb "to hope" takes the subjunctive, in French (which uses a cognate) it takes the indicative. Does this tell us anything about its speakers, French or otherwise? I can't say.

      Another example of linguistic structure: In the Greek of Homer, you could not be the agent of obligation. In other words, there was no way to say "I have to go" (the optative did not come till about 300 years later). There had to be a third person making or bidding you to go. What does this tell us about the relationship of the gods to the human characters in the Iliad and the Odyssey?

      But perhaps I digress.

      From your description, linguistic anthropology seems to have little to do with actual linguistics, or at least linguistics as I know it.

    20. according to the research of Lera Boroditsky, yes the language people use will strongly influence the way they perceive the world.

      it may seem counter intuitive but thats the great thing about anthropology. it is often ethnographic so we go into all the cultures and ask them these questions rather than just base it off our own intuition.

    21. This might sound dense, but I fail to see how the words a person chooses has anything to do with the structure of the language he speaks.

      Let's say a person of Spanish origin also speaks German. Is he going to describe a bridge one way in his native language and another in his second language? Even if he describes a bridge the same way in both languages, what effect on the structure of the languages does this have?

      I have nothing against the counterintuitive and perhaps I'm missing something, but the more I think about it, the less sense this makes--
      or perhaps linguistic anthropology has nothing to do with what I am discussing.

    22. You are talking about syntax (the words themselves which are arbitrary) and semantics (the meaning). Different forms/syntax can have the same semantics.

    23. However cognitive psychologists found that the brain doesn't use only verbal code. For instance artists "see" the world mainly in images of vibrations/sounds, etc.

    24. can you link some research?

    25. "basically culture influences (reflects) languages, not the other way around" the dilemma with the hen and the egg.
      Thanks God we have metacognitive abilities and we can choose

    26. I could name you a few books but are not translated in English.

    27. What a cop-out. How about naming them anyway, providing, of course, the names of the authors?

    28. I read every years more than 20 books, I read those books maybe 10-12 years ago, do you think I keep in mind every author?
      A more recent one is: The recent man, a critique of postmodernity, Patapievici is the author.

    29. An internet search turns up nothing for Patapievici whoever he is/was and whatever his credentials or lack thereof might be or have been. Perhaps this author's a figment of your lack of imagination as are all the books which you have read but can't remember.

      Get off it!

    30. all i need is the authors and researchers names.

    31. Thanks God we have metacognitive abilities so are not totally under the powers of a culture. Plus as I mentioned in another reply, our brain uses different codes nit just the verbal (from cognitive psychology)

    32. Actually I don't think that God should be approached rationally. Belief is another realm. We consider that God is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. can we trully understand the complexity of such being?
      Ants cannot understand the complexity of a human being, analogically humans cannot understand the existence of God, eventually through extatic experiences; saints who lived accoding to the Scripture, prayed, fasted, meditated, sometimes were rewarded by God and had extatic experiences. One of them was the famous Padre Pio.

  126. Just look at a simple piece of paper. Now try hard to convince yourself that it was a product of chance? Evolution? If you cannot, how can you believe the same about the whole universe?

    1. if you think evolution works on chance you clearly dont know what evolution is.

    2. In research I've heard all the time that things are random, but when studying fractals we see that some form appears again and again and that is counter-randomness. Hooha

    3. in what research and when where and how do you study fractals in nature?

    4. Look up for yourself analysis on fractals.

    5. wow. im starting to think you have no clue what you are talking about.

      i said give me an example of fractals in nature that you analyse. if there are no examples of fractals occurring naturally then what is the point in studying them?

      once again, where how and why do you study them. what school did you go to? what degree do you hold? what profession do you study fractals for? or do you mean that you read websites about them?

    6. Comparing the synthetic to the non-synthetic is like comparing apples to . . .

  127. I am a computer programmer and have written many thousand lines of code in my days. I am familiar with many computer programming languages. The programming language and code found in nature is so advanced that we can hardly comprehend. A person has to be crazy to believe that there isn't a designer / programmer. -- Ricky

    1. I am a psychologist and anthropologist and I have studied biology and evolution for many years and can tell you there is nothing about DNA that says it has to be created by a magical god. sorry, but your computer programming gives you NO say in biology. go back to your office now and let the scientists do the big boy work.

    2. I hope you didn't expect to see small letter on the DNA testifying about God.
      Anyway what you say doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, just that you choose not to believe.

    3. and what you say doesnt prove that fairies dont exist. we cant prove a negative. i can certainly refute any positive claim you make about the existence of any god making your belief irrational.

    4. You can prove whatever you want in your virtual rational world, God still exists. He was before you were born and after you will die.

    5. What does he, she, it, look like? You keep saying "he" was it a blue eyed white adonis wearing a white garment, with the Suns" halo around his head Hmm?

    6. prove it, or at least provide ONE piece if evidence.

      give me your strongest piece of evidence that make you think that god is real. im waiting.

    7. One of the biggest mistakes man has ever made, in my opinion, is to compare OURSELVES to the machines we create, this whole "designed/created" argument is just beating a dead horse, because it is missing the paradox of what created the thing that created us and so on and so on. If you follow the logic, this is indeed a paradox, that no God could be born into because it STILL requires the first in the succession to suddenly and magically just "exist" which solves NOTHING and brings the paradox full circle. Religious people are so non intellectual it baffles my mind that they think they deserve to argue with the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens (RIP), and many others. It is laughable!

    8. you are absolutely right.

    9. The paradox seems to exist if we accept the concept of cause and effect for everything.

      I like your last sentence. These people should be asking questions, not making assertions.

    10. Complexity does not imply a designer.

    11. Do you think that your claim which is not sustained by rationale is strong enought to prove that there was no intelligent designer of the universe?

    12. "The programming language and code found in nature is so advanced that we can hardly comprehend." - WRONG. On this very site, search, "playing God" this code is not that complex, we understand it more and more every single day, we just had to crack it first. A lot like teaching people a new language, but you couldn't grasp that could ya?

    13. A typical creationist post. First and foremost, as you have pointed out, the facts are wrong.

  128. OMG hilarious. In the third video at 15:15 when he is describing the transition of the jaw and bones of the inner ear, she takes a big gulp in and has nothing to say.

  129. @robertallen1 : Another pedant bites the dust lol

  130. Darwin was a freemason; his father and Grandfather were also before him.

  131. Yes you in the back with the red bowtie.

    Ya hi. My question is for Mr. Dawkins and God. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

  132. Kenneth R. Miller.

  133. It's simple logic. Can we stop arguing about it?

  134. i ask this question to my fellow humans who comment here the question is what is god?

    1. Fast for 40 days (as Jesus, Mahatma Ghandi, and other spiritual leaders did), repent, pray and maybe God will answer Himself.

    2. So force yourself to have hallucinations - perfect - perhaps we should address all of life's and societal problems with this obviously splendid tool and methodology .... please

    THE ROMANS 1:20
    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

    1. why did you post this? what does it have to do with the documentary?

      the bible also says a snake spoke. do you believe that?

  136. @Derek

    Have you read any of Bart Ehrman's books, especially "Lost Christianities," "Misquoting Jesus" and "Forgery?"

    1. Is he Jew?

    2. What a stupid question! Find out for yourself!

    3. Believe me I will find it I am researcher.

  137. Darvin is great!!

  138. Evolution is indeed a fact, but my question is why can it not co-exist with the belief in higher power.Call me a religiously-biased amateur, but to me the evolution further strengthens my belief in God. I may not be as well-acquainted with the theory as most fo you, infact my knowledge on the subjects pretty much extends to this documentary..but well, thats just what I thought.

    1. Most of the people who except evolution are Christians, or at least religious. You're not the only one.

  139. There is no theorie of evolution. Charles Darwin was taught by Satan himself to draw us away from God.

    1. what is god?

  140. @Atheist13

    Whether it be Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, Emerson, Heidegger, Spinoza, I simply don't find it worth the effort to get through them--and this is irrespective of my agreement or disagreement. Perhaps it's my temporal outlook coupled with a sense of the Romantic--which is probably why Michiavelli (I guess he can be considered a philosopher) appeals to me, especially "The Prince" which is a hoot.

    Nietzsche's fine prose, I was once informed, must be read in the original German. From the same person I learned that the notorious "ubermensch" (I don't know how to evoke the umlaut) cannot be accurately translated as superman. I, too, enjoy a good aphorism, but my bent is with Ambrose Bierce who defined philosophy as "route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing."

    I find Sartre as lifeless as Sartre seems to have found life (I cannot figure out why he bothered to live so long) and "No Exit" and "Nausea" to be philosophical treatises awkwardly and inexpertly couched as a play and a novel, respectively--which turned me off to Sartre.

    I've been meaning to ask if you have any interest in biblical scholarship--after all atheists seem to be far more knowledgable about the bible (new, old and apocryphal) than evangelists, creationists and even ministers.

    P.S. The only thing that never fails to shock me is the ignorance and blind stupidity expectorated by religionists of all denominations.

    1. Oh suddenly I find a person quoting Ambrose Bierce. The same quote I got trashed for a week ago.

    2. @robertallen1

      I understand your point of view but would say all the philosophers you mention are worth the effort, but it’s not for everyone. Agreed, Machiavelli can be considered a philosopher and “The Prince” is a hoot/riot! I employ some of his philosophy almost every day. (Discreetly of course).

      I can’t agree on the idea that Nietzsche must be read in the original German though I’m sure it’s an advantage. I have some German friends who help. You were informed correctly; “ubermensch” translates better as “overcoming man”.

      Oh dear, the old Bitter Bierce quote, a supreme example of empty rhetoric if ever there was one. Perhaps we should write off all of history because “nothing matters”. A child could refute it, so I’ll leave it there. It’s a good job we all have differing opinions though, how dull the world would be if we all held the same view of it.

      I think Sartre was ok; perhaps his love life is more interesting than he is? He’s important to existentialism which seems to be having resurgence in recent times. I have no interest in biblical scholarship and can’t see that ever changing unless the pay is real good.

      Unkeep the faith

    3. Ambrose was empty rhetoric? That's funny. What other opinion would you expect to hear?

    4. Perhaps it's just I (boy, that sounds strange), but I've never received an uplift or sense of accomplishment from reading any philosophical treatise or from participating in any philosophical discussion. These have always been chores for me. Now, literature or a work of non-fiction on a subject which interests me is something else.

      I don't even like to argue the merits of any abstract philosophy. The temporal for me!

      I remember in college existentialism (along with Sartre, love life and all) was the rage. Personally I couldn't care less about people's love lives, Casanova's and Lope de Vega's included. Anyway, I never could quite figure out quite what existentialism stood for for at the time, everyone seemed to have a different idea. So when confused, turn the other cheek. One way or the other, the topic left me as cold as biblical scholarship leaves you. However, I admit that I admired Camus, but only because of his artistry, i.e., if he can make his saturnine view of the world come off literarily, he has it over Sartre.

      By the way, I've been meaning to ask you something else: Do you have any interest in mathematics?

    5. @robertallen1

      In the interests of staying on topic I have left a post for you in the Philosophy Department @ The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy. I hope it’s of some use to you.

    6. In the interests of only barely staying on topic, tell you what: I will read "The Great Philosophers," etc. if you will read one of Bart Ehrman's books, either "Misquoting Jesus," "Forged" or "Jesus interrupted." They are scholarly and fascinating and in their own wonderful and unique way support Dr. Dawkins and everything he stands for.

      Remember as a rule, atheists are better informed about religion, and especially the Bible, than believers.

      By the way, I am still curious: do you have any interest in math?

    7. @robertallen1

      You have a deal, I will buy or order 1 of them tomorrow. I will let you know which one fate places in my hands soon. I answered your curious question in my last post which I hope you've seen. In the meantime how about Darwinism/TOE as philosophy and/or a creed?

    8. I plan to keep up my end; however, do I just go to Philosohpy Department@The Great Philosophers or what do I do?

      I suggest you start either with "Misquoting Jesus" or "Forged."

      You answered my question about biblical scholarship, but I have checked through your previous E-mails and cannot find a response to my question about mathematics. Could I trouble you for a reply? Personally, I think all atheists should take an interest in mathematics. It has theology and religion infinitely beat.

      Another curious question: which area of the world (country) do you live in? I reside in Los Angeles and have an interest in math.

    9. @robertallen1

      On this page choose Philosophy in the Documentary Categories (above right)

      Then choose The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy.

      My post to you is at the top of the page. I think everyone should have an interest in mathematics it’s a beautiful universal language with wonders and mysteries contained therein. 1.618033 or Pi or Primes or 42!

      Thanks for sharing, I live in a tiny town, in a tiny country called North Wales, UK.

    10. Pardon me if I seem obtuse, but by "this page" what are you referring to? Could you please provide me with a more detailed set of instructions.

      Do you speak Welsh? Does anyone speak Welsh? From the place names, it appears to be a highly consonental language.

    11. @robertallen1

      Please see my post next but one below.

    12. if you pick an unlearned theist, it's easy to make even an average atheist look bright. i have yet to meet an atheist who has anything more than surface familiarity with biblical texts though. judging by the scope of your generalization--you won't be the exception. nevertheless, if you think that you have a legitimate challenge to creation or theology using the bible, i'd love to hear it...

    13. I have several challenges..

      For starters most of the scriptures and messages within it; weren't written down in manuscript form for nearly 100 years after the death of Christ; which means that the only way for "jesus's" message to get around was in the form of "word of mouth" for nearly 100 years. so im fairly mind blown into how the complete truth of what jesus taught held threw that.

      2nd: If you just google "The Challenges of Translating the Bible" or "How much ancient hebrew do we actually know" you will get some credible sources from theologists to professors all stated how little ancient Hebrew we know... even worse we dont even have the original source of ancient hewbrew or ancient greek.. we have copies of copies of copies.... meaning we have to completely trust that 3000 years ago some translator correctly gave us ancient hebrew or even 2000 years ago some translator gave us correct ancient greek; nail that all the way down to what we have now multiple translations later. There in lies the problem that we will never "truly" know what we have to this day is the "real truth" or just mistaken translation. No-one can ever truly say they know right or wrong but just try their hardest to sort out the facts from fiction.

      3rd: Adam and Eve were truly the beginning of life on earth (says the bible) If you truly nail-down the timeline of the bible (based off the bible) you will see that Adam and Eve's life began 4000 years from the bibles creation.. add 2000 years from after the death of "Christ" you will get a timeline that the earth is only "6000" years old.... now how in the world is that possible? when we have fossils that can date back to millions of years? and man's skeletons dating back more then 100,000 years. Not to mention we are discovering more and more ancient civilizations each year the more we dig into our past... for example in Guatemala.. the newly discovered ancient civilization that dates back to 12000 years ago. so how in the world can the bible say life began with adam and eve only a nearly 6000 years ago?

      Altogether my point is this i believe there is definitely some kind of purpose to this life and some kind of "higher power" whether that be a "god" or of something completely else. No-one can truly say they know until they reach that point; if ever even "deemed" worthy to begin with.

      Nonetheless i don't believe in "religion" because ive always thought that once you join a certain religion or "team" as i like to call them; your mind only goes in one path along a road created by whatever "team" your on.. instead of opening your heart/mind to other paths/thoughts/ideas and truly making real choices from your own premonition instead of someone else's. but more a "reuniting" to be as kind and generous to others as much as possible (without getting stepped on).

      I read a great quote the other day to sum this up even farther:

      "how does philosophy and christianity coincide? philosophy is so open minded whereas christianity is narrow minded. the more i learnt about philosophy the more i disregarded christianity or any religon as plausible. if philosophy teaches you truth and understanding doesn't christianity teach you to be deluded and to not question? philosophy opens a mind up to many possibilities whereas christianity teaches you to believe in one and to take a leap of faith which is very much restricting."

    14. The Bible records eyewitness testimony of Jesus' life: John 15:26 When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father – the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father – he will testify about me, 27 and you also will testify, because you have been with me from the beginning

      John 2:13 13 I am writing to you, fathers, that you have known him who has been from the beginning.

      The scribes who made copies of the Bible were incredibly careful. They did not write word by word, but letter by letter. They counted each letter in each line, each word in each line, and each line on each page. They doubled checked the first and last word on each page.

      Have you found any historical error in the Bible? If so, I would love to hear about it.

      There are 24,000 manuscript copies of Biblical texts in various languages. No other book even comes close to this. There are no significant differences in any of these texts. The copying was done so carefully that they are virtually without any error that alters the meaning of the text (any errors are minor). There is no other book that can even come close!

      Dating methods are incredibly inaccurate. After Mt. St. Helens erupted in in the 1980s tree that were fossilized by the pressure and heat from the eruption were dated at millions of years old. That was silly--the trees were a few, not millions, of years old.

    15. In case you didn't notice, not only are the accounts in the New Testament considerably after the fact, but they are contradictory as well. Take the crucifixion for example. Matthew (27:46) and Mark (Mark 15:4) have Jesus saying, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" while Luke (23:46) has him saying "Father, unto your hand I commend my spirit." These are two widely disparate thoughts and any attempt to reconcile them simply results in a third hybrid version.

      In case you didn't notice, one Gospel has Jesus speaking during his trial and the other has him deliberately saying nothing. They cannot both be right.

      Also, in case you didn't notice, one Gospel depicts active involvement by Judas and another next to none at all--they cannot both be right.

      Also, in case you didn't notice, the Gospels contain at least three different sequences of events leading up to the crucifixion--they can't all be right.

      Therefore, don't insult the intelligence with your twaddle about the Bible containing eyewitness testimony--it does not--and being free of historical error--why, even the accounts of the date of Jesus' birth and his birthplace are contradictory.

      The most cursory study of the existing manuscripts of the New Testament (and there are about 1,600, not 24,000) reveal literally thousands of dissmiliarities and disparities. While a good many are venial, a considerable number are not. For example, the story of Jesus and the leper varies considerably in a number of manuscripts, especially the sequence of events--and believe it or not, it is missing in other manuscripts. A good many later manuscripts contain passages not found in earlier ones and vice versa. There are also a considerable number of alterations affecting meaning. So when you go on about the sedulousness of the copyists (for your information, a good many of them were barely literate and others had their own agenda) and the alleged care taken to prevent any changes which alter meaning, you simply do not know what you are writing about.

      I don't know where you got your information on the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, but true to form, you are completely wrong. Your ignorance of even the fundamentals of radiometrics is as embarassing your failure to read up on what really happened.

      What you have not parroted, you have improvised--and you are not good at either. I have read a lot of ignorant posts, but yours beats just about all of them

    16. What are dissmiliarities?

    17. similarities that aren't the same ! :))

    18. I was giving a hard time to Robertallen1 for being the connaisseur of the English language and harpooning people constantly about their mistakes. But thanks.

    19. Connoisseur.

    20. Connaisseur is correct.

    21. Sorry Az, I was doing the same but the sarcasm didn't show in my writing. Wasn't aiming that at you xxx It just struck me as a silly word, contradictory. Should have made myself unmurkier!

    22. Although he prides himself in having great control over the English language and often over everyone here, his typos are all over his posts. The thread in Stephen Fry' Planet Word sent me on a search to present him the mirror...reminds me of The Trouble With Experts.
      I can be bad sometimes.
      We have to remind ourselves that this site is not only for the English speaking crowd, people of all countries come here and many have to make a lot of efforts to write a comment...even the english speaking crowd is not always as literate as some people of other languages.
      I think it's great how this site allows everyone to discuss together in one big melting pot of mishmash words.
      But enough with this!

    23. Couldn't have said it better myself :)

    24. And it is a false pride he has. His English is nothing if not clunky and tedious. That alone should tell you he has no real understanding of the language.

    25. Why are you bothering to argue about the bible? It's like believing the Quran / Koran / Torah. They are all nonsense !

    26. You're right, but it gives me an opportunity to practice writing and organization.

    27. Nonsense ..... for you.

    28. Jesus is not mentioned only in the Gospels but in the writings of ancient historians.
      We should not forget that it was by word of mouth eye witnesses transmitted the story, the essence is important.

    29. If you really believe that twaddle I feel sorry for you.

    30. why would one use the bible to show it wrong.

      how about we take claims from the bible and put them to the rigorous scrutiny we would put any other idea to?

      adam and eve, noahs ark, jonah and the whale, balaam and the talking donkey, exodus, resurrection of christ...all scream mythology.

      now what evidence do YOU have that the bible ought to be used as a credible historical document?

  141. @Epicurus

    I guess that's why you chose your name.

  142. @Atheist13

    Forgive the typo.

    From your quote, it seems that Nietszche was referring to prescriptive, not descriptive, grammar or if you (or he) prefer, grammar as religion versus grammar as science. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    1. @robertallen1

      I only drew your attention to the typo because it’s still in the post that @Dave criticized. If you would correct it, I would be grateful. It makes my post technically incorrect.

      Nietzsche is hard to fathom but I think he meant descriptive too. Has Grammar become a Creed? As I remember the passage, he tied language to body and ego and lamented how it inevitable it was that we would end up with God Syndrome, built in as it were. He also said language was a degeneration of our more natural, instinctive communication skills.

    2. I find philosophers in general hard to fathom and harder to stomach. I've never understood what good they've done or what good they are, unless there is some merit or some art to navel contemplation unperceived by me.

      All too many academicians insist on a shotgun marriage of philosophy as the alpha male to literature as the subservient female, their offspring a hybrid made up of a thin crust of literature on the outside supported by a thicker crust of philosophy on the inside, the progency consisting of an eviscerated form of literature stripped of all enjoyment, appreciation and understanding. I even heard one of these academicians posit the inanity that it's less important to read a work than to read what some philosopher has to say about it.

      Be that as it may, I disagree entirely with Nietzsche's comment on language and question his qualifications to make it. As he was neither biologist nor anthropologist, how could he have any idea of our more natural, instinctive communication skills? This is as intellectually bankrupt as those statements made by the religionists whom he excoriated.

      Somehow, if I feel tied to any one philosopher, it's Kant in his more lucid moments. Well, look at it this way. Nietzsche did inspire Richard Strauss to write one of his finest tone poems.

      By the way, if you are interested in grammar, I recommend "The Language Wars" by Henry Hitchens which has recently come out.

    3. Philosophy is "the" science, is like an axle and all other disciplines revolve around.

    4. @robertallen1

      Thanks for your opinion; I can understand why many people have a poor view of philosophy but it does have its merits. If you think that what he said about language was controversial you may be shocked at some of the other things he says. The Idols he refers to in the title of the book are the “old truths”. He later goes on to scoff at free will, dismiss beauty as not even being a concept and challenge our notion of cause and effect. No he’s not controversial at all. Lol

      Just a couple of things I remember from it
      ”All truth is simple. Is this not a double lie?”

      ”Reason? Why not unreason?”

      But you don’t have to agree with him to appreciate his fine prose. His mastery of metaphor suits his aphoristic writing style. I thought you might like this one

      ”A subject for a great poet would be God's boredom after the seventh day of creation”

      Thanks for the recommendation; I may well give it a try.

  143. One of the best documentaries and one of my favorites.

  144. @Atheist13

    I don't think so. For enlightening the hords of the bamboozled is like Sisyphus pushing the rock up the hill. Unfortunately, it's a battle with no end in sight.

    1. @robertallen1

      Don’t despair and don’t give up. You're doing a great job. I look at it this way, every single word spoken and written against this monster adds to the meme pool of Atheism.

      Unkeep the faith

    2. Nice to read on my 64th birday, but you overrate me.

    3. @robertallen1

      Happy Birthday! Have a great time, forget the boulder and celebrate. I’m thinking of Steve Martin having a fun time too! As for my rating, I think it’s fine, it looks pretty sound to me.


    4. @robertallen1

      Nietzsche had some things to say about grammar.

    5. @Atheist13

      That's interesting. Could you point them out to me?

      Much appreciated.


      P.S. Speaking of Nietzsche, It seems that a whole philosophical system can be created out of one premise, the same with religion.

    6. @robertallen1

      ”on the influence of philosophers such as Sartre and Nietsche.”

      The first proof of any creed? Always spell the founders name correctly or prove no thing against it?

      “I fear we will never be free of God as long as we believe in Grammar”

      Both from “Twilight of the Idols” I think.

      Are you referring to might is right?

  145. @Killin

    Although the people you mentioned just happen to have religious backgrounds, religion was not needed to produce them. Remember, religion also produced Savanarola, Rasputin, Pol Pot and Warren Jeffs. Jonas Salk, Louis Pasteur and Leonhard Euler did more good than any of the people you mentioned combined and they were not religious. Look at all the great people Russia, Harvard and Judaism produced; maybe those of us with a humanitarian bent should all become naturalized Russians, Harvard graduates and Jewish converts. So don’t try to hoodwink by attempting to establish a cause and effect relationship where none exists.
    Also, don’t distort. The only reason missionaries taught people (especially natives) to read (and it was always confined to a basic level) was not to educate, but to obtain converts. In your panegyric reaching, you neglected to mention that they also brought New World diseases to those not immune to them.
    The stories in the Bible are far from believable—talking snakes, parting waters, two of every kind on an ark, a man swallowed by a whale who lived to tell about it (and I haven’t gotten to the New Testament) and your assertion that they are believable because they tell of failure is a non sequitur almost unworthy of even you.
    We need science and law before we need religion. Without the former, religion could not survive, but without the latter, science and law could survive and even thrive. The falsehood that religion is needed is merely a concoction of those who have been inculcated into it. Those who turn to religion (i.e., superstition and hokum) to get through life's troubles are pathetic, intellectually bankrupt weaklings seeking fairytale answers to life’s real problems. Those who keep their noses to the grindstone (read earth) generally find ways to cope, while those who turn to the Disneyland of religion find themselves deluded and overcharged. Spirituality is a fraud aimed at beguiling the ignorant and the gullible. We need it like we need a game of three-card monte.
    In short, what you do and believe is your own business, but don’t employ your lies, deceit and distortions to justify what has no business being justified.

    1. @robertallen1

      A very eloquent and powerful statement robertallen1. You argue the case for Atheism with much skill. I hope anyone in any doubt will read your posts and see that they can only come to one logical conclusion. There is no God.

      Except for Dawkins of course. I can prove it too. It says so on my tee shirt.

      memes anyone?

      Unkeep the faith

    2. Thanks for the compliment.

      However, it might surprise you that I don't find modern day atheists such as Dr. Dawkins true atheists. As a matter of fact, I wish there were a better (more accurate) word for them. It's just that they've still living in the Age of Enlightenment and are dejected that though invited, more don't step into their parlor.

      Dr. Dawkins and his ilk do not say there is no god, but rather that the assertion being unprovable is scientifically worthless, along with its henchman, religion, and its handmaiden, intelligent design.

      Dr. Dawkins (and you may take this to include the others of his klatch) is one of the few people in this day and age that I have any respect for, but it's the myth of Sisyphus all over again.

    3. @robertallen1

      Yes I know what you mean; Hitchens and Harris are quite bold in their assertions but not to point of destroying religion with the gusto and verve of yourself.
      Sisyphus .Lol. Now you’re being absurd.

    4. Evolution produced Hitler and the like

  146. @TJ

    What is this "Last Why Question?"

  147. I think this is a good quote from a respected religious leader of our times:

    Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
    Pope John Paul II


    1. How idiotic! We don't need religion to help science do what it can do far better all by itself.

    2. there is one absolute question that science, due to the setup of its laws, can not answer. that is the last WHY question. and it is the ONLY question where science fails and we must make a decision on faith or stop asking. like all decisions, there are two choices, and theyre totally yours

    3. TJ said: there is one absolute question that science, due to the setup of its laws, can not answer. that is the last WHY question.

      the answer, is very similar to the one that my mum used to give me when i asked that question. Because.

      If you want to ask a really interesting why question, then why the hell would a god of infinite power, waste all his time on this tedious sh1t? when it quite clearly doesn't benefit him, us or anything else.

    4. There is a lot for you to study.

    5. @TJ

      I like that. I for one, have stopped asking. The relentless search for "why" will often lead one on a predictable pattern towards a faulty conclusion.

    6. Religion has a really bad track record at stopping idolatry and false absolutes. So what else is it good for?

    7. Enslavement of all kinds.

    8. Your point is well taken and thanks for your note. You got me started now. My response is really too long, but maybe a tidbit or two will interest you.

      What else is religion good for?
      Well consider the texts and social action of D. Bonhoeffer, MLK Jr, Gandhi, Mother Theresa..Archbishop Tutu..even Nelson Mandala, and on and on. But one must decide for themselves.

      There are also many women leaders , theologians and doctors of
      the Church who have literally driven social policy directions in my country and without whom we .would not have the infrastructure we do...such as it is at the moment. There is liberation theology, Oscar Romero and others, and the social gospel movement in Canada which was critical to developing immigration services and the labour movement here. Many people with faith backgrounds enter the helping professions, like social work, pursing ideas of social justice and advocacy for marginalized and disadvantage populations. There is so much more...we are talking about a rich intellectual history that has informed law, human relationships and education. It was the religious groups who basically started broad based education to teach basic literacy and advanced studies, way back in the day, before public schools were the norm.
      Not to mention the post colonial resurgence of aboriginal spirituality,
      which is not nearly so 'primitive' as ethnographers once described-and is
      reminding us of our critical connections to the terms of what is
      sacred and what is profane.

      Religions per se are human institutions; they fail mightily and often, the
      Bible is full of failure stories...which is why the narratives are
      believable. What about political parties and scientific institutions. Do we
      dismantle them because they mess up in spades ie eugenics movement, forced
      sterilization, social darwinism, spurious pharmaceutical claims, withholding
      HIV medication from African countries for impossible profits...
      lobotomies, unethical medical experiments ..

      So its not always about dismantling the institutions but it is about
      vigilance and revision and having a moral compass. We cannot rely on
      political ideology, science or the law alone.

      There are theodices of suffering that millions rely on for comfort and
      meaning in their lives, in a disordered, distracted and disconnected human
      family, they have messages of hope, love, kindness and beliefs life that
      transcend the human condition.

      Re False absolutes -There is a book called the Cult of Efficiency,
      about the colonizing effect of technology on human service delivery, that
      spells it out I think nicely...There is also a critical/positive post
      modern philosophy which discusses the relatively of truth claims in almost
      the same way we understand the relativity of time. Expert claims to truth
      tend to disqualify minority or dissenting voices and thereby create
      heirarchies of power. These heirarchies construct truth and create elite
      ownership of claims to truth. True of religion and science.

      Science is appropriated all the time...Hey, what if all the ethical
      scientists joined up and went on strike to boycott the armaments
      On the other hand, we have a lot of scientists involved in humanitarian
      organizations...So, truth is just not as clear cut as day and night.

    9. You give religious motives to people that had none or whose religious motives were evil rather than good.
      Bonhoeffer did the right thing - he was fighting the Christian religion of Hitler and the Nazi's - everyone that fought the Nazi's were not motivated by Religion - it was the right thing to do.
      MLK JR did what he did to fight for peoples equal rights. The concept of equal rights for all is in direct contradiction to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
      Gandhi’s motivation was not religious at all. He also was not a very nice many – sleeping with underage girls whenever possible.
      The lady so call as Mother Theresa was a monster – she took stolen money from crooks and dictators. The people of Haiti have suffered greatly as a result.
      the people Theresa was supposedly helping – well she had death centers with unspeakable conditions. Her idea of religion was suffering to cure some screwed up idea of sin.
      Don’t know much about Tuto – but his motives were to end apartheid, not a religious motivation.

      If someone in your county drive positive social change – great. they are doing it because they are good people. If they say they are only doing good because they have to based on what their religion says – then you may want to slide down in the pew. They have the wrong motivation. And what ever they are doing comes to the recipient with a price – their religion.

      Please don’t suggest religion can take credit for better schools. For 1200 years religions stopped all forward progress in humanity in the west. The Dark Ages.

      Aboriginal Spirituality – Please – you mean “convert or die” that was the Christian motto for over a thousand years to every new culture found.

      Political and Scientific endeavors are subject to learn from mistakes and become better – Religions are closed system that do not self correct.

      Religion poisons everything – the very spread of HIV and poverty is directly attributable to Religions preaching that a piece of rubber has the devil in it. Religion can not take credit for helping the millions who suffer from AIDS and poverty when it is religion that created and supports the crisis in the first place.

      Morality is innate – Read any Holy book – they are loaded with immorality.

      Every moral improvement in the human condition is from the advancements of science.

      As stated before – Religion held humanity captive for thousands of years while billions died in ignorance.

      Its time to grow up.

    10. Science appeared because Christianity (like it or not) gave opportunity to study nature first in monasteries, science developed over the centuries but it needed that environment. Comparing to other societies, Christian world was the most fertile for technology development.
      What you say about Mother Theresa shows you character which, sorry to say, it doesn't look kosher.
      Christianity exactly promoted the idea of equality and that each person matters.
      Your whole writing is so rudimentary! Where did you learn?

    11. who cares what parts you choose to cherry pick christianity it true? are the claims made about a god and a god man TRUE? or are they stories?

    12. Who cares what parts you choose to cherry pick Christianity denigration.

    13. im sorry, what?

      i take christianity as a whole. i see it for what it really is. no different than any other man made religion.

    14. As usual, you have it all wrong--and in this case because you don't know your history. For centuries, the church was science's worst enemy. Look at Galileo, Copernicus and others. Throughout the Middle Ages, its science was basically aristotelean--and aristotle was not even a scientist. Anyone who went against an earth-centered universe or promoted the idea of the infinite or the infinitessimal was branded a heretic. Is that what you call support for science?

    15. As usual you interpret wrong.... sorry
      Robert I. Moore: "religious reforms in the XII century, its intellectual rebirth, elaboration of law and governing procedures - mark the transition from a segmented society to a state, a higher culture was imposed (...)". "Consequence, as always, the constitution of a higher level culture enforces the elimination of real or potential rivals."
      The church tried to protect its teachings it took time to define and redefine the borders of what was good knowledge and what not. Through centuries became more and more open to science. It is important to understand the historical context, it is easy for us to stay comfortable in front of the computers and deliver ideas.

    16. @Aleteia
      "Science appeared because Christianity (like it or not) gave opportunity to study nature first in monasteries," really? the ancient Greeks,Romans,Egyptians and others might disagree with you ."omparing to other societies, Christian world was the most fertile for technology development" maybe you should look into the Great Library of Alexandria . or the fact that from the fall of the Roman empire til the Renaissance science in the christian world was stifled . it was the Muslin world that saved much of our ancient scientific knowledge and learning from the torch of the crusades and the christian church in general.

    17. In an indirect way, you've hit the nail on the head. One main thing these religionists have in common is their ignorance of history.

      Your typo is risible when linked to ancient scientific knowledge and learning.

    18. It is no place here for lengthy papers, dear sir, nor do I have time.

    19. Really! I was talking about the science as precursor for the birth of modern physics.
      Did you look in the library of Alexandria? I thought it burned down in 48 BC ....
      The period between the fall of the Roman empire untill the Renaissance was a fertile period just not well known. Many things that came to being later in science and philosophy actually were sown by monks in Christian monasteries.
      You don't impress me with the very familiar rhetoric, "it was the Muslin world that saved much of our ancient scientific knowledge and learning from the torch of the crusades and the christian church in general", modern historians like Boia, demistifies such statements. Crusades need to be understood in that context, and not with the intention to blame, because in this case history becomes a pretext to say something bad about the church.

    20. You've probably never even opened a history book, but Over the Edge and I have--as a matter of fact (and I think I can speak for Over the Edge on this) many of them. Over the Edge is right and you don't know anything about what you write, for you simply make it up as you go along.

      As proof of your ignorance and deception, the only author named Boia on the internet is a Lucian Boia, a Roumanian writer who wrote debunking Roumanian nationalism. So please don't try to snow. It won't wash!

    21. I was going to provide you with some history and facts but I see by all the postings here, you have no interest in other ideas or facts.

      Simply put your statements are fallacious.

      "Science appeared because of Christianity" - how absurd.

      Science re-appeared despite Christianity -

      The Dark Ages - Medieval Times - etc match "exactly" with the rise of the christian faith. Not until the Renaissance and Reformation did science - math - medicine and social growth begin again.

      Humanity is several thousand years behind because Christianity and other religions have tortured and burned alive our best and brightest.

      The Greeks - Persians - Arabs - Chinese and many others developed some of the greatest ideas of science and math and medicine long before christianity was invinted.

      As for the so called "Mother" Theresa :
      - do some research.

      She took money from the Haiti government (baby Doc) stolen from the Haiti people.
      She took money from a wall street swindler stolen from his clients.
      She used the money to open more horrible houses where people could die without any medical aid because she worshipped suffering.

    22. As well put as your other posts. The last thing a religious hierarchy wants is educated adherents.

      Have you see "Lost Gospels" which is also on this site? I would be interested in reading your comments.

      There is also a fine documentary on Kitzwilliam v. Dover School District which might be of interest to you. Again, I would be interested in reading your comments.

      How refreshing it is to read something well-informed and intelligent.

    23. Thanks cuz - we share surnames.
      I will check Lost Gospels and comment there.
      I have seen the dover doc - will comment there as well. That judge should be a national hero, all things considered, he may not have done the right thing..... I keep close tabs on the NCSE - National Center for Science Education and help out with email campaigns to elected officials - Just silly in the USA - a free and technologically advanced country; that we rank with Islamic countries *something like 35" in the acceptance of proven science.

  148. Do you need a constant environment or a constant variable to direct evolution? An example with industrial revolution putting out lots of soot, making dark colored moths hard to find for predators.....then industrial revolution dying down....less easier to find dark moths? Are cells and tissues just responding to variables in environments??? For major changes in organisms..there would have to be excessive constants?? Like maintaining a formula...

  149. OK. Second video
    Date? Why has D not explored neurscience and human genome research, or anything that seriously questions his propositions about the selfish gene?

    Frans Dewall is quite right in his remarks about the books misleading title and the idea of 'veneer morality' which to be sure does exist.

    Dawkins' concluding sociological arguement is that we have the ability to 'fight back' against the natural inclination of our selfish genes- and create a more humane society. In this suggestion, Dawkins has stepped into the realm of the transcendent....from where do we obtain this capacity to reshape the process of evolution if not from evolution itself? He does not explain himself here. If it is recipriocal altruism, then it will come naturally. If there is more to it than that, what is it?

  150. google this .....unified field of consciousness

  151. Wonderful documentary. A bit shortsighted,for my point of view. The students and Richard, see "Believe in god" serching him god outside within oneself. Nature and its inteligence,therfor we, are god. Please consider this thought.

    1. It's hard to consider a thought expressed so inarticulately.

  152. im only 3 minutes in, but first id like to remind everyone that even proving evolution does not consequently prove the existence of god as false, the church has never actually stated its against any evolution theory, but rather thinking of science as explaining and unfolding the complex mysteries of life and all creation. and i do not belong to any organized religion, if that somehow gives me more credibility, as im sure it does for this ridiculous science vs church battle continues. also, theres f--ktonne more to existence then what u can see, open your eyes, and a lot more to us then what u can weigh, " quantum communication " is a very interesting thing to look into if you've yet to be enlightened to these concepts, you can find videos on it within this site.

    stop this bullshit science vs religion war i just want to learn about the world without your human ignorance clouding my understanding. be open to all ideas, believe in what you understand, accept what u cannot. and never close any windows just incase light decides to one day shine through.

    in the end, love is everything

    1. Hello Bryce,

      Although it is true that proving evolution does not strictly disprove the existence of god, if theories exist which are accompanied by compelling evidence to explain human existence (such as evolution, the big bang, etc.), what need is there to invoke the presence of a supernatural being such as a god?

      Regarding the mention of a war between science and religion, I believe the incompatibility is rooted in the basis of each , where religion relies heavily upon faith / believing things without needing proof, and science requiring ideas to be accompanied by evidence and/or data in order to be taken seriously.

      This is only a minor contradiction compared to the actual dispute common to these types of forums, which is not so much a matter of science against religion, as it is the Dawkins-style atheist against religion. The reason for this dispute being that with no compelling evidence of the existence of a supernatural god, subscribing so strongly to any religion is an act of folly at best, and at worst, the cause for much of the world's turmoil: think multiple crusades, inquisition, Taliban, KKK and a seemly endless list more of episodes and groups consisting of or causing a massive loss of precious human life among other horrors, in numerous forms fueled by religion. In the face of evidence for evolution and lack of evidence for the existence of any god, these atrocities are shamefully meaningless, and in some cases still impacting us today.

      At the risk of sounding cliche, the point is as well summarized by a quote by Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil... that takes religion. "

    2. Dawkins has never said that God doesn't exist (like a true scientist, simply because he can't prove that an "All knowing" being exists; which doesn't lead to the conclusion that something of the kind exists.) What he says is that creationism is a tale of fiction just like Harry Potter and LOTR and that Evolution is a fact.

  153. I met my wife while reading Dawkins, and it was nice to see a full doc with him. All too often I've felt how he obviously feels, red-faced and frustrated to the point of rage at people who simply "believe" what they "believe" because it's easier to digest than a multitude of facts, evidence, and theory. I hate the argument of "how do they KNOW?" when the people making the arguments don't actually "know" anything other than what they were fed. I hate trying to explain evolution to people who say they don't "believe" in it. That's like saying you don't "believe" in algebra, physics, or cosmology. It works, we've done our reseacrh, and are able to create predictions based on the date we've accumulated.
    What I'm trying to say is....good doc.

  154. Thanks for the link. I would like to send it to Ms. Bachmann, but I don't have her E-mail address.

    I wish it were just a small number of Christians. I find the situation bleaker, especially after reading the article on creationism in Wikipedia, according to which the percentage of Americans who believe in evolution dropped from 45% to 40%. Maybe Canadians are generally more enlightened.

    The problem is that these ostensibly "small number of Christians" try to infect everything with their ignorance, especially our schools--and they don't care if they have to distort the facts to do it. For something as jaw-droppingly stupid as Ms. Bachmann, go to any creationist or intelligent design website--and there are plenty of them.

    On the brighter side, you might want to read about Kitzmiller v. Dover School District which, despite its positive outcome, is scary. It's on the web and there is even a free documentary on it in Top Documentary.

    But I digress. My point is that modern mathematics contradicts "fundamentalist" thought, especially regarding omniscience, and yet it is relatively free from potential interference, perhaps because its abstract nature requires too much intellect for the evangelical Christian.

    Your thoughts?

    1. I would have thought evolution is pretty good evidence of intelligent design, at least what little we know of it.
      But speaking of faith, well, there are certainly many leaps of faith when it comes to explaining evolution, natural selection, survival of fittest, the selfish gene and so on....Let us not forget the evils of social darwinism and the many false directions of this ideology.

    2. You don't need a leap of faith to see that Evolution is a fact. If you read "Evolution; the greatest show on Earth" by Dawkins, you'll know that numerous experiments have been done by scientists which allows you to actually see the evolution of the species selected (guppies are one of them). Obviously these experiments requires a lot of time and patience (since the process of evolution is gradual, and not like the one you see in Pokèmons) but it is something that you could do yourself at home.

    3. Evolution is a gradual process. It speeds up when the environment is subjected to drastic changes mostly due to human activities. About the moths, that wasn't really a natural selection; it was more of an artificial selection caused by human beings (the sudden increase in the amount of carbon-dioxide). The tree barks darkened in a relatively short period of time, which lead to the fast decline of light-colored moths and thus the fast increase in the dark colored moth population. Nowadays, due to the drastic increase of human influence in nature,the pace of evolution has accelerated. For example, the rapid decrease in the number of elephants with long tusks due to poaching.

    4. Thank you...So interesting! I am researching theories and theodicies of personal and social suffering, because it is work related as a have to expand my grasp of biological/evolutionary processes.
      We cover the very basics in graduate practice courses, but really its cursory. The more interesting research for me lately is neurodevelopmental , cross referenced wih population health studies-ie Developmental Health and the Wealth of Nations, Hertzman and Keating.

  155. @Epicurus

    I can see that we occupy the same highchair.

    I don't have quite your knowledge or depth on the subject of evolution, biology, etc., but I lke to consider myself informed anyway.

    What is your take on Ms. Bachmann who in a newsbite asserted that there is currently a debate among scientists, some of them Nobel Prize winners, concerning the validity of evolution?

    And while you're at it, can you please tell me why biology and history are the school subjects most picked on by the uneducated? Why not math? After all, the concept of the infinite (and its little brother, the infinitessimal) (limits if you will), the cornerstones of modern mathematics, contradict the most endearing and enduring dogma? How Newton managed to live with himself I'll never know. Well, so much for circle squarers!

  156. @epicurus

    Perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe that Purplemandown was caviling about the spurious distinction made between macroevolution and microevolution, one of the pet children of the intelligent designists (creationists).

    1. ya he was which is absolutely ridiculous. macroevolution is a necessary outcome of microevolution. its like saying that tectonic plates move into one another, but they dont create mountain ranges. its border line retarded.

    2. In other words, evolution is evolution with nothing in between.

      Do you agree?

    3. @Robertallen

      Absolutely agree.

  157. Macroevolution is just a religion posing as science. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is full of crap.

    1. wow that is a ridiculous thing to say.

      Macroevolution is the product of many changes (microevolution) over a long period of time. it is an absolutely necessary outcome.

      Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions

      Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

      Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years

      Maybe you should know what you are talking about before you decide to immortalize your stupidity on the internet for everyone to see.

    2. Nasty note Epicurus! Not many of us have your specialised knowledge, but it should not prevent us from commenting or asking' stupid' questions. This is how we learn. Also, thank you for clarifying micro and macroevolution.
      It seems to me that the conflict between science and 'faith' is most intense amongst a minority of fundamentalists, probably representing a number of religions, not just Christianity. Personally, I don't see a conflict. But the 'religious right' seem to have more political power in the US., and elsewhere, than in this country. I don't hear that expression in Canada on voting day. Course, we have a semi-socialist party as the official opposition....
      Aside from that, as a social scientist, a mental health clinician, I am interested in neurodevelopmental and epigenome studies indicating that our social and biological environment influences genetic expression more than previously known. The impact can affect several generations. Bruce Perry, Clyde Hertzman and many others are delivering remarkable information leading to a new perspective on evolution, one which is, as I understand it, quite different from Dawkins', especially his grandiose assumptions in The Selfish Gene. I think he had it wrong there.

  158. seems dawkins has found a new word for god

  159. Right off the bat, this guy comes off as pompous. He is probably not the most enlightened individual, but then again, who is? One thing that he doesn't understand is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution can be taken a third way. (most of the time in life there is a third way) It can be taken as an even greater reason to believe in God! D: dun dun dun! How many of you saw that one coming?! It's ok though, we're all trained to have a one way or the other outlook on things. think about it. ex. Demoncrats vs Repubtards: How many of us are shills for "the party"? probably most of us, but how many of us really, truly take everything the party stands for as gospel? probably not a whole lot of us. did you know that there are many, multiple other parties out there?! Did you know that you have the respectable choice of not voting at all? (if you're into that illuminati conspiracy thing) well I'm bored with this already, so just keep in mind that there are third options out there. wonderful, glorious, and untapped third options.

    1. You're right evolution doesn't say that god didn't do it. Evolution doesn't even deal with god. Nothing in science deals with god. The great thing about science is there isn't another option. Evolution happens this way and this way only. Whether god put the whole thing in motion is irrelevant. Sure it can be taken as a reason to believe in god but it without a doubt disproves the genesis account of creation. Evolution does not deal with the origins of life, that is abiogenesis. It doesn't matter how life started evolution is still fact. Your analogy of politics makes no since either. Politics is nothing like science, not in the least.

    2. But politics is a science--ask Machiavelli, Tallyrand and Kissinger.

    3. You're the unenlightened one. Why don't you read something about Dr. Dawkins before making your asinine comments about him. And speaking of asinine, why can't you write acceptable English? This pseudo stream of consciousness coupled with your trendiness ill suits you and your topic and leaves behind a trail of vacuity and idiocy exemplified in your third (and meaningless) interpretation of the theory of evolution and your general treatment of third options.

    4. well sir, duh duh duh mmmbff... I win. quit acting like you're smart dude. I watched a whole video on this guy, and his opinion on the subject. What he has to say does not make me want to pick up one of his books. You know, I'm pretty sure you can understand everything I'm saying anyways and as long as I can get my point across and you can understand me, who cares about mhhmmhmmhm proper english. learn to think dude.

    5. The way you express yourself says a lot about you and from the way you express yourself, it's obvious that you're the one who needs thinking and learning, not Dr. Dawkins who practices both.

      By the way, what is your opinion on "the subject," that is if you can enunciate it?

    6. Richard Dawkins never said evolution means there is no god. he has many other reasons to believe there is no god.

      however he does say evolution proves that the people who believe the bible word for word are wrong.

    7. Dun dun dun! That's old news bro, it's obvious to everyone (who isn't a believer) that the believer can turn ANYTHING into a reason to believe in god! It's part of the reason we can't stand you.

  160. @perfectsense

    You are obviously one of those brainless fundamentalists, ignorant of both the Bible and science itself who expatiates and conjectures wildly on topics he knows nothing about. It's amazing and sad how many people are swayed by sheer quackery.

    Let me set you straight on on one of your boeotian assertions: No scientist worth his salt claims that we are descendants of monkeys (or apes if you prefer); rather that apes (or monkeys if you prefer) and man share a common ancestor and by the same token, so does every living thing. For proof, try spending some time on a Sunday at a museum of natural history or similar locale rather than wasting it at that font of ignorance and superstition which you so proudly attend.

    In addition, you might try reading--by this I mean general scientific texts as well as a history of the Bible. There are many such books. With a little luck, you might surprise yourself by your enlightenment and looking back, wonder whatever made you posit such ridiculous statements.

    But perhaps I ask too much.

  161. Perfect sense, I totally agree with you. Drinking the blood of a 2,000 year old god everyday at church, seems totally reasonable. What is even more reasonable , is that I don't know, say 40% of the worlds wealth is possessed by 1% of its population. According to your bible " It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"- Then, well I guess they're going to hell.

    Furthermore, evolution of a species happens all the time. Look at dogs that evolved from wolves, or I dont know the different Homo sapiens, homo erectus etc...

  162. If you actually go to Church and read the Bible it makes perfect sense. But this crap is totally nonsense. If we evolved from monkey's why are there still monkeys and why aren't they evolving still? I would be more inclined to believe that we were brought here by aliens and left to fend for ourselves.

    1. LOL how old are you?

      first off nothing makes sense about a rib woman being tricked by a talking snake to eat a magical fruit...that is nonsense. nothing makes sense about a story of a man taking two of every animal on his boat so that a global flood wouldnt kill them...that is nonsense

      now to your question....

      think about this. I live in Canada yet my ancestors were Irish and Scottish...but wait! why are there still Irish and Scottish people!?!?!?!?

      also evolution doesnt say we evolved FROM monkeys per se. we evolved from a common ancestor of the present day apes and monkeys. that ancestor is extinct.

      if you are going to disagree with something perhaps you should learn about it before you make such stupid comments for everyone to read.

    2. If you are a decedent from your grandparents why do you still have cousins?

    3. @perfectsense, you can't be serious!

      Most United Stated citizens are of European descent,
      so why are there still Europeans?

      Hopefully, you yourself are a not a European, living in Europe!

    4. First of all, we did not evolve from monkeys; we share a common ancester with them. And evolution is a gradual process which takes millions and millions of years, so you can't expect to see a monkey to stand up and talk or a whale to grow out legs. And, we are still evolving, you just don't notice it because as i said before it's a gradual process.

    5. Wait now AUWR, if evolution takes millions of years how can a species adapt quickly enough to survive through natural selection? There is evidence of evolution when we can see, within one or two human generations, some change in animal adaption. Is that correct? I am thinking about a moth species that changed colour during the industrial revolution, someplace in Britain , because their natural habitat was damaged. The dark coloured species were less vulnerable to predators, so they lived longer and reproduced. I don't know how many moth generations it took, but in human terms, probably one.

    6. First of all, you confuse evolution with replacement.

      Secondly, what makes you think we are not evolving?

      Third, you obviously don't know or want to know the Bible. Both testaments are filled with irresoluble contradictions from one end to the other, so how can it make perfect sense?

      Fourth, who have you been listening to, if anyone, and what have you been reading, if anything?

      AUWR answered you well. Expand your mind with science; religion won't do it.

  163. had I lived then, I coulda conceived of evolution for many ideas comes naturally to me like differential equation and stoichemistry as a youth, relativity as a young adult...

  164. Natural selection understood. Don't we ourselves select physical and mental characteristics to mate with everyday? Don't we try to enhance our own physical attributes to make ourselves seemingly more attractive (to what is considered attractive in various cultures)? So how is natural selection so diametrically opposed to religious teaching that in the beginning (whenever that was) God created the Heavens and the Earth?

    The computation of time by biblical standards is obviously erroneous and I'm not sure that even the bible seeks to establish time. The bible suggests that God's measurement of time varies significantly from man's. (Psalm 90:4) (2 Peter 3:8). When God promised a Messiah, he took "forever" (generations) before he sent Christ, and similarly, the 2nd return is taking another set of lifetimes.

    As a devout Christian, I never readily accpeted that the world was created in exactly 144 hours (or 6 days) as we know time to mean now. I also often wonder whether the biblical authors computed time with the same calendar that we know today.

    I have no hesitation in understanding that all the evolutionary process that we can unearth (as miraculous as it truly is) is God's own working over time. The question is, WHAT IS TIME?

    1. Al Elliot says:
      "As a devout Christian, I never readily accepted that the world was created in exactly 144 hours (or 6 days) as we know time to mean now. I also often wonder whether the biblical authors computed time with the same calendar that we know today."

      Check out the original Hebrew. A day could mean 24 hours or even a tremendous long period of time. Thus God's word the Bible is correct.
      The people of the Bible based time on our Moon, our Sun and the stars; calendars are man made ... but remember they were ready for Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago just as we are ready NOW.

    2. @tom.nicholls

      You are right about time.

      But if you are one of those ignoramuses who aver that the Bible is the holy word of god as opposed to the secular word of man, then you know nothing about its history.

    3. Yes, we are ready for Jesus.
      And we are going to kill him again, but this time we can torture him even more, so that we can be really certain that God forgives our sins.

    4. What do you mean "they were ready for Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago . . . ?" Biblical scholarship has shown that the New Testament was retrospectively brought into conformity with the prophecies of the old and that the prophecies of the Old Testament were brought into conformity with those found in earlier writings such as those from Egypt.

    5. Right you are. God's time is not measured by our notions of time. Anyway, time is relative. Do creationists also dispute the age of the earth and geological evolution of the planet?

  165. @JustAn0therBrick:

    I realize that this is only a small part of your refutation, but:

    The reason why words in English dictionary do not arrange themselves into Shakesphere is because of these simple facts you will surely agree on:

    Words do not have sex
    Words don't even reproduce asexually.
    Words do not transfer their characteristics to their children.
    Words have not existed for billions of years.

    The claims of your nature are just ridiculous. Like the "words in the sand" example. If you see "Mary loves John" written on the beach sand, would you think it was written by an intelligent being or if the sand just arranged itself?

    Well, of course, any Evolutionists would agree that it was written by a person. But that is because the sentence "Mary loves John" does not have sex, reproduce asexually, have children that they pass their characteristics on, or have mountains upon mountains of "fossils" of "Marry loves John" and its evolutionary counterparts in the fossil record. Besides, we have seen plenty of times other people writing words and figures in the sand.

    Really. These arguments are getting old. Actually, about 150 years old to be more precise... how long does this cycle of proving over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over go on?

    1. But compared linguistics works the same way as evolution. All western languages evolved from a single ancestor: indo-europeen. Then as human spread over Europe in small bands, mutations occured in words so at the end, new languages emerged.

    2. I believe you mean proto-IndoEuropean which is a reconstructed, synthetic language created by linguistic historians as a transitional model. However, new languages do not emerge from changes in words which are merely the icing on the cake, but from grammatcial and phonetic mutations.

  166. @JustAn0therBrick
    Just because you can't comprehend or understand a subject like evolution or gravity as you clearly demonstrated 19 hours ago by essentially saying "evolution is random" doesn't mean it can't be true. It just means you ignorant to the facts,
    "Even today, scientists are unable to create even a simple living bacteria out of the organic molecules and the wealth of knowledge at their disposal, yet they argue that those very same molecules created you and me and all the wonderful living beings in this world by just randomly mutating themselves."
    Maybe you should at least do a little research before you claim this, it would surprise you to find out the results.
    I would also suggest you do a little more research on gravity as well. Seems you have trouble going beyond google for your information.

    1. JustAn0therBrick would not need to go beyond Googol if this person were to use it to access, for example, wikipedia which contains some fine articles which might serve to fill in this person's ignorance.

      Just An0otherBrick is just parroting what's been handed down by those of commensurate ignorance.

    2. "is just parroting what's been handed down by those of commensurate ignorance." And your not? I suggest you watch Professor Walter Veith's testimony, if you want the truth. Just Google it. He was a die-hard evolutionist and taught it all his years as Professor.

    3. @Nunaur Biz

      While I am not a biologist, etc., I'm certainly better informed than you or Just Another Brick, for in scientific matters, I rely on scientists, not Johnny-Come-Lately spiritualists.

  167. Can't believe it, everywhere I go there is god stuff, going to log in just for the great comments. I promise!

  168. My friends,

    If you can believe that all the words in the English dictionary can randomly over time rearrange themselves to turn into one of the plays of Shakespeare, then you might as well believe in the current theory of random mutations of evolution.

    Even today, scientists are unable to create even a simple living bacteria out of the organic molecules and the wealth of knowledge at their disposal, yet they argue that those very same molecules created you and me and all the wonderful living beings in this world by just randomly mutating themselves.

    If you find all that reasoning hard to believe, don't worry, you are not alone, there are many accomplished researchers and scientists in this world who do not believe in the current theory of evolution. Google search 'a scientific dissent from darwinism' and you the first link will show you pages and pages of names and credentials of scientists, biologists and researchers who do not believe in darwin's theory. You are not alone. Peruse that link if you would like to know more.

    If you don't understand how all this life has come about, don't worry, there are a huge number of things about life and human body that all these scientists themselves don't understand. The so-called mysteries.

    You don't have to believe in a faulty theory (of evolution) just because there is no other scientific theory (yet..) These guys have been wrong before. Remember the 'Earth centric universe' of Ptolemy.

    Peace :-)

    1. life from non life is abiogenesis not evolution . evolution does not try to answer the origin of life

    2. With every post, you reveal more and more of your ignorance--and you seem proud of it.

      Your second paragraph is entirely false. You obviously know nothing about the latest developments in genetics--and what do you think cloning does.

      Your third paragrah is as ill-informed as your first. No scientist respected by his peers denies the concept of evolution any more than a mathematician would deny the concept of limits.

      Your crowning achievement is to call evolution faulty without knowing anything about it.

      Most people have been wrong at some time in their lives, but the difference with you is that you're wrong all of the time.

      P.S. Please regard me as your enemy.

  169. @JustAnOtherBrick

    Don't listen to @robertallen1 and @over the edge they are just being really really horrible people by attempting to bring rationale into this debate.

    It is obvious that God did it. There is no such thing as evolution of species in fact species never changed at all. God came down from the sky and in one day created all the different animals that exist on the earth out of clay and then he breathed his magic breath into them and they all came to life fully grown and in all the amazing varieties that we see before us today.

    Even though some creatures were really similar to others and shared vestigial organs and correlated really well to the taxonomy of the phylogenetic tree. That was just the magical design and really was a test to see if man could actually use his brain and figure things out for himself or just blindly accept the 100% unequivocal, factual and non-negotiable truth that was. Don’t ask why just accept it. Silly man trying to figure things out for himself.

    Then if that wasn't amazing and inexplicable enough he created humans fully formed for the explicit purpose of serving him, a little bit like a zombie with out free will but the bad man ate fruit from a tree and gained free will and God was displeased at his slave. He was so displeased that he punished man for all time until the end of the earth came and then they would maybe be forgiven if they accepted their subservient nature.

    Lets get back to all the animals on earth. You MUST accept that god did it and if you don't and provide a silly theory like evolution (I spit in disgust at the foolish attempt to explain things rationally) then you MUST provide the exact full and complete step by step idiots guide to your theory (again I spit in disgust at your folly) repeatedly in response to every religiously motivated conservatism.

    Lets just give up on exploration and discovery altogether and permanently lock down the rationale parts of our brains in a place where there will NEVER be a risk of them being used again.

    We can't make any progress that isn't bestowed upon us by our beneficent lord so why bother?

    And as for gravity. LMAO. God does it by pulling on a magic string silly.

    1. How right you are and let's run our businesses as we run our religion.

    2. Just one more thing:

      If God reallly wanted to, he could:

      1. Convert pi into a rational number, thereby simplifying geometry, plane and solid, for the whole human race and putting smiles on the faces of circle squarers around the globe.
      2. Squash the earth flat as a pancake and have everythng revolve around it.
      3. Make division by zero kosher--or perhaps in one of his draconian moods, expunge this troublesome number altogether, thus bringing us back to simpler and happier times.
      4. Eliminate Newton's Second law and while he was at it, all atoms, together with protons, neutrons and electrons.
      5. Grant fertility to mules.
      6. Expunge all those unsightly black holes.
      7. Come up with a rhyme for orange (something for him while resting).
      8. Build a perpetual motion machine and an honest politician. Can't you imagine the Nobel Prize going to God?

      These are just some of the wonderful things in God's power, if only he had a mind to do them.

    3. Here is a way to see pi
      the circumference is science, it explains the physical cover of the seed of energy
      the diameter is sprituality, it contains the why of the energy

      when they talk together they are "constantly" "irrational".
      az lol mao

    4. Anybody can come up with an analogy, but yours is particularly meaningless. What are you talking about--or do you know what you are talking about?

  170. Evolution is a theory and you need faith to believe in it (just like faith in God), because there is no proof for evolution in present (you don't see any transitional species walking around), nor is there any proof in the past (no fossil records of any form of transitional species - there are only gaps in fossil records leaving a whole bunch of perplexed paleontologists). It is a theory that has been proposed but can not be replicated or reproduced unlike provable theories in physics or chemistry.

    Think about it. How the heck did the one cell organism suddenly turn into a two cell organism? What made it evolve? Did it just "think" that it needs to become two and why? How did a multicellular organism evolve to have vision? Did it just "think" that there are things out there that it wants to see to lead a better life (think easy access to food, etc)? Can you "think" and develop 2 more pairs of hands to work better? How the heck can an organism with no idea about world outside it develop eyes (one of the most complex senses)? What is the intelligence behind it? What is the intelligence that drives all these changes? Have you even once stopped to think about it before shouting evolution. It is easy to look at evolution on a macro scale and say you understand it, but once you get down to the details, the micro scale, there are no easy answers.

    I might as well say that if I leave a whole bunch of transistors alone for a long enough time, they would've re-organized themselves to become an Ipad. That obviously wouldn't happen. So there is something else about organic substances that guides them to "evolve" - call it nature, life force, whatever - but it is a higher intelligence that is beyond the scientific theories of evolution.

    1. there is lots of proof for evolution. example fossils,dna, vestigial appendages and so on. we are all transitional species very few living things appear as they did in the distant past. there are many transitional fossils (too many to list look them up for yourself). the theory has been replicated (see long term e-coli evolution experiment) many times. "How the heck did the one cell organism suddenly turn into a two cell organism?" you need look no further than yourself (at conception we all are one cell organisms). evolution doesn't need to "think" or "choose" to evolve it happens by mutations and natural selection. the evolution of vision has been shown so i will leave it up to you to look into yourself. your transistors example is comparing non living to living not going to address such a ridiculous statement. ok i addressed your questions. i am sure not to your satisfaction but still addressed . not address mine. show me non religious proof that a creator existed ?( the bible is full of contradictions and hearsay and therefore not proof) . when was life created? and are you saying all life appears exactly as it was created?

    2. "Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work" that sounds like the flagellum (irreducible complexity) or the eye evolution that creationists keep bringing up the flagellum has 40 complex parts but scientists have shown that it still has a purpose reduced down. the eye could have started with photo receptor cells which detect light and dark but nothing else, a few more adaptions could have detected direction, next intensity and so on there are living organisms today that possess many of the "steps" necessary to show the progression of the eye. you still haven't answered my questions on when life began and proof of a creator? you cannot prove your case by questioning another you have to provide evidence for your claims not try to attack evolution. can you provide proof for creation or do you just attack what you clearly don't understand? i went to the website you suggested.the author "John Michael Fischer" is not a biologist and has no education within the natural sciences also not 1 biologist or doctor is listed in the footnotes if i was going to go and read "expert " opinion i would expect an education in a related area would be required. your claim of transitional fossils missing in the human record is partially correct. there have been many fossil finds showing the development of man but you are right not every step has been found. darwins theory was first published in 1859 (152 years ago) creation has been around for thousands of years but evolution has lots of physical and testable evidence (admittingly not complete) where is you physical testable evidence? hiding god in the gaps is dangerous because the gaps keep getting closed.

    3. You obviously need an education, so let me help you get started.

      1. All the hard evidence supports evolution. There is no hard evidence to support anything else, including faith and trust and belief in a higher intelligence.

      2. You complain of the absence of transitional forms. When was the last time you visited a museum? By the way, all forms of life are transitional, even man.

      3. It would be surprising if after millions of years of development and geological and other transformations and cataclysms, there were no gaps in the fossil record. However, every day more of these gaps are being filled in and within the last 150 years scientists have done very well at this. Perhaps a good introduction to paleontology might cure of your ignorance in this regard.

      4. You want living proof of evolution, try the cockroaches who perenially develop immunities to the current insecticides. Perhaps you've read about the latest strains of viruses against which there appear to be no current antibiotics--What do you think this is all about? The internet is loaded with articles on this topic.

      5. Evolution is not metaphysics. Its explanations and conclusions are grounded in the concrete, not in the unprovable, not in the dogmatic.

      6. There is no such thing as microevolution or even macroevolution--it's all evolution.

      7. While we're at it, there are many fine articles on the development of the eye (and for that matter, other body parts). Perhaps you should examine a few before you go off at the keyboard.

      8. I realize this concept may be difficult for you to grasp, but mutation and natural selection, along with other natural phenomena, occur without normative reason. I know it's as hard for you to understand that things just happen as it is to accept randomness and the absence of a so-called higher intelligence.

      Your arguments are as tired, pathetic and empty as when they were first propounded and refuted many years ago and judging from what you've written you're just as pathetic and across-the-board ignorant. Unfortunately, there are too many like you who know nothing about what they say or write.

    4. well said robertallen1

  171. Evolution is a theory, god is not even an hypothesis.

    1. Evolution is a fact, the theory explains how it works, much as gravity is a fact and a theory of gravity explains it.

      God is a failed hypothesis, we observed nature in all its glory,made a hypothesis to explain it, and then failed to provide even the slightest shred of evidence to support it.

    2. Who says GOD has to be what it is?
      The Spear said: "To be or not to be", the Beatles said" "Let it be" I say: Let it be what? Me? You? Us?

    3. Tell me sir, so how does gravity work? How does the sun pull earth towards it? By some magic string? Oh yeah, the apple falls down, so the earth must be pulling it and hey, that pull is called gravity, but how does gravity actually work? No idea. I suppose the same way evolution created all the life forms.

      (Hint : try reading on gravitons and the inability of science to find it or prove its existence)

  172. Whenever some person comments that "evolution is just a theory", or that "science has not proven it yet", or even that "there is no evidence for evolution", I am drawn to think that all of these criticisms not only come from the same source but are also spoon-fed to these people. Why do I say this? Because these are some of the exact same arguments that people made 150 years ago when Darwin had just published On the Origin of Species. Since then, millions and millions of data supporting the idea have been either discovered or created, and yet the argument of the opposition has refused to evolve!

    People who are science illiterate seems to have problems with these crucially important concepts:
    1) principles of statistics, and application
    2) the concept and applications of a "theory" (falsifiability, testability, generation of new data)
    and 3) formulation of ideas using the scientific method.

    For all of these people who use these outdated arguments, the questions I have to you are these: do you even know what scientific evidence supports evolution? Can you grasp the overwhelming amount of data that supports evolution?

    1. The ideas of creationism have been put out by the Discovery Institute. It's been spread around and passed off as fact for so long that the gullible "believe" it. It's never been based on anything that comes close to facts. Evolution, on the other hand, is exclusively based on observable facts. There are hundreds of thousands of great books and articles explaining how it works to anyone who is interested in understanding it.

    2. And these works are least read by creationists.

  173. There are so many irrational comments here by people who simply don't understand what a THEORY is in the SCIENTIFIC world, and do not understand what the theory of evolution actually is. It's like me arguing with a Christian by saying the Koran is wrong. If you're going to argue against something so fiercely at least know what it is you are arguing against - if you actually believe that god gave you a brain then USE it.

    Every time someone says "evolution is just a theory and requires faith" all it shows is that the person saying it does not understand what evolution is, has not looked at the evidence, and does not understand what a theory is.

    If you are going to try to disprove evolution then you need to provide another theory that FITS THE EVIDENCE, that's how science works - otherwise why don't you reject science all together? Stop using your computer and all the other things science has given you and go live in a grass hut in true dark age style.

  174. If only there was a little more humility when using the genius word. Science would be in better shape. Loads of gaps in Darwins theory. Loads of good thinking but the genius word restricts problem solving.

  175. Point being there is that it really doesn`t matter HOW we got here, but where we`re going now is what matters most. And the Earth ships that Mike provides are absolutely INGENIOUS! I foresee a future project for him and his crew. Come here to the Snohomish Chalet in Snohomish, WA, and build one in the area known as Camp Careless for the disabled community. Build one that a person in a wheel chair like myself could live in. That would be the next step on your revolutionary journey you`ve began.
    See how it relates to the story below? This place is currently saturated with profit seeking corporations seeking profit at the expense of the residents long term health. Your project here would put an end to it here and further initiate a world revolution to save this wonderful planet.

  176. Who made it?

    Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great scientist; but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout Christian. They often discussed their views concerning God, as their mutual interest in science drew them much together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving in proper order around this were small balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. These bails were so geared together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony when turned by a crank.

    One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move with their relative speeds in their orbits. Standing off a few feet he exclaimed,

    "My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?"

    Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, "Nobody!"

    Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?"

    Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, "You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is."

    Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder. "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much larger system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a design and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

  177. believe in evolution; that is the problematic phrase.

  178. @Jonathan Gems
    as i already stated darwins finches are speciation.

  179. @over the edge
    It may surprise you then that I find religion and science as inextricably intertwined and find both as feasible working alongside one another!

    However, that is an unnecessary discussion, and I also respect the right of all to their own beliefs or lack thereof, and would never try to push anyone to believe the same as myself. I too encourage you to believe what you feel might make you a better person.

    And by the way, thanks for correcting me in terminolgy. :)

    1. Just because you respect our beliefs or lack of it does not entail that you avoid discussions or debate in order to arrive at a conclusion as to which ones could possibly be true. In debate or discussions no one is coercing the other to believe in their position but merely convincing them by providing evidence and reasons through argumentation. Providing these proofs are not coercions because the provision of these materials allows the other party to evaluate them for him/her self. However to indoctrinate the other by simply telling them that he or she is wrong, and telling them that they need to change their beliefs or they will burn in hell is a kind of coercion.

  180. @french toasty
    could you please show me where evolution says anything about the origins of life? the theory you are referring to is abiogenesis not evolution. and i will say this again so please read this carefully evolution is NOT a theory darwins explanation of the mechanics of evolution is the theory evolution itself is a fact. also within science a theory is as high as an explanation can go you are using a common tactic of creationists/id by using incorrect definitions of scientific terms to try to discredit it

    1. Whoops, my apologies - that is my mistake, and you are quite correct in my misuse of terms. I myself tend to be conditioned by those I run across that are willing to speak about the subject - many average people I talk to tend to meld the terms together as I have just done, since they cannot seem to picture one without the other. I do actually recognize abiogenesis and evolution as two completely separate things.

      I also have no intent in making a feeble attempt to disprove the proper definition of evolution, but I must also admit that I do not personally agree 100% with the poplular views of evolutionary biology held by most modern scientists and academia.

    2. i respect that you can admit a mistake as most cannot. i have no problem with someone challenging science or someone not convinced 100% by the evidence. you are entitled to your views and as time goes on theories will change or adapt as knowledge grows. you posted another comment on religion and science. the only response i have on that front is that one will never support the other (natural forces versus supernatural forces) that is not to say one cannot hold both as true. only that they cannot be intertwined. as long as religion stays out of the classroom, politics, science and my home believe whatever makes you a better person

  181. The theory of evolution is a theory - and not a very good one. If it were, it would have been proven by now. Even Darwin himself acknowledged there was no evidence in the fossil record or biology of animals or plants changing species. His theory of Natural Selection can be proven empirically but this only covers variation within a species. People have practised Unnatural Selection for many centuries, it's called breeding. There are records of people breeding horses 3,000 years ago in China for instance. But no one has ever been able to breed a horse into another different type of animal. Plant breeding has also been done for centuries. Nature gave us only two varieties of camellia, for example, a red one and a white one; but breeders have been able to create pink camellias and variegated camellias. In Holland in the 18th century, breeders managed to grow a black tulip - but never has a breeder been able to create a rose out of a tulip or a daffodil out of a dandelion. The idea that this could happen over millions of years is not supported by evidence.
    I don't have an explanation - or a theory - for how our plant and animal species came into being. One thing is sure though: 'evolution' ain't it.

    1. yes darwins theory remains a theory so what? how about germ theory, nuclear theory , theory of gravity? these remain theories are you saying they don't exist? evolution is a fact darwins theory is an explanation of how that fact works. do you know the definition of species? you stated "only covers variation within a species." darwins finches were different species and evolved from a common ancestor or how about humans Homo habilis , Homo gautengensis , Homo erectus , neanderthal and so on all different species that evolved into us. can you explain why whales have the remnants of hind legs. everything is transitional the process is long and we continue to evolve but observing a change in a single or few generations is not the claim of evolution. then you bring up plants the sheer volume of evidence is staggering and i wont post so much text here but look up speciation of plants for yourself

    2. Calling evolution on the whole as people see it today a 'fact' is not a very accurate way to consider it. I believe evolution is a fact only in the way a species adapts.

      What I mean to say, is that sure, species will ADAPT over time to become more successful in it's environment. Survival of the fittest works in this way, where the species most suited and acclimated to it's environment will survive and perhaps have some different qualities than it's ancestors. In this way, the species adapts and evolves.

      Most people today though also believe evolution means that life began from raw materials in some extraordinary evolutionary process where inanimate matter adapted and evolved into life - a believe that has no concrete proof in science whatsoever. How *did* life begin? Again, evolution offers no provable explanation.

      Evolution defined as a species adapting seems quite acceptable from a scientific viewpoint... however, believing life evolved or adapted from 'dead' matter currently has no solid scientific ground to stand on, and is one reason why evolution as most understand it today must remain only a theory.

    3. Please give one example (just one) of a species of animal or plant life
      changing into another. Blustering is not the same
      as rational argument.

    4. Are you still in High School? NO apparently "talking snakes" and "Women created from a rib" is your idiom. What you don't mention, could fill volumes....why don't you read some of them?

    5. Why are people that believe in 'talking snakes' or 'rib-made women' considered to be so educationally immature?

      Believing in evolution is also a leap of faith, some would even say a more extreme leap, than having an outlook based on religious beliefs. You can prove neither, and you can easily bend the meaning of many scientific discoveries about our origins to support either viewpoint.

    6. No doubt if you had an argument you would make it. It's not your fault.
      You've been taught to believe that Darwin's so-called theory of evolution
      (which actually wasn't his theory) is true. If you had evidence you would
      present it - not have a tantrum.

    7. can you name a theory that has been proven fact?

      do you understand what a theory is? i will help you out.

      A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
      - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

      Basically, we take an observed fact which is things change or evolve. we then make a theory as to how they evolve. this explanation is given by natural selection, mutation, and gene drift. now we know in microevolution that natural selection is real and we know through genetics that gene drift and mutation occurs. we also have observed past fossils with traits that show a gradation from simple forms to more complex ones that are fitted to the niche of their environments. and we can also track those environmental changes.

      you must accept macroevolution if you accept microevolution and if you understand the immense variation in DNA. it is an absolute inevitability especially given the amount of time available.

      if you want examples of macroevolution that have been published in peer reviewed journals and is accepted you have two options. you can either go look them up...."macroevolution evidence" or you can tell me you are too lazy or dont know how to research and i can list a whole bunch in here with their respected authors....its up to you.

      lets get back to your misconception of THEORY.

      Atomic theory is a theory. so is germ theory. Atomic theory is a theory that proposes the existence of invisible objects called atoms that we have never seen. would say that it is just a theory?
      germ theory proposes that bacteria and other unseen objects caused sickness....would you claim that is just a theory? what about our heliocentric theory? would you say the sun is not the center of our solar system?

      you MUST understand the difference between a SCIENTIFIC THEORY and the layman's usage of the word theory.

    8. Are you blind? the evidence is right under you nose and you don't even bother to notice it! False belief called religion blinded you, dude...

    9. The failure of Darwin's theory of evolution is nothing to do with religion -
      that's a distraction. It's probably a political issue. The 'survival of
      the fittest' concept supports social management and social engineering
      strategies employed by dominant establishments. It suits the ruling class
      to have people believe in 'evolution'; it makes people accept the concept of
      hierarchy and striving to get ahead to please those above them in the
      hierarchy. The best slaves are those who choose their slavery voluntarily.
      So evolutionary theory has political traction for our lords and masters.
      Of course, it also leads to the philosophy of eugenics - of superior and
      inferior humans - a philosophy still embraced by the ruling elite today.
      Darwinism led to the atrocities of the Nazis, the death camps, and the
      eugenics courts of the 1920s and 30s that led to thousands of 'inferior'
      women being sterilised. Some claim the UN, Unesco, the World Health
      Organisation and other globalist institutions, are currently engaged in
      sterilising hundreds of millions of people via vaccination programs,
      genetically modified food, sodium fluoride and other sterilants in drinking
      water etc. in order to rid the world of 'inferior' human. Ruling class
      families eat only organic food grown on their own farms and spring water
      bottled from their own springs.
      Most microbiologists and many biologists and zoologists no longer regard
      Darwin's theory as credible. There's no evidence to support it and too much
      data that contradicts it. The notion that all of nature somehow "evolved"
      out of a mud puddle containing some amino acids is not feasible. The DNA in
      one human cell, if unravelled, stretches over 6 feet in length and is
      fantastically complex and well-organised. The idea that such a structure,
      which is a million times more complex than our most advanced computers,
      could happen randomly - or via a process of 'natural selection' - is absurd.
      What IS 'right under our noses' is the evidence (tons of it) that all
      biological and non-biological matter has been intelligently designed.
      Who or what designed it? We don't know. But, if we open our minds and are
      properly scientific (that is, empirical) we may find out one day. Darwinsim
      is a politically convenient dogma that has put the academic sciences in an
      intellectual straitjacket. Fortunately, more and more people are beginning
      to break out of it.

  182. @ Manbeast

    True, but that is an innate need we all have. From the day we became self-concious, we have feared the end of things and have thus looked elsewhere - especially since we weren't knowledgeable enough in the past to know how the world and the universe works. We do now, and we have other 'things' in life to give us purpose and escapism from the harsh realities of this Darwinian world.

  183. @ Mojo

    Agree, however people believe in many types of gods....pure energy being one for example

  184. After posting I tried to find out, briefly, whom I borrowed the above line from. I am guessing Confucius after finding this similar in concept quote
    "To know that one knows what one knows, and to know that one doesn't know what one doesn't know, there lies true wisdom"- Confucius

    I wonder....If the majority of people on this planet could truly understand this concept...would a need of organized religion even have existed at all?

    Thoughts anyone?

  185. Well, not really Manbeast.

    We KNOW the history of the Bible, and we KNOW the stories within it are not only contradictory to each other, but also to facts that are established by modern science. God isn't real, anyone not realizing that is brain-washed or simply too afraid to admit it. It's not up to debate. The debate is only about getting theists and deists to realize they are wrong, not to actually PROVE God false because that has already been done.

    1. I'll play devil's, or rather, Bible's advocate here for a sec because I like to promote an open mind about these types of issues. We are all free to believe what we like in the end.

      Yes, we know the history of the Bible. Some would also say it contradicts itself. Others would say these contradictions only rely on an inaccurate understanding of the Bible.

      However, I have read and studied much of the Bible for myself in the past and never found anything that contradicts scientific facts. Some religious circles espouse and promote traditionalist-based viewpoints supposedly taken from the Bible that DO contradict with science, but that does not mean they are correct.

      For instance, one sticking point for some is the age of the universe. Bible believers say that God created the earth and all life and follow that train of thought and study to certain 'scientific' viewpoints that are likely inaccurate. The Bible does not say HOW God might've created life beyond speaking it into existence. What methods would God have used as he spoke things into being? How long would it have taken to create the world and life? The six 'creation' days in the Bible can be seen as different lengths of time depending on your interpretation (I think most of us would disagree with a 6000-ish year old earth as promoted by some Bible scholars). The Bible does not give detailed accounts of precisely how the world as we know it came to be, and this is where modern science has made quite a large impact on our understanding of 'the beginning.' Furthermore, when the Bible accounts of creation are carefully examined, they do not really conflict at all with the current proven findings of modern science.

      It is also scientifically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a God or God-like being(s).

      OK, sorry for the long comment. I'm done playing devil's/bible's advocate. Just some food for thought. :)

  186. IMO if you KNOW there is a god, you are a fool.
    IF you KNOW there is not a god, you are a fool.

    I forget atm who said this and i butchered it i am sure..."A man cannot know anything until he realizes he knows nothing".. nice ring to it eh?

    BTW great doc!!

    P.S. IF god also talks to you fool+psychotic=u
    good luck with those meathooks of reality...baaaaaaaaaa

  187. Almost forgot, it's Darwin's 202nd birthday today (Feb 12th), so HAPPY DARWIN DAY everybody! Hope you get to do something in his honor this weekend, if only to watch this fantasic show. Thanks, Dawkins. Can't wait to show it to my mother.

  188. The science of evolution is not enough to convert all the links in the brain that converge as a belief in God. You will not likely outdo this biological fact no matter how brilliant your scientific answer (dear Epicurius!) We just don't paradigm shift like that. K? Michael Shermer explains this better than anyone! He has a new book coming out in May this year, but "How We Believe" is very good at describing this phenomenon.

  189. @Billy Bingbong; "Then we have to fight the government and they have jets :( " I Lol'd

  190. I am amazed by religious people and the beliefs they have, all because of magnificent writings with a promise of eternal life. I am also extremely glad to see how open minded the world is becomming, already the religions of the western world are a minority in their societies, it is only a matter of time before the "truth movement" exposes enough lies and conspiracies to gain a stronghold - then we have to fight the government and they have jets :(

  191. @Ed... How I wish some people would only THINK before they write!!! How can you ask someone to "prove" God using only "normal" language??? Thats like telling someone to win a game of hockey on a football field -you can't set "the rules" for a "spiritual game" under "the rules" for a "scientific game." It's simply unfair... Our language and culture are very much predisposed to the influence that science and industry has had on our civilizatiion over the past few hundred years, and so anything explained under these terms would seem to have more relevancy than anything explained in a spiritual sense -however, if you were to make the same request in a more ancient language, explaining God to a child, or anyone, may not be so difficult afterall... also, to think that any mere human (or technically, a mere animal with an evolutionary advantage) could possibly figure out all of the creation of the cosmos on his/her own, is ludicrous... It takes a little more brain power to really reach that higher level of thinking, but if you can reach that point of realization, all this evolution stuff just becomes a very small portion of the puzzle.

  192. I wish people would stop saying that Faith and Science, Religion and Darwinism could go hand in hand. They could not!
    The Bible clearly states Earth was created in a few days, and goes on to make an abundance of radical and completely ridiculous statements of how species came to be. This is not compatible with evolution.
    Evolution is there, whether you like it or not. God is disproved.

  193. Evolution has been verified thru countless number of the sciences. Genetics, biology, anthropology, microbilology, mineralogy, the evidence is overwhelming at this point. Intellignet Design folks raising a book, written by jewish nomads century's ago as infallible would seem to be on shakey ground. Science didnt walk into churches demanding evolution information be given to everyone so they have balanced opinions. Intelligent design is not science, neither is creationism. Only opinions worth having are those that can be shown by light of day. Enjoy lifes Journey

  194. LOL @ Angel Eyes.

    ohhh sigh. i wish i could be that stupid.

    We didnt evolve FROM apes...actually we evolved from the same common ancestors as all the other great apes (we are a primate). the reason there are still apes around is A) because we didnt evolve from them they evolved from the same thing as us just along a different path due to different environmental conditions. and B) if i am part Irish yet Canadian....why are there still Irish people around??

    see how B doesnt make sense...and neither does our question.

    its fine to disagree with someone but if you dont UNDERSTAND what you disagree with it might be safe to say that you are wrong.

  195. throughly enjoyed all three

    dawkins pulls no punches and gives it to u straight


  196. A tip of my hat to Epicurus in particular and everyone else who cited documented scientific observations to rebut the creationist nonsense. The pro-science arguments are so conclusively made in reality's favor that further comment on that front is not necessary.

    To the religious anti-reality-ists out there, I have only one question for you regarding teaching creation in a public school science class:

    "If you insist on teaching creationism in the science classroom, is it OK with you guys if we use Hesiod's Theogony as the textbook?"

    Compared to the Bible, the Greeks were a lot better at proto-scientific observations like the diameter of the earth, distance to the moon, Pi, the Pythagorean Theorem, etc. So if you want creation taught so we can "get both sides of the debate" wouldn't the Greek creation story be the best bet?

    Oh, wait. This has nothing whatsoever to do with evidence or fact... you just want to have your personal religion taught to everyone's kids. Well in that case, lets have an "everyone wear a burqa and pray towards Mecca" program in America's English classrooms, how about it? And a "worship the druid Earth Mother" during recess, and install some Tibetan Prayer Wheels in our Math classrooms.

    This entire debate is silly... it is painfully obvious why you guys have consistently lost every major court battle on the issue. The fact is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with science, it is purely religious for you. Well thanks but no thanks. You don't get to use my tax money and mandate (by law) that my child be taught your personal interpretation of an old book.

  197. @ Hate machine, SMM, Will.. and anyone else.

    Not wanting to get involved in the debate between Science and Religion, it's about what is "true" and what is "false", yes? Well, broaden your horizons with the "idea" that nothing is true - that everything children are taught in schools today are assumptions that have been falsified.

    For instance, we once believed that the sun moved around the Earth and through technological development and falsification we have come to another conclusion - that the Earth spins on it's own axis, and we will continue to believe this until there is something else that has been falsified. Basically, I'm not great at explaining it, but it's from a book by Karl Popper, a German author and it's called "Method of Scientific Enquiry".

    A couple of quotes from the web by Karl:

    "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again."

    "Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths."

    He's a really interesting guy, and what he wrote about is amazing!

  198. Excellent. Entertaining, enlightening and at times, deeply disturbing. Having been told that I was being "prayed for" today, I laughed out loud at Mr. Dennet's response to friends that prayed for him in his illness. If only I had finished watching part 3 a few days ago instead of putting it off until today...I'll have to keep that one in mind for the next time!

    I found that though not all the facts were given, the few that were presented were explored rather thoroughly. If I want more, I have his books at home to turn to!

  199. @Angel Eyes:

    I don't even know how to answer you? it is pretty hard for me to be nice with such a st00pid question, but will give it a try.
    Or maybe you just honestly do not know??
    So will give you the benefit of the doubt, "both apes and humans" evolved from a common ancestor, humans did not evolve from apes.

  200. I find Darwin's theory to be so ridiculous. If he was such a genius how could he believe in something so ridiculous as humans evolving from apes. If that is the case why are apes still living among us and has not transformed into humans?

  201. @ Charles B

    People like you stop the countries moving forward in life, if everybody in the western world had a mind set like yours it would look like the middle east.

    Don't teach evolution? OK lets not teach maths or science either.

    Now all you need to do is strap a bomb to him and send him off to blow up NASA and your a true terrorist.

    Your a joke, luckily we don't have any people like you in AUSTRALIA.

    Common sense is a lot more common over here then the USA, that might explain why life is so much better eh?

  202. For a thought:

    If God created the universe and all species on earth, then how great it would be if we can communicate to any other species (atleast 1 apart from us) and find out if they do have some belief like God among them... :)

  203. why do people think its okay to say "i hope you die painfully" according to the bible?
    as far as i know christianity it not ok. You should be nice and if someone is wrong you should inform/correct them not try to make them mad at you by offending them. me it seems they have a thin fate if they act like this.

    I've watched the videos and I'm still a Christian. I think people should be allowed to have theories and do research about them.

    i hate to see christians that offend people for having different thoughts. it embarrasses christianity.
    ...and if christians dont act well they give Christ himself a bad reputation!

  204. Very well done, but I am honestly underwhelmed. These presentations are so thin on information that this cannot honestly be seen as a proof or disproof of anything. Still there is nothing here to support macro evolution that is toward new genera. The only proofs given are for inner species variations. The bigger picture is inferred but honestly cannot be seen as solidly given.

    How is the commonality of DNA in all living things ‘staggering proof’ of evolution through natural selection? DNA seems a fit tool for any designer conscious or not.


    Thanks for those examples I will look into them. This looks like more substantial information. Though we have to apply hard criteria for the presence of ‘evolution’, and be careful not to call natural selection evidence of macro evolution when it may only be showing the plasticity within species.

    I sometimes think we are being ripped off with the pretence of only two possible versions of origins. We have to be sensitive to the place hold in history and the place Darwin held too. Dawkins for all his intelligence and clarity, is still guilty of reacting to ideas he learned in his youth, he is reacting to contemporary ideas and their forces. Darwin has not given him an idea in a vacuum, but relief to a particular agitation, the effect this relief affect his neutrality. I wonder how many generations will go by before this collective Dawkinization is exposed for its temporal weakness.

    The Carpenter

  205. Correction to last post: The last word in the first line of the last paragraph should be "fallible" rather than "infallible."

  206. Evolution is a fact. I can't know for sure that the fact of evolution necessarily precludes the existence of God, but religionists had better hope it doesn't, because if that is so, then there is no God--like it or not.

    I was a little disappointed in Dawkins for not pointing out the glaring fallacy in John McKay's argument against the 4 to 5 billion year age of the earth by saying that the scientists who determined that are only human, and therefore fallible, and he would rather trust in the infallible Word of God (the Judeo-Christian Bible) than in fallible humans. What justification does McKay have for concluding that The Bible is any more likely to be the infallible Word of God than the Koran, the Upanishads, The Rig Veda, Buddhist scripures or any other of the numerous sacred texts of other religions that contradict the Bible? Is his judgement that the Bible is the authentic Word of God infallible? Is John McKay not also a fallible human? It is enormously hypocrtical and dishonest to reject scientific findings one doesn't like on the basis of human fallibilty and then turn around and claim (or imply) infallibility in determining what is or isn't God's Word!

    Though it may be inconceivable that God's Word could be mistaken or infallible (assuming that He exists), it is certainly far from inconceivable that humans and human institutions could all be mistaken or dishonest whenever they claim to have received divine inspiration or revelation. Certainly the vast majority of those who make such claims are indeed mistaken or dishonest, given the undeniable fact that there are so many mutually contradictory religious belief systems.

  207. @ keys8864:

    Ah.. yes. Garrett Lisi, he is in the wormhole series with Morgan Freeman, right here on TDF.

    Again, thanks for your kind words.

  208. @ Achems Razor,

    I agree, I was endlessly entertained by your arguments. In the last few days I have watched the Dawkins Videos, and have actually followed a few years worth of posts. Yourself, Hate Machine and Epicuras where the absolute standouts.

    You must be a little prophetic as well. The other day I read something you posted in 2006 where you stated you were waiting for a "Theory of Everything." There is a Surfer Dude/Theoretical Physicist, Garrett Lisi, who in 2007 proposed his "Theory of Everything". A Quantum Mechanics model that charts and predicts the movements of all sub atomic particles, including those nasty gravitons.

    It has been fun

  209. @ keys8864:

    Thank you for your kind words, and am in agreement with what you say.

    Was not in reality trying to take anyones faith or beliefs away, which in itself is basically impossible.
    was pointing out some of the variables available that are connected to reality.

    I suppose was just a creation verses evolution argument, but it was fun!

  210. @ HaTe_MaChInE,Epicurus,Achems Razor

    I am impressed by the well thought out arguments the three of you have posted while trying to enlighten Charles and BBC. Unfortunately you are all wasting your time. You are all trying to use physical evidence, reason and logic to refute their beliefs of what is real and tangible. While Religion, by its very nature is illogical.

    Those of strong religious convictions cannot be reasoned with, as their beliefs are not based on reason, fact or logic. These people will always argue that the scientific method is flawed. Therefore since science might be wrong, there must be a god. You can offer indisputable evidence to the contrary, and they will still argue that someone somewhere had a theory to the contrary. No matter how ridiculous or irrelevant that argument might be.

    How can you possibly refute an argument with someone that will invariably resort to explaining that you do not understand their relationship with their particular deity or reply with “Because, in my heart, I know it to be true?”

    When all else fails, the will turn to bible or whatever written word their particular belief is based upon. It will not matter when you point out the inconsistencies of the book they are quoting. There are of course exceptions there. The bible is an incredible example of how what is contained can be twisted to whatever end the proponent wishes. It can instantly be transformed from a historical document to an enlightened guide to spiritual fulfillment. You can argue that the book as we know it now is not complete, as it was edited during the Middle Ages when texts viewed as Heretical were deleted. You can argue that the gospels of Mary, Peter, Judas and others were not even included. The argument will still end the same; the word of god cannot be refuted.

    You cannot measure the immeasurable, you cannot touch the intangible, and you cannot use logic to battle the illogical. The only way to break through the myriad of defenses is to get them to question there own beliefs. I know this appears to be a daunting task. The question though, is a simple one. They only need to ask why and truly seek the answer. The illogical, the unreasonable, and the intangible are easily undone by that one simple word.

    "The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason." - Ben Franklin

  211. im pity with him,,hes a close minded person and just alone, i dont think he has one believes in him and his beliefs....hope he changed to a better person.

  212. well im mad. when i was in high school, they just said there is a theory of evolution, but we will let college teach it to you. i believe in god but i also believe in evolution. and the story evolution tells is way more interesting than any story in the bible. if we dont have competition, then the society we have would have happened eventually. it oonly makes sense to have larger group sizes to keep competition away. competition comes in many forms through inteligence and sex. sometimes brute strength, but we are just the first species to put alot of them together and eliminate any close competition so we can put everything towards where we are today.

  213. @BBC
    Things may have been created by god but what in your books old T or New T are actually scientifically supported? Created in 7 days. Lineage of man to about 4500 years. The great flood etc etc etc. People don't mind knocking on my door to save me but if people look to science for answers and they contradict what religions believe based on faith we are somehow attacking them.

    God may have created the spark for the big bang but things took over on their own after that. The human genome project proved it.

  214. We are actually chaotically aged carbon.

    But, yes. It's all an accident of nature, there is no mystisism, no magic, just carbon molecules that aligned together because there are only four to eight ways for them to do so... so... of course it happened just as we see.


  215. I think it's funny that some of you believe we are chaotically aged hydrogen. Is it just me?

  216. @McGarvey!


    I promise... (having a hard time typing, laughing so hard...), I will give your holy text all reverence and credit my brilliant brother McGarvey with their origin....

    #sigh* Brilliant...

  217. @ Randy

    Of course you can use it, as long as you treat these holy words with the respect they surely deserve. If by using this prayer one more person's heart is touched by Lord Puff then I will surely go to Honah Lee a happy man!

  218. @ Randy

    Don't stop Puffing for nuthin'!

  219. @McGarvey

    Do you mind of I copy it for my own use? Or, I should ask, would you give your permission?

  220. @McGarvey

    That was brilliant! Pure Scottish humor, rare and intelligent, and bizarre!

    Bravo, my Gaelic brother!

  221. @ Charles B.

    Nice one! I worked hard to get on that list!;)
    Seriously, but, kudos to you for having a sense of humour about it - you gotta laugh, don't ya?

  222. I admit, that was clever. Sadly so! On prayer list you go! :-)

  223. I pray also...

    Our "Puff",
    Who art in Honah Lee,
    Purple be thy frame,
    The frolicking one,
    Thy will be done,
    On Earth as it is in Honah Lee,
    Give us this day our Autumn mists,
    So that we may frolic in them,
    As you have frolicked in them before us,
    And lead us not into the sea,
    But deliver us to Honah Lee.

    In the name of Puff, little Jackie Paper and the Autumn mists - Amen.

    By the way, you should not listen to Hardy on Magicdragonism. He belongs to the CRAZY fundamentalist "Church of latter day Jackie Paper's". They believe in a strict and LITERAL interpretation of the Honah (Our holy book). This, of course, is absolutely wrong as the Honah is an allegorical text and should be interpreted as such! They, in fact, continually miss the essential message of Our Lord by selectively choosing what to literally believe. I do not consider people of Hardy's ilk to be true Magicdragonists and neither should anybody else! These people are dangerous! They interpret- (Book of Jackie:Chapter 1:Verse 14)"A dragon lives forever but not so little boys" as justification for the slaughter of non-believers! Magicdragonism is a religion of peace, Our Lord is a frolicking God!

    Anyway, I go now, Peace be upon all of you, in the name of our most holy and purple Lord. I pray all of you may one day find Puff and let him into your lives - he is the light and the dark, the Alpha and Omega, the heavens and the Earth, Amen.

  224. @Hardy

    You should feel lucky that a delusional person is talking to the voices in their head for you thinking that they are some powerful man in the sky! :P

  225. Hardy:

    I haven't been able to come up with any snide witty remark about your purple dragon post for several days now, much to my chagrin, so I think I'll just "pray for you" sincerely tonight. Ha! Take that! May the best "deity" win and may your purple dragon bring you comfort with that knowledge that a true-blue Christian believer is praying for you tonight.


  226. @ Hardy

    Oh, right. I call myself a purple dragon-Agnostic!

  227. "I have faith in the purple dragon, I’ve felt it’s presence, it helps me when I need strength. I need no evidence to believe in the dragon and the more you reason with me the stronger my conviction becomes."?

  228. @ Hardy


    I think you are confusing me with my doppleganger - see my post above!

  229. @McGarvey: The final question to you would be if you are part of a specific religious conviction. Do you call yourself a christian, muslim, hindu?

  230. @ Achems Razor

    I think hallucinogenic plants may have had a major part to play in the development of religions. Many cultures still use them as a gateway to the 'spirit world'.
    Also enjoying your posts, mate!

  231. I go away for a couple of days and someone starts using a near anagram of my name! Grrrr. My friends also call me McGyver(not because of any perceived similarity with my own name but because I can make a hand glider from a biro pen and some pine cones).

    @ McGyver(will the real McGyver please stand up!)

    Mate, I don't think you've listened to Richard Dawkins properly. He has never said there is no God (which cannot be proved) only that it is incredibly unlikely - as unlikely as there being an invisible/untouchable purple dragon in your bedroom - there might be, but we cannot test it. I have faith in the purple dragon, I've felt it's presence, it helps me when I need strength. I need no evidence to believe in the dragon and the more you reason with me the stronger my conviction becomes.

  232. @SexMoneyMonkey (HEY! How are you doin'? Let me type out a Boston/Irish accent for ya, "Dees fackin' guys!)

    Well, you made some excellent points. Many I am still re-reading. However I will point out this one in particular as to why I always say that god is much more complex an explanation than what we see in science.

    You wrote:

    "And I.D. is considered a possibility be all. Even Dawkins has said that I.D. is possible but there has to be a start to that as well, who or what created that designer."

    Yes. I mean, the god-theory dissolves into a soup of infinite regress. It is very mind boggling, to me, and to many others here.

    But science has an elegant and liberating explaination that relives the "intellectual whiplash" of which I earlier posted.

    Carl Sagan spoke of this as well.

  233. @ mcgyver

    Just wanted to point out that it's not atheists who brought the religion debate to evolution, it's religious people who saw it as an attack. Generally, most atheists see it as just a theory. The fact that it does basically disprove the Christian creation myth among many others is just a bonus.

    And I.D. is considered a possibility be all. Even Dawkins has said that I.D. is possible but there has to be a start t