1.5 Million Years Ago, Homo Erectus Walked a Lot Like Us

By Rachel Cernansky | February 26, 2009 9:01 pm

footprintThe ancestors to modern humans really hit their stride 1.5 million years ago. Fossilized footprints found in Kenya were made by hominids that share a common foot anatomy and walking stride with modern humans, researchers say.

Scientists are almost certain that the 1.5-million-year-old prints belong to Homo erectus and that the individuals had heels, insteps and toes almost identical to those in humans, and they walked with a long stride similar to human locomotion…. The prints helped explain fossil and archaeological evidence that erectus had adapted the ability for long-distance walking and running [The New York Times]. There is evidence of a heavy landing on the heel with weight transferred along the outer edge of the foot, progressing to the ball of the foot and lifting off with the toes [BBC].

The footprints were unearthed near Lake Turkana in northern Kenya, and then analyzed with a new laser technology for digitizing their precise depths and contours [The New York Times]. Two sets of prints were found at different depths, which suggests that the individuals who left them were navigating uneven, and perhaps muddy, terrain—though where they were headed is unknowable. The research, led by geologist Matthew Bennett, has been published in Science.

Earlier footprints, dated 3.7 million years old, were found in Tanzania in 1978 from Australopithecus afarensis, the species made famous by the Lucy skeleton. While those prints showed that the species walked upright, however, the Australopithecus‘s feet, short legs, and long arms suggest to many scientists that it was more similar to apes than to humans. Though no Homo erectus foot bones have been found, other well-preserved skeletons showed the species to be taller and less robust than earlier hominids. The strides of these footsteps suggest that the individuals were an average of 5 feet, 7 inches tall; one, presumably a child, was 3 feet [The New York Times].

Related Content:
DISCOVER: Great Mysteries of Human Evolution
Discoblog: No Love for Lucy: Hominid Fossil Put on a Good Show, But No One Came
DISCOVER: Born To Run: Biomechanical research reveals a surprising key to the survival of our species

Image: Matthew Bennett

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Human Origins
  • http://selfimprover2008.blogfreehere.com Andrew

    This discovery is very informative. Although it still doesn’t mean that we humans are “evolved” monkeys. No arguments with this one. Because Charles Darwin himself took back his theory.

  • Darrell

    o.O are you serious? Monkeys aren’t apes, they share a common ancestor. Humans are “Great Apes”, descended from other great apes.

  • sent2null

    Andrew, I seriously recommend you enroll in a course to study a bit about evolution and why it is the only model that so far correctly explains without a single point of contradictory evidence among thousands of tests, many aspects of the relationships between living things, from the finch to the fire fly. Let alone the continued confirmation that comes from recent (last 15 years) work in genetics. Darwin never took back his theory, if you don’t know something, ask those who do and stop professing as if you do. I can provide you with many sources online that will help elucidate you as well, just let me know.

  • AJ

    Get a &%$#ing clue you evolution idiots..how retarded does
    one have to be to believe in this shitte…educate the non-believers of evolution?!? Provide me with sources online to ” educate ” me?!?
    Your dogma overwhelms me…evolution has been proven time and time
    again as impossible…pulled your heads out of your asses and have a think about another way we got here for $3%” sakes…
    All you get is, maybe, possible, we think, it looks like, some scientists think and on and on with this bull…and if you think evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt then you are so delusional that you have completely lost your fricken minds…

  • westernbob

    I agree with AJ….evolution is stupid beyond belief. I think many people are starting to wise up to the fact that darwinian evolution is the biggest fraud of all time.

  • johnson

    evolution can be disputed and argued until the cows come home, but one thing that cannot is darwin’s laws of natural selection. You really can apply these to so many things other than where we came from. it’s common sense that any trait or quality that would give an organism or group an advantage, would eventually become a dominant trait over many generations. Also if you have to resort to profanity to express yourself because of a lack of vocabulary, we can only hope that with time you would be left out of the gene pool of our species.

  • westernbob

    johnson, show me an example of natural selection adapting an animal population genetically. Science only, please — no daydreaming nonsense.

  • AJ

    Thank you westerbob…I was starting to think that common sense
    has completely disappeared off the face of the planet…we came from someplace…we did not evolve..thus we came to be by other means…how? when? why? I have no idea but since evolution is not.. can not ..and will not ever be proven I will stick with the “fairytale” history books that say we were put here and that there was a big flood…Grand Canyon formed
    over millions of years?!? …my arse…
    The evolutionists can stick to their fairytale books and their inane theories to support their ridiculous unsupported beliefs…
    It completely baffles the mind on how much evidence there is to
    dispute their assumption and yet they believe… now that is what I call faith man…and they think I am nuts…go figure…

  • YouRang

    WesternBob, Aj Andrew you can’t be serious. Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain by claiming that only what you perceive directly is truth (IOW THAT you people are GOD). Our eyes and ears are only extensions of our brain and like our eyes and ears, our brain requires a model to perceive. Creationism and all absurd surrogates for it have no model. If they have any element of truth to them the only possibility is that God created the universe with a navel (a prehistory) on which He intended that we must use our common sense.

  • Drew F

    Natural Selection in a Nutshell
    -All species have a high capacity for reproduction.
    -Limited resources.
    -Competition for these resources.
    -Due to inherited variation, some individuals survive and reproduce in
    greater numbers (differential survival).

    fitness -The ability to survive and reproduce

    -These “good” traits become more common.

    -Gene frequencies change through time (evolution occurs).

    Examples of Natural Selection
    1. Pesticide Resistance in Insects
    2. Peppered Moth
    3. Galapagos Finch Bill Depth
    4. Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria

    Natural selection is one of the causes of Evolution, others are: Genetic Drift (Founder Effect and Bottleneck Effect), Gene Flow and Mutation.

    All these start out as Microevolution and over a extended period of type become Macroevolution.

    Yes, I know, that initial spark called life has never been accounted for with Evolution…

    Yet believing in Evolution doesn’t mean that you have to abandon God.

    Theistic Evolution (Evolutionary Creation)
    -God set things into motion and life evolved according to laws God
    established.
    -The diversity of life we see today evolved from one or a few
    primitive life forms (common descent).

    Theistic Creation fills in the gaps such as the initial spark and supports evolution.

    “ ‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’ ” Isaiah 55:8

    God could easily use evolution to guide the ascent of life on Earth. Who are you to say what God can or cannot do?

    *
    *
    *

    “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object of which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of higher animals directly follows. There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
    Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species

    (I have to thank my teacher Dr. Nation for this information, it’s from notes of his lectures)

    Go Evolution,
    Shibby

  • Bob Snyder

    I agree with Drew F. on this one. I have no problem with a “guiding hand” theory of the evolution of the world but to outright deny science is absurd. It’s like there’s a complete disconnect with reality, what world do you live in? I have no problem with what people believe and will never tell attempt to change their beliefs given that they do not affect others in harmful ways but spreading ignorance can be harmful. I used to argue with religious fanatics about this years ago until i realized that they do not respond to reason and nothing you say will change their (blind) faith. I suggest that rational readers here at Discover.com ignore the religious fanatics on a crusade trying to make everyone believe what they do using pseudo-science. What are these people even doing reading Discover.com (a science based magazine) when they (like AJ) don’t even subscribe to the idea of science other then inciting responses from rational people. Take your bigoted comments elsewhere, we live in the real world.

  • http://discovermagazine.com John Cassady

    Well said Bob, too bad those who refuse to listen to reason won’t see it that way. I honestly can’t believe the ignorance produced by these ultra religious fanatics, I mean come on even the Vatican accepts evolution.

  • George

    * On the river banks of Paluxi (Glen Rose, Texas), the archeologist Carl Baugh from the State University from Pennsylvania discovered the footsteps of a man near those of a dinosaur… Talking about the importance of such discoveries, Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith, from the University of Illinois (U.S.A.), said the following: “A single print of a dinosaur or brontosaur found in the same place of a single human footstep is enough to unsettle the Darwinism and to revolutionize contemporary biology:
    http://cristiannegureanu.blogspot.com/2008/10/enigmatic-fossils-darwin-on-trial.html
    * The Guardian (21 January 2009) – Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life – Evolutionary biologists say crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought, making a nonsense of the idea of discrete evolutionary branches:
    http://cristiannegureanu.blogspot.com/2009/01/charles-darwin-was-wrong-about-tree-of.html

  • Stephen, UK

    So how come, if these guys had hundreds of thousands of years to think about it, they hadn’t yet invented shoes by then – or fast cars. Maybe they hadn’t yet evolved the power of thought :-) Or maybe we are the ones who aren’t human because we have such a tendency to invent things like skateboards. I bet the main things we are inventing, though, in the massively overfunded ‘science’ establishments these days is silly ideas about the past :-) Maybe if we realised time was shorter than we think we wouldn’t waste so much of it on these way out ideas about it.

  • Stephen, UK

    And come to think of it: If humans were around so many hundreds of thousands of years 1) How come the population was so low till 4,000 years ago? (if it wasn’t extremely low all that time, why have we not found billions of said footprints ?) and 2) How come they only started being ‘advanced’ and inventive five thousand years ago? and 3) Why didn’t they start reverting to the stupidty state for all those five thousand years until the evolutionists appeared just a few hundred years ago? 4) Don’t government funders of evolutionists ever say to themselves that something about evolution ideas and studies seriously doesn’t stack up? Please, evolutionary biologist money wasters, don’t use these questions as the basis of further wacky government funded studies and theories. They are rhetorical to show what is wrong with biology and so-called science. There is no reason such students should get funding if they can’t see past the ends of their noses about what is obviously a crazy set of theories and falacies. They should put their hands to something useful so they can provide for real needs and the governments should only jund such real-need useful activities which provide real benefit to the tax payers (if they’ve any money left after throwing so much good money after bad).

  • Ofsted

    Hey, Stephen – that’s some tirade. Did some evolutionary bug get to you? Calm down man.

  • Ofsted

    Whats a jund?

  • Bob Snyder

    lol, I think he meant fund. But anyway, Stephen you seem like a somewhat reasonable/rational person. If you stop reading conspiracy blogs and start reading credible sources of information, you might just get some of the answers to the questions you have. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid!!

  • Stephen, UK

    To Ofsted: a ‘jund’ must be a ‘fund’ which has started to evolve :-) Alternative theory: a ‘jund’ is a typo. Which would Ocham’s razor say it is? :-) Maybe the word ‘fund’ predated the word ‘jund’ by at least one and a half million years; or maybe the alternative theory is it predates the word ‘jund’ by nine-hundred thousand years (that’s the Young Jund theory). Maybe the Church should spend hundreds of years debating this with the linguists. Maybe the gobernemtns should fund some research on the matter – for the benefit of the tax payers (or at least for those who find great meaning and hope in the furtherance of linguistic analysis and its contributions to Darwinism). He he. How gullible this world we live in is. Next thing is they’ll be teaching kids to believe in Father Christmas or the politically correct equivalent.

  • Stephen, UK

    Oops, there’s another typo: ‘gobernemtns’. I guess my typos should continue so they can contribute to the necessary evolution of the english language for the benefit of every english-speaker. Come to think of it – that should make me eligable for some gobernemtn funding too. Way out! Get real everybody. Life is short (thankfully!). Maybe history is too!

  • Ofsted

    Yawn :-)

  • Ofsted

    Now that I look more closely at the footprint – I think it might be an example of an early form of shoe.

  • Stephen, UK

    :-)

  • John Umana

    These are remarkable and exciting new anthropological finds at Ileret, Kenya near Lake Turkana. Yet, these 1.5 million year old footprints are the footprints of a pre-human hominin, Homo erectus — not our species Homo sapiens. What is particularly significant is that the 1.5 million year old footprints of this prior species are indicative of modern human foot anatomy. Homo erectus was evolved about 2 million years ago in Africa. Nariokotome boy (KNM-WT 1500), a “missing link” stumbled across in 1984 in Lake Turkana, Kenya by a team led by Richard Leakey and Alan Walker, is an example of Homo erectus or Homo ergaster also 1.5 million years ago. That child’s eye sockets were overshadowed by a brow ridge, a ridge of bone that gave the skull a glowering expression, and there was a low, receding forehead leading to a long and flat crown. The boy had a tall, thin muscular physique, suited for radiating heat from his body in equatorial Africa. Even millions of years before that, Australopithecenes also were walking about on two feet, though their foot anatomy appears to be quite different from that of Homo erectus. It is not that people adapted to equatorial climates by becoming tall and slender, or that people adapted to cold climates by becoming short and stocky. Rather, the Force tailors peoples and species to their environments and conditions. See Creation: Towards a Theory of All Things by John Umana (amazon). When it came to feet, though, there was no need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ from the foot anatomy of Homo erectus. The feet you are walking around on today are essentially the same feet that erectus had 1.5 million years ago. Did we evolve from Homo erectus? No. But we humans did evolve from another species that was evolved from erectus. Biological evolution and common ancestry are real and proved by the convergence of the sciences. Darwin and Wallace were correct in positing that all species descend from prior species. The question is, what is the causative mechanism for the evolution of a new species from a prior species? What we need is more and better science and discovery.

  • Stephen, UK

    People: Stop making things up about the Creation – it’s obvious it is created – start loving the Creator and keep His commands instead. Darwin wasn’t there when it happened. The Creator was. Don’t call Him a liar.

  • Bob Snyder

    Creationism is such a cop out. Why do we need science at all? We can just say that everything is God’s will. I am being facetious here but science is motivated by curiosity. People want to understand the universe, not just live in it. Like I said before, I have no problem with people believing in a guiding hand theory but to completely dismiss science is as ludicrous as the science community completely dismissing the value of religion. The two are not mutually exclusive and are not necessarily independent on every issue (like creation). I like to think about it like this, God may have set things in motion in the beginning but science attempts to explain the cause and effect from then until now. “Science” will continue to not respect religion as long as religious fanatics ignore basic reasoning and rationality. There are many other things in this world that science has explained yet the fanatics do not question these “facts.” They only question and deny the facts that are inconvenient for them, like those contradicting the Bible and such. It is this selective ignorance that annoys the scientific community.

  • Roger

    Faith is the assumption that there is a God. Fine, assume that. Then God created the Earth. God created the laws of physics. The evidence in the rocks of the Earth tell us the Earth is billions of years old, so that is God telling us that. I agree with Stephen that God is not a liar. Study His works directly. The Earth and the Universe will tell us the truth. God will not deceive us. The Bible contains great truths and wisdom and insights into morality, ethics, and human nature. It contains parables to teach lessons. But, it was written by people with their understanding of God and the world in which they lived. If you say that the Bible got everything exactly, uncontestably, 100% accurate, and that the evidence in the Earth itself is wrong, then you are the one calling God a liar.

  • Stephen, UK

    The Bible is one sign. Another is what is going on today. The war-talk and the surveilance society – that vulture-looking, dark bird with its pure, white eye looking down on us. This is a sign from the Creator that He should not be ignored. He should be given the glory due to Him for all the work of Creation we see around us. He should be loved wholeheartedly. I think we ignore Him at our peril – all He has had written of His works and His words over the millenia. I’m just saying.

  • Michael

    I am very disappointed that this science and technology site has been hijacked by creationist nutjobs. You can believe what you like, but why don’t you keep your faith to yourself? Why pick a fight with science? If “… it’s obvious it is created… ” is really the best argument that you have against evolution, it’s a fight you can’t win.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    It amazes me that people living the 21st century can still doubt that evolution is true, even when the whole field of genetics confirms it, when all of botany, comparative anatomy, embryology, the fossil record, and biochemistry points to the same thing. People carry on like evolution is a fraud, and they like to swagger and talk tough, thumping their Bibles and saying, in effect, “No, I know more about biology than all the best specialists, because I’ve read this 2,000 year old book”. And yet evolutionary theory is applied in everything from medicine to agriculture (also keeping these hypocrites alive). What has “creaiton science” ever contributed? Answer: absolutely nothing. It’s a purely negative arena, dedicated solely to poking holes in existing knowledge and proclaiming “God did it!” People like to pretend that Darwin was wrong, and yet they act as though he was right when they go to the nearest high-tech hospital to get their ailment fixed up. People like to pretend that Darwin was wrong, and yet they rely on an evolutionary understanding to keep their food supplies viable (agricultural pests don’t evolve – oops, sorry, “change” – to overcome insecticides and biological controls because God ordains it). And so on, for many other examples where evolutionary theory is put to practical use (because – guess what? – it works. And it continues to work whether you want to face that fact or not).

    Denying evolution is like denying sub-atomic theory in the presence of a nuclear power station. It’s exactly the same. As Richard Dawkins has said, anyone who denies evolution is either ignorant (no crime in itself), stupid or evil. Creationism is a pathetic of filth and lies, contributing nothing of value and smearing the work of thousands of honest scientists labouring to alleviate the most pressing problems facing humanity and the planet. From pathology to agriculture, scientists are trying to understand how populations change through time and how we can deal with this change. Rather vital tools, wouldn’t you say? Or would you rather wallow in Bronze Age superstition and deny them these tools, contributing to the misery of millions afflicted by deadly pathogens and compromised food sources?

    Anyway, as an example of the rank stupidity that infects creationist “thinking”, here is an example from one of the commentators:

    “If humans were around so many hundreds of thousands of years 1) How come the population was so low till 4,000 years ago? (if it wasn’t extremely low all that time, why have we not found billions of said footprints ?)”

    That has got to be among the most base, dim-witted objections to evolution I have ever encountered. It’s pathetic. First of all, you obviously know nothing about population dynamics and this little thing called “carrying capacity” (a cornerstone of ecology, but don’t worry, I wasn’t expecting you to know that, since reality clearly isn’t your strong point. You’d much rather get your “science” from a preacher). If you knew the first thing about how populations behave (and no, you don’t), it’s that there are limits to growth. It doesn’t go on indefinitely. And the extent to which it can go on at all depends on the particular environmental factors that prevail. So your demand that there should be “billions of footprints” is idiotic vomit talk, and that’s being extremely polite. Before going off on insane tirades against the most well verified theory in the whole of science, perhaps you should get up to speed on some basic principles first. What you wrote was simply embarrassing. That goes for all the other know-nothing, sneering little hypocrites who drink from the fountain of science and yet reject what it says whenever it clashes with their antiquated, childish beliefs. They haven’t heard of “convergent cladograms constructed from disparate redundant sequences”, or “endogenous retroviruses”, or “segregation distorters”, or any other thing that simply shouts evolution (in fact, proves it), and they don’t care, because for them it’s a matter of belief rather than facing evidence. That’s why the frightful stupidities written above can be written without the people writing them collapsing in a fit of hysterical laughter.

    “If “… it’s obvious it is created… ” is really the best argument that you have against evolution, it’s a fight you can’t win.”

    Don’t worry, Michael. That’s the extent of creationist “analysis”. You’ve already won the argument. These people, on the other hand, couldn’t argue their way out of an open window. They rely on science to give them what they need, and yet they toss it aside the second it says anything other than “God did it”. You’re dealing with intellectual nit-wits.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    Stephen – apart from advertising your ignorance and threatening us with divine punishment, do you have anything relevant to say?

  • Stephen, UK

    Luis – maybe there is more to read out there than just the evolutionists’ views on things. Ignorance of other things would not be healthy. You need something solid to compare with the archeology. The archeology is solid (unless it’s a hoax of course) but there is no sense simply ignoring other sources too. Otherwise the archeology is far more solid than the interpretation. I guess those who stoop to insults don’t care about sense and solidity anyway so I’ll resist ‘casting pearls’. Suffice it to say there is a wealth of information out there – ‘The truth is out there’ :-) – which does not depend on modern myth and political ideologies. Personally I tend to stop reading stuff which I know falls short of sense so maybe that makes people think I’m ignorant. I do read plenty of profound, illuminating wisdom writings though. The writings of the ancients include some works of astounding illumination, even though they only had angels and the Spirit of the Creator to guide them. I’m not just talking about the Bible. Ignore such writings and the mysteries of archeology and … (I can’t spell it) … the study of rocks and fossils will probably always be closed to you and you’ll be condemned by your own hard heart to spout ‘facts’ plainly rediculous to many. That’s fool-hardy, I think, dangerous and not very worthwhile. Fine if you spend your own money on such studies but I object when it’s taxpayer money to which I worked hard to contribute. Also, keep it to yourself or I’ll feel at liberty to object to you teaching it to my children and friends. God bless though. I hope I haven’t called any judgement down on everyone – just on those who insult what I believe to be inspired – and if there’s no Creator you needn’t worry about that had you. I hope you end up saying what I’m saying in the end though. Who was it who said “to man belong what is revealed but the mysteries belong to God”? The detail of who walked first on the earth and how long ago is probably still of the latter category. Why pretend it isn’t? Real science should concentrate on the former – what is already revealed and how to make best sense of it but should be wary of keeping within its boundaries or there might be some objections raised and worse. If I’m just mad though you’d better ignore what I’ve written. And everything else I ever write too or you might be accused of hypocrisy. Personally I love science but some of what passes for it makes me sick. When can we start doing and reporting on real science, looking into what is true, not what is just made up?

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “Luis – maybe there is more to read out there than just the evolutionists’ views on things.”

    There sure is. Lots of trash written by creationist propaganda mills, for one, which seems to be where you get your information from. So yes, there certainly is more to read than just what evolutionists write, but most of it is unmitigated rubbish.

    “The archeology is solid (unless it’s a hoax of course) but there is no sense simply ignoring other sources too.”

    “Other sources” is for you simply a synonym for “the Bible”, which you take to be the only “truth” really worth considering, and through which you interpret absolutely everything.

    “I guess those who stoop to insults don’t care about sense and solidity anyway so I’ll resist ‘casting pearls’.”

    And those who stoop to insulting other peoples’ intelligence – as you did with your asinine caricatures of population dynamics, proudly thumping your chest while making an absolute idiot of yourself in front of everyone – in the furtherance of myth have no place talking about insults.

    “Suffice it to say there is a wealth of information out there – ‘The truth is out there’ :-) – which does not depend on modern myth and political ideologies.”

    Precisely. Things like scientific journals contain a vast wealth of information that you would do well to consider before implying that the world’s scientists are just morons.

    “Personally I tend to stop reading stuff which I know falls short of sense so maybe that makes people think I’m ignorant.”

    I would recommend that you resume your reading, as the performance you’ve given here doesn’t inspire much confidence in your ability to put facts together. If scientific expositions “fall short of sense” to you – the same expositions that explain how scientists view the world and put that knowledge to actual use – then you really are lost, and you’re clearly living in a fantasy world.

    “The writings of the ancients include some works of astounding illumination, even though they only had angels and the Spirit of the Creator to guide them.”

    Right…so this is how you want to “argue”, is it? Invoking the works of the ancients that were self-admittedly “guided” only by spirits and angels? The astonishing thing is that you write this tripe on a computer, a device which is a product of scientific endeavour. And yet you would have us believe that another field of scientific endeavour – modern biology – has less to say about the actual world than your readings of ancient spirit-men. Yeah, that’s REALLY logical.

    “the study of rocks and fossils will probably always be closed to you and you’ll be condemned by your own hard heart to spout ‘facts’ plainly rediculous to many.”

    Hard heart? Never mind, that doesn’t even warrant a response.

    “That’s fool-hardy, I think, dangerous and not very worthwhile.”

    As is contributing, via the subversion of science, to the jeopardising of the lives and safety of millions of people endangered by deadly pathogens – just so that you can indulge in religious obscurantism and not have to think (or, as you said, “stop reading”. I suppose we should all apologise that reality doesn’t make much “sense” to you).

    “Fine if you spend your own money on such studies but I object when it’s taxpayer money to which I worked hard to contribute.”

    Tax payer’s money that goes to protecting bio-conservation, stimulating medical research and bolstering other important fields with direct relevance to human survival and well being. I have no compunction at all about using your tax money for those purposes, and will continue to pursue every avenue for extracting more from you.

    “Also, keep it to yourself or I’ll feel at liberty to object to you teaching it to my children and friends.”

    Right, so you want to keep your children stupid and ignorant too, unable to cope with a rapidly changing world and coming to terms with the advances (both technological and conceptual) that are bringing this about? Your stance is not only mistaken, it is utterly despicable. You should keep your ignorance and self-importance to yourself, and not infect your children and friends with it. Do them that favour, and wallow in your own puddle of ignorance.

    “Who was it who said “to man belong what is revealed but the mysteries belong to God”? ”

    I don’t know, but I don’t really care since now you’re just blabbing rather incoherently. It’s incredible how a creationist can start off disputing a fossil find and then, after getting just about everything wrong (as usual), end up talking about God’s plans. Or rather, this isn’t incredible; it’s entirely understandable, since someone who neither knows nor cares about the facts has no resource other than to inject the discussion with irrelevant God-talk. It’s all you have. :) You sound absolutely deranged, and pig-headed to boot.

    “The detail of who walked first on the earth and how long ago is probably still of the latter category. Why pretend it isn’t?”

    What the &*$ are you talking about, you daft idiot? Do you have ANY idea what you’re saying, or are you so drugged up to your eye-balls in religious mania that you don’t even care?

    “Real science should concentrate on the former – what is already revealed and how to make best sense of it but should be wary of keeping within its boundaries or there might be some objections raised and worse.”

    Is that supposed to be some sort of threat? Whatever.

    “If I’m just mad though you’d better ignore what I’ve written.”

    You are a crazy dolt (let there by no question about that; your response has all the hallmarks of someone who’s not altogether…together), but I still feel compelled to respond to this insanity. Mainly for fun.

    “Personally I love science”

    No you don’t. You despise science. If you had a modicum of integrity, you’d admit that straight up. But since being a Bible thumper means that you get to tell others what’s what in the realm of ethics (it says so in the Bible, after all! And who can argue with THAT?), you’re clearly above honesty and don’t need to adhere to it.

    “but some of what passes for it makes me sick.”

    You mean the entirety of modern biology, cosmology, medical science, and geology? Yeah, that’s just “some” insignificant backdrop that no one pay attention to – unless you’re a scientist, that is. In other words, the science carried out by scientists makes you “sick”.

    “When can we start doing and reporting on real science, looking into what is true, not what is just made up?”

    That coming from someone who believes in a talking snake and a woman coming from a man’s ribs :) I suspect that when we go back to believing in witches and alchemy, then you’ll be happy (until you start whinging about a bug you caught. Then modern science will be hauled in to save your hypocritical hide, after which you’ll go back to “lalalalalala! I’m not listening!” How old are you, by the way? 9?). Molecular phylogenetics, miRNA, developmental biology, phenotypic plasticity, ecology, speciation, epigenetics, neuroscience, immunology, astrophysics – that’s all just “made up” (it’s made up because it yields the wrong answers. For anything to count as true, it has to adhere to what a book written by pre-scientific nomads said. You’re truly a master of impeccable logic). On the other hand, a talking snake, talking bushes, a woman coming from a man’s ribs, humans living for 900 years, a creaky old boat that carried a pair of every animal species on the planet (weird how the koalas just somehow knew how to swim back to Australia, wouldn’t you say?) – apparently none of that is made up. You really are a lurid joke.

  • Stephen, UK

    Luis – then yes, I do ask the Creator for justice against you and your ilk.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “Luis – then yes, I do ask the Creator for justice against you and your ilk.”

    Another fine example of a creationist defence – the whittling down of any substance and a plea to God. This is how people like you will teach your children to “think”. Poor kids – having a know-nothing as a role model who will tell them that evolution doesn’t happen even though it does (make sure you advise them against a career in science, by the way. You wouldn’t want them learning anything that strays from a literal interpretation of the Bible). You leave nothing to the imagination. Society needs protection from delinquents like you.

  • Stephen, UK

    Luis, what do you know about me – since knowledge is so important to you and speaking without it is the thing you are so concerned with not doing…? :-) I’ll try not to take your opinions as representative of anyone. You probably just speak for yourself. Cool. I think research show that the majority of people actually do not believe evolutionary theory so it is strange that so many who do speak of it as if it is so certain with zero acknowledgement of public opinions. That includes all the american articles these last few days on these footprints as if there was no doubt what they must prove. They must prove, it is ascerted, that humans have been around as long as it takes for a fossil to form. The assumption is that that is a long time and that the could be no doubt at all about it. Funny how these certainties get only a few adherants while certainties like the world being round get so many adherants. Yet it is called ‘proof’ in so many off the online articles. That is well dodgy mate. If you personally don’t realise it then there are plenty of people who do so I’ll chose to converse with them instead. I guess it is seen as monopolising the precious ‘debate’ to present another side to it so the debate seems a little vulnerable. Yet this debate so easily monopolises the news bandwidth with its one-sided ‘proof’. I just thought (as did a few others it seems) it could do with being balanced a bit. Shame those of you who don’t like to be made to think through the proof properly get so touchy about that. I thought you guys were supposed to be scientific (except it might just be there aren’t any scientists commenting on this article – what is a scientist anyway).

  • Stephen, UK

    It’s a pity with have so little good research to satsify our longing to look into what true history lies behind the fossil record. For me I’ll just wait till there is more to go on than the research of people like those writing some of the comments above and the articles that insist on ‘belief’ in dogma based on dogma without real proof. It will all pretty much disappear soon anyway but it would be nice to know what really happened. Asking believers in Truth to turn their back on the Source of it in order to find things out is just not on in my book. Better to stay ‘ignorant’ of the mysteries and enlightened of the Truth. Patience does ultimately lead to good understandng though. Best not to abandon honesty and discernment in the process though – if you are firmly convinced of something (Faith) best to hold onto that no matter what insults others throw. Each will get their reward for their respective actions no matter who they are.

  • reevesAstronomy

    “If humans were around so many hundreds of thousands of years 1) How come the population was so low till 4,000 years ago? (if it wasn’t extremely low all that time, why have we not found billions of said footprints ?)”

    The human population 4,000 years ago was in the MILLIONS. That is NOT a small number!

  • http://andrewastronomy.wetpaint.com/ reevesAstronomy

    Stephen, UK:
    If humans were around so many hundreds of thousands of years 1) How come the population was so low till 4,000 years ago? (if it wasn’t extremely low all that time, why have we not found billions of said footprints ?)”

    -The human population 4,000 years ago was in the MILLIONS. That is NOT a small number!

    “2) How come they only started being ‘advanced’ and inventive five thousand years ago?”

    -Humans first created fires HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years ago. Shelters were created tens of thousands of years ago by Neanderthals and Humans. The oldest musical instrument known, a flute, created by Neanderthals, was made over 30,000 years ago.

    “3) Why didn’t they start reverting to the stupidty state for all those five thousand years until the evolutionists appeared just a few hundred years ago?”

    -Could you rephrase this sentence so that it makes just a little bit of sense?

    “4) Don’t government funders of evolutionists ever say to themselves that something about evolution ideas and studies seriously doesn’t stack up?”

    -No, because they are presented sufficient evidence that the evolutionists are on the right track. Just because a few studies don’t show evolution at play doesn’t mean evolution is false. There are mountains of evidence out there proving evolution is true.

  • Cornelius

    I’m a 2nd semester biology student in my freshman year of college. I profess to be a Christian, but I do understand that a lot of the bible is pure conjecture. I also strongly believe in evolution, along with how life came about, but when science can’t explain certain things, I acredit them to God. Why, you might ask..

    In only my 19 years on this Earth, I have realized that most humans need a sense of security. Believing in God or a god is that sense of security that many humans grab a hold of. When science comes in and disproves the teachings of their relegion, rather it be Christianity or Hinduism, it frightens people. However, with me, I welcomed it.

    My beliefs confuse a lot of people and I don’t even try explaining it because I shouldn’t have to.

    After reading these arguments I feel that everyone on this bored are on the extremes of both ends. Can’t we all co exist? Relegion and science can be taught harmoniously together.

  • Bob Snyder

    Hey Cornelius, not everybody is at the extremes. Plenty of people respect religion for what it has to offer and science for what it contributes to society. It is the morons like Stephen that incite responses like those from Luis Cayetano. And Luis, those responses were probably the best I’ll ever read here at Discover. Unfortunately, they’re wasted on people who don’t subscribe to reality or logic or reason. It wasn’t a waste of time though, I thoroughly enjoyed every word of it as much as you probably did writing it.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “Luis, what do you know about me”

    Only what I can discern from your comments: that you couldn’t care less about scientific endeavour, and that you know nothing about what you profess to talk about.

    “I’ll try not to take your opinions as representative of anyone. You probably just speak for yourself. Cool. I think research show that the majority of people actually do not believe evolutionary theory so it is strange that so many who do speak of it as if it is so certain with zero acknowledgement of public opinions.”

    Right, because it’s such a smart idea to decide scientific questions based upon what “public opinion” has to say about it. You clearly have no conception of the following simple fact: that the vast majority of people don’t know squat about biology. I’m all too aware of this ignorance (I have to deal with it all the time; you’re a prime, but admittedly extreme, example); it doesn’t mean I have to subscribe to this ignorance. Unlike you, I’m being trained as a biologist. So I couldn’t care less whether 99 percent of the population believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis 9except to the extent that they try to interfere with my research or try to poison eduction with lies). It has crap-all to do with whether evolution is a sound theory or not. People have strong opinions about all sorts of things they know nothing about. It’s irrelevant. Unlike you, I don’t hide behind public ignorance. I’m not that cowardly.

    “That includes all the american articles these last few days on these footprints as if there was no doubt what they must prove. They must prove, it is ascerted, that humans have been around as long as it takes for a fossil to form. The assumption is that that is a long time and that the could be no doubt at all about it.”

    Yeah, actually, that’s old news. We have abundant fossil date demonstrating the fact of human evolution. We don’t need to keep proving what’s already known to every member of the scientific community every time a new discovery is made. New finds are subsumed within a broader edifice of existing knowledge. I suggest that you learn some elementary aspects of how science works.

    “Funny how these certainties get only a few adherants while certainties like the world being round get so many adherants.”

    Yes, it is funny – but also sad. The world being round doesn’t have much religious significance, but the notion that we evolved from other forms of life clearly does, which is why people reject it so often. It’s utterly disingenuous of you to imply that people consider these issues objectively and dispassionately, looking only at the evidence. Most people are arse-backwards ignorant about biology.

    “I guess it is seen as monopolising the precious ‘debate’ to present another side to it so the debate seems a little vulnerable. Yet this debate so easily monopolises the news bandwidth with its one-sided ‘proof’.”

    That’s because, as I said, public opinion doesn’t count in matters of scientific veracity. It means less than cat’s spit. If public opinion rejected the existence of cancer, it wouldn’t mean anything. Cancer would continue. That public opinion rejects evolutionary theory doesn’t stop viruses from evolving, it doesn’t stop insects from acquiring resistance to insecticides, it doesn’t stop speciation from happening. Only lunatic fringe publications would give equal credence to what those who aren’t in the know think.

    “I just thought (as did a few others it seems) it could do with being balanced a bit.”

    What, with your pathetic examples of “challenges” to evolution (which you can’t even defend)? I think not. Oh, and by the way – let’s also balance your church attendance with sermons on the evidence of evolution, presented by evolutionary biologists. No? Yet you think you can corrupt science with your archaic world views. That’s what you call “balance”.

    “Shame those of you who don’t like to be made to think through the proof properly”

    And being made to do that involves being shown a bunch of totally bogus projections about population growth :) I’m sorry that reality is so biased against you. It’s just not fair, is it?

    “It’s a pity with have so little good research to satsify our longing to look into what true history lies behind the fossil record.”

    Translation: you haven’t found the Ark.

    “For me I’ll just wait till there is more to go on than the research of people like those writing some of the comments above and the articles that insist on ‘belief’ in dogma based on dogma without real proof.”

    Fossils aren’t “real proof”? Hmmmm. You gotta know that something’s wrong when you think that evidence isn’t evidence, but then again you see your beliefs as taking precedence over reality anyway, so I suppose there’s nothing that could convince you otherwise.

    “It will all pretty much disappear soon anyway but it would be nice to know what really happened.”

    Why don’t you just tell us what happened, since you clearly know more than a Stephen Jay Gould or a Richard Dawkins about evolution and natural history? Your awesome expertise, which you acquired from reading the Bible (the premier biology textbook), should give you the grounding you need to tell us all what’s what.

    “Asking believers in Truth to turn their back on the Source of it in order to find things out is just not on in my book.”

    Neither is looking at evidence, apparently. Your approach is to shut your eyes at the first hint of trouble, and then basically blame everyone else for your inability to fathom the facts.

    “Patience does ultimately lead to good understandng though.”

    Or you could just pick up the latest issue of Nature or Science and read some of it. Your choice. If you’d rather wait around for God to reveal everything to you, that’s your choice too. No one else – not even your children – are obligated to go along with that. You can wallow on your own, but don’t expect others to respect you for it. If anything, expect to be laughed at.

    “Best not to abandon honesty and discernment in the process though”

    You have a very odd definition of “honesty”. You won’t acknowledge what’s in front of your eyes, you won’t acknowledge how it is that science works, or how it is that scientists utilise their accumulated knowledge of the world, but somehow you’re the one being honest. Sorry, but that’s retarded.

    “- if you are firmly convinced of something (Faith)”

    And that’s where your argument completely implodes. If you believe things on faith, then you’ve already opted yourself out of any rational discussion, because you’re playing by your own rules rather than by an established set of rules based on evidence, critical inquiry and logical critique. If you say “I believe this by faith”, then there’s nothing left to talk about. You’re in effect just saying that you’re going to believe in something no matter what and that evidence doesn’t count. So why the hell did you even attempt to make scientific objections to human evolution in the first place if you’re just going to fall back on faith anyway?

    “best to hold onto that no matter what insults others throw.”

    Homo erectus is definitely a huge insult. Damn fossils! They just don’t have any respect for creationism!

    “Each will get their reward for their respective actions no matter who they are.”

    Rewards? If spending the rest of eternity with people like you is a “reward”, then I would much rather prefer the punishment.

  • Angela

    Wow, what a fun read! (No, I’m not being facetious.) This is actually quite entertaining. I too am a Christian, but I don’t believe that ALL knowledge is contained in the Bible. It’s a guide, much like the US Constitution *should* guide political/ legal decisions. It is possible to exist peacefully believing in both God and in science. When I’m sick, I go to the doctor to get well. If I’m really sick, my friends will also pray that I get well soon. I don’t see a problem with that. After all, God *created* the doctors, right? Seems a bit hypocritical to pick and choose which parts of science you’ll accept: medical sciences are fine but evolutionary biology and anthropology/ archeology aren’t? Where’s the logic there? So I should choose to believe only the New Testament and not the Old? If you spend some time learning about the science and think about it, you might find that it’s not the contradiction that you think it is.

    In regards to the argument about taxes funding research: Fine, stop getting tax breaks for “charitable giving” (e.g. tithing) and stop taking advantage of scientific discoveries and advances by only adhering to the ancient theory of bodily humors (because losing blood is so very helpful when you’re ill and weak), going back to horses and chariots (automotive engineering is science!) and stop using the internet (developed by computer scientists!). Problem solved, we’ll all be happy in complete ignorance of one another. :-) (Now I *am* being facetious.)

  • PM Barker

    I think everyone argues about things the do not look at with the intent of understanding. The first chapter of the book of Genesis was not written as a scientific treatise. It was written as a short synopsis of how we got here, why we are here and to point out some of our responsibilities.

    It was written to people that had neither microscope nor telescope. It does a fine and poetic job of giving a lot of information with few words.

    It starts out with darkness and chaos and then as the atmosphere clears we have light. The land and water begins to separate (plate tectonics) Plant life arrives. The atmosphere clears more… not we see more of the universe. Then life appears in the water i.e. verse 20 “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life.” We soon see flying creatures. Then the earth brings forth other forms of life. Everything that creeps upon the earth and beasts. Then, finally we see ourselves appear.

    For a non scientific and very short version of creation written for peoples who lived thousands of years ago and with the ability to survive and still make sense for us today… Giving us our responsibility to care for the wonderful garden and to raise our own families.

    I believe it does an exemplary job. I do not know why the scientists are not amazed by this or why people of faith do not appreciate the work done by most scientists. I think there should be more respect going both ways.

    I see no contridictions when the purpose and intent of the writings are understood. I mean both religious and scientific writings. It may be that religious folks say and write what they think the “book” says. These are just their interpretations. And scientific folks sometimes forget the difference between hypothesis, theory and proven fact.

    And oh, by the way the bible itself says that a thousand years are but a yesterday to God. The time element that is always argued about is irrevelent. The terms “day one or day two” are just literary tools to help put the overall ideas into understandable context.

    Thank you for listening.
    PB

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “I believe it does an exemplary job. I do not know why the scientists are not amazed by this or why people of faith do not appreciate the work done by most scientists. I think there should be more respect going both ways.”

    They’re not amazed by it because it’s basically a version of previous creation myths. And what’s so “impressive” about it anyway? There are other creation myths that are at least as “accurate”, and just as poetic. What’s perhaps truly impressive are the musings of ancient Greek philosophers like Anaximander. He saw analogues between embryonic development and the history of life, with the initial state of the Earth as a formless mass covered with water, then with fish appearing, then with “fish-men” emerging from the water, and finally with humans arriving on the scene. This is an evolutionary narrative, centuries before Darwin.

  • PM Barker

    Interesting opinion. But again, does not take in account the intent of the different writings. One writing is meant to be scientific and somewhat philosophical; in the end it misses the mark. However, time has found the Genius account much more enduring and thus more loved, showing its closer proximity to nature. In other words it does not miss its mark. Its purpose is met and still holds without contradicting any later comprehensible models, philosophical or scientific, its purpose not being a scientific explanation. Remember–purpose and durability. In my opinion it is a much simpler and concise, thus accomplishing its purpose without going beyond.

    Since it is not a scientific treatise, but a short and general overview of the beginning, it leaves room for the scientist, to put numbers, formulas and scientific tools towards a more complete and measurable (scientific)demonstration of the beginning of time in relationship to the universe and our world in particular.

    PB

  • http://teleprestexan.blogspot.com/ Stephen Daugherty

    The question is whether you’re trying to force scripture to compete on ground it was most decidedly not designed to compete on. The bible is full of stories, not full of equations, full of wisdom about the human condition and our emotional lives, not full of information on the details of different species.

    I had an insight while discussing the usual sort of scientific rationalizations with a biblical survey class: the bible was written for a pre-scientific culture, not to prove God with documentary fact, but to describe God with terms that the current culture would understand. Did what happen there actually happen? Both secular materialists and religious fundamentalists make the mistake of believing that literal truth is the operative quality here. People wrote these things down from oral traditions of a culture that had passed them on for centuries before first setting them down.

    Literal detail would have faded from time, as the story was perpetually boiled down and re-brewed to emphasize its essence. Now if you don’t believe in God, you could say that the content happened on accident. But really, the human condition is a non-random thing. There are universal experiences in our lives and in our spirituality, and these figure into the structure of the early legends of the bible. So some sort of essence is there, of something greater than simply accidents of oral storytelling. Might that be what God, if he exists, shapes, with a mind to communicate and preserve the communication of certain wisdom?

    We see Jesus use admittedly fictional stories in his Gospels to teach and guide his disciples and apostles. Would it be contrary to God’s purposes or beyond his means to shape the legends and fables of a society to communicate divine truth?

    I trust in the material truth of evolution, and profoundly distrust the claims of the intelligent design crowd as to the notion that we can discern God’s hand in the world, for a few reasons. First, I don’t think man is capable of thinking of on a high enough level to understand design on God’s level of design. Second, even if we could, the scriptures claim a divine creation, which means we’re having to square the first problem: discerning design from design! Third, why could God not do everything in one shot? A God of infinite wisdom, knowledge and understanding could easily figure out what he needed to figure out ahead of time, and just set things in motion. There’s no need for him to revise things to complete creation. Now he could easily choose to affect outcomes, or put forward plans whose nature had to deal with free will and the permutations that would proceed from that, but the creation of a truly perfect God would inevitably be seamless. There would be no ripping open the fabric to see God behind reality. Creatures of nature would stay creatures of nature without his supernatural intervention.

    Evolution, I believe, is about an inherent integration of complexity and then free choice in nature. God lets it be because that lets people choose for themselves.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “Both secular materialists and religious fundamentalists make the mistake of believing that literal truth is the operative quality here. People wrote these things down from oral traditions of a culture that had passed them on for centuries before first setting them down.”

    Actually, whether it was meant as a fable or as an attempted factual description of the origin of the world and of life wasn’t my concern here. The only thing I objected to was when fundamentalists come along and try to rubbish the entirety of modern science in the furtherance of promoting Genesis as though it were literal fact.

    “Now if you don’t believe in God, you could say that the content happened on accident. But really, the human condition is a non-random thing.”

    Those are two separate issues.

    “There are universal experiences in our lives and in our spirituality, and these figure into the structure of the early legends of the bible. So some sort of essence is there, of something greater than simply accidents of oral storytelling.”

    And one can (and many do) make exactly the same argument about the holy texts of other religions. The only “essence” that we’ve been able to discern is human curiosity about our origins, fear of death, and a hankering for meaning. That’s a commonality among all religions, rather than being the exclusive preserve of Christianity.

  • Stephen, UK

    “The only thing I objected to was when fundamentalists come along and try to rubbish the entirety of modern science in the furtherance of promoting Genesis as though it were literal fact.”

    I’m guessing this objection might be partly aimed at my comment. Interesting to be labelled ‘fundamentalist’ just because I object to ignoring well attested ancient writings when analysing physical evidence. Interesting too that someone thinks I would rubbish all of science just because I rubbished a particular theory about a particular set of findings. I kind of guess that others reading this (if anyone still takes time to go back to it now) might have similar ways of dismissing what I wrote so I’ll bother answering it, not that I think it needs answering per se.

    My objections are
    1. that the known facts about ancient history seem to be being ignored by those interpreting the footprint find and other such finds and I base this objeection on the facts that
    a) humans were quite populous around 5000 and 4000 years ago – millions of us
    b) humans are quite populous now – billions of us
    c) that’s a growth from millions to billions in just 5000 years
    d) if humans had been around in their thousands, even, just 15000 years ago then you would expect the population to have been billions by 5000 years ago
    e) if humans were around in their hundreds just 30000 years ago you would expect there to have been billions of billions of us by now
    f) what then about the idea that there were thousands of humans some 100000 years ago, let alone 1000000 years ago or even 1500000 years ago, as the theory seems to suggest? After all,
    i)
    for there to be footprints preserved the chances are there must have been an awful lot of footprints not preserved (by ‘laws of probability’ perhaps) and this would mean a lot of footprints overall from that time which weren’t preserved and therefore a lot of humans
    ii)
    how would a species survive for hundreds thousands of years unless its population were in the thousands or more for most of that time
    So there would have been populations of humans in the thousands at least if they were around for so many millenia and we are being asked to consider it worthy science to say that for all those millenia the population was so small that it was only numbering in the millions around 4000 years ago but it suddenly all changed so that only now are there billions of humans. What changed? Why weren’t there billions of billions humans in 3000 BC, let alone today?

    OK that’s the main objection – what I would call a very reasonable one, not based on legend or fable but on well accepted facts.

    My other objection is that literature proves largely trustworthy from when writing first started about events that happened during the time of writing; so why is it all dismissed when it comes to putting together the evidence and interpreting it when it predates literature? Just because the records include and give glory to God, the Creator, doesn’y mean they are unreliable. That to me seems a reasonable objection too.

    My last objection seems to have caused the most uproar: Objecting to ignoring the testimony and the part played in history of the Creator Himself – e.g. as given, it is well known and accepted, by the historical person of the Christ who knows the Creator and testified about His having created the world in an amazingly miraculous way. This is not just a deliberate ignoring of scripture and other well-attested writings, it is ignoring of the power the brought into being the events of history we call the Creation. Interesting that this objection makes all my other objections dismissable as ‘fundamentalism’. I would call it common sense and decency but maybe I’m on some other planet to these so-called scientists.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “Interesting to be labelled ‘fundamentalist’ just because I object to ignoring well attested ancient writings when analysing physical evidence.”

    “Analysing”? Whatever do you mean? And what bearing do ancient writings have on Homo erectus?

    “Interesting too that someone thinks I would rubbish all of science just because I rubbished a particular theory about a particular set of findings.”

    That itself is rubbish. You in fact rubbished (for everyone to see, so please don’t try to sleaze your way out of acknowledging it) the entirety of evolutionary biology, a huge field with scope far beyond this single finding.

    “a) humans were quite populous around 5000 and 4000 years ago – millions of us”

    No possibility of disagreement there – except that you seem to think that the world is roughly that age anyway, so that places you outside the pool of rational discourse.

    “d) if humans had been around in their thousands, even, just 15000 years ago then you would expect the population to have been billions by 5000 years ago”

    You might. A sober consideration of the factors that limit actual population growth would lead us to think otherwise. Once again: the number of people that can live at any one time depends upon how many people the environment can support. 15,000 years ago, humanity couldn’t reach those numbers because they hadn’t settled down into large settlements. It was only with the advent of civilisation that such things as a steady food supply through the domestication of animals and plants, irrigation, sanitation systems, civil administration, and a host of other support structures could be put in place. These allowed the population to increase. Before that, people had to keep moving about for food; they couldn’t settle down and expand in the way that organised, state-like settlements could.

    “e) if humans were around in their hundreds just 30000 years ago you would expect there to have been billions of billions of us by now”

    There are billions of us by now. Did you notice any differences between now and then that might have contributed to that?

    “What changed? Why weren’t there billions of billions humans in 3000 BC, let alone today?”

    You have got to be joking. Are you asking this just to spite people, or is your whole conception of the world so one dimensional that you really can’t conceive of reasons why population size has increased so dramatically only relatively recently?

    “Just because the records include and give glory to God, the Creator, doesn’y mean they are unreliable. “

    And there are records that include and give glory to pagan gods, sun gods, river gods, and so on. There are writings that give glory to the gods of Hinduism. All these texts – whether Christian or whatever – have one thing in common: they document the prevailing beliefs of people at the time in the respective geographical area. Apart from that, they have varying degrees of reliability in terms of accurately documenting the historical events that took place.

    “it is well known and accepted, by the historical person of the Christ who knows the Creator and testified about His having created the world in an amazingly miraculous way.”

    And there’s this guy known as Sai Baba who lives in India and is worshipped by millions as a divine human. He, too, “testifies” about miraculous occurrences. I don’t much care for so-called messiahs. The best thing that can be said about their self-delusion is that they are mistaken in it.

    “Interesting that this objection makes all my other objections dismissable as ‘fundamentalism’. “

    If you give precedence to ancient writings about an invisible being over the most well-verified modern science, then fundamentalism is exactly what it is. It’s not “interesting”, it’s just an inexorable outcome.

    “I would call it common sense and decency”

    Pretty pathological sorts of “common sense” and “decency”. If ignoring and belittling the only scientific framework that allows us to deal effectively with deadly viruses, with crop-eating pests, and with other problems facing human health and survival is “decency” it you, then you’ve got problems.

  • Stephen, UK

    *Me
    “Interesting too that someone thinks I would rubbish all of science just because I rubbished a particular theory about a particular set of findings.”
    Luis
    That itself is rubbish. You in fact rubbished (for everyone to see, so please don’t try to sleaze your way out of acknowledging it) the entirety of evolutionary biology, a huge field with scope far beyond this single finding.*

    My response: I guess logic is not your strong point :-) How does evolutionary biology equate to all of science? Using logic to exptrapolate on my thesis that evolutionary biology of human evolution makes such huge blunders and cannot substantiate its claims you might think I would also believe that evolutionary biology is unscientific as a whole. That wouldn’t be far off at all. But I do believe that science outside of biology (too much of which is evolutionary in my view) has a lot more credibility – e.g. astronomy, physics, chemistry, computer science and to some extent mathematics. You implied I was rubbishing these too.
    I find that the same weakness in the logic of evolutionary theory of humans – that there is no explanation why after millions of years of low population, verging on what we’d call near extinction today, the population suddenly changed to be a very vigorous one, constantly advancing in culture and technology – this weakness applies to evolutionary theories about other species too. Then the arguments to back this up and ‘prove’ it are all circular – again showing lack of logical thought and follow-through thinking: hence falling short of my concept of ‘science’.

    *Me
    “a) humans were quite populous around 5000 and 4000 years ago – millions of us”
    Luis
    No possibility of disagreement there – except that you seem to think that the world is roughly that age anyway, so that places you outside the pool of rational discourse.*

    My response:
    What did happen then to stop this explosion of population which took place in the last few millenia happening before since ‘before’ is said to have lasted so long? What caused the explosion in technology too? Why didn’t houses, etc get built in all those hundreds of thousands of years? Such a change you might put down to a simple change in the DNA. Why then make this opinion any more worthy of being called ‘science’ than the opinion that it was an act of God? Why is your (collective ‘your’ of course) idea more rational? Why is rational discourse not allowed to take into account that the existence of God is very likely so much so that there is even a subject called ‘theology’? Do you apply your view of ‘rational’ to Einstein and Kepler too? Even Newton? All these included God in their thinking and discourses. Were they ‘outside of rational discourse’ and unscientific?

    Now I’ve lost patience.

    Sorry. Bring on the real science.

  • Bob Snyder

    Stephen…. what? It’s pretty apparent to most readers by now that you know practically nothing about almost everything. Luis has owned you from the beginning, providing you with reasonable (accepted) explanations to all of your objections. You have responded with more ignorance. I am surprised that Luis has even kept up with this as you are obviously far below his level in the debate of creationism vs Evolution or (Darwinism). If you epitomized the creationist ideology and spoke for all who espouse the theory, the debate would have been over a long time ago.

  • Stephen, UK

    Bob, now this is hottening up. Now it seems to be who is owning who – like that matters at all in any scheme of things. The debate has been going for what, over a hundred years. Not sure how anything any of us write is going to changee the fact it will go on for decades more. No other subject in ‘science’ (I loath calling it that) gets so much debate. I guess Darwin knew he’d started something provocative. To me it was just political anti-Christian propoganda anyway and only intended to provoke Christians and ‘own’ them. How big of Darwin. How scientific. Those footprints are probably set in stone by something like a volcanic eruption maybe only a few thousand years ago. I guess that just shows how ignorant I am to jump to such a conclusion without knowing all the facts. I guess I expect folk to think that of me but what I’m saying is – that is exactly what the evolutionists are doing all the time and calling it science. There is no way to measure it. I guess that is the problem (perhaps the trick) of evolutionary stories – they go beyond normal science by putting forward theories which cannot possibly be proved and maybe cannot be disproved either; or at least if anyone tries to suggest a disproof is feasible the evolutionists clearly (from looking at their comments here) just panic and shout down the opposing view. This is one reason I’d say it isn’t like what people usually call science – there is no chance of certainty or positive outcome – just story upon story. I’m sure a lot of evolutionists jumped up when they saw this story thinking there was a chance they’d be given credibility by it. I’m just pointing out that that isn’t likely ever to happen because all the evidence is ambiguous and all the truth is well in the past – by definition. If anything could be asserted about that past on the basis of literature or human witness then it would by nature be seen as too late in time to be relevant and shouted down. Only God’s testimony is valid (He was there millions of years ago) and His true testimony is dismissed out of hand by the godless worshipers of Charles Darwin. Only Darwin’s testimony is considered valid by these guys. That’s their nature. I’ll leave them to it. Forgive my rant. No faith is ever going to enter their hardened hearts, even though someone did rise from the dead – the One person who knows, who has testified and suffered the consequences.

  • Bob Snyder

    The irony of your statement about “theories which cannot possibly be proved and maybe cannot be disproved either,” is that all theories of religion/God fall into this trap. This leaves them outside the realm of science, they’re untestable. Is this your argument? “Science could never tell us what happened in the past therefore, because the only source of information we have left is the Bible, it must be true.” Or is it “I believe in the Bible as fact, therefore if Science does not corroborate that which is already in the Bible, it must be faulty.” Really though, you combine both and we’re left with a murky argument that looks like: “There are two proposed ways to ascertain information about the past, that which was told through stories and that which is analyzed through physical evidence. But since we cannot know anything about the distant past with certainty, physical evidence will not be a valid source of information. That leaves us with oral tradition.” So, there are a number of fallacies in any of these arguments, first being that they all conclude that we cannot know anything about the (distant) past by using science. Second, whether you start by believing in the Bible as factual testimony (invalid in any argument) or conclude that you believe in the Bible and that it is factual, you will never be taken seriously in any debate. The latter is fallacious purely in the context of logic as one would have to offer a premise that states “The Bible is the only true source of information,” or something similar. The problem is that you take the Bible literally. If you were to take it allegorically, you could avoid most of the issues others have with your beliefs. And really, they only have these issues when your like comes onto scientific websites and spews fanatical views about genuine science using your pseudo-science. And you act like scientists worship Darwin but here’s the great thing about science, its theories are testable. The reality of the situation is this, you do not respond to reason. You believe in the Bible first and reject that which does not corroborate its “facts.” Nothing any of us will sway your beliefs. My only advice for you is to take a different approach to creationism. Religion and Science can coexist. Theistic evolution is one such theory. Look into it.

  • Bob Snyder

    *Nothing any of us say will sway your beliefs*

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “My response: I guess logic is not your strong point :-) How does evolutionary biology equate to all of science?”

    It fits in with the rest of science. For example, geology tells us that the Earth is billions of years old. Genetics tells us that organisms originated billions of years ago. You choose to deny these facts.

    “…astronomy, physics, chemistry, computer science and to some extent mathematics. You implied I was rubbishing these too.”

    You are. Evolutionary theory utilises mathematics, chemistry is used to discern the make-up of organisms, physics tells us about the mechanical constraints of animals and plants, and computer science is used to build models of evolution and to test them (and even to produce evolution using the same principles that prevail in nature. The engine of the Boeing 777 was designed with what’s known as evolutionary software. And guess what? It works). Evolutionary biology is seamlessly integrated into our knowledge of the world and has many, many points of connection with other sciences.

    “I find that the same weakness in the logic of evolutionary theory of humans – that there is no explanation why after millions of years of low population, verging on what we’d call near extinction today, the population suddenly changed to be a very vigorous one, “

    In other words: here is a problem that we don’t fully understand, “therefore” evolution is a fraud. With that “logic”, you could say “We don’t fully understand how proteins fold up, therefore all of chemistry is bunk.” Of course, once we do crack it, you’ll just latch onto another unsolved problem as “proof” that evolution is wrong.

    ” – this weakness applies to evolutionary theories about other species too.”

    Big deal. That’s why we have these people called evolutionary biologists. A thousand things that weren’t known last year are now known. What’s your point? Yes, some problems are harder than others. In your view, that’s just a reason to give and say “God did it”. For sane people, it is an impetus to keep looking.

    “Then the arguments to back this up and ‘prove’ it are all circular – again showing lack of logical thought and follow-through thinking: hence falling short of my concept of ’science’.”

    Your concept of science is simply this: “answer this question about humans, or else everything in evolution is false.” You exhibit no knowledge whatsoever of how science is actually done.

    My response:
    What did happen then to stop this explosion of population which took place in the last few millenia happening before since ‘before’ is said to have lasted so long?”

    Lots of things could have prevented it. Intermittent tribal warfare might be one; disease might be another. Let’s not forget the Ice Age either. But let’s say we have NO idea. What credence does that lend to “God did it”? None whatsoever.

    “What caused the explosion in technology too?”

    New manufacturing processes that allowed other machines to be built more easily and in greater quantity, and the division of labour that allowed some to pursue philosophical issues while others worked in manual labour etc.

    “Why didn’t houses, etc get built in all those hundreds of thousands of years?”

    What sorts of houses are we talking about? It sounds like you’re talking about the sorts of houses that get built when humans build permanent settlements.

    “Such a change you might put down to a simple change in the DNA. Why then make this opinion any more worthy of being called ’science’ than the opinion that it was an act of God? Why is your (collective ‘your’ of course) idea more rational? Why is rational discourse not allowed to take into account that the existence of God is very likely so much so that there is even a subject called ‘theology’?”

    There’s a great quote, which goes something like this: “Great intelligence is often recruited when the need to believe in illusion is strong.” And that has to be the most retarded thing I’ve ever read. To paraphrase you, why are we not allowed to take into account that the existence of evolution is very likely, so much so that there is even a subject called “evolutionary biology”?

    “Do you apply your view of ‘rational’ to Einstein and Kepler too? Even Newton? All these included God in their thinking and discourses.”

    Einstein didn’t believe in your God. He saw the notion of a personal God as silly. He used the word more in a metaphorical sense, to capture his admiration for the laws of nature. Kepler and Newton? They lived in an age where pretty much everyone believed in God anyway. Nowadays, religious belief among elite scientists is seen, if anything, as a quaint hold-over of ages past.

    “Were they ‘outside of rational discourse’ and unscientific?”

    No. They were rational to the extent that they formulated ideas with the best information at hand at the time, and within a framework of what seemed to stand to reason.

    “To me it was just political anti-Christian propoganda anyway and only intended to provoke Christians and ‘own’ them. How big of Darwin. How scientific.”

    Wow. You really are the very embodiment of ignorance itself, aren’t you? Not only are you ignorant of evolution, you’re ignorant of what drove Darwin. Darwin was actually a creationist when he was on board the HMS Beagle. He only formulated his theory of evolution by natural selection years afterwards, and it had nothing to do with being “anti-Christian”. His beloved wife was a devout Christian, and he showed deference to your beliefs. It’s not surprising that you would see his work as a deliberate “attack” on Christianity, because your mentality actively predisposes you to see any challenges to your archaic notions as politically motivated (this spares you the trouble from of having to learn much about anything so that you can continue to blame your intellectual self-exile on others).

    “There is no way to measure it.”

    No way to measure evolution? Nah, I won’t even bother with that one.

    “there is no chance of certainty or positive outcome – just story upon story”

    Boy oh boy, you just keep sinking deeper and deeper into the mud. What’s most hilarious (but also despicable in its own way) is how you have the gall to talk about “stories” as thought the Adam and Eve tale isn’t exactly that. How much “certainty” do you want, anyway? Ever looked at a scientific journal article? Did you notice that in science, we don’t talk about “certainty” in the same way that religious fanatics like you do? Error bars, p-values and replicability are the stuff of science, not unshakeable faith. It’s a continuum of probability, not absolutes. But then again, you’ve made it clear that faith is what drives you (which makes your demand for someone to “bring on the real science” all the more ludicrous and embarrassing).

    “I guess that is the problem (perhaps the trick) of evolutionary stories – they go beyond normal science by putting forward theories which cannot possibly be proved and maybe cannot be disproved either; or at least if anyone tries to suggest a disproof is feasible the evolutionists clearly (from looking at their comments here) just panic and shout down the opposing view”

    I can think of half a dozen things that, if reliably demonstrated, would falsify evolution (or at least severely weaken it to the point that we would need to seriously consider an alternative paradigm). What’s unfalsifiable is your faith, because regardless of anything that could be shown to you, you’ll continue with your mantra of “we can’t know with certainty what happened in the past, therefore I’m right, and if you don’t like it you hate God”.

    “I’m sure a lot of evolutionists jumped up when they saw this story thinking there was a chance they’d be given credibility by it.”

    That’s because you’re infected with the stupid notion that we’re constantly feeling threatened that our science will be “exposed” by half-wits like you. We’re not. This discovery is seen as another interesting ADDITION to the annals of evolutionary biology and natural history, not something that will rescue it. It doesn’t need to be rescued, partly because nothing else comes even remotely close to challenging it scientifically.

    “No faith is ever going to enter their hardened hearts”

    Hardened heads, more like it. Your head is too soft, too open to nonsense. And I’m not sure that your heart isn’t hard, judging by your indifference to the consequences of the foregoing evolutionary science in the face of deadly pathogens and food problems (much more important in your mind is to maintain faith). Besides which, I have no interest in faith. Faith is just another word for “belief without rational reasons”. If you had rational reasons, you’d be talking about “evidence”, not faith. Invoking faith when you’re supposed to be talking about reasons is just loser-speak. It shows how weak your case is and how slavish your mentality is.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    * meant to say “consequences of foregoing evolutionary science in the face of deadly pathogens and good problems.”

  • Stephen, UK

    Luis: “Genetics tells us that organisms originated billions of years ago. You choose to deny these facts.”

    Brilliant! Not! Fact? Definitely not! Human argument? Definitely. As usual. You guys don’t know your own weaknesses. There is nothing proven about evolutionary genetics. Circular agruments do not prove anything. The assumptions behind the so-called proofs are based on the premise that evolution is correct. Now you are doing the same again and trying to demonstrate that evolution is correct by trying to claim the evolutionary genetics supports it. Blah, blah, blah. Give it up. You just can’t prove it. You aren’t billions of years old and you think your brains are so powerful they can grab a tiny bit of earthly dust you call evidence and see the past billions of years in it with absolute certainty. But you can’t work out how to ‘turn a single hair on your head white’. Arrogance, arrogance, arrogance. Be careful human race, your arrogance will destroy you and the earth along with you. You’ve not got long anyway. Then the Almighty will take over – He who says “I have installed my Christ on Zion my Holy Hill”. When any of you can do a single good act I’ll perhaps pay attention to your so-called science. When you can raise the dead like He can then you might be worth listening to. Of course you can’t. Please don’t pretend you know far more than you really do – you just look silly and a little crazy. “That don’t impress me much.” ‘Billions of years…’ yeh right, like you know!

  • Ben

    Stephen of UK, you are a caucasian man living in Europe, and your current beliefs are shaped on a 2000 year old book because people before you brought a particular religion called “christianity” over to your country many years before you were born. Many other, equally important human beings called “chinese people” and “indian people” also have beliefs because of very old books that their ancestors read. Your view point on God is no more valid than Indian and Chinese views – and using our logic, there can’t have been three different beginings can there now?
    And while we’re on that, according to you we’re all decended from Adam and Eve, so why do our Chinese and Indian friends look so charactaristically different to us? Ummmm… some form of “change” perhaps? Per chance would you accept this as a form of evolution? If in the last 4000 years we can develop different external features such as skin and differnt eyes, and physical sizes, why not different internal features such as smaller brains, larger foreheads and so on. I’d ask now for a creationst to please explain their take on how we have different races with different features, and what natural process occured to give us those different features, given we are all decended from Adam and Eve.

  • Ben

    Creationists, a few other points, the “human footprint near the dinasour fossil” is already a proven hoax (google it). Secondly, the fact you are attempting using the fossil record as evidence for your creationist agenda seems to expose such a blinding contradiction because you entirely dismiss the real fossil record. Lets get real here and talk facts – we have dug up actual, physical remains of beings which are both non-human and non-monkey but share charactaristics with both. As they are dated, the creatures appear to become more human-like, and less monkey like, eventually being by entirely replaced by only human remains. Have you heard of Ockham’s Razor (if not google it again)? Evolution is absolutely the simplest and most obvious explain here. Not to mention that every single scientific find, in every single scientific field, supports the same. Listen, we bread dogs and goldfish to look rediculous compared to their original form (wolves and carp)- there is no reason no to think the same process would not occur naturally, especially over millions of years, especially with changes in weather and geography.

  • Ben

    Lastly (my third and last point) is that the bible only started to get written 3 generations Jesus died, by scribes who had a level of artistic license, translated multiple times, then edited by the Catholic church. Please don’t take the bible word for word some things are lost in translation. Even the names are not different – Jesus is a translation from the Latin “Iesus”, which itself is a translation from the Hebrew “Yeshua”. So perhaps it wasn’t Adam and Eve at all, but Koko and Mr Bubbles!

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “Brilliant! Not! Fact? Definitely not! Human argument? Definitely. As usual. “

    You really are daft.

    “There is nothing proven about evolutionary genetics.”

    You say that as though you know the first thing about evolutionary genetics.

    “The assumptions behind the so-called proofs are based on the premise that evolution is correct.”

    Rubbish. There are predictions that flow from the premise that evolution is correct that can be TESTED, and they’ve pasted the test. Hence, the proof doesn’t rely on the premise being accepted uncritically; it relies on the premise being shown by evidence (alignment of facts with prediction in this case).

    “You aren’t billions of years old and you think your brains are so powerful they can grab a tiny bit of earthly dust you call evidence and see the past billions of years in it with absolute certainty”.

    I’ll say it once more for the slow ones: science isn’t about “absolute certainty”. That’s the preserve of charlatans and preachers. Science is about chipping away at our uncertainty and organising our knowledge of the world into a coherent edifice that can be refined.

    “Arrogance, arrogance, arrogance.”

    This coming from someone who doesn’t feel the need to be informed about anything other than what an ancient, man-made book said.

    “Be careful human race, your arrogance will destroy you and the earth along with you.”

    It’s true; religious fanaticism and nuclear weapons are definitely not a good mix. Those who refuse to adopt rationality put us all in danger.

    “Then the Almighty will take over – He who says “I have installed my Christ on Zion my Holy Hill”. “

    Only religious lunatics see the silver lining in the end of the world.

    “When any of you can do a single good act I’ll perhaps pay attention to your so-called science.”

    I’ve done countless good acts. Small ones, to be sure, but many of them. Like helping old people walking up a flight of stairs when they’re carrying something heavy, sparing change for a homeless man, staying back to assist someone with their university assignment. In any case, what has that to do with science?

    “When you can raise the dead like He can then you might be worth listening to. Of course you can’t. “

    And neither can you, dumbie. “Therefore” no one should pay the slightest attention to anything you say. By your lights, you’re being a complete and total hypocrite by trying to communicate with us.

    “Please don’t pretend you know far more than you really do – you just look silly and a little crazy.”

    Right. You’re the one who believes in talking serpents and a 6,000 year old Earth, and yet we’re the ones who “sound a little crazy”. Understood :)

    “eh right, like you know!”

    So you’re not just at war with biology, but also geology and astronomy. Good work. Keep it up. Perhaps someone will take you seriously some day.

  • Stephen, UK

    OK, Luis. You yourself said it: What you call ‘science’ deals with uncertainties. The One who raises the dead deals with certainties (because He *knows*). I really can’t understand why you make out that I’m a fool just because I choose to believe the latter and in *some* cases not the former. That is for you to answer about. In the meantime, I do object because so often, as with this news announcement, what you admit is uncertain is presented as if it were certain and that, in my estimation, is deeply damaging to many in society, if not (due to the extent it is happening) to society as a whole – and often at the taxpayers’ expense. If the same amount was donated to renovating church buildings as was spent on so-called evolutionary research then everyone would be complaining the governments were biased towards the religious people. If you really are concerned about helping old people then why not be concerned about helping them spiritually and morally and protecting their faith rather than insulting it and seeking to undermine it? After all they are likely to be ‘meeting their maker’ sooner than you are and are probably wanting to hold on to whatever faith they have to be better prepared. I’m glad to hear you believe that there is such a thing as doing good though. At least evolution and survival of the fittest hasn’t made you think it’s better just to let the weak die. Some have gone that far in the past and probably still do today: Mainly because they take evolutionary thinking and ideaologies to heart. Looks like the governments today and people who do their ‘research’ and thinking for them want us all to be going a bit more in that direction: abortion, genetic selection, etc. The end of the world is probably much nearer than you think but not because of dangerous technology so much as dangerous thinking and choices about ‘who to and who not to listen to’. The Creator just says “Follow the way of love”: love of Him and love of your neighbour. Love is true, love is kind, … That’s where I’d rest my case.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “You yourself said it: What you call ’science’ deals with uncertainties. The One who raises the dead deals with certainties (because He *knows*).”

    Good for him. Too bad he never raised the dead.

    “I really can’t understand why you make out that I’m a fool just because I choose to believe the latter and in *some* cases not the former.”

    You choose not to believe the latter WHENEVER it clashes with your beliefs, which is nearly always, which is why you’re at war with the whole edifice of modern science.

    “In the meantime, I do object because so often, as with this news announcement, what you admit is uncertain is presented as if it were certain and that, in my estimation, is deeply damaging to many in society, if not (due to the extent it is happening) to society as a whole – and often at the taxpayers’ expense.”

    Societies can’t afford to remain ignorant. And they can’t afford the luxury of the toxic allure of absolute certainty. They need scepticism and inquiry both. As for your lumping of everything that doesn’t conform to scripture as uncertain, I’ll just remind you that there are degrees of uncertainty. There are things that we can be as sure about as we can reasonably be, but in the technical philosophical sense, we can’t be “absolutely” certain. They are still reasonably regarded as a facts, because they have been corroborated to such an extent that withholding acceptance is no longer tenable.

    “If the same amount was donated to renovating church buildings as was spent on so-called evolutionary research then everyone would be complaining the governments were biased towards the religious people.”

    And rightfully so. That would be a violation of the separation of church and state. Funding into evolutionary research has practical, as well as intellectual, benefits. We can’t do modern disease control, pathology, and ecology without an evolutionary foundation. You would seek to weaken and corrupt this life-saving foundation. You are wallowing in hypocrisy and immorality.

    “If you really are concerned about helping old people then why not be concerned about helping them spiritually and morally and protecting their faith rather than insulting it and seeking to undermine it?”

    Who says I’m not concerned with helping them spiritually and morally? In any case, I’ve refuted your lie that I haven’t done a single good deed. I’ll say it again: I’ve done hundreds of such deeds, and each of those deeds makes a complete mockery of everything you’ve insinuated about atheists. Of course, your weak mind is incapable of conceiving of the idea that morality doesn’t fall exclusively under the purview of fundamentalist Christianity. It’s entirely understandable that you would reflexively see anything that falls outside of your narrow beliefs as inherently evil. Like the mind-slave you are, this is perfectly natural and automatic for you.

    “After all they are likely to be ‘meeting their maker’ sooner than you are and are probably wanting to hold on to whatever faith they have to be better prepared.”

    It’s quite disgusting that you would exploit these peoples’ waning vitality as a spur to your own faith, and as weapon of emotional blackmail. It won’t work. I have nothing but contempt for people like you. It seems that all you’re concerned about is making it to heaven. If so, then I’d rather be in hell any day if cretins like you are going sky-ward.

    “I’m glad to hear you believe that there is such a thing as doing good though.”

    No you’re not. You can’t stand the notion that atheists can be upstanding, moral people. You would rather it be that we were depraved. So you try to poke holes in evolution and talk gibberish about it.

    “At least evolution and survival of the fittest hasn’t made you think it’s better just to let the weak die.”

    Again, another stupid myth. Evolution is a natural process that entails change in populations. It makes no moral claims about how we should live. Again, it’s entirely understandable that someone as unimpressive as you would automatic presume that evolution must somehow “tell” atheists how to live, since you assume that humans have to be told how to live anyway. You’re genuinely incapable of thinking outside the little box you’ve built around yourself.

    “The end of the world is probably much nearer than you think but not because of dangerous technology so much as dangerous thinking and choices about ‘who to and who not to listen to’.”

    You’re right. Religious, state and economic fundamentalists are the harbingers of doom. And if they’re not stopped, these dehumanised thugs will be the harbingers of extinction.

  • Stephen, UK

    Luis,
    Isn’t all this just finding fault with everything I say/write? Why do you just repeat my every sentence and add a negative reaction? That isn’t good, it isn’t even proper debating. Do you have anything positive of your own to contribute rather than just a barely thought out reaction to show disagreement with every comment of mine? Because you don’t believe what I believe doesn’t mean I think you cannot behave well. Belief is rare these days. That’s a pity; not a reason for me to rejoice. It saddens me deeply. I know what is to become of people and there’s no avoiding it for the masses, just for the chosen few (and not to be taken for granted even for those I expect). That small but devastatingly large (if you know aht I mean) asteroid that very very nearly hit the earth last week: What was to stop it hitting like the one which hit Siberia? I would really say: Who is to stop it hitting? I ‘know’ the answer to that of course. To an atheist it must be a terrifying concept, except to the happy-go-lucky. No angels to steer it away. No God to have pity. No Michael or Son of Man or praying saints to intercede. That is the way I imagine it seems to you (if you really are an atheist, which I doubt a bit from some of your comments). To me it is a foretaste of the inevitable but there is One who ensures it doesn’t happen for a while, until the fulness of time and One to pray to to ask for mercy and even for survival – like form the wars which could come our way and are already devastating the lives of many. No cheap wins there, no picking up on tragedy for the sake of argument. I don’t care much for argument, just for Doing the Will of God (but often giving in and grasping at sinful enjoyment when He seems far away – yes I admit it). I’m not writing this for the pleasure of winning arguments but for the joy of serving my God, and for the possibility of turning the hatred of some of His (mine too) enemies into love for Him – in short reconciliation wherever it is destined to be. I guess I didn’t count on so much negative reaction. I thought things had improved since the day Christ was crucified under an onslaught of insults. No wonder when He came back to life it was just His friends He appeared to – until Saul’s (Paul’s) turn that is. That bit I know is true because it happened a bit to me too – not quite like Paul’s experience but a bit like what some of the others experienced – no lie. So I don’t have any reason to doubt and I wish I could do some miracle for you so you had something to rest some faith on too. Pity there’s a barrier to that. I might just be wasting my time though – as I fear it would be with so many these days. Arguments don’t wash when it comes to the kind of belief gap you seem a bit to have: Miracles do – ‘so you can rest your faith on the power of God’. Until then just bring on the insults. They only make me stronger; albeit a little sadder for you, but not for me. :-)

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “Isn’t all this just finding fault with everything I say/write? “

    The Gospels talks about the importance of not being a hypocrite. If you’re going to denounce me for finding fault with everything you say, then keep your own house in order.

    “Why do you just repeat my every sentence and add a negative reaction?”

    It’s called “rebuttal”.

    “That isn’t good, it isn’t even proper debating.”

    Going through each of your points and showing how they’re wanting “isn’t good”?

    “Belief is rare these days.”

    Then you haven’t heard of the Middle East or of the American South, or of Sudan.

    “That’s a pity”

    It’s a pity that it isn’t rare.

    “I know what is to become of people and there’s no avoiding it for the masses, just for the chosen few”

    This is what makes me sick about religion: the notion that by believing in some ancient myth, you are thereby “saved”, while everyone who doesn’t subscribe to your bullshit is somehow deserving of eternal punishment. This is arrogance like nothing else, even if people like you see it as “humility”, and it’s profoundly anti-human.

    “That small but devastatingly large (if you know aht I mean) asteroid that very very nearly hit the earth last week: What was to stop it hitting like the one which hit Siberia?”

    It didn’t very nearly hit the Earth. It passed within relatively close range of it.

    “To an atheist it must be a terrifying concept, except to the happy-go-lucky. No angels to steer it away. No God to have pity.”

    Oh, you mean FACING FACTS? Not having a Sky-Daddy to protect you from the contingencies of nature is obviously a bad thing for someone who wants to be patted on the head and reassured like a child.

    “That is the way I imagine it seems to you (if you really are an atheist, which I doubt a bit from some of your comments)”

    Actually, this is just a classic case of a fundamentalist projecting his own anxieties onto non-believers. Since it’s YOU who needs angels and saints to deflect asteroids, you’re the one who’s terrified. So terrified that you feel compelled to believe in fiction. To top it off, you then imagine that this somehow makes you better.

    “I don’t care much for argument, just for Doing the Will of God “

    Precisely. Facts mean nothing to you, which is why you can’t defend any of the arguments you have made.

    “I’m not writing this for the pleasure of winning arguments but for the joy of serving my God”

    I know. You’re a mind-slave. You’d rather be a plaything of a celestial dictator than to be free. Few things are as corrupt and pathetic as that.

    “and for the possibility of turning the hatred of some of His (mine too) enemies into love for Him – in short reconciliation wherever it is destined to be.”

    Catch a clue: you don’t win points for your god by telling everyone that by being an obnoxious arsehole you’re thereby saved.

    “I guess I didn’t count on so much negative reaction.”

    You should. Unlike you, people with brains aren’t paper tigers.

    “So I don’t have any reason to doubt and I wish I could do some miracle for you so you had something to rest some faith on too. Pity there’s a barrier to that.”

    It’s called rationality. You should try it sometime (too bad there’s a barrier to that. It’s called faith).

    “Until then just bring on the insults. They only make me stronger”

    Only in your own mind. To everyone else, you still sound like a complete twat.

  • Stephen, UK

    What I’d respond to all this was already well written long ago, as recieved from the Creator:
    “…The message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided through the foolishness of our proclamation to save those who believe. For the Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.”
    Paul the Apostle’s 1st letter to Corinthians, 1st century AD
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=1&version=31
    Maybe we had all better follow this Apostle’s advice: The one thinking they are wise by the world’s standards should become a fool in order to gain wisdom. He’s the same one who also said to turn from ‘the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some professing have wondered from the faith’. This is where religion and science have to literally part company – not when science gets it right but when people add to what the call science mere opposing ideas and when religion adds to ordinary people the foolishness of God which saves them – the gospel which starts “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood/overcome it.” Apostle John, Ist Century AD. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201;&version=31;

  • Stephen, UK

    So choose between the uncertainty of evolutionary thinking and the certain testimony of Christ and His apostles: ‘In the beginning was the Word… All things were created through Him…’. Not that you can’t try learning from both, but which one you really trust determines which way you go in this life and therefore where you ultimately end up.

  • Stephen, UK

    Luis, by the way, though it seems a little improper to say this, I’d note your opinions of me might be a little misplaced. I worked for a little while as a biochemist and, since my interest and ability has been more towards information technology, I have since contributed to quite a few developments in the world of IT engineering – mainly government-related. I have always put faith as priority because I had missionary grandparents whose recountings of miracles excited me more than the achievements of science. Throughout life I never achieved great things by science and engineeering alone but certainly have achieved mind-blowing things by faith. Plus knowledge doesn’t assure that I will be kind or gentle whereas faith (Christian) does. Science helps solve riddles like the Rubik cube and mathematically modelling biological phenomena or directing a space rocket but doesn’t help me do what is right. The laws of societies annd religions might help me realise when I do wrong and when, perhaps, I do right but only to some extent and within the limits of nasty human nature (such as selfishness and pride). Faith in the veracity of God and Christ does lead toward a better form of righteousness which science probably says nothing about (nothing I’m likely to read anyway, even if I did read all the right journals every day). To get that kind of help from science would likely never happen because scientists are as weak as I am and tend not to be reliable to lead people the right way: Science has a human element which is all too dangerous when it comes to trusting something for the welfare of my soul. That’s why I always put religion (God’s religion as found in Christ) over science. I still do a lot of science and some would say I’m pretty good at it. You might even be using some of it yourself :-) I wouldn’t trust my science with my soul though, nor should anyone else. That’s where we need the Gospel and the One it is about.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “So choose between the uncertainty of evolutionary thinking and the certain testimony of Christ and His apostles: ‘In the beginning was the Word… All things were created through Him…’.”

    Wrong. Christ’s testimony isn’t “certain”. It’s only claimed to be. Your reasoning is viciously circular: in order to prove that it’s certain, you invoke divinity, but in order to say that he’s divine, you invoke certainty.

    “I worked for a little while as a biochemist”

    Nope, don’t believe you.

    “but which one you really trust determines which way you go in this life and therefore where you ultimately end up.”

    In other words, your God is a totalitarian dictator who punishes people for thought crimes.

    “I have always put faith as priority because I had missionary grandparents whose recountings of miracles excited me more than the achievements of science.”

    Pity you never read good science.

    “Plus knowledge doesn’t assure that I will be kind or gentle whereas faith (Christian) does. “

    Well well well. Now who’s talking about kindness and gentleness? First you besmirch my good deeds (implying that they are irrelevant), now you’re invoking faith as a spur to kindness. Of course, it’s odd that I don’t need faith to be kind. All I need is common sense, empathy, and a humanitarian ethos.

    “Faith in the veracity of God and Christ does lead toward a better form of righteousness which science probably says nothing about”

    You should read up on the Inquisition, where thousands of God-botherers were busy spreading the message of Christ through torture and murder, all because they thought they were intrinsically more “righteous” than others by virtue of their faith. The most unspeakable atrocities are carried out by those who think they are absolutely certain of their righteousness.

    “Science has a human element which is all too dangerous when it comes to trusting something for the welfare of my soul”

    Right, so you prefer to put your destiny in the hands of blind faith. That makes a whole lot of sense.

    “I still do a lot of science and some would say I’m pretty good at it. You might even be using some of it yourself”

    Care to back that up?

  • Stephen, UK

    “By their fruits shall ye know them.”

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “By their fruits shall ye know them.”

    So now you’re back to deeds instead of beliefs? Pick ONE, hypocrite.

  • Stephen, UK

    You pick neither, so who’s the hypocrite :-)
    [why do I keep coming back to this page? :-) ]

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “You pick neither, so who’s the hypocrite”

    Wrong. I pick both. You pretend to pick one, emphasise it, and then switch to the other whenever it suits your “argument”. Hypocrite.

  • Stephen, UK

    Luis, glad to hear you pick both faith and deeds. Really the two are inseparable, I think: Two sides of the same coin. So switching between them makes no difference, though I’m no expert – just a student in such matters. Knowledge though comes next after faith then goodness. All these and others have to grow. The knowledge being added to faith and goodness (not the other way round) ensures, I think, against misguided misconceptions about what is and what isn’t true knowledge. N’est pas? What is counted, then, as knowledge must not be counter to the certainty of faith. That’s if you want to reach productiveness in the knowledge of God (Peter the Apostle, 1st century AD). Any teaching which runs counter to sound doctrine is a sign of thinking too highly of oneself (Paul the Apostle, 1st Century AD). Any teacher teaching what is contrary to the writings we call Genesis and other such divinely inspired scriptures “does not have the light of dawn”. Such teachings can be a test of one’s faithfulness to the way of Truth. Whatever I pick at least I earnestly search after Truth and that is both an act of faith and a good way to go – so it combines both faith and deeds and, I believe, pleases the Creator and benefits the soul. Seeking what is sound is the first step, in my view, to living rightly and both are essential aspects of true leadership. The goal is love. (According to Christ and His Holy Apostles, 1st century AD, New Testament scriptures). Evolution may happen. Just how much is probably yet to be discovered or revealed. Whatever the answer though, seeking such an answer comes second to the above priorities.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “Knowledge though comes next after faith then goodness.”

    In other words, wishful thinking first, then goodness (defined as adherence to wishful thinking), and finally, perversion of facts and evidence to accommodate wishful thinking.

    “The knowledge being added to faith and goodness (not the other way round) ensures, I think, against misguided misconceptions about what is and what isn’t true knowledge.”

    And how could you POSSIBLY know that if faith takes precedence over knowledge to begin with? You’ve already subordinated it to faith, which means that what you believe is, from the beginning, taken on the ethos of “I want to believe”, rather than “Does this actually make sense and does it stand up to careful scrutiny?”

    “What is counted, then, as knowledge must not be counter to the certainty of faith.”

    You mean the ugly chimera of faith, which seduces the weak-minded and unimpressive with the promise of “certainty” (in actuality, the disabling of the rational faculty), and invites them to whore their integrity at the temple of “salvation”.

    “That’s if you want to reach productiveness in the knowledge of God (Peter the Apostle, 1st century AD).”

    Well there you have it. I don’t. I want to reach productiveness in the knowledge of the scientific method.

    “Any teaching which runs counter to sound doctrine is a sign of thinking too highly of oneself (Paul the Apostle, 1st Century AD).”

    Despite the fact that the scientific method is the very antithesis of smug certainty and lazy thinking, both of which you have in spades.

    “Whatever I pick at least I earnestly search after Truth and that is both an act of faith and a good way to go – so it combines both faith and deeds and, I believe, pleases the Creator and benefits the soul.”

    And makes you look like a cretin, as well as making the rest of us nauseous and a little concerned for your sanity. Putting a capital “T” in front of the word “truth” doesn’t make your point any more profound.

    “The goal is love. (According to Christ and His Holy Apostles, 1st century AD, New Testament scriptures).”

    Christ also spoke of humility, something altogether lacking in the Bible-thumping know-nothings. Besides which, if love is the goal, then stop trying to spread hate and division by telling others they’re going to hell just because they happen to share, through the sheerest accidents of history and geography, a theological disagreement with you.

    “Evolution may happen. Just how much is probably yet to be discovered or revealed.”

    In Nature, not from any religious tract.

    “Whatever the answer though, seeking such an answer comes second to the above priorities.”

    Wishful thinking only takes precedence for you. No one else is obligated to follow you there.

  • Stephen, UK

    Luis wrote: “No one else is obligated to follow you there.” (Sorry Luis, I don’t know how to put this so it appears in bold font – a neat trick – apologies that at least in this respect I have to admit to some real ignorance :-) ) Seriously though, I’d better be careful how I phrase this to relate it accurately, I’m afraid there *is* an obligation on your part and on everyone’s part. No it isn’t of course to follow me or my opinions, where in fact any of the comments above are my opinions. There is no obligation to hold one opinion or another on disputable issues or topics like whether evolution happens today or at any time in the past of, if it happens, how much and for how long. What there *is* an obligation for everyone is to obey the God who is clearly (sorry, disagreement is no let off, but mercy is at God’s discretion) evident from what He has indeed made that is seen all around most of us much of the time (though for some it is a challenge to even see the sky occassionally these days if they live in the big cities :-( ). This includes not just obedience but also honour and pretty much exclusive worship. So no, you are not allowed to worship or honour Darwin over God or his writings over God’s. The judge on this is God of course – as entrusted to His Son. I’m afraid saying you don’t believe it is cool because you don’t lie about that (perhaps) but the problem is yours, not actually God’s. His Son said that those who don’t believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s One and Only Son. Now it is a historic fact that the Apostle Paul went about giving glory to God, saying that God had shown him mercy because his persecution of believers was due to his unbelief and ignorance. But he also said that it is just a matter for God to show mercy to some and not others because “all have sinned” and are therefore subject to God’s judgment. Many claim, like Paul, to believe due to this mercy of God and what Paul termed ‘grace’ – effectively a free gift given to those objects of mercy to enable them to believe. So we all get the unbelief thing going in the natural order of things – just a fact of life we tend not to believe, even when it’s about our most important obligations. To overcome this unbelief God dishes out to those he choses and fore-knows the gift of ‘grace’ to bring about faith and thereby the kind of obedience we would otherwise lack. I say ‘we’ but that isn’t a claim that I’ve got all that. All I know personally is I have experienced grace but whether it has taken sufficient effect to lead to the obedience God requires is somewhat debateable in my case I think. I understand that just the initial belief phase of the effect of grace is step one and further following of the Christ (Christianity) is needed to become what Christ (not necessarily folk today) called ‘born again – of the Spirit’. That’s according to the Christ said as reported by the Apostle John in what people call ‘The Gospel of John’. So yes, you and everyone are indeed obligated with respect to God and to His commands. Sorry about that. No let out there. I just hope you get the grace to believe and comply. Sermon over.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “(Sorry Luis, I don’t know how to put this so it appears in bold font – a neat trick – apologies that at least in this respect I have to admit to some real ignorance :-) )”

    And yet this “neat trick” would be utterly trivial if you were actually an IT professional as you claim. Forgive me if I harbour suspicions that you’re a liar.

    “Seriously though, I’d better be careful how I phrase this to relate it accurately, I’m afraid there *is* an obligation on your part and on everyone’s part.”

    Of course YOU would be careful. Just like a Muslim would be careful not to write things that are potentially offensive to Allah. People are always cautious about offending their favoured Sky-Daddy.

    “There is no obligation to hold one opinion or another on disputable issues or topics like whether evolution happens today or at any time in the past of, if it happens, how much and for how long.”

    It’s only disputed in the minds of ignorant people like you. I love how you implicitly pass off your ancient superstition as undisputed fact.

    “This includes not just obedience but also honour and pretty much exclusive worship. So no, you are not allowed to worship or honour Darwin over God or his writings over God’s.”

    And yet, I continue to do it on a daily basis (the honouring part; I leave the worship to those more fragile of mind). You can huff and puff all you like, telling me that I’m “not allowed” (translation: you don’t like it) not to honour God, but that has absolutely zero moral or practical significance to me, or to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

    The rest of your comment was just worthless waffling. In your contorted head, you actually imagining that TELLING me that God is real might actually make me think so. Like most fundamentalists, you don’t feel any obligation to actually argue for what you claim because you imagine that faith puts you above such a requirement (you even feign offence when you’re called upon to actually put forward a case for your antiquated myths, and you hide behind the veneer of the “holy” and the “divine” to exempt yourself from doing so. This is the epitome of hypocrisy, and you know it). You simply declare your doctrines to be correct by fiat, and then resort to threats of eternal damnation when someone doesn’t “get the point”. Yeah, that’s REALLY going to win me over. Good luck with that, God-boy.

  • Stephen, UK

    OK, Luis, if Darwin’s so great, how come th human race managed so long without him? I hear the ancient Babylonians had a theory/myth of evolution but it doesn’t get much coverage in later writings so nobody thought the guy who dreamt up their evolution doctrine was a great guy it seems. What’s so special about Darwin. After all I don’t imagine you go through his writings ‘rebutting’ every sentence. Why does he get let off so easily? Is his IQ just so dazzling you think he is above the need of rebuttal? That sounds like worship to me. To me a good IQ means you don’t need to go around proving you’re intelligent all the time by saying things nobody understands. When I want a burger I ask nicely for one in the takeaway. I don’t think up clever sounding things to prove my IQ to the person behind the counter. Then I’d go hungry. Same thing applies to life in general (and to IT I find – the best stuff doesn’t take a genius to work out, sorry). Haven’t you thought the truth might not need a genius to work out either? And that maybe it has been known for millenia before Darwin came along. It wasn’t waiting all that time to be revealed – waiting because nobody could figure it before because they just weren’t intelligent enough. That would be a crazy idea. Just the sort of crazy idea crazy people need these days to take their minds of the misery they have caused. Ever notice it’s the intelligent people whose technology causes the worse problems. Would the world not have been a bit better had it not been for those scientist geniuses like Rutherford and Einstein. I guess that WW2 might have had a different outcome but with what’s going on in NKorea who can say we are better off for their genius. When ignorance is bliss… Does it take a high IQ to care for my parents? Does it take a genius to love his wife? Does it take a braniac to love his God? Where does high IQ get those who have it – they are just the more sad and sometimes all the more lonely and ostracized. Sometimes they are very dangerous. Such is probably the case with Darwin. He couldn’t stop thinking up controversial ideas and ‘proving’ them to the ignorant. I hear he was very sorry for it in the end and maybe died quite sad. If the ideas were so evident why did we Darwin to tell us. Now that he has told us are we any the wiser. Personally I think it is to the contrary. Best he had kept his ideas to himself. The really sad people are those who feel the deep need to prove their IQ by demonstrating that they can understand his book (I used to be like that about Einstein but I grew up). Get a life boy!

  • Stephen, UK

    And by the way, although most of my life (you probably don’t even believe I’ve had an average lifespan, since you disbelieve everything else about me – job, training, IQ, mental state, career history, achievements, etc – not that any of it matters much) I’ve been in some way involved in government stuff, I still think governments are sad in seeming to think that they have to keep demonstrating their intelligence with regard to the dubious ideas of people like Darwin. They seem like adolescents in their need to prove themselves all the time to their peers. Does it really matter that much whether there is life on Mars or whether Darwin got it right or whether we can be better off with science or stem cell research or a cure to cancer. What’s the point?! All this is futile and foolish to me. Childish and a waste of public money and proves not intelligence but the lack of and deep insecurity. Sensible governments spend their time getting on with the business of guarding against the evil excessives of the masses, the banks, the corporations, the militants, the technological thieves of freedom, the religious fanatics, the abortionists, the genetic and social engineers, the warmongers, sexmongerers and the money wasters, the bigots and the libertarian, atheistic secularists. They can do plenty of good to the masses by helping people help eachother and that doesn’t need as much science and technology as they like to think (and have us believe) it does.

  • Stephen, UK

    Since you make an issue of what my background might or might not really be, here is a bit about my scientific flirtations (that’s all they really were, aside from a bit of a fling recently with what might be called computer science). I gave up science twice. First time: at school I was amazed to hear about biochemical discoveries and revelations like the Kreb’s Cycle. I thought it would be great in the noblest sense to study biochemistry and learn more about the marvels of living things at the level (chemical level) where I might even get insights into the designing ways of God the Creator. How cool that would be. So I started a degree at UCL in biochemistry and heard marvels about things like quantum chemistry, the map of life written by the Creator in just those simple four letters of the DNA code (with the circumflexes, etc of the genetic proteins, RNA, etc). I saw how God invented the motor in the tails of bacteria but ‘protic’ rather than electric motors, as it were; about the amazing design of some of the viruses, better than the best of narnotechnology in how they inject bacteria with their genetic material. Then, just when the lecturers should have started with “Then sings my soul my Saviour God to thee,’How great Thou art, how great thou art’” they just started on and on harping about evolution. Ugh! That’s idolatry if anything is. That was thhe first time I gave up on science (and barely finished my degree). The second time was when I was told that after a little while as a food technologist / biochemist I would have to do vivisection or get nowehere with my career. Agggh! Plus I found that the only results to experiments/studies which mattered weree the ones the funders wanted to hear: irrespective of accuracy or otherwise. AAAAGH! No wonder science loses respect. ‘Lies,.. statistics’ … and science!

  • Stephen, UK

    When I was at UCL I was going to Westminster Chapel each Sunday and one Sunday I burnt my fingertip before I went (tried to get toast out of the toaster – Duh!). The preacher (wonderful guy from the States) was preaching the Lord’s teaching “If anyone who says to this mountain ‘move into the sea’ and does not doubt it in his heart it will happen for him – God will do it for him”. I was in such strong pain from the burn (my finger had a nasty blister) that I was distracted and couldn’t listen to what I was certain God wanted me to hear – so I took the challenge and said (in my head, not out loud) to the burn “Go!”. Immediately it went but I had to spend the rest of the sermon battling the world’s teachings that ‘it must be psychosomatic’ or that the pain would come back – mind over matter but not a miracle. But I did hear the Word of the sermon (just Jesus’ teachings taught without distortion or doubtful dispute) and at the end of it I looked and the blister was gone. The pain never returned. I had ‘done’ a miracle, as much as I understood that word. God had done it for me in answer to my faith. This was greater than science. This was the very power of Creation and, what is more, of Resurrection – the Power of God in respeonse to the ‘word of faith’. I leant a lot more like that too because the preacher (God bless him and his family) preached the Faith (of Jesus) with faith and without doubtful disagreement or disputing. COOL! Since then I’ve taken it further. I applied it to a thunderstorm (which my Christian friends were caught in while I was indoors). I was praying but couldn’t concentrate because the rain and wind were so noisy and violent. I got so fed up of it I said (under my breath because a friend was in the room) “Stop!” exercising the same faith as before – absolute confidence (in God to make it so) and refusal to disbelieve (though the world would love and teach me to). Immediately it stopped so quick that I was a ware my friend in the room may have witnessed my mutter and the effect – but he never mentioned it and I kept it all to myself (‘pondering it in my heart’ – WOW). Since then I’ve been through spells when I made it a habit – once it was the other way round and od started a storm in answer to my ‘prayerful assertion with absolute confidence’ (feeling the grace for this in my heart – not in arrogance). Once I was in the rain going to pray by a river near my house while the river and areas around were in severe flood and the rain was in torrents. I had been exercised to go and ‘behold the works of God, the judgements He has wrought’ (as written in a Psalm). As returned up a long busy road with cars all wizzing past me a strong, irresistable urge of authority (I now know to be God/His Spirit/That of His Son, Lord Jesus Christ) urging me to put down the umbrella I had. As I did there was not a drop of rain fell on me – it stopped instantly and very spectacularly. The cars might have been surprised to see me putting down the umbrella such a split second before it did/as it did. I knew then it was Christ (resurrected, crucified Christ) but asked a sign that it was and got it exactly in a way that astounded me at His closeness to me. So His mercy triumphs in the midst of His judgement (the floods had been very destructive). This I know – He is merciful and He is mighty. Now I don’t fear the elements like I did and walk everywhere without a car. I occassionally get to keep the storm in order when it gets out of order as it were! That’s how faith lets us share with God and the angels – though in the humbler, feebler submissive role of course. Where now is science in all of this – nowhere except I’d love to one day have insight into the physical nature under the spiritual power of those miracles like the change in my burned finger. That would be neat. One day the world will be run by such powers through those worthy of the first resurrection. Today we get just a taster. ‘When the saints come marching in Lord I want to be among their number when the saints come marching in!’. Thanks be to God through the Lord Jesus Christ.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “OK, Luis, if Darwin’s so great, how come th human race managed so long without him?”

    Amazing how you don’t apply the same “logic” to your own beliefs. Or why you would choose to pick out Darwin’s idea as opposed to that of any other great scientist’s. But this is understandable. Given that you equate any notion that runs contrary to your Bronze Age view of the world as just another religion, you of course disregard the evidence for Darwinian evolution and simply take it to be an attack on the doctrines to which you subscribe.

    “What’s so special about Darwin”

    The fact you would even contemplate asking this question just shows how woefully ill-informed and self-deceiving you are. What’s so great about Darwin? He did two things: he brought forth a great deal of evidence and showed that evolution per se is a fact, and he proposed a plausible mechanism to account for adaptive complexity.

    “After all I don’t imagine you go through his writings ‘rebutting’ every sentence. Why does he get let off so easily?”

    You obviously don’t know anything about the scientific community. Every biologist wants to supersede – if not overthrow – Darwin with their own revolutionary insight. Darwin has never been “let off” easily. The reason he’s honoured is two-fold: because of the originality of his insights, and because of the robustness of his proposed mechanism of biological change. That mechanism has withstood a great deal of scrutiny, and it’s been integrated with genetics and ecology. We know that he got some things wrong, but what’s amazing is how much he got right. But having said that, there’s nothing “sacred” about Darwin. Evolutionary biology has moved on in leaps and bounds since his time. The discoveries that have been made in the interim would have dazzled Darwin and filled him with awe and wonder. Only those who prefer the tawdry and inglorious downsizing of the universe to suite their obscurantist doctrines see anything to fear in this new world of understanding.

    “Is his IQ just so dazzling you think he is above the need of rebuttal? That sounds like worship to me.”

    Of course it does. And it’s a good thing that Darwin-as-saint is pure fantasy.

    “To me a good IQ means you don’t need to go around proving you’re intelligent all the time by saying things nobody understands. “

    Translation: you’re either too stupid or too jealous of those who contribute to our knowledge of the world to acknowledge that just because you can’t muster the effort to understand them doesn’t mean they should just stay quiet. Actually, what you’ve said is so chillingly stupid that words escape me. You actually imagine that Darwin went around saying unfathomable things just to “prove” that he was intelligent? Wow. You really are a daft, miserable soul.

    “I don’t think up clever sounding things to prove my IQ to the person behind the counter.”

    In your case, that’s definitely a good thing (judging from what I’ve seen here). Clearly you have NO understanding of how science works. Scientists are obligated to deal with complex topics when conversing to one another. That you’re too stupid or lazy to get any of it doesn’t mean a thing. Stick to your hamburgers and let the adults deal with the rest.

    “Same thing applies to life in general (and to IT I find – the best stuff doesn’t take a genius to work out, sorry)”

    Yes, like adding a simple tag to make text bold.

    “It wasn’t waiting all that time to be revealed – waiting because nobody could figure it before because they just weren’t intelligent enough. That would be a crazy idea.”

    If people like you were in charge of anything more important than a lawnmower, we’d still be living in the Dark Ages, because you’d assume that everything that was worth discovering had already been discovered.

    “Ever notice it’s the intelligent people whose technology causes the worse problems.”

    In the hands of slow-witted brutes inspired by faith, sure.

    “When ignorance is bliss… Does it take a high IQ to care for my parents? Does it take a genius to love his wife? Does it take a braniac to love his God?”

    Now you’re talking about something else. I was talking about the veracity of Darwinian evolution. You’re talking about the effects of technology and science. Totally different. Allow that technology and science have brought more heartache than their worth. That’s completely and utterly irrelevant to whether the theories give us an approximately true account of the world or not.

    “Where does high IQ get those who have it – they are just the more sad and sometimes all the more lonely and ostracized.”

    Disgusting. Now you’re resorting to wicked stereotypes. Clearly you’re not equipped – morally or intellectually – to deal with any unpleasant truths. You even have the nerve to invoke ostracism as a “reason” to not admire intelligence. You prefer ignorance so that you can continue to live under your selfish comfort blanket. You’re more like a spoiled child than a responsible adult who appreciates the price of maturity.

    “Sometimes they are very dangerous. Such is probably the case with Darwin. “

    “Probably”, because you need it to be in order to continue believing that the whole scientific community is out of step and that you’re the one marching in line.

    “He couldn’t stop thinking up controversial ideas and ‘proving’ them to the ignorant.”

    That’s what great minds do: conceive of new ideas. Clearly a foreign concept to you.

    “I hear he was very sorry for it in the end and maybe died quite sad.”

    You heard that from the same source that you get your “science” from: creationist propaganda mills. Darwin was NEVER sorry for his theory.

    “The really sad people are those who feel the deep need to prove their IQ by demonstrating that they can understand his book (I used to be like that about Einstein but I grew up). Get a life boy!”

    Actually, the really sad people are those who feel the deep new to prove their faith in God by talking like drooling retards and making total fools of themselves. Anyway, I don’t need any lecture about getting a life from a liar and coward like you.

    “Does it really matter that much whether there is life on Mars or whether Darwin got it right or whether we can be better off with science or stem cell research or a cure to cancer. What’s the point?!”

    What a sad, philistine mentality. Self-absorbed hypocrites like yourself see nothing wonderful about the world (except when credit can be given to God; when it can’t, you scream that everyone’s out to get you); you draw no fascination from anything intricate; you feel no curiosity about the awesome machinery of nature. Here we stand, with the tools to discover more about the world and our place in it than in any other time in human history, and the dull-minded can do nothing but smear these awesome achievements as a waste of time. It’s difficult to talk to someone with such an impoverished, boring, and primitive mindset. People like you make me sick to my stomach.

    “All this is futile and foolish to me.”

    That’s because you’re stupid.

    “Childish and a waste of public money and proves not intelligence but the lack of and deep insecurity.”

    Whereas your adherence to Bronze Age scripture, talking snakes and a woman coming from a man’s rib demonstrate keen intellect. :)

    “Sensible governments spend their time getting on with the business of guarding against the evil excessives of the masses, the banks, the corporations, the militants, the technological thieves of freedom, the religious fanatics, the abortionists, the genetic and social engineers, the warmongers, sexmongerers and the money wasters, the bigots and the libertarian, atheistic secularists.”

    Sorry, that government is a complete fantasy and has never existed once in human history. What’s more, you fit nicely in one of those categories: religious fanatics.

    “I gave up science twice.”

    Which, in your contorted head, means that the science must be wrong.

    “I saw how God invented the motor in the tails of bacteria but ‘protic’ rather than electric motors,”

    No you didn’t. There’s no indication whatsoever of “how” God did anything. Creationists simply assume that God created everything because it’s complex, “therefore” it required a designer.

    “about the amazing design of some of the viruses, better than the best of narnotechnology in how they inject bacteria with their genetic material.”

    Yes, beautifully designed viruses created by your benevolent God, viruses that kill children and cause horrible diseases. Beautifully designed viruses that inject themselves into bacteria (also designed by God, presumably, meaning that God likes to undermine his own creation) so as to co-opt the bacteria to its own ends.

    “Then, just when the lecturers should have started with “Then sings my soul my Saviour God to thee,’How great Thou art, how great thou art’” they just started on and on harping about evolution. Ugh!”

    So you only pay attention up to the point where you can maintain (though in a convoluted, tortuous way; see above) your beliefs. When the science is extended to providing an account for the virus itself, you recoil and give up.

    “The second time was when I was told that after a little while as a food technologist / biochemist I would have to do vivisection or get nowehere with my career. Agggh!”

    You really are embarrassing. Reading your comments is a source for laughter, even though nothing you say is actually funny.

    “No wonder science loses respect. ‘Lies,.. statistics’ … and science!”

    This coming from someone using a computer. But I suppose that, being religious, you’re not obligated like the rest of us to avoid hypocrisy in our deeds. You use the fruits and benefits of science, even while you bad-mouth and denigrate it.

  • Stephen, UK

    I give up. You just don’t get it.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “I give up. You just don’t get it.”

    Actually, I do get it. I just don’t agree with it. There’s a huge difference there. A Muslim could explain everything there is to know about Islam to you, and it still wouldn’t mean squat to you if you didn’t actually AGREE with it. Likewise here; you’re advocating Bronze Age mythology and its supposed eminence over modern science. Nothing you’ve said comes even close to making me think that your stance is based on anything rational or even moral. In fact, you’ve almost singularly avoided almost every point I’ve raised, instead going off on various tangents and simply reaffirming my (admittedly well-founded) suspicions that a) you’re not all that clever, and b) you despise people who are. Worse, you’re a hypocrite of the highest calibre, you have zero respect for creativity, and you’re a slavish ignoramus.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “Does it really matter that much whether there is life on Mars or whether Darwin got it right or whether we can be better off with science or stem cell research or a cure to cancer”

    That was worth quoting again, for such is your hatred of science that you see even a cure for cancer as a pointless pursuit! I’m sure the families and loved ones of people suffering from cancer (another testament to God’s awesome skill as an “intelligent designer”) would regard it as useless. But since it’s science that’s attacking the problem, it’s somehow rendered irrelevant.

    Stop breathing, please.

  • http://www.ic3d.tv shaun

    wow….luis and steve going at it…..and the result is….(drum roll)

    steve is disqualified before he started, as he has a virus in his head, which promotes active denial of anything that offends his sensibilities, or entrained concepts of space gods, and their interaction with the mighty human

    luis….do not celibrate with unbridaled joy, for your opponent is disabled, cannot understand the battleground..
    steve cannot help it, as he is infested with a powerful virus, masked as an idea..and the virus is very strong, is thousands of years old, and has performed worse, on people who make steve look like a caveman…oops recind, no cavemen in space god mythology, replace with mode suitable terminology..make steve lok like an average person…

    so, the virus is strong, and well evolved, but this does not make it right….steve is like luis, an athiest…..
    i mean ask steve if zeus, and amen ra are ok as gods….of course they are not, they are silly illogical myths…fast forward 500 years, and this space god will be relegated to the same mythology shelf in the library, with steve, and his fellow believers, consigned to the same soil that luis, myself, and everyone alive now is….
    its ok to die / ala not exist…after all i was dead for billions of years before i was “born”….and it did not scare me, nor hurt in the slightest…but for some, the virus offers eternal life, and who in there right mind could refuse such an offer….i would not, but i have not seen a viable offer yet, and feel that space god stories, are not consistent enough to sell me…

    luis, we cannot afford to let the virus take hold, as the spaceship earth is under attack from this insidious disease, and i personally want to help in a small way to ensure the dna track that is 4 billion years old…..for i do not believe that the space god will come down and ensure this

    space god has had many opportunities to help, and yet, it never intervenes, i mean never…and if someone can show me proof of an intervention i shall eat my pc, really i will

    so, this then move to the next logic point, space god has a plan…yes, good point, and perhaps so, but this is a very twisted being, as the plan has a lot of major problems, and for such a higher power (read super brainy) it seems a little odd…then the space god manual demands prayer….now i’m very confused, as why would you pray for change, if you also accept there is a plan

    so, move on and pick out the good points, like not be literal, but which bits are good?

    is it Lot getting drunks, and fucked by 3 young girls, oops, they are his daughters, …no not that one…

    is it the bit about “thou shall not worship false idols”…which lead to the “covert or kill option”….oops, thats in mein kampf…you know the wee hilter “bible”…which space god agrees with, as he did not intervene, or its part of its plan…even worse, so much for “moves in mysterious ways”

    so, then we can have the nice bits only….but thats not allowed either, its all or nothing, cant have it both ways..hmmm i think the better option is to not support the space god, as it seems to be a tad harsh…and the nice thing, is that i do not get punished to not believing…except that heaven thing…which sounds a bit like the elysian fields….but thats not possible, as the elysian fields are in the mythology section at the library….it just goes round and round……like the sun around the earth….which is now approved by the space god translators, only 350 years after it was proven….wow…shocked again…groundhog day.

    Shaun Lamont

    PS…i am running tests for space god, and have made requests for lighting strikes, mockery tests, to see if i get struck down (i am writing this, so this one did not work either), had true believers ask for lottery wins…nope, not trying the prayer thing thou, as thats contradictory, did the hitler t-shirt in the church, but they did not like it, not sure why, he was one of space gods best servants, i mean look how many non believers, and false idol followers (jews) he cleared out

    i will run a series of (non scientific) experiments, document carefully, and if any work for me, i will surely get back to you, or you may even see me on the news, as this will be the first time in history that space god has intervened…cannot wait…

  • http://www.ic3d.tv shaun

    me again….did a quick test and killed about 600 million of sg’s (space god) children..(just a quick tug) apparently a sin….no punishment so far…

    score so far today

    SG 0

    No SG 1

  • http://www.ic3d.tv shaun

    Fossilized footprints found in Kenya ….
    no need to go so far, i just saw our new postman!!
    …this is a walking talking throwback….
    completely blows steves space god book out the window, no one in their right mind, let alone super brain of space god, would create or allow the creation of such a half man half monkey….jesus h christ….

    this is another test, i not only thought blasphemous things, i wrote them, and sent them out over the internet….then everyone who reads this will also mouth out “jesus h christ” twice, tricked you….so, if going to plan, to plan we can expect thousands of discovery channel readers to be struck down in the next few minutes…..

  • Stephen, UK

    I had time to look into the story that Darwin recanted his agnisticism and reverted to Christianity late in life and found that indeed it is spurious. Interesting that. Called the Lady Hope story it appears in the wikipedia with some other interesting facts such as a quote from Darwin’s autobiography (at one stage deleted by a relative) which shows how Darwin dismissed miracles as a matter of ignorance in past history in the way people interpreted events. My previous testimony is neither an ignorant interpretation of what I know I experienced regarding miracles nor ancient human behaviour so from this I know for ceratin that Darwin was in error in this regard. So if he can so clearly (to my own experience) have been in error in this aspect of his thinking in interpreting the historic facts of miracles it is clearly likely he would be in error in regard to other more usual events of history like biological processes and in looking at the most miraclulous events like the creation of nature by God. Now, thanks (ironically) to Luis’ encouragement that I better research the facts, I find even more facts to back what were previously very strong suspicions that Darwinism is a blunder into the dark from out of the light. The deliberate ignoring of and turning away from God’s word and power into the darkness of ones own evil surmisings like Darwin’s erroneous views on the miraculous. The Sadducees were similar in their views at the time of the early Christian church and were rebuked by the Christ as being in error for the lack of knowledge of the word and power of God. I just say amen. Thanks Luis for helping me firm up my knowledge of Darwin and his evolution theory which confirms that evolution is not a science but anti-Christian philosophy in support of agnositicism which is really a sect and not worthy of the political support it gets from democratic governments. So they do not keep religion out of politics when they support it as if it is science.

  • http://www.seventhproject.co.uk/enoch.html Stephen, UK

    More details found in linked web site. Written evidence in association with the more reliable of the archeological evidence shows good corroberation in many cases and these corroborated areas of time charting go back to a time indicated as a crucial starting point within one or two centuries of the Jewish calendar year zero. Creation time – time of start of Adam’s life at least. Even Adam’s name shows good agreement with Sumerian language where ‘Alan’ = ‘Adam’ = statue (the one fashioned like a statue out of mud) which is in agreement with sumerian creation accounts. They even venerated the site Eridu as site of this fashioning of Adam/Alan out of mud by the Creator, it seems. The time of this according to biblical scripture also agrees well with archeology of Sumeria and origins of settlements like Eridu. The tree of life is said to have stayed under water in the vicinity for centuries and have given life-giving properties to the water. Hence the later Epic of Gilgamesh when Gilgamesh sought out the tree under the water which was guarded by supernatural creatures – serpent-like angels, ‘ seraphim’ – just as in the Genesis account. he date and place is fairly well corroborated (if you take the more reliable accounts and less disputed archeology like that recorded and analysed in the Cambridge Ancient History). So the faith isn’t based on darkness but is ideally based on the power of God in reality anyway. Hence Darwin was increasingly unable to accept the reality of miracles and hence the reality of Creation, the biggest miracle prior to the resurrection of the Christ. ‘Simple!’. :-) Not darkness but admitedly ‘seen as in a glass darkly’ to quote the Shakespearean translation of the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Corinthian Christians, 1st century AD (long ago, I’m sorry, before Darwin’s time – awfully long ago and so, so old fashioned and therefore so so easily dismissed by Darwinian Agnostics).

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “So if he can so clearly (to my own experience) have been in error in this aspect of his thinking in interpreting the historic facts of miracles it is clearly likely he would be in error in regard to other more usual events of history like biological processes and in looking at the most miraclulous events like the creation of nature by God.”

    You really are a blithering idiot. So by your “logic”, if a scientist is wrong about something (and you’ve given no indication that he was; you’ve just alluded to an anecdote in your life, with no elaboration), then anything at all he says is somehow hopelessly flawed.

    “The deliberate ignoring of and turning away from God’s word and power into the darkness of ones own evil surmisings like Darwin’s erroneous views on the miraculous.”

    Worthless wanker talk. You’re just having a verbal masturbation.

    “Thanks Luis for helping me firm up my knowledge of Darwin”

    Knowledge? Good heavens, no! For that, you’d actually need to KNOW stuff about Darwin, not just hunker down with more obscurantist thinking.

    “and his evolution theory which confirms that evolution is not a science”

    Hang on, where did you ever present any science? You’ve just been blabbing about God.

    “So they do not keep religion out of politics when they support it as if it is science.”

    Tell that to anyone working in disease control, you seething hypocrite rat bag.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “Even Adam’s name shows good agreement with Sumerian language where ‘Alan’ = ‘Adam’ = statue (the one fashioned like a statue out of mud) which is in agreement with sumerian creation accounts.”

    Of course there’s “good agreement”. Genesis is basically a plagiarism of Sumerian creation mythology.

    “So the faith isn’t based on darkness but is ideally based on the power of God in reality anyway.”

    Write. Ancient texts copied from other ancient texts are your salvation from darkness. The problem is you that you’re so jacked up with faith that you can’t think your way through a sentence.

    “Not darkness but admitedly ’seen as in a glass darkly’ to quote the Shakespearean translation of the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Corinthian Christians, 1st century AD (long ago, I’m sorry, before Darwin’s time – awfully long ago and so, so old fashioned and therefore so so easily dismissed by Darwinian Agnostics).”

    You’re beginning to sound slightly deranged. You remind me of someone trying to convince themselves that 2+2 = 5.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    Meant to say “right” rather than “write”.

  • Stephen, UK

    Well, well, Luis. You do appear to actually be able to think about my logic and weigh it to some extent, even though the ‘blithering’ does seem to be more coming from your direction than mine. I wonder what possible benefit it might be to you and those who believe the same as you about Darwin to know anything at all about what happened in ‘year zero’ by the Jewish calendar. You do know what is in front of your nose about what I have written and look what benefit that has been to you. So it seems to stack up that knowledge indeed does ‘puff up’ but ‘love builds up’. I doubt you’ll ever get the knowledge of God without first finding the love of God. I mention the knowledge of God because that seems to be the only noble thing sought in the process of doing evolutionary so-called biology. If any of you were really seeking the truth about the living natural world (which is what I would like to call ‘doing biology’) then finding that it has everything to with God would be an early Discovery in that process. This would lead you to the realisation that you have a duty toward this God, this Creator, and an important part of that is to Discover and obey His commands. So true biology goes closely together with true theology – if not then, in my reckoning (and that of so many before and after me), it is not ‘true’ biology or theology. The proof of that is the existence in all time of the Christ and His appearing over time, especially around 20-30AD. I guess you guys would deny both the Hebrew year numbering (from Creation) and the Christian one (from the coming of The Christ, Our Lord). Maybe you should start a year numbering system beginning with Darwin and maybe add a cannon starting ‘In the beginning was Darwin…’. Shame. You probably will at some point over the next century – or something like it; forcing the rest of us to adhere to it. Right now I’m just forced by my payment of taxes to contribute to evolutionary so-called research and have my kids educated in the thinking of the heretic himself by those who don’t have the moral sense to realise how wrong they are. Not that I’m grumbling. I’ve been encouraged by plenty of miracles to turn from Darwinian thinking and get on with living the life God gave me to live. I just fear for those who haven’t. Like you yourself it seems.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “You do know what is in front of your nose about what I have written and look what benefit that has been to you.”

    And “in front of your nose” is evidence for evolution, but of course you see yourself as being entitled to simply discard it. Some comrades are more equal than others, it seems. No, the blithering is definitely coming from your direction. I’ve simply pointed out your hypocrisy. I notice that this doesn’t often elicit a very nuanced response from those on the receiving end, and you’re certainly no exception.

    “So it seems to stack up that knowledge indeed does ‘puff up’ but ‘love builds up’.”

    Mate, what the fuck are you talking about? Make sense. I don’t speak retardese.

    “I doubt you’ll ever get the knowledge of God without first finding the love of God.”

    By listening to you? Yeah, you’re probably right.

    “I mention the knowledge of God because that seems to be the only noble thing sought in the process of doing evolutionary so-called biology.”

    And fighting disease and pest problems isn’t noble in your mind? Damn, you really are a creep. People like you should be denied anything more powerful than a lawnmower.

    “If any of you were really seeking the truth about the living natural world (which is what I would like to call ‘doing biology’) then finding that it has everything to with God would be an early Discovery in that process.”

    According to….? You’ve shown yourself to be utterly ignorant of biology, to be contemptuous of modern science, and to have a boorish mindset, so it hardly falls on you to lecture other people about matters of truth.

    “This would lead you to the realisation that you have a duty toward this God, this Creator, and an important part of that is to Discover and obey His commands.”

    No thanks. You can keep your slave mentality to yourself.

    “So true biology goes closely together with true theology – if not then, in my reckoning (and that of so many before and after me), it is not ‘true’ biology or theology.”

    Good on you, moron. Too bad for you that has absolutely no bearing on anything in the real world.

    “The proof of that is the existence in all time of the Christ and His appearing over time, especially around 20-30AD.”

    Right, so an archaic book tells you about this god-man and you believe it without question, but the whole field of genetics points to common descent and you take that to be a lie. Completely arse-backwards.

    “Maybe you should start a year numbering system beginning with Darwin and maybe add a cannon starting ‘In the beginning was Darwin…’. Shame.”

    Like I already explained to you clearly and unambiguously, Darwin isn’t sacred. His ideas are constantly being challenged; that some of the key ideas have stood up to scrutiny is a sign that he was onto something. Beyond that, no one worships Darwin, thinks that he is the only one who counts, or wants to turn him into a demigod. Worship is your domain, not ours.

    “You probably will at some point over the next century”

    I’m not going to do anything; I’ll be dead by then. And if worship is still around by then, in any form, I’d consider that a victory for intellectual lechers like you.

    “Right now I’m just forced by my payment of taxes to contribute to evolutionary so-called research and have my kids educated in the thinking of the heretic himself by those who don’t have the moral sense to realise how wrong they are.”

    Yeah, sucked in :) But of course there was a filthy lie you just told (thus breaking one of the commandments you supposedly subscribe to): that we don’t have a moral sense. Sorry, but we don’t need an archaic book to tell us that murder is wrong. That’s for stupid people. Maybe you’ve got issues you haven’t told anyone about, but if you think that the only reason not to murder is because God told you not to, then what an utterly disgusting view you have of not just humanity, but yourself. You can also keep it to yourself, because I certainly don’t want such corrupt, anti-human nonsense infecting me.

    “I just fear for those who haven’t. Like you yourself it seems.”

    Fuck off. Self-righteous arse-heads like you are an embarrassment to this species.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    Apparently you’re still oblivious to something I’ve told you repeatedly, and clearly and unambiguously at that: Darwin isn’t sacred. His ideas have been challenged and continue to be challenged within the scientific community; that some of the key ideas he brought forth have withstood scrutiny thus far is a fair sign that he was onto something. Beyond that, there are no plans or inclinations to worship him, to hold him up as an infallible idol, much less a demigod. That’s your domain, not ours.

    Of course, a particular type of mind is incapable of comprehending that we humans don’t need to worship anything. You, for example, take it to be a given that humans must worship something in order to have any “value”. Well, you can keep your slave mentality to yourself. You subordinate yourself to a celestial dictatorship that you can’t even defend with reason and logic; your only recourse is to blab:

    “So it seems to stack up that knowledge indeed does ‘puff up’ but ‘love builds up’.”

    WHAT? Are you so arrogant that you don’t even think you have to make sense anymore?

    “Right now I’m just forced by my payment of taxes to contribute to evolutionary so-called research and have my kids educated in the thinking of the heretic himself by those who don’t have the moral sense to realise how wrong they are.”

    “No moral sense” – as opposed to you, with your snivelling and self-righteous nonsense about co towing to your Lord Sky-Daddy so he’ll save you a seat in heaven. You’re actually one of the last people qualified to lecture ANYONE about matters of truth; you’re not just unscientific, you’re passionately anti-scientific. Your litmus test for judging truth is simply this: does it conform with my salvation?

    “The proof of that is the existence in all time of the Christ and His appearing over time, especially around 20-30AD. I guess you guys would deny both the Hebrew year numbering (from Creation) and the Christian one (from the coming of The Christ, Our Lord).”

    So you unquestioningly believe something written by primitive desert tribes, yet when the entirety of what we know about genetics, say, points to evolution, you take it to be a lie.

    “I mention the knowledge of God because that seems to be the only noble thing sought in the process of doing evolutionary so-called biology.”

    And I suppose that fighting diseases and pests that destroy crops isn’t noble? Nice to see how you allow yourself to become a moral monster in the furtherance of your “benevolent” God. But I guess that those who defend higher Truths that can’t be questioned don’t need to play by the same rules as the rest of us; they’re free to undermine the progress of human society just so that they can curry favour with an Egyptian sun-god derivative.

  • http://www.seventhproject.co.uk/enoch.html Stephen, UK

    I don’t quite believe your last comments, Luis. But I’d urge that befoe you continue to criticise my thinking, my attitude or my comments, you first have a good hard look at your own. I reference the Lord Jesus’ teaching that you (and many like you) might be trying to remove specks from my eyes (and half the world’s eyes) – specks like how clever we appear and how accurate our knowledge is – when you have a massive beam in your own – the beam of not believing what God has said and of bolstering that unbelief with ideas of mere men and women which ‘change like shifting shadows’. I’ve a few beams of my own you don’t know about to sort out so I won’t try doing anything about yours: you’ll have to see to it yourself (like the Lord said).

  • zach

    Stephen, your repeated typos and lack of citing and information, and no saying “it’s obvious” doesn’t count as evidence, display one of two things. You are either so highly charged about this topic that you don’t bother to spell check or read over your tirades; or you are simply uneducated. So which is it, moved to incoherent thoughtless fervor, or ignorant?

  • http://www.seventhproject.co.uk/enoch.html Stephen, UK

    Point taken Zach, but it’s only comments I’m making here – just like everyone else. If you wanted a full dissertation and it was worth my while I’d take more time over it and maybe get a proof reader to look it over, etc. If you want something I spent more time then read the web site linked from my name on this comment; though perhaps to many it’s quite wacky and immature – I wrote it when I was a bit younger and again I didn’t get any recompense so I had to write it in spare time, as usual, when there are many distractions and other things I should be doing like socialising and family time, etc. Even now I’m rushing because I have, like most people, to get off to a paid job so I can afford the time to write these comments and the many other voluntary things I’ve committed myself to doing. I do apologise but I don’t have paid staff to do my proof reading and do my other duties for me so I can spend time on this. Perhaps if the same governments that put so much money into evloutionary ‘research’ would have forked out some for efforts like mine it might have been a different story but somehow it seems to be the way life goes these days. Lamentable but normal.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “But I’d urge that befoe you continue to criticise my thinking, my attitude or my comments, you first have a good hard look at your own.”

    Yeah, I’ll do that. I’m just wondering whether you’ll adopt the lessons of your favourite philosopher and look at his definition of “hypocrite”.

    “when you have a massive beam in your own – the beam of not believing what God has said and of bolstering that unbelief with ideas of mere men and women which ‘change like shifting shadows’.”

    Nope…it’s not registering. Something in there about an archaic book, probably. I’ve already lamented your lack of coherence, but it appears that you feel no need to heed such reasonable complaints and instead continue to view blabbing as a good substitute to actual argumentation. I’m sure that’s my fault, though. After all, I don’t have any moral foundation owing to my lack of belief in a god invented by desert tribes, so that obviously means you’re off the hook.

    So I’ll ask you again: apart from “God loves me”, “I’m saved so I have the right to act like an insufferable bore”, and “atheists have no morals”, do you actually have anything to say?

  • Stephen, UK

    Luis – another archaic thing you might not like – called shaking the dust off my shoes – but still saying ‘the truth is out there, just reach out and grab it and accept no counterfeits!’

  • zach

    Stephen, you have so far been courteous in your posts, a few backhanded compliments but rather calm and I respect that. However, you insinuate that I am so wealthy that I don’t have to work, or if I do, have a paid staff to proof my posts. I work, on campus, where I attend University. I’m far from wealthy and certainly not lounging around with massive amounts of free time while studying and working. I simply believe that if I am engaging in a passionate discussion with other people who take their hard earned free time to read what I think, I owe them a concise and accurately spelled post.

  • Stephen, UK

    Sorry Zach, no offence intended. It’s just a touchy subject for me: I try to take on too much and when I did ask for Gov help toward stuff the govrenments all wanted I got none but they all love to use the output of my work. As a result I have little time for getting things like spelling right and correcting typos and it grates that it’s because I have to hold down a fulltime job which pays little while all these gov-sponsored people get to take their time and so have people think highly of their intellectual skills. I guess I’m implicating students but I didn’t intend to include students cos we all want students to have ample time to prepare themselves for those professional careers society which really needs like looking after nuclear power stations and the like, controversial though some such careers are. Anyway must dash off to my lower-than-average-paid job before I get threatened with the sack or lose my precious little flexitime or annual leave … and get made homeless and lose my wife and family. (You think I’m joking!)

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “Luis – another archaic thing you might not like – called shaking the dust off my shoes – but still saying ‘the truth is out there, just reach out and grab it and accept no counterfeits!’”

    Still not making a heck of a lot of sense.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201;&version=15; Stephen, UK

    Found interesting site with translation of Genesis (see link in my name in comment title). Shows some scientifically testable data on creation and days of earth just prior to creation of original human ‘Adam’. By initial analysis it shows
    1. earth was in a rudimentary form with water all over it before it came into the vicinity of any single major light source
    2. earth may have been put close to more than one star initially (to let there be light)
    3. earth subsequently may have been moved into vicinity of just one light source (to separate light from darkness)
    4. earth given a spin to cause there to be alternating light and darkness (called ‘day’ and ‘night’ by the One who put it in this situation)
    … etc
    All this is scientifically attestable (or, hypothetically, refutable) information. Why not do some study to follow up on it. There are surely many corollaries, etc, which could be followed through into scientific analysis. Was the earth the only planet this happened to in the present solar system – can it be proven that the other planets have the same origin? When might it have happened? Were any lifeforms present when it happened or did they all subsequently appear in earth’s history? Did the earth move or did the stars move or both? Was the earth trapped into an orbit around the Sun? What affect might this have had on the water? Was the ‘deep’ actually water as a liquid or much, much colder and only made a liquid by proximity to the Sun? Did all these changes affect the geology? Is there still any evidence of this? … etc. Hats off to anyone who does such research and publishes it. Might provide a decent background to questions about the origins of humankind – the how and the when, etc – whether any ‘evolution’ was involved at all. That may be a red herring though. I guess there wouldn’t be enough public and scholarly acceptance to call any of this fact though, even though it might be infiitely more worthy of it than what many call the ‘facts’. This is an alternative to blind dismissal of the scientific value of the Genesis account and is helped by the literality of the translation. I guess this might be confused with the phrase ‘taking the Bible literally’ but actually seems a little different to that approach. Here the beginning of the approach is to merely accept that a relatively literal translation renders the text more valuable for scientific analysis and this observation has a side-effect of adding credibility to the text and to its use as a means to a scientific end. That seems respectable to me. I hope it does to others reading this. Not overly hopeful though, given the way so many regard such attitudes to such holy scriptures.

  • Stephen, UK

    Day 2 goes like this:

    6And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.’

    7And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so.

    8And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;’ and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day second.

    Theories about Day 2 and subsequent days of creation: Maybe the Creator originally had the earth far from the star which gave it light (perhaps not necessarily the Sun in the first instance – see Day 4, i.e. later than intial formation of separation between day and night for the earth on Day 1). Then as it gets closer to a star or the like it gets warmer and just the right temperature for the atmosphere to form.

    Then there is more work to bring about geological changes in the crust to separate land from now liquid aqueous sea. Then, still before the Sun and Moon get their prominent positions/jobs there is the creation of life – the plants. Then there may be more changes in the solar system and the Sun and Moon and stars get their positions relative to the earth such that the moon and stars light up the night and the Sun lights up the day. Perhaps that is a shift in the Earth and Moon in relation to the Sun: All such that there is careful avoidance of any removal of the atmosphere and land and sea and their balance which sustains the plant life. So a balance is put in place between these things (what some call Ghia). [This should be evident enough for some serious scientific investigation.]

    The Earth now has a clear set of natural processes in place: What are they? Not yet a weather system like we have today but the basics essential to plant life and in preparation for animal life which then appear as they are created: -

    20And God saith, `Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.’

    21And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.

    Interesting that mention of ‘monsters’: How did that word come to appear in this translation? Maybe this is a reference to the monstrous nature of the first animals – dinosaurs, etc.

    Then humankind, their creation: Only once the animals are already in place. No problem there. It starts with an individual though – ‘Adam’ – and also the second individual ‘Eve’ a bit like a clone of Adam by our current terminology and science. Then their offspring and then their offspring’s offspring. All are coming from the two individuals. Variations in DNA occur gradually among the offspring until after many generations there are variations in skin colour (in theory based on naming of one of them ‘Ham’ if that name actually does mean ‘black’ and is relative to the other offspring of his time). Enough generations are produced within about a thousand years to account for the folk who spread over the world prior to the Flood (apparently separating two of the early bronze ages – based on what I read in Cambridge Ancient History, etc). No need in any of this to have to try explaining why the evidence we have today has to fit the theory of humans inhabiting the world for hundreds of millenia or even longer. The facts we have of the most reliable archeology clearly rest side-by-side with the above account of there just having been a millenia or less before the separation between early bronze ages (EB I/II or maybe EB II/III or thereabouts depending on preferred ancient history theories). All seems sane and to the glory of the Creator so religion and this kind of science go happily together. So the argument isn’t how does science and religion mix but which sort of science nicely mixes with which sort of religion. Those I’ve outlined above go nicely together it seems to me. Why rock the boat? What does rocking the boat say about those who do the rocking? The Christ and His first followers certainly didn’t rock the boat and they clearly had the Spirit of Truth, as did some of the others who said (and say) the same kind of thing.

  • http://www.seventhproject.com/chronology.html Stephen, UK

    CORRECTION: “The facts we have of the most reliable archeology clearly rest side-by-side with the above account of there just having been a millenia or less before the separation between early bronze age”

    should read

    “The facts we have of the most reliable archeology clearly rest side-by-side with the above account of there just having been less than one and a half millenia before the separation between early bronze age”

    Citations for derivation of a reliable period length between the creation of Adam and the great Flood:

    ‘Genesis’ records approximately 1300 years from start of Adam’s life to the Great Flood during Noah’s life. See especially the Septuagint translation of Genesis whose time line is backed up by reference to Enoch’s dreams in the Book of Enoch, another book attested to in the writings of Christ’s apostles. The interpretation of the chronology is helped by another similar book, the Book of Jubilees, which verifies some of the times where possible discrepancies with other translations occur such as the Masoretic texts.

    Contemporary ‘sources’ based on archeology and ancient chronologies like those of Ancient Egypt (e.g. Cambridge Ancient History) agree more with the time of the Great Flood than with the time of other potential correlation events such as the start of the Chalcolithic period. The earlier events are placed by such sources in the more distant past but then the dating for these events is less reliable and has become nearer and nearer over the 20th century to the ‘biblical’ chronology. More corroborating is the chronology given by the Jewish year dating system which corroborates to within about a century.

  • http://www.seventhproject.com/chronology.html Stephen, UK

    My Conclusion

    One could to some extent say that the disagreement over the past couple of centuries between religion and science has been a matter of the credibility attributed or otherwise to Christ and his testimony. This is offset, though, by the fact that the teachings of the Christ are in agreement with some of the other teachings such as those found in Judaism. Putting all these teachings together creates a body of teaching all attributing veracity to sources such as that which some call the Book of Genesis and others the first book of the Torah. The dismissal of such sources by many who work in ‘the scientific community’ has combined over the last two centuries with the writings of others who have first turned away from such teachings and out of the works of these has come an opposing dogma called ‘evolutionary science’, though whether either teaching is in fact a science is part of the ensuing debate.

  • Stephen, UK

    Focus Points for Gap Analysis Between the Witness in Holy Scriptures and Modern Science

    1. Human race starts circa 5800 years ago
    2. Balance of Nature between Sun, Moon and Earth starts after plant life developed on Earth
    3. Possibility that Earth started as an extremely cold planet in deep space (perhaps like Pluto) but with a frozen outer layer of extremely cold ice
    4. Events occurred in process of Earth reaching its present state which are attributable to overall Creator Spirit
    5. Once the Earth was placed in proximity to a light source (possibly the Sun) the atmosphere formed and the land masses appeared out of the ice and/or water
    6. Some planetary/solar system events occurred after plants appeared without destruction of the plant life

  • http://www.seventhproject.com/chronology.html Stephen, UK

    Re point 1.: My own attempted precise estimate of the start of the Holy Scripture history of the human race is circa 5880 years ago making the year ’2132 AD’ exactly 6000 years since that point. The latter may possibly be of great significance in theological terms; ending the first 6 millenia – 6 ‘days’ – of ‘history’ and it may possibly coincide to some extent (God only knows to what extent) with the start of the seventh ‘day’ which may perhaps roughly coincide to some extent with the ‘millenium’ mentioned in the New Testament.

    Reference: See link in my name at start of this comment – a page named ‘chronology.html’ on the seventhproject.com website

  • Stephen, UK

    NOTE: Regarding previous comment, some may wish to investigate a curious 100 year discrepancy / gap between mine and the Jewish year dating (or ‘Anno Mundi’?) from the date of Creation (‘Man’s’ at least since I don’t know if days prior to that are literal 24 hour days). ???

    I’m no expert on this but it seems to be a discrepancy of 100 years almost exactly (?). I did come across a hundred year discrepancy in the Septuagint (circa 200 BC translation of what Christians call the Old Testament) in the Book of Daniel which seems to relate to the time foretold by One Like a Son of Man (I would say the Christ) between what I would like to think is the time of the destruction of the Temple under Antiochus Epiphanes and what I would like to interpret as the second coming of the Christ – either 2300 ‘days’ 9 (I interpret as years) or 2400. The 2300 seems to agree well with my timescale. Possibly the 2400 agrees with the Jewish one but I’m not sure – I’d like to look into it myself when I have time.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “All this is scientifically attestable (or, hypothetically, refutable) information.”

    Yes, it’s all scientifically testable, and it’s been debunked a thousand times. Hence the complete lack of respectability of creationists, who keep pushing claims that have been destroyed ad infinitum. The problem is that people like you are impervious to evidence, because your beliefs are based on emotion.

    Real scientists don’t have time to keep debunking your nonsense over and over again. They’ve got better things to do than to affirm your superstitions.

  • Stephen, UK

    Luis clearly confuses ‘real scientists’ and atheists. These are distinct categories. Thankfully. ‘Real scientists’ are not threatened by real science but embrace it. Confusing basic concepts is one of the things which runs counter to being a real scientist. The need to ‘get real’ about this is quite apparent. :-) Science fiction is not real science, though some can’t tell the difference.

  • Stephen, UK

    So it seems in your world (your cosmology as it were) you cannot really ever find out if your idea that there are no gods or the like is true. If you dismiss everything that hints of divinity as ‘based on emotion’ (even if it isn’t), how will you ever find out about anything divine who/which does exist? You are shutting the door on a major area of possible knowledge (science) in that surely a real, actual Creator, if known to you, would be a very important part of your science/knowledge of the universe and to establish a course of scientific discovery which precludes such knowledge is surely a huge error to make. That’s your business I guess, not mine (I hope). On the other hand, making it a possibility to include (albeit rationally via Occam’s razor, etc) the possibility of finding knowledge of such a Creator in the course of one’s scientific discovery leads to such a more fulfilling search. When it occurs to me that there is great importance in how asteroids, etc strike the Earth as part of its history and future in that there is a distinct possibility (one not to be dismissed) that the well-known Being responsible for the creation and history of this planet could be using such events all along to make things happen the way He intends – that is exciting and compelling in one’s personal journey of scientific discovery (even if the ‘scientific community’ dismisses it because of folk like Luis). It has great bearing on how one views the present and the future too. The other month when that asteroid went just a few tens of thousands of miles away from hitting the Earth (only a handful of times the height of Mt Everest) it makes the future of Earth look so fragile and so much in the hands of the One who decides whether or not the next one will hit. Then one looks back and sees how such events could make a planet or moon spin differently and how such events under external intelligent control could determine whether the far side of the moon were ever seen and whether the moon exactly covered the sun in an eclipse and whether the Earth would sustain life and an aqueous atmosphere, etc. Is this not ‘real science’ as much as speculation about sunspots as next year’s weather or glaobal warming. If not I’d prefer what seems more real to me than idiotic opinions of folk who cannot understand the difference between real science and atheism – or science fiction or even just popularist science. Give me the knowledge of the Creator as part of science along with the knowledge of what He is creating any day. I just pity those whose ideology disallows it. Poor objects of His wrath as they are. Take a break from this narrow constraining ideology to look at the Christ and His crucifixion and resurrection sometime and ask whether dismissing any possibility of finding any the knowledge of ‘The Holy’ is a good idea. You only live twice.

  • Stephen, UK

    How long will the press and the universities/students keep up the pretence that science is somehow to be associated with atheism? The origins of science back in the mists of time were deeply religious. The early sumerians were probably home to the first scientists (e.g. Henoch) and the first calendar system was both the earliest scientific device and a deeply religious symbol which saw various reincarnations over the millenia always in simultaneously a scientific and a religious context. The astrolabes and so on were probably a scientific means to ascertain the times for religious feasts and to keep track of the seasons as well as for recording the times of events such as the death of a king or the time of a famine. Always humankind has needed to seek blessings on harvests and ends to plagues from Being or beings believed to control such things and who were and are believed to 1. care about humans 2. reward faithfulness and prayer. Even the past couple of centuries, despite the increase in godlessness, world leaders have urged their peoples to set aside time to seek divine aid in times of trouble, especially wars. Some countries’ leaders have been notoriously resistant to doing this but the general masses have found refuge in their faith even when it was outlawed. The trouble was typical in past times that when things got exceptionally dire people would do more and more desparate things like sacrificing humans and offering the human blood to deities (as graphically depicted in Apocalyptus) and this has marred the religious seeking of blessing or ends to disasters on and off over all the time we have on record (and as evidenced in archeology too). I believe that this is why the God then unknown (except to the Jewish faith) but now known (to both Jews and enlightened Christians) sent His own ‘only begotten’ Son as a single true and perfect sacrifice to end such human feelings of necessity to offer such often ill-advised sacrifices (some not ill-advised but nevertheless quite awful and only of temporary affect). This is history, not science, but history which very much involved science in the determining of times and ‘portents’ and the averting of such disasters through careful seeking after truth. Noah was a scientific guy as well as a deeply religious one in that he carried out experiments to determine whether the waters had subsided sufficiently after the great flood to risk leaving the ‘ark’ – sending out a raven and seeing that it returned, then sending out a dove which returned with an ‘olive branch’ (a deeply religious picture ever since) and finally sending a dove which did not return. Even if you doubt the veracity the tale speaks volumes about scientific thinking thousands of years ago – the human capacity for it despite having deep faith (the two clearly did not preclude each other in antiquity): the bird of carrion does return as it cannot find dead flesh to live on – conclusion is the water is still high but later there is a branch from a tree top showing the water is down but still too high for food/life and finally the water goes right down so that food is available to prevent the dove’s need to return. Experiments in the lives of ancient people even though their religion also played a very important part with sacrifice, etc. Then there is the sumerian/aramean who invented the way to put seeds deeper into the ground (the earliest seed drill c2000 BC) at a time when a plague of high bird population caused famine by their eating the seed sown by farmers. He is said to have been identifiable with Abraham, patriarch of faith and modern religion (Book of Jubilees). A true scientist/engineer but a man of faith whose faith is reported as inspiring his ingenuity. Then there are the pagan equivalents of Imhopet and Heron in earliest and latest Egypt: both associated both with religion and hugely inventive genius (Heron invented a motor car it seems). Then there’s the times of the Roman Church’s golden age with Leonardo Da Vinci mastering so much engineering (a lot of which came from antiquity it seems). The inventors of the number zero were religious priests writing in sanscrit (or they recorded what others had invented in their time or earlier) in ancient India. They were superb mathematicians, in many ways putting their modern a-religious or atheistic counterparts to shame by their cleverness. True it seems modern scientists often seem to exhibit atheistic or agnostic traits (or maybe just don’t practise what they purport to believe – too much obsession with their work-time perhaps as the era of the geek has come upon us like a plague – not that I’m immune) but does that make them any better as scientists than the predecessors of their art? I think not. Not if the results of their work is anything to go on: most modern science seems to be a rediscovery of what the ancients had already either discovered or recorded through good old insight or inspiration/revelation (like Henoch). Why pretend it is not so? Just modern arrogance that does indeed seem to go hand-in-hand with atheism. Real wisdom leads to humility.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=25&chapter=10&version=63 Stephen, UK

    Atheists are a fly in ointment of science.

  • dg

    stop being foolish all of you, stephen if they do not believe in what you say just stop trying to convince people God is there let them discover God in their own way. Luis I understand that you are just telling your side of your oppinion that’s fine just show understanding and drop the subbject. No matter which way you look at it you cant disprove God and Don’t say “i cant see him” you cant see the wind either. And Stephen it is almost impossible to dissprove evolution so stop trying to. And stephen if you want to show christ the best thing to do is just listen and not react to everything they say just accept there oppinion and drop it. And Luis here are some scripture to back up God

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 1 corinthians 1:19

    “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” Proverbs 14:12

  • Stephen, UK

    Hi dg, I reckon your remarks are quite typical of the view of many Christians and of course I respect this view and maybe it is right. I’m not sure of it though. Debate is a key aspect of communication and communication (yes, by ordinary guys like us) is the way God ‘destroys the wisdom of the wise’ – that same person you quote wrote in the same letter that the way God shames the ‘wise’ – wise by the standards of the age – is by the preaching of those like us considered foolish by the same standards. If we keep quiet the stones cry out – as Christ attested and now archeology attests. Yes, the Spirit which the world does not know He does testify but the Lord Jesus says ‘you too must testify’. Even after Jesus’ resurrection He wrote by dictating it in a vision to John (New Testament’s Book of Revelation) that those who have Christ’s testimony overcome the evil by their testimony (and by Christ’s blood and by loving not their lives unto death). So I testify. Plus there is no way evolution, in my view anyway, can be any harder to disprove than any ‘pretention that sets itself up against the knowledge of God’, although it isn’t that concept/theory so much as the pretentions of atheism that I would seek to dispell by the same power the Apostle Paul once used to do the same job in his time long ago. He said to practise what we see him doing (I guess we see it by his writings and not in person so we have to be careful we read him correctly). The pretence isn’t that evolution takes place but that it explains away the existence of God and the possibility of someone having created the Earth, etc. What an amazing job He did on this planet but atheists seek mainly to deny Him the praise He so rightly deserves and claim to use science and even evidence to do it. The science and evidence they use does not stand up to scrutiny but they rely on nobody scrutinising it. I’m scrutinising it and asking that the same public bodies which fund these atheists scrutinise their ‘research’ and claims (at least as much as they scrutinise the religious testimonies and behaviours of Christians). I’m starting with their tenet that human beings have been around for many millenia longer than the strong evidence of archeaology attests and countering that they by their nature would have left such evidence had they been around and by their nature their numbers would have grow to current levels much earlier had they been around even a few millenia linger than the half a dozen millenia attested to by the reliable evidence (proper buildings, etc). Just a few undatable flints and cave paintings here and there don’t prove anything. Buildings on top of each other like Eridu do prove a lot more but only when combined with (and when backed up by) written accounts. The two together are clear about the last six thousand years bu everything older than that is very hazy and evidence is conflicting (the further back one goes). So it is clear that while mankind was on earth over the past thousand years more and more evidence accumulated just in those millenia due to the activities and growth in numbers of humans. So how could there have been hundreds of thousands of years of humans (even near humans) without any such evidence at all? Did they never build anything for hundreds of thousands of years then suddenly start building things just five to six thousand years ago? The very principles of atheists’ own so-called rationalism seem to dictate that there must a most obvious conclusion to be jumped to before jumping to a conclusion (Occam’s razor paraphrased). So the most obvious explanation for the above most obvious observation (aside from dubious minor detail and circular arguments) is that humans were either not around at all until six thousand years ago or they weren’t humans as we have observed them since then. That doesn’t run counter to the Bible narratives and the testimony of the Christ (‘Jesus of Nazareth’, Son of God). That is why the atheists cannot bring themselves to apply even their own version of rationalism or their own version of scientific principles to this but have to restort (as they have done above) to passionate insults and incessant ‘rebuttals’ merely directed against what they would otherwise have to admit make sense – the Bible accounts. We have power to overcome such pretence. We have to use it. Nothing can prevail against us, not even the gates of hell. Those who, like the ancient ‘little horn’ who raised up ‘the abomination that causes desolation’, boast themselves above all that is divine, only ever get a little time of power over the saints (in the predicted near future I suppose) and the saints fight back till eventually the empire and its beast get destroyed by the breath of the coming Son of Man. ‘When the saints come marching in…’. So why be whimpish now? Be bold and do the work God gave you to do. Don’t hide your light under a bushell. Put it on its stand so the whole house gets the light and can enjoy it and put their trust in it.

  • Stephen, UK

    Bad typo – correction

    “So it is clear that while mankind was on earth over the past thousand years more and more evidence accumulated just in those millenia due to the activities and growth in numbers of humans.”

    should read

    “So it is clear that while mankind was on earth over the past five to six thousand years, more and more evidence accumulated just in those millenia due to the activities and growth in numbers of humans.”

    Apologies – difficult to type in a small comment box and too impatient in clicking ‘submit comment’. Some sites give you a chance to review your comment. Anyway…I’m sure you get my gist. It’s all been said time and time again anyway. There I agree with ‘dg’ – if they haven’t listened to the One who rose from the dead (e.g. His book of Revelation in NT) they still won’t listen and they wouldn’t listen anyway if they have brushed aside Genesis and the rest of ‘the Law and the Prophets’. We still can testify though. There are some who will be saved by it if we do it properly and Christ will add His own witness by working with us to support what we say (when our testimony is in His name according to His will and His command in faith).

  • http://ncc.webeden.co.uk thomas

    Remember the whole thing started with a singularity 16.4 billion years ago. The bible speaks of all the ancient world being overthrown so that not a trace remains. Our story starts 6,000 years ago. The bible is about our story. It is not a problem for us to accept the fossile evidence. God is not bothered about what the world believes. The facts are clearly there to be seen. God requires His children to believe what he says. There is no need for us to fight for our beliefs, in this country of England. Science is doing a great job for us including evolutionary biochemists.
    What science can never do is disprove God, but we can disobey Him. It is because we broke the covenant and still do so even as Christians, that the world and the Cosmos is out of kilter. We are the salt of the earth. We have become less salty over the thousands of years since we were put here. It started with Adam, then the Church in the wilderness, and now we are not even true to our own bible. All creation has become more corrupt including all areas of knowlege. Why should Luis and anyone else believe us. Science requires proof. That is quite right. We talk and sing about the power of God but mostly that is all it is. We talk to much and have no power. Would it not be a “Better Way” to heal the sick and raise the dead in such numbers that it would have to be acknowleged we move with a different power to science. Have you any idea how many Christians are dying from diseases when the bible teaches we have the power to heal them and raise the dead. Let us put our own house in order then we will have authority to talk about our God to the whole world. Lastly, No man can come to the Father except the Father draws them.
    I stumbled across this web site by accident last night and You all have kept me rivited to the screen and it is now 4 am in the morning. None of you have changed my mind set, but I would like to talk some more to you Stephen. I thought i was the only one who could alter the weather patterns. I stopped doing it because I realised if I altered the weather around me then it could be the difference between life and death to others. Weather is a very complex thing and yes I have raised the dead but I can’t prove it. So to a scientist its a no brainer and that is exactly the way Father wants it.

  • Stephen, UK

    Thomas, you highlight an interesting area concerning miracles. We do have a kind of God who allows us to be like His children working in His company where we get to put in requisitions and mostly they are honoured but we still have to behave decently and abide by our remit and live within a set of constraints about how the whole Company wants things to be done, especially the Big Boss Himself. So yes we can go on asking for things but if I were only to do that in my day job (with a big literal company) and not get on with company business I’d get someone giving me a talking to. So, although I find the idea of doing miracles enough to get attention and respect a bit of a brain teaser and have pondered it for years but in reality it doesn’t tie in with actual Christian life: occassional miracles, like requisitions for stationery or new software upgrades in a company, have to be kept to what you can believe personally will be acceptable as it is still a very real person answering these requisitions and one doesn’t wish to try His patience. Plus you make a very good point I think, that what one person asks for has to be in line with the needs of others: If I keep insisting that the storms stop when I’m out in the rain, not to say God wouldn’t keep His promise to help – He does indeed when my faith makes me worthy of it – but I would (and do) get nervous that I’m not exactly getting a good name with Him and may even be in danger of becoming presumptious. Does that mean I will stop asking altogether? No but I have to be sensitive and sensible. In the future I do believe there will be a time (Millenium) of maximum miracles when the fullness of what is achieveable through Christ and through faith will come about in a sustained way according to od’s will. Until then though I find there are times of miracles and for some those times might be much more frequent than for me but they are now and then and often have to be kept very secret indeed (in a constant intense surveillance society – and I see you live in England too so you know all too well). I even feel intense observation (staring eyes watching) when I just mouth words of thanks to God (‘grace’ etc). It never seems to go unnoticed and seems to always bring a feeling of impending upheaval that someone is going to complain (like in Daniel’s time in Persia when he knew he could get put to the lions for praying to someone other than the king – thankfully our lions equivalent has blunter teeth for now). Miracles are all the more so but the satisfaction is that they bring such a strong and conforting feeling of vindication that it coounteracts the ominous feeling of people’s disapproval, fear and jealousy (like the FUD the geeks talk about). Occassional is still consistent with Christ’s teaching: even He must have witnessed Lazarus’ death later again after He had raised him the first time and I was pondering that Lazarus’ sisters would have maybe thought what to pray to the risen and ascended Christ if they had seen Lazarus ill and near death again, remembering that they had first said to Christ those years earlier ‘Lord if You had been here our brother would not have died’. To me it shows that miracles are about the timing and the moment and the sense that things will go better than usual because there is something special about the time. In Lazarus/Mary/Marther’s case it was that they knew Jesus was going around specially doing things for that time and that this meant illnesses needn’t end in death. It didn’t mean they expected that the coming of Christ would mean no more death ever, just that they sensed the time. For me, I sense the time now is one of proving to myself and other believers first and foremost that the Lord’s teachings still apply but realising that it is not yet His time – the big ‘His Time’ of the coming Millenium (which I hpe will start within the next couple of centuries around about the time of the beginning of the ‘seventh day’ – the day of rest : day = thousand years in this case). So we tone it down. Plus, all the more so, in reality what with the jealousies around us it is bad things that happen when miracles are done and there’s only so much of that I can personally take. I have a family to support (thought they mostly support themselves) and that means holding down a day job. So I’m afraid, taking it that most others with a little faith will have similar constraints, those whose unbelief needs a shot of miracle so great that they can study it scientifically so they can publish the findings in journals are going to have to wait till the Millenium and miss out on the glory of having believed in this present age. This is constanly reflected in the comic strip adaptations on TV and big screen (X Men, Smallville, Heroes, even Dr Who) so I guess others realise this all too well. You can’t flaunt faith in this day and age – you just get trodden down and lose the chance to make a normal living. I think the problem might be that Society depends so much on the uneasy appeasment of atheists and pagans and on the feeling that ‘this is all there is so make do and don’t rock the boat’ that a real miracle is almost seen as a crime more punishable than terrorism. Even a prayer is a threat to national security (at any rate some maybe really are when there’s justice to be done, but not the way people think – what happened immediately after they took Daniel out of the lions’ den?). Saying grace is so politically uncorrect it could put you out of a job and home and maybe even in prison via false accusations (not that prison is much worse than homelessness, I guess). So no, don’t expect a rush of miracles any time soon from my direction – the time doesn’t seem right and the audience would just tread them down like swine do with pearls then turn on me. A few people like in church get to witness but mostly they are between me and my Master. One day though (if I get to be worhty of that first resurrection – which isn’t going all that well at present).

    Best

    steve

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “If you dismiss everything that hints of divinity as ‘based on emotion’ (even if it isn’t), how will you ever find out about anything divine who/which does exist?”

    Such as? Name me ONE aspect of the world that is explained more parsimoniously through God than through natural processes.

    “You are shutting the door on a major area of possible knowledge (science) in that surely a real, actual Creator, if known to you, would be a very important part of your science/knowledge of the universe and to establish a course of scientific discovery which precludes such knowledge is surely a huge error to make.”

    This coming from someone who has already dismissed virtually the entirety of modern science because it doesn’t conform with his Bronze Age superstitions – yet I’m the one who supposedly has to open my mind.

    “When it occurs to me that there is great importance in how asteroids, etc strike the Earth as part of its history and future in that there is a distinct possibility (one not to be dismissed) that the well-known Being responsible for the creation and history of this planet could be using such events all along to make things happen the way He intends – that is exciting and compelling in one’s personal journey of scientific discovery (even if the ’scientific community’ dismisses it because of folk like Luis).”

    No, it dismisses it because of this thing called “lack of evidence”. Apparently you can’t distinguish between the two.

    “The other month when that asteroid went just a few tens of thousands of miles away from hitting the Earth (only a handful of times the height of Mt Everest) it makes the future of Earth look so fragile and so much in the hands of the One who decides whether or not the next one will hit.”

    Right, and if one DOES hit, then you’ll be shrieking about the End of Days; if it doesn’t, you’ll be extolling “God’s mercy”. In other words, heads you win, tails I lose. You can point to nothing that would conceivably change your mind, and yet you dare to lecture others about being open minded to new possibilities? This doesn’t even rise to the level of stupidity. Moving on:

    “Then one looks back and sees how such events could make a planet or moon spin differently and how such events under external intelligent control could determine whether the far side of the moon were ever seen and whether the moon exactly covered the sun in an eclipse and whether the Earth would sustain life and an aqueous atmosphere, etc.”

    Yeah, and I can “look back” at Napolean’s wars and ponder how they probably led to events that made my birth possible. Does that mean that Napolean’s wars were launched “in order” for me to be born? No? Then stop talking pap. The ONLY thing one needs to posit to explain the “amazing coincidences” about the Earth’s hospitable conditions is the enormity of the universe. We just happen to live on a planet that had the right conditions for life to arise and evolve. We already know of some 40 extrasolar planets in our galaxy; if the rate of discovery isn’t a statistical fluke, then there are BILLIONS of planets in the universe. Many of them – probably most – will be incapable of harbouring life. But we must, by necessity, live on one of the planets that was able to harbour life, or else we wouldn’t be here talking about it. It doesn’t mean that these conditions were set up in order that we could arise, any more than these conditions were set up so that parasitoid wasps could arise.

    “Is this not ‘real science’ as much as speculation about sunspots as next year’s weather or glaobal warming.”

    No, it’s not real science. It’s just a subjective reaction to seemingly amazing odds; once we douse this with the cold water of reason and logic, we see that we don’t need to posit Sky-Daddies to explain our existence. Some of us, however, have not yet grown out of that.

    “If not I’d prefer what seems more real to me than idiotic opinions of folk who cannot understand the difference between real science and atheism – or science fiction or even just popularist science.”

    Yep, AIDS research, disease control, conservation biology, and genetics are all “popularist science” (whatever the hell that means) because they all include strong evolutionary components. This is the back-to-front, Alice in Wonderland fantasy you’ve concocted.

    “Give me the knowledge of the Creator as part of science along with the knowledge of what He is creating any day. “

    Which is why you know so little. Oh well; when you have blind faith on your side, you can always brush aside reality and then judge others for their lack of commitment to your delusions. The rest of us, on the other hand, are actually interested in how the universe works, and we won’t be stopped from trying to find out because people like you don’t want to part with your selfish comfort blanket.

    “Take a break from this narrow constraining ideology”

    BAHAHAHAHAHA! Stephen thinks that AIDS research is useless “popularist science”, and yet he want us to – get this, everyone – break away from our narrow constraining ideology! :) Oh, the hypocrisy of it all. If an acid were as concentrated as your hypocrisy, it would burn right through the Earth and poison everything on the other side.

    “You only live twice.”

    And like I’ve already said: I’d rather go straight to hell than to spend it in eternity with zombies like you. That would be its own special type of hell. And I don’t mean that to be mean or witty; I mean it sincerely and literally.

    “How long will the press and the universities/students keep up the pretence that science is somehow to be associated with atheism?”

    When the fundamentalists stop trying to strong-arming science and stop spreading lies about evolution. Then the world’s universities will stop having to fight back in defence of reason and logic.

    “The origins of science back in the mists of time were deeply religious.”

    There’s a few key words there: “back in the mists of time.” Which is where your brain sadly still resides. Luckily, no one is obligated to stay back with you.

    “Real wisdom leads to humility.”

    How true. If only you showed a bit of both, and tried to lead by example. You might then live up to some of the fine words spoken by your favourite philosopher, instead of using his name to spread ignorance.

    dg said: “No matter which way you look at it you cant disprove God and Don’t say “i cant see him” you cant see the wind either”

    And you can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Don’t say “I can’t see him” because you can’t see the wind either. Anyway, that was a bad analogy; we can measure the wind. Can you “measure” God?

    dg said: “And Luis here are some scripture to back up God

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 1 corinthians 1:19

    “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” Proverbs 14:12″

    Those mean absolutely nothing to me, anymore than something written in any other holy book. They’re just phrases written by human beings a long time ago, trying to come to terms with their existence through the prism of religion. And that’s fine. What isn’t fine is when people use religion to try to strong-arm science and to make claims that are to be taken on faith “because God said so”. We now have much more satisfying and interesting accounts of our existence than anything that the Bible’s writers believed.

    “So the most obvious explanation for the above most obvious observation (aside from dubious minor detail and circular arguments) is that humans were either not around at all until six thousand years ago or they weren’t humans as we have observed them since then”

    Which is of course completely stupid because we have FOSSILS of humans that are far older than a paltry (and frankly, pathetic) 6,000 years (for all your talk of God being “great” and of a whole new world of understanding opening up to the people who embrace God in their research, the view of life you’re espousing is frightfully boring, pretty, and parochial. Instead of the mind-expanding and scintillating idea of countless millennia, you would rather than your God be small and petty, operating on time scales of a few millennia. Lame. The universe is grand beyond all imagination; it deserves its story to be told truthfully, even if for nothing else than the sheer joy of learning about it; pushing it through a degrading little prism that spits in its face just so people like you won’t be frightened by big numbers is the epitome of vandalism. That’s what you’ve become: an intellectual vandal).

    “That is why the atheists cannot bring themselves to apply even their own version of rationalism or their own version of scientific principles to this but have to restort (as they have done above) to passionate insults and incessant ‘rebuttals’ merely directed against what they would otherwise have to admit make sense – the Bible accounts.”

    Yep, the world’s scientific journals are filled to the brim with nothing but insults against Biblical accounts. Scientists travel around the world to give conferences on human evolution that are filled with nothing but attacks on Christianity. Makes a whole lot of sense.

    “We have power to overcome such pretence.”

    We’ve seen that you also have the power to ignore reality, but then, you see that as a virtue. We’ve also seen that you have the power to fill your children’s heads with fundamentalist filth. It doesn’t mean you should do it.

    In short, Stephen: major fail. If I were God, I’d be embarrassed to have you as my ambassador on Earth. You do your faith no favours by defending it with such weak, utterly incoherent and sickeningly dishonest “arguments”. What’s more, you insult God by constantly advertising your complete lack of interest in rationality, even uttering such stupid phrases as “Does it really matter that much whether there is life on Mars or whether Darwin got it right or whether we can be better off with science or stem cell research or a cure to cancer” – but then you tell everyone that the wonder of the universe is created by God! So one minute you’re smearing the universe and its beauty and doing your best to make those who care about science look like dangerous nerds, the next minute you’re trying to take credit for the achievements of science by talking about its religious origins. Pick ONE. Sheer, unadulterated hypocrisy. But I don’t expect you to take heed of any of this; that would require honesty (far beyond the capacity of someone who just KNOWS that he’s right and that isn’t even concerned with investigating the claims he makes). Instead, you’ll continue to do as you ALWAYS do: go off on yet another tangent and spout more scripture (and then lament our lack of open mindedness when we notify you that this ain’t enough). Which is pretty much the only recourse you have, because it’s obvious to anyone reading this that you have no respect whatsoever for truth.

  • Stephen, UK

    Talking of hyposcrisy, I thought you atheists were staunch advocates of dispassionate rationalism. Only when it suits you then. :-)

  • Stephen, UK

    God is witness as to whether I seek the truth or not. You atheists are meant to deny the existence of truth aren’t you? You keep berating me when ever I mention it (I refer back to your comment that spelling it with a capital T doesn’t make it any better – or something like, I’ve no time to waste looking it up) so how come now it matters to you whether someone respect it. That’s hypocrisy in the extreme. Get over yourself!

  • Stephen, UK

    And isn’t it the Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel writers who taught the world to do away with hypocrisy yet you who deny the Lord Jesus Christ and shun His teachings and the faith of those who hold to it, you keep calling people hypocrites like it is your favourite concept. Maybe you don’t dismiss Christ’s teachings quite so much as you claim to do. Yet He taught about the Father and you still want to strike that from not just your own world view (or at least your colleague atheists do) but from the views of others and from the very heart of science. Then you try to justify yourself/yourselves by claiming the evidence backs you like fossils and, in your argument, almost all of scientific evidence. Will you listen to yourself! To deny Christ and to deny that He is God’s Son is just plain wickedness and is the effect of the spirit of antichrist which has gone out into the world. Try justifying that before the Creator. Yes creation is amazing in the extreme but don’t just give credit to creation itself, give credit to the Creator who designed it and made it come into being without any help from you or your kind. It was the one you persecute who was the Son of Man through whom God made all things and He will be your judge – and those who unlike yourself put their faith in His teachings of truth and His amazing works of grace. Those who deny Him He will deny. So watch yourself that you do not continue to walk in darkness and seek a way out of your antiChrist and antiChristian attitude, purpose and spirit. Maybe there is time to repent. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! Believe the Good News!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2029;&version=9; Stephen, UK

    “He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. ” proverbs 29:1

  • http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6316672.ece Stephen, UK

    The link in my comment name “Stephen, UK” this time shows an article stating that it has been discovered that the Komodo dragon does in fact poison its prey with venom in its bite and not, as previously believed, with bacteria in its saliva. There were numerous discovery-like TV programs stating very firmly that it was with bacteria. Now the dogma is changed. This is why we should not put our faith in science when it comes to our souls. They get it wrong so often but still they make very firm assertions like it is foolish to not believe them. Yes, the preachers of the gospel do this but don’t change things even after thousands of years (not those which preach the true Word of God). It is still that faith in Christ and the loving obedience which comes from faith is what leads to eternal life. On such a matter I would never trust a scientist. The atheists only offer the science and some very very shaky philosophy. Fossils said now to definitely show one thing will later be said to show something completely different. Just because some scientists and atheists think so – and later they may think something completely different. Indeed they will when the real truth eventually comes to light which it always does. Until then I would only recommend putting your trust in the light of Christ – the Way the Truth and the Life. Believe and the signs will follow; don’t believe and maybe they won’t. Believe, follow Christ’s teachings with all your heart and mind and strength and get baptised; and ask God the Father for the Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ’s name and He will give if you truly believe so make sure you do truly believe. Then walk in Christ’s light and that which comes from Christ from the Holy Spirit. And get a hold on that eternal life. Then maybe you’ll pick up some good science on the way (‘The Way’). Do not harden your heart.

  • Stephen, UK

    Where you are today / have been = subject to this: “He, who being often reproved, hardens his heart, will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. ”

    Jesus the Christ for His part died by crucifixion. God the Father for His part raised Him from the dead as His Son and gives the Holy Spirit to those who believe. All that they ask for your part is that you believe in the Christ and carry out His commands. And this is what is promised us: Eternal Life.

    Do not still harden your heart.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “Talking of hyposcrisy, I thought you atheists were staunch advocates of dispassionate rationalism. Only when it suits you then.”

    This is what you idiots don’t understand: we advocate the presentation of evidence and dispassionate investigation, not necessarily dispassionate discourse. Learn the difference.

    “God is witness as to whether I seek the truth or not.”

    Translation: “I’m too lazy to pursue truth for its own sake, so I’ll just wrap myself in this comfort blanket called ‘faith’ and forfeit any responsibility to intellectual honesty by passing the buck onto God.” You’re a joke.

    “You atheists are meant to deny the existence of truth aren’t you?”

    Nah, not even close (you’ve long become exceedingly efficient at being way off the mark). We deny the existence of God. Truth is what we try to get at through science. But unlike you, we don’t claim that we can ever be absolutely certain of it. You lot just KNOW that you’re right (because God told you, so it MUST be true!).

    “You keep berating me when ever I mention it (I refer back to your comment that spelling it with a capital T doesn’t make it any better – or something like, I’ve no time to waste looking it up)”

    Give me a f***ing break. That comment was meant to berate your using a capital T as though you knew the first thing about pursuing truth; it wasn’t to deny that truth exists.

    “so how come now it matters to you whether someone respect it.”

    What?

    “That’s hypocrisy in the extreme. Get over yourself!”

    Before accusing someone of hypocrisy, you might like to actually read what they wrote rather than just seeing what you want to see. You speak of truth, yet you can’t even bring yourself to decipher perfectly simple English that clearly conveys the opposite of what you were trying to attach to it.

    “Then you try to justify yourself/yourselves by claiming the evidence backs you like fossils and, in your argument, almost all of scientific evidence. Will you listen to yourself!”

    Never mind myself; I listen to experts; you listen to con-artists and liars. It’s that simple.

    ‘To deny Christ and to deny that He is God’s Son is just plain wickedness and is the effect of the spirit of antichrist which has gone out into the world.”

    Again, more sleazy moral-chest thumping to hide your complete scientific ineptitude. Being ignorant of science isn’t a crime in itself, but to smear it and then claim to be in possession of truths that aren’t privy to those who actually do the investigation is contemptible.

    “Try justifying that before the Creator.”

    I’ve got more important things to do than to worry about having to answer to your imaginary friend.

    “Yes creation is amazing in the extreme but don’t just give credit to creation itself, give credit to the Creator who designed it and made it come into being without any help from you or your kind.”

    Or your kind. Or your God, come to think of it, who had no role to play in any of it. The amazing thing is really that none of this required a designer in the first place. There is glory and wonder enough in nature without needing to invoke a designer. The processes and phenomena unveiled by science are more intricate, wondrous, and awe-inspiring than your Bronze Age sun-god derivative could ever hope to be. It gives us more reason to go out and learn about it through its sheer richness of detail than any literalist reading of Scripture could ever come close to doing.

    “It was the one you persecute who was the Son of Man “

    Persecution isn’t my modus operandi; that falls to people like you. A certain type of mind, of course, automatically equivocates disbelief in your mythology as “persecution”.

    “and those who unlike yourself put their faith in His teachings of truth and His amazing works of grace.”

    I know, you keep telling me. And I keep replying that I’d rather burn in hell than to spend an eternity with zombies like you.

    “So watch yourself that you do not continue to walk in darkness and seek a way out of your antiChrist and antiChristian attitude, purpose and spirit.

    You really are impervious to reason.

    “There were numerous discovery-like TV programs stating very firmly that it was with bacteria. Now the dogma is changed. This is why we should not put our faith in science when it comes to our souls.”

    Yes, we can’t trust a methodology that is actually RECEPTIVE to evidence… No, we have to instead place all our stock into a system of belief that is rigid and unalterable. You know, just like the faith-heads of other religions do. So by your lights, hardline Muslims and Hindus are right to reject Christ as Lord and Saviour, because they too are impervious to investigations that change our view of the world.

    Oh, sorry, did you want special consideration for Christianity? Sorry, ain’t gonna get it. You can get in line with the other non-thinkers.

    “They get it wrong so often but still they make very firm assertions like it is foolish to not believe them.”

    And where they got it right is where you constantly get it wrong.

    “It is still that faith in Christ and the loving obedience which comes from faith is what leads to eternal life.”

    Obedience is for suckers who don’t want to think for themselves but who want everything given to them like spoiled children.

    “Do not still harden your heart.”

    Only someone with a soft brain could say things like this without collapsing in hysterical laughter.

  • Stephen, UK

    Don’t say I didn’t warn you

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    “Don’t say I didn’t warn you”

    Why would I? I wouldn’t say that the other faith-heads didn’t warn me if THEY turned out to be right. I have this hilarious picture of you in my head: you’d be in heaven, waiting to be summoned by God, but instead you’d be greeted by Vishnu. I see no reason to regard that as any more unlikely than me being wrong about your Sky-Daddy. But never mind if I’M wrong. What if YOU’RE wrong? Don’t say they didn’t warn you.

  • http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-allen17-2009may17,0,491082.story Stephen, UK

    “… suddenly be cut off and that without remedy” – who says that means the afterlife? I get the impression it means in this life. Hardening your heart to proper, sound and appropriate rebuke, instead of just humbly accepting it and letting it do it’s life-giving work – that sets you up for a massive fall in THIS life – “and that without remedy”. Your plain stupidity (and that of so many others) is just setting you up for a fall. In fact we all have the same tendency as our childhood antics show. We go through childhood reacting with what we think is cleverness against those who try to warn and ward us away from destruction until we learn otherwise. Atheists like your self just try to apply the same childish knee-jerk reactions to adult world sense (by picking on weaknesses in how things are said rather than recognising the sense in what is being said). It seems to be an experiment in trying to apply childish folly to serious adult issues to see how far you can push before things collapse on you. I’m just saying things will indeed collapse on you and you will find out why adults tend to put behind them their childish folly and make the most of life with the help of wisdom. There are reasons why most people don’t say the things you say or keep quiet when those things are in the air and why they rebuke what is usually children when they behave as you do and say what you say (unless they are Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin). Most people have an awareness that even if they don’t fear God they probably should do. You are pushing the opposite ‘possibility’ to the extreme to see where it leads. It leads back to childish folly and the destruction (perhaps in your case self-destruction) that goes with it if it isn’t gotten out of the system. This is the folly of humanity – the tendency to keep some of the childish folly into adulthood. You atheists merely try to experimenatlly make that a virtue and hope people will praise you or admire you for doing so. Duh! Instead I gave you the best hope there is for you – a little of the real Gospel – but if you harden your heart to the fact the Christ died to pay the punishment price of Justice for the folly of your ways (and all our ways) then you probably are eliminating for yourself the one way out. Maybe you will relent before it gets too late for you and you do yourself (and your hearers) some real damage. Maybe.

  • http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    ““… suddenly be cut off and that without remedy” – who says that means the afterlife? I get the impression it means in this life. Hardening your heart to proper, sound and appropriate rebuke, instead of just humbly accepting it and letting it do it’s life-giving work – that sets you up for a massive fall in THIS life – “and that without remedy”.”

    Sorry, I have absolutely NO idea what the hell you’re talking about. Like I’ve said before: make sense.

    “Atheists like your self just try to apply the same childish knee-jerk reactions to adult world sense (by picking on weaknesses in how things are said rather than recognising the sense in what is being said).”

    While you can’t even address a thing I say! “Adult world sense” – like ignoring science and going with archaic fairy-tales. Yeah, that’s REALLY adult-like :)

    “It seems to be an experiment in trying to apply childish folly to serious adult issues to see how far you can push before things collapse on you.”

    Serious adult issues? You really are stupid.

    “I’m just saying things will indeed collapse on you and you will find out why adults tend to put behind them their childish folly and make the most of life with the help of wisdom”

    It’s a shame you haven’t done that, you disgusting cretin. You – not me, you – are the one who is so infantile that he needs to believe in a Sky-Daddy in order to behave morally. You, not me, believes that the world is 6,000 years old (making it younger than the domestication of the dog). You’re the one who wants to be a pathetic slave. And you talk about childish folly? You’re a complete rat bag.

    “There are reasons why most people don’t say the things you say”

    Like what, moron? These days, it’s people like you who are on the run. It’s embarrassing for people to openly admit that they’re Bible-thumpers. More and more people are waking up to the fact that your system of beliefs is dripping with lies and falsehoods.

    “Most people have an awareness that even if they don’t fear God they probably should do.”

    Only because religious thugs get offended. A majority of people these days don’t give a crap about religion. They just watch what they say because cry-babies like you will scream about being offended. You’re the laughing stock that few are brave enough to openly confront, because it’s well known that stunted intellect connected to a limbic system can be dangerous to one’s safety.

    “This is the folly of humanity – the tendency to keep some of the childish folly into adulthood.

    Like believing the lies your parents taught you? No, that’s your domain. People like me are all about questioning authority; people like you are about the retardation of intellectual endeavour and slavishly bowing to invisible masters.

    “You atheists merely try to experimenatlly make that a virtue and hope people will praise you or admire you for doing so. Duh!”

    Bible thumpers are the ones who expect a free pass, hoping that no one will notice how retarded everything they say is. Everyone knows that Bible thumpers are full of crap, even the Bible thumpers themsleves (which is why they can do nothing other than issue threats about eternal damnation). It’s like watching someone chew with their mouth open.

  • Stephen, UK

    My guess is; you atheists are adults whose childhood was curtailed (perhaps by overbearing adults – perhaps Christian ones, hence the deep need for revenge) and who spend their adult lives continually trying to get back the joys of childhood you grieviously feel you have lost. Only, you perhaps knowingly miss the point that much of that joy is from plain foolishness – like the behaviour of Bart Simpson inappropriately mirrored in Homer Simpson. Like that fear children have of seeming to be foolish in the eyes of their childish peers but they actually ending up doing what is seriously foolish and in the eyes of everyone. Missing the point in things seems to be a joy for you which is just too attractive to be missed, perhaps since you never got enough of the joy of missing the point earlier on in life due to the intervention of adults who never explained their intervention or whose high-handedness prevented you being convinced of their wellmeaningness in their intervention. In the meantime, for the more well adjusted, life goes on. I’m not so well adjusted – I have such serious hangups. I choose to deliberately and pro-actively counter the hangups with God’s teaching in the hope that I will get better. Maybe the reason you atheists are so public about your hangups is that you are reaching out for such help too. But your condition seems to have an element built into it that compels you to react against the very stuff that can help you – faith and stuff – ‘grace’. That’s unfortunate but I guess you have to counter that by deliberately embracing those things against which your compulsions repel you. You maybe have to make the extra effort to get over your hangups and get a hold on the things you really need (though your hangups tell you the opposite). Prove that it is possible. You won’t be the first if you do but at least you won’t be one of the many who do try but die having failed. Maybe there’s a lot more to what is needed though. But how can you make a start if your hangups even prevent you from praying. To seek faith demands an actual endeavor but there is lots of help out there. You probably want to keep what you think is street cred more though so it’s up to you to choose to go that way and God’s work is to draw you.

  • Stephen, UK

    I the meantime, human evolution doesn’t in my view fit with the archeology in that evidence of indisputably human activity which definitely has a likely date attached to it only points back to there undeniably being human existence as far back as a few thousand years. Other shakier evidence can be interpreted by those who embrace the evolutionist timescales as going back further (tens of thousands of years) but that doesn’t seem indisputable at all to me. It just depends on how you view the evidence and your pre-conceptions. It seems clear human life as we know it appears just thousands of years ago and other would say tens of thousands of years ago (but I don’t go along with that at all and I don’t find the evidence compels me to either). Either way, the evidence points to a sudden appearance in actual history of the human race – thousands rather than hundreds of thousands of years ago. The book of Genesis well accounts for this. It’s record is consistent with an awful lot of other archeology evidence from between 3000BC and 1500BC too. Why dismiss it? Unless you dismiss it because your atheism requires it of you (which seems plainly perverse to me). Of course, people interpreting Genesis wrongly might be what has caused many to turn away from it. It doesn’t go into much detail about creation so if we ever fill in the gaps it is my opinion (and easy to hold) that it will all look sensible and right and consistent. The truths we discover (when we eliminate the shady guesswork and presumption) all vindicate the Genesis account of things. If they haven’t done so yet it is because we don’t have enough of the truth yet. So real science is no threat to real faith. Sometimes it is a challenge though, but that is the reality – faith gets tested. [Must dash - family day today.]

  • Stephen, UK

    I guess Luis you are making an enemy of God and the entire human race from the beginning of time till the future and you are probably going to get some of what is coming to you. I don’t see anything you say as backing up your cause but getting people’s backs up is more what you excell at. I thought you argued that doing all this was the province of Bible-pushers but they’ve got nothing on your new kind of atheists. Don’t you see you are pushing the credibity self-destruct button, that you are showing yourselves fools in the eyes of everybody? I guess you will just counter like a child that I’m doing the same but really that does not stand up. At least I have a reason for what I write and good guidelines within which to write it. What accountability do you have? The future scientists and scholars might scrutinise what you atheists say and write today and they will be scrutinised by their future equivalents. But you just say whatever you like and ignore any concept of propriety in doing so. Where do you think that will lead you? What do you expect to happen? What do you hope to gain? Credibility? Why do you despise what is actually known by all to be credible over the millenia? Just because it has been credible in the past as if the past was all wrong but you alone in the present have it all worked out? Do you think future atheists will say how great you were for carving out for them some sort of credibility in the world? Do you expect to be hailed as a hero? Do you think the world will listen to you? Actually, the teaching of the Gospel includes the teaching that the world will indeed listen to you. But for the wrong reasons. It teaches that I should not accept people like you into my house, even, because you are so wicked that you reject the commands of God – to love Him and each other. That you deny that Jesus is the Christ. That you deny that He is God’s ‘only begotten Son’. That such as do these things do in fact get the world’s ear. Perversely. That is not because what you say is good – it is wicked – but because the world does not know God or His Son or His Spirit. So maybe you do get something back for what you write – the world’s attention (even Google’s news gives you loads and loads of coverage like it did this story about Darwin’s theories apparently being ‘proved’ and other such stories about the latest ‘missing link’ – what’s that all about?!). So if that is what you want – attention – then maybe you have a sure way to get it. Sure in the sense it will work – for now – but not sure in the sense of good and reliable. It will get you judged. As I keep saying. As it will those who give it their heed and take it to heart. Sadly many do, even though they say they aren’t atheists. Only a few admit to subscribing to atheism but many seem to vocalise the athiestic dogmas with pride because they spend their empty hours reading books like Dawkins and the writings of others like him. They just deny they go along with it like they probably deny they look at porn as much as they do. How perverse we humans are. How much we need saving from our ways and those of our predecessors. God alone saves enough to be our hope. I love the truth that He does so by the Name of His Son. He does wonderful things by this Name like keep creation going and save those who call on Him in that Name. Not by any other name. I guess I haven’t fathomed all that yet but I believe everything is really trashable compared to the teaching about the Name. The pearl of great price. That is something worth fathoming and the reward of doing so is great. Just to know and use and be saved by the power of His Name is worth all the abuse you guys throw at me. To find the power of the Name of the Christ is worth so much it makes your teachings and opinions seem worthless by comparison (even though I appreciate being made to think by SOME of your less abusive more lucid comments). If it brings me back to the truth of the power of the Name above all Names then I’m glad for it. Not that I’d expect you to appreciate or understand this at all. Maybe I can make you think in return for how you’ve made me think. Think what it might take to get something of real power into you mind – good power, saving power. Worth putting aside your present opinions for. Worth taking some of the abuse you dish out for. Worth being called a stupid idiot for. Worth dying for (with the knowledge that the same name raises the dead and is the means to eternal life by the One whose name it is – the Lord Jesus Christ, King over all of God’s creation, the Cosmos). But I guess all this is too high for you :-)

  • Stephen, UK

    Luis writes

    “You, not me, believes that the world is 6,000 years old (making it younger than the domestication of the dog). You’re the one who wants to be a pathetic slave. And you talk about childish folly? You’re a complete rat bag.”

    My responses:

    I find that the truth revealed by the Spirit of Truth does not suggest that things started with the creation of ‘Man’ but that the Earth and the universe were around of course long before that. People have misunderstood the Scriptures, perhaps: There is little reason to think the Scriptures themselves recorded that the Earth did NOT exist until the time of the human race. There is nothing much in Scripture about what God did to create the formless void which later He turned into the Earth as we know it. It was formless and void and darkness was on the face of it. The universe with all its celestial bodies was around long before all this (see Book of Enoch, the forgotten, ignored Scriptures). God even, some Scriptures tell us, intended making other planets become inhabited, but got so involved saving wayward humans that this was put to one side (till later?). All these sayings are millenia old. Many people in the bronze age were probably more knowledgable and intelligent than you are and I are: Sorry to put myself in the same category in this respect as you but compared to some of them like Enoch it is probably a proper categorisation. Then there came a time when in the history of the human race the Name of the Son of Man was revealed. Originally to angels. Now, in the past couple of millenia, to humans too (if not already). By this Name all creation keeps going. By this Name believers are saved. And this same Name puts your opinions into perspective; so I put up with your insults rather than forego or deny it. To know that power of this Name – which is the power of the Christ’s resurrection – is beyond all that I might have to put up with in exchange for abiding by the knoweldge of it. It transcends science because it is the power of God to save and it is the very power behind the laws of the universe. This theology is more powerful than natural science because this theology is the power behind all that science claims to reveal. The real light is found not just in nature but in the Name behind nature – which drives nature and keeps evil in check. This Name saves humans from the evil of their ways. That’s what I need. Resurrection is what I need. Your opinions and your slant on science cannot give me that. Your opinions are not praiseworthy the way that Name is praiseworthy just as the clouds are far above the surface of the Earth. The Power and Authority of the Name and Lordship of Jesus, The Christ is to live for and die for. Your opinions aren’t. Neither are mine.

    Creation abides by and behaves in accordance with and obedience to the Name of the Son of Man, The Christ. People do not. That is why they need saving by the same power and authority of that same Name. That includes me and you. We both need the same salvation of the same God, the Creator. Like it or not we are in the same need. Neither of us more than the other. Whatever our opinions or creed. So be it.

  • Stephen, UK

    So Luis, this is the power directed towards me (in Christ). What power do you have?

  • Stephen, UK

    Like most atheists you are happy to benefit from two thousand years of the influence of Christ on ‘western’ society in the form of charitable and scientific institutions and democratic parliamentary government and moral, relatively liberal laws – in short, institutional, near-global mercy and kindness. Yet you choose to ungratefully deny that heritage when it gets you some personal advantage or for your own exaltation. Do you dispise His mercy? You cannot divorce modern science from its Christian heritage even if you try. You endeavour to reverse this by trying to have religious influence extracted from public society like people extract water from oranges but you cannot deny the fact that Christianity has been in the midst of this society and has preserved the best parts and helped remove the bad – essentially ‘salting’ it. That is like going into a gourmet restuarant and eating the best meal then shouting that it was awful and walking out without paying the bill. In the end it will catch up with you and you may well find the better institutions close their doors to you. As you sow so shall you reap. That’s atheism for you. Perverse yet too widely tolerated because society and governments don’t know better and don’t dare stand up for what is right and what has made them what they are. They too are now in danger of losing their meal ticket as society starts to wise-up and as God’s word comes true that those who do not acknowledge the One who put them where they are in their priviledged positions of power will lose that power just a surely as they first got it. He puts up and He puts down. That’s why we call Him the Most High – everyone in Heaven and Earth is subject to His power and influence even if they deny Him and refuse to believe in Him and His Christ.

  • http://warofthewave.blogspot.com Luis Cayetano

    Nice waste of time. This time I just skimmed through your verbal vomit and saw more of the same: blabbing about your values, that God has mercy, and all that other pap you subscribe to so slavishly. Been there, done that. You’re a slave and a moron. I’m not going to take the time to read your words because I’m sick of your pathetic inability to actually address anything I say in a manner that even remotely smacks of intelligence. It seems that the only way you know of to honour your “great” God is to talk like a drooling retard. You’re a slave and a phoney, and you have a contemptible and vile view of humanity to boot. So again, let me make this abundantly clear: I have nothing but contempt for people like you. If I never encountered someone like you ever again, it would only be a blessing (maybe from God, who knows). Know this: you’ve failed God once again, because you’ve certainly turned this atheist even more against fundamentalist faith. That’s all I have to say to you. Now you can go off and spread your lies (i.e. speak to the void) and wallow in your selfish delusions of grandeur, and I’ll go off and do whatever it is I do.

    Goodbye.

  • Stephen, UK

    Don’t take it personally, Luis. I’ve tried debating with you because you seem to be a typical representative of the remarkable school of modern day atheism and I’ve always been interested to find out what atheists use as their argument for rejecting what I would call ‘grace’. Before now the only atheists I debated with (just a few) backed down after not much discussion so I never did find out what makes someone stay an atheist in the face of religious argument. I have always found it essentially easy to believe what I find God teaches because it stands so well to reason and comes with such gracious power and virtue. So I was always curious to see what would happen when an apparently staunch atheist such as yourself was put on the spot with the same teachings (as much as I have any ability to recount them – and I’ve tried to do so accurately with balance). Now I know. You seem to just push it back at the one relating it with liberally scattered insults without really understanding it or being able to sensibly reason about it. Yet you seem to rely on indirectly boasting of your own reasoning ability (which you seem to actually lack somewhat from my point of view) by insisting that I cannot or do not reason either. I guess other atheists do the same on the whole (it seems to be what others in my position relate as their findings on the matter). Interesting. I guess this is a major aspect of modern western culture since though you are said to be few in number you atheists’ influence on science, medicine, education and politics is astounding. This seems to me to be what the Christ meant about the enemy sowing weeds amongst the wheat though, so I wouldn’t be too proud of yourselves. Thanks for spending the time on this debate. I guess it might be an interesting example for posterity and the reading of others. I hope the One above (the One you don’t believe in or know but who you might be a little worried about if you were honest to yourself – maybe) doesn’t hold against you personally your beratings of what are actually His teachings mixed in with the above comments – you aren’t to know who you are insulting. Remember though that it isn’t just God but all the people in history who have a god as well as those who followed (and will follow) the One I call God who you have berated. I guess they’ll all understand it is probably just a matter of lashing out at something that you feel threatens you and which you cannot understand (perhaps furstration) rather, perhaps, than actual malice. I guess the next few hundred years will be more and more under the influence of the school of thought to which you subscribe and people like me might actually be seen more and more as an oddity – in secular western society at least. I just rely on the fact that the Christ will return soon and gradually turn the tables. Great stuff! In the meantime I must admit I find that God has adequate reason for flinging upon the Earth an onslaught of troubles if the arguments you espouse are any indication of the more outward and far reaching actions of others under the same athiestic teachings and ways as the philosophy you promote – politicians, teachers, medical practitioners, public sector officers, etc. Not everyone though – some still do humbly accept the grace and Word of God. I guess your atheism is a support system until you maybe get something better.

  • Stephen, UK

    Luis wrote:
    “If I never encountered someone like you ever again, it would only be a blessing (maybe from God, who knows). Know this: you’ve failed God once again, because you’ve certainly turned this atheist even more against fundamentalist faith.”

    I guess it is obvious that Luis did want to meet this person ever again by the number of times he came back to the conversation! I bet he has to fight the compulsion to come back to it yet again too. :-) As will I. I kind of miss the sparring, if that is what it is. And as for being turned away from ‘fundamentalist faith’ it did strike me as odd that Luis knew so much about the teachings he claimed to be against and disbelieve. Why keep reading about and arguing about something you are sure is wrong? If Luis was so much an atheist then why does he say he is more against faith now – surely you cannot be more against something if you originally were completely against it. I rather wondered what appeal there would be in coming back and back to a coversation you completely disagree with (unless, like me you have a Master who wants the truth to be told openly and frankly). There must be some appeal. Maybe, as the Christ said “the Father draws him”.

  • Stephen, UK

    And just in case Luis does get drawn back to this page and these comments: Remember that even the most wellknown Christian and teacher of fundamentalist Christian faith of all time (ref: his epistle to the Romans, 1st century AD) was originally so intensely against the followers of this faith that he regularly took part in official violence against them. Yet this was until the resurrected Christ appeared to him and turned him around completely so that he became the greatest preacher to ever walk the earth, apart from the Christ Himself of course. And the Christ received him and made him what he became – born again from the Holy Spirit. That same Spirit is given in the Christ’s name by God to those who believe (ask and you will receive that your joy may be complete). Wouldn’t it be cool if a debate starting with what and how the first human came about ended like this with how the new human creation comes about – by the Spirit of God working in the believer in Christ’s name.
    Even if Luis hates me and Christians all the more, I don’t think it means I’ve erred (though God knows if I have done and will judge me): Even the apostle Paul (then called Saul) heard my namesake Stephen’s preaching and just hated all the more and even became accessory to Stephen’s death. Didn’t mean Paul didn’t have a chance though. Didn’t mean Stephen had failed either. Still – cheers to the new creation! Let’s hope we can both be partakers of that new existence through the power of God and the faith that is (still) in Christ Jesus, the Lord, the Son of the Most High God. And let the blasphemers be taught not to blaspheme, those who deny the name of God and of His Christ.

  • Stephen, UK

    And I write the following for anyone – past, present, future – whoever you are even if you don’t believe, but especially if you do (even Luis, even me):

    The Christ died for you.

    Let that truth sink in, let the words do their work, let the Spirit work. If you believe, ask God for His Spirit (as the Christ said: “Give us this day our daily bread” – He’ll give the true bread – the Spirit – not some harmful substitute).

    When you are ready, here’s some more:

    Love God with all your heart, soul, strenght and mind.

    (And that includes your voice.)

    Let any faith you have cause you to obey it. Love him with all you’ve got (including your voice).

    If you have any love for God then obey this command of His:

    Love your neighbour as yourself.
    (that includes anyone who really helps you)

    Keep going back to the therapy of the truth:
    The Christ died for you.

    Continue more and more in all this until the Christ returns and, if you do believe, then brings you to life. (And you had better get some proper faith now if you don’t yet believe.)

    That’s it for now; that’s about all I know for now. I hope and pray it helps. In the Name of The Christ, Lord Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, Son of the Most High God, The Resurrection and the Life, the One who is, who was and who is to come.

  • ofsted

    WOW! What a long tirade! See how much hot air a footprint generated!
    I came into this discussion ages ago – and expected the footprint to be well buried by now – but I see arguments still rage.

    I would not have expected that a discussion about Homo Erectus would reach the Cross of Christ by such a route.

    I see that Stephen UK is pretty much the only contributor now.

  • http://me.com susan

    hey um i think that this is a good site and has good info

  • Annunaki

    AJ says: “Get a &%$#ing clue you evolution idiots..how retarded does
    one have to be to believe in this shitte…educate the non-believers of evolution?!? Provide me with sources online to ” educate ” me?!?
    Your dogma overwhelms me…evolution has been proven time and time
    again as impossible…pulled your heads out of your asses and have a think about another way we got here for $3%” sakes…
    All you get is, maybe, possible, we think, it looks like, some scientists think and on and on with this bull…and if you think evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt then you are so delusional that you have completely lost your fricken minds…”

    interesting … this kind of language used by a Christian, right? You do believe in the teachings of the Bible, don’t you? Or do you just like calling yourself a Christian but don’t really want to follow all the “Christiany” rules like “turning the other cheek” and all the other mumbo jumbo that Christians pride themselves on? Is that how the bible suggests you respond when the “creationist view” is questioned?

    Your “all you get is maybe, possible, we think, it looks like, some scientists think and on…” is supposed to mean there is no scientific evidence for evolution yet the very nature of the fundamentalist creation view is “Faith” – belief without evidence … since you can’t prove with empirical evidence that there is a God never mind that He created us! Ironic isn’t it?

    Again, “Your dogma overwhelms me…evolution has been proven time and time
    again as impossible…pulled your heads out of your asses and have a think about another way we got here for $3%” sakes…”. Clearly you don’t know the meaning of “Dogma”. FYI, difinition for Dogma from Wikipedia: is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed… check that last line out, sounds familiar?

    So lemme ask you this question Christian man. In the Bible it says all peoples of the world were destroyed in the great flood except for Noah and his family. Now, christian scientist place the flood around 4,000 years BCE and, although a complex combination of genetic mutation and environmental influences is the cause of variation in human phenotype, it happens over a substantially longer period of time alloted for by the christian flood timeline. With the westernized image of this progenitor of mankind that of a caucasian and, I’m sure you believe that fervently, how do you account for the differences between Negroids, Asians and Caucasians… if you do not believe in evolution?

  • Stephen, UK

    Faith IS evidence :-) That’s the whole point of sharing faith – to provide you with real, substantial evidence. You should be grateful. Or are you already so wise you don’t need anything more than you have already. Pity, you’re probably missing out and, like the Lord said “pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (figuratively, of course, but you knew that didn’t you). Never thought I’d see any more life on this site again. I guess Luis’s predication was wrong wasn’t it: it did still reach people even after the champion of atheism left. Maybe Luis will come back later. There’s that message I left for him above. Still, I guess it’s clear from what I wrote above that although I’m certain the Chirst is alive and well and powerful enough to raise the believers from the dead some day soon, doesn’t mean I always follow His teachings – He Himself said they are so tough to follow that most don’t make it but that people should try with all they’ve got anyway. I admit it would be so peaceful to always turn the other cheek like He said – which I gather was to the effect that we put peace first. He didn’t say there would not still be the need to eventually give up peace and fight back – I’ve read His famous book where He predicts the saints will first be overthrown by a new world power (call it the ‘Beast’) but He went on to predict the saints would eventually fight back and win – in combination with His own second coming and overthrow of a great False Prophet (you know, false like Darwin and so many others) “with the breath of His mouth”. I wait for that Day and in the meantime hope to grow in understanding of His teachings so I can properly obey them. Not blindly like so many think we Christians, if I’m worthy of that name – perhaps not, follow ‘faith’. Not blindly but gaining more and more virtue, knowledge, etc so I can actually rightly and truly and with genuine certainty follow His real teachings as He taught them and His Spirit which God the father gives in His name. This kind of faith is more and more about certainty, not about blindly following a misunderstanding or guess. That’s a rare thing in deed and worth all you’ve got to find. If only the resources went into improving moral certainty rather than crazy guesswork. I can only devote what I can to it, as He gives me grace. I hope you will do too. And add hope to that and most of all love, without which it is all in vain. Putting a man on the moon took lots of certainties, not blindness. That’s a better kind of science than the dubious kind by which we get told man walked around on this planet millions of years ago. My certainties about that are that people were only certainly building things several thousand years ago and that such clear activity started suddenly, just like the Scriptures say. And that Christ believed the Scriptures and taught all to do so too and that God raised Him from the dead after blind ‘faith’ of so-called religious folk killed Him. That’s certain.

  • Stephen, UK

    Also, I get reminded there is a whole nation on this earth supposedly all following athiesm in its ‘purest’ form (that’s an ironic phrase): North Korea. I guess they set the example for us all to follow – so let’s all cast aside our long-held beliefs and the well-trodden path of free, religious support of the weak and wounded and let’s all embrace the world’s most evolved thought system as found so clearly there in North Korean (I don’t mean that literally!). No offence to North Koreans who may not be just ‘blindly’ following the atheism they seem to be supposed to follow but might actually have some beliefs still in the God of virtue and charitable love. If we are to be like an atheistic state then I’d say we would surely have to follow such a way ‘blindly’. So the faith I believe is not blind faith (I might be blind but true faith certainly isn’t): It takes real blind behaviour to cast it aside though because the ideaology of the moment and the government of this age says to do so. They seem to require blindness; blindness to what is clearly true like that there is Someone *very* powerful loving me and sending me help from above time and time again – guiding my heart in a true way – the Way taught and given by the One who is The Way, The Truth and The Life, not some dictator requiring my unquestioning allegiance no matter what I think of the evidence around me. To be blind to the evidence that is Faith (real faith) is to be blind indeed. That is the sort of blindness required by atheists, Darwinists and the more moderate humanistic forms of these found in the more western governments and instutional organisations. By faith I choose to reject blindness and to try to open my eyes and to let the Christ open my eyes. To put aside vanity of dictatorships and modernistic dogmas and seek after the One who can make my blind eyes see. I’m not saying that He has done so yet, He knows whether He has (and I still sin so I guess either he hasn’t finished dealing with me or I’ve gone and mucked it up). I have to rely on His sight with which He sees (and testifies to what He sees) and His ability to give me sight. Then if I am indeed blind there’s sight for me in Christ which no stupid human teacher can give me. I don’t call His sight blindness. If you want to call Him blind go ahead and accept the consequences for such blasphemy. But be careful because there is one blasphemy which He says cannot be forgiven – that against the Holy Spirit of Truth who gives true sight to the blind until the Christ returns in Glory and True Power. Christ testified to the truth and people who hate the truth killed Him for it – because the truth was that they were evil, like we are today. So, in view of His testimony (as the One who is Not blind) that we are all evil (relatively so at least), embrace that truth and turn to Him who is able to make you good. That’s your only hope and mine, when all is said and done. Yes we are blind. Yes without faith we are blind. Yes real faith is faith in His sight. Yes He alone makes us see because He tells us what is true, as the One person who sees the Truth (including seeing God). He has testified and so have His true hearers and they wrote it all in the New Testament so it is there to read. But reading it is not enough – we have to *go* to the One of whom it is written, to the Christ “in repentance and faith” while we can.

  • Stephen, UK

    I suppose you know the following, probably, but here’s science without so much of the western philosophy of science: Having a look around at visible nature and the trees are there busily producing leaves and growing in their life cycle while the planet which is Earth is clearly rotating in its own cycle and invisibly the Krebs cycle of biochemistry of metabolism and the special cycles of plant metabolism are there whirring away as the do all the time. These cycles of Nature, driven by forces of Nature (how ever many there are – known to our science and maybe others unknown to our science) so clear and so powerful (so difficult to arrest even by the might of humanity) they are each of them compelled to continue this way by what we call ‘laws of nature’ which are as it were underwritten by a kind of insurance system underwritten in turn by a holy law which is that contract the Creator makes with His creation – to care for it always and to save it by His oath He has sworn to it from the beginning of time to which in turn He requires the obedience of each creation to His own say-so. Now all of this mysterious unwriting which keeps it all going is embodied in the very greatest contract known to nature which is actually integral to the Authority He, God, has ‘bestowed’ on His first and only firstborn Son, the Christ (known to nature as the Son of Man). The power over the laws and covenants between Creator and His Creation, visible in that astounding regularity with which natures laws are ‘obeyed’ (as perceptive scientists of the past have ‘seen’ with insight when they named the observed behaviours of particles ‘charges’ and other behaviours ‘laws’ and other phenomena ‘forces’ – anthropological terms with theological and authoritative overtones) – that power is intrinsic in the topmost level authority that He has given to His Son – as embodied in the Name He has given Him. Even the word given for the characterisation and mouthing of that Name (that authority and import) alludes to that contract between the Maker and the made – The Carer Saves Those For Whom He Cares – my weak, paraphrased interpretation. And why has He deemed His Son worthy of such Name and Status over all the very laws of Nature and their power and the natural forces themselves? Because while on Earth the Son Himself perfectly observed the will of God and both learned and preached it and constantly carried it out to the nth degree following through to the point where it required submission to human crucifixion by human authorities back in first century Palestine, which He fully endured to the death. Now in the process of all that amazing and unsurpassed obedience He preached things which pertain to eternal life but which also happen to touch on our understanding of nature and history because His preaching validated the Scriptures about which there is so much controversy these past two centuries. These preachings of His (and His life and works and behaviour) were in turn validated and vindicated by the Creator, God, His Father when He raised Christ Jesus from the dead – the first ever to be raised never to die again. Now life and death are in His hands and He alone could raise the dead like that – He, God (and His Son by the same power and any others to whom He gave that power). So the One Raiser of the Dead shows *the* fullest possible approval of Christ and all He said and did by that historic event of His resurrection which followed three days after His crucifixion. So now, since all this has happened, if you dismiss the Scriptures or distort them you do so at your peril. This science may seem foolish but it is wiser than string theory and more powerful than atomic energy knowledge and I think it should make anyone think twice about embracing anything which even seems contradictory like evolutionary theory and other modernist reasonings and ideas which go with it. Then there’s the other evidence like the archeology too …

  • Stephen, UK

    Regarding the historic and scientific reasons how ‘white’ and ‘black’, etc human appearances have come about since the great flood some four and a half thousand years ago, I don’t claim to know except that it is evident in the archeology that white races spread across Europe after those years building different structures to those built there previously (contrast round dwellings and long dwellings and different burial mounds, etc) while often rebuilding former sites as they came across them. That *seems* to have happened in Europe. Likewise humans took around the world, as they went, the technology and inclination to build stepped and triangular towers (called by different names today) and all this mainly postdates the flood time attributed by Scripture and some decent history books (I like Cambridge Ancient History early volumes for their *relative* conformity to what seems to me to mostly be consistent with Scripture – after about the Chalcolithic Age anyway). So that is some evdience of humankind’s spread after 2400 BC. Africans seem to become distinct (post-flood) in Nubia/Southern Egypt and some evidence exists of ‘black’ pharoahs, etc, (though whether such pharoahs are indeed post flood is not so clear). It seems reasonable to take the evidence seriously that gradually there appeared in Egypt and south of Egypt black people. The sumerians (pre-flood) seemed to have called themselves ‘black-heads’ but that probably refers to their hair colour, not skin colour. It might be that there were black-skinned sumerians but that all but perhaps one died in the flood. (I say perhaps one because I have seen it documented that ‘Ham’ means black so Ham may have been black and Scriptures say the Nubians descended from him.) But clearly mankind before the flood is likely to have had genes for darker skin colour which if recessive would only come out to the full in a more isolated population such as seems to have existed in Africa from 2000 BC onwards (away from Babylon and a little away from Egypt). That is conjecture but seems plausible since less is said of the rise of the African people other than Nubians who are associated more with Egyptians and the Egyptian empires. Red skin seems to have been evdient in Palestine which seems to come from words meaning red (Canaanites, Phoenicians and Phillistines) and I think have come across other evidence too that people who originally settled in the Aegean then spread into the west coast of Canaan had a tendency to have reddish skin colour but I can’t be sure. Anyway, what little is known seems easily consistent with the Scriptures and other literature so I see no problem with this question. No need to insist that people spreading out before the flood (or before 2400 BC ish, if you just can’t accept there was such a widespread flood) were the ancestors of modern races; it is just as likely (and firmly believe attestably true) that the ancestors are those who settled in similar areas *after* the flood since all such areas can be reasonably concluded to have been resettled after 2400/2300BC by people distinct from any original settlers (in Europe even the bones structures are reported to be different). Africa is less known to me but there seems to have been a similar thing happeningg as in Europe but by a distinct set of races. No problem they all came from the one family alone sometime in 2300BC – a family originally settling near Kish (and presumably Biblical Babel complete with tower) then spreading out from there at around the same time the Bible says Peleg was alive (whose name means ‘divided’ “since in his time the peoples of the earth were divided and spread out in the races and languages”). Linguistic studies say roughly the same – pointing to one source language back then, sumerian, with accaddian and semitic languages following and coexisting for some centuries until you get others like those of the Aegean and (not so sure of the possible history – bit more mysterious to me) Egyptian (because it somehow seems to have linked back to pre-flood writings, perhaps like Chineses cantonese and mandarin both have a common writing system too – maybe predynastic and dynastic/post flood egytpian languages were different but written the same, I don’t know/can only guess). You get the impression people stayed together more until the scattering started as the divisions of languages started, like the scriptures say. There seemed to have been mainly two groups of people pre-flood in the regions of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, Eqypt, Syria, etc. These all spoke the same language, sumerian, had similar culture, a common body of knowledge and dynasties of rulers, shared the same (7?) cities, lived in similar buildings but had just two ways of life – settled and nomadic. The scriptures speak of descendants of Cain and descendants of Seth as two distinct people groups and that seems vaguely consistent with our knowledge of the time (which I assert to be roughly 3500 to 2500 BC). These were wiped out, I believe, by the flood which devastated everywhere and was recorded in later writings and contemporary ones and exists in folk memory around the world in all cultures even today. Just one family survived – settling, righteous types from the descendants of Seth, not Cain. They returned back to where they had lived before the flood (eventually after maybe a bit of understandable wandering) – to a city near what we call Babylon which may have been, according to their contemporary historic literature, Kish. There (or nearby in Babel) they built a ziggurat and stayed together. Whether some wandered off and went to other places like Europe and Nubia even at that time isn’t clear. Most, we are told, by numerous sources and the events of history which happened from then on, stayed and developed that civilisation but there could have been parallel development even then of Egyptian civilisation perhaps from what we see of the early pyramids, etc. It wasn’t all at once, come 2100 BC ish that everyone split up and scattered into Europe, Palestine, Asia and perhaps Africa (latter being mysterious it seems). Many carried on speaking moree and more numerous and diverging languages in the cradle of civilisation in the near east – in Elam, Babylon, etc. These are said to have been speakers of semitic languages. Others did settle like the Bible literate relates in places which take their names from their patriarchs – Rhodes, etc. To me it is a challenge though to tie this period in Egyptian history with that of Babylonian history so somewhere in that puzzle might be the beginnings of African history (post-flood) perhaps starting with the southern kingdom of Egypt united with the north but south of which became at some point a separate region and population/race – Nubia and south of that.

  • Stephen, UK

  • Stephen, UK

    Say there were even a mere 100,000 of a single species of dinosaur at any one time. Say that were inconceivably a constantly low figure roughly over 10,000,000 years (even in the unlikely scenario some factors were limiting their population so it didn’t grow to billions or more in all that time but those factors were not enough to wipe them out during those millions of years). Say the dinosaurs lived a hundred years. That’s a total of 100,000 generations and an average of 100,000 alive in each generation. That’s a total of 10,000,000,000 dinosaurs. Now the theories go that actually it was not 10,000,000 years but more than ten times that. So this simple model gives us now, instead, 100,000,000,000 dinosaurs. That’s one species, say. And having a species alive for millions of years with its population sticking at an average over those millions of years at less than a million. Hasn’t anyone wondered that if that were true wouldn’t we be finding a few more of their fossils?! Surely there would be some species reaching millions in even a few thousand years. After 5 thousand years it seems unlikely to not have at least one species reaching a population similar to the numbers humans have reached in the same time these last 5000 years. Then somewhere at least one species growing in numbers still more to what humans might get to in the next thousand years at the rate of growth of today. Even if that population growth evened out within the next thousand years it could reach perhaps a hundred billion or at least ten billion. Surely over millions of years at least one species, even if it evolved, it could surely reach a thousand billion if the world population were considered. Then in the unlikely scenario the species and its evolved descendants had a population which didn’t grow to any more than that even over a hundred million years then we have 1,000,000 generations with a very improbably low average population over those generations of 100,000,000,000 for that one species. That’s 1,000,000 x 100,000,000,000 = 100.000.000.000.000.000 at least of that one species and its evolutionary descendants. Now even if only 0.01 percent of those skeletons survived to today it would be 10,000,000,000,000 fossils.

    Now, if the dinosaur species evolved into a new species on average every 100,000 years then over 160,000,000 years there would be 1600 species from just that one species if there were only the one branch. If there was a split of branches every million years, say, there would be something like 1600 x 2 after 1,000,000 years, 1600 x 2 x 2 species after 2 million years 1600 x 2 to the power of a hundred species after 100 million years = 10 to the power of 33 species. So how come there have only been a few thousand species discovered and the estimated total number of species is less than a hundred thousand species worldwide. If there were one species evolving like that then why not end up with so many species over millions of years that you could have billions of billions of billions of billions of species in even just 30 million years and if each species max’d out at just a few tens of million members of the entire population ever (assuming it only reached the population mankind in a small vicinity like the UK has reached in less than 10,000 years, even though each species could last 100,000 years before evolving) we are talking of ten million members in total of each of those billions of billions of billions of billions of species.

    This doesn’t seem to match the number of dinosaurs found! We’re talking, by a conservative estimate, of the order of 10 to the power of 35 dinosaurs over 160 million years and ten to the power of 33 species if the evolution were to a new species every 100,000 years and branching into just two branches every million years. In short the idea of having enough years to account for the modern popular interpretations of the fossil evidence is absurd in the extreme and that is an understatement.

    I don’t see why I’m flamed for doubting the figures when they insist on hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

  • Stephen, UK

    Say we humour the evolutionists a little, for the sake of helping reasoning people. Say a species evolves into another every 100,000 years and a branch occurs every million years. After 10 million years there might be an average of branches having occurred 10 times which gives us 2 to the power of 10 species from branches alone. That’s about 1000. If the each branch evolved once every 100 thousand years the calculation simplified leads to the first branch producing over the entire time on its own about 10 species and in the last 100,000 years there might be 500 branches each producing 10 species which equals 5000 species in the last million years. There might be 250 times 10 in the million years before that (2500), etc. 5000 + 2500 + 1250 + 625 + 310 + 150 + 70 + 35 + 18 + 10 = approximately ten thousand species in just ten million years. Now less than 4000 species of dinosaur have been found so far I hear. If we extended this crude model of evolution theory to 20 million years and assumed something stopped the branching happening again in that time, we’d have each of these 10,000 species evolving ten times to give us 100,000 species. That seems to be a limit on how many dinosaur species we’d expect if there have only been less than 4000 found. If there are these rates of evolution – one new species from an existing one in an average of 100,000 years and at first a single branch of each species in 2 million years – we might crudely be looking at just 20 million years that could match the evidence. The idea of branches never happening seems ridiculous so we would have to accept the figures as being conservative if only once every ten evolutions being a branch. If every evolution were a branch and the original species usually survived, then a new species from an existing one every 100,000 years obviously produces the 100,000 total of species in an awful lot less than 20 million years – say less than a million at a guess (not wanting to work it all out) producing about 3 to the power of 8 or 9 species. If any evolution happens at all, maybe it seems likely it might produce a new species from an old one on average once every 10,000 years, so we would be looking at getting a hundred thousand species in only a hundred thousand years (not even bothering to calculate it since this is all so speculative and since I don’t think we can say any of this for sure). If you insist on 160 million years of evolution of dinosaurs alone, aren’t you asking for belief that a dinosaur species produced two new ones only once every million years or more. To me that is rediculous in view of what evolution I think is said to have happened since the last ice age alone. So to me, though I don’t believe in the theories of evolution much at all, if it were like they say it seems the dinosaurs could only have possibly existed for a period of 100,000 years and so this puts all the related ‘science’ in question to a rediculous extent. But since modern science seems to be built on philosophies that any idea that can be disproved but has not yet been disproved is classed as science, I don’t see why I have to believe science at all anyway – not science called such by this philosophy (Popperian science that is). I’d rather limit science far more than that so that I can actually find a decent percentage to be worthy of belief by changing the criteria of what is called science. I’d rather, in fact, make my own mind up about what consitutes science, not just let one philosopher (Popper) dictate it. To me an idea which seems rediculous but just hasn’t yet been disproved does not constitute science. If it does then science should not be believed just because it is accepted as science – that would seem foolhardy in the extreme.

  • Stephen, UK

    So it seems the facts are unlikely to support a theory of dinosaurs evolving for millions of years: even a million years is very unlikely (it would require a new species only evolving from a previous one much less frequently than once every 100,000 years and hardly any branching at all). If evolution happened such that a new dinosaur species evolved from each existing dinosaur species every 10,000 years, say, and branching usually occurred then the longest time the existence of a mere 100,000 species (the most likely to have ever existed, likely far fewer than that) would support would be at most 100,000 years of such evolution. (This is where creation of most of the actual species or types of species seems a bit more fitting with the evidence, ‘types’ corresponding to the Scriptures referring to creation of ‘beasts’ and ‘monsters’ ‘after their kinds’.) So scrutinising this model of the evolution theory and the evidence regarding dinosaurs we next come to the actual numbers found and what the model would predict of that. If there were 100,000 years of dinosaurs with low numbers of species at first greatly expanding to up to 100,000 species after 100,000 years by a reasonable rate of evolution, we’d expect each species in the last 20,000 years to give us say a million dinosaurs per species on average at least. That’s because any species lasting 20,000 years would have to be in a stable population state or it would just become extinct and I can’t see how any species with less than a population averaging a million over much of that time could be said to be in a stable population state (unless isolated to a few small islands which would be the exception, surely). So we’d have on average at least 50,000 species each having a million individuals in each generation over the last 20,000 years. If their generations lasted 100 years even on average then we are looking at 200 generations over 20,000 years (probably more for some species, maybe less for others like the larger ones which might live a lot longer like giant tortoises today/recently). So that means in just the last 20,000 years we could be looking at something like 200 x 1,000,000 x 50,000 individuals. Likely though that in the last 20,000 years there were far fewer species, maybe just 5,000 at most. That’s still 1,000,000,000,000 individual dinosaurs if they had been around some 80,000 years, say but in the model just having 10,000 species at the end means only having some 50,000 years of dinosaurs, say (less than 100,000 years or there’d be more species if evolution were as modelled here). To account for just 10,000 species we’d be looking at a total of maybe 30 to 50,000 years if they came about through an expected rate of evolution (with a fair amount of branching). Now how many individuals would that be? The last 10,000 years would give us maybe 5,000 species with at least a million in each generation and maybe 100 generations. That’s 500 billion. That’s like ten times the human population now. So the total number over 50,000 years might be double that at least or a trillion individual dinosaurs. That makes me wonder why so few fossils. Still it seems that evolution would require that kind of model. So in conclusion, a modest, simple model of dinosaur population would make me think that if dinosaurs have evolved the way a simple understanding of the theories seem to suggest (without contriving them to blind us with science) then the total time for such evolution would be of the order of much less than 50,000 years. Extrapolation of the model to fit with the numbers of fossils found, including the conclusion that they lived much more recently so more fossils are likely to have survived, I’d say a trillion is too many and we’d be looking therefore at far less than even 50,000 years. Perhaps we’d only be looking for thousands rather than tens of thousands of years which implies/models to far less evolution and the possibility all the more of some creation, perhaps even a Biblical explanation fitting the model (as I indeed believe and have now, I think, demonstrated – debatably). The idea of asking that we believe it was 160,000,000 years just seems completely outrageous and impossible to explain with any kind of sense. If we are to believe it was that long that dinosaurs were around and they were evolving in that time then where are 1) the individual surviving fossils I’d expect and 2) the number of species I’d expect? Easier to believe either 1) evolution happened only within broad types of species (which we therefore could sensibly accept were originally created) 2) the dinosaurs were only around for much much less than 100,000 years (and if that’s the case, as it seems to me, and there was some creation at the start of that time of the broad types of species, then sensibly acceptable also that there could have been far less years than that, perhaps of the order of thousands rather than tens of thousands of years of living dinosaurs). So it seems there could be some evolution but not necessarily of types of sprecies, just within species and types of species maybe. Plus it seems the evolution happening over just a few thousand years would fit the facts (and a sensible model of the facts) better than millions of years. Then I’d want to revise the geology theories wherever they have depended on the long term dinosaur evolution idea. The idea that this isn’t sensible reasoning but blind stupidity is outrageous to me. It’s the first time I’ve attempted to put the reasoning down in words and figures and to model it but it’s always been somewhere there in my psyche and probably is to a lot more people. The Scriptures tell us it is plain to anyone. I guess I just showed why I feel it’s sensible to agree. The reason I agree is more to do with the fact that the Christ clearly taught that such scriptures that say this are to be heeded and believed and the clearly authoritative nature of the person of the Christ and God’s witness about Him that He is His Son. Even if I were ignorant of that though (as many were for millenia) I’d still accept that creation must have happened and clearly within the last 100,000 years (more likely within the past several thousand years). No wonder to me others since the start of human civilisation believed roughly this even without the Scriptures and the Christ and His Spirit.

  • Stephen, UK

    Maybe it is acceptable to say that I have just, above, proved at least the likelihood of creation (even if there has been some evolution) and therefore the likelihood (or perhaps even the certainty, depending on the weight ascribed to these ‘arguments’) of the existence of a Creator (just need to call Him God and it is ‘proof of the existence of God’). Didn’t take much to do. Not to say people will accept it but then it’s my right to accept it over the counter ‘proof’ of the non-existence of creation and a Creator. Who can reasonably say I’m not being reasonable?

  • Stephen, UK

    I guess all the philosophy of science requires that people do to get one back for evolution and atheism is to try to disprove the proof. Science philosophy like Popper’s says you can’t prove something, only disprove it so no matter if someone ‘proves’ creation happened, they will just insist it isn’t proof but another theory waiting to be disproved. So the eternal cycle of uncertainty continues. No matter someone might quite easily disprove evolution; people who want to insist on keeping to atheism, whatever anyones’ science might say, and evolution, no matter if it is disproved, from modern philosophy of science principles (worldly principles best ignored to reach and preserve the truth, but sometimes useful for persuading folk to believe) they can just say that the disproof of evolution can itself be disproved which lets them carry on as before. So much for what people call science. At least I have satisfied myself by a process of proving that it is reasonable to dismiss evolution as a counter to creation. If evolution happened it was over a short period. If over a short period then the evidence doesn’t really stand up but even if it does you can just as well say that creation has occurred prior to evolution to account for such a short period. If millions of years aren’t there in Earth’s biological history (because the evidence doesn’t allow for it) then there is no unimaginably long time for evolutionists to hide behind and creation accounts for the evidence better than evolution. There must have been something there thousands of years ago from which species have evolved but there can’t have been biological things there hundreds of thousands of years ago (not things like dinosaurs) because there would be so many different individuals and species – which doesn’t account for so small a number of species and fossils found today. Even just a few tens of thousands of years would have left so many dinosaur fossils we’d have found far, far more of them – taking dinosaurs as an indicator. The numbers mean there must have been less than a trillion dinosaurs and maybe 10,000 species at most. That means a few thousand years of dinosaurs evolving – or less evolution than would be needed to account for all the species we have found – or both. That means some dinosaur species existed from the start, not zero, to get what we have found. That leaves only the possibility that there were created species at the start or we would have had to have had leaps and branches of evolution and millions of species and trillions of trillions of individuals. Plus it means the length of time the dinosaurs were around is consistent with the Bible Scripture record of a creation just thousands, not tens of thousands, of years ago or there would be far, far more dinosaur fossils (probably trillions of them remaining). The alternative would be that each species had only a few dinosaurs per generation and millions and millions of species and even then we are talking a maximum of a hundred thousand years. It doesn’t stack up so the easiest alternative explanation is creation a few thousand years ago. A creation means the simplest explanation is a Creator. It also vindiactes the Scriptures which attest to all this and that means the most likely explanation is that the Scriptures have it right and the Creator is God through The Christ, His Son, The Son of Man. That means there are angels too, working as a kind of force of contract managers for the will of the Creator over His creation. That means there are spirits, there is the human spirit, the future can influence the present, there is an afterlife, there will be a judgement, the Christ will return, possibly after 6000 years since creation or about 2130 ish AD or perhaps before, which means there may be people being born now who will still be alive (at the rate life expentancy is increasing in the rich countries) and some of those might become believers in the Christ and therefore be transformed into immortals when he comes and therefore we could now be witnessing the first of a large number of humans (second creation humans) who will never die. Exciting times. Let’s hope the atheists and antichrists don’t spoil it too much but they will probably keep causing lots of trouble until the Christ comes and confounds those of them who remain. It also means the Christ’s death was indeed for sins and that He lives to provide believers with the High Priest they need and eventually to raise those of them who die from the dead. Might as well get it all in :-)

  • Stephen, UK

    overall scenario modeling parameters:
    final total worldwide number of dinosaur species at end:
    10,000
    average worldwide number of individuals per species:
    1,000,000 to 100,000,000
    number of evolution cycles to reach 10,000 species:
    8

    scenario #1:
    years before average dinosaur species evolves with a branch:
    100,000
    total number of years to reach 10,000 species:
    800,000
    parameters in last 100,000 years of their evolution:
    average 5000 species,
    100,000 years = 100,000 to 1,000,000 generations,
    calculation:
    individuals during last evolution cycle:
    (1,000,000 x 5000 x 100,000) to (100,000,000 x 5000 x 1,000,000)
    = 500,000,000,000,000 to 500,000,000,000,000,000
    say 0.001 to 0.01% of individual skeletons survive as fossils in further 100,000 years:
    worldwide number fossils existing:
    50,000,000,000 to 50,000,000,000,000
    dinosaur fossils per head of human population:
    1 to 1,000
    outcome conclusion:
    *unlikely*

    scenario #2:
    years before average dinosaur species evolves with a branch:
    10,000
    total number of years to reach 10,000 species:
    80,000
    parameters in last 10,000 years of their evolution:
    average 5000 species,
    10,000 years = 10,000 to 100,000 generations,
    calculation:
    individuals during last evolution cycle:
    (1,000,000 x 5000 x 10,000) to (100,000,000 x 5000 x 100,000)
    = 50,000,000,000,000 to 50,000,000,000,000,000
    say 0.01 to 0.1% of individual skeletons survive as fossils in further 10,000 years:
    worldwide number fossils existing:
    50,000,000,000 to 50,000,000,000,000
    dinosaur fossils per head of human population:
    1 to 1,000
    outcome conclusion:
    *unlikely*

    scenario #3:
    years before average dinosaur species evolves with a branch:
    1,000,000
    total number of years to reach 10,000 species:
    8,000,000
    parameters in last 1,000,000 years of their evolution:
    average 5000 species,
    1,000,000 years = 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 generations,
    calculation:
    individuals during last evolution cycle:
    (1,000,000 x 5000 x 1,000,000) to (100,000,000 x 5000 x 10,000,000)
    = 5,000,000,000,000,000 to 5,000,000,000,000,000,000
    say 0.001 to 0.01% of individual skeletons survive as fossils in further 1,000,000 years:
    worldwide number fossils existing:
    50,000,000,000 to 50,000,000,000,000
    dinosaur fossils per head of human population:
    10 to 10,000
    outcome conclusion:
    *unlikely fit to number of fossils found so far*

    scenario #4:
    years before average dinosaur species evolves with a branch:
    20,000,000
    total number of years to reach 10,000 species:
    160,000,000
    parameters in last 1,000,000 years of their evolution:
    average 5000 species,
    20,000,000 years = 20,000,000 to 200,000,000 generations,
    calculation:
    individuals during last evolution cycle:
    (1,000,000 x 5000 x 20,000,000) to (100,000,000 x 5000 x 200,000,000)
    = 100,000,000,000,000,000 to 100,000,000,000,000,000,000
    say 0.001 to 0.01% of individual skeletons survive as fossils in further 20,000,000 years:
    worldwide number fossils existing:
    1,000,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,000,000,000
    dinosaur fossils per head of human population:
    200 to 200,000
    outcome conclusion:
    *very unlikely fit to number of fossils found so far*

    scenario #5:
    years before average dinosaur species evolves with a branch:
    none (creation, only a little evolution)
    total number of years to reach 10,000 species:
    0 to 1000
    parameters in last 1,000 years of their existence:
    average 5000 species,
    1,000 years = 1 to 10 generations,
    calculation:
    individuals during first 1,000 years of their existence:
    (1,000,000 x 5000 x 1) to (100,000,000 x 5000 x 10)
    = 5,000,000,000 to 5,000,000,000,000
    say 0.01 to 0.1% of individual skeletons survive as fossils in further 5,000 years:
    worldwide number fossils existing:
    50,000,000 to 50,000,000,000
    dinosaur fossils per head of human population:
    0.01 to 10
    outcome conclusion:
    *much more likely fit to number of fossils found so far*

  • Stephen, UK

    In my opinion it’s notoriously difficult to see how evolution could ever be disproved, which isn’t to say it’s true; just that it’s the sort of theory which is difficult to disprove. Whenever one bit gets disproved it just gets changed with a workaround, or more likely the disproof just gets ignored because so many want it to be true (or to be taught) no matter what. In that sense it isn’t really scientific, more a willful, popular mindset. What is more, people seem to think that the virtue of evolution theory is that they seem to think it disproves creation. That doesn’t in itself make it a good scientific theory. Who decides whether it is truly scientific? People with an axe to grind against creation? Interesting story in the news in UK today that half of people surveyed said that creation should be taught in schools. That could be seen as evidence in favour of creation – that so many believe there could be something to it despite all that is said about evolution. I believe that it is worth looking into whether creation could have happened suddenly less than 10,000 years ago. That belief eventually made me try doing some sums. As a result it seems to make sense. There are some nice fossils around which look far too well preserved to be more than a few thousand years old. I was looking at one in Bristol Museum in UK this month and it is one of those that still had scales of skin on it – it looked like a large lizard, like it might barely have been extinct. The observed distribution of fossils of this same species seem to be similar to what you’d expect for non-extinct large lizards rather than the remains of one of a population existing for hundreds of thousands of years. It’s like finding a single locust in a field and being told it is the only survivor of a whole plague of them which swept the fields a week or so ago. Where are the others? Surely if there was a plague there would be countless others where that one was found. If you say the plague was so long ago that the evidence has gone, then how come that one individual was found? It doesn’t seem to be true at all that there were millions of years in which dinosaurs, many species being huge, were wandering the earth. It just doesn’t seem at all true because surely if you find one fossil you’d be finding thousands of others one on top the other which had died over all those millions of years. How can this be true? I don’t care who tells me it is. The creation account seems far more likely in view of the numbers and distribution of dinosaurs we find; one here, another there. In the UK the ones found are from the same species. Surely that shows population numbers spanning hundreds of years, not millions of years. Millions of years would mean we’d be incredibly unlikely to find any two from the same species in such a small country – or alternatively we’d find millions all the same and millions of other species too. And if they were evolving then we’d expect that either no two exact same species would be found or many different species with a whole range of continuous variation between one species and another – certainly not two ot three separate individuals of exactly the same species but from different places. And when there are hardly any other types of dinosaurs found in the UK. How much disproving evidence does it take to have people shelve the theory? If people just don’t like the possibility that a creation means a Creator then they will just ignore such opposing evidence and hang onto as much supporting evidence as they can. I thought Karl Popper laid down principles for science to rule that sort of thing out as unscientific. Proper (forgive pun) Popperian science is meant to focus on opposing evidence (rather than endless cases of supporting evidence which he claimed could never prove a theory no matter how many cases there were). Not that I’d put philosophical arguments above common sense and sound judgement (such as that of those who wrote the scriptures down) but it kind of supports the view that evolution isn’t a theory being conducted scientifically by modern criteria.

  • Jill

    I ummm yahhhh!! hahahahaha

  • Stephen, UK

    So “Let God be true and every man a liar.”

  • Ralph

    I say let God be your source for info period

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

80beats

80beats is DISCOVER's news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day's most compelling topics.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »