Comments on: Why Evolution is True

By: Moderate

Moderate — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:20:53 +0000

Which theories, Jimmy? There is another article this week about the “fraud” (their words, not mine) of evolutionary theories in NEWSWEEK magazine. This one had to do with DNA sequencing. I have just happened upon a couple in TIME magazine over the past few months – one having to do with Ardi and the puzzling sequence to Lucy to humans, the other having to do with the big meteor thought to have killed all the dinosaurs only it didn’t according to newest information. Interesting that they don’t ever make the headlines. They certainly should! Wait a minute, I thought it was Creationists with a hidden agenda. With all these important new findings in the news, with sadly little coverage, how can I really buy evolutionary theory in totality, especially in relation to the origins of humans? And why is it so hard for you to accept?

By: jimmy

jimmy — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:44:36 +0000

wait a minute, have you guys actually thought this throught and make a decision to believe in these theories?

By: Moderate

Moderate — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:41:31 +0000

Bad astronomy or bad science?

By: Moderate

Moderate — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:20:53 +0000

Why Evolution is true? Bahahaha That is a broad statement? Which part is true?

By: Moderate

Moderate — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:39:32 +0000

I don’t know if any of the original friends here are still reading. I just came across ANOTHER article in te TIME 10/12/09 issue (very current) which casts doubt on the theroy of the origins of man in light of evolutionary theory. Hmmm – it is about Ardi – “long lost relative” – 1.2 million years older than Lucy. Seems this presents some problems to the original hypotheses. BTW – when doing science – its always wise to have a larger sample than 1 or two befoe making broad generalizations, don’t you thihk? I could not find a link for the TIME article, but there seems to be one for the same subject in national geographic dated just today. ews.nationalgeographic.com/…/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

quoted fromt eht TIME article “Figuring out the story of human origins is like assembling a huge, complicatd jigsaw puzzle that has lost most of its pieces. Many will never be found, and those that do are sometimes hard to place…” They took 15 years to find and assemble Ardi and plant sediment around there – “perhaps most importatnt, Ardi provides clues to what the last common ancestor shared by humans and chimps might have looked like before their lineages diverged about 7 milion years ago. The surprising thing is that she bears little resemblance to chimpanzees, our closest living primate relatives. The elusive common ancestor’s bones have never been found, but scientists working from evidence available envisioned great great grandpa to have looked most nearly like a knuckle walking, tree-swinging ape. But Ardi is not chimplike, which means our last common ancestor probably wasn’t either. This skeleton flips our understanding of human evolution…It’s clear that humans are not merely a slight modification of chimps, despite their genomic similarity.” On and on

I have told you all I really have to go on are these things that pass my ways and my own thoughts, intuition , and experience. But can you see why I can’t completely buy into this theory of human evolution? The theory keeps flipping and is not solid whatsoever. Scienctists envisionments continously get proven wrong – just like that TIME article I accidentally found and then posted for you last April. Holes holes holes. We try to fill in the gaps with science, but what is found only rips a bigger hole.

By: keith

keith — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:08:11 +0000

Please, Charles, make your stand clear. It doesn’t seem as if you’re supporting the article written above, but it doesn’t seem as if you’re opposing it either. Anyway, you said
‘God is governed by no rules. God’s will be done. ‘ You also said ‘The primary rules changed big time. And, God makes the rules.’ You probably don’t mean it, you make it seem as if God changes the primary rules for his own benefit as he changes, which isn’t very accurate.
Also, do you understand what rules mean? The difference between right and wrong, the point that God can only do what is right and pure, don’t you accept that as a rule? The point that sin cannot be allowed in heaven, is that not a rule? Also, has it changed from time to time? Some things truly and can be changed, but why do they do so?
Anyway, your stand seems to have changed from evolution to change. Hopefully you do realize the difference.

By: Charles J. Slavis, Jr.

Charles J. Slavis, Jr. — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:43:20 +0000

Pardon my astronomy typo. I rarely check spellings but you can still get the thoughts intended.