Miracles

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

– Albert Einstein

Two weeks ago, I was at a party in England attended by a man who believes the evolution of life on Earth occurred by random chance. His name was Richard Dawkins. I felt sorry for him – missing out on the glory of God’s creation.

  

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Miracles

  1. Texas Sharp-shooter says:

    The light came into the world but men loved love the darkness because they think they can hide there and keep doing what they want. ‘Cause why would you want perfect freedom when you can keep doing stuff?

  2. Andy DC says:

    Everyone and everything is just a random collection of molecules, including yourself. There is nothing special about the unique personality and soul inhabiting your body. We are nothing special and whatever else inhabits our world is nothing special either. It’s all just one big random happening. How depressing it must be to go through life believing that!

    • Reasonable Skeptic says:

      As an atheist I don’t feel depressed at all. I just accept (my opinion, not a fact) that life comes from evolution and humanity is just a result of that process.

      IMO the only difference between us and other animals is our brain power.

      I totally respect religion though and I still celebrate holidays as I did as a child. To me they are culturally important and they have meaning for me and deep meaning for others.

      So Merry Christmas to everybody!

      • dave1billion says:

        The issue I have with atheism (as opposed to a healthy dose of agnosticism) is that if we accept that thesis then we have to accept that the universe is nothing more than a pre-determined series of events laid down at the beginning of the big bang.

        From there the inevitable conclusion is that there is no free will only the illusion of free will. (I won’t argue the concepts of free will from a Christian perspective. I would refer you to St. Augustine who did a much better job 1600 years ago than I ever could).

        If I’m walking in the jungle and see a Mayan pyramid there, I assume that someone designed and created it. Taking atheism to its logical conclusion, that’s false. It’s just the end of a long line of predetermined collisions of atoms and quantum interactions that is no more meaningful than an asteroid crater on the moon.

        BTW, I respect some atheists more than many believers (of whatever stripe) because at least they’ve taken the time to question the nature of the universe and issues like those I’ve mentioned above. I don’t respect the likes of Dawkins though, who ridicules those who doesn’t share his absolutism and thinks that religion is the root of all evil.

        So Merry Christmas to you too.

        • neal s says:

          A common mistake is to think that God is incapable of ensuring certain outcomes and events, unless he has made a universe without free will. On the contrary, God has not only given us the gift of life, but also the gift of free will. And despite your inability to believe or understand how he has done this, God is able to accomplish what he wills despite his gift of free will to us.

      • Gator says:

        Merry Christmas RS!

      • neal s says:

        Merry Christmas to you as well. I dare say that macro-evolution is as well supported by facts as CAGW is. (Which is to say not at all!)

        I invite you to visit the following sites and engage your brain.

        http://scienceagainstevolution.info/topics.htm

        http://detectingdesign.com/

  3. Kris Johanson says:

    The hawk’s eyes are of a special design. Just eyesight/vision itself – on a chemical/cellular level – is an incredible engineering feat; hawks & eagles take that to a new level…

    • dave1billion says:

      Interesting, because Dawkins uses the development of increasingly sophisticated “eyes” as one of his primary devices to illustrate evolution.

      I’m not trying to point out any irony or anything, it’s just an interesting coincidence.

  4. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    “The happiest man is he who learns from nature the lesson of worship.”
    Ralph Waldo Emerson.

  5. gnome says:

    So if a god didn’t create it it doesn’t exist? Dawkins never saw a sunset, because he thinx there’s no god?
    It’s no wonder you god-believers are discounted, intellectually.

    • tonyheller says:

      I see this sort of wildly irrational straw man argument from climate alarmists too.

    • RAH says:

      It is always the same. One professes their faith in God and someone who’s faith is that there is no God comes rushing in to denigrate the beliefs and intellect of the believer.

      Their actions and words reveal their insecurity.

      • arn says:

        Both sides have a certain field of insecurity,
        but in the western world the atheists are far more annoying nowadays,
        as i’ve barely heard from religious people trying to convince me that there is a god,but many atheists tried to tell me there is none.
        While religious people just state there is a god,
        atheists want to convince you there is none.

        That’s why i prefer agnostics-
        they know that they don’t know and are unlike atheists not so afraid of god that they are obsessed denying him.
        As Atheists not just did everything in a much worser way they blamed religions for:
        Communists killed far more than 100 mio people in 60 years-more than any religion
        +all their countries turned always into pisspoor poverty ridden cultureless shitholes((while religious countries always developed cultures and many times wealth)),
        i’d put atheists at the least place on my list.

        + the supremacy of them is annoying as one can see in gnomes “intellectually discounted” comment.
        And i’m pretty sure if we would get the opportunity to compare Tonys and Gnomes intellectual skills and achievements in Live we would find out that nomen-est-omen Gnome turns out to be the mental dwarf with the much lower iq.
        And i’m also sure that gnome would never ever in his life dare to call a religious man “intellectually discounted” as long as the believer is muslim.

        Another thing gnome does not realise in his small world:
        It does not matter wether sunsets etc exists or not or who created them-
        the question here is:Where does my conscious come from
        to experience this things and to realise the existing beauty ,
        in such things which make live worth living,
        instead of being just a primitive reflex machine without passion,compassion,creativity,love,awareness to improve and to differ between right or wrong((though pervert commies are doing everything to change this)) etc-
        as all these things are not needed for us to exist as humans,but they are there((even when you surpress and ignore them as selfworshipping (pseudo)intellectuals like to do.

        I don’t know if there is a god,but i know God
        is the final thought of an Atheist before he dies:)

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      It’s no wonder you god-believers are discounted, intellectually.

      What a fine example of circular reasoning.

      Believers are discounted, intellectually, by those who discount others, intellectually.

      The creation of species is driven by random chance and the survival of the fittest, i.e. survival of those that are the fittest to survive.

      Science®.

  6. richard says:

    I loved God’s initial experiments with dinosaurs for a 165 million years before he decided on a sea change and here we are today.

    I wonder what his next experiment will be.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Your conception of ‘dinosaurs’ is off.
      The evidence we have shows that that time period was rich and abundant and prolific. Plant & animal kingdoms were much larger and diverse than now. The plant fossils are huge. Animals and microbes were very complex and abundant.
      It doesn’t appear to be an “experiment”.
      Life in ages past used the same information coding system that we have today. (4 letters on one alphabet, and 20 letters on another alphabet, working in perfect harmony)

  7. Zuba says:

    You are the one missing out on the beauty of evolution and universe in general. Evolution is so powerful and so beautiful at the same time that the fairy-tales of bronze-age goat-herders pale in comparison.

    • tonyheller says:

      Zuba apparently didn’t read the three sentences of the blog post, and chose to argue against his own straw man. Typical of atheists.

    • Gator says:

      So a fairy tale from late Bronze Age philosophers who believed the Earth was flat is better?

      The proposal that one type of organism could descend from another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Classical_times

      I guess that is a matter of opinion.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Which Evolution do you believe in when you say, “Evolution is so powerful”?

      Darwin didn’t have a mechanism; there was no knowledge of DNA polymerase and Meiotic cell division in those days. He was more concerned with proving the superiority of the Anglo Saxon race. Hence the subtitle of his 1st book, “…and the preservation of favored races”, and the thrust of his 2nd book, “The descent of man”.

      “Natural selection acting on random mutations” doesn’t work as a creative force, either. It’s a ‘reducing force’, if anything. We have never seen that mechanism producing a new species. Remember, Darwin’s book wasn’t called “How species change over time”; it was “how new species originate”. All we observe is the reshuffling of existing genetic material (reshuffling of the deck of cards), or laboratory recombinations that produce freaks (fruit flies with useless wings or legs growing out of their heads), or sterile polyploidy in the plant kingdom. Currently, there is a crisis with the standard neo-Darwin mechanism.

      We’re left with 2 options: Panspermia (complex life sprung up somewhere else, and we were seeded by another race, or perhaps the seeds of life left another planet and made their own way to earth), or intelligent design. Panspermia doesn’t solve the ‘origins’ problem, it just pushes it back in time and place, and basically creates more technical problems than it solves.

    • GW Smith says:

      Are we to assume that “evolution” is a matter of chance and accident? It’s a wonder how cows don’t give birth to chickens, and atheists don’t give birth to morons. But, perhaps, some do. How small is your conception of “God”?

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Zuba decided that he is the product of powerful random mutations and his evolution is a thing of beauty.

      I’m not going to argue with him.

  8. Talk about missing the forest through the trees. Evidence of God is all around us. You need to open your eyes though.

  9. Frank K. says:

    When atheists denigrate the existence of God, I ask them “Where did the universe come from? A singularity of energy? Some cosmic explosion? Really? Where did the singularity come from? Did anything exist before the big bang? What is time anyway?” Eventually, they throw up their hands in confusion and exclaim “Science!”.

    • RAH says:

      Yep, the big bang theory really threw a wrench in the works for the non believers because they have no scientific explanation for the emergence of or even the nature of the singularity or it’s power.

      • arn says:

        The problem is that our current scientific models to explain universe as it is are so full of flaws
        that scientists had to pull something out of their butts to keep them alive.
        Therefore they literally played god and created dark matter and dark energy out of thin air and increased the mass of our universe overnight by about 300%.

        (and i’m pretty sure they’ll invest so much money and time into cargo cult science to finally prove some day the existence of
        dark matter and dark energy ,because they want it to exist)

        • RAH says:

          When Hubble proved that the Universe was expanding the inevitable conclusion was that it all sprung from a single point.

          As for Dark Matter and Dark energy? That is what Cosmology does. When the math does not agree with the realities of what can be observed then one or the other has to change or be revised. No math could explain the movements of the observed universe so they added something that had not been observed to make the existing math work.

          It solved a lot of problems for them. For example dark matter provides a reason why “the winding dilemma” does not apply to galaxies. Or IOW why despite the varying orbital velocities of the matter in our spiral galaxy it does not contract over time into a tighter and tighter spiral eventually collapsing upon it’s core.

          The black hole at the center of our galaxy hasn’t been observed either, but the assumption it exists explains a lot.

          • dave1billion says:

            I’m a big skeptic of dark matter and dark energy.

            If you need to throw in a fudge factor (that cannot be observed) to accommodate your model of the universe, then the odds are, in my opinion, that your model is in need of revision.

            It’s an example of the same “curve fitting” that we see in all of the climate models. You throw in factors that make your hind-casting accurate, then use that same model to project future conditions. Rubbish!

            I do accept (believe in?) the existence of the supermassive black hole at the center of our Galaxy. There has been enough indirect evidence gathered (from our galaxy and others) to satisfy me. But if it is disproven I won’t be stunned either.

          • RAH says:

            I don’t have a opinion because I don’t know. What I do know though it what I stated above. Perhaps there are forces we do not understand and have not yet been able to detect. But the alternative is to say that some fundamental physics are wrong.

          • Gator says:

            RAH, another example of atheist lunacy is the Multiverse Hypothesis, which states that there are infinite universes, where everything is a probability. This allows the unfaithful to explain away (in their minds) the miracle we call Earth.

      • arn says:

        And that’s the point.

        If we want to move on we may need a new model and not creating fairy dust to keep things going on the way they are now.

        Newton was king for some time,
        he was dethroned by Einstein(and Einstein was fought in the beginning tooth and nails),
        and it may be necessary to dethrone Einstein to progress,
        and not trying to explain how universe work
        and then come up with the “fact” that up to 70- 95%(depending which scientist you ask) of the universe consist from a matter we can not observe.

        When you want to explain something
        and your theory only can survive with the excuse that you can only observe 5% of that something and know nothing about the remaining 95% than you are completely of the road.

        btw-there is a huge difference between blackholes and dark matter.
        It is very well explained why they can not be observed and why they very probably exist,dark matter has nothing like that.

        My problem with black holes is that i do not understand why black holes can violate a fundamental principel.
        Whenever a huge mass can force something into its orbit
        (atoms-electron//sun-planets//planets moon)
        the huge mass in the center needs to be 90% of the entire system to develop a strong enough gravity to force the small mass into its orbit.
        But our black hole seems to have at best 10% of our galaxies mass((if i remember right))
        but still can force millions and millions of stars into its orbit.

        • Rah says:

          One has to start somewhere. Other hypothesis will come along. It just takes time, the right mind(s), and the observational tools. I think it is a mistake to color Astronomers and Cosmologists with the same crayon one would use for the climate change crowd.

  10. RAH says:

    I can’t see how anyone can contemplate a clear dark night sky in an isolated place and not know deep in their soul that there is a God. On my way back home from my last trip I stopped off at the dead end at the Meteor Crater road exit off I-40 just to enjoy the view of the night sky. It is something I used to be able to do often when my loads would take me out that way.

    Now after that long trip to the SW I will be going NE. Deliver in Bolton, ON. tomorrow morning. Will be driving all night since I can’t leave until the load gets here from Laredo, TX. This will only be only the fourth load this year that has taken me to Canada.

    • Zuba says:

      I’ve heard of someone who saw the clear dark night sky for the first time and “immediately knew” that there was no god. I guess that view put human fairytales into their proper perspective.

      • Rah says:

        Provide the scientific evidence there is no God. You can’t, just as I can’t provide the hard evidence there is a God. We both base our judgments on faith. You however are so arrogant and so small minded that you cannot tolerate people that have beliefs that differ from your own. Go away little man.

  11. Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene” provided a scientific basis for Ayn Rand’s biocentric “objectivist ethics.” Intellectuals of the looter persuasion had struggled since 1957 to redefine altruism so as to atribute it to birds and mammals and make it seem “natural.” Amusingly, Dawkins never realized this and has spent time and column-inches apologizing to totalitarians for making them uncomfortable with his discoveries. What Dawkins does not take into account is that illness makes people susceptible to many other things, including mysticism.

  12. willys36 says:

    Evolution is not science, it is a hypothesis – “something is unproven or speculative”. there is as yet no proof and nothing demonstrated that it is provable. That is exactly what evolution is. NOTHING has been proven, no SCIENTIFIC experiment has been devised to show it has merit, no SCIENTIFIC principles can be shows to support it.

    Conversely a Theory is a “supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.” according to Webster.

    So far Darwinism is more akin to a religion than a scientific theory.

    • dave1billion says:

      I don’t think we can doubt the process of “natural selection”.

      It can be seen in the process that will favor a bird with one shape of bill over another bird with a slightly different shape of bill in a given environment, allowing that bird to compete more successfully and to have a better chance to pass on its genes. In time, this and other beneficial mutations could lead to a new “species”, hence evolution.

      Just don’t ask me how natural selection accounts for the development of human consciousness (or even an amoeba) from the hydrogen and helium that composed the entirety of the universe a few minutes after the Big Bang.

    • Zuba says:

      Please update your worldview. The DNA of all organisms is direct proof that species developed from other species. This hard fact is never going to change, please don’t get stuck on the wrong side of history.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock

      • Gator says:

        It is called the “Molecular Clock Hypothesis. It is not fact, it is speculation.

        The molecular clock hypothesis states that DNA and protein sequences evolve at a rate that is relatively constant over time and among different organisms.

        https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-molecular-clock-and-estimating-species-divergence-41971

        Why is it that folks always want to promote these hypotheses to fact? Hmmm….

        • Rah says:

          Cause they don’t know any better.

        • Zuba says:

          Even if the clocks are not accurate, the genomes are direct evidence of mutations and how they passed from species to species. One can literally see how a mutation in a gene in species 1 passed to species 3 via species 2. Checkmate.

          The clocks, while inaccurate, still help with timing things:

          https://theconversation.com/dna-dating-how-molecular-clocks-are-refining-human-evolutions-timeline-65606

          • Kris Johanson says:

            No it isn’t.
            There isn’t enough matter (10^80 particles) or time (10^14 events) to self assemble even one small 80-amino-acid protein if you put all that matter in a peanut butter jar at perfect conditions.
            We have never witnessed a SINGLE PRODUCTIVE FOLD occur through random mutations.

          • Gator says:

            It is a hypothesis.

          • neal s says:

            I just came across an article that may be helpful to those who are amenable to reason.

            http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v22i3f.htm

            It turns out there are also numerous parallels between the bad science of CAGW and the bad science that pushes macro-evolution.

          • AndyG55 says:

            I have a hypothesis, that evolution is God’s way of creating new species…

            … sometime by chance, sometimes with a nudge.

            Us meagre humans would never know which.

            This hypothesis allows both creationism and evolution to exist. :-)

          • neal s says:

            AndyG55 has a theory “that evolution is God’s way of creating new species.” I used to think that myself until I looked into it more and found out that the science behind macro-evolution is as bad (if not worse) than the science behind CAGW.

            Too many people either forget or never knew that science was invented by Bible believers in an effort to better understand God’s creation. Only later has science been subverted to do anything and everything possible to try to deny that God created at all.

  13. Tom Bakert says:

    At the risk of becoming embroiled in an argument about creation and evolution, I would suggest that there is no reason a Divinity could not use non-deterministic methods.

    • dave1billion says:

      Agreed.

    • GW Smith says:

      Divinity, as in something separate from Nature?

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Non-deterministic methods = pain, capriciousness, slow death, countless dead-ends, myriads of freaks, cancer.
      An intelligent designer takes pride in his or her work.
      Telling an artist or architect, “you didn’t make that”, is the height of insult – to be used only on one’s enemies.
      Suggesting that an artist just “threw some paint on a canvas” is a commonplace insult.

  14. Zuba says:

    Forget anything and everything you have heard about evolution in a church. You have been fed inaccurate info – consider asking for you money back…

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Can we have our Federal, State and County taxes back? My schools teach the religions of Marxism and Darwinism and it offends me.

    • gator69 says:

      Who goes to church for science?

      And as for inaccurate info, wasn’t this you, just earlier?

      Please update your worldview. The DNA of all organisms is direct proof that species developed from other species. This hard fact is never going to change, please don’t get stuck on the wrong side of history.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        It’s worse than that, Gator. Even intelligent and knowledgeable people can be and frequently are wrong about specific facts. What we have here is an unscientific mind believing that the scientific method can provide “a proof” of something.

      • richard says:

        “Researchers from Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center have captured and sequenced tiny pieces of collagen protein from a 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex. The protein fragments—seven in all—appear to most closely match amino acid sequences found in collagen of present day chickens”

        • gator69 says:

          “Appear” you say. I hear man made CO2 “could” kill us all.

        • Kris Johanson says:

          So old collagen is similar to modern collagen.
          That doesn’t sound very impressive, if you’re trying to prove scales reinvented themselves as feathers.

        • neal s says:

          And yet for years reports of finding soft tissue in fossils supposedly millions of years old, had been squashed and denied publication. So either the supposition that they are so old is incorrect, or the idea that tissues could not remain that well preserved for millions of years is incorrect or some combination thereof. But so many discoveries have come forth that it can no longer be as easily denied and discounted as it once had been.

  15. richard says:

    The Lord works in mysterious ways allowing us to slowly work out where life started.

    “How life started on Earth? Oldest ever fossils found in 3.5 BILLION-year-old rocks
    SCIENTISTS have identified the earliest life form on Earth in microfossils almost 3.5 billion years old.

  16. Zuba says:

    Yes, evolution is a scientific fact, and this is not going to change, ever, any more than the fact that Earth is old and round.

    DNA proved evolution a long time ago, please get real. The level of direct evidence is this:

    “2. Genetic “scars”. Just as scars stay on our bodies as reminders of past events, the DNA code contains “scars” and these are passed on from generation to generation. DNA scars result from the deletion or insertion of a block of bases (not just single base changes as in the previous section). Because we have a lot of these (hundreds of thousands) and they can be precisely located, they serve as a historical record of species.”

    Very factual and reasonable. Now, the study of genetic scars proves common ancestry of species:

    “If we have the same scar as chimpanzees and orangutans, then the deletion or insertion must have occurred before these species diverged into separate populations. If we and chimpanzees have a certain scar but orangutans do not, we can conclude the deletion or insertion must have occurred after the common ancestor of chimps and humans separated from our common ancestor with orangutans. In this way we can create a detailed family tree of common ancestors.”

    Checkmate & Superjackpot. Creationists were wrong. Now deal with it.

    Source:

    https://biologos.org/common-questions/human-origins/what-scientific-evidence-do-we-have-about-the-first-humans

    • gator69 says:

      God you are an idiot…

      The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring.

      Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.

      https://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

      It is a theory, not a fact. Go get an education, and come back someday when you are better equipped to discuss science with the adults.

    • gator69 says:

      Evolutionary biologist Kirk J. Fitzhugh writes that scientists must be cautious to “carefully and correctly” describe the nature of scientific investigation at a time when evolutionary biology is under attack from creationists and proponents of intelligent design. Fitzhugh writes that while facts are states of being in nature, theories represent efforts to connect those states of being by causal relationships:

      “‘Evolution’ cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations. Regardless of one’s certainty as to the utility of a theory to provide understanding, it would be epistemically incorrect to assert any theory as also being a fact, given that theories are not objects to be discerned by their state of being.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory#Evolution_as_a_collection_of_theories_not_fact

      You have your own religion, your own set of beliefs, and that is fine as long as you respect the beliefs of others. Nobody likes a zealot. I have no issue with you taking evolution on faith. But you seem to have some serious issues, not the least of which is the inabilty to discern the difference between fact and theory.

      • Zuba says:

        Evidence shows that earlier species gave birth to later species. If you want to nitpick that it was not “evolution” that made this happen, you are entitled to your opinion. But you cannot sidestep the fact that DNA-evidence proves that earlier species on myth gave birth to later species – you can call the process what you want.

        Creationists and the creation-myth in The Bible are in error. This hard fact is never going to change. Rational people, even religious ones have different ways of dealing with this. Do not put your head in the sand…

        • Zuba says:

          Sorry for the editing-errors.

        • Gator says:

          It is not just my opinion…

          Evolutionary biologist Kirk J. Fitzhugh writes that scientists must be cautious to “carefully and correctly” describe the nature of scientific investigation at a time when evolutionary biology is under attack from creationists and proponents of intelligent design. Fitzhugh writes that while facts are states of being in nature, theories represent efforts to connect those states of being by causal relationships:

          “‘Evolution’ cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations. Regardless of one’s certainty as to the utility of a theory to provide understanding, it would be epistemically incorrect to assert any theory as also being a fact, given that theories are not objects to be discerned by their state of being.”

          Grow up.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Typically, the more people know the less dogmatic they are. Zuba is so certain about his beliefs he considers them facts. He clearly doesn’t understand what you are saying.

  17. Zuba says:

    DNA proves earlier species gave birth to later species and that all species are related. The traces of all of this are in the genomes. The evidence is undeniable. Please get informed.

    • Gator says:

      Of course all species are related, they are all from the same planet, and all use the same building blocks.

      Evolution is a theory, get over it and grow up.

      • Zuba says:

        Species gave birth to other species over billions of years. The Bible got this bit wrong. No problem.

        • gator69 says:

          And you got this bit wrong…

          Please update your worldview. The DNA of all organisms is direct proof that species developed from other species. This hard fact is never going to change, please don’t get stuck on the wrong side of history.</i?

          … and this bit…

          But you cannot sidestep the fact that DNA-evidence proves that earlier species on myth gave birth to later species…

          … and this bit…

          DNA proves earlier species gave birth to later species and that all species are related. The traces of all of this are in the genomes. The evidence is undeniable.

          And again, who turns to the Bible or church for science?

          Ms Zuba, you are as ignorant as the day is long, just like the CAGW zealots who yammer on about proof, and facts that are niether, while they make rabid and false personal attacks.

          Grow up.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            She doesn’t want to. She’s comfortable in her little box.

          • Zuba says:

            What is the bit I got wrong? I presented facts about the histories of species, as revealed by direct DNA evidence. I literally cannot imagine better and clearer evidence than this.

          • neal s says:

            If an alien came across an automotive junkyard and used that same type of thinking, they might imagine some fanciful story about how some vehicles evolved into some other vehicles over time based on certain parts or sub-assemblies being common, and others being different.

            You have been fed certain facts and conclusions and have accepted the conclusions uncritically as if they were facts. You have been lied to, but you are too blind to see it, and perhaps you have no desire to accept you have been fed lies.

            Maybe you have never actually been taught how to reason logically.

            If you really are capable of thinking, then please read at least some of the articles at http://scienceagainstevolution.info/topics-dna.htm

            The things you imagine are slam-dunk for evolution, are anything but.

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Zuba, I bolded your falsehoods. Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills, and ditch all the sophistry.

  18. Zuba says:

    You have probably been lied to about the “scientific debate” over evolution, possibly by some spinster in a church. There is no “debate” in the sciences about whether species gave birth to other species, as this is an established scientific fact that is not going to change. The DNA evidence is literally undeniable, as there’s no explanation how mutations and DNA-scars present in earlier species are also present in the species that evolved from them. Of course if there’s a malevolent demon that planted this evidence to test your faith all bets are off. But then it’s equally possible that the world was created last Thursday… :D

    ps. If you have been subject to misinformation about science by clergymen, inside a church, you should consider asking for you money back…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *