The debate over Darwin 150 years on

November 24, 2009

Debate continues to swirl around the theory of evolution Charles Darwin proposed 150 years ago in his groundbreaking book, “On the Origin of Species,” despite its universal acceptance among scientists.

Before Darwin’s discovery, the world was generally thought to have remained more or less the same since its creation. This belief, based on Biblical interpretations, was contested through fossil studies showing that species change over time.

Darwin’s legendary round-the-world 1831-1836 voyage aboard the HMS Beagle generated his most significant observations and discoveries, inspiring his work on natural selection.

Although Darwin first used the term “natural selection” in a paper in 1842, it wasn’t until 1859 that he published his controversial theory that all living beings share a common ancestry — a discovery that remains vital to modern biology.

Author Nick Spencer, director of studies at Theos, a research organisation launched in 2006 with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, explained why the debate persists to this day.

“People are encountering evolution not so much as a science but as a philosophy,” he told Reuters ahead of a Nov. 24 lecture at Westminster Abbey to mark the anniversary of the exact date on which Darwin’s book was first published.

82 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Just go to the discovery institute, or any of their sister sites. Look at any of their arguments and assertions.Rest assured that every single argument creationists make on their websites are based on either:-Intentional and dishonest representations,-Deliberate MISrepresentations and/or quote mining,-Arguments based on circular or faulty logic,-Or all of the above.Let us provide a prime example of creationist ‘honesty’.A creationist site claimed that an Allosaurus bone had been sent to a lab, with a misleading label on it. The scientist radiometric dated the bone and found the age of the fragment was 10,000 years old. Not millions of years old as was expected.So the creationist sites rant at how this proves that either Young Earth Theory is correct, or that radiometric dating is flawed. And all the little drones who view the information cheerfully pass it on to other sites.But the creationists fail to mention an important fact to the sheep in their flock. The scientist, not knowing what the bone was, was instructed to give the bone radio-carbon dating.The creationists also failed to mention that carbon dating is only accurate for things less then 60,000 years old. Any older fossils will give unusual and incorrect results.So the question was not “is radiocarbon dating accurate, or is young earth correct?” as the creationist claimed.Rather the question in this case was “Is the creationist being intentionally dishonest, or just being an imbecile?”Now this isn’t isolated. Not by a long shot. All creationist arguments follow the same issue:-Evolution caused the holocaust.-Evolution is random chance.-No transitional fossils have ever been found.-There is still a missing link.-Complexity is proof of design.And the pattern? Dishonesty, misquotation, bad logic, simple denial of the facts, or all combined.Now an educated person would easily be able to pick these things up in creationist arguments and recognise them for what they are and represent. And so an educated person would not be convinced by these arguments, whether they are Christian or not.Hence, it must be concluded that these arguments are aimed at the uneducated, or those who simply accept what they are told at face value and don’t bother to verify the information they recieve.It must also be concluded that creationists are willing to engage in deceit and dishonesty in order to fool people into believing evolution is flawed. And feel morally justified in doing so.That isn’t my bias or an insult. It is simply a conclusion based on the evidence which creationists themselves present.

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

Darwin said he believed in God and was a believer in God. At the same time as he revealed his theories and Studies. IT is a concern that Darwin himself could see no inconsistancy or Wrongness in Religion. IT may well be that God is bigger than we can Possable think.

Posted by Eden and Apple | Report as abusive

The theory of evolution is usually described as fact, and many people see it like this due to a moulding of public opinion. Yet the trouble is that it is simply a theory. And like many theories it is wont to constantly chop and change. Indeed we can see on numerous occasions how it has changed over time and undergone revisions. For example, according to Darwin himself, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.Another example is the proposition of a slightly different model in recent times. Called “punctuated equilibrium”, this model rejects the Darwinist idea of a cumulative, step-by-step evolution and holds that evolution took place instead in big, discontinuous “jumps”. This is because those who ascribe to it believe the fossil record does not support gradual evolution. Sadly for the proponents, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould (American palaeontologists) their own theory is bankrupt – since for one thing, it conflicts with the understanding that genes cannot undergo radical mutations.The sources of proof given for the theory essentially rely on retro-fitting the supposed evidence to the theory i.e. the theory states evolution occurred from a common ancestor, and then study of fossils and homologies is used to indicate that indeed the theory is correct and evolution does occur. But equally we could state there is a creator who created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species. Thus fossils and homologies would just as much, if not more, support this ‘theory’ of a Creator.Fossils are a record of what may have existed. They do not indicate anything more than this. By examining a fossil we could equally state that the organism was created as opposed to evolving from an ancestor. The fossil record is also very much incomplete – there are massive, gaping holes. This presents a staggering problem for proponents of the Theory. The somewhat weak argument is that the bulk of the fossil record may have been destroyed or is yet to be discovered. According to Neville George, a professor of Palaeontology at Glasgow University:“There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration…” Yet he goes on to say, “The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps”.Contrary to what evolutionists claim, there are only limited (if any) transitional forms. Importantly, for example, we don’t see transitional forms that show the alleged evolution of apes to humans [and to try and explain the many loopholes regarding this, there is a current debate among evolutionists themselves about whether it occurred in steps or smoothly which we alluded to earlier i.e. punctuated equilibrium]. The fossil record back then (and still today) is nearly totally void of transitional species. If species are continually mutating, never constant, why do we find several of the same, certain prehistoric creatures, but never any that appear to be in transition? Why do palaeontologists find lots of dinosaurs but never where dinosaurs come from, nor what they turned into?In Darwin’s own words, ‘Why, if species have descended by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?’ It is an excellent question, which he answers himself, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’Indeed British evolutionist Derek Ager admits, “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another”.Yet another problem in using the fossil record as evidence for evolution is that under closer examination, it appears to be a proof for exactly the opposite argument – i.e. creation. For example, one of the oldest strata of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years. The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period seemed to emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record – there appeared to be no ancestors, although in relatively recent times palaeontologists believe fossils have been found dating from the preceding Vendian (or Ediacaran) period. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the “Cambrian Explosion” in geological literature.“A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth’s Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world’s first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today”.And one of the most vociferous advocates for atheism and evolution in today’s age, Richard Dawkins, comments “the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists”.The basic mechanism for gene variation is mutation. And it is known that mutations are random and limited in their scope. We should note that what is not a point of debate here is the fact that genes undergo mutation; neither is there a point of conflict with the various biological processes within organisms. For example, we know that insects can build up resistance against forms of pesticide over time – in fact, in the same manner humans have long believed that taking poison in small quantities can help survive what would normally be a fatal dose. These observations do not really constitute evolution. However, even if we agreed to define these particular cases as examples of microevolution, the fact is that they can be explained by what we have come to know through scientific study and resulting conclusions. The argument for a Creator also accepts scientific facts and conclusions – it no more denies the laws of biology being created, than it denies the laws of physics being put in place by the Creator. Hence, change within the framework of the laws of biology is possible – and there is sufficient evidence for this. The main problem however is with macroevolution. To even begin to consider macroevolution, mutations would need to be dramatic – trying to get round this, it is claimed that there has been sufficient time for many small scale mutations to eventually yield the different species we see. But frankly this isn’t plausible – we have seen no evidence to support such a claim – and so this is again nothing more than a pure hypothesis.In addition, there are many other problems with the mutation argument. If mutations occur, they actually cause harmful effects and not beneficial ones. We can witness the effects of mutations caused in humans following radiation poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl – that is, a litany of death, disability and illness.According to the evolutionist scientist Warren Weavers commenting in the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:“Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are necessary parts of the process of evolution. How can good effects – evolution to higher forms of life – results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?”Similarly, another scientist B.G. Ranganathan states in his book ‘Origins?’ that “Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction”.Finally, mutations do not actually add any new information to an organisms DNA. During a mutation, the genetic information is either destroyed or rearranged, but since there is no new information, it is impossible for mutations to cause a new trait or organ within a living organism.Evolution cannot answer where the first cell came from. The best guess is that came about through a random coincidence. Fred Hoyle, a well-known English mathematician and astronomer, and someone who believes in evolution, made the analogy that the chances of the first cell forming in this manner were comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials present. And according to Professor of Applied Mathematics and astronomy from University College (Cardiff, Wales), Chandra Wickramasinghe:“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it… It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence”. In other words the random formation of such a first cell is an impossibility.But still let’s assume we suddenly have a cell. The first cell would then have to self-reproduce otherwise there would only ever be one cell. This becomes problematic for evolutionists so they suggest self-replication – i.e. the first cell has the ability to clone itself. However, organic matter can only self reproduces if it exists as a fully developed cell with existing support structures such as the particular environment and energy. This then requires more leaps of faith – so let’s make another assumption, this time that the cell does have a complex structure and the ability to reproduce. But, for evolution, mutation needs to happen. So firstly, since mutation is random, even given an absolute age, mutation might not occur. And secondly, mutation can only take place if the cell is forced to repair itself or if it makes a copy of itself. Thus, for a handful of cells, to copy and mutate successfully and form different cells and for this process to continue onwards to produce the complexity of life we see is something, which cannot happen. Leaving aside time, and the random nature of mutation, just the series of mutations necessary to produce even the simplest of species are impossible.There is no actual hard evidence for the process of evolution itself. We don’t witness evolution. All that experiments (such as the one widely used.. involving guppies) or observations in the field (such as the house sparrows example…another widely used one) demonstrate is a form of selection. But this is not real evolution – the fact that a population may change due to various factors (such as environment, predators, etc) or that it may become extinct is not a change from one species to another. So even if we can see natural selection of sorts, this is based on rational factors, and is not evolution.Adaptation is mentioned as a feature of evolution. That is, the manner in which organisms have evolved beneficial characteristics adapted to their environment, which help them survive. Such as some insects, where their body itself is a form of camouflage protecting them against predators. However, evolutionists themselves state that mutation is random and can lead to beneficial as well as harmful results. The environment cannot influence the occurrence or form of any mutation. So in this case, the evolutionary argument would have to be that today’s stick insects evolved from ancestors, which did randomly mutate to have this beneficial characteristic of camouflage. Those within the population that didn’t inherit this mutation would have died out due to their inability to survive. But once again, claiming that a series of mutations occurred, that lead to stick insects possessing characteristics that are suited to their environment, is nothing but conjecture. As before, we could equally state that a Creator has created various species and organisms of life with these inherent varying characteristics. So, organisms were in fact created with characteristics that we interpret as beneficial to them, instead of these traits evolving through time. Thus, the fact that many organisms seem well matched to their environments cannot be cited as any kind of proof or indication of evolution.Let’s take a look at another argument that shows the fallacy of evolution. Many organisms and parts of organisms do not appear to have evolved from lesser things because they are ‘irreducibly complex’ life forms. Irreducible complexity is a concept that has been developed to describe something that is made of interacting parts that all work together. To understand this, take the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap cannot be assembled through gradual improvement. You cannot start with a wooden base, catching a few mice, then add a hammer, and catch more, then add a spring, improving it further. To even begin catching mice one must assemble all the components completely with design and intent. Furthermore, if one of these parts changes or evolves independently, the entire thing will stop working. The mousetrap, for instance, will become useless if even one part malfunctions.Likewise, many biological structures are irreducibly complex. Bats are a well-known example. They are said to have evolved from a small rodent whose front toes became wings. This presents a multitude of problems. As the front toes grow skin between them, the creature has limbs that are too long to run, or even walk well, yet too short to help it fly. There is no plausible way that a bat wing can evolve from a rodent’s front toes. In fact, the fossil record supports this, because the first time bats are seen in the fossil record, they have completely developed wings and are virtually identical to modern bats.Consider another example, that of the eye. Suppose that before animals had sight, one species decided it would be advantageous to be able to decrypt light rays. So, what is evolved first? The retina? The iris? The eye is made of many tiny parts, each totally useless without the others. The probability that a genetic mutation that would create each of these at the same time, in the same organism, is zero. If, however, one organism evolved just a retina, then the logic of Darwin suggests that the only solution is to rid oneself of useless traits replacing them with beneficial ones, so the idea of the eye evolving one segment at a time is also bogus.The tenet idea of the theory is based on assumption, simply blind assumption. What the evolutionists put forward as evidence neither prove nor disprove the theory of evolution…either way, those so called abundant evidences favors the the theory of Creationism in equal strength.So no wonders that ’The debate over Darwin 150 years on’….and all these are sobering indications that, far from being fact, the theory of evolution is nothing more than speculation and hypothesis.

Posted by Straight Talk | Report as abusive

The ongoing debate astounds me. As a science teacher in the United States, I’ve had a wide variety of pamphlets, and readings, and emails that (as Anon mentioned in the first post) focus on minuscule examples that appear to be exceptions to the theory. What astounds me is how many of these arguments are at odds with each other. Hopefully as technology and knowledge increase, we will see new approaches to this “debate” from those opposed to evolution.

Posted by Chris | Report as abusive

Darwin is irrelevant. Darwinism is the pablum taught to middle school children who don’t have enough math to be taught how it really works. Scientists say they agree with Darwin, but then quickly leave Darwin in the dust. Darwin is not science, it is observation at best and poor observation at that. Why we waist our time talking about this has been no body I can not understand. Darwin is not the father of biology, that goes to an Austria priest who actually did science with a bunch of sweet pea plants.

This is an absurd non-story unless you watch the video. I’m not sure I agree with the guy completely, and I certainly don’t agree with his main conclusion. He says people don’t like the theory of evolution because it seems to imply a lot of other things. Well, it does imply the falsity of primitive religion, so it’s a whole new ballgame, and as the guy says, some people don’t like some of the players, but these are ulterior concerns. As the story states early on, evolution is accepted universally among “scientists,” whatever precisely that means; in this case it seems to be those who take some care to know what they are talking about. It would be fun to have a contest where a bunch of scientists and a bunch of primitive religionists each have an hour to write an essay stating the theory of evolution and evidence relevant to it.

Posted by Pete Cann | Report as abusive

Both positions are incorrect, the issue is that we do not know how God did it.Please watch this video from TED. We don’t knoe hoe HE moved his “mouse”, we were created ti His image and resemblance, and we have as humands strived to “imitate” Our Father, in almost everything but the only failures is LOVE.Regardshttp://www.ted.com/talks/wil l_wright_makes_toys_that_make_worlds.htm l

Posted by MIGUEL MAYO | Report as abusive

As long as there are religions based on an overpowering ‘God’ that created life and controls all manner of things on Earth, there will always be people who dispute science and reality.Science and religion have clashed for centuries. Fortunately, each is quite independent of each other and science flourishes worldwide. If you want the good feelings and simple explanations of everything known and unknown, pick your favorite religion. If you want reliable knowledge of nature, deep insights on how the universe works, there is no better field than science.Oh yes, technology. Since the emergence of modern science around 1600, man’s technology has become 100% based on scientific knowledge. During the same period, technology based on religious teachings have dwindled to about zero.

Posted by The Real Deal | Report as abusive

Anon-In your example, you gave a false reading of 10,000 years because C14 dating is only accurate for things 60,000 years or less. Is this a typo, or does C14 yield false postives within it’s acceptable range? If it does, it seems to me that any C14 test would need a second supporting test (possibly qualitative).I think the proper way to frame any evolution-creation debate is to focus on the creation side. A quick scan of Genesis compared to the Book of Kings or the gospels makes it obvious that Genesis is not written as a historic account of the beginning of the universe. It’s written poetically to express truth beyond sterile fact, like Song of Solomon. The gospels, on the other hand, include many references to events for verification by later readers. Anyone who is seriously arguing about a 6-day creation has missed the point of Genesis.

[...] Ond mae rhai, rheini i gyd yn grefyddwyr, yn honni mai syniad felltigedig yw Darwiniaeth – ac nid yn unig hynny: mae hi’n gelwydd hefyd meddai creadyddion. Mae’r bobol yma’n dal i gredu i’r bydysawd gael ei greu mewn chwe diwrnod gan Dduw, a hynny rhwng 6,000 a 10,000 o flynyddoedd yn ôl. Yn wir, mae theori Darwin hyd heddiw yn ddadleuol. [...]

The result was a false positive.It is for this reason that radiocarbon dating is not used for ancient fossils, or for rocks. Because most are far older then a radiocarbon test will ever identify, and will lead to a nonsense result.But carbon dating can certainly be used for material younger then the maximum age. For example, bones from recent human history. Or medieval artifacts such as the shroud of turin ;)There are many varieties of radiological dating. And the false positive result problem can work in reverse.For example, K-Ar radiological testing is only accurate for rocks OVER several thousand years. So testing new volcanic rocks will reach a false result that they are much older then they actually are, even though we know the rock may have been lava only days ago.Fossils are accurately dated only when the correct radiological method is used.If people are going to argue that carbon dating a dino bone is evidence that carbon dating is flawed, they might as well argue that a clock is wrong because it can’t make toast. The science is sound, it is the application which can be flawed.

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

Straight talk.Despite your long and rambling post, which you obviously regurgitated from a creationist website, I was able to deduce the following failures in your argument.1. Irreducible complexity has long been debunked as stupidity of the highest order.2. Random mutation is not the main driver of evolution. Natural selection and genetics is. And they are not random.3. The eye began in early forms as simple nerves capable of detecting light. How these nerves gradually evolved into eyes is well established.4. Evolution doesn’t ‘claim’ that humans evolved from apes. Ape means a hominid. Humans are a class of hominid. We are hence, apes. And evolution simply concludes that based on the current evidence the branches of ape, of which humans are part, share common ancestors.5. We discovered the missing links (and there were a few) in hominid evolution ages ago. So many, in fact, that we now have difficulty establishing whether they belong to one stage or the next. You would probably call them ‘transitional’ forms, in the sense that every life form is essentially a transitional form.6. Complexity is proof of complexity. Claiming it is proof of design means you assume there is a designer. You have not proven a designer exists, so you assume he exists. Hence you are assuming that complexity is proof of a deity you are assuming exists. Circular reasoning.7. You refuse to accept evolution based on gaps in positive evidence. But you also believe in the existence of a deity based on no evidence at all. So we can conclude that you don’t hold any value to actual facts or evidence. Or that you will only believe something when there is no evidence it is true.8. If you are going to quote evolutionists, don’t quote mine them. It just makes you look silly when people track down the full text and realise how dishonest you are.9. Even if evolution has gaps in evidence which are never found, religion has no evidence at all. So from that point alone, evolution is more likely to be correct.10. If the bible cannot be taken literally, then it has been proven to be fallible. Meaning that evolution, with each fossil proven correct or improved, disproves your faith just a little bit more.

Posted by Myth-busta | Report as abusive

I prefer the term ‘Big Expansion’ and prescribe to Stephen W. Hawking’s theories and others relating to String Theory. To go by the best seller book ever written and printed over a fraction of the time of existence of Earth is at best moral gambling. Drewbie, on the other hand, the creation of light and darkness could allude to the separation of photons +- 300 000 000 years after the Great Expansion. I just doubt that those authors and editors would have had these insights at the time. When correlating the Plagues to Revelations, in Excel, I found it interesting, but then again, who or what inspired those awesome images, symbolism and idioms ? As with nuclear energy and GM foods, we do play dice with the Universe. Hawkings merely theorized that mini black holes would evaporate, so I really hope CERN and their appointed agent the LHC know what they are doing. That leaves natural versus artificial selection, the latter being breeding, which we seem to excel in.

Posted by Casper | Report as abusive

Straight Talk.I found your post incredibly depressing. You ignore all the evidence of the last 150 years that has made the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as well proven as any other scientific theory: including Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Nobody refers to that as “simply a theory”. Evolution does not even require the fossil record to provide sufficient proof. Genetics and recent biological studies give us more than enough evidence.If you want to disprove the theory of evolution, you had better come up with a sound theory of your own that explains ALL the evidence in a more convincing way. Creationists are quick to critisize but slow to come forward with testable hypotheses. I would be fascinated to hear how a “creator” physically affects biological development. Such a theory would be the greatest scientific achievement ever if it could be tested and proven. Let’s hear it.

Posted by R Gilyead | Report as abusive

Evolution IS a fact – bacteria evolve to be resistant to the antibiotics that kill them, flowers evolve to be shorter or taller based on where they grow, etc. What makes people so upset is the idea that we “came from apes.” But that’s not what has ever been said. What has been said is that we came from a common ancestor. But what I don’t understand is why religion and evolution MUST be mutually exclusive.

Posted by CherylS | Report as abusive

A scientific debate between biologists and priests.Do we really need to go any further?

Posted by Michael Ham | Report as abusive

When Darwin wrote “The Origin of Species” evolution was a theory based on his observations. 150+ years later the overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports that theory and no other. As it were evolution is no longer a theory. It is a fact. Microbiology studies have been charting the evolutionary paths of HIV, Eboli, avian, swine and other emerging viruses that have threatened man and livestock for decades.Michael Ham you are correct. You cannot have an informed discussion regarding science amongst religious counsel.

Posted by Anubis | Report as abusive

To Myth Busta1. ‘Irreducible complexity has long been debunked’ by the evolutionists as because it poses a considerably big question to the theory of evolution that the evolutionists can not deal with. To hold faith on their predefined theory they have to reject all that facts which do not suit with their idea. In evolutionists’ term ‘Irreducible complexity’ is a ‘redundant’ idea so as to leave it to make their own idea viable in their own senses.2. Though not a main driver but you should not lose faith on mutation, after all, random mutation is the initiator of the whole saga. If it wouldn’t be the case then you have to rewrite the whole story in another form to explain at least the initial stage of evolution…means another fairly tale. However, natural selection or genetics are not conclusive evidence for the theory of evolution.3. ‘How these nerves (nerves of eye) gradually evolved into eyes’…you can say……are already ‘assumed’……..but can’t say ‘is well established’….this gradual evolution is hypothetically assumed on the basis of findings the homologies between the eyes of simple and complex creatures. The basis of giant leap from ‘finding similarities’ to ‘concept of gradual evolution’ is simply blind assumption….which is too weak to claim ‘well established’4. ok, I agree.5. Those so called missing links or transitional forms only describe the similarities between different species. But that does not necessarily mean one species evolves from or into another. If you believe its EVOLUTION that’s causes those similarities to transform one into another, then what’s wrong with creationists’ who claim its CREATOR that created all diversified beings of similarities and differences?6. Complexity puts weakness into evolution theory as evolutionists have to believe in more and more assumptions to explain a complex biological design. I am not sure why don’t you accept the complex biological body as a biological design?? Is it for only that you don’t want to accept the existence of a designer?? Again you are trying to find out a favorable suit to fit your presumption. Well, if you don’t accept the existence of designer it’s up to you… but you have to accept that human or any other animal body is a biological design. You may not accept the existence of IBM Company but still you have to admit that IBM branded laptop is a laptop indeed.7. I want to say that the theory of evolution is a hypothesis based on assumption…..irrespective of existence or non-existence of a deity or creator.8. In my post I didn’t mention any quote of any scientist which has potential to produce a different meaning while a really honest person goes to track down the whole text. However, the quotation was put to show the writer of the article “The debate over Darwin 150 years on” that his claim “its universal acceptance among scientists” is not quite right.9. “Religion has no evidence” is not the conclusive evidence that the theory of evolution is correct one.10. Whether the bible or any other book is fallible or infallible is not the discussion here…this is the problem with evolutionists…when they face opposition they presume the protestor as being bearer of another presumption as they themselves hold their own. Here the discussion is all about the theory of evolution…whether it has any evidence to be true or not. However, your fossil records don’t have any conclusive evidence to prove the evolution theory…once more; fossil records show only the similarity not the gradual transformation from one species to another.To R GilyeadIn last 150 years or more evolutionists didn’t bring any thing new.. other than all that repeated descriptions of finding similarities among structures of different creatures…..once they showed similarities in outer characteristics now due to instrumental advancements they are able to show the similarities in molecular level….that’s the difference. How genetics and recent biological studies give evidences for evolution theory?…I am quite interested to know that. Evolution theory always used to seek favors from scientific advancement but never got it in real sense rather sometimes it has to be depressed to see some scientific advancements which contradicts its blind assumptions. Germ theory of Louis Pasteur or Mendelian inheritance theory are a few that put an end to some enthusiastic assumptions of conceptual ancestors of modern evolutionists.Before going to disprove you have to prove the theory conclusively at first hand. All that have been put forward as evidences of evolutions are simply observations from which evolutionists have drawn a random conclusion on the basis of assumption… So you accept the evolution theory as truth..because you don’t have any other one???? Not a good logic at all. Due to the absence of a testable hypothesis you are relying on a hypothetical assumption??…..Not a convincing way at all to accept a theory in stead of another. However, if there is a creator then he must have the ability to put all the physical and biological laws in place and that doesn’t go wrong with the fossil records etc. But in this case we have to prove the existence of a creator at first place….and that is a different discussion irrelevant to our present debate of whether the theory of evolution is a fact or far from being fact it’s a hypothesis and assumptions?

Posted by Straight Talk | Report as abusive

Quote from Martin Heidegger (indiputably one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th C)”While the “plant” sprouts, emerges, and expands into the open, it simultaneously goes back into its roots, insofar as it plants them firmly in the closed ground and thus takes its stand… No doubt a great deal of time has yet to pass before we learn to see that the idea of “organism” and of the “organic” is a purely modern, mechanistic-technological concept, according to which “growing things” are interpreted as artifacts that make themselves. Even the word and concept “plant” takes what grows as something “planted,” something sown and cultivated.” Pathmarks trans McNeil p.195.Chris – there is much more than you (can) understand in this world!

Posted by Peter Jackson | Report as abusive

The theory of Irreducible ComplexityCreationist: Eyes are too complex to form incrementally.Scientist: Actually they can be formed over time.Creationist: They can’t, because eyes are too complex to be reducible.Scientist: Simple sight organs can develop into complex ones through natural selection and genetics.Creationist: But eyes were always complex, they never were simple organs.Scientist: Why do you say that?Creationist: Because they were complex when God made them.Scientist: So what you are saying is that it is impossible for eyes to develop incrementally, because they were complex when God made them?Creationist: Yes.Scientist: Do you have any evidence that God made them?Creationist: Yes. Because eyes are too complex to form incrementally.Scientist: You do realise that your thinking is illogical, right?Creationist: No, it isn’t. Your thinking is illogical!(Scientist walks away)

Posted by Myth Busta | Report as abusive

Straight Talk,I suggest you read Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True”. It will answer all your questions about recent evidence. I believe in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection because there isn’t another theory that better explains the evidence. If a better testable, scientific theory comes along then I have an open mind ready to be changed. If you thing that theories can be absolutely “proven” then you don’t understand science at all.

Posted by RGilyead | Report as abusive

The argument for Darwinism seems to go something like this: there is no alternative provable scientific theory that accounts for the origin of life. Therefore Darwin must be true. However it is easy to forget that even if Creation is not provable, it may still be true. Truth is a question of actual facts. Was the world created by G-d, or not? Saying that because it is not possible to prove G-d therefore we must believe in Darwinism is ludicrous.

Posted by jay f | Report as abusive

George Coyne is a priest and astronomer who is the head of the Vatican astronomical observatory and school. He believes in God and states evolution is a fact.150 years ago Darwin developed his theory of natural selection based on his many observations. The overwhelming scientific work in the fields of biology, astronomy, archaeology to date have provided a factual basis to make the statement that evolution is true.Politicians and business men have lead the world to the brink of disaster. No one should be surprised that some people beseech the almighty for deliverance. Such devotion to the higher power did not save the Persians, Romans, Celts or Rapanui from destruction. It will not save us either.

Posted by Anubis | Report as abusive

Evolution argues that based on all the evidence which exists, the life of today share common ancestry.Creationism argues that based on no evidence at all, a deity created all life as it exists today.We are not saying that evolution MUST be true because of overwhelming evidence. A scientific theory does not operate in truths. Only facts are true. A theory is simply the most concrete conclusion which can explain previous evidence and make testable predictions of future observations.Because most positive evidence supports evolution, it is the most likely possibility for how life developed. Much like gravity is currently the most likely possibility for why things fall to the ground when dropped.Religion is completely the opposite. Because creationism relies on assumption, it is not based on any positive evidence. Because it operates on negative proof, it isn’t based on any scientific method. Because it relies on circular reasoning, it isn’t even based on logic.The true tragedy is that religion professes to provide an answer to the universe around us. But it has no grounds to back up its assumptions. It has not met the onus of proof. It cannot make testable predictions, or credible analysis of previous observations. And as a result, any conclusions it reaches are completely useless. Nothing more then platitudes for which there is no basis.In fact, all creationism does is devalue the human reliance on the scientific method and the manner in which humans discover the world around them. Because discovery is based on observation of evidence and using it to reach a logical conclusion. Religion involves neither evidence nor logic.If you are going to believe in a deity based on no evidence, then evidence itself no longer means anything to you. You could be shown every scrap of evidence, every fact and observation in the universe. But it will not matter. Because if you are willing to believe something based on no evidence, no amount of actual evidence will ever change your mind.And if you actually dismiss the actual evidence because it disagrees with a conclusion based on no evidence, your folly is double.

Posted by Haha | Report as abusive

For a God have the ability to create something as complex as the visible universe, it would have to be extremely intelligent.An intelligent God would want to create intelligent beings. It certainly would not want the most intelligent of its creations to believe in something as stupid as creationism.Therefore either creationism is wrong or creationist are not the most intelligent of God’s beings.

Posted by Paul | Report as abusive

A recent study of 1000 children under the age of 6 determined that they could be classified as those who believe in Santa Claus and those who are sceptical (only 2 children stated outright that Santa doesn’t exist).Among the sceptics, there was a marked tendancy to sneak downstairs on the night before Christmas and wait to see if Santa comes down the chimney. They want proof.The true believers were happy to sleep and wait until Christmas morning to get their presents. Some even felt that those who doubted were less likely to get what they asked for.

Posted by Blythe | Report as abusive

The one problem I have always had with the evolution theory is how we all got started. The chicken and the egg problem. I have asked at school and at college how many birds had to dive off the cliff before they sprouted wings. The simple answer is that we were created by a master designer, I designed robots for a living and the complexity of a finger making a tight grip is enough to convince me that we did not get here by evolution.

Posted by Tom Bode | Report as abusive

“the complexity of a finger making a tight grip is enough to convince me that we did not get here by evolution.”Wow…………..I’m sure your parents propping up christianity as the righteous way of living, society telling you you have to be christian to have any morals and your stubborness has absolutely nothing to do with it. It’s just because of a robot’s ability to grip something.

Posted by Michael Ham | Report as abusive

Supernovae in distant galaxies are enough to convince me that creationism is false.Some of the observed exploding stars are billions of light years away. That means that the light from them takes billions of years to reach us. So when we see one explode, the actual explosion took place billions of years ago. If the Earth is 6000 years old, that means that the star never existed, but God put light in transit appearing to come from far away.

“I have asked at school and at college how many birds had to dive off the cliff before they sprouted wings.”Birds didn’t just ‘sprout’ wings. That would be a creationist way of thinking, and by ‘creationist’ I mean illogical.Common ancestry has already determined how flight in creatures developed over several species. The ancient ancestors of birds (reptiles) knew how to climb, glide and jump long before they developed the ability to fly.Natural selection would then favour lighter bones and bodies, streamlined feathers and stronger limbs. And eventually when gliding became the primary method of travel, the frontal limbs would lose useless claws and become wings.So to answer your question “how many birds had to jump off a cliff before they sprouted wings”. None. But it took many billions of reptiles jumping and gliding from tree to tree.As for the complexity of the human hand giving no doubt as to a master designer? I feel about evolution in a similar way.When I look at the human hand, and the hands of all the current species of Hominid apes alive today, and the hands of all the previous Hominid ancestor species discovered by science, and the frontal limbs of even older Primate and Eurochonta fossils discovered, it is enough to convince me that we got our hands by evolution.We both look at the same hand. But because you don’t look at the same fossils I do, you come to a completely different conclusion.And that was assuming you also don’t look at genetics, horse breeding, animal domestication, bacteria, vestigal organs/bones, peppermint moths and dinosaur fossils. Things which a college educated robot designer such as yourself should also be aware of.

Posted by Haha | Report as abusive

Many of the people who tout the theory of Darwinian Evolution skip from that basic idea to Atheism. Until the Darwinians can answer the questions of the origin of the universe and the nature of human consciousness, then the insertion of Darwinian Evolution into the history of the Universe is just one chapter in a book which may have no beginning, no end and, certainly, no facile explanations of who we are and what we will become.

“Many of the people who tout the theory of Darwinian Evolution skip from that basic idea to Atheism. Until the Darwinians can answer the questions of the origin of the universe and the nature of human consciousness, then the insertion of Darwinian Evolution into the history of the Universe is just one chapter in a book which may have no beginning, no end and, certainly, no facile explanations of who we are and what we will become.”1. Evolution doesn’t explain the origin of the universe, because it has nothing to do with physics.2. Human consciousness is explained by our mental and social development. Both of which have their primitive origins in biology, natural selection and evolution. Unless, of course, you believe our brains came out of a magic hat.3. Religion does not provide the answers you seem to believe evolution lacks. Because none of religion’s answers are based on any actual evidence, religion’s creationist conclusions are of no value and can be dismissed without consequence.4. Even the big bang theory has more worth in it then the bible. After all, at least the big bang conclusion is based on the doppler effect and physics. Which means it is a conclusion based on actual observations and evidence, an infinite improvement over anything religion can claim.5. Atheism accepts that we do not understand many aspects of the universe, limiting our conclusions to what we can actually learn and observe. Religion reaches baseless conclusions, with no evidence, surviving simply by mass social reinforcement and the fear of the unknown.6. If you are so afraid of the unknown that you must cling to a groundless belief for comfort, and you value that comfort so much you will dismiss any direct evidence that contradicts your belief, then you probably deserve religion just as much as it deserves you.

Posted by Noah Idea | Report as abusive

Most ridiculous thing about evolution theory is claiming it to be a scientific theory. But it is really not. It’s only a philosophy. The common thing between science and philosophy is to observe the nature. But only observation, no matter how much closest it may be….is not enough to claim it to be science. To be a scientific law firstly it has to be related to matter and secondly it should be testable in a laboratory environment (not necessarily always means a room equipped with different instruments). When someone saw thing falls on the earth when dropped then he had to test with other things in the same environment (from which he got the same result) and then concluded that in a law….this is a scientific conclusion. But this is not the case with evolution theory. Evolutionists observe the nature and have come up with the observation that there are lots of similarities among the living beings of different species. From this observation they made a blind guess that one species came from other. As long as they can’t show proof for transformation it’s not a scientific conclusion whether the conclusion has been drawn by a scientist or a priest or a philosopher. Devoid of providing any proof for transformation evolutionists offer one after another ‘excuse’ which they claim to be ‘explanation’ to avoid the most crucial step of scientific procedure….that is to present testable experiments. Horse breeding, animal domestication etc etc all that are time to time presented by evolutionists are not specific experiments to proof their guess as these can also be explained without the necessity of a blind guess like evolution.Everybody has right to make blind guess and keep faith on some blind assumption but to be convinced with that that blind assumption as a scientific fact is the hallmark of ignorance regarding science and scientific method of thinking. Due to influence of scientific and technological advancements of last few centuries many people would like to propagate their own idea, guess, belief etc in the name of science. As like some people used to propagate their religions as of scientific basis there are also many people who like to offer their philosophical thoughts in the name of science to increase the credibility of the presumed belief. Evolution theory, for justified reason, is a philosophical dogma of 19th and 20th century, not a science at all let alone to be a true fact. Due to being a untested philosophical view whenever there is a discussion with evolution theory, evolutionists always used to bring the issues of religion, god etc to compete with. Because these are also mostly based on philosophical presumes.

Posted by Vista | Report as abusive

Lol a blind guess.It’s like seeing someone with a gas can and lighter in their hand dancing around a burning house, yelling “BURN BURN!!!” and them then confessing to the police, yet if it’s not on high definition video recording to you creationists that’d be a blind guess.It truly is impossible to change the mind of creationists, no matter how many facts are presented. That’s just the grip that religion puts on people’s brains. If you’re told from birth to death that the only way to be happy in an infinite eternal life you’ll have a lot of people making the blind assumption that that’s the truth.Fearmongering at its best, or worst, i guess depending how you look at it.

Posted by Michael Ham | Report as abusive

The lame arguments against natural selection are truly triumphs of stupidity and are fueled by the usual suspects who have no interest whatsoever in anything close to the truth. However, as a result of natural selection, the truth will carry on whilst the useless nonsense fades in the light of fact and reason.

Posted by mikey | Report as abusive

Creationism is one of the most damaging movements to come out of the rise of radical Christianity. The move to try selling it as science in American schools is just embarrassing, no wonder we’re so far behind the rest of the world in science and math.Humans used to think that everything in the world revolved around the Earth. Only humans are arrogant and self-important enough to believe that they certainly must be the creation of a great god when, in fact, humans probably invented their god in their own image.

Posted by Oliver | Report as abusive

Religion is nothing but an example of supreme arrogance.If there *was* a deity responsible for creating the universe, there is no way humans would ever understand what that deity was.We certainly wouldn’t be able to ‘know’ he exists. Nor could we ever hope to even guess at his actions or understand his motives.For that matter, it is unlikely that we could even try to define that deity in any manner remotely resembling us or anything in this universe. Assuming that deity exists at all, or isn’t one of many. Or even cares about us, or thinks or feels in the manner that humans take for granted.Religion is simply claiming to know what man cannot possibly know and may never know.Science is about taking the observations of the world and reaching an understanding about the universe around us. That which we cannot observe or test, is simply not relevant.In the understanding of the universe and the creation of life, religion and creationism is simply irrelevant. Were it not for the fact that religion encourages the young to dismiss actual evidence and break the rules of logic, it could safely be ignored.

Posted by Haha | Report as abusive

Michael Ham,Even on the basis of judiciary, from the example of …“someone with a gas can and lighter…..” you can not pose a serious judgment from the incident and can not simply send the person to jail…..the court is there for judgment. Even if it happens in daylight, court will take all influencing factors into account and will consider every possibility before deciding whether the person is guilty or not…whether the ‘yelling’ and ‘confessing’ are real or camouflage…etc.In case of science any decision comes through much more strict methodology. It’s not something like seeing and deciding. You can do it but this is not science. There is far difference between a scientist and a philosopher who makes a blind guess after observing nature and keeps faith on it. As like there is difference between a judge who is making a judgment in a court upon a crime and a viewer who was sauntering around the incident and makes a guess after having a glance. If you are later type here while discussing evolution theory I don’t have any objection but if you claim it to be scientific one than your example has just made your logical position a little bit more vulnerable.

Posted by Vista | Report as abusive

The function of science is not to prove or disprove the existance of God.How can a finite discipline(mans mind is finite)tackle an infinite concept that has no beginning and no end.We use pi in mathematics even though its value has no end.Lets be pragmatic and abolish pi because it is an infinite concept.Similarly lets abandon God, because God has no beginning and no end.

Posted by John Gallagher | Report as abusive

To Haha…”Science is about taking the observations of the world and reaching an understanding about the universe around us. That which we cannot observe or test, is simply not relevant.”…I agree with it and that is why your all comments regarding a deity or creator, including the question whether creator does exist or not, are completely irrelevant….observing and experimenting on material worlds means scientific study neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator.So your notion… “We certainly wouldn’t be able to ‘know’ he exists. Nor could we ever hope to even guess at his actions or understand his motives.” …sounds like.. after knowing algorithms, circuits,hardware, software etc you are claiming, as you know the mechanism of computing you will not accept the existence of the manufacturer of the computer, coz you do not know where the manufacturer lives, what does s/he eat, what s/he wear etc….However, the discussion of existence of creator is like the issue of discussion of your own existence to me while you are reading this post….or vise versa…when I read your post I have only some electromagnetic signs on the screen of my computer symbolizing the alphabates…I don’t know who you are, where are you from, what you do, no idea, no fossil records, can’t test on you, can’t observe you etc….but still I am sure you exist…this is a conclusion from direct thinking of human as rational being….denying such a fact is not only like to devalue science (as scientific method of thinking…observation and experiments on material worlds….itself depends on direct rational thinking),such denying is also a serious insult to human intellect.

Posted by Straight Talk | Report as abusive

Vista,Let’s stick with my analogy.The judge and jury find the man guilty after going over facts, with all that in front of me I’ll find the most rational choice is that this is the man who did it.Let’s take your point of view.A few hundred years after the fire, a man writes a book about how an all knowing being simply created the fire and put it on the house.And so we have creationism vs evolution in a nutshell. We can feel a certain way with a 99% level of scientific confidence and you people will pick at the 1% even though you can’t prove 1% of what you base your entire life off of.

Posted by Michael Ham | Report as abusive

“Most ridiculous thing about evolution theory is claiming it to be a scientific theory. But it is really not. It’s only a philosophy.” Nonsense. There is in fact overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is how nature works, in terms of species. Darwin spent decades collecting a lot of evidence for it, and it’s been supported by more and more evidence since his time. By now, there’s a rich wealth of supporting evidence, including lots from genetic research. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports creationism. None!To suppose that it is merely a theory or “philosophy” ignores the fact that evolution has been directly observed. For example, in the UK, it was observed that over a period of just a few decades, owing to soot covering buildings, moths had also grown darker, to be better hidden against predators. That was evolution (natural selection) in progress.It doesn’t take millions of years; it can happen in merely decades, or maybe only a few years. And you can see it! All you need is eyes. But I guess that is asking a lot of the blind.The creationists should spend more time educating themselves, and less time spouting their ill-informed nonsense in public forums.

Posted by Rod | Report as abusive

Dear Sir;The Unified Mind Theory makes a debate over who or what is right, evolution or creation, meaningless as there does not seem to be a conflict. Creation is an ongoing thing and not something of the past. so therefore, the process of evolution appears to be quite logical or natural.The “UMT” is based on the assumption that God exists, and if that is so, then it becomes an engineering feat to explore and investigate and put the pieces together to see who we are, where we are going, and what is ahead of us. It shows us as a unit within a 5-dimensional universe.Hans J Zeunert

Posted by Hans Zeunert | Report as abusive

“I agree with it and that is why your all comments regarding a deity or creator, including the question whether creator does exist or not, are completely irrelevant”Good. That was what I was pointing out and I am glad you understood that.Hopefully you will also understand that your assumptions which form the basis for your belief are equally irrelevent to this debate, because they are not based on any evidence.So can we agree to leave reality to the scientists?

Posted by Haha | Report as abusive

“knowing algorithms, circuits,hardware, software etc you are claiming, as you know the mechanism of computing you will not accept the existence of the manufacturer of the computer, coz you do not know where the manufacturer lives, what does s/he eat, what s/he wear”———————A bad analogy. So lets take it further.-We understand the scientific concepts behind computers and programs.-The creation of computers and programs are artificial events, not natural ones.-We can manipulate computers and programs with our own actions.-We can witness for ourselves how these things are taken apart and put together.-By learning we can build more computers and programs ourselves or improve them.So based on these direct observations, it is only logical to conclude that on seeing a computer and program it was made by a designer. Were it not for the fact that this is based on direct evidence and observations, we could never conclude such under the rules of logic.But a person who never saw a computer, or witnessed how one is created, would have no understanding of computing or programming. And if they were asked who made the computer or how it runs, they would likely attribute it to acts of deity or magic. Both which we know are incorrect.And without understanding any concepts about computers, even if that person believed that a human created the computer, they wouldn’t even have logical grounds for thinking so.The belief in a deity is not based on any evidence. There is no reason to assume that complexity equals design. Assuming that an object has a designer also assumes that the object is designed. Which is an illogical and circular argument.If we cannot witness the deity, or communicate with the deity (prayer doesn’t count, because anyone who admits to their priest that they hear God talking to them in their head will be encouraged to see a doctor), then there is no grounds for believing that a deity was responsible for designing existance.

Posted by Noah Idea | Report as abusive

Suppose I am wondering about the creation of the universe.As a person, I can create and destroy life. I can create original things. As far as I am concerned, the world didn’t exist before I was there to experience it. And when I die, there is no way to know if the universe will continue without me.So I then conclude that I must be a God, and I actually created this universe.The big question is: When does my assertion become truth?-Is it when I think of it?-Is it when I write about it in a book?-Is it when other people read my book and agree with me?-Is it when the people who read my book start teaching their children that my godliness is truth and failure to believe in me will send them to hell?Following that line of thought, at what point does any religion cross the line between ‘illogical belief’ and ‘faith’?

Posted by IamSam | Report as abusive

Rod,Be cool man!!I just wonder if, according to you, evolution takes place in decades even in few years why the monkeys in zoo waiting for, for decades after decades….being homologous with human they can easily evolute themselves into human being and get out of that cages…..However, the example that you put….moth growing darker…..is an example of adaptation…not of evolution. Species have the ability of adaptation but that doesn’t change one species into another…..in slum area poor children get adapted with rain and cold and get fever and cold less frequently than the children of rich family….that doesn’t mean the children of slum area are not human beings…..So your example is of adaptation not of evolution and that’s why…“To suppose that it is merely a theory or “philosophy” ignores the fact that evolution has been directly observed.”…..will be just opposite…..As evolution has not been observed directly it is a philosophy or a mere hypothesis.“Darwin spent decades collecting a lot of evidence for it…..”…not really. Darwin spent decades collecting lots of sample of his observation on nature. After observation he proposed an assumption in terms of theory. All that “rich wealth of evidence” actually is the sample of observation in scientific term….not evidence. From observation to make conclusion which can be claimed as scientific one requires experiments on matter or practical reality which evolutionists fail to offer. Before advocating any well-informed idea in the name of science one should educate oneself with the knowledge of science.Michael hamIf … “The judge and jury find the man guilty after going over facts with all that in front of me”…as like you I’ll find the most rational choice is that this is the man who did it. But I wanted to say there is difference between “deciding after going over facts” and “deciding after just seeing”……However, your latest example disprove you once more……My point of view….. “A few hundred years after the fire, if a man (not necessarily someone named Charles Darwin) wrote a book explaining how fire works and burns something near it and concluded that, the fire itself was responsible to burn the house and the man had nothing to do with it…” and with all the facts from the judge and jury I still accept that the man was guilty….quite contrary to evolutionists.

Posted by Vista | Report as abusive

“just wonder if, according to you, evolution takes place in decades even in few years why the monkeys in zoo waiting for, for decades after decades….being homologous with human they can easily evolute themselves into human being and get out of that cages”Not really.Because monkeys and men are both hominids. Our species share a common ancestor, but are no longer familiar enough to breed successfully.Homo Sapian (modern man) and Homo Neanderthalensis (Neanderthal) were two sister species among many others (Such as Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster), who all shared the same ancestor species (potentially Australopithecine or something close to it).But the various other Apes of today are several more steps removed. Chimps were the Pan branch that split off from Hominini. Gorillas are descended from the Gorillini who split off a step earlier from Homininae. Orang-utans split off another step earlier from that.So it is impossible for monkeys to evolve into men. Just like a cat can’t evolve into a dog. And much like a human could not be said to have actually evolved from the same monkeys we see in a zoo today.But given a longer amount of time (tens of thousands of years at the least), it is quite possible that monkeys could evolve even further. They already form communities, use tools, have the capacity for communication, recognise that their reflection is a projection of themselves rather then another ape, and can use their developed brain to solve complex problems. That alone is impressive.So it is entirely realistic to believe that given the opportunity, monkeys could evolve to the point where they closely resemble us, or even develop complex society as we did.The predictable question which would then come from creationist lips would be “if they have the capability to evolve further, why have they not done so already, why do they show no signs of doing so now, and will they ever do so?”The answer is simple. We killed their chances.As the dominant species, Humans have obtained complete superiority over the environment and resources of any potential competitor hominids. And in many cases, we have decimated their populations to the point of extinction.Those who survive are now in tiny genetic communities, or isolated groups in zoos. The chances that their species will survive at all is remote due to genetic stagnation, hence the chances of them evolving to a level resembling us is almost impossible.So in the near future, if there is a terrible planet of the apes, it will most likely be the planet of the human-ape.

Posted by Haha | Report as abusive

Vista,Your view would be fine and all if there were any scientific evidence proving God created anything. Your analogy of proof that something else created fire doesn’t hold up because that’s not the case with man.I challenge you to provide any shred of any evidence that specifically the christian god created the universe and/or all living beings.

Posted by Michael Ham | Report as abusive

To Noah Idea…Everything we see around is ‘matter’ and we are talking about the very existence of matters of their various forms…whether these matters of various forms are created by someone or not? Making any differentiation between these matters in name of “Artificial” and “Natural” is immaterial here if we are not eager to get some odd favors in support of our own logic by such differentiation…However, let’s have a look at your extension in this way,If someone- DOESN’T understand the scientific concepts behind computers and programs.- CANNOT manipulate computers and programs with his actions.- DOESN’T know how things are taken apart and put together in a computer.- CANNOT build more computers and programs himself or improve them.Then is it illogical for him to think that computer is designed and manufactured by someone????? Then what do you suggest for him as logical conclusion…Over the time some steel, irons, plastic, silicon, glass etc evoluted themselves into a well designed computer???!!!! Is this thinking a logical and rational for him????? So everyone needs to be an expert on spaceship and astronomy to decide whether the spaceship is manufactured by someone or not???? Reality is we all know (instead of being almost ignorant for many of us about spaceship or astronomy) spaceship is designed and manufactured by someone.Your another point “If we cannot witness the deity, or communicate with the deity, then there is no grounds for believing that a deity was responsible for designing existance.”…very poor logic, indeed not a rational proposal. After going back to home from outside if you find the door of the home to be broken and valuable goods are missing…..wouldn’t you think its theft (means someone taken away the goods) or still you will wait to communicate with the thief to make such a judgment?? Reality is you will instantly decide (without witness or any kind of communication with the thief) that someone has looted your home and probably you will inform the police to find out who did it.The fact is, in your example you ignored a fundamental observation about the computer etc as a MATTER and for that reason you have come up with such a ridiculous conclusion.One of the direct observations on computer or spaceship is, it is a combination of different matters….and matters can not be combined, placed, displaced, changed by themselves unless someone do it to happen.So knowing that matters are created, designed by someone is independent of the discussion how a combination of matters (like computer) works or having a witness or getting communication with the designer/manufacturer/creator…..The very existence of matters in its any form is a sobering indication that someone has designed or manufactured it, as because matter itself can not do it to happen.

Posted by Straight Talk | Report as abusive

If somebody had no idea what a computer was, how it runs, how it was built or what it does? Then no. They cannot conclude that it was designed.In fact, they can’t reach any conclusion as to its origins because they simply have no evidence to base that conclusion on.It is quite possible that in the absence of evidence, they might conclude that the computer was created out of magic. They might even say a god made it.And yet while you and I know that such a conclusion would be ridiculous (as computers are obviously made by men), this same ridiculous answer is exactly what religion is.Likewise, your broken house analogy is flawed:If I walked into my house, noticed the door was broken open, and my valuables were missing? I would need to reach a logical conclusion on what happened based on the evidence and observations.The scientific approach is to take all the facts, and reach a theory which best explains my observations within the rules of logic and natural laws. And from this approach I would reach the Theory of Burglary. The theory that a burglar broke into my house and robbed me. The answer would be logical and rational. Much like science is.The religious approach would be to reach a conclusion based on assumption, and ignoring or denying all the evidence which exists. And from this approach I would believe that God broke into my house. Or that my house is no different to how I left it, regardless of all the evidence that this is not the case. Both answers which would be illogical and irrational. Much like religion itself.

Posted by Noah Idea | Report as abusive

Haha““The predictable question which would then come from creationist lips would be “if they have the capability to evolve further, why have they not done so already, why do they show no signs of doing so now?” The answer is simple. We killed their chances.””If they are not observed to do it or don’t show any sign of doing it (may be due to we killed the chances or whatsoever the reason may be…) then upon what basis you believe that it happened before or will happen in future?? Only assumption!All that you described happens only in words not in practical life…that is why like all evolutionists you have to describe everything either in past tense or future tense….not in present tense…..Forming communities, using tools, communicating with each other etc are not specific to Monkeys, all these has long been happening in lower class species as well…such as Bee. And these do not prove they are evolving to other species.Michael hamWell, I am not advocating for God of any particular religion here. I just want to point out that after going over facts you will find no evidence to conclude that matters can created or designed by themselves nor can they evolve themselves from one stage to another, nor can they change their situation themselves (as like in your example fire couldn’t burn the house without that man’s initiative…the reason the man was guilty for.)Rather from close observation we can find out that any kind of material object has to be created or designed by someone…..that is why the material world we observe has been created by someone……..you can give any name to this ‘someone’….God/Deity/Creator/X/Y/Z ….not necessarily a christian God.

Posted by Vista | Report as abusive

Vista,You denying the big bang theory is fine, that’s not the subject here we’ll leave that for another blog.It always goes right back to the original point, the #1 objective here is to get you guys to realize it’s natural selection. Much like how a woman will choose a good looking guy who’s tall and muscular over a short ugly guy.

Posted by Michael Ham | Report as abusive

Evolution is based on evidence, observation, testable predictions and assumptions.Science is based on evidence, observation, testable predictions and assumptions.Religion is based on assumptions. Nothing more.You mention that evolution has gaps in evidence. Religion is based on no evidence. It is nothing but one huge gap in evidence and logic.But evolution is based on real evidence. And whether you deny this evidence is conclusive, religion has no evidence whatsoever.You claim that gaps in evidence mean that evolution should be dismissed. So according to your own logic, religion must be even less credible then evolution is.

Posted by Haha | Report as abusive

To Noah Idea…If someone doesn’t know how a computer works or what do computers do then, according to you, it is not logical for him to accept the computer is manufactured by someone!! Well, than we have to be expert on naval science and ship engineering to decide whether the ship is prepared by someone or not, we have to be expert on leather technology to decide whether any leather goods (wallets, belts, shoes etc) is manufactured by someone or not, we have to be pharmacologists to know that medicines are prepared by pharmaceutical companies????!!!!! So an electrical engineer or computer scientist is an illogical person to think Panenza Vaccine is manufactured by Sanofi-Aventis as long as he doesn’t know how Panenza works in his body, likewise a medical scientist is an illogical person if he thinks airplane is manufactured by Boeing Company as long as he doesn’t acquire knowledge on aeronautical science???? Really funny!! As every individual person can not be expert on every aspect of knowledge and science then no body on earth, according to your logic, is a rational being.Come on to the reality!As I told before one of most fundamental observations on matter is every form of MATTER is created or manufactured or designed by someone. You are overlooking this observation unintentionally or intentionally (probably to save your evolution dogma). Otherwise it is not hard to realize if we take into account that computer as a combination of matters and matters can not be combined itself if someone doesn’t do it….anyone who has a workable brain can recognize that computer is manufactured by someone. To know its origin it is not mandatory to know its detail working mechanism….its existence is enough to know it… and it is based on established fact about matter…that is why after going back to home if you find out a cane of coca cola on your desk you become sure that someone had come and put it there (even if you don’t know the formula of coke, don’t know how it acts in your body).Same thing with broken house!!Can you tell me in that example of broken house…which evidence that can best explains your observations within the rules of logic and natural laws would make you think that the door was broken by itself or goods were vanished itself?? None!According to your logic, if your ‘missing goods’ included gold, silver or diamond then after finding out those missing you had to be in rush to go into a library to get the knowledge on metallurgy before going to inform the police. After all if you don’t have knowledge on physical, chemical properties, mechanisms, all possible uses etc of gold, silver and diamonds you couldn’t prove the burglar guilty!! (Because you can’t claim that someone did it as long as you don’t have this knowledge on gold, silver, diamond). A very bad joke indeed.The reality is ‘Broken door’ or ‘missing goods’ are themselves prove that someone broke and taken away….you can call this someone as bugler or thief or anything you want. If such thing happens you or police will never try to find out ‘whether it is done by someone or happen by the doors or goods themselves?’ rather you or police will try to find out ‘who did it?’ (Means that ‘someone has done it’ is established fact). The reason is simple (but hard to accept for evolutionists) matter cannot be placed or displaced, or created, designed or changed themselves. Someone must be there to make it to happen. This is the fact about material worlds….the fact we in our real life act upon.

Posted by Straight Talk | Report as abusive

The reason your argument fails is because you equate logic to making bad analogies. When we look at the matter which makes up the universe, we can clearly observe and identify the physical forces which act on them such as gravity, magnetism, energy and physics. We can see the natural processes by which matter changes. But looking at the same matter, there is no actual evidence whatsoever that a deity is involved in their creation or process. When we look at the development of life, the result is the exactly the same. The natural forces in the development of life (evolution, natural selection and genetics) can be clearly identified, but once again no actual evidence of deity can be found no matter how hard you look. When you conclude that all matter requires an intelligent force behind it, you reach a conclusion for which you have no evidence. You assume that the universe must be designed because it is complex. You assume a designer exists because you assume the universe is designed. You assume that the universe is complex because it was made by a designer. Your entire argument is based on circular reasoning, spinning endlessly around with no logic or evidence in sight. This is something which you, and all other creationists, simply cannot accept. There is a reason for why you continue to make poor analogies and attack the gaps in evolution’s evidence. Because you are trying to hide the fact that creationism itself is nothing but a huge gap in evidence. And because you can never justify creationism in any evidentiary or logical manner, or feel you have no need to do so, your only approach is to attack evolution. But no matter how much you do so, you can never overcome the failings of creationism. And it is these failings which prevent it from being taken seriously by anyone with even a passing understanding of the scientific method (or indeed, the rules of logic).

Posted by Noah Idea | Report as abusive

A teacher gave a white blank paper to his student and instructed him to draw a picture on it. After sometimes the student declared that he has finished his drawing.
Teacher : What did you portrayed?
Student : Sir, I portrayed a cow eating grass in a field.
The student gave back the paper to his teacher. Amid anger & astonishment the teacher noticed that the paper was blank, nothing is being drawn on the paper.
Teacher : Hey, it’s blank. What did you do? Didn’t you tell me that you have portrayed a cow eating grass? Where’s that, where’s that cow and where’s the grass?
Student : Oh! Sir, the cow has eaten all the grasses in the field so you can’t see the grass.
Teacher : I see!!! Then, how about the cow?? Where it is?
Student : After eating grass the cow went back to home…its living place, so you can’t see the cow here either.
‘The cow eats grass” or “Cows go back to home after grazing” these are some observations which are generally correct. But what the boy concluded based on these observations is a pure deception and whole story becomes a joke. The story of evolution is just like that. Based on some usually correct observations, evolutionists put some funny arguments to draw a conclusion which doesn’t fit with the reality and makes the whole thing a joke if not an intentional deception.

Posted by one2one | Report as abusive

Situation A

“A person walks into their house. They notices the door broken open, and several items missing.”

Evolutionist: The door was locked, and has been broken open. I had items, now they are missing. It is likely that some real entity was involved. So I conclude based on the evidence that another human has robbed me.

Creationist: I think a God exists. I have no evidence to base this on, but this doesn’t matter because evidence is not relevent to me. So I conclude that God opened my house and made my items disappear.

Situation B

“A person sees a computer in the middle of the ground”

Evolutionist: A computer is an artificial device. It does not occur in nature, so a human engineer was involved. Computers are made by a process known as engineering. So I conclude that a human engineer was responsible for making the computer.

Creationist: I say that God made this computer. And I will believe this until someone can prove there is no God.

Situation C

“A person looks at the evidence for the development of life and is asked to make a conclusion”

Evolutionist: Based on life as it exists today, it appears that current life has common ancestors. This is backed up by thousands of fossil forms which confirm gradual development in the species of the past. Through genetics and natural selection, we have a process by which species can change over time. Looking at all the information, I conclude that evolution is the manner in which life developed on this planet. I will support this conclusion, but will alter my position if further evidence arises.

Creationist: Even though Evolution is based on a massive amount of evidence, I still think there are some gaps in the evidence presented. So I will choose instead to follow religion, which is based on absolutely no evidence at all. This is because of my religious upbringing, which taught me to associate believability with a complete lack of evidence. As my belief in religion does not rely on any evidence, evidence means nothing to me. As a result, my position will never change regardless of what evidence has been or will be discovered.

Posted by Haha | Report as abusive

A teacher gave a white blank paper to his student and instructed him to draw a picture on it. After sometimes the student declared that he has finished his drawing.

Teacher : What did you portrayed?

Student : Sir, I portrayed a cow eating grass in a field.

The student gave back the paper to his teacher. Amid anger & astonishment the teacher noticed that the paper was blank, nothing is being drawn on the paper.

Teacher : Hey, it’s blank. What did you do? Didn’t you tell me that you have portrayed a cow eating grass? Where’s that, where’s that cow and where’s the grass?
Student : Oh! Sir, the grass is invisible.
Teacher : I see!!! Then, how about the cow?? Where it is?
Student : The cow is divine and also invisible, so you can’t see the cow either.
Teacher : There is no cow or grass on this page.
Student : Yes there is!
Teacher : Cows are not invisible.
Student : Yes they are!
Teacher : There is nothing on this page. There is no evidence of a cow anywhere.
Student : It doesn’t matter.

The teacher wonders why the student is acting so silly. He askes the child why he was acting this way.

Student : My parents taught that there is an invisible cow that takes care of us.
Teacher : Based on what evidence?
Student : My parents told me that evidence doesn’t matter. Because they know the cow is true.
Teacher : That is illogical.
Student : My parents told me that logic doesn’t matter. Because they know the cow exists.
Teacher : Believing something without evidence is irrational.
Student : My parents told me that when you believe something is true, it is true.

Now when a person believes something based on no evidence, and dismisses direct evidence which proves them wrong, the whole story becomes a joke. The story of religion is just taking the word ‘cow’ and replacing it with the word ‘God’. Based on no evidence at all, creationists make silly arguments which have no basis in reality. And because there are so many of them, they look at the way in which they deceive themselves, and think it is perfectly normal. But because their arguments are illogical, they become a joke to anyone they try to justify their beliefs to.

Posted by Holy Cow | Report as abusive

Situation A
“A person walks into their house. They notice the door broken open, and several items missing.”
Evolutionist: The door has been broken under some physical laws. Some pressure was involved and the door couldn’t withstand the pressure involved so it’s been BROKEN ITSELF. All under the rules of science, no need to think of someone here to initiate the process. Several items were there but have GONE THEMSELVES as NO ONE SEEN to take it away. So no need to think of someone got involved here.
Rational thinker/Creationist: As the matters can not be placed or displaced or changed its situation themselves so there must be someone who broke the door and took away the goods.
Situation B
“A person sees a computer in the middle of the ground”
Evolutionist: Different types of materials were scattered on the ground, than in course of time they themselves combined and get into a computer. We can explain how a computer works; its all parts are in harmony with others and bound to some physical and electronics laws. Electrical energy is responsible to keep it running. Everything is done by ITSELF. So no need to think of the existence of a manufacturer for it.
Rational Thinker/Creationist: Computer is material device which is built and maintained by some physical and electronic rules which the matter themselves can not create. So a mastermind is there to make, accumulate such a nice structure.
Situation C
“A person looks at the evidence for the development of life and is asked to make a conclusion”
Evolutionist: Somehow some matters get into life and started to develop THEMSELVES. Over the time they evolve themselves from one stage to another. We can see easily that there are lots of animals which are similar in structures. So we can say they evolved one from another. There are lots of fossil records where we can find in past also there were many animals of similar structures. So surely they have come into existence from some other animals having similar structures. Everything is done by matters THEMSELVES and we CAN NOT SEE ANYONE to make it happen so no need to think of a creator (as like examples of broken house and computer).
Rational Thinker/Creationist: Everything we see around like stars, planets, trees, mountains, animals, waters etc are different forms of matters. On the basis of evidence that every material action needs an initiator and there must be someone behind every material form to be built, we can conclude there must be someone behind this well balanced material world.

Posted by one2one | Report as abusive

To Noah Idea…
As you said,
“When we look at the matter which makes up the universe, we can clearly observe and identify the physical forces which act on them such as gravity, magnetism, energy and physics. We can see the natural processes by which matter changes. But looking at the same matter, there is no actual evidence whatsoever that a deity is involved in their creation or process.”
It same as saying
“When we look at the matter which makes up the computer, we can clearly observe and identify the physical forces which act on them such as electricity, magnetism, energy and physics. We can see the electrical processes by which matter changes in a computer. Looking at the matter, there is no actual evidence whatsoever that a manufacturer is involved in the creation or process of computer.” “The electromagnetic forces in the running of programs (playing songs in winamp, virus detection by antivirus, games) can be clearly identified, but once again no actual evidence of a manufacturer can be found no matter how hard and how deep you look into a computer.”
The first one is illogical or irrational as much as like the second one!
“You assume a designer exists because you assume the universe is designed.”…just reverse, as we see the universe is a well designed combination of matters, any sincere person observing the reality “matters can not be designed or combined itself” has to admit that there is a designer who has set this material world. Evolutionists’ main aim is to deny the existence of a creator. That is why they invent some poor assumptions so that they can hide the fact of the rational understanding of the existence of a creator.

Posted by Str8Talk | Report as abusive

Holy Cow…..
Here is your parody:
Teacher : What did you portrayed?
Student : Sir, I portrayed a cow eating grass in a field.
The student gave back the paper to his teacher. Amid anger & astonishment the teacher noticed that the paper was blank, nothing is being drawn on the paper.
Teacher : Hey, it’s blank. What did you do? Didn’t you tell me that you have portrayed a cow eating grass? Where’s that, where’s that cow and where’s the grass?
Student : Oh! Sir, the grass has gone itself vanished.
Teacher : I see!!! Then, how about the cow?? Where it is?
Student : The cow also went vanished, so you can’t see the cow either.
Teacher : Well, how a portrayed cow and grass went vanished??? Aren’t they inert matters….drawing is none but the sort of particles (mostly carbon powders) dissolved in solvent?? Do you think that inert matters gone themselves???
Student : Yes they are!
Teacher : They gone themselves?????
Student : Yes they are!
Teacher : Do you see any material objects act themselves, changed themselves without the initiative of others???.
Student : It doesn’t matter.
The teacher wonders why the student is acting so silly. He asked the child why he was acting this way.
Student : I believe in evolution theory. Evolution theory taught that matters changed itself. All things have come into existence through changing from others by themselves.
Teacher : Based on what evidence? Did you see any matters change itself into another without other’s initiative?
Student : Evolutionists told me that evidence doesn’t matter. It does occur too slowly to observe. Though we can’t observe we have to believe in it.
Teacher : That is irrational.
Student : Evolutionists told me that rationality doesn’t matter. We have to deny the existence of a creator. That is our main point.
Teacher : Believing something without evidence is irrational.
Student : Evolutionists told me that as the evolution story help us to reject the existence of a creator, we have to believe in this story whether it is based on evidence or not.
Now when a person believes something based on no evidence, and dismisses direct evidence which proves them wrong, the whole story becomes a joke. Based on no evidence at all, evolutionists make silly arguments which have no basis in reality. As because their arguments are illogical, they become a joke to anyone they try to justify their beliefs to.

Posted by one2one | Report as abusive

St8talk, your analogy is flawed in two main ways.

1. Creationist arguments are rarely rational or logical, so referring to a ‘rationalist/creationist’ is silly. Rationalism is associated with logic, science and evolution, because these things follow a rational process of deduction based on actual observation and evidence. Creationism does not reach conclusions based on observations or evidence, so the term ‘rationalist’ has little connection to the term ‘creationist’.

2. Saying that a creationist would look at a broken-into house or computer and conclude a human influence was responsible is amusing, because that would involve the creationist reaching a logical conclusion based on actual evidence. Amusing because if a person reached conclusions based on evidence and logic they would not be a creationist.

3. If your analogy had made the creationist reach an absurd conclusion based on no evidence at all, and in breach of the rules of logic, your analogy would be more truthful. Because that is what creationists actually do. As it is, your analogy is dishonest.

4. Your main issue with evolution seems to be the fact that it didn’t witness the evolutionary process, and uses massive amounts of evidence and logic to conclude how species evolved. Yet you place the creationist in the same situation, concluding that the house was robbed even though they didn’t see it happen. You find it absurd for the evolutionist to conclude evolution based on overwhelming evidence and logic. But you find it rational that the creationist conclude burglary based on overwhelming evidence and logic. This indicates that you have a double standard, and represents a massive falure in your analogy and personal logic.

Based on these four critical failings, I find no further worth in debating your analogies. You can consider your argument dismissed.

Posted by defcon86 | Report as abusive

One2One.

An interesting version of my parody.

The only problem is that evolution
-is based on evidence (observation and positive evidence)
-follows rational process (the scientific method)
-follows logical process (the rules of logic)

But religion is not based on evidence, does not follow rational process, and frequently breaks the rules of logic. So my parody, I think, is more accurate then yours is.

You also claim that it is ridiculous to believe that matter can change itself without the initiative of others.

But chemistry, physics and biology proves that your claim is wrong. A teacher would know that and you should as well. Assuming, of course, you are educated.

Posted by defcon86 | Report as abusive

Defcon86…

In fact, creationism is based on:

Oservation: matters are inert and can not be created, changed, placed, displaced itself.

Rational conclusion: As universe is the combination of different forms of matters, so there must be someone who created and set this material world.

Evolution is not based on evidence, does not follow rational process and basic doctrines are based only on assumptions.

Let alone being highly educated, any being with a brain of thinking capability can easily understand that matters can not changed, created, placed, displaced itself. Behind every material action there is someone who initiates or sets up it. You can see a clock is running itself, but don’t forget a clock maker made it and set it first so that it can run automatically.
According to evolutionists and/or atheists if we believe in that matters itself can change and matters itself is responsible for every material actions then there will be no need to hunt for terrorists after there is a bomb blast. Because they believe bomb can be blast itself without anyone’s initiative.

Any person who can’t still understand this very basic nature of matters should not go to get formally admitted into a school of science like physics, chemistry, biology etc which all deal with rules, mechanisms of matters. Rather he or she can read fairy tales or watch tom and jerry…where no rational processes are taken into account for amusement.

Posted by one2one | Report as abusive

To defcon86,

1. Evolutionists arguments are rarely rational or logical. Creationism is associated with logic, reality, because this thing follows a rational process of deduction based on actual observation and evidence. Evolutionism does not reach conclusions based on evidence, so the term ‘rationalist’ is best suit with creationists and has little connection to the term ‘evolutionism’.
2. “If a person reached conclusions based on evidence and logic they would not be a creationist.”…this is your blind faith. So when you see a creationist look at a broken-into house or computer and conclude a human influence was responsible you should be amused. Because like all other evolutionists you are also brain washed with the propaganda that is only evolutionists are rational beings. In reality if someone deduces the conclusion regarding the origin of material world upon factual evidences and in a rational process that is what a creationist is, not an evolutionist whose observation follows only blind assumptions.
3. My analogy will help any sincere person to reach a rational conclusion which may seem ‘absurd’ to an evolutionist as it disproves their blind assumptions and no wonder the analogy itself seems ‘dishonest’ to evolutionists as it necessarily gives cold shoulder to their blind believes.
4. My main issue with evolution is it has actually no evidences at all. All that’s called ‘massive amount of overwhelming evidences’ is nothing but the descriptions of similarities among different past and present species of the world. But similarities don’t conclusively prove the evolution process. With the creationism I find ‘the proof of existence of a creator of material worlds’ as rational as the burglary is proved with the observation and logical conclusion in broken house. You are less interested to show any proof in support of your theory and are busier with proposing statement and showing your dogmatic conviction in believing evolutionists being only rational beings on earth (though they are really not). That is why you could not get my real standard and it seems to you as doubled. With the notion “You can consider your argument dismissed”, you can be self satisfied but it doesn’t solve the problems that evolution theory faces on a rational ground and surely your massive failure to counter my reality based logics has made further debate worthless.

Posted by Str8Talk | Report as abusive

You believe that it is rational to take all the positive evidence which exists in a damaged house, and conclude a burgler was to blame.

But you also believe that it is rational to conclude that a god exists, based on no positive evidence at all.

You clearly have double standards, and possess a massive flaw in your logic and the manner in which you view the world.

The only way for me to counter your ‘reality based logic’ is to point out that your argument is neither logical or based in the evidence of reality. There is nothing more I can do.

I agree that further debate seems pointless. As your arguments are illogical, there is no reason for me continue to debate you. Because any argument I could make would be based on evidence and logic. And these things seem to mean nothing to you.

If religion is based on positive evidence, then what evidence is that? Can you provide that positive evidence? If not, then religion is not rational. It is not rational to believe things without evidence.

But we already know evolution is based on fossils, genetics, biology and science, even if you disagree with that evidence.

If evolution is illogical, then what rule of logic does it break? Can you point that rule out? If not, then evolution is logical.

But we already know that religion breaks many rules of logic. The rule of ‘onus of proof’, the rule of ‘negative proof’, the rule of ‘circular argument’, the rule of ‘groundless belief’. The list goes on.

So when you argue that religion is logical and rational, and that evolution is illogical and irrational, I think you are being highly dishonest.

Posted by Defcon86 | Report as abusive

You believe that it is rational to take all the positive evidence which exists in a damaged house, and conclude a burgler was to blame.
Why a burglar was to blame?? Because if someone (means burglar here) didn’t do that the matters (damaged doors, lost goods) were not got changed itself.
Same way it is rational to conclude someone (you can give it name ‘God’ or anything you like) has to be responsible to set up this material world.
Why someone has to be responsible?? Because if someone (means God or any given name) didn’t do that the matters (different forms of matter in the universe like star, planet, satellites etc) couldn’t be set up or placed itself.
You agreed with first one but not second one (though both are based on same rational ground). So it you who showed double standard in similar arguments.

I agree that further debate seems pointless. As you don’t want to accept logical arguments, there is no reason for me continued to debate you. The discussion here is not subjective to any particular religion. It is all about the existence of a creator for this material universe. I already showed you rational logics with several easily comprehendible analogies to prove the existence of a creator for this material world. But these things seem to mean nothing to you as because my arguments and logic did not favor evolution dogma.
Evolution is based on observation on fossils records, genetic variations, biological similarities followed by blind assumptions. As because the observations of evolutionists ultimately rest on a false assumption, a rational mind can not agree with it.
“If evolution is illogical, then what rule of logic does it break? Can you point that rule out? If not, then evolution is logical” …….Evolution is illogical because it does not follow the rule of logic. Thing which doesn’t follow rational logics is not worthy enough to keep under experimentation of pointing out what rule it breaks. So your proposed list of rule breaking rules that really has potential to go on further is quite justifiable with evolution.
When I prove that creationism is logical and rational, and that evolution is illogical and irrational, I have nothing to do if you think me as dishonest…for a participant of a debate following rules of logic this type of thinking can be considered as a very much passive way to declare “I don’t have any counter argument.” Thats it.

Posted by Str8Talk | Report as abusive

Your ‘rational logics’ are flawed. When a house is damaged and items are missing, it might be a burgler. Or it could be the results of a natural storm or flood. The correct conclusion on what happened depends on the positive evidence available to reach a conclusion.

Matter reacts and changes in chemicals, fire and physics. So when you base your entire argument on the idea that “matter cannot change by itself” your logic is again flawed.

There is a reason why scientists argue with positive evidence and logic, and do not use stories about burglers and computers. Because a story is only as good as the logic used in it. And your logic is bad.

Now my counter argument was simple.

You claimed religion was logical and rational. So I asked you to provide positive evidence that a deity exists.

You claimed evolution was illogical and irrational. So I asked you to point out which rule of logic you think evolution breaks.

These were simple requests. Instead, you made excuses and provided no answers. Does this mean that you have no evidence? Does this mean that you do not know what the rules of logic are?

I hope not. Or it would seem the debate is finished to my satisfaction.

Posted by Defcon86 | Report as abusive

In the context of our discussion “Matter reacts and changes in chemicals, fire and physics.” is half-true. The full truth is ‘with the help of some external force matter reacts and changes in chemicals, fire and physics’. That is why after finding the damaged house you have to find out whether it is happened by a ‘burglar’ or a ‘storm’ or ‘flood’. According to your logic if ‘matter can change by itself’ you should say the door was broken by itself and goods were gone by themselves…no burglar/storm/flood. But in reality that is not the case. As MATTER CANNOT CHANGE BY ITSELF you are finding out the force behind the damaged house in terms of either burglar or storm or flood. This is the positive evidence for external someone/deity/god/force behind the setting up this material world.
Again, evolution doesn’t follow rules of logic, it is based on assumption. So which rule of logic evolution breaks is an irrelevant question. If you tell me that after running for ten years your wrist watch gradually changed into a wall clock and asked me ‘what rules of logic this incidence breaks?’ I will request you think yourself….you will find the answer.

Posted by Str8Talk | Report as abusive

You claimed religion was rational and logical.

You have again failed to provided evidence a deity exists. I will not ask a third time. So I will conclude that religion is not based on evidence, so cannot be said to be rational.

Regarding your claim that evolution breaks the rules of logic, you claim that evolution is illogical because it is based on assumption.

All science is based on assumptions as well as evidence. Chemstry is based on assumptions and evidence. Nuclear theory is based on assumptions and evidence. Physics is based on assumptions and evidence. Evolution is based on assumptions and evidence.

If you believe that evolution is illogical because it involves assumptions, then you must also believe physics and chemistry are illogical. Or you only believe evolution is illogical, and thus your rational standards are flawed.

Not to mention that even as you claim evolution is illogical because it combines evidence with assumption, you support a religion based on assumptions and no evidence at all. Your own actions fail to conform to your own logic.

Regarding your burgler story. YOU were the one who claimed that the house MUST have been changed by an intelligent entity.

But now you have admitted that a damaged house might be the result of a storm or other event, and not always an intelligent force like a burgler. Hence we have found that the correct decision on what damaged the house is based on positive evidence, not an assumption that intelligence was behind it. Your own logical story has fallen apart.

And I noticed you once again failed to say which rule of logic evolution breaks. I will not ask again. So either you don’t know what the laws are, or you cannot find which one evolution breaks.

But for your benefit, I will mention the rules of logic that religion breaks. The rule of negative proof. The rule of onus of proof. The rule of circular reasoning. The rule of conclusion based on no evidence. The rule of occam’s razor.

When people say religion is illogical, it isn’t an insult. It is just pointing out that religion actually breaks established rules of logic, and is thus illogical.

Posted by defcon86 | Report as abusive

“If you tell me that after running for ten years your wrist watch gradually changed into a wall clock and asked me ‘what rules of logic this incidence breaks?”

I will tell you why your story is illogical:

1. Clocks and watches are not alive.
2. This means they do not change by themselves.
3. So your story has no connection to living things which do change over time (birth, growth, breeding, death, ect).
4. As a result, your story about clocks has no relevence to living things.

It is the same reason why your other stories about computers, houses and other things are irrelevent.

I should not have to point these things out to you. Use evidence and logic please. If you continue to argue in illogical manner, the debate must stop.

Posted by defcon86 | Report as abusive

I showed the proof of the existence of a creator in a rational way for several times but you failed to accept it or intentionally ignored it. I also showed why evolution theory doesn’t follow rules of logic (that’s why which rules it breaks is quite irrelevant) but again you ignored it. Because you didn’t find the name of any of your memorized theories in my evidence and also because you believe in evolution theory blindly and that’s why you do not want to accept any logical argument which may disprove evolution dogma. However, I didn’t surprise as it is the way for any person who has some sort of blind faith in any dogma. I have doubt whether you really read my post carefully or not. Because in my post I again and again told you the discussion is about the existence of creator and not about any religion. You presumed me as an advocate of religion. But in none of my post I used the term religion to make it proved logical or illogical. The discussion of existence of creator is different from that of religion (Of curse the existence of god is a fundamental idea for most of the religions but this is not all about religion and we know some religion in fact deny the existence of any kind of god, such as Buddhism.). Here the discussion is all about existence of creator and evolution.

I know, all sciences are based on assumptions as well as evidence. Chemistry is based on assumptions and evidence. Nuclear theory is based on assumptions and evidence. Physics is based on assumptions and evidence. But evolution is based only on assumptions and no evidence.

“But now you have admitted that a damaged house might be the result of a storm or other event,”
I not just admitted but trying hard to make you admit that the damaged house was not damaged by itself, it must be caused by some external one, this external one may be burglar or storm or flood. Whether it is an intelligent one or dull one or something like storm depends on the nature of the work done but its EXISTENCE is obvious from the observation of changed matters. (Well, I told you before about the existence of intellectual entity behind this material universe by the observation of this well planned and well designed universe. If you find only your valuable goods are missing in broken door house but all other things are there as it is then you can say it’s a burglar, not a storm. However,if you think the one who has set up this material world is not an intellectual entity, rather he is a dumb one it’s up to you, that is not the discussion here). Here the discussion is about the existence of creator for material world not about the characteristics of creator.

When you claim your discussion to be scientific and the discussion is about the objective study of the origin of matters (in its different forms) you can not differentiate the matters in terms of ‘that one is alive’, ‘this one is dead’, ‘that one has no life’. We will not be able to find out where the so called ‘life’ rests in a living being. After analyzing scientifically we will find only matters and that is some amounts of different kind of known atoms. Whether we carry out the analysis on clock or watch or chimp or monkey or human body, or computer or diamond or coal. So when you said “clocks have no relevance to living things” it reflects your philosophical concept on matters, not a scientific approach. If you think one form of matters (let’s say horse) can grow, birth, breed, die but other form of matters (let’s say clock) can not because first one is ‘living’, means that one has ‘life’ than scientific approach demands to find out what that ‘life’ is composed of? Is that made of an element out of periodic table?? Where, in a so called living body, it resides? If you don’t find that as a separate entity out of matter itself you can not differentiate scientifically a living horse from a running clock in term of having ‘life’ or being ‘living’.

Well as you agreed,

1. Clocks and watches are not alive
2. This means they do not change by themselves.

Then how about the Mars, Neptune, Pluto, Saturn, Uranus, Moon, Titan, Rhea, Nix, Eros, Hydra etc. All these are not alive. Now if you don’t betray your own logic you have to admit all these planets and satellites are not changed by themselves. There must be someone (as like in case of ‘not alive’ clocks and watches) who set these so that they remain in a moving condition.

If you think you are making judgments on scientific or rational basis then arguments should be cerebral. But if you approach to justify a theory philosophically this debate must stop.

Posted by Str8Talk | Report as abusive

Once again you fail to provide any positive evidence showing the existance of a deity.

Once again you fail to point out a rule of logic that evolution breaks.

You try to state that a creator is not involved with religion. Even when it is obvious that the creator you propose is a supernatural one.

You use illogical stories instead of evidence. You think just because clocks cannot change by themselves, living things can’t either.

You follow creationism based on no evidence at all. You cannot show a single shred of positive proof to show a deity or any supernatural influence.

You say evolution is based on nothing but assumption. According to you, genetics, fossils, natural selection and biology simply doesn’t exist.

Your attack on my logic was weak. Under my logic planets cannot change by themselves because they are not alive. They requre some outside force which alters them, such as gravity or physics.

There is much evidence that the rules of physics change planets. But not a single piece of evidence that a deity was involved. Your logic is the flawed one.

You fail to address the fact that religion and creationism breach actual rules of logic. And you keep claiming evolution breaches rules of logic, but you refuse to say which one it breaks.

And then after all this, you go on to say that YOU are debating in a scientific and rational basis and that I am not?

There is no reason to continue this debate with you.

If you are going to pretend to argue with rules of logic and evidence, but not actually provide these things when asked, then you are not debating in good faith.

Posted by defcon86 | Report as abusive

I am not using any imaginary stories like ‘millions years ago some thing might be happened…..now we have to dig out the evidences….’. Rather I am using all tangible examples to prove my claim.
Genetics, fossils, natural selection and biology do exist, but that don’t prove evolution conclusively, that’s is my point.

When you said,
1. Clocks and watches are not alive
2. This means they do not change by themselves.

Did you mean clocks and watches are not made by some one rather they created and changed by some physical laws? Not bad, with the energy from battery or from mechanical sources the oscillator of a clock repeats the same motion over and over again, with a precisely constant time interval between each repetition. Attached to the oscillator is a controller device, which sustains the oscillator’s motion by replacing the energy it loses to friction, and converts its oscillations into a series of pulses. The pulses are then added up in a chain of some type of counters to express the time in convenient units, usually seconds, minutes, hours, etc. Then finally some kind of indicator displays the result in a human-readable form. EVERYTHING IS DONE BY THE CLOCK ITSELF. So due to these physical laws by which clocks work do you want to deny the existence of the manufacturer of the clock??????

You can deny but the truth is someone made the clock so that it can run maintaining with all that physical laws.

Same thing with other ‘not alive’ matters. Mars, Neptune, Pluto, Saturn, Uranus, Moon, Titan, Rhea, Nix, Eros, Hydra etc all are bound to some physical laws in the space. Does that mean these are not created and set by anyone????? This is my simple question.

Posted by Str8Talk | Report as abusive

Sir,
Darwins theory is disputed and I personally believe in the fact that there can be no such thing as Evolution based on natural selection. It requires consious labours on the part of man and can never be mechanical as is propounded by certain popular theories which is incorrect, Thank You.

Posted by R.Rajesh | Report as abusive

Once again you provide no evidence for a deity, or say which rules of logic evolution breaks.

Living creatures are alive. They change by themselves, by their own actions. They are born, they breathe, they pass on genes to offspring.

We can see natural selection. We can see genetics and biology. We can investigate skeleton and organ structures of all life forms which are living and dead. These are all real things. And we can use them to reach a conclusion within the boundaries of reality on how life developed. That conclusion is evolution.

There is no evidence, not a single tiny scrap, which shows the existance of a deity or a deity’s influence on life. When you conclude a deity influences or designs life, you reach a conclusion outside the boundaries of reality, based on no positive evidence at all.

Planets are not living creatures. They are not born, they do not grow, breed or die. They do not change by themselves, they can only change through the forces of gravity and motion.

We can observe and test the forces of the universe. Heat, light, gravity, magnatism and motion are all direct evidence. And we can see through those forces how planets can change through the natural forces of the universe. The conclusion for why planets change is physics, which once again falls within the logical boundaries of the universe.

Yet once again, there is not a single scrap of evidence that a deity was responsible for these forces or how these forces work on planets. Once again, the conclusion of a deity is an explanation which is not within the natural world.

You are free to conclude that a magic deity is involved. But it isn’t based on any evidence, is not within the limitations of the natural universe, and is not rational or logical or scientific.

Evolution has evidence. The evidence may not explain everything and you may not think that evidence is conclusive. But compared to religion which is based on no evidence and magic, evolution is the scientific rational and logical conclusion.

Now I ask you, one final time:
-Provide positive scientific EVIDENCE proving the existance of a deity, and
-Tell me what RULE OF LOGIC evolution breaks.

If you do not provide these things, I will simply not respond to your comment. If you are not going to answer polite and simple questions, then I will not waste my time debating you.

Posted by Defcon86 | Report as abusive

“We can observe and test the forces of the universe. Heat, light, gravity, magnatism and motion are all direct evidence. And we can see through those forces how planets can change through the natural forces of the universe. The conclusion for why planets change is physics, which once again falls within the logical boundaries of the universe.”
This means, you agreed that a clock is not manufactured by anyone as we can explain how a clock works by some physical laws???? Isn’t it funny?

You did not answer my simple question. Whether the planets are changed by physical laws or chemical laws that was not my question….my simple question was Earth, Jupiter, Mars, Neptune, Pluto, Saturn, Uranus, Moon, Titan, Rhea, Nix, Eros, Hydra are some material bodies in the space which are bound to some physical laws…….ARE THESE CREATED AND SET UP BY ANYONE OR NOT??????

I say yes. And my logic is…as matters can not created and set up by themselves these materiel bodies in the space must be created and set up by someone.
I just wanted to know what your answer is and what your logic behind your answer is.

Posted by Str8 Talk | Report as abusive

My answer and logic is this:

-Science explains the real world.
-Matter must come from somewhere.
-Just because matter comes from somewhere, doesn’t mean it needs to be created by magic.
-There is no positive scientific evidence that a deity exists.
-So concluding or assuming a deity exists is irrational and not logical.

Now YOU answer MY questions.

-Show me some positive scientific evidence showing that a deity exists.
-Tell me which actual RULE OF LOGIC evolution breaks.

Posted by Defcon86 | Report as abusive

Again you failed or ignored to answer my simple question.
Well, matters come from somewhere….my question was whether the forms of matter that I listed in my previous post have been created and set up by somebody or not? If ‘Yes’ than that is the proof that somebody has created this material world in the universe and that somebody is called Creator/Deity/God.
If your answer is ‘No’ then it means, you agree that these matters are created and set up by themselves.
Which is your answer that you are agree with?

Posted by Str8 Talk | Report as abusive

Your simple question is illogical.

Your question is “do you believe matter was created by someone, or did they create themselves”

You assume that the forms of matter have to be set up by a ‘someone’.

If all matter comes from somewhere, that means there must be a source. But there is no reason to think this source is a deity or a being.

We know that gravity and dust makes planets. We know that physics shows evidence that the universe started from the big bang.

But there is no evidence of a deity existing. No evidence that a deity created the planets. So believing in a deity is irrational.

Now your refusal of answering my questions is beginning to become rude. I asked them many days ago and many times over and over. And you still make excuses and refuse to answer them.

My patience is wearing thin.

-Show me some POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE showing that a deity exists.
-Tell me which actual RULE OF LOGIC evolution breaks.

If you do not answer my question, I will simply not respond.

Posted by Defcon86 | Report as abusive

I’ve just skimmed these posts as the non existence of god/gods is a given therefore the argument doesn’t have any validity.

What I did spot being repeatedly stated was that materials/elements do not change.

Sit long enough next to a radio active (naturally occuring) element and watch it decay to a different element with a lower atomic no.

As to how evolution works and the statement that no one has seen it, try this experiment (just a theory of course).

Make a pan of broth or several, leave them out for a few days and you may see patches of scum or mold develop.
Add a few drops of vinegar (I don’t know how much it would take). I would imagine that at some point the patches (colonies) of Bacteria or mold will decrease or disintegrate.

Scoop the surface where these are/were and put into a new broth, let it grow, start adding more vinegar and repeat ad nauseam.

Quite soon (relatively) you will have colonies of highly acid (vinegar) resistant bacteria/mold due to natural selection.

The ones that are resistant because of the normal variations in all organisms survive and breed, the non-resistant don’t.

I am still amazed at the sheer numbers of outwardly normal people who need a super being to look after them, I personally gave up on D.C comics when I was 10.

Posted by Paul Arkle | Report as abusive

Alas, were it so simple, Paul.

The problem is that creationism is not based on any evidence. And reaches conclusions without evidence. And dismisses any evidence which contradicts it.

Hence, your experiment will mean nothing to most creationists. Because for them, actual evidence means very little to them.

I suppose it is impossible to debate with many creationists. Particularly those with poor english skills, and little understanding of logic or the scientific method.

All you can do is point out that as their argument breaks the rules of logic and evidence, they disqualify themselves from rational debate.

Posted by Defcon86 | Report as abusive