Evolution is a Religion!

The Emperor Has NO clothes!

Did you know that Macro Evolution is actually a religion? The scientific method requires a theory to be observed, tested and duplicated, macro evolution cannot pass any of those tests. Also in order to believe in evolution one must exercise “ blind faith” in the proponents of evolution. One must exercise blind faith because the key component of macro evolution is billions and billions of years (how convenient). It cannot be tested because supposedly it happened so slowly over billions of years that we cannot observe it. The emperor has no clothes!

Moreover, the evidence against macro evolution is much more widespread and observable than the evidence for it. I would dare ask anyone to find a dog that gives birth to anything but a dog, or a cat that gives birth to anything but a cat, thereby providing ample evidence in every species known to man that kind gives birth to kind and one species does not parent another. Additionally, the theory of evolution directly contradicts the second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, in short, that everything is decomposing or deteriorating while the theory of evolution surmises that somethings are actually improving and evolving.



Evolutionary change above the species level is macro evolution while evolutionary changes in populations within a species are termed micro-evolution. Micro-evolution explains why we have toy poodles and St. Bernard's within the same species, while macro-evolution is the supposed science that explains how we evolved from...um rocks to become human beings!


Proponents of evolution state that the reason we cannot observe evolution is because it happened so long ago, over billions and billions of years and that even now while evolution is still occurring it is happening at such a “slow” rate that one cannot observe it. How convenient!

Regardless of the “supposed” reason for the lack of observation and evidence, the fact that we cannot observe, test or duplicate macro evolution puts the theory squarely into the realm of religion and/or faith no matter how many scientists protest this charge.

Furthermore, the theory of evolution has been used by despots for the last 100 years. Hitler was a firm believer in evolution as was Stalin. Many mass murderers like the Columbine killers were also adherents to the theory. And, it's no surprise since the theory encourages the might makes right ideology.

Therefore, since Macro-evolution is unobservable, untestable, unable to be scientifically duplicated and contradicts the second Law of Thermodynamics, therefore, it has no place in a public school science class. Since the constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion and evolution is a belief system, something that must be accepted by faith, therefore a "religion" it should not be taught in public schools!

It's just that simple!

Do you believe in Macro-Evolution?

See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 225 comments

Vladimir Uhri profile image

Vladimir Uhri 7 years ago from HubPages, FB

Great hub. You are so good. Thanks.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

No one is good but God :) and I certainly don't come close, but thanks Vladimir.

Brie


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 7 years ago

Brie,

Thank you for this hub. Short and to the point. Those that say that evolution is a "fact" are about 10 years behind the times--they need to read your hub...


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks Bibowen, I just wanted to point out this one very important fact. I find that most points of truth are very basic.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 7 years ago from Chicago

AMEN! I love this little Hub! Lord knows, you are so right. Thank you for standing up to the Deceiver.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Well, finally a hub you like! :)


jeff 7 years ago

this is pure idiocy


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Tell me, Jeff what is idiotic about insisting on proof for something that is supposedly "scientific"?


AnthonyZ 7 years ago

How's this for observable evolution? Anti-biotic resistant bacteria. That's right MRSA, and the lot. What happens is, we try to kill off bacteria with anti-biotics- Some become resistant, through NATURAL SELECTION, and they live on to replicate. It's simple evolution. Right before our eyes. That is NOT religion, that is science. Boo yah!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

This is true but bacteria doesn't evolve into non-bacteria..it's still bacteria.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Just like roaches become resistant to insecticide, they are still roaches they don't become lady bugs or fish!

Really, the illogical arguments for this charade are mind-boggling.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 7 years ago from Chicago

Well, I have liked several of your hubs, dear. And I most assuredly like you! :D


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

:) Nice to know!


JimLow 7 years ago

Brie, super-good points you've made here!

It absolutely does take faith to believe in the theory of evolution, in fact a great deal of faith! You will not hear evolutionist admit that this is what it is, but that's exactly what it is.... faith!

If you get a chance to look at my Hub "The Newest Hyped Fossil Find Ardi" you might be interested in some of the comments beiing left there and my replies to them.

Let me just add that the "eureka!" fossil finds evolutionist-scientists come forward with every few years, are proposed pre-human spieces but are always those from many millions of years ago when they were apes. The ones claimed to be closer to human were trumped-up from single fragments or single teeth, that in some cases were found to be from other non-primate/ape animals. The single "Ardi" fossil, partial skeleton reconstructed (much of it digitally) has been proclaimed as an entirely new species of pre-human apes. Rather than other similar fossils confirming a find, they can always go as far as they want with singular ones. This despite the possibility of dwarf or midget animals, deformities or simply hybrid type animals (without human interference).

Here's a huge key to this proof-proclaiming that is often overlooked by the public:

The fossils that would really prove something are not being found and never will be. These would be the ones from a much less distance of time - The ones that have proof of in-between ape-men. Ones that for example are 70% man and 30% ape or even 90% man and 10% ape. These type might only be a million years old, possibly less if they really existed. If they find one, I'll be the first one in line to shake their hands and apologise for my total skepticism of evolution that I literally believe to be the biggest hoax to ever be perpetrated on the public.

Creationism is absolutely a science and a reality and should be taught in school, especially since evolutionary theory is being taught and claimed as fact!

Sorry for the long comments - hope you didn't mind. Keep up the intriguing Hubs!


eddiekay 7 years ago

Brie's observations are concise,easy to understand and accurate. While I would not agree that Creationism is a science in that "the beginning" was not observed, there is growing scientific support for all the events Genesis described. This support will increase as our technology progresses. Yet, coming back to the coffee table or bar stools where most debates occur, the question I always ask and never receive an answer to is," Intermediate fossils dude, where are they...missing links...where are all those fish with front legs."


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Good point Eddiekay, thanks for the comments.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 7 years ago from USA

Great hub. You gotta fan today.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks Spiderpam!


The Audio god 7 years ago

Do all you people watch The Flintstones as though it were a DOCUMENTARY????


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Your comment reveals that you have no criticism that can be reasonably addressed, so you are forced to use base put downs in order to hide the fact that you cannot refute the facts.


Hi-Jinks profile image

Hi-Jinks 7 years ago from Wisconsin

Have you taken many science courses in college?

If you want the facts about evolution look not at the evolution of man, but in the evolution of plants. The answer is there. Without plants no one eats. Food is the religion. Amen.


I agree with Jeff 7 years ago

Preaching to the choir. Drink your kool-aid have a nice life believing in your fairy tails. Don't push it on the rest of us. The flying Spaghetti monster lives.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Hi Jinks: The evolution of plants does not prove the evolution of species and if you think it does feel free to demonstrate!

And I agree with Jeff: It is in fact your religion, the religion of Evolution, that has been pushed on us and we don't want YOUR RELIGION, neither should we be forced to pay for it.


Big Fat Bob 7 years ago

When one person is delusional, it is called insanity. When many people are delusional, it is called religion! And I don't argue with the insane!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Considering that so many people "believe" in evolution and it can't be proven using scientific methods I would agree with you, however, I am an optimist and hope to reason with the masses.


emag 7 years ago

I'm curious. Those of you who believe in Creationism have yet to provide any proof that what happened roughly 6,000 years ago is exactly what happened according to the Old Testament. While I'm willing to accept that you believe history has a different course than what has traditionally been taught in schools, you are severely lacking in any evidence of that. Those of us who believe in evolution and have shown the proof are rebuked, but only with fluff. Brie, you say, "Considering that so many people 'believe' in evolution and it can't be proven using scientific methods," yet, of all your posts, not one has a single source supporting Creationism. Where is this leg that you stand on, and where does your clout come from? I am curious to see what proof you have that your opinion is the right one. Of course, if you think that calling Creationism "religion" in the way you call evolution "religion," than I hope you understand that this is truly an invalid and unsupported argument.

To support the theory of multidrug resistant bacteria, here are a few sources on different species that have developed different traits. All in the name of that fabled concept "natural selection."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_0...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/188/4184...

But if you're looking for some support, try this link:

http://www.dailyspeculations.com/wordpress/?p=4046


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

I understand that microscopic organism may evolve into other "things" however I am talking about species to species Macro-Evolution. I believe I mentioned that in the blog.

Regarding the evidence for Creationism. The blog was NOT about Creationism it was about the evidence or lack thereof for Evolution. There is plenty of evidence for Creationism and if I do a blog about that I will state it. However, ultimately the crux of the matter is that Evolution is currently paid for with tax payer money even though it cannot be proven and therefore should not be taught as science in public schools or should be taught alongside Creationism as a theory.


Alex 7 years ago

Brie, I enjoyed reading your article. You are a very clear and concise writer. However, I had a question:

You state that "Macro Evolution is a religion because it cannot be observed, tested or duplicated". To rephrase, you are stating that Macro Evolution is a religion because it requires faith. However, your statement is a misrepresentation of the definition of religion. According to the American Heritaqe Dictionary, religion is "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

As far as I am aware, evolution has nothing to do with a supernatural power nor does it consider the idea of a singular "creator" and belief or worship of this creator. Because evolution does not fall under the definition or religion, we should teach it in schools. However, if you have proof of why evolution should fall under the dictionary definition of religion, I would be interested in seeing it.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Hi Alex:

I am using the term religion in a general sense. The dictionary definition of religion is as follows:

religion - 5 dictionary results

–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

I suppose that definition #6 and or #2 would be close to the definition I would use when describing the devotion to evolutionism. Maybe the word "faith" should have been used but I think most people understand what I wrote.

Thanks for commenting.


geoff 7 years ago

ha! good troll. you had me going for a while


Yeager 7 years ago

so what do you propose we teach kids how we got here? that god flipped a switch and said let there be light? and all of a sudden god created man???? where is any science in that?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Either provide all "theories" or none.


David 7 years ago

You have not cited any sources for quotes paraphrased and made baseless generalizations about the scientific process. This is what is known in the scientific community as bullshit.

I am not hostile towards religion and myself believe in both evolution and Christianity, but I am able to distinguish between theory and religion.

Evolution is not a religion simply because it is indeed falsifiable, regardless of how slowly any process happens, it is still observable and can be studied. It is a theory, not because it does not require faith, but because it is fluid and can be modified as evidence surfaces. If I throw an object in the air, I have faith it will fall back down, but if it didn't, the gravitational theory would be modified, as all commonly accepted theories have been over time.

Another note is that a theory is not the same as a fact. When the facts no longer support a theory, it is discarded. I acknowledge that it is possible that future analysis may reveal evolution as a folly on par with phrenology, which differentiates theory from faith.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Well David the facts do NOT support Macro Evolution because as you can see dogs come from dogs and cats from cats and humans from humans. The addition of time does not change this.


Jeff Khoury 7 years ago

All you have to do is go to google and type in "observed instances of speciation" and click the first link. Many instances, documented and peer-reviewed.

Stop thumping that bible and open your eyes. First step: youtube users AronRa and thunderf00t.

Learn what you are talking about scientifically before you pretend to know what "macro-evolution" is (a null term, really) or even evolution at all. Evolution is not about dogs turning into cats or something silly like that.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

No it's about rocks turning into people (given enough time)!


dsrtegl 7 years ago

Brie,

Rocks turning into people is obsurd.

Evolution is a theory that explains the DIVERSITY of life, not the ORIGIN of life. The origin of life is a field of study called abiogenesis.

As is true with most creationists, you are ill-informed and ill-equipped to debate either one of these fields of study. I suggest you start by at least reading the wikipedia articles on evolution and abiogenesis to AT LEAST learn the distinction between them and the current state of theory.

It never ceases to amaze me that you are so eager to dismiss scientific understanding of the nature of the universe while basking in its protection. It is likely that science has saved your life more than once. It is definitely a FACT that it allows you to use that technological marvel called a computer to post your bronze-age assertions that the universe was essentially sneezed into being by an invisible man in the sky.

The incongruence is astonishing.


dsrtegl 7 years ago

Also, your understanding of what constitutes a theory is lacking as well.

Creationism does not have any of the characteristics required to be a theory. In fact, it does not even rise to the level of a hypothesis. By definition, supernatural things cannot be tested and must be taken on faith, and there are no facts that can support them. It cannot be measured or verified, and it is not falsifiable.

Creationism is conjecture, at best.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Macro Evolution cannot be tested and must be taken on faith too! And we are not talking about Creationism, it never ceases to amaze me how quickly evolutionists want to change the subject.

Darwin wrote "THE ORIGIN of the Species" honey!


dsrtegl 7 years ago

OK... honey (I love condescension).

It is not taken on faith, see "Jeff Khoury's" post above. Since your earlier posts refer to the Christian god, it is obvious what you're talking about, no matter how you try to obfuscate it.

It is also plainly obvious that you've only read the cover of Darwin's book, otherwise you would know the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis. You might want to read a little bit on the scientific method as well.

Please, please do some reading. To attempt to make these points going on second-hand information only weakens your argument because someone like me will call you on your incorrect assertions.

You are commenting on something about which you know nothing. There is no evidence supporting your position, and mountains supporting mine. You have been given references and recommended reading. Please take advantage of them.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

According to you black is white and white is black. You cannot prove macro-evolution in anything bigger than a flea (if that)nor can you reproduce your results (which is what is required of the scientific method). If you can, show me! The onus is on you to prove your case, not on me.

The Emperor has no Clothes


dsrtegl 7 years ago

OK, so you're using a typical creationist's tactic, which is "moving the bar". You say no macro-evolution on anything bigger than a flea, yet the references given by Jeff clearly show peer-reviewed papers showing speciation in flies, which are certainly many times larger than fleas.

The fact that the papers have been peer-reviewed mean that they pass muster with the scientific community, and provide enough evidence that the findings could be verified. Unfounded claims are treated mercilessly by the scientific community and they do not stand long.

My case has been presented with references. I have shown you, but you refuse to read them. You are essentially plugging your ears and screaming "La La La".

Present your alternate theory. Write a paper, get it reviewed. Otherwise you're peeing in the wind.


dsrtegl 7 years ago

In addition, your reference video above is from a convicted fraudster currently serving time. How reliable is his input?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan Author

Your "peer reviews" are meaningless since if someone has an opposite view regarding evolution they are blacklisted and unable to obtain tenure. In addition , the reference to the video above still stands (not because he was illegally put in prison on some trumped up tax charge) because what he is saying is true, which is what you EVOLUTIONISTS always do to change the subject when confronted with the facts!


dsrtegl 7 years ago

OK Brie,

The more you talk, the sillier you sound. You've gone off the deep end and are now straying in to the wacky conspiracy theories. Blacklisting, Hovind's crimes really aren't crimes, etc.

The only times people are "blacklisted", that is - ignored out of hand is when they make wild claims with no verifiable evidence. Hovind is criticized by even other young-earth creationists and if you'd do a little background investigation on that you would have found that out as well.

Hovind is in prison for the same tax fraud scheme that landed Wesley Snipes in prison - namely renouncing citizenship and claiming that taxes do not apply to him. That is wrong, and fraud, and indicative of the man's character.

No evidence will ever be good enough for you since you take your world-view on faith alone. You have been brainwashed since birth to believe in your god and nothing else. Your mind is closed to reality and sadly I fear it will remain so.

I have lead you to water, but you refuse to drink.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

How convenient for you to say "no evidence will ever be good enough" since you offer NONE!

At least I don't believe we came from rocks.


dsrtegl 6 years ago

You are arguing in a circle. I have already told you People from rocks is absurd. That is right from Kent Hovind's mouth. If you quit regurgitating his words and learn for yourself, you might increase your knowledge.

Kent Hovind's understanding of evolution and abiogenesis is flawed, and he says he's taught high-school science, but he is clearly unqualified.

There is evidence cited above, as in googling "Observed instances of speciation" First link. Dozens of examples... all verified, solid, reviewed evidence.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

All bigger than a flea..oh fly?


Evolved 6 years ago

I can prove evolution much more easily then you can prove the existence of heaven and hell or your superstitous God.

Care to proceed?


Scott 6 years ago

None are so blind as those who will not see.

On this topic, the rational and logical people should take a page from Brie's book, "Do not cast pearls to swine."

Cheers!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Go for it Evolved.


Evolved 6 years ago

First of all there is proof positive of evolution, which I will get to later, but, first answer this for me. Do you believe in adaptation to ones environment? Also since you are so adament about the denial of evolution are you going to prove to me the existence of heaven and hell and creation for that matter? Answer these two questions for me and we can begin.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Adaptation to ones environment is not the same as one species changing into an entirely different species.

We are not discussing Creationism here we are discussing Evolution, quit trying to change the subject!


Evolved 6 years ago

Whos trying to change the subject here?

Adaptation has EVERYTHING to do with evolution.

I noticed your surrounded by yes men here Brie.

Get a little testie when confronted with actual thought provoking questions I see.

Lets stick to the subject shall we? Do you believe that Humans have adapted and exploited to most environments on the planet, yes or no? A simple yes or no.

Your not avoiding my questions are you?

You say that creation is not the subject here, I say your trying to avoid my questions, my whole challenge was for you to prove creation and I'll prove evolution. You can't deny evolution without discussing creation to.

Debate me or don't.

I challenged you and you accepted.

Where is your proof of creation?

Proof of evolution is written not only in the fossil record

it is written in our chromosomes.

Where is creation written other then a superstitous religion written in the bible by people who thought the earth was flat and Earth revolved around the sun?

Don't demand Im changing the subject, when you refuse to answer me, now answer or concede.


Evolved 6 years ago

Correction. The bible was written when man believed the SUN revolved around the Earth and the Earth was flat.

Brie, you cannot deny evolution and demand that heaven and hell exist without one lick of proof, that's proposterous.

I look forward to your responses.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

sigh... OK, the proof of a Creator is the Creation, one does not look upon a painting without knowing that their was was painter does one? The same is with Creation. Where is the proof of evolution in the fossil record? What does the fossil record prove except that there were fossils, it doesn't "prove" anything at all. Human beings have adapted to their environment but that doesn't "prove" macro-evolution (here is where you are confusing the issue and you know it). All that proves is that there are varieties WITHIN the species!


Evolved 6 years ago

Ok thank you, you admit to adaptation.

If you realize adaptation then its only logical to assume that given isolation and time a species can and does adapt and evolve or become extinct. Dinos existed for hundereds of millions of years on a planet that was stable for a very long time, when confronted with a major alteration in climate(impact of the asteroid that killed them) most couldn't adapt so they went extinct. Raptors for instance weren't as specialized as say a T-rex or triceratops so they adapted and later(proven through the fossil record) EVOLVED

into birds. there is consensus on this among specialists.

If you deny science you deny reason and logic.

I concede of course things were "created" via the big bang

but created in the framework of the bible? 7 day and 7 nights? Cmon! To argue from that is just wrong and ignorant

to say the least.

Another proof of evolution is the solar system itself, did it not evolve from gas and dust and rock to form the sun and the planets that rotate around the sun? The earth itself has evolved from one of these rocks orbiting the sun

It has cooled and morphed into a giver of life and beauty.

This is also a consecus among scientists and all logical and educated people alike.


Evolved 6 years ago

I have a new concept for you to ponder Brie

Consider the Earth a primordial soup barren of life, one day over countless days a puddle of bacteria encounter another form of bacteria, one bacteria secretes something that is useful for the other to survive and vise versa so they co habitate establishing a symbiotic relationship, eventually merging for the benefit of both, not so hard to imagine.

Look at ouselves as example a complex lifeform that has evolved form simple celled organisms into the incredibly complex machines that we are now.

So if we benefit from the bacteria in our intestines and they benefit is that not symbiotic?

If we follow this concept on a larger scale and imageine the earth as an organism itself(It inhales every winter and exhales every summer)Proven by NASA. if it lives and breaths in a sense,then arent we parasites that live on her?

If so then we can imagine the Earth as a flower and we her pollen.

Lets take one step back here and imagine the unconcious evolutionary goal of our planet, to produce a species that can be the eyes and ears, could it be us?

Could we be the end result of planets earths evolutionary goal? To spread her life beyond our earthly boundaries.

If so then the earth is a flower and we the pollen.

Please consider my perspective, its worth a thought or two in defense of evolution.


Evolved 6 years ago

Here's another thought based on your denial of evolution.

Whether you call it creation or evolution my logic cannot be denied...

The Earth how ever long ago did sping to life from rock as you conveniently love to mock. A barren lifeless planet, perfect conditions over countless millenia. All the right acids and minerals and water and sun energy and POOF! There was simple celled primative life from all the necessary ingredients.

Life from rock that was refined and processed over and over through natural earthly conditions of decay and rebirth through volcanoes and weather like it or not! Next?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Evolved, I don't even know where to begin with you, you have proven NOTHING. The Solar System does not prove evolution. Do you even know what the word "prove" means? The earth was not the result of the Big Bang.

Furthermore, nothingness plus time does not equal something!

Our very complexity points to an all knowing all powerful God, not random chance. There is no "poof" in evolution and that is not science...that is religion, if you choose to believe it that is your business but it is a religion because it can't be proven using scientific methods that are repeatable and definable.


Evolved 6 years ago

Thats right you don't know where to begin with me and you never will know my depths because you limit yourself with superstitions and rigid decided perspectives.

Based on that alone you are already wrong on many levels.

You surround yourself with people that kiss your ass and say they love you. WEAK. You dismiss science logic and reason, you are not living up to your humanely potential, in fact you waste it by taking the easy road and questioning nothing, what a waste of a human life.

Don't speak of complexities, you are simple and naïve.

You are the opposite of complex. Simple,rigid and wrong.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

When people resort to name-calling it is a sign they have lost an argument. ... Mockery is the last refuge. Cal Thomas


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Evolved, I am done with you, you have proven nothing except that Evolution is indeed a religion and apparently one that has followers that don't even know what the word "proof" means, go find someone else to harass.


GOD LOVERS REJOICE! 6 years ago

I SAYETH TO EVOLVED THAT HE IS A SATANIST!

HE SHALL BURNETH IN THE ETERNAL FIRES FOR QUESTIONING MY LORDS WORD!

ANY ONE THAT SPEAKETH AGAINST THE LORD IS A SPEAKER FOR THE GREAT DECIEVER!

RAPTURE WILL SOON BE UPON US AND THE UNBELIEVERS WILL BURNETH FOR ETERNITY....AAAHAHAHAHAHAH!

BURNETH MY WAYWARDETH CHILDRENETH BURNETH!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

GOD LOVERS REJOICE!, even God has said that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. You seem to be taking pleasure where God has none?? Don't you think that it is better to mourn those that turn away?

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

GOD LOVERS REJOICE!, even God has said that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. You seem to be taking pleasure where God has none?? Don't you think that it is better to mourn those that turn away?

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

GOD LOVERS REJOICE!, even God has said that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. You seem to be taking pleasure where God has none?? Don't you think that it is better to mourn those that turn away?

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

GOD LOVERS REJOICE!, even God has said that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. You seem to be taking pleasure where God has none?? Don't you think that it is better to mourn those that turn away?

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?


Jebus 6 years ago

What a joke of a debate. For instance, the religious dude in the beginning said that the majority isn't always right but also said 90% of people believe in a god. Sooo many examples in this debate along those lines. If I was god, I would create a world where sin wasn't possible, after all if I'm god, I can create anything! Another good point is that god only exists in language, if I don't think about god, does he exist? I don't feel god, I feel pain and love etc..Oh god please allow this post to go through, amen.


ELZOMBINO 6 years ago

Wow. THIS argument again....

I have tried to explain to many people in my life that the theory of evolution is stil that...A THEORY. Most Atheists and non-believers will admit that. Let me let you Religionazis in on a little secret: Atheists, agnostics, and Non-believers all have one thing in common, and that is the fact that they don't have a problem saying that they don't know. What separates the agmostics from the Atheists/Nonbelievers is...THEY DON'T CARE EITHER! why don't you understand that?

oh, you don't like having other people's views forced onto you? Have you ever sat at a bus stop and had someone hand you tracts on atheism, and talk your ear off until you got up and walked to the next stop? do they come knocking on your door Sunday afternoons? no??? welp, sorry about the horrible reality. you don't like it? send your kids to a Christian school, where they can teach your kids that jesus, who is his own father, rode dinosaurs and rose from the dead as a zombie and then flew into space so that we can look down and mistreat those who don't agree with us.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 years ago from Ohio, USA

"How's this for observable evolution? Anti-biotic resistant bacteria. That's right MRSA, and the lot. What happens is, we try to kill off bacteria with anti-biotics- Some become resistant, through NATURAL SELECTION, and they live on to replicate. It's simple evolution. Right before our eyes. That is NOT religion, that is science. Boo yah!"

Nope. Sorry. Natural selection is a different issue than macro evolution. Natural selection takes place as an external process after the (supposedly) new organism has randomly developed new positive features or capabilities. Your example is an improper application of macro evolution. Actually, it's an incomplete application, which is simply bad science. You're only telling part of the story. What you're omitting (or not informed of) is what the bacteria gave up in order to enjoy their newfound resistance to antibiotics. Do a little more research and you may learn that the little fellows have lost more that they gained. You might discover that the new strains have much less resistance to other environmental pressures and in the long run their population will suffer for it. You may also learn that what we call a resistance to a specific antibiotic is actually an inability to absorb it into the cell, therefore this 'new feature' is a net loss in information, not an advancement in the design of the organism. It's a step backward, evolutionarily speaking.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

To Everyone who has commented in the last 2 months: For some reason my email notification was off so I wasn't notified when you wrote your comments. Thanks for commenting and I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond in a timely manner.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia

"I would dare ask anyone to find a dog that gives birth to anything but a dog" You didn't specify any strictures on this so I am glad to supply an example. When scientists recently inserted the genome of a cat, into the egg of a dog, then implanted the dog embryo into a mother dog, the dog then gave birth to a cat. This means that genomes specify what animal will come out. If you change an embryos genome then a different animal will be born.

Obviously in the above example scientists changed, and directed the changes, in an embryo. As we all know there is a natural mechanism that will change genomes, and another which directs this change. Therefore macro evolution is proven.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

The odds that all of these things, including male and female evolving at exactly the same time are the same as if you played 20 games of poker and in all 20 games you drew 4 aces. It takes a lot more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in God.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia

Despite you not addressing my evidence, i will address yours. The argument from improbability doesn't work. I'll explain why. First Evolution is NOT random. Mutation is random but selection is not. Imagine throwing a coin, the probability of getting a million heads in a row is impossible. BUT if on each throw you only recorded the heads, and did not record tails, then it would be easy to get a million heads recorded on paper, agreed? An organisms genome is like your notepad, only the successes are recorded, the failures are NOT recorded. This is because the failures die, and the successes survive to reproduce. If you did this in a game of chance you would be called a cheater, so evolution is using cheating to get what would otherwise be improbable odds. And no faith needed here. If you are an honest person I now ask you to withdraw your flawed probability statement.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Sounds like an intelligence behind that!


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia

Brie clearly behind the selection in the coin analogy is intelligence, the intelligence of the selector. However natural selection is a selection process which does not require intelligence because selection is generated by the needs of survival and success is determined by survival.

As an example of another selection process which does not require inteligence imagine a board with all different shaped holes in it and different shaped marbles randomly rolling over its surface. The probability of chance organising the marbles into their correct holes would be tiny. HOWEVER the process is not random as only balls of the correct shape can fit into their correct holes. Very quickly, even though the marbles movements are random, each marble would be sitting in its correct hole. The selection acting apon the marbles is generated by the physical shapes. No intelligence needed at all.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Yes but the chances that you will get balls that fit holes and that all of these things come from "nothing" in the beginning, that process is not scientific. Not to mention that the building blocks of human life are extremely complex, much more so that marbles and holes or even playing cards. All of your examples presuppose that these "things" already exist out of what? Nothing. It is unscientific to think you can get something out of nothing and if you say there was something then where did the something come from?


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia

Why are you continuously "moving the goal posts"? I thought we were discussing the process of biological evolution and macroevolution, not the origins of the universe. Despite me not being a physicist Ill will still answer you. I would ask however, if you are a genuinely honest person, that after reading the following that you will at least admit to me that you were wrong in saying that evolution is random and also that dogs can only give birth to cats.

If you say there was god, then where did god come from? What created god. Surely any being capable of creating must be extraordinary complex. Surely extraordinary complexity must have come from something, like you said, something cannot come from absolutely nothing. God does not solve the problem of something from nothing at all. Also if you claim that god has always existed, then why cant one claim that the universe has always existed? Scientists have even found evidence that the big bang was actually just a phase in the lifetime of an everlasting universe which continuously expands, then collapses, then expands once more. Matter is never destroyed or created just pushed through the equivalent of a cosmic bottleneck. Therefore matter always existed and so god didn't need to create it.

Actually the building blocks of life are LESS complex than cards even. The genome is a simple four base code, only T, C, G, A. The number of different possible combinations is only 256. Avery small number compared to cards. Now imagine, in an everlasting universe, surely at some point life would have been able to evolve. Especially since evolution is (I say this again) NOT CHANCE.

There are 13 different card values from A to K and 4 variations on those values (spades, hearts exc) therefore there are 48x10 to the power of 14 possible combinations.

Way higher, yet if you do the following experiment you will understand more about probability:

In this experiment you will draw a hand of cards, say 4, and then will dispose of and draw new cards randomly. On the face of it, given the possible number of combinations, it would seem an impossible task to RANDOMLY end up with every card in your hand the same, right? Not at all, in fact I guarantee it.

1. draw 4 cards face down, do not look at them

2. randomly choose one, discard it

3. randomly choose another, copy it by placing another of its type in your hand.

4 shuffle your hand and repeat step 1

Repeat above sequence about 40 times. I guarantee you that when you turn over the hand after doing this that every card you have will be the same. It is simple maths. Differential effect, NOT probability, of being chosen for the discard step is what causes complexity in the hand.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

God is the CREATOR and therefore is outside of creation. The second law of thermodynamics tell us that there is a beginning and an end to all things which is why the universe is expanding and decaying and cannot be eternal.

Regarding complexity the human eye alone could not have evolved because of it's complexity let alone the whole male and female body.

Human Eye

The human eye is enormously complicated - a perfect and interrelated system of about 40 individual subsystems, including the retina, pupil, iris, cornea, lens and optic nerve. For instance, the retina has approximately 137 million special cells that respond to light and send messages to the brain. About 130 million of these cells look like rods and handle the black and white vision. The other seven million are cone shaped and allow us to see in color. The retina cells receive light impressions, which are translated to electric pulses and sent to the brain via the optic nerve. A special section of the brain called the visual cortex interprets the pulses to color, contrast, depth, etc., which allows us to see "pictures" of our world. Incredibly, the eye, optic nerve and visual cortex are totally separate and distinct subsystems. Yet, together, they capture, deliver and interpret up to 1.5 million pulse messages a milli-second! It would take dozens of Cray supercomputers programmed perfectly and operating together flawlessly to even get close to performing this task.

Come to think of it, I remember Darwin specifically discussing the incredible complexity of the eye in Origin of Species:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible. 3

So, how did Darwin deal with the staggering realities of the eye in the 1850's? As "absurdly" improbable as it was, he followed through with his theory and pointed to the simpler eye structures found in simpler creatures. He reasoned that more complex eyes gradually evolved from the simpler ones. (taken from http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/human-eye.htm)

Face it, your religion is Evolution and you will suffer the consequences after you die because you refuse to look at the truth and insist upon believing a lie and teach others to do so as well.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia

You have completely failed to address any of my points. You have missused the second law of thermodynamics which in no way predicts a beggining and an end to the universe, in fact that law predicts that since energy cannot be created or destroyed that the universe is indeed eternal as scientists say. By saying that god is outside creation you are assuming the conclusion that the universe is created, this is circular reasoning. What does it MEAN to say god is outside creation anyway, absolute nonsense. Also ANYTHING you can apply to god, ie he is eternal, he is outside creation can be equally applied to the universe. As for the evolution of the eye read "climbing mt improbable" in which scientists DIRECTLY observed at least some of the stages needed to evolve an eye. Did you know that a few years ago in Dover that a supreme court judge ruled that there are NO examples of irreducible complexity, this included the eye.

Why did you feel the need to cut and paste from a creationist website instead of using your own words about the eye? Do you have a problem thinking for yourself?

You must have realised that your arguments are false because you now threaten me with your god. Not very scientfic of you. Face it, I have evidence for my beliefs, you do not. Now to prove I have evidence I shall give you an excerpt from my own hub at http://hubpages.com/education/How-Endogenous-Retro... , if you can disprove it then I would give much more merit to your beliefs.

Retroviruses, rogue RNA sequences encapsulated in protein, they infect a host through weaknesses in cell "lids". Once inside a cell they hijack the genomic machinery in order to churn out copies of their own coding. They do this by translating their RNA into DNA which insert themselves into the infected cells genome. Then normal cellular processes turn that DNA back into RNA copies, which become incorporated into fresh virus particles. This hijacking does not harm the infected cell, it continues its normal functions, it just has a little bit of new code integrated into its personal copy of the hosts genome. (RVs such as HIV harm the host by suppressing the immune system.) However sometimes the cell hijacked in this way is not your ordinary cell, but a germ-line cell. Like sperm or eggs. This germ-line cell, with its extra bit of coding, goes on to fill its normal function in the hosts reproductive processes and so the altered genome is inherited by the hosts offspring. Inactivated by mutation, these sequences eventually become fixed in the gene pool of the host species. The genomes of vertebrates, including humans, contain hundreds of such retrovirus sequences (ERVs).

The size of vertebrate genomes exceeds 1x 10 to the power of 9 BILLION PARTS. The nature of retrovirus insertion into a genome and subsequent fixation is essentially random. Therefore the probability of two such identical events occurring, at the same loci of a hosts genome, and of the same sequence being integrated, is so small that it would be impossible. This means that if two organisms share the same endogenous retrovirus sequence in their genome, they must be related through a common ancestor who had the ERV in its genome. Humans and primates share many identical ERVs, the more related the primate, the more ERVs it and humans share. This is powerful evidence that humans and primates are closely related through common descent.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

First of all, I don't have all the time in the world to answer your questions, second of all I am not a Doctor or Scientist and therefore cannot explain the intricacies of the eye as well as other (therefore the copy and paste) however, I am observant enough to know that the eye is complex and the chances of it creating itself are ZERO. You can spout all the rhetoric you want and attempt to draw me into an argument about the intricacies of science but that still doesn't prove scientifically that the universe is eternal.

That is a FAITH statement and you are choosing your religion based on that FAITH statement which was the exact, original point of my HUB!


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia

"all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (11 Tim. 3:16).

Just because as you admit, you cannot understand an argument, and the evidence, does not mean that others cannot. As you said you don't understand science. Perhaps if you don't understand science then you shouldn't make claims about science. Like claiming that science is faith. I am sure you do not understand the exact means by which a rocket flies or a computer is programed, why do you not claim that those who believe in rockets and computers have "faith" because you do not understand?

How do you know that my arguments do not prove the universe is eternal if, as you admit, you dont understand the science behind it?

If something has evidence then it is NOT a faith statement. The statement that the universe may be eternal has a lot of evidence, and despite the fact that, as you admit, you cannot understand the evidence, does not mean that I also do not understand the evidence. I DO understand the evidence as I have a science background and therefore I DO NOT have faith.

You however do have faith because you make claims about the universe despite admiting that you do not understand scientific arguments and evidence.

Tell me though, do you understand and believe the bible? For I have written some hubs about contradictions in the bible, care to explain them since you do not understand science? http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Failure-of...

"all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (11 Tim. 3:16).

Open your Bible to Ezekiel 26:7-14:

7 For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 8 He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the LORD; I have spoken, declares the Lord GOD. (ESV)

For about 15 years, the island city of Tyre was under siege from King Nebuchadnezzar. The prophet Ezekiel, writing while this siege was ongoing, predicted Tyre's capture and destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. Take note also, the prediction that Tyre would NEVER be rebuilt, that Tyre would remain desolated for all time. This much is clear from reading the above scriptures. The prediction is very specific. Just one problem, in 573 BC the siege was abandoned. Nebuchadnezzar failed to EVER take Tyre. While it has been conquered at least four or five times throughout history, Tyre was never destroyed, never abandoned, never uninhabited, and is still a thriving city of more than 120,000 inhabitants today. We have shown that the Bible made a prediction and that prediction did not occur. Nebuchadnezzar died so that prediction can never come true in the future either. Therefore we must conclude the Bible is NOT from god. Since only god (if he exists) can fortell the future we know that that any parts of the Bible which do seem to contain successful predictions must therefore be assumed to have natural explanations, such as having been written after the fact, or be the result of clever guesswork. They cannot be genuine predictions as they were written by man.

In Matthew there is an account of what Judas did after he betrayed Jesus for thirty silvers.

27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Take careful note of the following points.

1. Judas threw down the silvers inside the temple.

2. Judas then left and hanged himself.

3. The chief priests took the silvers.

4. These priests used the silvers to buy a field.

5. The field was called the "field of blood" because it was used to bury strangers in.

Now look up Acts where Paul recounts the same story.

1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning JUDAS, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Carefully read each of the words and make a new list of the storys points.

1. Judas kept the silvers

2. Judas bought a field with the silvers

3. Judas died by falling "headlong" (headfirst) and bursting in his field.

4. The field was called the field of blood because the story of Judas became "known unto all".

The two storys utterly contradict one another on every point. Theist apologetics have attempted to reconcile the different means of death, which usually involve Judas hanging himself and then his rope breaking so that he also falls. This however ignores the part in Acts where it says that Judas falls headfirst. Get a doll and string and try this for yourself, you will find that unless Judas hung himself upside down by his feet the story is impossible. As for the rest of the contradictions, well apologetics generally ignores them, hoping they will go away.

There is no way to reconcile the two accounts and so the Bible is proven to be in error. If there is one contradiction in "gods word" then there could be more (there are thousands). Therefore we cannot trust the bible and must reject it


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Since this is very long and I can't take the time at the moment to read all of it I will address it in pieces:

First of all, I never said that I don't understand science, I said that I am not a Scientist nor a Doctor which is why I cut and pasted that article (and to save time).

The other argument that you make:

"How do you know that my arguments do not prove the universe is eternal if, as you admit, you don't understand the science behind it?"

You cannot replicate that the Universe is eternal, it cannot be replicated in a controlled fashion, therefore it does not pass the requirements for a scientific hypothesis.

As Stated: What is a Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is an "educated guess." It can be an educated guess about what nature is going to do, or about why nature does what it does.

"Hypotheses are single tentative guesses--good hunches--assumed for use in devising theory or planning experiment, intended to be given a direct experimental test when possible." (Eric M. Rogers, "Physics for the Inquiring Mind." (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1966)

What makes a statement a scientific hypothesis, rather than just an interesting speculation? A scientific hypothesis must meet 2 requirements:

A scientific hypothesis must be testable, and;

A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable.

Therefore your statement is a statement of faith and not of science.

I will look at the rest of your argument when I have time and if I feel like continuing to throw pearls before swine (sort of speak)


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia

I never claimed that it was proven that the universe was eternal, i claimed that it was a possibility and that evidence points towards it. In a murder trial does the jury not convict soley because the murder is not repeated in front of them. Of course not. They go by the evidence. I also go by the evidence. I have evidence for my beliefs. Some of it, like radiometric dating, or genome analysis IS REPEATABLE AND TESTABLE. Also scientific theorys do not require repeatabilty, all they require is to be able to be falsified if the right evidence came along.

You have non evidence at all. Faith means belief without evidence. That means you have faith and I do not. Are your beliefs repeatable? Are your beliefs falsifiable? Do your beliefs fit your definition of proper science? Of course not. I can also prove you bible wrong. I have written many hubs showing contradictions in the bible. I welcome you to comment on them.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Failure-of...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Bible-Cont...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Bible-Cont...

http://hubpages.com/education/Observed-Macro-Evolu...


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Faith DOES NOT MEAN: belief without evidence. Faith means to trust in God based upon the Scriptures (in which there is ample evidence for that belief).

However, as much as you would like to change the subject, the argument is NOT about my beliefs but about MACRO EVOLUTION and whether it is a fact or a belief, I believe I have shown quite thoroughly that is indeed a belief and unverifiable regarding the origin of the species. If you want to talk about gnats and fruit flies that is another subject and something I already addressed in the original HUB.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia

If faith means to trust in god based upon the scriptures then I can guarantee that I do not have faith, and you do.

Previously you claimed that macro-evolution belief was based on faith, here you claim that faith is a belief supported by evidence. Do you now admit that there is EVIDENCE for Macro-evolution?

I'm not claiming macro-evolution is proven absolutely, not even the theory of gravity or theory of matter, is proven, However I am claiming that there is enough evidence to prove it with a high enough probability that it can be considered fact.

Macro-Evolution, the change from one species to another, from dog to cat, has been observed. As I already stated. You are the one who derailed the conversation by complaining that macro-evolution doesn't eexplain the origin of all matter and the universe. You are the one who moved the goal posts. Now you complain that I derailed the conversation? By all means lets discuss ONLY macro-evolution and the evidence for it. Please do not mention the origin of the universe or anything but the subject of macro-evolution. Also stop using the flawed probability argument for as I have already shown, it doesn't work as evolution is a directed process, directed by selection. Also arguing that macro-evolution is improbable is false logic for another reason. You are making assumptions about a process without evidence that it is so. Evidence does not consist of statements or even logic, evidence is something that can be observed.

An observed instance of macro-evolution from single celled amobea to multicellular organisms was observed by scientists to occur in their tanks where they were growing the single celled amobea as food for a flagelum predator.

An observed example of a multicellular organism devolving into a bacteria like organism has been observed three times in humans (google "hela organism") dogs and more recently in tasmanian devils.

Now while there are many observed instances of macroevolution there is also evidence that we originated from such processes. While we cannot go back into the past to absolutely confirm this, we don't need to, all we need is the evidence. Just like in a murder trial, the jury does not need to go back in time to see the murder, they can prove the murder without REPEATING it. So we can prove, to the same standards of a court of law, macro-evolution, by finding evidence for it. Do you understand this? If there is evidence for something that means it is a proper scientific theory. I have previously presented such evidence from the human genome in the form of endogenous retroviruses common to the same genomes loci as primate species. This observed FACT cannot be explained except as the result of common descent, so it is evidence of macro-evolution.

Also did you know there is less difference between humans to chimps than there is between dogs and coyotes, or different types of horses? For example dogs and and coyotes have different numbers of chromosomes, (i think coyotes have 4 more) and yet they can interbreed. Humans are only 0.02 percent different from humans and have only one less chromosome. Did you know that scientists successfully got human sperm to penetrate the egg of a giibon? This proves that humans and some primates are reproductively compatible and can produce hybrids (there is a rumor that the chinese have already done so). Therefore macro-evolution would not be required to turn a chimp into a human, just slight adaption within kinds. Again this is evidence of common descent and the truth of evolution.

Will you at least admit that there is evidence for macro-evolution?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Your faith is a trust in Science based on a twisted notion of what a fact is. Maybe you should look the word up, there are several definitions, none of which include belief without evidence.

All I am saying is that macro evolution in anything larger than a fruit fly cannot be falsified, it cannot be verified, it can't be replicated over and over in controlled scientific tests and therefore it is a theory and not a fact and should not be taught in public schools unless they want to teach Creationism along side.

Tell me where can I find a change from a dog to a cat through natural selection that can be replicated, falsified and verified?

Something as extraordinary as that will be on the computer, show me.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia

"Your faith is a trust in Science based on a twisted notion of what a fact is. Maybe you should look the word up, there are several definitions, none of which include belief without evidence." But the point I am trying to make is that I DO have evidence for my beliefs, so my beliefs are not faith. Your beliefs have no evidence and so are faith.

I wish you would sttle on a single definition of faith, it seems that whenever you refer to your faith that faith means belief with evidence, then you claim that I have faith because, supposedly, I have belief WITHOUT evidence. That is contradictory.

"All I am saying is that macro evolution in anything larger than a fruit fly cannot be falsified" Untrue, the definition of being able to be falsified is if any evidence MIGHT possibly exist to that would falsify the prediction. For example evolution predicts that no rabbit fossils will be found in the Cambrian layer, If such a fossil were found evolution would be disproven. Therefore contrary to what you said, evolution can be falsified, just find ONE fossil in the wrong geological layer. Other things might falsify evolution if found such as carbon 14 being found in ancient rock samples. So please admit that you were wrong in saying Evolution is not falsifiable.

"it cannot be verified"

Only by your unreasonable standards, according to which gravity, theory of matter and start fusion are also unverifiable. Why don't you claim that those theorys are a religion and faith? Evolution has more evidence than any of these theorys, by scientific standards, by courtroom standards, evolution is verified. Nothing is absolute in science, otherwise it WOULD be religion, not science.

"Tell me where can I find a change from a dog to a cat through natural selection"

Well I guess the example of scientists using genetic engineering is out because you specified natural means. Luckily there are many examples in nature that have been observed, I will be happy to oblige:

IN PLANTS:

"While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas."

This example is equivelent of a dog turning into a cat as the new species has twice the number of chromosomes. Please don't insult your own intelligence by saying "its still a plant".

MACRO EVOLUTION ABOVE THE SPECIES LEVEL, FAMILY TO FAMILY.

Boraas (1983) reported the evolution of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a multicellular form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

Thats a macro-evolutionary leap from single celled creatures to multicellular life. A huge difference. Much greater than the difference between dogs and cats. Imagine the amout of new information needed in their genomes to accomplish this change.

KINGDOM TO KINGDOM MACRO-EVOLUTION EXAMPLE

“Horizontal gene transfer from human papillomavirus 18 (HPV18) to human cells.

helacyton gartleri is the species name of the first known organism to have evolved from humans. helacyton gartleri is a single celled organism and is "immortal" meaning that it never dies of old age and can divide indefinitely. helacyton gartleri is called HeLa for short.

HeLa started out in Henrietta Lacks, a Baltimore woman. The cells were taken from her in 1951 and she died shortly after. She was killed by HeLa. Once in the lab HeLa grew at a phenomenal rate and offspring were sent around the world to use in studies. HeLa is so successful as an organism, that it has numerous times lept from one cell culture to others, contaminating research. HeLa is an all female species but reproduces A-sexually. HeLa is female due to its two X chromosomes. HeLa has already split into various strains that are divergent from each other due to fast growth rate and high mutation rates. HeLa contains the same genetic material as Henrietta Lacks did, with natural modifications over time

Ok I could give more examples but look at these for now. Also I don't usually link out for my arguments but since you did ask, the entire full case for Macro-Evolution is here, along with a creationists essay written specifically to debunk Macro-Evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.h...

I assume you believe in micro-evolution? Well since each generation, the genomes of organisms changes a little bit (directed by micro-evolution), it is logical that over many generations you must add the liitle changes together and you will get a larger change. We both agree that if you make a large change to an organisms genome that it will be changed into another type of organism. Therefore Macro-evolution is a simple matter of maths, small amounts being added together into larger amounts. 1+1+1+1+1=5, don't you agree? Since each human is born with 200 new and unique mutations over the course of 1000 generations there will be 200, 000 changes from ancestor to descendant. Simple maths. 200, 000 differences is greater than the difference between ape and man. Macro-Evolution is therefore verified to a high standard, at least as high as any other theory like gravity.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

In case you weren't aware there are several definitions for Faith, like I said look it up. The definition I am using is that Faith is a trust in something, that trust can have evidence or it may not depending on the situation. It's quite a common usage of the word Faith. For example if I stepped on a bus everyday I would have Faith or Trust that the bus driver would take me to my destination based on maybe prior experience or the sign on the bus. But if I got on another bus that I have never been on, that didn't have a sign I could still have Faith/Trust that that bus driver would take me to my destination however it could be misguided and wrong. Does that help you?

Furthermore there is ample evidence for Christianity, however that is not the topic of discussion. Nor would I discuss it with someone with such a narrow mind as you.

To set up an example of something that would falsify your theory and then say that it doesn't exist is the same as me giving an example of: If Aliens come down from the sky and show that they seeded the planet then Christianity doesn't exist. Oh you haven't seen any Aliens, oh then Christianity exists and is the truth. Your example doesn't work.

Carbon 14 has been proved to be inaccurate so you can throw that one out as well as any one of these articles will point out:

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating...

http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/C03Carbon-14/carb...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14...

http://web.me.com/uriarte/Earths_Climate/Carbon-14...

The theory of gravity can be proven over and over again in controlled settings. Also those two theories are not being used to promote the religion of Evolution.

Oh and by the way "my unreasonable standards" are the standards of Science, if you want to deal in the scientific realm and not in the religious realm that is what you will have to abide by as much as you would like people to just believe what you say, I refuse.

I already stated about the size of a fruit fly..cells do not interest me and I am not about to take the word of a scientist who has an agenda (for all I know). You mentioned from a Dog to a Cat...now you are falling back on plants, where is the example YOU mentioned. Besides all that a variant within the plant family does not prove that a plant turned into a monkey (with lot's of time added). There have been anomalies in the past and usually those anomalies do end up dying and that's the end of that. It doesn't prove Macro-Evolution in the least. You just WANT to believe so badly you will accept anything that someone says that fits into your preconceived set of beliefs.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia

See you set the standards of proof beyond possiblity, when I present observed macro-evolution, you them claim I have to prove that these new organisms will survive 3 billion years. THATS NOT WHAT YOU ASKED FOR. I have shown you macroevolution, you have closed your mind off to any possibility. Ask yourself, is that the proper way to find out about things?

By the way, plants are NOT a family, they are a kingdom. I don't see what size has to do with anything, or don't you believe we are all made up of tiny cells?? Your standards of absolute proof are not the standards of science, ask any scientist and they will tell you that science does not deal in proofs of anything, it is impossible to PROVE anything at all. Science only deals with evidence. Claiming that the scientists must be lying to us when I provided the examples of macro-evolution is illogical because you could claim that any research, any evidence is falsified, thereby making any claim unverifiable.

"To set up an example of something that would falsify your theory and then say that it doesn't exist is the same as me giving an example of: If Aliens come down from the sky and show that they seeded the planet then Christianity doesn't exist. Oh you haven't seen any Aliens, oh then Christianity exists and is the truth. Your example doesn't work."

Actually that is exactly how it works. How do you think it works? I never said that rabbits in the cambrian do not exist and therefore evolution is true. I said that if rabbits were ever found in the cambrian then evolution would be untrue. Falsifiability does not prove and argument, only opens an argument to the POSSIBILITY of disproof. I can NEVER prove that rabbits never lived in the cambrian, all I can say is that so far they haven't been found and so far evolution has not been disproven, though it is possible. Yes your alien example works as well meaning that Christianity is falsifiable by that means. BUT let me ask you a question, would you believe the aliens???

Also you must consider the possiblity that christianity is not only falsifiable, but actually has been falsified already. Christianity makes the prediction that the bible is infalible. Therefore any error in the bible would falsify christianity. Read the genealogys of jesus from david to babylon to jesus, at

Luke 3:21-31

Matthew 1:6-17

Chronicles 3: 10-16

Three supposed genealogys, each one with major differences.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Bible-Cont...

Lookinguntojesusnet says that this is because the bible writers copied shoddy jewish records but the fact remains that the bible contains an error and so christianity is falsified.

My beliefs are not preconcieved, I wish there was a god so that humans don't have to suffer and i don't have to die. I grew up as a Jehovahs Witness which are probably stricter than whatever church you belong to. I became an atheist against my will as I was slowly convinced by the sheer amount of evidence against god and for evolution.

You do realise however that evolution DOES NOT disprove god? In fact the catholic pope has declared that god made evolution. Theistic evolution is much more rational than literal creationism. Are you saying that you know more on religious matters than the pope? One final question, are you saying that a god, if he existed, COULD NOT have created evolution if he so wanted?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I don't consider the Pope to even be a Christian so they answer to that would be yes.

And the answer to your last question is God could so create evolution if He wanted but the facts are not there.

You became an atheist against your will? If that is true then I would encourage you to read a few books on the subject because you have been misinformed. I would be glad to suggest them if you are willing to read them.

Regarding your question about Aliens..I actually wrote a hub on the subject, look it up.

Your information about the genealogies in insufficient, one is from his mother's line, the other is Joseph's line.

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph--even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes, and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.

Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.

LUKE - Adam, the father of Seth, the father of Enosh, the father of Cainan, the father of Mahaleleel, the father of Jared, the father of Enoch, the father of Methuselah, the father of Lamech, the father of Noah, the father of Shem, the father of Arphaxad, the father of Cainan, the father of Shelah, the father of Heber, the father of Peleg, the father of Reu, the father of Serug, the father of Nahor, the father of Terah, the father of

MATTHEW - Abraham, the father of Isaac, the father of Jacob, the father of Judah, the father of Perez, the father of Hezron, the father of Ram, the father of Admin, the father of Amminadab, the father of Nahshon, the father of Salmon, the father of Boaz, the father of Obed, the father of Jesse -- the father of

(Mary) LUKE David, father of (Joseph) MATTHEW

Nathan Solomon

Mattatha Rehoboam

Menna Abijah

Melea Asa

Eliakim Jehoshaphat

Jonam Joram

Joseph Uzziah

Judah Jotham

Simeon Ahaz

Levi Hezekiah

Matthat Manasseh

Jorim Amon

Eliezer Josiah

Joshua Jeconiah

Er Shealtiel

Elmadam Zerubbabel

Cosam Abihud

Addi Eliakim

Melchi Azor

Neri Zadok

Shealtiel Achim

Zerubbabel Eliud

Rhesa Eleazar

Joanan Matthan

Joda Jacob

Josech Joseph

Semein Joseph Adopted Jesus

as his own son giving him

all legal rights involving heirship.

Mattathias

Maath

Naggai

Hesli

Nahum

Amos

Mattathias

Joseph

Jannai

Melchi

Levi

Matthat

Eli

supposedly of Joseph (Mary)

JESUS

All of these "so called" contradictions have reasonable answers that a 12 year old could understand.


Evan G Rogers profile image

Evan G Rogers 6 years ago from Dublin, Ohio

I know I won't convince anyone here, but I must try. I do NOT mean anything I say insultingly, and I'm sure it won't come out sounding insulting.

The first sentence of this hub is incorrect: Evolution is not a religion because it can be tested, it can be observed and it is actually used on a daily basis, which means that it can be duplicated.

The common dog is an example of how evolution has been used by humans, thus it can be duplicated.

The common banana is an example of natural evolution being nurtured by humans - i.e. a symbiotic relationship (very common to evolution and species' survival).

And here is an article discussing observed instances of speciation. The examples aren't monumentary, and they don't really compel, but you have to remember that in order to actually see speciation in one lifetime one must choose species that are quick to replicate. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm...

On top of this, evolution is tested on a frequent basis. It is tested rigorously - it has even survived an orchestrated attempt at its destruction by creationists and intelligent design proponents. Few theories in science have been exposed to this much rigor, and it's amazing that evolution has survived the tests of DNA, Cells, the Fossil Record, and numerous other tests.

I want to discus Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled". He had to lie in order to get the interviews with scientists whose words he twisted. I actually lost a lot of respect for Stein because of this movie. Here is an article discussing it further, it was written by one of the interviewd scientists. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=b...

I would like conclude by pointing out that evolution does NOT disprove god, gods, or GOD. All that evolution says is: "if a living organism is well-suited to survive and reproduce, then that organism will pass on it's genetic information".

That's really all that it is. It doesn't say 'god doesn't exist' it doesn't say 'christianity is wrong'.

But one thing, especially, it is NOT a religion.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia

Brie I gave you THREE genealogys to compare

Luke 3:21-31

Matthew 1:6-17

Chronicles 3: 10-16

Three supposed genealogys, each one with major differences.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Bible-Contradictions-The-G

YOU ONLY DEALT WITH 2 OF THEM despite the fact I pointed out three. You are being dishonest now brie.

Also You claim that Lukes account is Marys fathers geneology through Heli and Matthews account is Josephs geneology. This is not possible, as we shall soon see. If David was a common ancestor of both Marys fathers line and Josephs line then obviously the two geneologys split from David into his two sons, Nathan carried Mary's fathers line and Solomon carried Josephs line. All good to start off with, but we run into a major problem when we get to the name Salathiel and his son Zorobabel which are shared by both lists. See Mary's fathers line says that Salathiel was the son of Neri whereas Josephs line says that he was the son of Jechonias. Unless Neri and Jechonias were homosexual parents to Salathiel, there is no possible way to resolve this conflict. Even trying to go the way of father-inlaw like with Josephs father (both Heli and Jacob) doesn't work because if Salathiel's wifes father was Neri and Salathiel's father was Jechonias then the Mary's fathers line would be broken. The only way to resolve the two account on this point is to say that one of the geneologys is wrong. This I suppose is why none of the Christians mention this particlular problem in their apologetics.

Even if these two genealogys COULD be resolved, you still need to resolve the third CONTRARY genealogy in Chronicles AS I ALREADY SAID. The fact that you did not deal with this in your answer already suggests that you have purposely avoided it because you know its an error. Even christian websites like waterrock and looking unto jesus net admit that it is an error, caused by faulty jewish records that matthew copied his genealogy from.

Therefore the bible is disproven and with it, christianity is falsified.

As regards the pope, if there was a god, I believe he would be his divine representative.

You continuously repeat the erroneous claim that I have not presented you with evidence for evolution despite the fact that I have, again and again.

I have realised something else from reading your article and responses. You don't understand what macro-evolution and micro-evolution is. You think it is based on size of the organism involved don't you? That micro-evolution refers to evolution of microscopic organisms and macro-evolution refers to evolution of larger critters. LOLOLOL. That is NOT what the terms mean. Macro-evolution means large changes, ie from species to species. Micro-evolution means adaption without speciation. LOL.

As for becoming an atheist unwillingly, you missunderstand. II liked the idea of god because it made me feel good, but I chose reality over a good feeling.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Evan: I pointed out clearly that I was talking about Macro Evolution and not Micro Evolution. Macro evolution has nothing to do with the variation between species. Macro evolution when boiled down states that one species can become another and THAT CANNOT BE TESTED because it doesn't happen on dogs, humans or anything else larger than a fruit fly.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Antecessor: I was not being dishonest, I quickly looked over your post because I don't have all the time in the world to argue with you (unlike yourself apparently). I will look into in as soon as I can.

I didn't want to get into a discussion about Christianity because that is not what my post is about and you are clearly not interested in the truth of Christianity but instead just wanting to prove yourself.

The link you provided goes no where.

I fully understand the difference between Macro Evolution and Micro Evolution but because I am not will to accept your examples of cells (which I stated in the post) you don't like that and cannot give me examples of species to species transformations in animals or humans which is the basis for the theory of Evolution.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Regarding the Genealogy:

The Combined Genealogies of Matthew and Luke

(from The Seed of the Woman)

By Arthur C. Custance (http://custance.org)

The study of an ancient genealogy can be quite fascinating but it takes a little getting into and demands more than ordinary dedication.

The two genealogies of our Lord which together establish his absolute right to the throne of David, both by blood relationship through Mary and by title through Mary's husband, bear close examination. For they show how the two lines were preserved at one particularly critical period when almost all family relationships in Israel were being disrupted. This was at the time of the Captivity in Babylon. It is shown in a standard genealogy chart as a kind of "wasp-waist" joining the head and the body of the genealogy above and below Zerubbabel.

The details of this gate are the subject of this Appendix. It seemed important to say something about the circumstances here because it is at this point in the line that the blood relationship between the Lord and David comes nearest to being destroyed.

The numbers which appear against the names in the Tabulation represent the two different systems of accounting adopted by Matthew, on the left side, and Luke, on the right. In Matthew, David appears as the 14th name from Abraham: in Luke David is the 34th name from Adam. The red line represents the blood line connection: the yellow line represents the carrying of title to the throne of David.

David had two sons who figure as heads of the two branches of the family as indicated in Matthew and Luke, namely, Solomon and Nathan. In Matthew's genealogy Solomon becomes No. 1 in the second group of 14 names: and in Luke's genealogy Nathan becomes No. 35 on the other branch line.

From Solomon we move down to Joram, No. 6. Joram married Athaliah, the wicked daughter of a wicked father and mother (Ahab and Jezebel). As a consequence of this evil man and his wife, his seed was cursed for four generations in accordance with the reference made in Exodus 20:5. Thus Matthew, who probably follows the Temple records faithfully in his list, omits the next three names (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah) from his genealogy. There is little doubt that these Temple records had, by divine providence, removed these three generations from the register, so that Ozias (No. 7) appears as though he were the son of Joram, No. 6, in the accounting of Matthew 1:8. We know from 1 Chronicles 3:11 and 12 that in the original court records, these three missing names were written down. In this court record, Ozias (No. 7) is given an alternative name Azariah (1 Chron. 3:12), and elsewhere he is also called Uzziah (Isa. 6:1). These are merely variants of the same name.

We pass on to No. 14, Jehoiakim. It is important to note that his name ends with an M, not an N, and he is not to be confused with his son whose name was Jehoiakin (or alternatively Jeconiah, Jechonias, Coniah, and Conias). This multivariant form of a name applied to a single individual is common in many of the older cultures. It seems to be particularly prevalent in Russia, even today.

Now, with Jehoiakim (No. 14) we begin to see the hand of God at work in a very special way separating the thread of continuity of blood relationship and titular right to the throne in David's family. Jehoiakim was the last king of Israel to come to the throne as a free man. Unfortunately he was both an evil man and a foolish one. He began his reign just when the Fertile Crescent was in a state of political turmoil, Nebuchadnezzar in particular having very ambitious designs for empire building which were challenged by Egypt. In this see-saw contest for power that habitually characterized the relationship between Egypt and Babylon, Palestine stood at the pivot point. But Jerusalem itself need not really have become involved, for the city actually stood off the main route between the two warring parties. Any king of Judah who kept out of the fray and conciliated the antagonists as they marched their armies back and forth to attack each other, could expect to be left more or less alone except for paying token tribute.

Jehoiakim was not humble enough or wise enough to realize this, and provoked Nebuchadnezzar to attack Jerusalem. This was the Lord's way of punishing a wicked man who had unwisely aligned himself with the king of Egypt. His immediate punishment was to have his city besieged and overrun, and to be carried captive to Babylon (2 Chron. 36:5,6). But for some reason Nebuchadnezzar decided to return him to Jerusalem as a puppet king while he completed his unfinished business in Egypt. His long range punishment was foretold by Jeremiah (36:30) that none of his seed should ever sit upon the throne of David. This was a severe blow to him because he was in the direct line, as Matthew's genealogy shows, and probably had every expectation of seeing this greatest of all honors accorded to his seed in due time.

Meanwhile Nebuchadnezzar, having completed his Egyptian campaign, soon discovered that Jehoiakim was a treacherous man who could not be trusted by friend or foe. Indeed, so treacherous was he that even the people of his own city, Jerusalem, turned against him, murdered him, threw his body over the walls and left him unburied outside the city - exactly as predicted by Jeremiah (22:18,19). Nebuchadnezzar must surely have known what had happened, but he did not interfere when Jehoiakin (i.e., Jechonias, No. 55) succeeded his father.

But this young prince who was only eighteen years old when thus honoured (2 Kings 24:8) proved to have no more good sense than his evil father. He provoked Nebuchadnezzar (after only three months and ten days on the throne) to invest the city once more and depose him (2 Chron. 36:9). Jechonias and all his court were taken captive to Babylon while his uncle, Zedekiah, was left as regent. Unfortunately, Zedekiah behaved as the rest of his family had done and eleven years later, Nebuchadnezzar seized Zedekiah, put all his sons to death before his eyes, and then deliberately blinded him. Zedekiah was taken to Babylon and died there. Jerusalem meanwhile was utterly destroyed (2 Kings 24:17-25:16).

Now Jechonias, after being taken to Babylon, was put in prison where he remained for some thirty-seven years. It appears that either before he was taken captive or possibly during his captivity he was married to a woman of appropriate status who appears to have been a daughter of Neri (No. 54 in Nathan's branch of the family) and therefore of David's line. In order to account for the subsequent relationships shown in the two converging genealogies, we have to assume that this woman was a widow whose husband had probably been killed in one of the many sieges which Jerusalem had suffered. It seems as though the prophet Zechariah had this circumstance in mind (12:12). This widow already had a son by her deceased husband when Jechonias took her as a wife. This son's name was Pedaiah. His name is not numbered in the genealogy shown in the chart. It appears only in 1 Chronicles 3:18 where he is shown as a son of Jehoiakin (i.e., Jechonias). If his widowed mother was married to Jechonias, he would by Jewish custom become the son of Jechonias automatically.

But Jechonias appears to have had a son of his own by this widow of the royal line. This son's name was Salathiel (No. 2 and No. 56 in the two pedigree lines). By this marriage of a widow to Jechonias, these two boys - sons of the same mother - would become brothers by Jewish custom.

However, Salathiel appears to have died childless, though not until he had reached manhood and married a wife. Jehoiakim's blood line thus came to an end in his grandson Salathiel - indicated by termination of the red line. But as it happens the actual title to the throne remained active. The curse of Jeremiah 36:30 was to be fulfilled not by the removal of the title itself from Jehoiakim's line but by the denial of that title to anyone who happened to be a blood relative in the line. With the death of Salathiel this blood line terminated.

But now, according to Jewish custom as set forth in the principle of the Levi


Tom Cornett profile image

Tom Cornett 6 years ago from Ohio

This may be a bit simple...but here goes. I believe both sides here are right within their own boundaries. Evolution is carnal. Religion is spiritual. The biblical writings use the carnal to explain the spiritual. The misunderstanding of this has caused bloodshed for ages. Carnal is simply the vehicle of spirit according to the scriptures. One can either choose that we are carnal or we are carnal with a spirit. Neither can be proven absolute by science or religion.

I believe (Note I said believe) that the (spirit) of God is the force and essence of all life. I believe that evolution is parallel to the spirit.

Emotion interlocks carnal and spirit until death. Emotion is invisible like spirit. Without emotion...the strongest would terminate the weakest. If we were only carnal..what would be the point of love, grace, mercy, hope, etc.

To end...I would say...let religion study the evolution of the spirit and let science study the evolution of the carnal.

Then...we may all find a common ground.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Tom: The Bible speaks to the carnal all throughout. If you believe in the Bible you have to deal with the ramifications in the carnal. This idea was the heresy of the Gnostics.


Tom Cornett profile image

Tom Cornett 6 years ago from Ohio

That would make Jesus a heretic. "The kingdom of heaven is within you if you would have it."

I believe in God. The bible is a book for learning..spirit is the teacher.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.


Tom Cornett profile image

Tom Cornett 6 years ago from Ohio

"Power" being the key word. It is invisible. It effects the flesh...not in the flesh itself.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good

Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

Everything was brought forth AFTER HIS KIND, NO DOGS HAVING KITTENS


Tom Cornett profile image

Tom Cornett 6 years ago from Ohio

"Let the earth" = evolution.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Boy is that a stretch! And besides that Evolution says just the opposite...that things/animals/whatever brought forth "other" kinds eventually and with enough time. Just the opposite of what God said.


Tom Cornett profile image

Tom Cornett 6 years ago from Ohio

It makes far more sense than an entity sitting on a golden throne sprinkling fairy dust and things popping up. The spirit of God moved over the earth....not into it.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

The God of the Bible is not a fairy and you sir are no Christian, this conversation is closed.


Tom Cornett profile image

Tom Cornett 6 years ago from Ohio

Quite open minded of you. :)


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I refuse to throw pearls before swine.


SamAntone 6 years ago

Wow! A very hot topic bringing in some exciting views!

How's this, for an argument against evolution: the fovea of the eye (I discuss this on my page).

There are so many comments, that I didn't read them all (I'm just getting into HubPages). So I don't know if you've discussed "intelligent design." That's a possibility, especially since Genesis hints that birds and "every moving creature" started in the sea: Gen. 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and **every living creature that moveth,** which the **waters brought forth** abundantly, after their kind, and every **winged fowl** after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

I think a being that has control over gene structure can do mutations from time to time, instead of re-inventing the wheel for each new species or improvement.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I think that God can do anything but I think if he used mutations to "create" new beings he would have said so.

Thanks for commenting though and welcome to Hubpages.


Dan 6 years ago

Brie, you have repeatedly asked for examples of one species becoming another. You have been shown examples of such evolution over and over. First a plant (no, must be an animal), then both single and multicelled animals (no, must be larger than a flea), followed by flies (no, must now be larger than a fly).

I will submit two more for your perusal in the hopes that it won't become (no, must be bigger than a cow):

1. the interbreeding of the two separate species E. Caballus and E. Asinus. Birth is then given to a species called E. Caballus X E. Asinus. Note that although all three share some characteristics all three are separate, distinct, species.

Yes, I understand that a mare and a jackass have been used for many centuries for produce mules. I also understand that mules are nearly always sterile. The fact remains that a horse has given birth to a different species with even a different # of chromosomes. Sometimes WITHOUT human intervention, ie "naturally". Your demand for one species that produces another is satisfied.

2. Similarly, a zebra may be bred with other species of the genus equus. The resultant animal is again, a different species, with a different physical structure, a different "personality" and a different chromosome count.

The "zebroid" appears to me to be much more recent than the mule; the earliest reference I could find was the 19th century, whereup mules were used by the ancient Romans.

Please note that both the mule and the "zebroid" are animals. Both are bigger than a flea or even a fly. Both are of a different species than either of the parents. Both have very different physical and personality traits from the parents. Both have different chromosomal counts from the parents. Both are normally sterile, but both have been known to give birth in rare cases.

This makes at least 4 instances of the "macro" evolution you have demanded. Unless you now demand the same thing of hippos, whales or elephants your request is satisfied. Evolution is science, not religion or faith; it can be tested, observed and duplicated (get a horse and donkey - put 'em together. Do it 10 times)


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

That explains mules and zebra's but not humans or anything else, nor can you infer that different kinds or species can mix because in those examples, as you mentioned, the offspring are sterile. Which further proves my point, not yours. And besides mules and zebra's are still within the horse family.


Dan 6 years ago

Brie, Brie;

Your whole hub is about lack of evidence of macro evolution; the change of one species to another. You have stated that such a thing cannot and never has happened and you have thrown down the gauntlet with requests for proof of any such thing. You have been given repeated examples and each time you require something else.

Now you complain that mules and zebroids are not human - can I assume now that neither plants, fleas, flies, nor any other living thing but humans will suffice for your requirement of an example of species change?

You indicate that mules and zebroids are sterile; that is only the "normal" case. There HAVE been documented cases, confirmed by DNA testing, that both have given birth to their own offspring. This proves my point, not yours.

You also complain that all three are in the same family. True enough, and I will add that they are also in the same kingdon, class, phylum, order, and genus. They are NOT in the same species, which is exactly what you asked for.

Again, your request for examples of macro evolution has been satisfied, but you are trying to raise the bar; to change the requirements; it would appear that ANY proof given will be inadequate as you will not accept that simple fact that macro evolution DOES occur, IS repeatable, IS observable. Instead you will continue to add more and more requirements to be met. As I say, you now appear to demand that a human species change be shown, and repeated upon demand. While that could probably done by gene splicing of other animals onto human germ cells, it would be my sincere hope that neither you nor I nor anyone else would ever see it.

If that is the case, I capitulate. I hope that human genetics are never tampered with and never observed and never repeated. I would also have to concur that if that is the definition you now require of macro evolution that it NOT be taught in our schools.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

It is not me who requires it but Darwin who is making the case that humans evolved from fish, dirt, rocks and then I guess ultimately nothing. You think I am being difficult by asking you as his disciple to "show me", well if that is ridiculous then maybe his claims are ridiculous as well.


Dan 6 years ago

And now even a change in human species is not enough, you want me to show you each and every change in human DNA from the primordial soup to modern humans. Indeed, from the beginnings of the universe!

If I remember correctly, it was you that commented Darwin's book was "Origin of species", not "origin of everything". How is it we have gone from from an "observable species change" to the "origin of the universe and every intermediate step to current times, with particular attention paid to the human genome"

I'm sure you are aware that IF such a thing were possible (a concept I deny; as with thousands upon thousands of other fields of study, we do not know everything), it would require a lifetime of study to begin to tap the surface of knowledge required. Given that neither you nor I are willing to devote that much time to the matter, we can certainly agree to disagree on whether evolution is an established fact.

The fact still remains, however, that the concept of evolution is a science, observable, repeatable, verifiable. As such it deserves to be taught in our schools as an accepted scientific theory.

Creationism, on the other hand is none of those. It happened ONCE, a long time ago. (How long depends on who is talking). It was unobserved. God has never seen fit to repeat it, so it is still unobserved. It is not verifiable as it only happened once and no one saw it. Best evidence and thought indicates that it did NOT happen as a literal interpretation would indicate even if cultural and language changes are considered. A belief thus requires faith, with no evidence. And no, the bible is not considered factual evidence for the history of the world and it's species.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Micro evolution is observable, repeatable and verifiable but macro is not and therefore we do not agree on whether evolution is a fact. You say because they have been able to breed mules and zebras, or a plant or a single celled organism that this "proves" that humans came from FISH, or Rocks... that is ludicrous! And, that is Darwin's Evolution and that IS A RELIGIOUS LEAP OF FAITH!

It is Darwin's theory that we came from the oceans, prior to that I have to assume was a rock and prior to that nothing. I am only following Darwin's point backward to it's logical conclusion.


Dan 6 years ago

You misunderstand me, and perhaps the rest of the negative posters as well.

I, and others as well, have made the point and shown confirmed cases of macro evolution. NOT on humans, but nevertheless confirmed cases.

This does not indicate that people came from fish. What it does indicate is that it is POSSIBLE that people came from fish. There is a world of difference here. The first indicates a fact, the second a theory. That is why it is called the THEORY of evolution instead of the FACT of evolution.

We know that evolution, even the macro evolution you speak of, exists. Not theory - IT EXISTS. Verifiable and all the rest.

From that very simple point, we extrapolate back and THEORIZE that people came from fish. We find some evidence (fossils, etc) that some of that is true. We DO NOT find a complete record back to the primordial soup and science declines to make the religious leap of faith that it happened. It merely says it MAYBE happened, and perhaps that that is our best guess at this time.

I might also point out that your comment about coming from a rock and then nothing is foolish. You say that it is a logical conclusion, yet the logic does not follow. There is absolutely no indication from Darwin that prior to the primordial soup was a rock. Only if you also accept that all the elements were here before the advent of water AND that those elements were somehow made into rock (carboniferous rock before the time of coal?) AND that the water dissolved the necessary elements and so on and so on. Instead, I take your comments of rock and nothing to be attempts to make the theory look silly. Doesn't work - merely makes you, for the moment, look ignorant. Which your original post did not - it was well written and, I thought, quite thoughtful. Indeed, about the only statements I found objectionable was the reference to the "convenient" slow rate of evolution (it is what it is!) and the "supposed" reason for no direct obversation.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

How does it indicate that it is possible that people came from fish?


Dan 6 years ago

First, understand that the word "fish" is most generic. You used it, so I did too. It most certainly wasn't a "fish" as we know it, merely a far, far off ancestor that lived in the water.

Consider:

1. macro evolution exists

2. We find reasonably complete records (fossils, etc) indicating that some animals are descended from more primitive versions of the same animal.

3. The number of species is variable, with times with massive die-offs of species. At no time, however, do we find an immediate increase of 1000's of species. The growth is much slower

4. The oldest creatures we find lived in water. They are also the most primitive

From 1) we know species can change into a different species, and from 2) we see that, in general, species become more complex the later in time they exist. It would seem reasonable from 3) that there was a beginning to life on earth - it did not come into being the same time the planet did.

Putting it all together, all species evolved from earlier species, of which the "fish" referenced was a very early example. Before you complain, going even further back and back in time species PERHAPS came from a single celled creature, which PERHAPS came about from complex molecules floating around in the primordial soup. Given enough time such molecules WILL form and WILL re-combine. There is a very low, but always non-zero probability that any two atoms on earth will approach each other in finite time.

These concepts, combined with the lack of any evidence at all to the contrary, not only makes it possible for people to have come from "fish", but we continually raise the probability by finding more evidence; more fossils, more "missing links", more logical deduction. On the other hand the only dissenting evidence is "common sense", which I find to be most uncommon to find. Even you indicate that you think God would have said so if he used evolution. You do NOT say that you KNOW that to be true. Indeed, how in the world would God have explained to the ancient peoples about evolution? Perhaps God did use evolution as a tool instead of the obviously false literal reading of the bible.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Oh my,

First of all you are using circular reasoning when you say that Macro-Evolution exists, I don't believe it exists, and you have not proven that it exists so when you accept that and then build on that by saying that from that (that Macro Evolution exists) we can then INFER that one species can become another species...WELL THAT IS RIDICULOUS and completely unscientific, irrational and against all logic.

Second, the fossil records show nothing of the kind, you don't know from fossil records if those animals had descendants and you also don't know if those were fossils of animals that are not extinct.

# 3 doesn't even pertain to the subject at all.

#4 also can't be proven as Carbon 14 is unreliable.

We also have no idea if species become more complex the longer they exist and there is no way to prove that assumption either.

There is no way to prove when life came into existence on this planet and if it was on or before the planet came into existence.

God did not use evolution because it says in Genesis that God made animals to reproduce after their own "kind", a direct affront to the theory of evolution.


Dan 6 years ago

Oh my, indeed.

You don't believe in macro evolution (the descendent of a species being of a different species) because you don't want to. You have been given at least 6 documented cases in modern times, but your response has been to continually change your requirement for belief to finally the changing of the human genome, multiple times. No, you will never either believe or even understand the meaning.

Pretty sure that the dinosaurs had little dinosaurs. Also pretty sure they are extinct.

#3 indicates that at no time did God produce all the species on earth in one day.

Sorry, C14 is realiable when used correctly. The exagerations and lies of its detractors do not change this. In any case, those fossils were not dated by c14, but by geological actions. Again, if you wish to understand geology, take the years to study. Otherwise you have a choice of believing whatever agrees with what you WANT to believe or what someone else, that HAS taken a lifetime of study, tells you tells you they have observed and deduced.

Perhaps I was not clear - species do not necessarily become more complex as time progresses, but DO become more simple as a group as time REgresses. The possibility of complexity rises as time goes on.

I absolutely guarantee that life did not exist on earth before earth existed. Or did you mean it existed before the earth, perhaps on Mars? I concede the possibility

And yet, we KNOW that to be false. Animals do not always reproduce their own "kind", unless perhaps that means animals produce animals, and even that is touchy at microscopic levels.

And that paragraph, coupled with your last paragraph, begins to show our problem here.

You have been shown, as I say, at least 6 instances of macro evolution. Unfortunately, your bible clearly (at least to you) states that is not possible. Therefore, those 6 instances are not true. You will not investigate them, as you might be forced to change your mind. You will not consider the ones you already know about, as you might be forced to change your mind. Instead you will continue to talk around it, requiring more and more until it is indeed ridiculous what you define to be macro evolution! Open your eyes, Brie! USE the intelligence you obviously posses instead of closing that mind off in an effort to shut out reality and maintain a belief system that is based on nothing more nor less than an old, old book written by and for people millenium ago. You do not need to become an atheist to understand that the bible is not the end all of scientific knowledge - why, it doesn't even MENTION the fusion of hydrogen atoms that makes the sun burn, the same way it doesn't mention evolution.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I have not been "shown" anything. You wish for me to have "faith" in what you say as you have "faith" in your scientists. I stated in the beginning of my Hub what the requirements were...giving me examples of mules hardly proves your point since they are still within the equine family. Animals do produce animals and if your THEORY were true there would be ample evidence of animals producing other animals all over the place, clearly visible, not under a microscope and not with any outside help (since according to YOUR FAITH/THEORY there was no outside intelligence, there is none.


Dan 6 years ago

I'm sorry, Brie, but you HAVE been shown multiple examples of exactly what you asked for - One species that produced another. If you are now asking that an animal of one class or higher change in one step to another class (reptile to mammal perhaps?), then no you won't see that. Probabilities of that happening are so low the earth would be gone before any such changes were likely at all to be seen. However, a class change in one step has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, nor with your requirements. It sounds like you are AGAIN raising the bar, finally to something so preposterous that it simply won't and can't happen.

Fact of the matter is that species changes do happen and there is "ample evidence of animals producing other animals all over the place, clearly visible, not under a microscope and not with any outside help". In spite of this, and in spite of the fact that you requested ONE instance, of any size and visibility, with or without help you steadfastly insist that your requirements are not met.

You stated a couple of posts up that "it says in Genesis that God made animals to reproduce after their own "kind", a direct affront to the theory of evolution." THIS is the problem - an ingrained and completely blind faith that will not be changed regardless of any evidence. When shown the exact evidence you asked for (one species changing to another) you either raise the requirements to something more stingent or simply ignore that evidence. If you don't think about it and don't talk about it, then it didn't happen. Stating that mules, horses and donkeys are all in the same family does not have anything at all to do with the requirement you set, nor with my example. It is simply an effort to make the proof you requested and were presented with go away and be ignored. Not gonna happen - mules still walk around and are still a different species that either parent.

Human beings have an incredible capacity for rationalization - the ability to convince ones self that a particular "fact" is true regardless of any evidence to the contrary. You are convinced that evolution is a hoax and nothing - NOTHING - will sway that thought. If facts and proof are offered, as I and others have done, (even facts that you indicated would change your mind) then those facts are ridiculed, changed into something else, or ignored. In no case are they allowed to sway in the slightest your belief in your particular brand of mythology.

And therein lies the problem with allowing religious zealots to control the education our children receive. While you are content to wallow in the cesspool of self-created ignorance it is not wise for our children to do the same. This, the greatest country the world has ever seen, did not get that way by refusing to learn. Science, whether it agrees with your mythology or not, has driven much of our advancement and will continue to do so. Children denied the chance to learn will not help either the country as a whole nor themselves.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

NO, I am not raising the bar, that was the bar the whole time...that is the BAR that Darwin chose. The fact that YOU are trying to justify your religious beliefs based on the existence of mules or single celled animals does not convince me and does not provide the evidence I originally requested...Evolution is still a faith based religion using scientists instead of preachers.


Dan 6 years ago

I'm sorry, Darwin set no bar. YOU did when you said "I would dare ask anyone to find a dog that gives birth to anything but a dog". A quote from your original post. It is true I did not find a dog, but I DID find a horse that gave birth to something other than a horse. Not much difference, and equal in the eyes of evolution.

"That explains mules and zebra's but not humans or anything else". From your first reply to me. Two new species explained by one of the tools of evolution. Not enough - you require humans and everythinig else as well to exhibit the same behavior, and do it in less than your lifetime so you can see it. Raising the bar.

"...giving me examples of mules hardly proves your point since they are still within the equine family". A change of species isn't enough - now we have to show a change in family as well. Raising the bar.

"if your THEORY were true there would be ample evidence of animals producing other animals all over the place, clearly visible, not under a microscope ". From your next to last post. Now we have to have examples all over the place, clearly visible and not under a microscope. You asked for (review your first post) ONE example. Raising the bar.

"humans came from FISH, or Rocks... that is ludicrous! And, that is Darwin's Evolution". Another quote from you. Darwin never indicated we came from rocks, or even fish for that matter. At least you didn't raise the bar, but you DID change his theory in order to make it easy to ridicule. Was that also the reason for your original gauntlet of producing cats from dogs? Not an honest cry for information and data, but only an attempt to ridicule what you obviously don't understand? After all, neither Darwin nor anyone else ever claimed cats came from dogs.......

"You cannot prove macro-evolution in anything bigger than a flea (if that)nor can you reproduce your results (which is what is required of the scientific method). If you can, show me!" Your reply to dsrtegl. In the next post he does, using flies. Your almost immediate reply was that flies are too small, too, and don't count. Raising the bar.

And at this point, I can only repeat what I've already said; you will not examine proof offered if it conflicts with your world view. Instead you will change your definition of proof, bury what you've been told, attempt to ridicule the idea or anything else that does not require a change in your view. None of these actions would seem to me to make you a viable candidate to suggest what sciences our children are taught in school.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

The mule example is from the same equine family...the example I originally set up was a dog giving birth to something other than a dog, which since Darwin thinks that humans evolved from fish, should not be impossible to find, however you have shown that it is and therefore my original premise is correct.


Dan 6 years ago

Again with the changes. Were I to believe that evidence of ONE dog giving birth to something besides a dog would convince you that evolution is an active theory, I would be tempted to search for such a thing. But you have already said it had to be human, it has to be observable BY YOU, in your lifetime, and it has to happen so often as to be underfoot everywhere you look.

And again, you put words into Darwin's mouth. Darwin never indicated we came from fish - I have already stated that. If you look at our ancestors far enough back in time that they lived in water you will find they were definitely NOT fish as we know the term. A little knowledge of biology wouldn't hurt.

If you truly wish to converse intelligently about evolution you need to put a little study into it. Perhaps some time understanding the concept of science and logic would be beneficial. While you write a better paragraph than I ever will, it is obvious that the only "training" you have had in these matters is the vitriolic spewing of lies and innuendoes from someone that also has a vested interest in forcing the rest of the world to THEIR brand of mythology. A not uncommon state of affairs in discussions of evolution; in that subject everyone seems to be an expert without ever bothering to learn even the most basics of the theory.

Changed my mind. Interesting quick research. Did you know that a golden jackal can breed with a dog in spite of the fact a jackal has only 2 pair of chromosomes instead of the dog's 4 pair? And that the resultant animal is NOT sterile? But of course, they are still not humans and you cannot personally see them (African, you know) and yes I know they are both of the canidae family and the new species is not found on every street corner, and and and.

In addition lions and jaguars (WHAT a difference in size!) may interbreed, as may most of the ursidae family. Breeding a cow to a yak produces a fertile dzomo. A sheep and goat have been successfully bred, as has a false killer whale and a dolphin. A goldfinch and canary were a success as was a chicken and peafowl. Please note that to you and I perhaps, chickens and peafowls are both "birds". Nevertheless, ALL of these crosses are between different species and all result in a new animal. Similarly, you may call a dogote (dog X american jackal) a dog, but that doesn't make it one. Regardless of what word you may personally choose to use it is still a dogote; neither jackal nor dog. A fascinating piece of research; I had no idea such things were at all common.

Unfortunately, however, not a one of these is between a human and a rock, and I expect you will therefore declare that all are invalid and not to be counted as examples of evolution. Pity.

How did you put it in prior posts? Something about pearls before swine?

I bid you adieu and wish you well in your endeavors to understand God.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I would be convinced if you found a dog who naturally gave birth to ...say a cat.

Ok, what were they if they weren't fish? Semantics, my dear, semantics!


Dan 6 years ago

Brie, my dear, you are truly hilarious! The term LOL was not just words on the screen, but rang throughout the house.

I have repeatedly accused you of "raising the bar" with concrete, quoted examples which you deny. Now before you believe in evolution you require that I produce an action that evolution says cannot happen. What a radical way to debate! Whether I produce it or not you will WIN!

Or is this simply what happens when zealots become teachers and teach myth as fact? You know, by your reasoning I could require that YOU produce the dog/cat thing to believe in God as that is certainly the only way it will happen naturally. At least you claim that God COULD do it if he wished; I tell you evolution can't.

No, I don't believe that. No one of your obvious intelligence could possibly be that ignorant of even a concept they detest with all their heart. Not and still be able to push the "on" button on a computer! You gotta be putting me on!

Thanks for the laugh - I needed it tonight.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

And yet, that is what evolution would have us believe ...given enough time, of course!


Dan 6 years ago

Time, and 20,000 generations between that are all a little bit different from the preceding one.

You really do need to understand a subject before you debate on it. Do some studying.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I understand it perfectly, it you who have been deceived.


Dan 6 years ago

Indeed. And where can you quote Darwin as indicating a dog giving birth to a cat proves evolution exists? Or anyone else, for that matter?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

That is an example since macro-evolution teaches that all life forms came from the same beginning, one turning into another and another and another.


Harlan Colt 6 years ago

Time. The elephant standing in the room is Time.

Time is the god of the faith-based religion of evolution.

Christianity says: "With God all things are possible."

Evolution says: "With Time all things are possible."

But then evolution is just man making a monkey out of himself.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I couldn't agree more Harlan, what a breath of fresh are you are!


Harlan Colt 6 years ago

Ok... take off your watch and completely disassemble it.

Put all the little screws, gears etc in a small box and seal it closed. Now, how many millions of years do I need to shake the box for the watch to re-assemble itself?

Infact, no... lets not shake it at all. Lets put it in a swamp full of goo... (Duuuuh)

A fly is far more complex than a watch. But with enough time... see... the magic happens when you give enough time!

Do you believe in magic? I know lets all sing a song together... everyone hold hands...

When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are, anything your heart desires will come to you...

Now watch carefully... here comes Tinker Bell... with her wand! See? MAGIC! Ya just gotta have faith in time!

Hmmm... lets try this...

In the beginning Time created the heavens and the earth...

Haleluja praise time! Time bless each and every one of you.

Dear heavenly Time, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come...

Sorry you evolutionists, I tried. I gave your god a chance but I just can't muster even a tiny mustard seed of faith in time. Your god doesn't even really promise anything or offer any hope of any kind neither during life or after. But mine does! I'll cling to the Lord, you cling to your watch. If I am wrong, so what? What have I lost, and what is that loss to you? Nothing. But if you're wrong.... ewwwww... oh.... uh.... little warm down here.... uh.... wait a minute.... can we back up here a sec? talk this through?

And what is your loss to me? Depends. You could be my Dad, or my sister, or a loved one. Surely, someone who loves you somewhere along the way will be devasted on judgement day to see that you allowed yourself to be deceived right out of your salvation.

Eternity in hell is not the equal measure of your sin...

it is the equal measure of the salvation YOU REJECTED, bought and paid for by Jesus Christ. Jesus is the ONLY saviour. You reject him, then your alternative is to save yourself. Since you're not Jesus you can't save yourself, which is why he came in the first place.

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God...and the word became flesh and dwelt among us...(John 1:1,14)

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word and the holy ghost, and these three are one. (1John 5:7)

Finally... from the Book of Harlan:

Some folks say there is no God,

Some folks worship stones and clay

the self righteous trusting in themselves

and some folks try to earn their way

But Jesus Christ paid for all your sin

and the only way is

you've got to trust in Him....

Jesus Christ, saviour, loves me, died for me, shall never leave me or forsake me... OR TIME, minutes, hours, days, years, decades, centuries, eons and eons and still has no clue you even exist, or really cares...

yea buddy! Time what a great choice.. what a great god!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

What a breath of fresh air Harlan! Thanks for posting!


Singularity 6 years ago

Hello everyone. I think most people are way off track when debating evolution versus creationism. Evolution is science plain and simple. What most people here are missing is that not all science is fact. Evolution is a theory - NOT a fact OR a belief. Theories represent possibilities, then once proven they become fact.

Look at the past theory of electricity. When this theory was discovered and first brought to peoples awareness, imagine how many right wing nut jobs preached about how ludacris the theory was because it didn't come from the bible. Now nearly every church in the world relies on electricity.

Just my point is, let us not mis-interpret the meaning of a theory. Theorys are only possibility NOT belief. All religion is belief, NOT scientific theory or fact. The bible, Santa Clause, Easter bunny, tooth fairy - all belief. See the difference?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Evolution is not based on fact which makes it a belief. Just because you say so doesn't make it so...that is magical thinking.


Singularity 6 years ago

Brie, you are way off track here. You are so narrow minded in your belief that you cannot even clearly read what I posted. Nowhere in my post did I state or even infer that Evolution is based on fact. Perhaps your magical thinking caused you to see that. :-)

Again, NOT all science is fact. Scientific theory is about discovery. What everyone needs to understand is there are very clear differences between scientific theory and faith. Neither of the two are fact! And no amount of bible quotations or christian sitcom catch phrases you use can change that.

I personally accept the theory of Evolution as a scientific theory and nothing more. I do not accept it as fact. Neither do I accept the story in the bible as fact.

And since there is some apparent confusion between "theory" and "faith", allow me to post the definitions clearly defining theory and faith (NOTE: neither of them have to do with fact!):

the·o·ry? ?[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

–noun,plural-ries.

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

Faith? ?[feyth]

–noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

The thing is that most people regard evolution as a fact and it is treated as such. Intelligent Design could fit into your theory definitions just as neatly, yet it isn't given the same status.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Please do not post outside urls on my hub.


Singularity 6 years ago

So, could you please respond to my previous post about where you came up with the idea that I claimed Evolution was fact? I am just curious and would like to know.

The majority of people who regard Evolution as fact are not educated. All of the scientists that I work with treat Evolution as theory, not fact.

Look at how Evolution is taught in schools. It is taught as the Theory of Evolution, not the Fact of Evolution.

Your belief of intelligent design cannot fit into the definition of a theory. Your belief is based on a closed system. A system is closed when it defends itself against all challenges by appealing to the system itself.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I didn't say YOU in particular (although you might) but I said most people including textbooks. Your use of the word theory means nothing...it is nothing but semantics. The theory of evolution is treated as if it is a fact, when others including professors, scientists and authors espouse contrary views they are summarily dismissed.


Lorgrom 6 years ago

I have enjoyed reading everyone comments. Even the ones I don't agree with. But all of you are forgetting one very important thing.

Religion gives a reason why things happen and have happened.

Science gives ways to describe how those things happened.

The two fields are describing the same thing. Just form very different perspectives. I just wish both sides would admit their parts and stop trying to do both.


George 6 years ago

I believe the problem is one of definition. The word "theory" is quite often used when "hypothesis" would be more apt. Yes, evolution is a theory but then so is gravity; ie: it is supported by physical evidence even though we do not fully understand the mechanism. There have been transitional fossils from fish to amphibians found in the Canadian arctic to support macro evolution, for example (I won't get into the genetic similarities between humans and fruit flies:).

Creationism is in fact a hypothesis, because there is no physical evidence in favour of it. Yes, I have heard of the bacterial flagellum, and the concept of irreducible complexity, but the latter has been debunked (please reference the trial of Dover(?) vs the board of education), and irreducible complexity is based on concepts brought out in Chaos theory and visually exemplified by the Mandelbrot(sp?)set.

Remember Faith by definition is a belief in a concept without any evidence. I am Christian. I do have Faith, but I also know that Faith gives me exactly the same authority as someone who believes that Spongebob Squarepants is the apex of religious thought.

I have no problem with religion in schools, but I do have an issue with religion in science. To mix the two negates the purpose of science. Given that, I have always been mystified as to why people get so worked up over creationism. If you believe it because you feel it is true, then to argue against that belief is like trying to convince you that vanilla is the "best" flavour of ice cream even if you prefer chocolate. You can't rationally argue a feeling so why bother?

In any case, thanks for the post. All the best.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I don't know where you got your definition of Faith but that is not my definition. There is ample evidence for Faith in God and none for Evolution. If Macro evolution happened the way they say there would be overwhelming evidence in the fossil record. Instead the fossil record is evidence for creation (a spontaneous appearance of animals). All the transitional fossils are no evidence at all since there is no way to prove that there were offspring.


not_bob_ut 6 years ago

Brie, so sad to see your part of the cult, I have enjoyed some of your other posts, specifically around finance, economic politics and more but this one is off the deep end.

So lets deconstruct for just a moment, Macro evolution can't be varified through experimentation but we can create GMO crops that have genetic traits for a species of not related to the original. Basically this means that man can modify a species to take on the characteristics of several species through our own mechanizations.

A mechanism created just for us by GOD - nature finds no use for this mixing of species? if we can do it with tools and intelligence then why is it impossible for nature to use it?

The fact that we can modify a DNA strand, alter the physical attributes of another living creature should be impossible if macro evolution were not possible. The evidence for DNA manipulation is out there if your mind is open to accept it.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

If it's so possible why don't we see it? It's you that needs to wake up.


not_bob_ut 6 years ago

We do see it

The Bt trait in corn, cotton, and potato is a very popular transgenic trait. The Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium. Research conducted years ago found that proteins from this bacteria bind to the gut of insect larva and kill them. These proteins have been isolated and used as insecticides for many years. What makes Bt crops unique is that the genes that code for these proteins were isolated from the bacteria, modified with promoters that would be recognized by plants and inserted into the crop species. The plant then makes the particular Bt protein coded for by the gene inserted into that crop. A corn hybrid with a Bt gene encodes crystaline proteins from the bacteria that are responsible for larvae toxicity. When eaten by the European corn borer, these crystaline, or Cry proteins, bind to the insects' midgut causing a water imbalance in the cells. The cells burst killing the corn borer. Bt cotton where the target pest is the boll weevil functions similarly. The Bt trait is unique in that multiple Bt genes are used to target different insect pests in different crops.

Migration of a protein between a bacterium and a plant - is this not an exact sample of what we are talking about - cross species migration of DNA expressed traits? Or is the simplistic view of an elephant with a mouses tail whats required for you to "see it"?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

The simplistic view is what Darwin is espousing, it's what the religion of Evolution is all about so yeah, as long as that is what YOU or THEY are concluding that is what I demand to see.


not_bob_ut 6 years ago

Since a bona-fide fact is not enough to open your mind, it must mean that your religion is stronger than mine, I concede - not that you are right about Darwinism, evolution or macro evolution just that you are willing to argue the irrational, illogical alternative longer than I am willing to work at convincing you.

Say hi to God when you see her, if nothing else she should be able to produce an elephant with a mouses tail!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Hey, I am just asking for scientific proof for what you and Darwin espouse...I guess that's just not within the realm of your religion!


George 6 years ago

Brie,

First, per your retort earlier, the definition of "Faith" is not "my" definition, it is one of the definitions according to Webster's dictionary. Unless there is an understanding of the language of the debate, there is no reason to even enter into a debate regarding evolution.

I will be more than happy to hear an argument FOR creationism, I just haven't heard one that remains both logical and internally consistent. Evolution does. Examples that support the logical flow of evolution can be found in the development of the eye, appendages, it can even be found in the genetic code. An entire field of archaeology (cladistics) is dependent upon observable changes in the fossil record supporting evolution (note: it is not proof, it is simply observable phenomena that supports a theory). Since you require visible effects of evolution, I would refer you to any Archaeologist that specializes in cladistics. They should be able to show you ample examples that support evolution.

Good for you for challenging prevailing scientific thought, but please keep in mind that scientists (in any field) typically communicate in a very specific manner using a technical vocabulary that does not necessarily translate easily or readily to the vernacular.

So in the interest of clarity since Archaeology (in the field of cladistics), and Biology (in the field of genetics)do not appear to provide enough evidence to support the theory of evolution, what exactly would constitute "scientific proof" ?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Scientific proof would be a repeatable, observable occurrence in accordance with the scientific method defined as such: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

Since you and Darwin are saying that Humans evolved from primordial soup (sort of speak), then that is what needs to be proven. If that cannot be proven then we are not talking about science but religion and not a very good one in my opinion.


George 6 years ago

Very well then. Per your understanding of scientific proof, here would be an example of evolution in progress, as it applies to humanity: see the Australian aboriginals. Based on current evolutionary theory, humanity arose from Africa and spread around the world. The people who left Africa had darker skin to protect them from the more intense sun,thus increasing their survivability and reducing incidences of skin cancer. As they moved further away from Africa, they adapted to new environments, losing melanin in the skin but developing traits that facilitated survival in their environment (smaller body plan forms, modifications to the nasal cavity etc.). When they arrived in Australia, the first aboriginies looked very similar to the people of Indonesia (based on the physical similarities in the fossil record, and genetic similarities in modern populations). However, as we both know, the aboriginies of today share very many characteristics with Africans instead of Asiatics, the most obvious of which is a darker skin complexion (by the way, I am Asian:). This trait rose again because it gave them protection against the sun and thus increased their survivability in their new environment. This is just one example of observable repetition in the evolutionary process that stays consistent with the theory of evolution, while not contradicting the logical flow or internal consistency of the theory. Note though, it does not validate the theory. If it did, we would be talking about the Law of Evolution...and I do not believe that will happen in my lifetime. Hypothesis, Theory, Law, very different concepts in science.

Now with respect to the idea of a primordial soup, please keep in mind that even that concept remains consistent with the logical flow of the theory and does not interfere with it's internal consistencies. I agree that the idea of evolution from a "primordial soup" needs to be investigated further (very few sciences are ever complete in our understanding of the universe), but based on what you said in your last paragraph, we should not teach science in school at all because there are very few physical sciences in which humanity has a truly comprehensive knowledge of. I am an engineer and I can tell you that the Newtonian mechanics taught in school is only an approximation of physics (though it is a very good one, there are instances where it can be proven to be not applicable). Should physics not be taught as well because we do not have a complete understanding of mechanical motion?

Now I believe I have expounded on the theory of Evolution. Please tell me what the hypothesis of Creationism is about? Feel free to include Genesis in the argument, but remember, I'll be looking for logical flow in the argument as well as internal consistency since these are the basic principles of the scientific process.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

You have explained micro Evolution not macro Evolution...I'm still waiting...

I do not claim that Creationism is a science like you do for your religion.


George 6 years ago

Prime examples of macro evolution can be found in the genetic similarities between humans and:

Chimpanzees (96-98%)

Cows (80%)

Cats (90% homologous)

Dogs (82% homologous)

Similarity implies commonality at some point. Pressing hands on ears repeating a phrase does not make a cohesive argument.

Based on what you stated in your last sentence, I would expect you to oppose all science in school because (according to you) all science is religion since all science is based on the same methodolgy.

I hoped for an intelligent response. Oh well. Good luck.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

All science used the scientific method to determine a fact. What you just wrote are not examples of proof of macro evolution. Similarity means nothing as far as origins are concerned and it proves nothing.


Nikko 6 years ago

Well well well,can a house build itself? Or does it has a builder and maker? Can a house explode into order,into artsmanship,into clever design,and detail?


Nikko 6 years ago

Darwin was Satans tool to spread evolution.He dont mind if you dont beieve in him,cause that means you dont believe in GOD and thats a victory for him.


Brian McCabe 6 years ago

There are so many flaws in this article and comments that I don't even know where to start. I'll address the biggest flaws. First of all, in the real world of science, there is no difference between macro and micro evolution. 2nd of all, evolution is not faith based, it is evidence based. It's supported by so much evidence that the scientific community no longer debates whether it has occurred or not. What we do now is we study exactly how evolution works, not whether is is something to believe in or whether it has actually occurred. We already know it has occurred.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Keep the faith Brian!


Nikko 6 years ago

There are no facts or evidence that evolution exist.All lies by the scientific community.They hate the bible and dont believe in GOD.They want to brain wash the world into not believing in GOD,but believe in what they say.But even they know that there theories have massive holes in it.Like the so called missing link.They want us to believe that we evolved from primapes and devloped into us,the human race.Nonsense it is.They need to stop teaching that nonsense in school too.Even my young son laugh at it..They know that a intelligent,super being created life and that we all came from one man.All our dna codes can be tracced to 1 man.


Brian 6 years ago

Nikko ---really?? Science is the search for the truth, not what they want people to believe. The theory of evolution has withstood for 150 years. By the way, the whole foundation of science is to formulate theories and then try to prove them wrong;thus far, evolution cannot be proven wrong. There is ZERO physical or scientific evidence that God exists(ed). There are no massive holes in evolution. Evolution is a gigantic puzzle that we are constantly finding the pieces to. But, every piece we find fits. Also, we didn't evolve from apes. Think of it as a tree and we are a branch off of the tree. People often mistakenly believe that we evolved from apes; real scientists know otherwise. What reasoning would the worldwide scientific community have to create lies and make us not believe in God? There is no reason. People who don't understand evolution are funny.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

No...what we really evolved from was rocks because that is what was in the beginning.


Nikko 6 years ago

You sound like a programmed android saying "there is no evidence that GOD exist".Who taught you that? I can 1000% say the same thing about evolution.You look up to darwin i see.There is overwhelming proof that GOD is real.I know and i seen things.


Nikko 6 years ago

Matthew 11:25 25 At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes.


Nikko 6 years ago

1Corinthians 1:18-31 18 For the speech about the torture stake is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power. 19 For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.” 20 Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing.

22 For both the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ impaled, to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness; 24 however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because a foolish thing of God is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God is stronger than men.

26 For YOU behold his calling of YOU, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; 28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, 29 in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God. 30 But it is due to him that YOU are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom; 31 that it may be just as it is written: “He that boasts, let him boast in Jehovah.” ......1John 5:20

20 But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.


Nikko 6 years ago

I guess you dont believe in the flood in Noah day either..start that hub Brie


brian  6 years ago

Flood lol. over-exaggerated myth. just like all religion a myth without any provable evidence.


Brian 6 years ago

We did not evolve from rocks. We still don't know for sure what we evolved from, but most likely it was some form of single celled bacteria or other organic entity;definitely was not a rock


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

LOL, you people crack me up! Where did that come from?


Brian 6 years ago

If you don't believe in macro-evolution(evolution), how do you explain the millions of transitional fossils? With each fossil on down the line, the genetic relatedness of species diminishes slightly. We are very closely related to chimpanzees, 98% related genes. Going all the down to the simplest of living things bacterias and viruses, we even have similarities; It's no coincidence or design by any god. There's too many provable arguments for evolution. We can test the relatedness of organisms. Anybody who argues that evolution is not observable is just silly. We can't see atoms moving around objects, but we know they are there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_...


Brian 6 years ago

It comes from almost every biology text book that goes into print, it's what almost every scientist in the world believes, including the most prominent scientist and writer of today believes-Richard Dawkins. You obviously have never read a book about evolution and are extremely ignorant. Believe what you want; but, evolution is real


Brian 6 years ago

The whole crux of your blog was originally to argue that evolution should not be taught in schools, or, if if is, to include all "theories." Your connotation of a theory is much different than the scientific connotation; a theory in science is something that is supported by so much evidence that there's basically no chance of being falsified. if you really wanna know why evolution is taught in schools and not intelligent design or religion...google "Pbs intelligent design on trial..and watch the video." It's amazing what religious weirdos will do.


Nikko 6 years ago

Yeah,i know why its not taught in schools.Satan the devil and his human andriod flunkys


Nikko 6 years ago

He got to have his ministers out there too to mislead.and made not to believe.But will get deep with you.You been asking for it.


Scott 6 years ago

You have to be kidding me... You morons ruin science in the education system because it proves your fantasies wrong. If you had even the slightest bit of knowledge about biology you would be a strong supporter for evolution. It isn't a myth, or a religion, it is a fact.

You pride yourself on saying science is faith, learn a better argument that trying to compare a respectable field of work to your dribble.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

There are no transitional fossils. Have you ever seen one? And tell me how do you know it is a transitional fossil and not an original? You DON'T, you just believe what some supposed scientist told you!


Amazing 6 years ago

It's amazing how uneducated you really are. Many religions are now conceding evolution as the truth based on so much evidence. Some people just don't wanna educate themselves. You are so misguided; it's unbelievable.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Professing to be wise they became fools!


Nikko 6 years ago

Why Evolution Attracts People

The Bible reveals how such teachings as evolution become popular. It says: “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4) Although evolution is usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind’s selfish, independent tendencies. Many who believe in evolution say that they also believe in God. However, they feel free to think of God as one who has not created things, does not intervene in man’s affairs, and will not judge people. It is a creed that tickles people’s ears.

Teachers of evolution are often motivated, not by the facts, but by “their own desires”—perhaps a desire to be accepted by a scientific community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine. Professor of biochemistry Michael Behe, who has spent most of his life studying the complex internal functions of living cells, explained that those who teach the evolution of cell structure have no basis for their claims. Could evolution occur at this tiny, molecular level? “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority,” he wrote. “There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. . . . The assertion of If evolutionists lack explanations, why do they preach their ideas so loudly? Behe explains: “Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature.”Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”


Nikko 6 years ago

And the doctrine of evolution attracts many clergymen who want to appear wise. They are similar to those described in the apostle Paul’s letter to Christians in Rome. Paul wrote: “What may be known about God is manifest among them . . . His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish.” (Romans 1:19-22) How can you avoid being deceived by false teachers?


Nikko 6 years ago

The Challenge of ComplexityA second problem challenging today's scientists involves the sheer complexity of the world around us. Common sense tells us that the more complex an event, the less likely it is to occur by chance. Consider an example.

There are myriad chemical reactions that need to be precisely staged to form DNA, the building block of life. Three decades ago Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State University, U.S.A., calculated the odds of the spontaneous formation of a basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life. The calculations revealed the probability to be so tiny that it is considered mathematically impossible.#

Complexity is especially evident when living organisms have complex parts that would be useless without other complex parts. Let us focus on the example of reproduction.

According to evolutionary theories, living things continued to reproduce as they became ever more complex. At some stage, though, the female of a number of species had to develop reproductive cells requiring fertilization by a male with complementary reproductive cells. In order to supply the proper number of chromosomes to the offspring, each parent's reproductive cells undergo a remarkable process called meiosis, whereby cells from each parent are left with half the usual number of chromosomes. This process prevents the offspring from having too many chromosomes.

Of course, the same process would have been needed for other species. How, then, did the "first mother" of each species become capable of reproducing with a fully developed "first father"? How could both of them have suddenly been able to halve the number of chromosomes in their reproductive cells in the manner needed to produce a healthy offspring with some characteristics of both parents? And if these reproductive features developed gradually, how would the male and female of each species have survived while such vital features were still only partially formed?

In even a single species, the odds against this reproductive interdependence coming about by chance are beyond measuring. The chance that it arose in one species after another defies reasonable explanation. Can a theoretical process of evolution explain such complexity? How could accidental, random, purposeless events result in such intricately interrelated systems? Living things are full of characteristics that show evidence of foresight and planning—pointing to an intelligent Planner.

Many scholars have come to such a conclusion. For example, mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the "intelligent design" evident in "observable features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes." Molecular biochemist Michael Behe sums up the evidence this way: "You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it."

How could random forces produce something as complex as a single cell with its DNA, let alone a human?


Nikko 6 years ago

A Spotty Fossil RecordA third mystery that has puzzled some scientists is related to the fossil record. If evolution proceeded over aeons of time, we should expect to find a host of intermediate organisms, or links, between the major types of living things. However, the countless fossils unearthed since Darwin's time have proved disappointing in that respect. The missing links are just that—missing!

A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved. Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin's Enigma: "The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth."

On the other hand, the fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin's day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found."


Nikko 6 years ago

A Spotty Fossil RecordA third mystery that has puzzled some scientists is related to the fossil record. If evolution proceeded over aeons of time, we should expect to find a host of intermediate organisms, or links, between the major types of living things. However, the countless fossils unearthed since Darwin's time have proved disappointing in that respect. The missing links are just that—missing!

A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved. Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin's Enigma: "The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth."

On the other hand, the fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin's day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found."


Nikko 6 years ago

By pure chance?

When National Geographic recently printed an appealing cover capturing the loving bond between mother and child, a reader wrote to the magazine: "The mother-and-child picture on the cover is a masterpiece. How anyone can look at that darling child that only nine months before was a pinhead-size egg and think this magical development was only a blind accident of chance is beyond me."

Many would agree. Author and former professor of nuclear physics Dr. Gerald Schroeder compares the likelihood of mere chance being the cause behind the universe and life to the odds of winning the lottery three times in a row: "Before you collect your third winnings, you will be on your way to jail for having rigged the results. The probability of winning three in a row, or three in a lifetime, is so small as to be negligible."


Nikko 6 years ago

You are such an idiot! I don't even know where to start. Your biggest mistake is stating that evolution is random; it's not. Your second biggest mistake is comparing evolution to the lottery. Over the course of billions of years, the odds are not as high as some people think. And once the original organism started, there is no such thing as odds because, each new species changes only slightly. That's how we can test relatedness. Your third biggest mistake is believing that these "number of scientists" are questioning evolution. Over 95% of scientists worldwide believe in evolution. The only so called scientists who disagree, are in fact, usually not scientists, but religious freaks clinging to their beliefs who are in denial. They might disagree over how certain aspects of it work, but over 95% agree that evolution has occurred, is occurring, and will continue to occur. Another dumb argument that makes zero sense and which has been proven wrong, time and time again, is the dumb "complexity" argument. Things are too complex to go from a protozoa to a human; nobody disputes that. But that's not what evolution says. You are clueless as to how evolution works. You brain is not "complex" enough to ascertain that subtle changes take place over generations, NONRANDOMLY, and eventually two new species arise, which cannot reproduce with each other; each new species is slightly more complex than the previous one. Millions of species later and billions of years later, it is very much plausible for totally new species, to arise from the previous species, but, being altogether a new species. Right on down the line the changes keep happening, slightly more complex each time. It's not that hard to figure out-(well, not for most of us anyway)


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

It takes a lot of faith to believe in something you cannot see happening, more than I have! Good luck with that religion of yours!


brian 6 years ago

I CAN see evolution happening; I CAN'T see God.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Maybe you need glasses!


Bender 6 years ago

just remember that everyone was made by the same two people. Adam and Eve. That's how you keep it in the family.

When i die do i got to heaven possible? maybe when i die i will evolve to a higher plan of existence.

the excitement is killing me!! how do i get there faster? it must be better then living on this rock.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

What's better is knowing the true living GOD and his son Jesus Christ! He can give you a future.


Brian 6 years ago

God is living? Where can I find him so we can discuss some politics??


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

pray and read the Bible


Winston 6 years ago

Everone seems to be arguing in a circle, but no one has bothered to set up the rules. There are rules, you know.

First off, the theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with belief. No theory is based on belief. Neither is a theory based on proofs. A theory is an explanation of a phenomenon of the natural world - it may be considered accurate because in has not been falsified but that has nothing to do with belief.

Proof is a concern of logic systems. Logic systems and proof is how truth is determined. Truth must be proved. Logic systems are a priori, i.e., of the mind. Religion is also a priori - it delves into concepts such as gods. Proof is therefore in the realm of religion, but not science. You cannot prove a scientific theory, nor would one ever want to do so.

The only ones trying to blend religion and science are the creationists, as creating a smudged line between belief and theory is the only way they can get their unscientific belief system called Intelligent Design into curriculums.


Hell N0 6 years ago

You lost me with the Kent Hovand video. He is the most irritating fraud trying to teach YEC. And YEC is nothing more than taking Genesis literally word by word. But Kent Hovand sounds like a Jerk. By the way, nobody ever said that the earth is billions and billions of years old. Radiometric dating has the earth at 4.5 billion years. Not billions and billions. Man, why did this video have to start with that idiot. I can't take it any more.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

You may not like him personally but what he says is true.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 6 years ago from South Africa

There is religion and there is science and they both use different metaphors to describe their different realities. To return to the original premis of this Hub I would like ofr any child of mine to be taught science in school, not a particular religious viewpoint. Therefore I would like my child to learn the metaphor used by science, which is evolution. In the field of science there is 150 and more years of evidence to prove, scientifically, the theory of evolution. Let's try to separate the metaphors and agree to use appropriate metaphors for the discussion. We will never get around this using metaphors of religion to prove or disporve science. They are two different world views, each right in its own sphere. Use the metaphors of science for science and the metaphors of religion for religion.

Love and peace

Tony


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

When the theory of Evolution uses the concept of time plus material equals US...that, my dear, is religion!


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 6 years ago from South Africa

Not so at all. I mean that is not what evolution proposes and that is also nothing like what I understand religion to be. So I am left puzzled by your comment. Are youn saying that religion is materially based?

I think it would be helpful to you to read what evolution really is about, not what the creationists or other evolution-deniers say it is. Evolution is a theory which is very useful in understanding how life as we know it today came about. Speciation is not about cats becoming dogs, but species branching over time to cope with new situations, becoming better adapted to their environments. Over the course of very long periods the changes become so great that it becomes necessary to talk of a new species. Humans have known about and used this factor over thousands of years and so have artificially created new breeds of cattle and dogs, for example. The theory of evolution has itself evolved to cope with new knowledge at the level of DNA and the genome sequences of humans and other animals. It is not a static thing.

BTW the title of Darwin's book ws "On the Origin of Species", not "Origin of THE Species". It was about how species in general evolved, not how a species came about.

Love and peace

Tony


Hell N0 6 years ago

What's true? You mean what "Dr. Dino" has to say? That guy is a fraud. There is nothing scientific about his YEC garbage. What he's doing, is driving people away from God who believe that the bible teaches what he says. Who with any intellect would buy into what he teaches? A global flood is so physically impossible that it's laughable to even discuss how all of the world's animals could have had representatives on it. The big problem is that he himself does not believe what he's peddling. At least I don't think so.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

tony: The full title of Darwin's book is:

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

Macro Evolution IS based on time plus rocks equals US, furthermore it is a racist theory, and lends support for eugenics.

Hell NO: You have no idea what you are talking about! Dr. Hovind only drives out hypocrites!


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 6 years ago from South Africa

Brie - I was just drawing attention to the word "the" which you had inserted into the title in one of your comments above, which gives a different slant to it, that's all. I know very well what the full title is.

And Darwin did at one time dabble with the concept of eugenics but later rejected it. His racist comments also I know about, but they in no way are germane to the theory. The word "races" in the title of the book refers not to human "races" but to species. Darwin himself would have acknowledged that there is only one human race (species) still extant, the others having all been selected out by the process of evolution millions of years ago. However, he deliberately did not go into the evolution of human kind in that book, explicitly saying so. So do not confuse evolution and racism. Not on at all!

And evolution has moved a long on from Darwin.

As for the "rocks plus time" idea I really don't understand what you mean or how that makes evolution a "religion". To me a religion means a creed, a way of life, prayers, etc. There is nothing of that in evolution. The only ethical demand is that scientists are open-minded and honest and accept that their findings are subject to critical scrutiny, none of which applies to religionists. As I said in my previous comment, there are two different sets of metaphors at work and trying to explain or discredit one set using the other is a waste of time and intellectual energy.

Still, we can hope that we will eventually evolve some sort of mutual understanding over time!

Love and peace

Tony


Hell N0 6 years ago

I know exactly what I'm talking about. What drives people like Hovind is $$$. He's the hypocrite. No matter what kind of evidence there is to the contrary, he continues to peddle his nonsense about a 6000 year old earth and a global flood. The evidence he sites, he must know is due to seizmic activity. For instance, he shows that there are fossils of fish species at the tops of mountains. Well duuuuugh, as he says. They weren't always mountains. He speaks of fossils found in rock layers not matching their ages. Well duuuuuuuuugh, we have plate techtonics. He uses out dated and bad evidence and even lies. He teaches about dinosaur fossils in the walls of the grand canyon when there aren't any. There is nothing supporting YEC that is scientific. Dr. Havind is a well schooled actioneer. The only people that fall for his foolishness are the illinformed.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Tony: The rocks plus time or evolution argument is a religion because it can only be believed on faith, their is no way to scientifically prove it...that is the whole argument here.

Oh and many people still use evolution as a spring board for their racist ideology including Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood.... do your research!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Hell No: That is YOUR BELIEF that the fossils are due earthquakes, nothing more. Just like the BELIEF in Evolution.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 6 years ago from South Africa

Sorry Brie - I don't get the "rocks plus time" thing. Where ever in the theory of evolution fo you find that? I don't believe that - hell, I don't even know what it means!

People also use the Bible as a springboard for racism. Slavery was for years justified using the Bible. What people do with texts is up to them. If what they deduce can be tested by others then I have no problem with that. But you can't try to discredit evolution because some people misuse it. Otherwise the Bible should be banned!

I will definitely do some reading about Margaret Sanger. I admit I have never heard of her before, though I have heard of Planned Parenthood, even though the organisation does not exist here in South Africa as far as I know.

BTW I don't "believe" in evolution so much as accept it as a plausible and well-founded theory which helps us understand the living world around us and our place in it. That's very different from "belief".


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 6 years ago from South Africa

Haved read up some on Margaret Sanger and indeed she did express some horrible ideas. However I have not seen anything yet to indicate that she based these views on evolution. She believed in eugenics, which I have pointed out Darwin rejected. However, her views were far from racist even in this context. According to the Wikipedia article on her, "She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth." In other words she was against forced sterilisation.

As to her racism, she wrote, in 1933, the year Hitler came to power with his racist madness, "All the news from Germany is sad & horrible, and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria.." Not quite racist, and seeing as how Hitler did believe in eugenics, this seems something of a denial of such views, and of the explicit racism of nazism.

I think that the negative view of Sanger and the efforts to link her to evolution are the product of the so-called "pro-life" movement's propaganda. The Planned Parenthood movement in the US is, as far as I can tell, now run by African Americans and was endorsed by many African American leaders over the years. I doubt they would endorse something that was racist.

Perhaps the racist boot is on the other foot? Just a thought.

Anyway I shall continue reading about Sanger because she was clearly an important figure, though I doubt she had much influence on evolution as a theory. And I want to state again, as clearly as possible, there is no logically necessary link between evolution and eugenics. It is quite possible to accept evolution and detest eugenics, as I do.

A last comment on human evolution - I think the direction human evolution is taking now could be in the direction of a kind of spiritual evolution as envisaged by Teilhard de Chardin, but that is another story.

Love and peace

Tony


Alex 6 years ago

It would be false to say that anything is a religion if it can only be believed on faith, or something is a religion if you can't scientifically prove it. These are not definitions of religion.

For instance, we know that gravity occurs, but our attempt to explain how it may work the theory of gravity. This theory is not provable, though many aspects of it are testable to see if this theory is an accurate model for what we observe in reality. There's no way to prove that the theory is completely correct, but that does not make the theory of gravity a religion. Nor is the theory of relativity about spacetime a religion, nor is the theory of everything in theoretical physics a religion, nor is the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow a religion. We can only believe all of these things on faith, as there is no way to prove any of them or prove the sun will come up tomorrow.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Tony: you are very misinformed about many things including Margaret Sanger...in fact you've inspired me to do a hub on her and her evil organization Planned Parenthood. Really, you have so many incorrect views I'm exhausted just thinking of them all and don't have the time or energy to combat each one...if you can't understand where the rocks plus time comes into Evolution then I don't think you would understand anything else I have to say...so we will just close this discussion.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Alex: read this: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Are-All-Re

My other Hub on Religion


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Here is a useful article about Margaret Sanger that took me 1 second to pull up:

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm


Hell N0 6 years ago

This would be a good place to start. You decide which one is a real scientist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwL9voGV1oQ


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I agree with Kent Hovind. Moreover, he seems to have won this debate. This is actually a very good debate.


Elwar5 6 years ago

Evolution is a dead religion and only people who are in love with religion and mythology attempt to resurrect this lie from the camps of eastern mysticism. Furthermore, genetic mutations and natural selection proves that evolution cannot happen in a billion years.


Bored 5 years ago

If evolution is a religion then the guy who made a cell is God... That doesnt make sense...


Bored 5 years ago

Evolution is accepted on "faith" much like any other theory. Even gravity is a theory, and its not like there's a cult devoted to either... The way you define religon makes much of the things I expect to happen in a day sound like a religion, since I never observe my mailman, does he exist? How do i know he'll show up and deliver my mail? I accept you on faith, all the evidence I have is a few posts and a couple pictures, so how do i know even YOU exist?


Lau Gainpaulsingh 5 years ago

It is funny that you choose a dog as an example, because a dog *has* evolved from the grey wolf. Now a completely different species. Evolution doesn't say that a completely different species instantly is born from a particular species, but very gradually changes over a very long time.

There also has been many examples of evolution actually being observed. Just read "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins, but don't just take his word for it. His book has all the references from its original sources, from the original experiments to prove these facts.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Ultimately evolution is saying that we came from rocks and chemicals...over the magical time periods of billions and billions of years...it's a FAIRY TALE, WAKE UP!


Daniel 4 years ago

Wolf to Dog is not adding genetic material it is losing it. You have a less capable wolf, essentially you are saying evolution from a dog to a dog here...

To say successful evolution has occurred there must be a useful increase of genetic material. None exist, even Dawkins can't provide one.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

For all of you who want to post comments..this post is about EVOLUTION not Creationism or Intelligent Design or anything else.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working