ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Atheism & Agnosticism

Evolution is Fact (Christianity, Islam & Judaism are wrong)

Updated on September 11, 2015
Today's Sad Truth :(
Today's Sad Truth :(

It is utterly painful when people claim that evolution is a theory and not a fact. It is as much a fact as the Earth being spherical is a fact. You might say that the Earth being spherical is a theory, but it's a true theory, a fact.


Adorableness - A by-product of evolution
Adorableness - A by-product of evolution
Prickly heat = prickly plants?
Prickly heat = prickly plants? | Source

In the present

We can see evolution happen, we have seen evolution happen, we have it documented, it makes logical sense.

We fight against evolution every day, bacteria are evolving so fast that we no longer have vaccination for strains of super-resistant TB (tuberculosis) and it's also the reason we have no cure for the cold or the flu, which evolves so fast that by the time medicine is produced, it is obsolete.

In the present, we know 99.9% that genetic mutation is the cause of evolution, but even then, it doesn't matter, because we know 100% that evolution is happening because we can physically observe it happening.

Some animals survive better than others of their kind in their environment. The alternative is that every animal has equal chances of surviving. Much like saying a man with no legs has equal chances of winning a leg race. If every animal had the same chances of surviving due to "gods will" etc then certain innocent species would not go extinct.

Furry Example
Polar bears which are white will outcompete their brown counterparts in the arctic because they camouflage in the snow and can hunt easier. They live to reproduce. It's a simple fact.

Spiny Example
Catcti have evolved so that what was leaves on the previous ancestor are now spines to protect them from predators! Unlike most other plants, the stem is where plants photosynthesise, not the leaves which are now protective spines. Cacti also have long shallow roots so that when there is rain, the roots will capture as much of the water for the plant as possible. Deep roots would have meant a low surface area for catching the water.


The fossil record for horses feet are particularly strong
The fossil record for horses feet are particularly strong

The past is more questionable

The past is more questionable
All debates that arise about evolution in the scientific community are all about HOW evolution happened in the past. It is a debate of the HISTORY of evolution. No one is disputing that evolution isn't happening.

The HISTORICAL aspects argued about arise because the only way of finding out history is by looking at things left over from there. Fossils are the main source for life and not every single organism would have been preserved as fossils. Naturally then, there will be missing links in the historical timeline of the more than 30 million different species whose history is trying to be identified today.

To say evolution is not fact because there are "missing links" In some fossil records is the same as saying "the holocaust didn't happen because we don't know the name of Hitler's wife"

The pope sees the truth with the aid of his new 'hand made' spectacles.
The pope sees the truth with the aid of his new 'hand made' spectacles.

The Popes

To show just how obviously true evolution is, I've provided links that announce how the popes admit evolution is true or that there is significant evidence for it

Bear in mind just how big of a deal that is, when the heads of the major Church in the world have said that there is huge evidence against what they profess in their texts, the illusion is broken.

Pope Benedict Admits Strong Evidence for Evolution
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFCLSKITIEMVB1V36

" “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

Pope John Paul II Publicly Admits He Supports Evolution
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/25/world/pope-bolsters-church-s-support-for-scientific-view-of-evolution.html

Dinosaur

Don't deny my existence! D:
Don't deny my existence! D: | Source

Comments

Please feel free to post your views on this topic. Although I cannot see how many different views could be listed about such a simple fact.

Evolution of course dismisses and disproves religious notions of a god that instantly created all of the animals the way there are.

But it's not like evolution was the first to do such a thing:

Dinosaurs
Dinosaurs were never mentioned in the the three monotheistic religious texts. References to 'dragons' yes, 'beasts', yes. Dinosaurs - no.

And before you say "maybe the ancients found the dinosaur bones and interpreted them as 'dragons' or 'beasts'" let me remind you that the Bible, Qu'ran and Torah are all purportedly the word of God, so if God had MEANT dinosaurs he would have had DINOSAURS written.

Where is there doubt and uncertainty when it is God writing these texts through the medium of human beings? God knows all after all, he knew they were dinosaurs.

To use that argument would concede to the fact that the bible is not the word of God but of human beings.

"God put fossils in the ground to test our faith" Oh I see! So God WANTED a creation that would in the face of all evidence against him, blindly follow him?


If only
If only

Objective Points

For those of you that take an abstract and flexible interpretation of the Bible to make it begin to make some sort of sense: here is a table showing what modern science gives great evidence for:

Event - Years ago

Big Bang - 15,000 million
Birth of the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon - 4600 million
Emergence of Life (Pre-cellular Life) - 3800 million
Inorganic Release of Trace Amount of Oxygen -3700 million
Origin of Photo-synthetic Bacteria - 3200 million
Advent of Oxygen-rich Atmosphere - 2000 million
Development of Sexual Reproduction - 1100 million
Spread of Jawless Fishes - 505 million
First Amphibians -408 million
First Reptiles - 360 million
First Dinosaurs and Mammal-like Reptiles; Origin of Mammals - 248 million
First Birds - 213 million
Australopithecus - 4 million
Homo Habilis - 2.2 million
Homo Erectus - 1.5 million
Homo Sapiens - 200 thousand
Modern Humans (homo Sapiens Sapiens)- 35 thousand

And here is the order given to us in Genesis:

Creation of Day and Night - "Day" 1
Creation of Heaven - "Day" 2
Creation of the Earth, the Seas, and the Plants - "Day" 3
Creation of the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars - "Day" 4
Creation of Fishes and Birds [Beginning of Sexual Reproduction] - "Day" 5
Creation of Land Animals (Cattle, Insects, Reptiles, Man) - "Day" 6
No Further Emergence of Life Forms on Earth - "Day" 7

Spot the difference!

-My favourite part is when the sun was created after the plants.
-But also when reptiles appeared after the birds.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      christiananrkist 4 years ago

      @philathropy

      looks like the rest was cut off. not sure how that h happened. .

      (So you weren't joking, this is a grave matter indeed. Tell me where there is a fault in the following logic:

      Genesis is an account of how life was created. Dinosaurs take up 99% of life's history on Earth.

      Therefore, even the most basic writer would mention dinosaurs in an account of how life was created.)

      Because they don't pertain to our life. If the bible mentions dinosaurs, then what? What are people to learn or take from that? The purpose of the creation account of Genesis to simply communicate that God created everything. Not to give a detailed account of the creation of everything. Does it really need to mention every type of plant, animal, insect, rock and give a detailed account of those things?

      (So you think that God was so kind as to make the bible written in poetry for people to remember?

      But at the same time he deliberately made it impossible to gauge what he meant in doing so?

      So in essence he let people memorise things that didn't make any sense to them? What a kind god indeed!)

      What do you mean by he made it impossible to gauge what he meant? They knew exactly what he meant. People today who understand that different cultures didn't live the same as we do knows what it means. It isn't an impossible read. We just have to take in to account the times and places it was written. This is what historians do by the way with all historical documents.

      (Even if all of that were true (which none of it can be) it would move us no further into the idea that God is actually real and contributed anything at all to our creation. The most you could say is "evolution has no evidence, God's creation has no evidence, therefore we should believe in neither."Blindly obeying your parents/pastor/community/TV character so that you convince yourself you have 'blind faith' is not the answer to the debate.)

      I don't blindly believe anything. I don't agree with everything my pastor or parents say. I do debate them and other Christians as well on issues. It seems like your presupposing that I just accept whatever is said to me just because I'm christian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember using to term “faith” in our conversation. I even hesitate to quote the bible because i know you don't believe it. I still did, but only to try to make a point. Also this whole thing is in response to your hub. I'm not trying to prove God. I have only been responding to the claims of a hub that you wrote. In turn, we have asked questions of each other. I don't remember ever being asked to prove God though. I thought this was more about evolution.

    • profile image

      christiananrkist 4 years ago

      @philanthropy

      I'm not offended at all. I have enjoyed conversing with you on this matter. We obviously don't agree , but that's what makes it interesting to me. So, thank you again for your time and hope to have many other debates with you with this or even other topics. Fan of the NFL? Lol. Just kidding. Kind of.

      (Since he made us suffer because of this, he is not all loving.)

      How have we suffered because God stopped creating certain things?

      (So you admit that believing in God makes no logical sense. Good.)

      How am I admitting that?

      (It doesn't matter whether they do or not, the fact is they were forcefully removed in agonising pain in this existence - enter sadism.)

      Agonizing pain? In what way? I think the creator can remove anything he wants. Its his creation after all. I don't even see how this would be considered cruel.

      (This to say "don't think for yourself, that will get yourself into trouble")

      To be honest, many people do get themselves into trouble this way. I don't think that's what this passage says though. This is more like the scenario of a 2 year old (or younger, whatever) questioning his father about not touching the stove. Sure his father could explain why, but he still may not completely understand. Then when he does touch it he blames his father. Which is what people actually do with God all the time.

      ( Do you not think it is pathetic to assume some being has infinite knowledge when there is no reason to believe he exists?)

      This is an assumption on your part. I do have my reasons, as do many others. I'm sure you come across many Christians who don't know why they believe what they do. I do too all the time. I also come across many atheists in the same boat. In fact I'd say the majority of atheists I come in contact with don't believe in God simply because of something bad that happen in their own life. Does this alone make it untrue? I would never call anyone pathetic however for disagreeing with me on anything.

      (It is the same as me saying to you "go forth and give me all your stationary and toiletries" and when you question why I will tell you "I am far superior than your intelligence, do not question me for I am greater - just do it fool". You wouldn't believe me because your sense of rationality will kick in and stop you. Maybe if I wrote an entire book about it though..)

      lol. There is a little more to the bible and Christianity than that, but you make a valid point. I probably would question you, even if you did have superior knowledge to me, with such a bizarre request. If you humor me for just a second and suppose a creator of all things did exists, do you think he would be wrong in saying “just trust me on things that can't to known to you”? Which is pretty much the scenario of the 2 year old and his father.

      (So God who created all of us in his image, made most of us today so that we would want instant gratification and fail to please him? Therefore, he punishes us?)

      I'm sure you've heard the free will argument til you wanna vomit, so I wont bore you too much with it. In a nutshell though we have free will. If we choose to do things that are evil, that's on us. We can't blame God for it. I'm gonna start sounding like an old man crabbing about this generation, but this generation doesn't wanna take responsibility for anything bad that happens to them. Just go to work and see how many people avoid the blame whenever anything troublesome happens.

      (Tell me, what is God's plan when he lets a child of two years old choke on a lego piece? What about when a child is born with leukemia? I ask because I love making theists say "we don't know God's plan" as if that's some sort of actual answer to anything.)

      Touche, because I am gonna say I don't know. How am I to know what God's plan is for every single thing that happens? I already said I believe our knowledge compared to God's to be less than that of an infant to Einstein. I think “i don't know” is a legitimate answer if you don't know. Have you never used that phrase? What was Da' Vinci thinking when he painted mona lisa?

      (When humans suffer and then strengthen from it, we call it 'learning'.)

      Ok.

      (Actually you gave me 5 invalid scientists.

      [and could give 100.] Please do.)

      Invalid? In what way? By the way when I said 100, I was using what's known as hyperbole. I'm sure you know what it is. It just means I can give a lot. Also I think its kinds of a waste of space to give so many, since i doubt you look up every single one. If you really want though, I can give on the next answer.

      (Naming 5 scientists that believe in evolution isn't an argument - why would I respond with one?)

      Because your original claim was that NO ONE DISPUTED evolution. I gave 5 secular scientists that did. I dispute it as well. Who am I? No one special or brilliant, but I am someone.

      (Precisely, just like "we now know that evolution is a fact and that God's account of genesis is untrue.")

      Or until or next textbook says we used to believe that mutated cells caused creatures to form over time, we know...

      (Same argument: just because I don't know how my grandmother created the universe doesn't mean I should believe she never did it.)

      this was actually YOUR type of argument in the first place. I was merely trying to make a point. So the grandmother thing is an example I should be using on you. I guess we could just both agree that neither one of us accepts this.

      ([The horse thing you showed is full of failed growths] ???

      [and there are no parts under construction.] ???

      Sorry? You can clearly see how minute structural changes lead to the formation of the modern horse's foot and legs today. The changes are so slight that it would be unthinkable to deny that there is a link between those organisms...)

      I guess I don't clearly see what your seeing. Could you point something out to me. Also I understand that other reading may be complex and lengthy, but I really don't accept wikipedia as valid evidence for these kinds of issues. It just isn't reliable. Its more useful for things like how much protein is in a T-bone. I can promise you I will never cite anything about Christianity using wikipedia.

      (Erm, this is awkward... You are different from your other family members not because you evolved from the same organism as them but because of natural variation in the human gene pool.)

      Sure, I have different features. My over all structure though is that of a human. Just like the over all structure of a dog is a dog. I could even agree with the horse development if they were just different types of horses. When I ask for evidence of transitional forms, I'm looking for things like scales turning into feathers and major changes over a period of time. If evolution were true in that it takes millions of years, we would see things like this in the fossil records. Even with some gaps.

      (I don't understand what this meant either, could you clarify?)

      I think the missing link called Lucy was famous in 90's maybe. Everyone was sure they had found a missing link to humans they had been searching for between primate and man. It didn't last too long as a valid claim however, since it was determined to just me an extinct breed of monkey or primate. I forget all the details really.

      Evolutionists now imagine it to be this branching bush. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/NAkwUIvaSFw/UMjg301TZJI/A... You can see a lot of what they thought to be ancestors apparently lived at the same time, especially after Mesohippus. It doesn't seem likely that Hyracotherium has any connection to horses. The progression of toes is an illusion that was useful when the theory of evolution was first being sold to the public.

      ( And why not? There is more evidence for him to be so than God himself. Why does reason trump blind faith here? Would you believe in him blindly if your priest said so?)

      I'm sorry, I don't wanna be rude, but I'm not going to comment on the pope anymore. This is like asking me to comment on the Quran.

      (So you weren't joking, this is a grave matter indeed. Tell me where there is a fault in the following logic:

      Genesis is an account of how life was created. Dinosaurs take up 99% of life's h

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 4 years ago from London

      [God can still be all loving and stop creating something.] Since he made us suffer because of this, he is not all loving.

      [God knows beginning to end. If God sees the need to stop the existence of something there is probably good reason that we don't know about.] So you admit that believing in God makes no logical sense. Good.

      [This is also why I made the comment that many atheists seem to have trouble seeing past this life is all there is. We don't know if certain species of extinct animal will exist in the next life or not.] It doesn't matter whether they do or not, the fact is they were forcefully removed in agonising pain in this existence - enter sadism.

      [Granted, there is nothing that suggest there will be. Why should there be though. That's of no concern really.] Exactly, God is a sadist in either scenario.

      [“This is what the Lord says—the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands?”] This to say "don't think for yourself, that will get yourself into trouble"

      [It's a good question considering our knowledge compared to God is less than that of an infant to Einstein.] Do you not think it is pathetic to assume some being has infinite knowledge when there is no reason to believe he exists?

      It is the same as me saying to you "go forth and give me all your stationary and toiletries" and when you question why I will tell you "I am far superior than your intelligence, do not question me for I am greater - just do it fool". You wouldn't believe me because your sense of rationality will kick in and stop you. Maybe if I wrote an entire book about it though..

      [God does allow suffering. This also does not make him unloving or not all powerful. The problem with people, especially in this generation is we want instant gratification all the time. If we don't get what we want, we behave like 2 year olds. One reason God allows suffering is because he values character over comfort. A good example would be an Olympic athlete training daily.]

      So God who created all of us in his image, made most of us today so that we would want instant gratification and fail to please him? Therefore, he punishes us?

      Do I punish my toaster for popping out bread when I press the eject button?

      [He/she puts their body to the limit and deals with the aches, pains , and discomforts of it to obtain a greater good. I understand people have much greater and horrific suffering in the world than this. But again, God sees beginning to end and we don't always to future affects suffering. I can say in my own life many of the struggles i have gone through has strengthened me in area's of my life. And if others are honest I'm sure they can say the same.]

      Tell me, what is God's plan when he lets a child of two years old choke on a lego piece? What about when a child is born with leukemia?

      I ask because I love making theists say "we don't know God's plan" as if that's some sort of actual answer to anything.

      When humans suffer and then strengthen from it, we call it 'learning'.

      [I wont really say much about the fact that there are people who dispute evolution since you only argument was that they are pathetic. I gave you 5 valid secular scientists] Actually you gave me 5 invalid scientists.

      [and could give 100.] Please do.

      [calling them pathetic because they don't agree isn't an argument.] Naming 5 scientists that believe in evolution isn't an argument - why would I respond with one?

      As far as text books, I can't count how many times i have seen the phrase “we no know” in my science books growing up. I could probably look in my daughters school books and still find that phrase. Like “we used to think pluto was a planet. We now know...”.

      Precisely, just like "we now know that evolution is a fact and that God's account of genesis is untrue."

      ["I asked would you accept the argument from me of 'not knowing how God did X doesn't mean he didn't, because you said “not knowing the historical facts of how X lead to Y does not change that fact.” I assumed you wouldn't accept such an answer.]

      Same argument: just because I don't know how my grandmother created the universe doesn't mean I should believe she never did it.

      [The horse thing you showed is full of failed growths] ???

      [and there are no parts under construction.] ???

      Sorry? You can clearly see how minute structural changes lead to the formation of the modern horse's foot and legs today. The changes are so slight that it would be unthinkable to deny that there is a link between those organisms...

      [There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes. Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random process if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found.] Erm, this is awkward... You are different from your other family members not because you evolved from the same organism as them but because of natural variation in the human gene pool.

      Likewise, the reason the horses you see have different "structure, function, and process" is because each species will have its own variation in its gene pool. The fossils from horse X may have come from a tiny horse of the species X whilst the next horse's fossils from a different type Y could have been from a much larger horse of that species.

      [The picture is placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series. A similar thing took place with the famous Lucy the missing link. They later realized it was just an extinct primate. Also your picture is outdated. I'll get right on telling the pope.] I don't understand what this meant either, could you clarify?

      [Again with the pope. Don't care what the pope knows or doesn't know. I don't believe he is omniscient or divine.] And why not? There is more evidence for him to be so than God himself. Why does reason trump blind faith here? Would you believe in him blindly if your priest said so?

      ["I still don't see why the bible would mention dinosaurs when that isn't the purpose of its writing."]

      So you weren't joking, this is a grave matter indeed.

      Tell me where there is a fault in the following logic:

      Genesis is an account of how life was created.

      Dinosaurs take up 99% of life's history on Earth.

      Therefore, even the most basic writer would mention dinosaurs in an account of how life was created.

      [This along with many people not being able to read (the writing of the bible was obviously read to these people) made the writing put in to poetic fashion easier to memorize. When read in its original language you can see how things flow and at times rhyme which as you probably know does make things easier to remember. Much of what Jesus said to his disciples was actually said in a memorable fashion.]

      So you think that God was so kind as to make the bible written in poetry for people to remember?

      But at the same time he deliberately made it impossible to gauge what he meant in doing so?

      So in essence he let people memorise things that didn't make any sense to them? What a kind god indeed!

      I don't mean any offense to you as a person, but I would like you to understand that the theistic arguments you have given me are all based on fallacy.

      Even if everything you said were true, and evolution doesn't have enough evidence, and the bible was written poetically, and that dinosaurs were simply not mentioned because God didn't think it would interest his audience.

      Even if all of that were true (which none of it can be) it would move us no further into the idea that God is actually real and contributed anything at all to our creation.

      The most you could say is "evolution has no evidence, God's creation has no evidence, therefore we should believe in neither."

      Blindly obeying your parents/pastor/community/TV character so that you convince yourself you have 'blind faith' is not the answer to the debate.

      Thanks again,

      Philanthropy

    • profile image

      christiananrkist 4 years ago

      @philanthropy

      God can still be all loving and stop creating something. God knows beginning to end. If God sees the need to stop the existence of something there is probably good reason that we don't know about. This is also why I made the comment that many atheists seem to have trouble seeing past this life is all there is. We don't know if certain species of extinct animal will exist in the next life or not. Granted, there is nothing that suggest there will be. Why should there be though. That's of no concern really. I hate to quote the bible to you since you don't believe it. But I think is says it best in

      Isaiah 45:11. “This is what the Lord says—the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands?”

      it's a good question considering our knowledge compared to God is less than that of an infant to Einstein.

      God does allow suffering. This also does not make him unloving or not all powerful. The problem with people, especially in this generation is we want instant gratification all the time. If we don't get what we want, we behave like 2 year olds. One reason God allows suffering is because he values character over comfort. A good example would be an Olympic athlete training daily. He/she puts their body to the limit and deals with the aches, pains , and discomforts of it to obtain a greater good. I understand people have much greater and horrific suffering in the world than this. But again, God sees beginning to end and we don't always to future affects suffering. I can say in my own life many of the struggles i have gone through has strengthened me in area's of my life. And if others are honest I'm sure they can say the same.

      I wont really say much about the fact that there are people who dispute evolution since you only argument was that they are pathetic. I gave you 5 valid secular scientists and could give 100. calling them pathetic because they don't agree isn't an argument. As far as text books, I can't count how many times i have seen the phrase “we no know” in my science books growing up. I could probably look in my daughters school books and still find that phrase. Like “we used to think pluto was a planet. We now know...”.

      I asked would you accept the argument from me of 'not knowing how God did X doesn't mean he didn't, because you said “not knowing the historical facts of how X lead to Y does not change that fact.” I assumed you wouldn't accept such an answer.

      The horse thing you showed is full of failed growths, and there are no parts under construction. There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes. Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random process if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found. The picture is placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series. A similar thing took place with the famous Lucy the missing link. They later realized it was just an extinct primate. Also your picture is outdated. I'll get right on telling the pope.

      Again with the pope. Don't care what the pope knows or doesn't know. I don't believe he is omniscient or divine.

      Why would you ask if i think im playing devils advocate with the argument i gave? I still don't see why the bible would mention dinosaurs when that isn't the purpose of its writing. Do you really expect the author of Genesis to talk about every living creature that ever inhabited the earth? Even extinct ones that his audience would have no clue as to what hes talking about?

      The reason the bible includes poetry and mixes it with historical narratives is because of this passage for one thing.

      Proverbs 7:1-3 My son, keep my words And treasure my commandments within you. Keep my commandments and live,And my teaching as the apple of your eye. Bind them on your fingers; Write them on the tablet of your heart.

      This along with many people not being able to read (the writing of the bible was obviously read to these people) made the writing put in to poetic fashion easier to memorize. When read in its original language you can see how things flow and at times rhyme which as you probably know does make things easier to remember. Much of what Jesus said to his disciples was actually said in a memorable fashion.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 4 years ago from London

      @WhyJoker,

      There is no way I am going to waste my time reading that,

      Thanks,

      Philanthropy

    • whyjoker profile image

      whyjoker 4 years ago

      There are so many things to explain. I hope his works enlighten you:

      http://www.harunyahya.com/

      Take your time reading some of his books (pdfs).

      Thank you!

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 4 years ago from London

      (I tried looking up the flu virus example to verify, but couldnt find anything. Sorry. Do you happen to have any sources for this?)

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

      (But doesn't a creator have the right to stop creating something.)

      Not if he wants to be called loving.

      (Another point. God sees from beginning to end. We only see a snapshot of history. God knows what best for the long term.)

      This makes him infinitely times worse because he has caused us to suffer on purpose.

      Since he is all powerful he could have made the same end goal without the suffering. Tell me he couldn't and I'll tell you that he's not omnipotent (all powerful).

      (One more thing on this. Many atheists seem to have trouble with the idea that this isn't the only life or that there is more than just whats in this world.)

      Irrelevant to the point at hand. In any case they do not have trouble with the idea, they have trouble with believing it for no reason.

      (You said no one is disputing evolution is happening.)

      No, pathetic people will always try to argue what is clearly true for attention regardless if the rest of the community have accepted things and that now most textbooks say "evolution IS a fact". It's difficult to make a career in theism or religion.

      (Just curious, would you accept the argument from me of 'not knowing how God did X doesn't mean he didn't?')

      This is worded very poorly with a triple negative but if I remove it I get that you're asking if I think the argument:

      "Just because I don't know how God did something doesn't mean I should believe he never did it" and I'll answer that with the response of saying:

      I would accept that argument as much as I accept the following argument:

      "Just because I don't know how my grandmother created the universe doesn't mean I should believe she never did it."

      My second version of your argument would in fact be stronger because at least I do know that my grandmother existed.

      (Nothing about this says true transitions.)

      I used wikipedia because this is so well established that even it has enough information. The first link was supposed to be this:

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

      A link to the history of transitional horse fossils. A very complete record. Google other sources of the database for horse fossils (these will be much harder than wiki to read though) and please try to argue that those fossils do not show the evolution of the horse. And if you do manage it, let the Pope know because he sure couldn't.

      (If catholics believe the pope is divine in some way, then I'll leave this argument to them. For me this is really a non-issue. The pope isn't an authority on anything other than catholicism in my opinion.)

      Except that he is the largest and most important figure in religion today (being head of the largest sect of religions in the world) and if he (and the thousands of advisers, professional theists and academics by his side) couldn't refute evolution then it gives way to the assumption many others won't be able to either. This affects all three abrahamic religions which all share the same problems listed in this hub.

      (I suggest you read Genesis again (assuming you have). This isn't the purpose of Genesis. I understand the bible mentions the dung beetle as well as other animals that may seem insignificant in comparison to dinosaurs. When authors write books, they do it for specific reasons and to specific audiences. If I wrote a book about birds of wisconsin I may mention other animals such as predators and food they eat. Even if I believed in evolution I still wouldn't mention dinosaurs. Why would the author of Genesis mention dinosaurs to an audience that knew nothing about them. What would be the point?)

      Why would a section of the Bible dedicated to explaining how life on Earth started and developed mention 99% of life's history?

      Haha. That's like writing a book about the Birds of Wisconsin and dedicating it only to the common pigeon :)

      That argument made me chuckle, did you really believe that or are you playing devil's advocate?

      I was hesitant to even respond to this one because it always turns into this debate (even with christians) where you refuse to accept that the bible is written in many style. That of Hebrew poetry, historical narratives, letters, prophesy, and historical narratives interlaced with Hebrew poetry. While writing just like any other writer uses metaphors, symbolism, and hyperbole. Its ok if you don't accept this but most if not all books include these, and we also talk everyday using this kind of language.

      Does a scientific text include poetry? Does an informative leaflet? Does a travel guide? No.

      Does fiction? Yes.

      If you want to use the Bible as a source of poetry, fine. Great.

      If you want to use it as a source of information that should guide, judge and scrutinise your own life AND accept that most of the things in it aren't even clear enough to not be called 'poetry' - well as a reasonable person that just seems silly.

      Thanks for taking the time as always it has been interested, keep me posted.

      Philanthropy

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 4 years ago from London

      @WhyJoker

      Hahahah, if you accept that sentence as 'true' (which ought not to) then you should consider the following:

      The Qu'ran states that:

      Sperm comes from between the spine and ribs:

      'He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs' (Qur'an 86:6-7)

      Only Allah can know what sex a baby will be:

      "Verily the knowledge of the Hour is with Allah (alone). It is He Who sends down rain, and He Who knows what is in the wombs." (Qur'an 31:34)

      Bees Eat Fruit

      "And thy Lord taught the Bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in (men's) habitations; Then to eat of all the fruits (of the earth)" (Qur'an 16:68-69)

      Of course, let's not also forget that it says man is made FROM clay.

      I'd be curious to see your defence for all of the above,

      Thank you,

      Philanthropy

    • whyjoker profile image

      whyjoker 4 years ago

      Sorry to say, but dinosaurs is mentioned in Koran as "banuljan".

      You know nothing about Islam, that's the fact.

    • profile image

      christiananrkist 4 years ago

      nevermid that last comment. I was wrong. sorry

    • profile image

      christiananrkist 4 years ago

      One of my comments is missing. was it deleted?

    • profile image

      christiananrkist 4 years ago

      @philanthropy

      Thank you for your time, especially since you had somewhere to be.

      (Yes, we know that evolution is happening today because of genetic mutation (100% not 99.9%). We know this because we have observed it countless times. An easy example is that of the flu virus - we make vaccines against flu by isolating the antigens the virus expresses. However, Influenza has such a high mutation rate (again which we have coded) that the average flu vaccination will be useless after 6 months - the virus begins to express different antigens. Whilst this is bad for humans and other animals, it's great for the flu virus' survival.)

      I tried looking up the flu virus example to verify, but couldnt find anything. Sorry. Do you happen to have any sources for this? I also looked up speciation here http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VBDef... Show me how I'm wrong, but the example it give is comple speculation and is still really just a theorry.

      (Because God is described as "omnibenevolent)

      I wont quote the bible because I dont think your convinced of anything is says, but doesnt a creator have the right to stop creating something. Another point. God sees from beginning to end. We only see a snapshot of history. God knows what best for the long term. One more thing on this. Many atheists seem to have trouble with the idea that this isnt the only life or that there is more than just whats in this world.

      (Also wrong, the scientific community has long established the fact of macro evolution - we even know how chromosomal mutations lead to speciation (google it). Whether or not reptiles turned into birds or not has no weight in the fact that we know it's happened/happening - not knowing the historical facts of how X lead to Y does not change that fact.)

      You said no one is disputing evolution is happening. All these men are secular scientist who dispute evolution. E. Theo Agard, James Allen, Kevin Anderson, Harold Armstrong, Alexander Arndt and countless others. Just curious,would you accept the argument from me of not knowing how God did X doesnt mean he didnt?

      (Those sentences makes me cry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evoluti...

      Did you actually read this or just look it up on wikipedia and paste the link? This is pasted from the 2nd link you gave. The 1st had nothing.

      “Ideally, this list WOULD ONLY RECURSIVELY INCLUDE 'TRUE' TRANSITIONALS, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but MOST IF NOT ALL, OF THE FOSSILS SHOWN HERE REPRESENT EXTINCT SIDE BRANCHES, MORE OR LESS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE TRUE ANCESTOR. They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, THE VERY TERM "TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL" IS ESSENTIALLY A MISCONCEPTION. IT IS HOWEVER A COMMONLY USED TERM AND A USEFUL CONCEPT IN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY.”

      Nothing about this says true transitions. And to be honest, using wikipedia as a reliable source for something as controversial as evolution?

      (The Pope is the authority for the largest sect of the largest religion in the world - if, as believed by Catholics, the Pope is divine and is influenced by the almighty himself, he should know with certainty what is true about matters so close to Christianity such as Creation. In essence, by going back on his own beliefs he struck both himself and Catholicism in the credibility department.)

      If catholics believe the pope is divine in some way, then I'll leave this argument to them. For me this is really a non-issue. The pope isnt an authority on anything other than catholicism in my opinion.

      (The Bible states that Adam & Eve came first, disregarding the 150 million years that dinosaurs lived on Earth. It is asinine to compare 150 million years of the Earth's history to "mentioning an animal" like the Dung Beetle in the Bible. The author of genesis had the intention to communicate the anthropocentric understanding of the world his people had at the time - he succeeded, and now we can laugh at how silly we humans were 3000 years ago. Or we could believe everything he said and make a huge deal about it conflicting with science...)

      I suggest you read Genesis again (assuming you have). This isnt the purpose of Genesis. I understand the bible mentions the dung beetle as well as other animals that may seem insignificant in comparison to dinosaurs. When authors write books, they do it for specific reasons and to specific audiences. If I wrote a book about birds of wisconsin I may mention other animals such as predators and food they eat. Even if I believed in evolution I still wouldnt mention dinosaurs. Why would the author of Genesis mention dinosaurs to an audience that knew nothing about them. What would be the point?

      (I don't understand what you mean by my leaving a couple of days blank (sorry). And yes, I will criticise the attempts to justify clear inaccuracies in religious texts on the grounds of 'poetry', 'metaphor' or 'symbolism'. Why is it that nothing is poetry before it's found to be wrong.

      It seems that with every scientific breakthrough we are getting closer to keeping our Qurans, Torahs and Bibles next to the Cat in the Hat.)

      I was hesitant to even respond to this one because it always turns into this debate (even with christians) where you refuse to accept that the bible is written in many style. That of Hebrew poetry, historical narratives, letters, prophesy, and historical narratives interlaced with Hebrew poetry. While writing just like any other writer uses metaphors, symbolism, and hyperbole. Its ok if you dont accept this but most if not all books include these, and we also talk everyday using this kind of language.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 4 years ago from London

      @Christian,

      I'll try to answer as quickly and concisely as I can, I apologise if my answers seem blunt but I'm running on a tight schedule (and couldn't bare to not reply):

      ["we know 99.9% that genetic mutation is the cause of evolution? Do you have any modern day examples of mutation ending up as anything other than neutral, harmful, or fatal?"]

      Yes, we know that evolution is happening today because of genetic mutation (100% not 99.9%). We know this because we have observed it countless times. An easy example is that of the flu virus - we make vaccines against flu by isolating the antigens the virus expresses. However, Influenza has such a high mutation rate (again which we have coded) that the average flu vaccination will be useless after 6 months - the virus begins to express different antigens. Whilst this is bad for humans and other animals, it's great for the flu virus' survival.

      [Why exactly would innocent species not go extinct?] Because God is described as "omnibenevolent"

      [not true. there are many disputes of Macro evolution (reptiles turning into birds) whats not disputed is micro evolution (wolf turning into a bulldog. both being from the K9 family)]

      Also wrong, the scientific community has long established the fact of macro evolution - we even know how chromosomal mutations lead to speciation (google it). Whether or not reptiles turned into birds or not has no weight in the fact that we know it's happened/happening - not knowing the historical facts of how X lead to Y does not change that fact.

      [This one made me laugh. but it isn't SOME missing links. Its ALL missing links. When there is zero fossil records linking to transitional forms, this is a legitimate argument. Unless you know of some transitional forms in the fossil records?]

      Those sentences makes me cry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evoluti... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_...

      ["the popes admit evolution is true or that there is significant evidence for it"]

      [ok. is the pope the authority on all creation? is the pope the authority on science? not sure why this matters.]

      The Pope is the authority for the largest sect of the largest religion in the world - if, as believed by Catholics, the Pope is divine and is influenced by the almighty himself, he should know with certainty what is true about matters so close to Christianity such as Creation. In essence, by going back on his own beliefs he struck both himself and Catholicism in the credibility department.

      ["Dinosaurs were never mentioned in the the three monotheistic religious texts."]

      [Why should the bible mention dinosaurs? does the bible have to mention every type of animal to be reliable? why would the author of genesis mention them if his intent was to communicate something unrelated?]

      The Bible states that Adam & Eve came first, disregarding the 150 million years that dinosaurs lived on Earth. It is asinine to compare 150 million years of the Earth's history to "mentioning an animal" like the Dung Beetle in the Bible.

      The author of genesis had the intention to communicate the anthropocentric understanding of the world his people had at the time - he succeeded, and now we can laugh at how silly we humans were 3000 years ago. Or we could believe everything he said and make a huge deal about it conflicting with science...

      Creation account:

      [I know you will criticize for this, but the creation account isn't a chronological account despite the language. its given in Hebrew poetic form. for anyone who care they can read. Days 1 and 4 speak of light. days 2 and 5 speak of water and sky and the animals in them. days 3 and 6 speak of the separation of water from land and the vegetation and animals on it. I noticed you left a couple of days blank there so people may not see this from your hub.]

      I don't understand what you mean by my leaving a couple of days blank (sorry). And yes, I will criticise the attempts to justify clear inaccuracies in religious texts on the grounds of 'poetry', 'metaphor' or 'symbolism'. Why is it that nothing is poetry before it's found to be wrong.

      It seems that with every scientific breakthrough we are getting closer to keeping our Qurans, Torahs and Bibles next to the Cat in the Hat.

      Thanks for your time and again I apologise for my lack of empathetic zeal today. Must run but thank you for your time,

      Philanthropy,

    • profile image

      christiananrkist 4 years ago

      we know 99.9% that genetic mutation is the cause of evolution?

      Do you have any modern day examples of mutation ending up as anything other than neutral, harmful, or fatal? None of my questions are rhetorical or meant as sarcasm or mean spirited by the way. If you have I'm actually interested to see.

      "If every animal had the same chances of surviving due to "gods will" etc then certain innocent species would not go extinct."

      Why exactly would innocent species not go extinct?

      No one is disputing that evolution isn't happening?

      not true. there are many disputes of Macro evolution (reptiles turning into birds) whats not disputed is micro evolution (wolf turning into a bulldog. both being from the K9 family)

      "To say evolution is not fact because there are "missing links" In some fossil records is the same as saying "the holocaust didn't happen because we don't know the name of Hitler's wife"".

      This one made me laugh. but it isn't SOME missing links. Its ALL missing links. When there is zero fossil records linking to transitional forms, this is a legitimate argument. Unless you know of some transitional forms in the fossil records?

      "the popes admit evolution is true or that there is significant evidence for it"

      ok. is the pope the authority on all creation? is the pope the authority on science? not sure why this matters.

      "Dinosaurs were never mentioned in the the three monotheistic religious texts."

      why should the bible mention dinosaurs? does the bible have to mention every type of animal to be reliable? why would the author of genesis mention them if his intent was to communicate something unrelated?

      Creation account:

      I know you will criticize for this, but the creation account isn't a chronological account despite the language. its given in Hebrew poetic form. for anyone who care they can read. Days 1 and 4 speak of light. days 2 and 5 speak of water and sky and the animals in them. days 3 and 6 speak of the separation of water from land and the vegetation and animals on it. I noticed you left a couple of days blank there so people may not see this from your hub.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 4 years ago from London

      @JJGD,

      Thanks JJGD for taking the time to comment. As with many religions (including Christianity), you can take small snippets of the holy texts and arrive therefrom a conclusion such as "Islam is compatible with Evolution".

      Unfortunately (and as every Islamic country agrees today by not teaching evolution in schools), the Qu'ran when looked at fully and without disregarding anything at all, certainly does not comply with evolution.

      The contra-evidence is everywhere and you don't need to twist anyone's arm to see it:

      'He it is Who created you from a single being, and of the same (kind) did He make his mate,' - a single being?

      "Then did Satan make them slip from the (garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said: "Get ye down, all (ye people), with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood - for a time." -

      What does the entire story of Adam & Eve mean for evolution? What, in the chronological development of the modern day human, was their descent from the Garden of Eve onto Earth?... It just has no relevance, is indeed the answer, and means the idea of the Qu'ran hinting at evolution in its teachings is simply fallacious.

      And if that's not enough for you, consider the numerous times that the Qu'ran confuses biology which contradicts not only our understanding of animals but also evolution:

      The Qu'ran states that Bees eat fruit..

      "And thy Lord taught the Bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in (men's) habitations;Then to eat of all the fruits (of the earth), and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord" What would be the purpose of majaz here.. Bees don't even 'eat' nectar, they eat honey.

      ...And that horses were made FOR humans to use as transport:

      "And (He has created) horses, mules, and donkeys, for you to ride and use for show"

      Then of course there are so many questions concerning the reasons for why an almighty God would make 99% of the organisms he 'lets' evolve, die.

      I understand the frustration of science outdating previous views and lifestyles, but it doesn't only apply to religion - I'm certain much of what we believe today will be refuted in the future and it will be part of modern living then to accept that.

      Thanks again for your time and have a pleasant day,

      Philanthropy

    • profile image

      JJGD 4 years ago

      "Evolution is fact, ... Islam is wrong"

      Evolution is entirely compatible with Islam, the Qur'an states all life derives from water (the substance necessary for life to originate) and that each species has developed in stages, including humans.

      Maybe actually try researching topics before writing articles about them....

      Start here: http://www.alislam.org/topics/quran/QURANIC%20CONC...

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      @Striped Crunchy,

      Thank you for your enlightening comments.

      But what I believe in actually makes logical sense. Forget even the numerous repeats that have occurred that you deny. It actually makes logical sense.

      What you believe does not make sense. It is not explained. Until you overcome this barrier, I would suggest you cease to offend evolution by associating it with religious beliefs.

      Religious beliefs do not make sense. Evolution does.

    • StripedCrunchy profile image

      StripedCrunchy 5 years ago from Forward Mobile Fire Base, Global Right Wing Conspiracy

      Read the link, it's been around for a while. In fact, I've referenced it a number of times, myself. NO functional advantages which might be considered long term advancements are listed in any of the examples. NONE of the examples have been repeated or duplicated.

      You've listed a great ruddy list of inferences, Phil. Even the author acknowledges how convoluted the arguments are.

      Your answer to my actual question was cute, and an obvious show of the deep, abiding faith you have in your personal religious beliefs concerning Evolutionary theory.

      My own faith in God is shamed by the fervor of your devout, unsubstantiated beliefs. My hat's off to ya, bud.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      "Evolution, as it is presented, means Speciation."

      "NO verifiable, testable, repeatable Speciation events have been recorded, EVER. "

      Sigh... It seems that in circles we must travel:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm...

      "How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in precise sequence, originate?"

      How? Slowly.

    • StripedCrunchy profile image

      StripedCrunchy 5 years ago from Forward Mobile Fire Base, Global Right Wing Conspiracy

      A fun read, and thanks for the excellent sentence structure, punctuation and syntax. Many of your premises are so completely wrong that "false" as a word doesn't do them justice, and your arguments lack substance, but the writing was top notch.

      Your claim that we see evolution happening right now, for instance: Excellent try with cold and flu bugs, but patently incorrect. What you're seeing there is called Genetic Drift, rather like all dog breeds still being dogs. Or wolves, actually.

      Evolution, as it is presented, means Speciation. What constitutes Speciation is hotly debated within Evolutionary theory circles, and NO verifiable, testable, repeatable Speciation events have been recorded, EVER. It has been inferred and assumed, but never actually observed.

      Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold put it this way, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

      Tell ya what. Answer me this one question unequivocally, and I'll concede you're correct, renounce God and write winning marketing copy for Atheists everywhere.

      How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in precise sequence, originate? You see, every pathway and nano-machine in a cell requires multiple protein/enzyme components to function. How did "lucky accidents" create even ONE of these components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in very necessary programmed sequences.

      Take your time.

    • profile image

      OtakuNerd 5 years ago

      Great hub, I agree!

    • profile image

      Sooner28 5 years ago

      Glad to see another honest truth seeker on hubpages! Voted up.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Millerci,

      You may be surprised to find out that me and HeadlyNoggin are arguing against and for respectively that Genesis can be explained logically and rationally, and that the bible actually contains great scientific knowledge.

      Also,

      "but over and over again there is no demonstration of a new species coming from an existing species."

      We've done it. Repeatedly.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm...

      I mean, repeatedly it's been shown. Many times. A lot of times. On numerous occasions.

      Why must I have statements like these in my life :(

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 5 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Philanthropy2012, you make some good points about religion and evolution (though perhaps the title should be "are" instead of "is").

      Too many people take the Bible literally and word-for-word. It wasn't meant to be read that way. In fact, it was meant to elicit humility in order to find hidden wisdom. Without humility, even scientists miss answers.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Hahaha, yeah to them we're the ones doing tricks D:

    • profile image

      jenubouka 5 years ago

      Nice pic that will be my avatar here:) We don't give enough credit to the progression of animals nor pay much attention to evolutions even this day. Maybe the animal kingdom surpasses our intelligence, they just get a bigger kick at watching us flair our hands about..

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Thank you very much Jenubouka, very pleasant as always! :) And I've just looked up reptilians, very interesting haha! I remember many sci-fi's that include them now, there's even this artist interpretation I found on wiki :L

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5...

      I think it's very possible that any animal can evolve into something as smart as humans given time (or direction), now that we're getting a better understanding, we ourselves can catalyse this process!

      It's exciting stuff, I get a great kick out of watching other animals do clever things, like a dolphin doing a flip or a cat doing the monkey bars! Oh and a monkey doing the monkey bars is good too..

      Thanks again for your kind comments :)

      Philanthropy,

    • profile image

      jenubouka 5 years ago

      Each hub you write on this topic becomes more interesting and more engaging filled with links to facts and the whole is easy and well laid out.

      I love how you design your information.

      As for the topic have you ever heard of Reptilians? That alien form of a reptiles or perhaps the evolution of such is possible? Kinda goes with this theme.

      I think the religions listed here are very debatable as you have written. Well done.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Thanks @HSneider, and I completely agree with you :)Though the bible with it's slavery and hatred supporting stories, I would not trust for moral guidance :S

      (http://www.evilbible.com/)

    • profile image

      Howard Schneider 5 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

      Great Hub, Philanthropy. Those ultra-religious people who deny evolution have their heads in the sand. Religion and evolution need not be mutually exclusive. The Bible was a collection of moral stories not meant to be taken literally. One can believe that God created the world and let it evolve. The religious fundamentalists need to start thinking and less blind following.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Borsia@, Thanks :)

      And you're right come to think of it, all of the extinct animals that lived with the ancient humans lived but yet no mention at all. Coupled with the presumed fact that we have fossil records of these animals being older than humans too throws (even more) evidence for evolution and life before humans throughout history, not just for a brief time when the dinosaurs were there. Very interesting , thank you :)

      Is it 19 hominids :o that's a lot of hominids! I have this timeline of human brain evolution which mentions the major steps but I trust then that 19 is the number we have currently. Who knows, we could always find more!

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9989-timelin...

      And the recent neanderthal discovery was very interesting wasn't it, they said it provided immune defense haha, they also say that they must have been interbreeding before our two populations split (so as to leave the 4% mark for so long that it's still present now) with the neanderthals leaving for Africa!

      Also, apparently some scientists group humans and neanderthals into the same species, which kind of makes sense since speciation is for isolated populations. Humans and neanderthals lived and bred together to make fertile young so what's to say that they were not just different phenotyped humans. I think it was ancient day racism if you ask me! "You look bigger and dumber so you're not one of us!" said the human and the reverse for the neanderthal D:

      Also thanks for the notice on the Comments section of my dinosaur hub, I was wondering why it wasn't getting any comments :( I guess I accidentally deleted the comments box thinking it was an extra text box :'(

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Jean@

      Thanks a lot :) I don't understand it either, but I can only assume it's a losing battle and that schools are teaching evolution anyway? We can't let religion get in the way of the truth because the truth leads to science and science to medicine and technology D: We wouldn't have nanotechnology like nano-medicine if we didn't start looking into the genomes of organisms!

      America is a great country in some ways, and a very strange one others, religiousness seems to be one of the strangest aspects!

    • Borsia profile image

      Borsia 5 years ago from Currently, Philippines

      Good Hub PT; as was your other dinosaur hub, why no comments section?

      Not only is there no mention of dinosaurs there is no mention of the far more recent, but extinct, creatures like the mammoth, saber-tooth cat, giant sloth or any of the other animals of that era even though we know that people lived then.

      There is also no mention of the 19 hominids that predated modern man or of Neanderthal who not only coexisted with modern man but interbred with them. Unless your are of pure African decent 4% of your DNA came from Neanderthal.

    • Jean Bakula profile image

      Jean Bakula 5 years ago from New Jersey

      Hello Philanthropy2012,

      Thanks for a well written, thoughtful and factual piece. I am an agnostic, but I can't understand it when politicians argue that evolution should not be taught in school, only intelligent design. There is no liberal party in the US any more. There are just crazed religious people who probably can't understand the Bible, but quote it constantly (which is duplicate content, by the way)and then the rest are centrists. It's scary to hear people diss the true facts, when they were proven long ago. Voted up and interesting!

    • Ghozt profile image

      Ghozt 5 years ago from Nowhere

      Another good hub! Well written and very informative as always. But (you knew this was coming) dinosaur was a term Archaeologist from the past derived. I understand your notion for God knows all but this does not take into fact my religion. (I am the only follower that I know of)

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Thank you very much Faceless :)!

    • Faceless39 profile image

      Faceless39 5 years ago from The North Woods, USA

      Voted up, useful, awesome, and interesting. Well-written, great examples, love the formatting and images. Two thumbs way up!