ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Evolution is a Religion!

Updated on June 3, 2016

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

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 3 years ago from Manhattan

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

    • profile image

      Daniel 5 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan

      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!

    • profile image

      Lau Gainpaulsingh 6 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.

    • profile image

      Bored 6 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?

    • profile image

      Bored 6 years ago

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

    • profile image

      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.

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

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

    • profile image

      Hell N0 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

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

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

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      Alex: read this: https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Are-All-R

      My other Hub on Religion

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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.

    • profile image

      Alex 7 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.

    • tonymac04 profile image

      Tony McGregor 7 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

    • tonymac04 profile image

      Tony McGregor 7 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".

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

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

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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!

    • profile image

      Hell N0 7 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.

    • tonymac04 profile image

      Tony McGregor 7 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

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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!

    • profile image

      Hell N0 7 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.

    • tonymac04 profile image

      Tony McGregor 7 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

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

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

    • tonymac04 profile image

      Tony McGregor 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

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

    • profile image

      Hell N0 7 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.

    • profile image

      Winston 7 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.

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      pray and read the Bible

    • profile image

      Brian 7 years ago

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

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

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

    • profile image

      Bender 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      Maybe you need glasses!

    • profile image

      brian 7 years ago

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

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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!

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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)

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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."

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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."

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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."

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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?

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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?

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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.”

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      Professing to be wise they became fools!

    • profile image

      Amazing 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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!

    • profile image

      Scott 7 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.

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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.

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 years ago

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

    • profile image

      Brian 7 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.

    • profile image

      Brian 7 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

    • profile image

      Brian 7 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_...

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

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

    • profile image

      Brian 7 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

    • profile image

      brian  7 years ago

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

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 years ago

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

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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.

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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.

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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.

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

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

    • profile image

      Brian 7 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.

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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.

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      Keep the faith Brian!

    • profile image

      Brian McCabe 7 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.

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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.

    • profile image

      Nikko 7 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?

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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.

    • profile image

      George 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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.

    • profile image

      George 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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.

    • profile image

      George 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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!

    • profile image

      not_bob_ut 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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.

    • profile image

      not_bob_ut 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

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

    • profile image

      not_bob_ut 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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.

    • profile image

      George 7 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.

    • profile image

      Lorgrom 7 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.

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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.

    • profile image

      Singularity 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      Please do not post outside urls on my hub.

    • Brie Hoffman profile image
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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.

    • profile image

      Singularity 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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.

    • profile image

      Singularity 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

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

    • profile image

      Harlan Colt 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

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

    • profile image

      Harlan Colt 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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.

    • profile image

      Dan 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

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

    • profile image

      Dan 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

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

    • profile image

      Dan 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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!

    • profile image

      Dan 7 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
      Author

      Brie Hoffman 7 years ago from Manhattan

      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.

    • profile image

      Dan 7 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.