About the author: Steve Pauwels

Steve Pauwels is pastor of Church of the King, Londonderry, NH and managing editor of ClashDaily.com

View all articles by Steve Pauwels
  • http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/ The Reactionary Researcher

    Yes, scientists are wrong all the time. This isn’t really a secret, and to a certain extent that’s one of the powerful things about science. It does self-correct, but can take a long time to do so.

    That said, I’ve never been one to buy into scientific orthodoxies. I’m old enough to remember when the big climate scare was global cooling. I remember being absolutely petrified of this In Seach Of…. episode when I stayed home from school one day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei-_SXLMMfo

    There are plenty of other scientific hysterias that I’ve lived through as well: silicon breast implants, DDT, alar on apples, heterosexual AIDS in the USA, etc.. So, while I am a scientist, I recognize the point about scientists ‘being fallible humans’ all to well.

    Now… on to Neanderthals… I won’t actually address the issues of Neanderthals directly, I’d rather talk about dogs, and it’s easier to make my point talking about dogs. Scientists base many of their “origins” theories off of things like the fossil record. It’s what we have to work with, so that makes a good deal of sense; we work with the material that’s available, the problem is that fossils tell you very little about any given species.

    Take for example the dog. Let’s pretend for a moment that dogs have been extinct for a long time… for the duration of modern scientific history at least. We only know these creatures we call dogs exist because of the evidence they left behind in fossils. I have NO doubt that if scientists were to dig up skulls or even complete skeletons from an English Bulldog, a Whippet, a Great Dane, and a chihuahua that they’d classify these as different species. The skulls are different enough such that one could easily construct an evolutionary history of these dogs, perhaps even constructing a tree.

    But they’d be wrong. These four skulls, while radically different (see images) are all from the same species. For that matter, dogs and wolves are allegedly different species, but can still interbreed with one another.

    I added a pit bull skull too… just because I like pit bulls.

    • John H. Foley

      Dogs are a bad example. They are a man made species. So all the morphological differences are not natural occurring without human intervention. So all the variants you elaborated would not be found in nature for the mistaken speciation to occur. And if you claim that we made the variants then they went extinct, I highly doubt we would not leave some evidence about our dogs were manipulated into their various forms. We have evidence of animal life that we came across 10,000 years ago if only in picture form. And since dogs are believed to have come into existence within that time frame, there is probably images of our breeding them to our purposes.

      • http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/ The Reactionary Researcher

        Thanks for the reasoned response.

        My point wasn’t about dogs specifically, dogs were used to illustrate a larger point, which I think still stands.

        You’re absolutely correct, dogs have been subjected to artificial selection for centuries… No argument there. However, dogs that find themselves in different environments, subjected to different selective pressures will select for different traits, because selection can disrupt intraspecies lateral uniformity.

        Because the potential exists for such extreme diversity within a species, it’s difficult to make a distinction between what constitutes a change in species from bone structures alone.

      • Erin Ashley Hedges

        Bearing in mind, however, that the domestication, and subsequent breeding of dogs, came from domesticating wolves.

        • mtman2

          This is ONE key to comprehend the start of thinking for yourself. ALL dogs(300+) could only be bred from genetic material already preset in the original gene pool(w/in the wolf), there is NO other way, hence Bio-Genesis. ie- means all these combinations were established in the beginning,
          to be elaborated as manipulated through ‘Animal-Husbandry’
          aka- selective breeding = ‘natural selection’.
          Nothing happens that couldn’t happen this way,.
          One miracle IS this fact, for starters.
          Hoyle concluded the mathematical realities of the the truth of origins, as we all must, once exhausting the maze of the minds that set us to not see what is. Hoyle was a baby in the long list of truly ‘free’ thinking minds and that’s where you must direct your mind to search. Unless your afraid of what you intuitively already know -if only awakened.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            Ah, the assumption that I’m an atheist strikes again.

          • bushwacko

            Would you please S T F U ? The only points you make are at the tip of your nose and head. You’re standing on a pile of dung expounding your liberal scientific theory. Looking down your pointy nose at us uneducated unwashed. If I read the same books you read, does that make me a “scientist” also. A degree in no way makes you wise beyond all others. Don’t come back with that tripe that “I’m not saying”…… Just what is your degree? You seem to be an “expert” on just about everything. Methinks you may be a lab tech or something with a large vocabulary. Just S T F U. By the way, I’m ignorant, ain’t got one of them d’grees.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            Not so fun when you’re on the other side of the argument, is it? By the way, your first post is actually fairly rude, I wasn’t even talking to you in that one. On a side note, the fact that you have absolutely no degree whatsoever, and might actually be a high school drop out means you have absolutely no training in any of the fields you are arguing, while I do in fact have a lifetime of experience studying these very subjects. Of course, for you, a degree is just a useless piece of paper. You seem to be under the impression that anybody can walk into a school, ask for a college degree, and that they’re just handing them out. Where came you by this idea, I have no idea, but it could simply be the fact that you have never even set foot inside a college class in your life. Just stop trying, you’re actually making yourself look like an idiot. Oh yeah, and guess you’re not actually all big on defending the constitution, like you claim, if you’re going to try to keep my opinions silent over your own. Arguing with you is like talking to a child, and my patience is wearing thin.

          • bushwacko

            I am sure that just everyone is concerned about YOUR patience wearing thin. If you are tired of arguing with me because I-we don’t agree with youe fantasy world , then stop. How about getting a real job that actually produces some thing other than B.S. For you to spend so much of your valuable time arguing with idiots,you must be unemployed. Hit the acadamia road troll. I’ll not be responding to your inanity again. Phew!!!

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            I’m not the one arguing logic with insanity 24 hours a day, while trying to repress someone’s free speech

    • Shrdlu42

      “heterosexual AIDS in the USA”

            Yeah, only gays die of that here.

      • http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/ The Reactionary Researcher
        • Shrdlu42

                That’s your proof? A diatribe by a right-wingnut, carefully written to glide over some awkward facts. His main argument seems to be that there won’t be a heterosexual epidemic of AIDS (outside of Africa, where straight people dying doesn’t count). So what? Does that mean only gays die of that here? Of course not.

                I’ve attached a table from the CDC showing the breakdown of AIDS cases.

          Source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/

                Now, obviously, the number of homosexual cases dwarfs the number of heterosexual ones. (We’ll ignore transmission by drug use, and just concentrate on transmission through sex.) But I’m sure the family and friends of those 214,196 heterosexuals will be happy to hear you say their suffering is just a “myth”! (Particularly the female victims, who probably were infected by their boyfriends or husbands.)

          IGNORAMUS!

  • Pepe Lopez

    what? bi racial dating between Neanderthals and Cromagon. silly girls saw the big muscled guys bringing home the bacon and wanted to share in the feast. somethings will never change.

  • mtman2

    Psssted!? -So you think DNA invented itself?
    For the “Magic-Thinkers” and their ‘invisible nothingness into everything’ by no-one!

    Another question. -So is it – * Immaculate/generation-or-spontaneous/Conception?
    A third question. -So did a billion life forms just create themselves into perfection?
    A fourth question. -So could a car create itself, run and drive itself, power itself, reproduce itself be cognisant of itself, eventually question life and origins?

    • Erin Ashley Hedges

      The current theory is that DNA, already being little more than strands of proteins, could have formed from random reactions between protein strands. Proteins are not in themselves life forms. To really understand this, you need to recognize that, at the very core of a living being, all the functions of life are controlled through chemical reactions. Once the reactions start occuring in mass, they begin to replicate throughout the matter. Which is why we go from being little more than two cells, to a fully developed child, and why we die in the end.

      • mtman2

        …..You’ve basically said nothing here, except that your not capable of more than text book jargon, that fooled and impressed a childish mind unable to comprehend what discretionary wisdom truly is.
        …..I proposed childish questions to produce directional thoughts on origins and absolute improbability.
        …..We’re quite a bit past “current theory” here. So if you really want to impress any one here answer 1-4.To save you trouble and embarrassment, there are no magical answers:
        1) It’s yes or no, and there is only one intelligent answer.
        2) It’s either spontaneous-generation(magic) or a Creator.
        3) The astronomic formula for the math equation are numbers beyond ALL the atoms in the entire universe.
        4) Of course not, it’s ridiculous which is to parallel #2.

        Erin, if you can’t get this then you can’t get past it by dismissals. You personally must have the insight to conclude what is not dogmatic textbook theories by those blinded in narratives never truly questioned.

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          Ever think maybe it could have possibly been a mixture of one and two? You believe in some kind of god just as much as I do, how is it so difficult for you to possibly think that maybe god sets things in motion without directly influencing them after? Is it really so impossible to believe that maybe, the same being that sparked the initial creation of the universe offered an occasional guiding hand to the entirety of creation, but otherwise let it run it’s course when he wasn’t needed? God can exist without all the vengeance and reward attributed by the christian faith, you know?

          • mtman2

            I’m afraid it is you that must overcome misunderstanding and doubt.
            See many of us know everything you do but have done a far more indepth search, to where we are now, isn’t anything but the true journey as through all the ages of the mind of man must take to have eyes to see and ears to hear.
            Taught to be lazy by the ‘system’ -you want everyone else to hand you simple answers as you’ve been “Pavloved” into believing deep thought is, it’s not and I can’t live your life for you vicariously nor spoon feed you.
            There is so much for you too learn but your not truly ready yet though. Some day you may be here and see yourself in the face of another child.
            I’ve given you already far more than I had. REALLY-THINK! You’ll truly have to search honestly for the foundations of understanding not buying cheaply what’s passed off as truth. Both are before right before you now!

      • http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/ The Reactionary Researcher

        DNA isn’t protein. The two are completely different chemical entities. DNA is DNA, comprised of nucleotides, and protein is comprised of amino acids. Other than being organic molecules, the two aren’t even remotely similar.

        Chemical reactions don’t replicate, they proceed to completion or to equilibrium. Life is a non-equilibrium condition. It takes a constant input of energy for life to continue as it does. Chemical reactions don’t self-organize and they don’t replicate.

  • Croco Dile

    Whoever compiled the biblical book of Genesis must have borrowed elements from the Hermetic texts to produce his synopsis of Theogony and Anthropogony :

    Hermes :
    “The beginning of all beings is God, of mind, nature and Matter…
    Bible Genesis 1.1-3 :
    “In the beginning God created the sky and the Earth.
    Hermes :
    All beings were undefined and unformed…
    Bible Genesis 1.1-3 :
    And the Earth was obscured and unformed…
    Hermes :
    A vast darkness existed over the abyss…
    Bible Genesis 1.1-3 :
    Darkness reigned over the abyss…
    Hermes :
    Water and spirit, delicate and thoughtful created by divine force roamed the Chaos When a holy light was lit…”
    Bible Genesis 1.1-3 :
    The spirit of God roamed over the water and God said: “Let there be light”.

    Hermes :
    “The elements were separated by the action of fire…”
    Bible Genesis 1.4 :
    “And God divided the light from the darkness”.

    ………………. look up for MUCH more yourself !

    • http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/ The Reactionary Researcher

      I’m no historian, but if I recall correctly, the Hermetic texts originated sometime in the 2 or 3 century A.D.. If that’s the case, the OT would pre-date these texts by centuries.

      • Croco Dile

        The great Greek epic poet Hesiod lived in Boiotea (8th century B.C.) and could have had no knowledge of the biblical texts. In his case, both the authorship of his works and the time they were written cannot be contested, as both happened and were documented in historical times.

        Hesiod studied poetry on Mount Helicon, at the school of the Muses. He studied there the legends and traditions of Greece. There the Muses “rule Helicon, a mountain high and sacred”. The Muses produced a lengthy song “by divine inspiration”. In it, elements belonging to most ancient tales and the remnants of antique “historical facts” are clearly discernible, enveloped in a transparent shell of noble poetic inventions.

        Here is song of Hesiod, inspired by the Muses :

        “ …all…rejoice, daughters of Zeus, let me sing an enchanting tune to relate how the gods were first created, then land and the rivers and the Sea; (How) the vast heavenly expanse and the lofty bright stars…(were created) Tell me of the beginning of things, what came first”.

        And they modestly responded :

        “In the beginning there was Chaos and then broad-bosomed Earth and Eros the most handsome among the immortal Gods secured (for man) a foothold in eternity Out of Chaos, and (out of the) darkest Night the day and the sky came forth : the Earth first gave birth to her equal to the sky with its constellations and to the lofty mountains… ” Hesiod Theogony 116

        Homer, antedating Hesiod, recorded Oceanus as the first God of Greek Theogony. After keeping company with the human race for an indefinitely long time, Oceanus withdrew silently abdicating his authority to his son Uranus. The latter was overthrown, after a fierce battle with his son Cronus, who, after a long reign was overthrown himself by his powerful son Zeus.

        Therefore, Oceanus-Uranus-Cronus-Zeus was the theogonic lineage handed down to us by Greek Mythology, preserving to our days hints of actual situations engraved in the collective Mediterranean memory. Those memories do not just constitute the essence of the rich Greco-Mediterranean mythology but they also represent an irreplaceable heritage of instructive mythical images.

        The Pelasgic Myth of Creation

        “Eurynome, the Mother of all things emerged from Chaos. Nothing was solid at first; she danced alone over the waters and separated the sea from the sky. Then, capturing the North wind she caressed him with her hands and lo and behold Ophion the Great Serpent emerged!”

        “Eurynome and Ophion dwelt on Mount Olympus from the beginning of things. But Ophion infuriated Eurynome when he claimed he was the Creator. At once she crashed his head with her heel, knocking out all his teeth and banished him from heaven to the darkness of subterranean caves”.
        “Then the Goddess created…the first man was Pelasgus, the ancestor of the Pelasgi. He sprang from the land of Arcadia and was soon followed by others. Pelasgus taught them to construct huts, to eat the fruits of the earth and to sew leather garments from the skins of the animals, like those still worn by the poor”.

        The corresponding biblical verses refer to the serpent of paradise :

        “And I shall put enmity between you and the woman’s offspring; between your seed and her seed; they shall crash your head but you shall bite their heel”. Genesis 3.15

        The similarity of the stories speaks for itself. Neither must we omit to note that Pelasgus, that first pan-Mediterranean founder of a nation first clad his people in leather garments made from animals’ skin, exactly as we read in the bible : “the Lord produced …garments from animal’s skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them…”. Genesis 3.21

        - Quoted from Michael Kalopoulos

        • http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/ The Reactionary Researcher

          I haven’t read Kalopoulos’ book, so I can’t comment on it authoritatively, but isn’t his the book wherein Abraham supplies lot with lye to blind the Sodomites? Also, if I recall correctly, Kalopoulos doesn’t deny the existence of the Biblical patriarchs, but rather offers different interpretations/explanations of the stories.

          • Croco Dile

            Yes, he is analyzing the OT and compares it with other ancient myths.

      • Croco Dile

        The Creation of Man
        The Jewish-Biblical version of the Creation of Man has come to monopolize our imagination. However, such “sagas of the creation of man” are usually the cultural products of advanced urban cultures, a stage reached by the biblical authors only with great delay! Additionally, the rudiments of Man’s creation of Genesis contain passages with extensive similarities with contemporary or pre-existing Mediterranean and other myths. It would seem reasonable to conclude that the story of Adam and Eve originates from some widely circulated tale of creation of that time, elements of which were incorporated into the prologue of the Mosaic Pentateuch.
        Moses, the supposed author of Genesis, was generally admitted to have “learned all the wisdom of the Egyptians” Acts 7.22 and must have had a vivid recollection of the Theogony and the Creation of Man of Hermes Trismegistus. This appears to be a satisfactory explanation for the tendency of the book of Genesis to follow the same narrative axis as the Hermetic texts, often copying word for word all those Hermetic notions that constitute in effect the passages of the Bible dealing with “Theogony” and “Anthropogony”.
        Well, what about the basic concepts of the biblical Creation of Man? Does the biblical version include anything original or different, when compared with other ancient narratives famous at that time?
        “And the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Genesis 2.7
        We must not forget that this was the era of the potter’s wheel. The creation of pottery and of the clay statuettes that adorned the altars of the first urban civilizations provided the raw material for the possible process of man’s creation by a supreme being.
        From time immemorial, the Greeks were convinced that their ancestors were “born of the Earth”. Apart from the popular belief of being indigenous, there was a widespread belief that “Earth, the Mother of all beings” had given birth to their ancestors.
        In Attica, Erechtheus was born of Earth, the provider. In Arcadia : “the black Earth begot Pelasgus on the high mountains crowned with trees.” Hesiod relates that “Zeus created” the third species of man.
        Xenophanes, who had definitely not read the Jewish Bible, was absolutely convinced that “the gods created man from soil and earth”! Earth-soil-stone-clay; around these elements revolve an endless series of either well-known or obscure tales of ancient Mediterranean mythology on the Creation of Man.

        - Quoted from Michael Kalopoulos

      • Croco Dile

        Who copied from whom?
        We can see that the entire Mediterranean basin reverberated with echoes of the Greek epical tales of the creation of indigenous men-heroes created from Earth and Water- and of their first breath of life, and of all the details that have come down to us with the corresponding Hebrew-biblical book of Genesis.
        So what was particularly new or revolutionary in the Hebrew version of the creation of Man that would allow it to be considered divine and that could have added to the endless variations of Greek Mythology?
        The only fact we can establish at first glance is the following :
        Whereas the Hebrew anthropogenic tale is familiar even to toddlers, the extremely interesting variations of the ancient Greco-Mediterranean tales on the Creation of Man that are infinitely richer in detail remain obscure and largely unknown.
        On what grounds the biblical tale has enjoyed high honours as the epitome of obvious truth, whereas the corresponding Mediterranean stories antedating the Bible, have been considered second-rate knowledge, unworthy of popular and scholastic attention when their content is more original, at times identical with and often more complete than the corresponding biblical text.

      • 19gundog43

        Don’t bother with Croc-of-Crap. With Google and cut and paste he is just another barroom boor, AKA Cliff from Cheers. Mind numbing drone.

        • mtman2

          Was funny!

      • sargeant rock

        You are trying to reason with a reptile….

      • mtman2

        Thousands of years!

    • Erin Ashley Hedges

      But that’s all according to the biblical text, which nobody can actually prove was written with the direct inspiration of god. Unless proof is found, the bible cannot be considered the sole scientific proof for creation, and more study must be conducted

      • Azsteve53

        Wrong. Major logical failure. The bible was never written to be a scientific record of anything.

        learn to understand what the intent of the bible is and its message

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          Yet christian fundamentalists claim every single day that the bible is the only record we can use for the creation of the universe, and that it should be the sole source of scientific knowledge. Hence the creationist movement, which usually has a very high majority on these sites

        • Croco Dile

          To understand the message of the Old and New Testament you need to answer the question : For WHOM were they written ? Who were supposed to be the readers of those ?

          The second question : By WHOM were they written ?

          Can you ?

      • Croco Dile

        Of course this all is fantasy !
        Ancient myths recycled again and again….

  • AG Dot Com!

    On the subject of the Big Bang Theory (no, not the TV show) I have this one thing to say: There once was a theory of Spontaneous Generation, which was widely accepted in many circles. Then in the late 1800s it was categorically disproven.

    So. Let me get this straight. Scientists now want us to accept a disproven theory as truth, but on a slightly larger scale – like, the creation of the whole friggin’ universe.

    I find this problematic.

    • Erin Ashley Hedges

      Science loves to be disproven, though. It gives us the solid answers we seek. By the way, Spontaneous generation was in regards to life, and wasn’t actually disproven. The experiments people tried to use were, but nobody ever disproved that proteins formed from millions of years of molecular-level reactions couldn’t form together into the very base DNA of cellular life, giving way to base microbes. Since this kind of chain of events would take millions of years to prove without a doubt, we cannot prove, or disprove, that it’s false. What we can prove is that we have physical evidence of life forms evolving to better suit their environments. I could provide evidence, if you’d like.

      • Azsteve53

        What ? Science has precise steps, the money and time wasted on theories and pet projects is not tolerated. You really have to be kidding with that statement. Science is TESTED, conclusions are falsified. Dead ends and losers are avoided at all costs.

        Spontaneous generation cannot be falsified, hence it is not testable and NOT science. What can be proven is that spontaneous generation has no empirical, scientific support whatsoever, it is in fact an alternative created to explain a falsification of the evolutionary model.

        You can provide NO examples of any life form evolving outside of its genetic limitations.

        Irreducible complexity and molecular cell biology killed that theory long ago.

        • AG Dot Com!

          You’re dealing with a homosexual socialist moral relativist contrarian… just so you’re aware…

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            I’m not the one arguing well written arguments, backed with years of scientific study, with insults against the person.

          • AG Dot Com!

            I believe I responded with several statements of fact based on your own writings, except for the “contrarian” remark. Sorry about that.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            I was directly referring to the comments I was responding to.

          • AG Dot Com!

            The phrase you’re looking for, BTW, is “ad hominem”.

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          Your argument is coming from the assumption that, if evolution is real, why can’t a single cell organism sprout a fully functional 5 digit hand? A better example comes to the “If evolution is real, why are there monkeys” argument. Evolution involves changing the base cellular structure of an organism in small ways, that allow the organism to be better suited to it’s environment. The perfect example is certain bacteria, which are only documented at nuclear waste dumps, and was first discovered in Chernobyl Reactor #4. The bacteria had adapted in a way that allowed it to draw energy from the radiation being emitted by the hazardous materials. Proof of concept, humans altered the environment in the area, In some cases by accident, others by intent, and the naturally occurring organisms adapted to the new environment. There are indeed documented instances of evolution in some areas where it was necessary. You can try to argue that it’s just micro-evolution, but think on this for a second. This new organism sprouted in just 20 years. Think of what the same concept would do spread across millions of years, in a constantly changing environment, such as, let’s say, a newly formed planet. The world is still changing all over. It’s slow change, but it’s change, and life adapts to the change.

          • mtman2

            Strawmen don’t the narrative make. You must dig deeper than the newest mud thrown against the wall.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            This isn’t strawman arguing, we’re using solid facts, here.

          • mtman2

            You have no idea even what a “solid-fact” is and will remain stuck where you are til you truly are willing to see what in front of you now. We here have absolutely given you so much more than we had that it’s evident that your lost willingly.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            The only possible argument anybody can come up with is purely a religious one. Evolution is the only thing that offers the Noah’s Ark story any kind of credibility, yet you call it impossible. You have people who have never studied meteorology or climatology whatsoever who try to pretend they know more on the subject than the people who dedicate their lives to these studies. To top it all off, despite solid, irrefutable proof that some of your beliefs are kind of BS, you continue to argue against the same areas of study that brought you the entire modern world, and the base understanding of the laws of physics that are required for every major project in human history.

            Yet we are the lunatics

        • mtman2

          Absolutely correct!
          Helping kids like Erin get an independent thought is what it’ll take to shakedown the “shaky” columns of the pseudo-science by which they’ve allowed themselves to stop thinking past the straw-man arguments they’ve been spoon fed.

      • AG Dot Com!

        One prob with your last statement: give my concrete evidence of evolution across phyla. Adaptation is not evolution, just so we’re clear.

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          I’m not talking about changing feeding patterns when one food source begins to die out, here. Perfect evidence, right here. An organism was discovered in the destroyed reactor at Chernobyl. This organism had adapted to be able to feed on the radioactive materials in the reactor, and is only found in the destroyed reactor. Similar organisms evolved in radioactive waste dumps worldwide. The organism changed it’s cellular structure to be able to feed off a new energy source when the environment became hazardous. Even though the conditions were man made, the adaptation occurred without human interaction. Now apply this principle across millions, if not billions of years, and you have a working base model of evolution. I’ve also got another that is only found on the wreck of the Titanic, out of thousands of other documented shipwrecks, but it’s the same principle

          • AG Dot Com!

            Your statement is based upon presumption by your own admission (“millions, if not billions of years”) and is still an example of adaptation vice evolution. There are exactly zero proven models of an organism evolving per the Theory of Evolution from one phylum to another. There are, of course, thousands of examples of adaptation.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            The adaptation you’re talking about is the basic concept of evolution. Nobody on earth is trying to say we evolved from monkeys, or plants, or anything like that. All life is made up of cells, cells in themselves being life forms. early on, some cellular life would evolve to use sunlight for energy, leading to plant life, around the same time other cellular life forms would begin to grow more complex, and begin to form the basis of vertebrate, invertebrate, so on and so forth. As time went on, these subcategories would branch out into new life forms, some new forms having different traits from others, and continue to spread. Evolution isn’t plants evolving into lizards, lizards evolving into monkeys, so on and so forth, it’s millions of different forms evolving at the same time, but into different types. That’s what evolution is, and it’s easily documented even in the modern world.

          • AG Dot Com!

            Ok that is pretty much exactly what they are not teaching in school. The ToE crowd has preached pretty strongly for some time now about fish-to-man evolution in our schools and universities. There is a mountain of evidence out there to back up my statement. Additionally, adaptation is not evolution. It just is not.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            I don’t know what schools you’ve been in, but how I explained it is exactly how it was taught when I was still in school, as late as 2008. By the way, a species developing a pair of oposable thumbs to be able to stay in the trees and grip branches, and then those thumbs staying with said species, as other unneeded traits recede is pretty much a key example of evolution.

          • AG Dot Com!

            Ah, so they’ve changed their tune since 1986. That’s odd – what you’re describing isn’t what they’re teaching my daughter in school. By the way, which species is it that they’ve confirmed as having developed an opposable thumb? It isn’t sloths .. that much I know ..

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            Humanity. In the early stages, before we took to the trees, we didn’t have them. They developed over time, and we were able to escape to the trees from predators. That’s the current consensus, anyways

          • AG Dot Com!

            “That” is not a “consensus”. That is a current theory enjoying popularity in much of the anthropological community. There is a distinct difference between a popular theory and a consensus.

            Also, yep, I don’t think anyone has yet to see any evidence for that theory anywhere .. I’d be fascinated to read about the tree-dwelling predecessors to the human race though ..

          • http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/ The Reactionary Researcher

            I hope you’re not saying that we didn’t have trees early in our evolution. The first trees appeared on the Earth in the Devonian, which is nearly 400 million years ago.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            No, I’m pointing out that, at some point in human evolution, our ancestors had to escape into the trees to escape predators. To survive, we developed opposable thumbs, in order to be able to grasp branches. As trees began to give way to grasslands in some ancestral home regions, we began to develop stronger legs for upright walking. That’s what I was saying

          • http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/ The Reactionary Researcher

            Fair enough… thanks for the clarification.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            What state do you live in, and what grade level is she? Evolution theory is junior high and high school level science. The region lived in can also have a bit of an impact on quality of scientific education, too, no offense to conservative states

          • AG Dot Com!

            Are you a teacher or a professor? Since you’ve deigned to diagnose an ostensible problem within the education system, I feel perhaps you should outline your expertise on the matter.

            It may have occurred to you that since I indicated my daughter was learning a certain subject in school, perhaps she is at the appropriate grade level to be learning it. How many children do you have or are you responsible for?

            As for “offending” conservative states/areas, it has been my experience as a guest lecturer at universities in five different states in the Union that the largest lack of knowledge, particularly on a political or geographic level, invariably occurs in what are typically labelled “liberal” states, with a preponderance of this ignorance centered in California.

          • mtman2

            It’s genetic variation within the limitations preset originally. Can’t be otherwise in existing life forms and certainly is impossible fro dirt’n’water, ie- Biogenesis = “Life can only come from life.”
            Erin is convinced of the merits of “magical-thinking” or brainwashed.

          • AG Dot Com!

            Bingo, and that is all I am pointing out. There are zero concrete examples of spontaneous generation of a lifeform and zero concrete examples of cross-phylum evolution. There are a lot of theories, and I believe in pursuing theories, but I do not believe in this “The Science is Settled!” talk. It is an idiot’s Moebius Strip.

      • mtman2

        IF you could really analyse what you just said, you’d realize you just ate both feet! IF YOU WANT TO LEARN real analytic thinking it could be arranged!
        “Life only comes from life” = Bio-genesis. Magical thinking won’t help the deficits you’ve-allowed-yourself to have been led to believe. Even billions of years don’t MAGICALLY change the statistical-probabilities.
        When you realize this and the glaring discrepancies you will be upset; Hoyle was!

        • jubilee

          Speaking of Neanderthal, one late night, i’ve watched an OPRAH show, AND on the show, was a woman and her daughter. The daughter had an ‘odd’ look to her, somewhat like this, but ‘pretty’. It turned out that the mother was raped by her FATHER…sigh… yuck..!! and the girl was born with a complete MISSING PARENT! so its possible they found these people from caves, and other places who have just that problem. Some primitives who don’t know better may have did just that.

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          Science understands that life forming through random events is extremely improbable. But the simple truth is, there is always that one chance out of millions.

  • Azsteve53

    The profession of science has been politicized beyond recognition. Money and political goals have brought legitimate research to a standstill.

    Those who fund what we call science want a validation of their conclusion up front, a product of circular reasoning, and the lab jockeys seem only to happy to provide it.

    • Erin Ashley Hedges

      At least we have results, though. Also, most actual scientists refuse to use their work to further political agendas, it’s only when one party or another gets their hands on the research that it can become tainted for personal agenda. Which is what happens when news companies cut and paste random lines from studies to discredit them, without posting the whole study. Go ahead,read the entirety of the reports on climate change, understanding that these people have been studying this subject for a lot longer than the politicians presenting them. You might be somewhat surprised.

      • Azsteve53

        Not hardly. Science is all about following the money these days, Universities are chosen for studies due to the political affiliation of those doing the work and their willingness to start with a product of circular reasoning and work backwards to find support.

        Research is not sanitized or changed AFTER the fact for political reasons, that is just pure bunk and ignorance as to the process. The data collection is where it is at, and then interpreting what the data means is everything.

        Science says nothing about issues, data speaks and those that interpret it.

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          Universities are chosen on their credibility on the subject. No offense to christians, but in regards to scientific studies, I’ll take something written by Embry Riddle, Harvard, or MIT over Colorado Christian University.

          • mtman2

            See that’s the problem you seem to have. That attitude makes you a bigot. You must complete due diligent research far into thousands of hours from before the father of ‘modern-genetics’, you know that stupid Christian monk Mendel -to get a far more complete evaluation on who, what and where true knowledge has come from. Not your simple comparison alluding to how foolish WE here are. Truly you don’t yet see it but you are way out of your league.

          • John H. Foley

            Gregor Mendel used the scientific method to produce the data that lead to his becoming the father of modern genetics. I haven’t found any mention of religion being a contributing factor to his “discoveries” (he was the first to show evidence for what farmers had practiced for centuries before). I love when religious people pull out the God card to claim scientific discoveries for religion. All the discoveries that move the human race forward were never due to the religious doctrines of the world, it was in spite of them. The middle east was the center of scientific world until the religious fundamentalists in Islam claimed that mathematics was the work of the devil in the 11th century. And why the Middle Age in Europe is referred to as the Dark Ages when the Christian religion became widespread and became universally accepted. Religion stifles the search for knowledge because it posits an unknown as an answer for another unknown. So if you don’t have an answer for a question, instead of saying “I don’t know but I am going to investigate” and try to find out, you just say “God did it”. How does that advance knowledge?

          • http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/ The Reactionary Researcher

            This is complete and utter rubbish. Were Mendel not a monk he wouldn’t have had the time, inclination, or ability to conduct his research. There’s a reason that Science evolved in the West, and not the East or in the Muslim nations. It evolved in the West because Christianity specifically provided and promoted the intellectual means, the technical capability, and the philosophical presuppositions that made science possible.

            The Dark Ages are a myth promulgated by Enlightenment morons. There were no dark ages and if anything, they were facilitated by the fall of Rome, not by the spread of Christianity. If your statements are true, why were the vast majority of world’s most well known and prominent scientists Bible believing Christians? Newton wrote more about theology than he ever did about physics or math.

          • mtman2

            They don’t read the writings of the great men and women we now build our lives on, only what their wing-nut profs say about the individuals accomplishments the way they want it heard.

          • mtman2

            You really have a stilted and stunted understanding of history and science, your arrogant misinformed narrative is the flashing ‘red-light’ of your ignorance in any of these things, you have wasted space and time revealing all of this to me and many others. All the while reveling in the assumed great intelligence you thought you have ascertained that is a paltry grasp of what really is. You have a lot to learn but aren’t yet ready to recognize it. Actually your level of grasp is embarrassing. The simplistic and adolescent poor layout betrays a narrow set of ‘talking points’ you willingly allowed yourself to be fed disallowing you to think outside of ‘their’ box. Your lack of indepth diligence has been exposed, only you can’t at this point in life know it.

          • John H. Foley

            Really. I am willing to learn. So instruct me. Tell me where I am incorrect. I am sure you have the evidence to show me where religion was the motivating factor for the discoveries of science. And by that I want something more than the discoverer happens to be religious. Just because Isaac Newton was Christian doesn’t mean his discoveries were due to his Christianity. You need to show the religious doctrines that lead said discoverer to his discovery.

            As to my historical information, I will admit to generalization. I didn’t want to have to write a book (laying out each and every historical date and fact), just to post in the comment section of this article. If the middle east wasn’t the center of science culture previous to the 11th century, can you tell me why most of the stars seen in the night sky have Arabic names? Why one of the major fields of mathematics is called algebra, an Arabic name? Why our number system is called Arabic numerals? And why our oldest known astrolabes are all from the middle east? And then explain why it just died out after Islam felt persecuted by outside forces (not the least of which were the crusades and mongol invasion) and became much more fundamentalist?

            The middle ages in Europe is considered to be between the 5th and 15th centuries. It started with the fall of the western roman empire and continued until the age of discovery. And the age of discovery was ignited by the flow of information from the middle east after its decline there. I guess the church can claim that if it weren’t attempting to reclaim the holy lands that the science from the middle east wouldn’t have made it back to Europe sparking the age of discovery. So I guess I should just concede. Religion did contribute to scientific advancement, just not the way you want to believe it did.

            The age of discovery has two major factors the invention of printing and the protestant reformation. Printing lead to the ability of people to spread their ideas and democratized learning. The protestant reformation broke the iron grip the Catholic religion exerted across Europe. These two events allowed people to disseminate their ideas and have less fear of the religious authorities decending on them to imprison them for putting forth a idea that the church deemed heretical.

            So please instruct me where I am mistaken. I will greatly appreciated any information that will get me closer to the truth.

          • mtman2

            …..It is highly unlikely that you actually believe you could learn anything from arena’s not pre-ordained by the certain mindset already entrapping you. To pretend that it’s increased knowledge your after and not endless childish argumentation, debate for self importance to somehow further the presupposed premise pushing the same specious narrative as if things unknown to you, must be stupid;
            -as it would unsettle your sense of inner uncertainty and selfdoubt(ego)we all have, as if this is the limit for the prize of Truth, *were-ever it leads. Logical reasoning open to justified persuasion, not just inference.or eristic dialog. I won’t anymore waste my time with a wing-nut mentality. Though with respectful discovery that is personally sincere it is an entirely different circumstance.
            …..My grandfather was born before the un-Civil war(1859), my father was born when Teddy Roosevelt(1902) was POTUS who lived through WWI/Wiemar Republic+ fought firefights w/communist insurgent terrorists at-17 to flee to America, pre-Hitler Europe, I’ve backpacked the most major wilderness areas on both sides of the Rockies from the Arctic Circle through to Mexico including Kodiak Isle. As a young man/faced Grizzlies 20-mi above the treeline, now still live entirely from the land and will not suffer fools for very long. Yet even they need an outreached hand as usually just in the stage of life that must pass.
            ….. We can all use a hand yet may not realize it at the time, let alone appreciate a sage in passing. I’ve been blessed with many, though multiple more thankless fools. A book is coming each for both lives and experiences.
            ….All I can show you can be searched and known through open minded research w/due diligence.

          • mtman2

            …..To have any real interest in truth one wouldn’t need
            me to spoon feed them. You confuse innate intelligence with depth of knowledge(eg- BHO in fact) whereas it can promote the easy ie-lazy way to push the predetermined mindset that is actually -very limited, shallow and gains nothing. Though wastes the time of those forced to look back trough decades of time.
            Until a person is sincere, not narcissistic in self worship -truth seems irrelevant.
            Most truths need diligent pursuit in ones own time frame. Partial facts spun and thrown together to impress those that don’t know are a sign that the one “at the wheel” is already lost down a dead end and eventually must turn around. Honesty must be apprehended in a mindset or
            it’s a waste of time to those that have ears to hear and eyes to see.
            Endless, mindless debate is meaningless
            “grasping the wind” and “tilting at windmills”.
            Though from that day of honest searching then,
            even scrutinizing the unseen -lays before them.
            As the Bee-Gees sage and poetic song goes.
            ….. “I Started A Joke”
            til it is then no longer on the one lost in himself,
            but a whole new world of people to see,
            respect and know, opens up to the
            newly humble of heart.

        • bushwacko

          Yes sir, follow the money trail. Super scientist like liberoid Erin would be on the welfare rolls if it were not for the taxpayer funded grants. Ha, money for nothing and your science for free.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            same can be said for military, and other government organizations.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            By the way, without modern science, you wouldn’t have been able to post that idiotic comment

          • bushwacko

            O.K. Ms. scientific America , do you really want to go with IDIOTIC statements? We will be underwater in ten years, the polar bears will be gone in ten years, the ice caps have left the building, there will be no more petrol in ten years. Must I go on ? Oh yeah, without petroleum, there would be no plastic to type your left wing tripe.

          • mtman2

            Again Erin, intelligence isn’t necessarily to be confused with truth. You seem bright and want to impress those you’ve been taught to look down on and ridicule, what if you are being used as the fool or as Uncle-Joe said “a useful idiot” – for nefarious purposes. There is a far larger picture here than what you are now aware of.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            I’ve actually never been taught to ridicule anybody. It’s just when people give me a reason to not respect them that I start getting nasty. You know, like when American christians start backing life sentence laws in other countries for something consensual that harms absolutely nobody, or when conservative christians start telling their kids to bully the LGBT kids in schools because “it’s wrong to be that way”, and they end up pushing the kid to suicide, because apparently that’s so much better. I don’t have a problem with christianity, I have a problem with people who abuse it’s message and use it for purposes considerably more evil than what they think they’re fighting in the first place. And since these people are almost 100% of the time from the “modern science is bunk, the bible is the only way” crowd, I tend to have very little respect for that side of christianity.

          • mtman2

            You have way too much noise going on in your head, to even hear what you say your looking for. Most everything you’ve said absolutely backwards, I’m not here to help only those that can see that far. You can’t and so far won’t, this then is your problem not mine I was far more open minded and thought outside the box at your age and broke truth down to the elemental comprehension of origin intellectually but spiritually
            can be outside of the limits of this the 3rd dimension. Though the physical can be discerned by a child, you decide what is honestly the course and direction -not preconception passed down to you. You’ve never been taught respect or discernment and are not now diligently in pursuit of it. The truth is your bigotry is palpable, and I say this to be kind, so that you may at some time broaden your horizons, in humility.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            a lesson on humility, from a guy who believes his beliefs are the only true and possible belief. That’s not spirituality or humility, that’s just cosmic vanity. You want to talk humility? Try letting homeless people have a home until they can get back on their feet, then talk to me about humility.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            Oh yeah, and in case you’re wondering why I’m purely targetting christians in a comment posted in regards to a science article, remember this. Most of the people arguing modern science tend to be christian. the two are almost always mutually inclusive

          • militarydad

            Sorry, entrepreneurs have always been with us. Scientists only try, sometimes successfully, to prove what is already available to us….they don’t create it.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            The technology in your computer wouldn’t have been possible without a base understanding of physics, so no. Also, it’s the perfect time to mention, a lot of the modern world you take for granted was advanced in necessity by the scientists and engineers over at NASA. The light bulbs powering your house? Invented by a little known scientist by the name of Thomas Edison. Most of our understanding of electrical currents? Nikola Tesla. The medicine that heals you when you’re sick? Biochemistry. The satellite signal that broadcasts your internet service to your carriers? That technology wouldn’t have been possible without physicists. Don’t just assume all this stuff in your life would be there if some of the greatest scientific minds in human history hadn’t been there to come up with them. Without science, we’d still be back in the dark, writing letters by nothing but candle light

          • darkcyder

            Made by engineers not by scientists. Tell us what you have contributed to society. Not much value in people who study lots of numbers, and conclude the sky is falling.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            The understanding that the rockets used to launch the the satellites used to rebroadcast your internet and TV signal require a base understanding in the laws of physics, written by theoretical and experimental physicists totally passes you by, doesn’t it? The fact that Edison and Tesla had both dedicated their lives to studying how electrical currents worked, and only through their studies were they able to develop the technology to make modern electricity possible, is too great to grasp? What about the climatologists, who’s studies have led to better early warning systems for tornadoes and hurricanes? Or the fact that the crews on the ISS are able to monitor global weather, and warn areas that are about to get hit hard, while they are all SCIENTISTS? Engineering relies on the work of scientists to understand what the hell they are doing, without physics, they wouldn’t be able to design half the stuff they do.

        • mtman2

          And it is ALL about control!
          As you already realize, nice post!

      • darkcyder

        In 1975 the so-called experts you quote had us going into a new ice age. For the very same reasons. Then, they went away for a decade, and came back with a new story. A BETTER story. Worked it out in the back rooms.
        Problem with your argument is that if there were NO GLOBAL WARMING, then all these so-called scientists would be out of jobs. It’s like the guys who keep finding rocks that came from Mars (how do they KNOW they came from mars?) with signs of life so they can encourage some government bureaucracy to continue to fund their study of the possibility of life on Mars.
        I personally grow weary of idiots like you. We engineers made it possible for people like you who have very little to offer society otherwise a very comfortable life so that you can sit around all day and bitch about how we made your lives so easy. You don’t like this and you don’t like that… you piss and moan.
        So, here’s the deal- tell us when you’re ready to go back to the woods. When you’re ready to give up every human comfort we’ve made for you. Give up that plastic bottle you keep you Evian in. Give up that device that transports you to your worthless job. Go back to the life where people lived in caves, and died after just a few years of life if they even made it past childhood. Boil your own water and hope you don’t get dysentery. Where you breathed in smoke from a wood fire you built to keep warm, and you died of heat prostration before we gave you air conditioning. Go back to the time when you couldn’t spew your rhetoric on a computer for everybody to see. What are you then? Just another worthless human hanging on, and begging those of us who do know how to make a living for a scrap of food. Yeah- let’s go back to there, and we’ll play outrun the bear. Lots of fun. I don’t have to out run the bear- I just have to outrun you. hahahahaha. You’re slow and stupid. You’re bear food.

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          Oh, you engineers made society possible? Tell me, what rock do you live under, where the laws of physics, written by actual physicists, have no bearing whatsoever on engineering designs whatsoever? What cave are you crawling out of where rockets used to launch the very satellites delivering your drivel to my computer screen don’t require an extremely advanced understanding of the laws of physics to be able to design in such a way that they don’t go challenger straight off the launch pad? Yeah, engineers have such a great understanding of climate patterns, despite the fact that absolutely none of their study has anything to do with ocean currents, or how they carry the warm air to temperate zones to provide a comfortable climate. Since when are engineers, not climatologists, the ones writing new climate studies that are allowing for early detection of tornadoes and hurricanes? You design the stuff, sure, but it wouldn’t be possible to do so without modern science. By the way, I was able to kill, gut, and skin a deer by the time I was 12. Let’s see you survive outside of the modern world, though. I’ll just be laughing at you all the way from the camp my family built, with our own six hands

  • foxxybey

    Nebraska man was formed by a tooth, and when you go to a museum you see the whole family of his, only problem is, the tooth was the tooth of a pig, so a pig made a monkey out of a man. LOL

    • darkcyder

      Yes, as a child I got all excited about the stuff in National Geographic about the discovery of the Leaky’s in Africa- Olduvai Gorge and all – even did science reports on it. That is until I discovered that they recreated an entire ape-shaped humanoid from a JAW BONE. hahahahaha. Blew away my entire belief system at the time. God has ways of letting us have our own beliefs but he/she with an open mind considers the evidence and finds it lacking.

      • foxxybey

        There is a great book out, I think it is called “Bones of Contention” and sure opened my eyes to the lie’s being told about evolution that are made up or just out right lie’s, I think the Answers in Genesis or Creation Research put it out. Hope you find it and get it, a great read. God Bless and Shalom:

        • darkcyder

          Problem is they established these “missing links” without any contention from their peers at the time. I guess they also wanted to be allowed to create an entire being from a tooth, or something. They then used those baseless assumptions to turn them into facts, and build their next conclusion. They then used this entire evidence trail (based on initial false assumptions) to establish an entire hierarchy of lies and deceit that have most of the world believing that their version of history is now established fact. They tried the same with global warming, but memories were too long about their attempt to warn of a new ice age, and many scientists have called their bluff. Had they allowed them to get away with it for much longer, it would have also become “established fact”- something many now try to claim despite the roars of outrage against that position.

  • Shorty Stuff

    These “scientists”, or so-called “experts”, are nothing more that educated idiots. They have no experience, no common sense, and only know what they’ve been brainwashed into believing through the liberal education system that’s trying to change history to further their agenda. How are we to take back our formerly great education system, starting with the 3 R’s?

    • jubilee

      IMO, if you look closely at the ‘neanderthal’, you will find out he could be a horribly INBRED human. Not an APE. Before some people knew better, they actually had sex with their children.
      Look at what there are doing at HARVARD now, (a reason i don’t trust them,) what used to be a CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, they are having a SATANIC MASS and forcing others to like it, but they WONT allow the BIBLE, even PSALMS and PROVERBS within a public school

      • John H. Foley

        Um…..Neanderthal was never claimed to be an ape. And the proof of that is its binomial name is Homo neanderthalensis which places it into the same genus of humans. That makes it at best a subspecies of humans and at least only a close relative of humans (which is closer than the other great apes).

        And Harvard isn’t a public university. The Bible is assigned as literature in Harvard’s curriculum. The Black Mass being conducted is not required attendance and is only for educational purposes. If you believe that just by observing it you have to join the satanic church, please perform your religious rituals in the streets to then force the observers to join your church. It doesn’t work that way.

        The reason we don’t teach the Bible in PUBLIC SCHOOL is because it violates the Constitution. If you were to introduce it which version of the at least nine different versions? Then I will assume you may have different interpretations from another Christian, so what interpretation would you want taught. Well, that would mean the government (of your local school district at least) would be establishing a preferred religion (which may not be your). I for one prefer to teach my children what I want them to believe and don’t rely on the school to do it for me for just that reason. School is to teach my children the basics of knowledge they will need to survive in this world (reading, writing, arithmetic, and the skills needed to search out the answers to the question they will have.)

        • darkcyder

          Teaching the Bible in school does not violate the constitution. Please re-read the first amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That means they shall make no laws either FOR or AGAINST religious practices- be they in the public square or private. At one point in our history, you were able to establish a liberal court that blew right through that, but it does not negate the fact that Thomas Jefferson held religious ceremonies in capital buildings, and that Harvard was established as a religious institution. Tyrannical edicts do not replace our GOD GIVEN rights. Oh- was that also a mistake for them to put references to God in the Constitution and the Declaration of independence. The religious of this country have given you an environment in which to live for which you have neither respect nor understanding. Without the Christian basis for this country, it ceases to exist, and we are growing closer to that every year. We are less exceptional with each liberal president and judge who takes the mantle.

    • Erin Ashley Hedges

      We have far more experience in our fields than you do, that can be assured. What do you have to back up your statements? Something you read on one of your news sites, or saw on fox news? Yeah, that’s a lot of personal experience right there.

      • Azsteve53

        Another classic statement that is a total logical failure and unsupportable opinion trying to be conveyed in an appeal to authority manner.

        Complete intellectual fail.

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          Then tell me where your expertise on these subjects comes from? Do you have years of experience studying this stuff? Do you have any kind of degree in science whatsoever?

          • disqus_44JbsFzgKV

            If you “scientists” did not have degrees in science, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO CONSTANTLY INVENT NEW THEORIES TO JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE. The result is a circle jerk of stupidity.

          • Ben Name

            unlike christianity.

          • mtman2

            …..Erin: Intelligence and true knowledge can be diametrically opposed. Just because you read it shouldn’t un-warrant in depth thought to question it’s true validity.
            “Question everything, even the very existence of God.”
            Thomas Jefferson
            …..Really try to do this or be led by lying ‘wordsmiths’ who’s true goals and ends may shock you to the core.
            All this is about the control of all aspects of human existence.
            WE are not Founded on that -but Liberty as Americans.
            Don’t waste it on transient theories that fall away daily. Don’t rationalize, really think!

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            That sounds an awful lot like what the bible tries to do, to me.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            You’re asking me to challenge physical proof, that I study every day in my line of work, that says creationists are wrong. You’re asking me to challenge documented studies that prove totally inconclusively that the global climate is regulated by oceanic currents, and that the currents are maintained by a steady balance of salt and fresh water. You’re also asking me to challenge basic physics that are irrefutable short of an act of god, that say that this balance can be disrupted by the melting of large amounts of ice, that is being constantly documented at research stations at the polar ice caps. You’re also asking me to ignore the fact that heavy air pollution can and does cause higher temperatures, which is caused consistently by millions of vehicles worldwide running at any time of the day, another observable fact. The point of my statement, to put it bluntly, is that out of the two of us, my side of the argument is well documented, and visually observed every hour of the day, and can be physically proven at any given time of the day, while you repeat arguments that are passed on through conservative run media for the sole purpose of increasing ratings. Scientists aren’t doing this for money, there’s no personal gain for a climatologist to tell the world they’re killing the planet. But there is monetary gain for going on national television and telling millions of blind followers that all modern science is bunk, and that they should continue to listen only to you.

        • Ben Name

          You sound like a really poor excuse for a nerd.

          • Azsteve53

            Excuse me, but you sound like a poor excuse, period.

          • Ben Name

            ha ha ha. nice try. you can’t even be cutting. Your parents must be deflated at what a loser you have become.

      • bushwacko

        The Sun revolves around the earth; the earth is flat; bad humors cause sickness; bloodletting relieves the vapors; climate ( fill in the blank ) is here. SETTLED SCIENCE!! So say the experts!!! Science at best are nothing more than guesstimates. So say the EXPERTS. Settled..

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          All but climate change was disproven, and every time, the ones who claimed they were facts admitted they were wrong.

          • mtman2

            Absolutely false, and you will discover this the case. Will you then resolve to be open minded or follow blindly the PC flock?

        • mtman2

          Hey, they gotta eat too, why not “high-on the-hog”. Sheeple are easily fooled and taken advantaged of. Especially the young, raised in the ‘gaseous’ atmosphere of the liberal mentality.

      • mtman2

        If you don’t realize that your statements here reveal your an amateur thinker with a load of talking points that are irrelevant to any real bottom line, you only deceive yourself. Totally unimpressive Erin, you are embarrassing yourself.

        • Ben Name

          unlike you….

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          I’m not the one backing up half their arguments with little more than religion

      • militarydad

        What caused the ice age, dino farts? Or was it all those cars the Flintstones were driving?

        Hey, the oceans are the source for most of the gases the cimate weirdos are worried about….like 98% of it…so, are we supposed to drain them or what?

        • Ben Name

          thanks for your service!

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          Ok, you’re an idiot. It couldn’t possibly have been the massive asteroid the size of manhattan that we have already found an impact crater for, that dates almost exactly to the time of the extinction event, and would have blanketed the entire atmosphere in a thick layer of dust for years before settling, I suppose?

      • Ben Name

        don’t ask for people to explain anything around here. They will only say you are stupid for not blindly believing.

        • Azsteve53

          Did you offer any explanations, or just snarky insults ? In your case you get back the level of intellectual discourse you spew, that means in your case, not much.

          NO need to thank me, glad to help you out.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            You just kind of proved his point. By the way, he didn’t insult, he stated a fairly observable fact.

          • Ben Name

            Unfortunately that’s not how the blind see.

          • Ben Name

            ahhh. thanks? You helped me out with identifying, maybe, the dumbest person to post here ever….

      • darkcyder

        Lovely the way you use the word “we” like you and some band of cohorts have some superior intellect. You know not that of which you speak. As an engineer, I can simply tell you that you are wrong. You know nothing of statistics, and you manipulate them in ways that support your hypothesis. In the words of Mark Twain- “There’s liars, Dam_ liars, and statisticians.” You would lose that argument, but I simply would be wasting my time with you. Your posts here bleed of ignorance that seeks no correction.

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          Oh, you’re an engineer, huh? You must have such an advanced understanding of the inner working of the universe, that goes beyond even what physicists worldwide understand. By the way, it was astronomers that first discovered the earth wasn’t the center of the galaxy, not engineers. It was a physicist that wrote the laws of gravity, and all the other forces that govern our universe, not engineers. The work of scientists allows engineers to do what they do, not the other way around. You can’t tell me your work doesn’t rely on the base laws of physics, that’s a bold faced lie

          • darkcyder

            Your naiveté is exceeded only by your arrogance. Men did not write the “laws of gravity”- men just discovered the effect they have. God made all this happen before men ever entered the picture. Engineers were using the laws of physics/ gravity/ planetary motion long before anybody put them into writing. Pyramids were built long before Newton entered the picture, men were sailing the ocean using the stars and planets long before Keplar (an engineer) defined their motion. Indians were making calendars and describing planetary interactions long before Galileo (an engineer) made the telescope.
            You fail to understand the difference between a scientist and an engineer. An engineer is a scientist to begin with- and then if he/she has any practical skills, they can become an engineer, not the other way around. Engineers use scientific findings- often combining many- to find solutions to problems that make people’s lives easier to live.
            You may understand how hydrogen interacts with ethylene at high temperatures to make a polymer, but it took an engineer to put that together with other engineering principles such as metallography for the reactors, piping for the flow, pumps to move it, and extruders to pelletize it and then molds to form it so that you could have plastic keys on you keyboard that allow you to spew your senseless drivel.
            Watson and Crick may have discovered a method for making a transistor, but it took and electrical engineer to design the circuits which allow me to respond back to you. And it took a power engineer to discover how to use generators to transmit that power to my home so I could sit in a comfortably lighted and cooled room while I do so.
            When you car breaks down on the side of the road, all of the knowledge you may have about combustion theory will not get you to your destination. A good engineer will fix the car because of his knowledge of the system that make it work.
            You seem to think you’ve discovered something about the gulf stream that nobody else understands. Sorry, the gulf stream, and its underlying effects have been around for longer than you have been breathing stolen air. And the environment is much more complex than a simple interaction with the gulf stream. It’s effect is inclopluded in most climatic models- but then these are just models- not reality. And like most climatic models, the results they yield are smaller than the error bands associated with their estimation algorithms and data.
            Having personally collected, and analyzed environmental data using complex models that you probably would not even understand, I can tell you that most of the crap you spew is bunk. You confuse interrelated occurrences with causality. Probably not something you understand either. People who start with a belief they want to prove, and then go looking for the data to support their belief are not scientists- they are political trolls. A true scientist looks only at the data and sees what it tells him/her. If that scientist also has engineering skills, they then put that data to use in a helpful solution that even a monkey could use and move on to the next problem.
            Unfortunately, many like yourself have found this latest “sky is falling” topic to be something that – if you can scare the public enough- you can continue to make a living studying anything and everything so that you can come up with even more isolated cases to prove your beliefs. And then produce reports to support your fear mongering. I consider people like that to be a drain on our society- sucking money out of the system that could be used for much better pursuits and making people’s lives better. Maybe you should take up finger painting. And then you could go into forums and explain to us all how we don’t really understand the need for proper viscosity in the paint to roll off the fingers and adhere to the paper…much more valuable than what you now contribute.

  • colsooonscoorner

    I love the line No matter how high his credentials, he still sits on his ars.Think hard science comes under the heading of unsettled science, no matter how hard it is settled.

  • PeterSalinas

    Climate disruption. I love it. And Obama’s State of the Union speech was actually a disrupted fart.

  • Wes Walker

    Closing quote… What a gem!

  • Erin Ashley Hedges

    The hilarity of your misinformation is the confusion of science with cartoons. The concept we have of neanderthals was never actually a scientific ideal, we didn’t know until now. As for gay “gene”, nobody ever tried to say it was a gene, however, we do have it pinned down to a hormonal imbalance in the womb. Just a small trigger in the early stages of development that sets it off. This is actually fairly documented. Whoever you get your news from doesn’t give you the whole picture of what’s being discovered. Don’t even get me started on climate change, you need to have an understanding of ocean currents, salt-water/fresh water reactions, and just what causes our global climate conditions to begin with. Unless you have spent years studying the effects of the ocean currents on the global climate, and understand that even the slightest disruption of the balance of salt and fresh water can cause the currents regulating the global temperatures to fluctuate, you really can’t dismiss it as bull. And don’t try to give me the crap about “if global warming is real, why is it cold?”. The simple fact is, with the rise in fresh water levels in the oceans, the currents were disrupted enough to move part of the polar vortex down into our latitudes. Piled onto a somewhat major polar shift that occurred back after the Haitian earthquake, in which the magnetic poles shifted to almost a vertical position, what we saw this winter was inevitable. People have been studying this stuff for years, they know what they’re talking about. Don’t try to assume you understand the sole truths in life, when you don’t even have any experience in the subjects at hand.

    • Azsteve53

      Once again your ignorance on “gay genes” is stunning in its display of incompetence, and that starts out the rest of your stammering, stuttering post that is as disjointed as one can make something.

      • Erin Ashley Hedges

        I’m not the one arguing well written posts with insults. I pointed out in my very first sentence that it wasn’t a gene.

        • obamaisgay

          Excuse me, but just 20 years ago the climate jerks were trying to scare us into believing we were entering an ice age. So much for settled science.

          Btw, your hormonal disruption argument for homosexuals will be obsolete just like the gene thing is now. It’s environmental abuse, along with a weak genetic constitution, that causes the choice to be made, just like it’s always been.

          • Ben Name

            yeah. being gay is a choice to choose to put it in a butt.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            You have less evidence to back up your statement than we do. At least we have recorded evidence of the hormonal imbalance, hence the source of theory

          • DLKeith

            Actually, he is at least close, maybe very close. Please quit denying evidence.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            There is no evidence, though.

    • mtman2

      You’re a flea trying to explain a dog, you think way to highly of yourself in light of these ne’er do-well = waiting-for-the-next-grant -self aggrandized wing-nuts.
      Actually think for yourself for a change, you will pleasantly surprise yourself.

      • Erin Ashley Hedges

        I am thinking for myself, believe it or not. At least I don’t blindly believe something a news site tells me

        • obamaisgay

          I’m not meaning to be rude, but are you a guy or a girl? You look like a guy with a wig on or just long hair. Again, just curious.

        • obamaisgay

          Excuse me, but anyone trying to predict weather patterns hundreds of years from now, but who can’t predict next week’s weather is just stupid.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            Oh yeah, the climatologists are predicting “on januiary 21, 2250, it’ll rain instead of snow”. No. That’s not what we’re talking about here whatsoever. It’s already documented and proven science that the global temperatures and climates are predominantly influenced by the gulf stream. This isn’t theory, it’s well known, proven-without-a-doubt fact. It’s fairly easy to come up with new climate models in advance when we already know the effect of fresh water on a primarily salt water system.

    • OzzWorx

      You seem like you have some reason to you so let’s give it a try. “Global warming” has been argued based on CO2 levels and yet you argue for ocean currents. I agree one cannot argue based on weather, but until mention is made of the influence of the Sun you have no valid arguments. We were cooling until 1979 when Hansen warned of a new ice age. Then we warmed until 1997. There has been no appreciable change since then and yet “they” have been trying to adjust to that “inconvenient truth.” “They” continue to speak of consensus but that “consensus” consists of 655 scientists, 255 of which disavowed any connection of their work to the climate conclusions of the IPCC. Meanwhile 13,487 scientist with a Bachelors or better have said it is all hooey. If East Anglia didn’t convince you of the corruption of the Global Warming Alarmists you haven’t been paying attention.
      My new title for it is Hallucinogenic Global Warming. I will take it seriously when I see the elites living in one room flats and using bicycles to get to their conferences. Til then they need to stop pushing coal-fired electric cars.
      The article distilled down to its basics states that no one should force their will on others based on any platitudes or assertions. For years we heard “It’s for the children.” and yet we see just what “for the children” has wrought and how much worse it has been for them as adults. I remember in the mid-nineties the EPA administrator went to the podium to unveil a whole new set of regulations and left the podium only to walk back as if she had forgotten something and said “uh, its for the children.”

      • militarydad

        True!

        • Ben Name

          thanks for your service!

      • mtman2

        Good word!
        …..It’s like talking to a teenager, they know it all until they realize how foolish and gullible they’ve been, sealing the box they allowed themselves to be put in. Hence, “can’t think outside of the box”
        til they themselves break that seal.
        …..Needing ears to hear for nutritional knowledge instead of the empty junk-food-calories of copy+pasted talking points from false shepherds.

    • obamaisgay

      Excuse me, but anyone who can say that a human baby is nothing more than a mass of tissue and not a human being before it takes it’s first breath of air is just a moron. There’s “settled” science for you.

      • Erin Ashley Hedges

        I don’t believe I even brought that up in my post, so why are you?

    • http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/ The Reactionary Researcher

      Dean Hamer tried to say it was a gene for years. When did science pin down the origins of homosexuality? Got a reference for that one? Do you have a reference for an earth quake shifting the location of the magnetic poles?

      • Wes

        Thank you, my friend, for keeping “Erin” honest.

    • sjplwc

      Erin, thank you for providing an invaluable object lesson for the very point I was attempting in my column. The patronizing pomposity of your responses (above and all through this comment section) are practically oozing across my desk: Allow me to summarize the thrust of your remarks: I’m the expert! You ignorant Bible-thumpers are all idiots because you don’t agree with me!

      Yes, the 900 word limit on my post kept me from unpacking pages of analysis and footnotes on every example I broached — you got me there, Erin! My intention is to demonstrate, via brief, scattershot references, that “the experts” are being revealed as fallible, not quite god-like. This revelation is occurring currently, just it has with some regularity through all the history of science. So … best to keep thinking critically.

      “Gay Gene”? It’s convenient (and in this case necessary) shorthand for the absurd and still unproven assertion that a person is “born homosexual” (did you read the link I provided? — it’s clearly sympathetic to the “born gay” silliness, but even it admitted biology is far from the whole picture.) Your imperiously announcing that the cause of sexual orientation is “pinned down” is startling: in fact no such thing is even close to happening, and your merely saying it doesn’t make it so — but again, thanks for proving the main point of my column.

      Your dissertation on “global warming”, err, I mean “clmate change”, oops, make that “climate disruption” further underscores my gripes with the don’t-dispute-us-know-it-alls: your explanation is radically more layered than lots of the stuff being peddled by the global-warming alarmists who get the most attention nowadays. Why is that I wonder? Perhaps because our current and future environmental condition, its causes, etc. ARE NOT SETTLED?

      Your implication that anyone who actually understands anything about meteorolgoy or environmental science will automatically embrace YOUR conclusion about “climate change” is absurdity on stilts. There are thousands of respected specialists in these fields who challenge the current notion of “global warming” — either altogether or, at least, the man-caused variety. There’s lots of ferment in this field; unanimaity among those in-the-know does not exist. I’m really hoping you’re not claiming it does, because, if so, that is blazingly false.

      By the way, why did you bring in the ” crap about ‘if global warming is real, why is it cold?’ ” snipe? I never mentioned that, never even alluded to it, it had nothing to do with anything I said. In fact, believe it or not, I grasp that one extra-cold winter, all by itself, does not the end of “global warming” make. Perhaps it shocks you that a hayseed Christian like myself could understand that concept — I suppose this is your day for surprises!

      What’s clear is that your operating principle is: accept the credentialed specialists of whom I approve or you’re a moron; your credentialed specialists, on the other hand, are disqualified from consideration.

      Erin, you made my case and don’t even know it. Am I permitted to make that observation?

      • Erin Ashley Hedges

        First off, I’d like to thank you for adding your opinion to this conversation. That being said, a couple of flaws in your statement. First off, my statement said, very specifically, in fact, That the misconception of a gay “gene” is not whatsoever the documented cause of homosexuality in humans. The only people claiming that it is are severely misquoted doctors who, in fact, are saying quite the opposite: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000330094644.htm

        Second, on the main subject of your article, the neanderthal. Your understanding of this subject in the past appears to be almost totally based off TV commercials, and the flintstones. While I am in no way trying to insult your intelligence, car insurance commercials, B movies, and cartoons are hardly a proper setting to learn about prehistoric times. Anthropologists have never tried to say that neanderthals were “beetle-browed, semi-simian brutes rocking chain-saw-sized clubs and dragging their women by the hair”. In fact, the long-standing theory, at least as long as I have been alive, and as long as the Smithsonian has had exhibits, anyways, has always been precisely what you claimed the new findings were.

        Finally, on the subject of climate change.

        Unless you’re a degree student in climatology, your posts clearly show you have no understanding of the way the global climate actually works. Climatologists have extremely well documented proof showing that the sun is not the only influence on the global temperatures, and that in order for much of the air to circulate warmth over the globe the way it does, the oceanic currents play an extremely important role. Now, on this subject, we have two separate fields of research studying these effects. Namely, oceanography, and climatology. Both of these are extremely respected fields of research, both producing data from their studies that have, at times, changed our understanding of the world. this being said, as stated, there is irrefutable proof that the currents require a steady balance of salt and fresh water, otherwise the system can go haywire. Again, and I will continuously repeat this until someone’s heart goes out on them, we have extremely well documented, completely irrefutable proof that this is how this works. Not saying the world is going to freeze overnight, I’m not even saying there’s going to be a new ice age. But the simple fact is, air pollution retains heat from the sun. it is not able to escape. And during the summer months, this heat does in fact cause polar melting. Again, well documented fact, especilly considering we have people constantly monitoring specifically the melting of the ice caps. It’s happening. Continuing to release large amounts of air pollution is only going to make things worse. once that previously mentioned balance of salt and fresh water is broken, there’s no telling what the global climate could do. But the temperature patterns worldwide would be severely affected one way or another, as the currents are irreversably disrupted. Is it worth risking the future of the entire planet just so a few billion people can continue using extremely inefficient cars that just add to the problem? Is it really worth the risk, when technology already exists to reduce the problem and is relatively easy to build? How is all of this worth the risk?

        • bushwacko

          S T F U

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            ^my points about ignorance proven almost instantly

    • darkcyder

      If only your “gay gene” thing were true, we could cure the world of gayness using the “women’s choice” option you no doubt also support. Simple process- go to the doctor for a genetic sample on the baby. If it has the gene, simply abort. No use having a child in the family that disrupts the family tree…not to mention having to attend all the parades, and coming up with excuses for the relatives and such.
      As an engineer who has studied what we used to call “pollution” for over 40 years, I’d love to debate you on the whole global warming thing. Heck, I have even run urban air shed models, and designed systems to control air quality. But your posts here are so pompously arrogant that it is obvious that would be a waste of good oxygen, only creating more CO2, of which you seem to have an unnatural fear. So, let’s simply accept that you are an oxygen thief and move on.

  • disqus_44JbsFzgKV

    I wonder what a 200 year old human would look like? I’m thinking Neanderthal. Put a lot of wrinkles on that “skull” you found and lets have a peek.

  • Erin Ashley Hedges

    This is also a good time to point out, science doesn’t actually say all the matter in the universe was created in an instant. What it actually says is that hydrogen was created through the creation of the new stars, and was fused into the new elements over time. Much in the same way our own sun fuses hydrogen atoms into iron

    • mtman2

      True ‘Science’(testable-explanations) doesn’t say anything, only people with predisposed, prejudicial, preconceived, presuppositions, pretend to postulate reality beyond applied science.

      • Erin Ashley Hedges

        That sounds almost exxactly like what creationist christians do when they say their way is the only possible science

    • http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/ The Reactionary Researcher

      Actually, that’s exactly what science says. Have a read in the first paragraph of this. http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

      That’s from CERN, and that’s exactly what they say: “According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today — including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies — was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.” Simple atomic nuclei, things like hydrogen are believed to have been created in the first few minutes following the initial expansion event.

    • darkcyder

      And what were those created from? And then what was that (whatever answer you come up with) created from? You have to believe more to be an atheist than to accept God’s word. You force yourself into the untenable position of believing something came from nothing.

      • Erin Ashley Hedges

        Kijnd of the whole point of studying this stuff, you know? Scientists have theories, and the whole point of research and experimentation is to prove the theory. By the way, as usual, loving the assertion that, just because I’m not a christian, and just because I’m a scientist, I’m automatically atheist. yet I’m the one in the wrong wor making assumptions about people.

        • darkcyder

          Again you make an assumption about what I said. I did not say you were an atheist- I pointed out what an atheist must believe. However, from your ranting, methinks thou dost protest too much, and perhaps it has revealed you?
          Oh- and your rants don’t reveal you to be a scientist either. You may be hired for that job, but I also know lots of engineers who were hired for their job because of the schooling they took. Simply training to be one does not make one. Bad scientists- like bad engineers like to find a job they can do over and over again and never really solve anything. You’re probably good at that.
          If you are a scientist, then I would venture that perhaps you may more accurately call yourself a political scientist. I think those you have spewed your arrogant opinions upon would agree to that. That seems to be the only claim to being a scientist we might all agree with.

  • Wes

    Georges Lemaître first proposed what became the Big Bang theory in 1927. He was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. And he was right!

  • jdbixii

    “As long as earth shall endure, there will be summer and winter, springtime and harvest, heat and cold.” That describes “seasonal” change (not “seasonable”) all over the world. The propositions of God overrule the hypotheses of men unless one is a liberal with a government-growing agenda.

    • Erin Ashley Hedges

      This is all purely according to religious belief, which can never be proven

      • darkcyder

        Can never be disproven either. So, I choose the easier route to believe it. Occam’s razer- the simplest explanation is usually correct.

        • sinistrelle

          “Occam’s razer- the simplest explanation is usually correct.”

          That’s not what Occam’s razor is about.

  • Falino

    “Cave men” didn’t live in caves either; another misconception/”fact” from our expert friends.

    • Ben Name

      yeah they should be called butt sex men.

      • Erin Ashley Hedges

        Are you f**king stupid? Or just a troll?

        • Ben Name

          a “paid” troll apparently.

    • Erin Ashley Hedges

      And your “expert” friends were? Oh yeah, just cartoons. We call them cavemen because caves are often the best place to find traces of their culture. You know, paintings, stuff like that. Though archeologists and paleontologists don’t actually use the term “caveman”

  • darkcyder

    Too bad about that gay gene thing. Since the liberals support both gayness, and abortion, it looked like an answer. Anybody who found their child would be born with the gay gene could simply elect to abort. After all, what parent wants to have a gay kid who will not properly propagate the family gene pool? Hah- that throws their entire liberal world right back in their faces…

    • foxxybey

      No such thing as gay, homosexuals yes and nothing gay about that life style and yes it is a life style and chosen, nobody was born that way unless they think God is a homosexual as we were created in His image. Just immoral God hating sinners who like what they do even though they know it is immoral and un-natural.

      • Erin Ashley Hedges

        You people need to stop assuming the entire world is required to follow your beliefs. That’s kind of the whole point of a totally free country, the right to believe as you wish. Which is why this will never in it’s entire history be a christian nation

        • foxxybey

          You seem to think we need to conform to your silly notions so get off your high horse girl and get a life and a brain. History speaks of the past and this nation was founded a Christian nation if you can read at all. You ever read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? You are assuming everyone should conform to your thoughts, we in a free country I can tell you, your full of it and probably have brown eyes because of it. Bye

        • oldgoatee

          We have never been a Christian nation, but we were founded along Judeo-Christian morality.

          • Catherine Halsey

            Actually, no. Most of the founding fathers wrote in letters a strong need for this to be a secular nation. Our laws were actually based off English Common Law, because it was the system we had been used to, and it worked. By the way, If we’re basing today’s standards on the morality of the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin would be considered liberal, by modern standards. Also, best be getting back to the auction house to buy yourself a nice family or two, because nearly every one of the founders kept slaves, and flat out refused to do anything to upset the slaver’s economy in the US. On a side note, how the hell can you pretend to want the country to be a free nation, when you’re trying to force your particular beliefs on millions of people nationwide? Part of freedom is being able to worship whatever deity you see fit, it’s an inalienable right. Doesn’t matter what the predominant belief is in the country, not everybody has to follow it. Otherwise you’re just causing more subjugation to a singular system

    • Erin Ashley Hedges

      You’d throw your 13 year old son out on the street to die the moment they told you they were gay, wouldn’t you? And yet we’re the monsters.

      • SiRobertson

        You people are perverse. I still feel sorry for you though.

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          We’re not the ones throwing children out on the streets to die. We’re not the ones harassing people into suicide, with repeated death threats at times. We’re not the ones ganging up and beating to death innocent bystanders on the street just for being different

        • Taking care of business!

          Wherever the winds take you, you’ll be there–floating and being buffeted along. Happy landing, my post-modernist.

      • darkcyder

        I didn’t say that, did I? You fags always try to alter the talking points when you see you are cornered. My point is that your ilk not only support homosexuality (a bane on human existence) and abortion(also a bane on human existence) in which innocent children who have made NO choices in this world are slaughtered just for being inconvenient. I just pointed out a way of combining those two beliefs ad ridding ourselves of one of those problems.
        If my child were discovered to be gay, I would get them into therapy and a good church.

        • Erin Ashley Hedges

          Therapy does absolutely nothing, you moronic twit. it’s actually considerably more abusive, and more often than not leaves the kid a self hating wreck that is more likely to kill himself before his 20th birthday. By the way, there’s far more evidence to this than your so called “choice”

          • darkcyder

            Well, since I raised two very well adjusted heterosexuals, I won’t have to worry about that, will I? On the other hand, your parents should have started you in a good church, and then therapy. It really does more good than harm. Your version of “harm” is that it convinces the person that what they already know in their soul is wrong, is in fact wrong, and to change their ways. You would probably call that a bad outcome, as one less person would be won to your cause. Shame, some people did such a bad job raising their kids, and now we’re stuck with the useless drivel they expound upon our society, and the expenses therein related.

          • Erin Ashley Hedges

            Oh yeah, my episcopal mother who taught me to be accepting of everybody’s differences, and that hate was never the way, was a horrible mother compared to all the parents of the year out there who tell their kids to go and bully that one gay kid at school, because their particular religious beliefs say it’s ok.

          • Jimbo Jenkins

            Worried about you, buddy. For a “straight” guy, you seem to be awfully fixated on the gays. It’s like, you post about them ALL the time–as if revoltingly sinful acts of gay sex are always on your mind.

            Like, if you were posting about fishing, and fishing poles, and which one to buy, and fishing technique, and bait or whatever, I’d conclude you’re most likely a fisherman. You’re not fixated on fishing, but you do seem to be fixated on SODOMITES. Be strong though, darkcyder, I’ll try to pray away your sinful gay urges. Be safe, brother!

          • darkcyder

            You fags just can’t give up on hoping we’re all like you, can you? And in this case, it’s a lesbian. isn’t it. Same difference. All touched in the head, and hoping others are as well.

      • oldgoatee

        To the best of my knowlege, none of my three children or 9 actual grandchildren (my granddaughter flirted with lesbianism, but I think it was more a trendy thing) exhibited gay charachteristics. When my wife was alive, we supported our granddaughter’s (temporary) choice and I will should any of my other grandchildren turn out gay.

        • Catherine Halsey

          Yet you don’t represent all christians.

          • WayneJ

            “Yet you don’t represent all Christians”…. you expect Christians to be all just alike….perfect in their humanity? Really?

          • Catherine Halsey

            No, I just expect parents to be able to understand that it is in no way acceptable to just throw the child you gave birth to out on the street just for being gay. I would expect the parents who know for a fact that their children have absolutely no gay friends whatsoever would be able to recognize “wow, he’s just sort of like that, there’s no changing it, and be willing to be supportive of their children. Instead, we have parents throwing their children out the doors at even the age of 12, and/or driving them to suicide. And these people claim to be good christians when doing this. And being the loudest voices in christianity, they end up representing their religion almost wholly. How is it remotely ok to do that to your own children?

          • WayneJ

            First off, it is mighty shortsighted to say it is “Christians” doing this ….I am willing to bet it is equal among all people regardless of their religious belief. Secondly, are you just as outraged over parents throwing their children into bio-hazard incinerators?

          • Catherine Halsey

            I support abortion on a set of guidlines, not in general. True, if you chose to go off doing the activities that typically give you children, you should have to bear said children. But are you really going to tell me a child should be forced to carry her rapist’s child? Or that if it turns out that childbirth would prove deadly to her, your wife shouldn’t have the right to choose to spare her own life? Don’t tell me these never happen, I have personal experience in both, and lost a friend because she lived in a no abortion state

          • WayneJ

            People die having something as simple as an appendectomy …that does not mean they shouldn’t have their appendix removed. People die from all kinds of even mundane procedures. That does not = procedure “will” kill you. Leading obgyn’s with long histories have never seen cases where a women had to have an abortion to save them. Many die during childbirth but that does not = the childbirth itself killed them. BTW….my wife would never chose abortion over her life.

          • Catherine Halsey

            Good for your wife. Many women, however, have suffered complications where giving birth would in fact lead to their death, and would not guarantee the child would live, either.

  • Taking care of business!

    To establish the brand, gay (I despise the term!) must be found in EVERYTHING., whether from breakfast food to sports to science. Oh, and don’t forget. it’s the cure for global-warming. For we shan’t reproduce. We shall simply rot from AIDS. Wait–won’t rotting just contribute more to global-warming?! Think of all of that stinking CO2?!

  • Larry Major

    In the Bible is an interesting scripture, its says if a man thinks he knows something he knows nothing!

  • Carlosish

    Science flies you to the moon and stars. Religion flies you into buildings. No?

    • Erin Ashley Hedges

      Thank you!!!

      • oldgoatee

        Why, oh why, do you display the patch or the storied 3d Infantry Division, represented by distinguished warriors like Audie Murphy, Lucian Truscott, George Joulwan, and to a much lesser extent myself?

        • Catherine Halsey

          Because I earned this patch with blood and sweat, not unlike yourself. At least I don’t hide this.

    • Erin Ashley Hedges

      But they try to say it was held together with some godly power, despite the fact that god pretty much abandoned noah during his thunder tantrum

    • selahgreene

      It’s not religion that flies people into buildings; it’s false gods and false religions.
      And the amusing thing about the Titanic? The builders said even God couldn’t sink it. Your mockery is no different than their contempt for God.

    • WayneJ

      God’s gift of intellect flies you to the moon and stars. The Sumerian story of Noah indicates that the seed of all animals were placed in the ark….do a little research on the Nephilim ….you might be surprised…oh, and they are mentioned in Genesis

    • Eggpeg

      Unfortunately you show that you laugh at least partially in ignorance. I can’t speak of Judaism or Islam as well as I can for Christians that go by the Bible, but your statement on the number of animals on the ark is wrong. The Bible teaches that there were two of each unclean animal and seven pair of each clean animal. (You are certainly not alone in your mistake as most people seem to have the same understanding, seemingly learning what the Bible supposedly says from movies, books, or “preachers/teachers” rather than first hand knowledge.)
      I’m sure you can say that this only makes the account even more unbelievable, but if you are going to use something as a “proof” at least use the principle of basing it on fact.
      So far when it comes to proving to be true, I’ll stick with the Bible versions even when they’re hard for me to understand how they happened. I’ve heard a lot of arguments trying to disprove or change parts of it, but as with yours based on either error or misrepresentation. Now science on the other hand, in spite of it’s many advances and accomplishments has been shown to be wrong on occasion.

  • Carlosish

    He’s everyehere (or not as the case may be).

    • Wes

      Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that every action (including every prophet) of God came from the Near East. Since the Hebrews lived in the Near East, they mainly wrote about the miracles they witnessed… you guessed it, in the Near East. Are you surprised that they didn’t write about any miracles in Japan or France or Brazil? You need to study up on your geography, son.

      Btw, that circle only includes a tiny portion of Egypt, when the scriptures clearly designate (population, geography, etc) almost all of Egypt, in which many miracles occurred. Also I think that map might not include Midian. Your picture is wrong right off the bat, even with the fallacious larger argument aside.

  • Wes

    Research by Dr. David Reich, a geneticist at the Harvard Medical School, has revealed that early humans interbred with what we know as “Neanderthals”. Thus, Neanderthals necessarily must have been a race of humans (homo sapiens) or it would have been physically impossible to produce fertile offspring! Reich and colleagues estimated that the average living Caucasian and Asian has on average 2.5% Neanderthal DNA.

    • blowingoffgodot

      Actually, neanderthals have been considered a sub-species of Homo sapiens for almost two decades in some scientific circles.

      • Wes

        Indeed, and now we have evidence for interbreeding. Nice avatar, by the way. Wind Waker is a classic!

  • DorianGray

    We’re supposed to take your commentary seriously, and you still don’t understand the use of “Theory” in scientific parlance?
    I’m sure since it’s “only a theory” the next time you jump off a building, Gravity will let you float gently to the ground. Or since it’s “only a theory”, you can just wish away a severe Germ infection, and do away with the penicillin.
    I can keep going, but there really doesn’t seem to be much point.
    Science is able to admit when it gets something wrong, since scientists spend most of their time trying to disprove things in case they are wrong, thus arriving at an ultimate truth. Unlike the “infallible” Bible, a 2000 year old conglomeration of anecdotes and myths that has been cobbled together from disparate generations of mistranslated texts by folks under the command of a king or church to make it work for their personal ends.
    Gee, and folks wonder why Science is eclipsing dogma. I can’t imagine why.

    • jjkrjw

      What a silly comment. Gravity is not a theory. There is proof of it billions of times a day. Many scientists do not admit when they get something wrong, at least not until someone unmasks their manipulated data, AKA lies. Government grants are the cause of too many science mistakes. In order to keep that grant money flowing, there are many scientists willing to tell the gov’t what it wants to hear–like global warming.

      • blowingoffgodot

        You have zero understanding of how science works.

  • Jake Edwards

    “Scientists are wrong and stupid!”
    *uses scientific research to try and prove it*
    :/

  • Shrdlu42

         First, this is hardly “news”. Evidence for Neanderthals not being “neanderthalic” has been around for a long time. Popular culture (such as mindless blogs on the Internet) may only just be discovering this.

          Second, whether or not this is the “first direct evidence” for the Big Bang is at best debatable. (There was plenty of evidence before this, including the universal background radiation which could come from no other source.)

          Third, and who says all evidence must be “direct”? Ever heard of forensics? By your “reasoning” the only evidence admissible in a criminal trial should be direct eye-witness testimony, not fingerprints or other such things. Too bad such testimony is often the least reliable form of evidence.

          Fourth, as for the Bible talking about the Big Bang – sure, if you ignore the fact that the literal account is several billion years off!

          Half-baked rhetoric and theology is no substitute for Science.

  • Vexed Vet

    If one doesn’t believe in GOD they can be convienced to believe in anything! What a scary, unpredictable, paranoid world the godless among us must lead? They try to pull everyone else in to get comfort in their sick delusion. Anyone so blind they can’t see the infinate odds that formed life and the odds against it happening is blind beyond belief!
    Inteligent design or just dumb luck? That is the ultimate question!

I WOULD HAVE SHOT HIM: Dear Reader, What Would You Have Done If You Were In This Man’s Shoes?
Load more