People Pay Big Money to be told They’re Evolved Pond Scum

The lecture was titled “The Origin of the Universe.” People stood in a quarter-mile-long line for hours and paid big money to be told that they are nothing but a conglomeration of atoms. One hopeful attendee was willing to shell out $1000 for a ticket.

The people who got in to hear the wheelchair-bound man were told that they are alone in the cosmos. They share space with other biological units who are also accidents of electricity and chemicals.

The man in the wheelchair is Dr. Stephen Hawking who has been trying to sell his scientific theories and atheistic faith to a willing public. Anything he says is pure speculation. In fact, how does he know that his evolved brain knows anything? There is nothing to test it against. How can he trust his evolved mind to give him accurate information, especially since he is not only confined to a wheelchair, but he, like everybody else, is confined to this insignificant planet, what Carl Sagan described a “pale blue dot” in the vastness of the cosmos?

Consider these comments from C.S. Lewis:

“If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on bio-chemistry, and bio-chemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and the sub-Christian religions. . . . The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself.”1

What I can’t understand is why people salivate about being told that they are an accident of nothingness.

The theory of evolution is posited as an established scientific fact even though there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate how inanimate matter came into existence and evolved into highly complex living organisms.

There is no empirical evidence demonstrating where organized information came from to give structure and development to evolved matter. Finally, there is no empirical evidence showing the millions, possibly billions, of gradual evolutionary steps that were necessary to go from an inanimate glob of atoms to fully evolved humans.

Evolutionists wax eloquently about “nature’s design capabilities,” as if nature has a mind.2 Nature isn't a person, a being.

When “Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,” as the opening line to the theme song for “The Big Bang Theory” TV show states, where was life, thought, mind, logic, rationality, morality? What was directing the organization of atoms into “autotrophs” and “Neanderthals” and everything else?

The first question is not “is the human race just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet?,” as Stephen Hawking asked. The primary question is, Where and how did the “chemical scum” come into existence in the first place and organize itself into complex life forms?

Hawking may be a smart man, but he doesn’t know a thing about the cosmos. He’s a false prophet, a Pied Piper leading people down the path to intellectual, cultural, and moral suicide.

  1. C. S. Lewis, “Is Theology Poetry,” delivered at the Oxford Socratic Club, 1944, published in They Asked for a Paper (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1962), 164–165. []
  2. Andy Pross, What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2012. []



  • NewCreationDave

    We already have what we need to know. It's all right here:

  • Charles_Higley

    "The theory of evolution is posited as an established scientific fact even though there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate how inanimate matter came into existence and evolved into highly complex living organisms."

    Only partly right here. Evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life. It only describes the mechanisms by which life alters and develops over time. Scientists argue over the details of the mechanisms, not over the validity of evolution.

    Evolution can be described as fact because its principles are so well established. The same principles that allow this laptop and the Internet support the fact of evolution.

    • Panicazi

      Thanks for the lesson. There is no way I could've been exposed to this info in my undergrad work and still believe in the notion of a Creator, sarcasm intended. What an arrogant little man you are. Nothing in science is incompatible with the concept of God. Of course we should attempt an understanding of the mechanisms that drive our world. Of course we should test our understanding of this world. But, to deny God is pointless. Unless what you are really after is moral, ethical, and legal cartblanche. You are as small minded as you claim are the people you deride for their faith.

      • Bob Hart

        I didn't detect one bit of arrogance in his comment. He didn't say anything about incompatibility with God , YOU DID. Do you always make up things and put words in peoples mouth? You are obviously the arrogant one.

        • Randy Renu

          You, you,you, you, you, you. Sounds like a broken record and John the Troll. You two "together?" You post the same babble but with a slight variation each time. How original.

          Just another narcissistic, angry, and argumentative little man who believes the earth revolves around him, his perfect thinking, and way of life.

          Here is a great article for you to read and it DOES NOT talk about creationism or God.

          How's my spelling Einstein?

    • SolontheWise

      Please share with us a specific principle or law or "mechanism" of alleged evolution. I'm waiting. Darwinism has never been anything but speculative hearsay.

  • Charles_Higley

    "Evolutionists wax eloquently about “nature’s design capabilities,” as if nature has a mind.[2] Nature isn’t a person, a being."

    So, they talk about the available means by which life can adapt and change through nature selection. It is often convenient to humanize the description. The problem would be . . . .? It's apparently OK to posit a divine being with a divine plan producing everything on a whim, but describing the principles available through the laws of nature and science operate is too fanciful.

    • SolontheWise

      DNA is encoded information. Information itself, and so much more so encoded information, always has an intelligent source. Thus DNA is prima facie proof of intelligent design. Refute that if you can.

      • /.murphy

        Your proposition is not stated in a way that is either testable or falsifiable. I suggest learning more about how science works, then come back and try again.

      • You have a short memory

        If you believe in DNA, then you must also believe in chromosomes and genetics - right? You must agree that inherited traits like hair color
        (or baldness), eye color (or poor eyesight), skin color (or freckles), or susceptibility to diseases like arthritis and adult onset diabetes are passed down from the parents to their children. You probably also agree that there are dominant genes and recessive genes that can affect things like if your children are left handed or red headed.

        Now do that ten million times.

  • SolontheWise

    For 30 examples of scientific incompetence at the National Academy of Sciences, please see

    • Canoochee Rivers

      I am a little confused here. incompetence at the NAS makes creationism a viable alternate to the ToE how?

  • jong

    Hawking while very smart has not used it very well. He has tried again and again to disprove Einstein and has failed every time. Of course he can not explain why in the Holy Bible it is explained how life was created by GOD has turned out to be exactly how it really happen. Hawking for all his intelligence denies GOD. Which I believed is in the Bible as 1Cor 1:27 he may seem wise but is really very foolish.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Right...and a great portion of scripture.

      If we were to apply Hawking's reasoning which makes man no more valuable than an animal, then what's to keep someone from deciding that Hawking's congenital defects render him a useless burden who is consuming huge amounts of vital resources and put him down like any other troublesome animal? The extinguishing of human life, old or young...except in the case of those tried and convicted of heinous sin. Why? Because God says so....something that those on left reject outright.

      Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

      1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
      1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

      1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

      • jong

        Precisely his friends who believe in Darwin would have by their own "faith" drowned him like some unwanted kitten. Beware of what you ask for you might get applies to all liberals.

      • Paul Zhaurov

        Putting rights as being derived from a higher authority than Man, is a great way to philosophically justify them. Also, as we have seen in the past, having unalienable rights, is most beneficial to a prosperous society. That doesn't actually mean God exists, or that he has given us any rights at all. All it means, is that we want to structure our society properly.

        Hawking's reasoning is equally as philosophical. In the absence of meaning, of anything "special" about humans, it is up to us to establish a meaning, and to create a life worth living.

        We have "rights" because we want to have rights. If tigers were the dominant species, then they would maintain that they have "rights" and that they are God's chosen people. Then they would laugh at the idea of "human rights" and proceed to harvest us for meat from farms.

        People like Hawking are aware of the absurdity of our existence. We back rationalize everything, because it's too hard to simply accept, that all signs point to our existence being a fluke. For all we know, there are tons of other sentient races out there in theuniverse. Probably some much more advanced than us.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Paul...My belief that God is the source of all creation is no more absurd than your belief that our existence is a ''fluke''. The Judeo/Christian culture elevates man to great heights...... superior, even all other lifeforms....because a Creator God has proclaimed it so, and that is an unassailable objective moral truth.

          I would disagree with your assertion that the Christian's claim that our unalienable rights derive from God is nothing more than a contrivance to structure our society ''properly''. According to your atheist world view, man decides what or who has worth and arbitrarily assigns value.....a moral relativism that is not based on any absolute standard but rather depends on variables such a particular situation, personal sentiment, culture, scientific discovery, consensus, or by determined by vote.

          If, as according to the relativist world view, all ideologies have parity, then how could a relativist seriously argue that anything is ''wrong''? Isn't the view of the sexual predator who sees children as prey for his sexual gratification just as ''right'' as the next guy? What about the primitive culture that sees great spiritual benefit in cannibalism? And what about the Nazi's slaughter of Jews? On WHAT BASIS could Hitler be condemned?

          While the relativistic world view hangs on the firm foundation of thin air, the morality of the Judeo-Christian world view is based on the immutable solid rock of God's law which defines behaviors that can rightly be judged as ''wrong'', in all cultures, by all people, in every age.

    • Paul Zhaurov

      Please provide peer-reviewed literature proving that life was created as described in the "Holy Bible." Oh what's that, you're just making the air vibrate? Yeah, I thought so.

      • jong

        Nope I actually was trying to be polite. I have studied what Hawking has said and I have had better bowel movements that also made more sense. As for your proof how about the Big Bang. Then lets take a look at general mutations that occur in nature. We by all logic can not be at the point of development we are given sciences definitions. GOD does exist. As for literature do your own home work I do not see you coming in with a single fact.

  • GDC97

    Gary DeMar MUST be LOCKED UP in a Psychiatric Hospital with the rest of the MENTALLY SICK!!!

    • Shane Lechner


      • explain yourself

        Shane Lechner = Gary DeMar.

      • Bob Hart

        Shane Lechner = blowhard.


    Throughout history, atheists have repeatedly tried to justify their genocides stating that human life is "insignificant" and "inconsequential", to the point where they tried to do whatever their ends justify for the means of which they could control them.

    The best way to murder somebody is to first dehumanize them. By calling them insignificant and not different than pond scum, atheists have racked up the highest bodycount of innocent people of all of human history, in the past century alone.

    • Screeminmeeme


  • EddieBop

    Since there is more than an abundance of evidence for the "Big Bang Theory" and Evolution, DeMar's concern about "empirical evidence" should be turned more appropriately to a different question; Where is the empirical evidence of a God? There is absolutely none.

    • SolontheWise

      EddieBop, As I wrote below in response to Charles Higley, DNA is prima facie proof of intelligent design. Do you have a spirit? If you do, where'd you get it? If you don't, then what are you?

      • EddieBop

        Your "prima facie proof" is merely a religiously rooted opinion, as is the entire concept of "intelligent design." How does your "intelligent design" theory explain the scientific fact that humans share 99% of their DNA with chimps? And my spirit, which is an intangible, is a part of the intangible fabric of the humanity that I, as a human being possess. It certainly wasn't placed in me by some "supreme being." Fortunately, we live in a country where everyone can practice whatever religion they believe in, or none at all. I'm only offended by people who want to impose their religious views on the rest of us.

        • SolontheWise

          That DNA is encoded information which only could have an intelligent source is true and logical science. That deduction has nothing to do with religion of any kind. Can you identify any information that does not have an intelligent source?
          How do you know you have a spirit, and if you in fact do have one, how do you know it wasn't placed in you by a Supreme Being?

        • EddieBop

          Sorry, but what you consider to be "true" and "logical science" is neither. And while I'm always interested in communicating with people who offer intellectual honesty, you're clearly incapable of that. Consequently, I won't respond to any further statements from you; I have a fun weekend ahead, which is certain to be more interesting.

        • KayDeeBeau

          Well, we are waiting for your brilliant illucidations...ready , set , go?
          So you subscribe to the idea that given enough time and opportunity, I could drop a bucket full of red, white and blue confetti and eventually I would end up with a structured representation of the US Flag?

        • DWinch

          You are wasting your time trying to reason with someone who descended from an ape. Do what I do and stick with talking to people!

        • KayDeeBeau

          I know but it is still kind of fun...I have yet to have an evolutionist be able to answer my question. My illustration - throws their ignorance back in their face in oh such a glorious fashion, I know - I have a sin of pride,,,, :(

        • KayDeeBeau

          Oh wait - so you mean you can't defend your original claim(s) because you are not a mathemetician? So you are conceding that you know not what you speak? Or are you saying that the concepts I have presented are too far above your mental accuity?
          Or are you saying that I have challenged your "thoughts" in such a way as you have no defense?
          And if you do have such a defense - where is it?
          Euclid may help........
          tee hee tee hee :)

        • /.murphy

          LOL! I've never heard anyone put it quite like that. That's a good one!
          Of course, the answer given by mathematics is that if it is possible to manually arrange your confetti to look like a US flag, then "yes"--throwing the confetti randomly will eventually produce the same image.

        • KayDeeBeau

          My point exactlly :) The number of attempts and the length of time required for it to randomly turn into the US flag is a mathematical a controller / creator is the best expanation for the complexity of the human genome, Using the standards of mathematics, it is not possible for the evolution of random selection to come up with the extremely complicated combination of DNA required to produce man. Anymore than after enough attempts and enough time a bucket full of red, white and blue confetti would allign itself into the shape of the US flag. It requires Inteligent Design and not happenstance

          Game - set - match

        • /.murphy

          No. That's not what the science of mathematics tells us--the random arrangement of your confetti into a US flag is a mathematical possibility.

        • KayDeeBeau

          You are funny - sure it is possilbe but how likely is it? There in lies the answer, So when you calculate all the variables to the nth power of the human genome and calculate the probablity of that happening in just the right order at just the right time you really want to cling to random? Ok, then you still haven't explained how my bucket of confetti becomes a US flag.
          I'll even give you another chance. I have 600 Trillion pieces of confetti - equally divided between the 3 colors. Calculate the chance of that confetti aligning into the shape of a US Flag.
          Nice try and thanks for playing...

        • /.murphy

          Pose your question to any mathematician--you'll get the same answer. Mathematics is great at handling complexity; that's why it's so valuable. With regard to likelihood... that's not really relevant. All math cares about is whether the probability is zero or greater than zero. In the examples you gave, the probability is greater than zero.

        • Randy Renu

          The probability of you using your brain is zero. Do you read your posts afterwards?

          You appear not to comprehend the subject or what you're implying.

          Evolution has an effective probability of ZERO. What probability number do you need to see before the word "impossible" or will "never" be successful comes into play?

        • jong

          "A Very Liberal Christmas" to friggin funny. My father will get a kick out of it. He has been a Lutheran minister for over 55 years and tells some outrageous joke. Many of them given to him by a Orthodox Jewish Rabbi.

        • Randy Renu

          Chew on this:

          John Eccles, winner of the Nobel Prize and one of the foremost brain
          scientists in this century speaks of one chance in 1010,000 as being
          "infinitely improbable.....

          Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have estimated the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000.34.

          Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist,calculated the odds of a
          single bacterium emerging from the basic building blocks necessary were
          1 chance in

          Dr. David J. Rodabough, Associate Professor of Mathematics at the
          University of Missouri, estimated the more realistic chance that life
          would spontaneously generate (even on 1023 planets) as only one chance
          in 102,999,940.21.

          Walter L. Bradley and Charles Thaxton, point out that the probability of
          assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is
          approximately one chance in 4.9 X 10191.16.

          Harold F. Blum, writing in Time’s Arrow and Evolution, wrote that,
          "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest
          known proteins seems beyond all probability.".

          David J. Rodabaugh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University
          Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, shows the probability that a simple
          living organism could be produced by mutations "is so small as to
          constitute a scientific impossibility" — "the chance that it could have
          happened anywhere in the universe,is less than 1 [chance] in

          Moshe Trop, Ph.D., with the Department of Life Sciences, Bar-Ilan
          University, Ramat Gan, Israel, concludes,"All calculations made of the
          probability [that life could evolve by chance, lead to the conclusion
          that] there could have been no possibility of the random appearance of
          life....(NOTE - All evidence cited orginates from the science

          Evolution is a religion. NOT a science.

        • /.murphy

          All of those probabilities you cite are still > 0. Your apparent agenda requires them all to = 0, but that's not the case. Mathematics is pretty funny about zero vs. non-zero...

        • Randy Renu

          You're kidding? You can't really be that simple.

          The mathematical probability of evolution ever happening, are the same odds as you, (here is a key word, so watch) SUCCESSFULLY getting a ride on the Space Shuttle or swimming from LA to Hawaii.

          Now, is that a comparative you can understand?? I try to keep this on a 7th grade level for you.

        • /.murphy

          It's a probability that is greater than zero. That's all that matters in math. Clearly you're no scientist. Why do you have a need to insult people who have a different point of view? It's quite juvenile... But perhaps you're only 15.

        • jong

          Tell that to Freeman Dyson and he would rip your head off. And yes he is at least if not more than intelligent as Hawkins

        • Randy Renu

          You're wasting your time.

          /.murphy aka "The Robot," Bob "The Wart" Hart, and John the Troll are the Three (butt buddy) Stooges on this site. They love to argue, just for the sake of it. If you follow their posts, it's like all three are sutured together at the brain, and that is NOT a lot of tissue to be suturing together.

          If anyone of them were on fire and you pointed it out, they'd disagree with you right up until they dropped over dead. More burning later.

          They won't budge from their evolutionary belief because that would be an admission that someone other then themselves is in control and gives them purpose. Their purpose in life is to use up resources and die. Simple.

          Evolution is a faith based religion....there is NO scientific proof it ever happened.

          Dumb is forever.

        • EddieBop

          A very humorous and totally idiotic analogy. I suppose you believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that man walked the earth with dinosaurs?

        • KayDeeBeau

          And that has anything to do with my original supposition how?

          You said you needed to have a scientic converstation? I am still waiting.

          Apparently you are not really up to it. If by your "theory" the complexity of the human genome appeared by random selection, then it should follow that by random happenstance, I should eventually be able to keep dumping a bucket of red, white and blue confetti to achieve a US flag.

          So for your version of the origin of man to be true, then the same circumstances should also apply to anything else and produce the same result. Otherwise it isn't true.

          Here is a helpful hint - we live in a binary world - yes / no - true / false - right / wrong. Something can't be true and false at the same time

          If it is possible for man to randomly "evolve" from pond scum into the complex organism that we are - then it must be possible for a bucket of red, white and blue confetti to eventually align itself into the US Flag

          I am sorry if this scientific argument is too taxing for you. Your rules not mine.

          If you care to calculate the mathematical probabilty of a bucket of confetti falling into the representation of the US Flag and then are able to apply that same probablity to the origin of man and still think it is by happenstance and still want to stick with your original idea- Oh well your mind is closed. I am only required to tell you - I am not required to convince you.

        • You have a short memory

          I see your problem - "Here is a helpful hint - we live in a binary world - yes / no - true / false - right / wrong."

          Your basic view of the universe is completely incorrect.

        • KayDeeBeau

          You are kidding right?
          There is nothing more basic to the universe than binary. Do you even know the definition of binary? Here's another hint. The lowest common option of a choice is between 2 - any less than two options - there is no choice. Any more and you still end up in a binary option - assuming you understand the meaning of the word TRUTH
          Something is either yes or no - true or false - right or wrong
          What pray tell are the other options? Maybe? That doesn't negate the concept of binary choice. That just means you don't know how to ask the question

        • You have a short memory

          That reminds me of the ultimate answer - 42.

          When I ask the question - What is seven times six? Do you answer 101010? Do you answer with or do you say 42? We do not think in binary - we are base ten.

          When the ultimate question actually turned out to be "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?" the answer of 42 seemed to not make sense. But if we used base 13, it works.

          Of course Forty-two is the second Sphenic number, the third Primary Pseudoperfect number, the third Pentadecagonal number, the fourth Meandric number, the sixth Catalan number, The seventh Open Meandric number, The seventh Pronic number, The eighth Self number, the eighth abundant number, the twentieth Harshad number, the twenty ninth Størmer number, It is the reciprocal of the sixth Bernoulli number, the product of the first three terms of Sylvester's sequence, the number of gallons in a barrel of oil, the number of dots (pips) on a six sided dice, and the number of lines per page in the Gutenberg Bible.

          So you are right in the sense that the question is important, but the answer is rarely yes or no. Now I am going to go watch that movie about Jackie Robinson. What was that called again?

        • KayDeeBeau

          Nice try to again avoid the original question... Sorry I am not so easily distracted.
          So still the question is I have a bucket of 600 trillion pieces of confetti equally divided between the colors red, white and blue...How long and how many attempts will it take for a dump of my bucket of confetti to fall into the shape of the US Flag?
          Answer my question and I will believe in your version of evolution as will every other human on the face of the earth.
          Until then, oh well you lose

        • You have a short memory

          Nice try to avoid the nonsensical assertion that we live in a binary world. I gave you many examples of how that is pure nonsense.

          If I were to go along with your idiotic theory, the answer to your confetti question would either be 0 or 1. Improbable does not equal impossible, so I will say 1. Happy?

        • KayDeeBeau

          Still wrong - and still unequal to the challenge - you are so funny (and not too bright) But that's ok - I don't really expect that much from you. You still can't grasp the question or the premise the question illustrates. Makes this whole exercise even more sad and a bigger commentary concerning the state of the education system we have.

          Let me type slower ....I have a bucket of 600 trillion pieces of confetti equally divided between the colors red, white and blue...How long and how many attempts will it take for a dump of my bucket of confetti to fall into the shape of the US Flag?
          Try thinking first and then thinking more and thinking more still concerning the answer
          I think we both know what you realize.........

        • You have a short memory

          I gave my answer in binary. A very tiny possibility does not factor in when you are in a binary world, it either can happen or it can't. It can. Answer = 1.

        • Randy Renu

          But not successfully.

        • You have a short memory

          I guess Mathematics is one of the "Sciences", it's no surprise you can't grasp it. Your culture wants you to remain ignorant.

        • Randy Renu

          OK. Good.

          Now, why is Evolution a science and not a religion?

        • EddieBop

          Sorry, but there's nothing scientific in your "red, white, and blue confetti" analogy...unless, of course, the confetti was first dipped in mercury. And unless you can show that your "confetti" contains DNA, you're in the wrong dimension. It's your mind that's closed, not mine. No more replies from me.

        • KayDeeBeau

          So you are admitting you are that dense?

          So if the complex nature of the human genome happened by a random chance. I can then believe it should be possible to recreate that random chance to end up with a flag out of a bucket of confetti.

          Then you should be able to prove your version of the origin of man as a random happenstance of an alignment of molecules as true by repeating it as another random alignment of events by determining how long and how many times it will take for my bucket of red, white and blue confetti to be dumped out and randomly over time become the US flag.

          It really is that simple....... And therein lies the Creator... since if you really try to figure out how the flag could happen at random (just as you suppose man came about at random) you will find that it can't really happen without a Divine Creator

        • Shermer

          Your confetti to flag scenario is actually much more likely than you think, if we compare it to the way evolution actually works.

          Evolution allows those organisms most well adapted to their environment to survive longer and produce more offspring. It doesn't just choose one random result from a thousand attempts.

          Now, if we dump your bucket of confetti, then find any red, white or blue pieces that have fallen it the correct spot, and glue those down, we can gather up the rest and dump those again. Glue down the ones that have fallen just right, and so on. Soon enough we have the flag.

          Of course, evolution doesn't have any specific target other than survival, so we aren't aiming at a predefined result like your flag, but it's a pretty close analogy.

        • You have a short memory

          I'm sure KayDee believes not only that man walked the earth with dinosaurs, but also with dragons, unicorns, golems, griffins, giants, and talking snakes. Back then, men could live to be 900 years old, rip a lion in two, and outrun a chariot. We must have de-volved since then.

        • KayDeeBeau

          Perhaps you should learn the concept of dedective reasoning. Again, I ask - how did you deduce your conclusion from what I asked?
          I notice rather than answering my question, you feebily attempt to distract from the original - and might I add - miserably
          So tell me please in your oh so enlightened intelligence - here comes the math - I have 600 trillion pieces of confetti - equally distributed into 3 colors - red, white and blue, what is the mathematical possibiliy that dumping that confetti will produce an image of the US Flag - sorry if this exercise is too advanced for you - here is another hint - the more you avoid the answer - the more you highlight your lazy ignorance.
          See the real issue is - you make blanket assertions that do not stand up to scientific or mathematical tests (mostly because you lack the math & science skills to calculate the answer).
          And yet - herein is the glory (to God the author of science and math) by even attempting to calculate the problem I have laid before you - I highlight His infinite Glory -because you can't come up with the answer but He did........

        • You have a short memory

          I am not a mathematician, and even if I were, calculating the answer to your question would not satisfy you anyway. While I am working that out, can you tell me how many stars there are? (show your work.)

        • KayDeeBeau

          And that matters to me or my beliefs how? I know that the stars are named by my Creator just as He knows the number of hairs on my head. I am not the one who has a problem with God and His creation. If I could tell you the number of stars in the universe would that sway your view?
          Of course not. I do not have to convince you. I am only required to tell you about God Almighty. I am only required to introduce you - what you do after that is up to you.
          While I will pray that you will have a realization as to Who He is and what He did for you, what you do with that knowledge is up to you.
          I grieve over your decision and hope that you choose wisely, but the Truth is, I can't make your choice, And this may come as a shock - but my work is done.......
          You want to deny God - I am sad for you - but that is your choice. If I am right - you lose...if you are right - oh well. I'll take my chances. What about you? Do you feel lucky?

        • You have a short memory

          I don't believe in luck. Nothing SUPER-natural, PARA-normal, EXTRA-sensory or META-physical. I live in the real world.

        • Paul Zhaurov

          As the time interval approaches infinity, the odds of the confetti forming a flag approach infinity.

        • Screeminmeeme

          EddieBop...There are river in Glen Rose, which man's footprints exist along side of dinosaur tracks.

        • Randy Renu

          You can't have a protein without the amino acids in the right quantity, quality and position.....period.

          DNA is THE example that amino acids could not and did not magically arrange themselves to form a protein. It is a mathematical impossibility!!

          I won't even discuss RNA because that is really the missile that will sink your ship.

          Chew on this:

          John Eccles, winner of the Nobel Prize and one of the foremost brain
          scientists in this century speaks of one chance in 1010,000 as being
          "infinitely improbable.....

          Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have estimated the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000.34.

          Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist,calculated the odds of a single bacterium emerging from the basic building blocks necessary were 1 chance in

          Dr. David J. Rodabough, Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, estimated the more realistic chance that life would spontaneously generate (even on 1023 planets) as only one chance in 102,999,940.21.

          Walter L. Bradley and Charles Thaxton, point out that the probability of
          assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is
          approximately one chance in 4.9 X 10191.16.

          Harold F. Blum, writing in Time’s Arrow and Evolution, wrote that, "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.".

          David J. Rodabaugh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University
          of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, shows the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations "is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility" — "the chance that it could have happened anywhere in the universe,is less than 1 [chance] in 102,999,942."7

          Moshe Trop, Ph.D., with the Department of Life Sciences, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, concludes,"All calculations made of the probability [that life could evolve by chance, lead to the conclusion that] there could have been no possibility of the random appearance of life....(NOTE - All evidence cited orginates from the science community).

          Evolution is a religion. NOT a science.

        • EddieBop

          I'm guessing that you're getting your "quotes" and other attributed "comments" from the people at the Creation Institute. Unfortunately, in an effort to validate their outrageous and completely unscientific claims, they offer invented quotes and dishonest attribution. Carl Sagan was an absolutist about evolution, and John Eccles never wrote anything that doubted evolution. The Creation Institute's website claims otherwise, but those claims are as dishonest as their fundamental position on ceationism. And, as I said to KayDeeBeau, this will be my final reply to you. Believe what you's a free country.

        • Randy Renu

          Good guess.....wrong conclusion.

          Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have estimated the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000.34. (I don't see anything here that would make me conclude he did not believe in evolution).

          Let's stick with the subject.

          Prove to me that Evolution is a scientific fact and not a faith based religion.

        • KayDeeBeau

          Actually my assertions come rom my own mind and my own ability to think and reason sorry if you can't keep up and can't comprehend a person being able to think and reason independently with out benefit of talking points or borrowing from others, I have never even heard of the Creation Institute. So yet again you lose in your "deductions"
          I also notice that rather than answering me - you still instist upon distraction and avoidance - attempts to belittle and marginalise me.
          I'm not falling for it
          So you are saying that you cannot answer my math challenge and that just by the mere existance of that challenge, you cannot adequately support your original premise? Or the mere thought of the realization of my line of thinking blows your premise to bits? That's what I thought. It works every time.
          If ever an evolutionist can explain my confetti challenge to defend evolution I might be convinced of your position. I hate to tell you though, the mere fact that you cannot (nor can any one else ) answer the confetti challenge negates the evolutionist position on its face everytime. And deep down you know it too.
          I am good with that - you can spend countless hours thinking about it. With an open mind you will arrive at the Truth
          Again I am only required to tell you - I am not required to convince you and thanks for playing....

        • EddieBop

          Okay, this will definitely be my last to you. If and when you can demonstrate that your confetti has biological elements, you'll have a point. But you can't, so you won't. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Poor little guy. More avoidance mechanism at play.

        • You have a short memory

          It's hard to tell when you are joking. You are the Carrot Top of this blog. But with the racist picture at the end of your post, you are about as funny as Michael Richards.

        • Randy Renu

          It's not about's about evolution. Or are you now saying evolution did not happen?

          Once again, trying to change the subject to something you feel comfortable in discussing.

        • jong

          Truth hurts doesnt it, It seems that you dont like logic at all. Most crime is committed by blacks against blacks. In the 80% in Philly I believe.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Ahh...Now there ya go again.... ...being all rational and coherent in actually providing compelling statistical probabilities to support your assertions..... which caused poor little EddieBop to experience a huge brain fart resulting in cognition-interruptus.

        • Randy Renu

          Flew off like a ruptured duck. Has not been back all day.

          All I do is write for a living, so I hang around this site and see how many waves I can entrainment until the weather clears up and I can ride the Harley.

        • You have a short memory

          So you admit to being a troll. Stir it up, Randy. See how many waves you can make.

        • Paul Zhaurov


        • Randy Renu

          WATCH MY LIPS:

          Are you kidding? Ever heard of the BIG BANG THEORY!! It is absolutely an argument for where life began....and what's another name for Big Bang?? Evolution.

          One of the many aspects and theories of evolution is animal adaptation. So what's your point?

        • jong

          That given logic is incorrect. It was effected in that it came from no where. Silly little putz. Then given the accuracy of the Bible in the events that we uncover every single day you would be an idiot to believe any other way than that there is GOD.

        • Screeminmeeme

          EddieBop....Avoidance mechanism in side-stepping the question. You lose.

        • Randy Renu

          Game, set, match.

        • jong

          Actually you are in denial. Your science can not explain many things that can be explained by GOD.

        • /.murphy

          It may seem "true" and "logical" to you, but it isn't science. And your logic is circular, anyway. You ask him to identify information that does not have an intelligent source. If you already believe that there is a Supreme Being guiding the universe, then by definition, all information in the universe must come from what you declared to be an intelligent source. It's not a testable proposition.

        • jong

          Sure it is if you except the premise. Go back to school.

        • Paul Zhaurov

          Normally I don't cite the huffington post, but here is an article you should read. You're only saying that DNA is "proof of an intelligent designer (ie: your Christian GOD)" because you are uneducated on the matter. You're a layman who has only read some opinions. You aren't a geneticist, or a scientist. You have no idea, the actual nuances of the science of evolution. Nor do you know what has been proven, and what hasn't. You're like a person who knows nothing about airplanes, arguing that aeronautics engineers are stupid for not building hot air balloons for travel. So, stop arguing against it.

        • Randy Renu

          Now let's talk about airplanes and engineering.

          FLASH: You're not a scientist, teacher or from what I can tell, a very good writer.

          Cut the BS Captain Retard. Prove to us that Evolution is a science and not a philosophy...just one aspect as proven to be factual using the scientific method. "UH, wats dat?"

        • SolontheWise

          I am a scientist and a truth-seeker. So tell me, if the encoded information of DNA does not have an intelligent source, what is its source and how did it come into being? What law is it following?

          This is what you call "science": There is no Creator/Designer (by atheists' definition); therefore chance human worm, rat, and reptile descent must be true. It's called a priori Dark Age pseudo-science. Facts don't matter. Name a particular species and the species into which it allegedly evolved with evidence. You can't do it. Never anything specific; i. e.; scientific. You cannot answer my above questions, so you attack my character without even knowing me. Creation/Design are always denied, never refuted; evolution is always assumed, never proven.
          Please see

        • jong

          I bow to you. There is NO missing link.

        • Randy Renu

          Well, let's get to the facts.

          First of all, humans also have DNA in common with, pigs, baboon, cow, rats, mouse, chicken, zebra-fish, two species of puffer-fish and yeast.

          Second, in one study they found a 96% similarity to the great apes...not 99%.

          Now, "The Rest Of The Story" That little 4% represents some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome.

          The vast majority of those differences might be biologically significant,but researchers are unable to identify a couple thousand differences that are potentially important to the evolution of the human lineage.

          Whenever anyone tells me, oh, we have such a lot in common with the DNA of a chimp, we must have evolved from them, I point out that the 40 million or so differences is why we could NOT have evolved from a chimp.

          New studies indicate an estimate of human–chimp genome similarity from data provided (but often buried) in published reports, is not more than 81 to 87% similar and quite possibly lower.

          1) Similarity is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation).

          2) Humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would
          expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals,
          chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Bacteria share 40% of our DNA.....Bananas share 55%.....Insects 60% ...and reptiles 75%.

          To quote a friend....So what?

        • Randy Renu

          Yep. Look for "So What" in my earlier post. On special, today only.

        • jong

          Sorry try a new one. Most animals share similar DNA/RNA guess again.

      • Screeminmeeme

        Good question.

    • jong

      Lets see. GOD said a word and it was. BIG BANG

    • jong

      Then explain the Big Bang

  • DWinch

    No God, no responsibility or accountability. That is exactly the way worldly people want it.
    You can believe in anything you want until the day you die, after that you are stuck with your beliefs.

    Poor Mr. Hawking is a fool, leading others down the same dead end.

    • Felina Flash

      I am a life long atheist and I can tell you that I have comparable and in most cases a much higher set of moral standards, sense of decency and fair play than most of religious people I have met in my life. I have no problem with Christians. I recognize that for most it is a positive force in their lives and if it works for them, it's fine with me. I do have a huge problem with the pond scum from the Islamic world though.

      • explain yourself

        Christians have no problem placing you in the same exact category as Islam.

        • jong

          Speaking of course as a muslim I imagine.

        • Randy Renu


      • Randy Renu

        You understand being an atheist, the comment you made about your morals, decency, fair play is meaningless. From "our" point of view, you're a world view.

        The reason we have moral laws and standards is because of the belief in God and His word.

        I'm not sure what you're basing these higher sets of standards on. Your own defined standards? Heavens Gate, Jim Jones, the next door neighbor? Who are these religious people you refer too? Muslim? Jehovah Witness?

        Do you know what a Christian is? Now days that is a generic word. Much like Kleenex.

        Christians set their standards with the person that wrote the book on standards; yes we may falter, but unlike you, we are forgiven.

        Some confuse Christianity with religion. Christianity is the association with Jesus Christ and belief in His written word, the Bible. Period.

      • jong

        That is because one day we hope that you will come to Christ through the Holy Spirit. Muslims will drag you in and give you roughly two choices. One execution, Two pay a tax and live as a third class citizen.

  • John F Remillard

    Too many humans are complacent (over confident), ignorant (unaware), numb (do not care), self-obsessive (limited), dumb (unable_to_learn_or_comprehend), or hedonistic (power hungry) to be aware of the true depth and extent of our extremely precarious vulnerability.

    It is silly (ridiculous) for anyone to claim we no much about nature or the universe. Our senses are limited to thermalelectromechanicaltemporal energies & objects & motions; and we are not sure those are the only energies & objects & motions in the universe!

    I recommend we spend our precious time & money on building devices, objects, machines, vehicles, tools, habitats, synthetic_body_parts, and socioeconomicpolitical_systems that address the known extremely dangerous threats to life on this planet Earth.

  • VanceJ

    Let them believe what they want, they will have joy with Satan when they die.

  • Theodore Holden

    There is a much better assessment of human origins available now:

  • Randy Renu

    The best article I have read to date is: "The Scientific Case Against Evolution" by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. See link to article in my next post.

    Dr. Morris discusses why it is scientifically impossible for evolution to have ever happened. He does not promote creationism or God....just science, and he really "burns" the evolutionary theory.

    I've copied and e-mailed his paper a number of times, and most recently gave a copy to my 13 year old who is being taught all about the evolution FACT. I told him to have his science teacher read the paper and then offer to discuss each point with the entire class. Never happen, but nothing to loose.

    It requires more faith to believe in evolution then creation. A faith based philosophy is a religion; therefore, evolution must be a religion, so why is it being taught in public schools?

    Too bad Hawking would not allow for, "The Rest of the Story"

    • Randy Renu
    • KayDeeBeau

      I also suggest "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest" by Frank Turek

    • /.murphy

      Your brilliant Henry Morris also wrote this:

      "The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be 'servants of servants,' that is 'servants extraordinary!' Although only Canaan is mentioned specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham's family through Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham's descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and black--essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity...

      ...Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites."

      (Source: Henry M. Morris The Beginning of the World, 2nd ed., 1991, pp. 147-8. Emphasis added.)

      This is why no one in the global community of scientists takes Morris or any of his arguments seriously. Take care not to pollute your minds.

      Go ahead and call me names now.... 😉

      • Randy Renu

        What name would like to be called? I'll give you the choice, and "smart" is not one of them.

        Now a word from our sponsor:

        "So What" now comes in a new larger size. Yes, for those really hard to remove underwear stains, drive way oil stains or that irritating letter or comment you received, "So What", now formulated with Bio-Stop (BS), guarantees that with only one application, irritating clothing stains and liberal diatribe can be instantly removed.

        "So What" is also FDA approved for use as a mouth wash and as a treatment for hemorrhoids and painful rectal itch.

        So remember, don't get upset over the little things. The next time you have an irritating rectal itch, unwanted stain, or just want to remove the BS comments from narcissistic, self-serving liberals, just grab the spray bottle, and say, "So What"

        "So What". The First Name in Last Words". (Patent pending)

        Ask about our special offer: Buy one bottle of "So What" and get a free bottle of Wrinkle Remover.

        (So What is manufactured by NutriCology, makers of Wrinkle Remover. Individual results may vary, not available in all states, adult supervision recommended. Not recommended for liberal use).

        • /.murphy

          Funny thing about independently verifiable facts... None of your lengthy, time-wasting nonsense, or, for that matter, any personal attack on me whatsoever, changes anything.

        • Randy Renu

          You can't change ones diapers until they can't live with the smell anymore.

          Buddy, you are delusional and in denial.

          You can't back your evolutionary religion with any scientific facts. All you have is faith...just like the creationist.

          The scientific argument against evolution is it's own worst enemy.

          With your lack of science background and understanding, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend the argument. But why don't you read it anyway and then we'll discuss each point...unless of course you don't have the scientific information to support your position and I"m supposed to just "take your word."

          Albert Einstein was not a Christian or even a theist (one who believes in a personal God), probably because he failed to understand why evil existed.

          These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether.

          If you are an agnostic or atheist, try to recognize that Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the
          existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding
          of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for
          the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

        • /.murphy

          I wasn't talking about evolution... I was merely addressing what the science of mathematics would have to say about the confetti problem that was posed. Sorry to see you were led so far astray by your own personal agenda.

        • Randy Renu

          Gee. Sorry. I thought in all these posts we were discussing evolution and probability.

          Of course you were taking about evolution. That's why you're posting on this topic. Are you telling me your post commenting on the confetti issue has NOTHING to do with the topic of discussion?

          You don't read your posts do you? Do you hear the fog horn in the background?

          You're getting close to shore....change direction fast.

        • Paul Zhaurov

          Oh okay, so evolution apparently has no empirical evidence, but the bible does, right? So, a person that at least attempts to base their world view on empirical, rational ideas, supported by experimentation and logic, is stupid, because they may be wrong. Yet, the person accusing them of being stupid, is some sort of pope-of-the-earth intellectual, because they blindly accept an ideology with ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. I am trying to understand how this works. How can you, as a Christian (or the author of this article, for that matter) reconcile your assault on scientific ideas (Which, btw, are not even trying to explain the origin of life, or our universe, but are simply describing a particular biological mechanism), with your belief in a magic man in the sky, based on nothing more than conjecture and and hand-waving.

          It doesn't matter how many things your idea of God explains. It has no proof, no tangible use to anyone alive today (except perhaps the bureaucrats and clergy running the institution peddling this, who gain money and power from it, as well as the people selling products based around peddling it), and is therefore useless. Science is not concerned with abstract, meaningless ideologies that cannot be proven, observed, measured, or otherwise discovered to be true/false in any way. It is concerned with factual, logical observation of the world. Science is about discovering the cause and effect relationships governing our universe, so that we may exploit them to our advantage. It is also concerned with finding out where we came from, and the nature of our existence, but as you can see these are very difficult questions.

          The mistake I see religious types make, is they assume that, because they have AN answer, that it is THE answer, or that it is even worth a damn.

          Scientists often get it wrong, too. So what? We should stop pursuing science, and teaching children (who will eventually become scientists and engineers) our current, most up-to-date ideas? It doesn't matter if evolution turns out to be wrong some day (Not that it is likely to, since it is CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU CLAIM, seen as a FACT, by reputable scientists). Teaching children about evolution, doesn't mean it's the truth. All it means, is that we are teaching them what we know so far. From there, it's up to those children what they do with that knowledge. They can decide to become scientists, and do work to advance our understanding (and, if they find compelling evidence that a spaghetti monster created the universe, then that will become the new idea taught to future generations), or they can simply decide to become poets or musicians. It doesn't matter. What matters, is the proof.

          Religion has no proof. Science is all about the proof. Science also has tangible results to back it up. By pursuing science, even though we stumble and get things wrong frequently (which is all part of the growth process, as anyone who ever learns to do ANYTHING in life, realizes that, to become a master, you must first make many mistakes; nothing wrong with that), we are advancing ourselves, our society, and our understanding of the world.

          There is no denying how far we have come the past several thousand years, and that was NOT a product of priests in robes, banging rocks together proclaiming that they have all the answers. It wasn't priests that put us on the moon; it was educated scientists and engineers.

          And you know what? I'll take my rational, airplane-producing science, over your stupid book of fiction any day. I don't care about the bible, because as far as I KNOW, none of it's claims are substantiated. Nor are they particularly interesting to me either. I like to read UFO blogs and stuff, because it entertains me, and gets me thinking about space (even if I don't take it seriously). However, I don't like ideologies that proclaim things like Pork to be bad (not saying Christianity does, referring to religion in general here), or set strict, narrow-minded limits on sexuality, based on "God said it's bad" over rational reasoning.

          You know what else? A person that swallows the God-idea is intellectually lazy. You'd rather have all the answers handed to you, regardless of evidence, than to accept WE DON'T KNOW, and then proceed from there. Not surprisingly, your entire world view is built on a foundation of hearsay. A building constructed atop a foundation of sand, is not likely to stand very long.

        • Randy Renu

          WHAT A BUNCH OF BABBLE and a waste of time; but it is your time and I can tell you love to see yourself in publication. Keep your day job.

          Typical liberal; complete avoidance of the subject, off on a tangent, write, write, write, blame, blame, blame. See Dick run. Run Dick run. See Jane run. Run Jane run. You don't think anyone is reading reading your crap, do you?

          Show me ONE aspect of the evolutionary theory that is a proven scientific FACT, in
          25 words or less.

        • jong

          But, of course most of your facts are other peoples toilet paper.

        • jong

          Tell you what you hold him still and I will put as much as I can in a turkey baster and give it a enema

        • Randy Renu

          They are not big fans of turkey basters.

          A 7 inch long, 3 inch diameter plastic pipe with a funnel is more to their liking.

        • jong

          You have not seen my turkey baster. Very old and made of metal

        • Randy Renu

          HA HO HO baste BIG turkeys. And birds too.

        • jong

          Oh yea. That thing is big enough to bast either a old fashion down on the farm turkey or a large ostrich.

      • nickRay

        "Scuse my French murphy but you are one big................................well informed, truth telling son or daughter of a gun. Give 'em heck.

        • Randy Renu

          Excusez mon français, mais vous êtes un fils sourd-muet de pute.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Yes he is. LOL.

    • nickRay

      Henry Morris??? You must be joking. A: The guy is a certifiable crackpot who was laughed out of the teaching profession for his wackadoodle creationist theories and the violence he had to do to science to argue them; B: he was a hydraulics engineer and apparently a good one but the field is utterly unrelated to the biological sciences and he had no qualifications at all to write on the subject. He certainly did no serious academic work on the topic, as the intellectual and factual holes driven through The Scientific Case Against Evolution by the scientific community demonstrates. (Remember, this guy thought the world was 6000 years old.) And finally, he knowingly misrepresented the work of others in, among other places, your "best article" - going so far as to alter quotes from reputable scientists to make them fit his absurd views. That is to say...he lied. Constantly. I hate to bust your Biblical balloon but if Morris is the best you got you got nuthin' at all.

      • Randy Renu

        OK. Good.

        I could give you a number of scientific reasons why evolution is not possible regardless of your opinion of Dr. Morris.

        Of course he is not the issue, only that he makes the evolution theory appear more as a religion then science.

        • nickRay

          Sorry pal. We got the dinosauer fossils. We win.

        • Randy Renu

          Nice job. So what does that prove? That dinosaurs once roamed the earth. I agree.

          How does that prove evolution happened. Take another aspirin and call me in the morning.

          When are you going to stop the Cluster#### and show us the scientific facts that PROVE evolution is based on science and not a philosophy.

          You've been running around in circles for a couple of days cutting and pasting and avoiding the question.

          We're all waiting to read your argument.

        • nickRay

          what's the point you're too enamored of your bronze Age carpenter Jesus, and too poorly schooled I actually think, toaccept it. But just in case I'm wroing, here some is. Its empirical, reproducible, observed behavior - everything every single word you've posted on this thread is not. Stick to your Bible and your delusions Randy. I think its all you can handle:

      • Randy Renu

        The Bible says there was a global flood around 4500 years ago. Shem, Ham, and Japheth populated the whole world according to Genesis 10:1-32.

        Do the 2007 census results add up?

        1) 1988 the Science Journal stated that "mitochondrial eve" must have been around 6000 years ago.

        2) 1995 US News and Report said that "genetic Adam" was found and fits with the 1988 report.

        3) 2004 Nature Magazine (volume 431) stated that our recent ancestry only goes back a few thousand years.

        4) 2006 the San Antonio XP news ran a science report stating that our common ancestry is within 5-7k years.

        The evolutionists would have us believe that man came around 500k years ago or more. This does that hold up when we have been keeping census for over 2000 years,

        Here is the math from the internationally accepted population ratios found in the Kilgore College textbook, and a calculator has no predetermination. (p=poe#)

        @500k years-2.45x10 to the 990th power, at a .456% growth rate, we would have more people on the earth than the known number of electrons in the entire universe.

        @100k years-5.38x10 to the 43rd power, at a .1% growth rate, we would be tilling human bones just to make a garden at our home.

        @25k years-1.44x10 to the 11th power, at a .1% growth rate.. although the
        lowest seems to be around .43%, this would give us 22 times the current population.

        @4500 years-6.5x10 to the 9th power, at a .456% growth rate would leave us at 6.5 billion people in the world. Hey, whaddayaknow! that is exactly right.

        And furthermore.. 6.5 billion people could fit in a 30 mile area with a 3 foot square for each individual. (19.5 billion square ft @ 3square ft = (pi)r2)

        • Screeminmeeme

          I just love them numbers.

        • nickRay

          I'm afraid everything you know is a silly Biblical fantasy cooked up by religious nuts like Morris: and and and a hilarious demolition of all those numbers you posted from a Texas community college - enjoy.

        • Randy Renu

          NOT A Community College in Texas???? They did not believe the numbers??? They know cattle.

          Amazing that someone comes up with a theory of population growth based on the evolutionary "FACTS" and you don't believe it. How narrow minded of you.

          What gives? You'll believe that everything came from nothing, but can't accept the mathematical probability that the population numbers don't match up.

          Are you telling me the theory of population growth probability is wrong, and wrong because you cut and paste some links? It's as valid as your belief in the fairytale of evolution...which you have proposed as a fact and not a fantasy.

          You can't prove your belief is a science and not a philosophy (religion) based on faith.

        • nickRay

          because its bogus numbers based on arbitrary and unsupported assumptions and no there is no field of mathematics (or any other field except maybe Kilgore's cow pasture)called population growth probability theory. There's an entire area of scholarship devoted to probability but whoever calculated that silly projection of humanity since the alleged Flood wasn't using it. If you had bothered to actually open the links you try to dismiss as cut and paste (can your computer open hyperlinks or was it home-schooled?)you'd find one that tears the lungs out of Kilgore's poor Biblical arithmetician and goes on to apply his or her calculations to other seminal Biblical events using the same time frame. Hilarious.

        • Randy Renu

          OH EXCUSE ME!!

          So the ideas and numbers that come from those supporting the theory of evolution are all correct and we should believe them because....why??

          You just won't answer the question will you?

        • jong

          I go a bit further back.. Flood happening (world wide) at about 11,000-13,000 years ago. According to some very good geologists. Adam and his bunch around for about three to five thousand years due to most probably difference in atmosphere that was also recently confirmed that happened with the flood. So man has been around stretching it perhaps a little for about 14,000-25,000 years which actually fits all other knowledge that we have. I could be wrong I was not there at the beginning

      • Randy Renu

        Are you telling me the facts he discusses in the article are wrong?

        If Hawkins wrote it, would the facts be wrong. NO!

        Even you could have done the research and wrote the article....doesn't mean the content is any less true. Well, perhaps if you wrote it because you would not address the facts; it would be an article on the evolution of the Chevrolet and not human evolution.

        Hey, don't discuss the scientific facts I could care less. Say hi to Santa Clause for me.

        • nickRay

          I'm telling you there aren't any facts in the book at all. he made all that nonsense up and lied about real scientists' work to buttress his fact-free case.

        • Randy Renu


          You're delusional.

        • nickRay

          Just because you can't rebut the mountain of science debunking your silly superstitions? I think not. The dictionary, btw, makes a very good case that one of us is indeed delusional, but it ain't moi: " Delusional: adjective: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." I've left off that part of the definition about it being a sign of mental illness (to spare you the obvious).

        • Randy Renu

          You're right. If it's in the dictionary it must be true. But so what....again, not the subject. Now you're writing about delusion. Can't stick to the subject can you John?

          WATCH MY LIPS: There is no science, and what science there is, is junk science based on someones imagination. Ever heard of Steven Spielberg and Tom Clancy?

          The theory of evolution is a great topic for creative's fiction. Starwars, Avatar, District 9. You'll believe anything....but if it's in the dictionary it must be true. HA. What a joke.

        • nickRay

          I see part of the problem is your difficulty with reading. You missed this I know but the dictionary definition I supplied had nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with your misapplication of the word delusion. Everything I've seen from you subsequently reinforces the inescapable facts that a; you don't and don't want to understand science and b; you are very deluded and determined to stay that way.

        • Randy Renu

          Everything you write has nothing to do with proving your point.

          WHERE'S THE BEEF?!

          Keep up the good work.

  • KayDeeBeau

    Well when you remove man's inherent ability to chose - to overcome his most basic urges, decide that man is no different than other animals - we are surprised that man acts or behaves no better than the animals?
    I am a higher being (because Jehovah made me to be so). I have all kinds of urges (animalistic instincts) that I overcome everyday to act like a civilized human.
    I have the urge to relieve myself, instead of dropping into a squat in the middle of the street, I choose to close the door to my bathroom.
    I have sexual urges, instead of dropping into the position that a dog would assume, I choose to go behind the closed door of my bedroom (hint to you homos)
    I have the urge to ram my car into those cars with Obama 2012 stickers on them, I choose to behave in a civilized manner and just mouth IDIOT to the driver as I go past
    I get hungry. I choose to draw up a chair, after having gone to the store for my food, cook it and set the table rather than chow down on road kill on the side of the road (as animals do)
    I am a divinley infused creation of the Great I Am. I am higher than the angels - not just a fluke of DNA or chance of evolution above my dog.
    If you would rather think of yourself otherwise - hold on while I get the leash

    • DWinch

      Just make sure you have the proper license for that mutt!
      And make sure he's house broke.

      • KayDeeBeau

        In my state - no license is required - just a rabies tag

    • Paul Zhaurov

      Excellent logic. You can control your behavior. That makes you a divine being. That makes you "special." No, you're able to do those things, because evolutionary processes have led you to have a larger brain than all the other animals. To put it in universal perspective, though: you're a tiny amoeba on a tiny rock floating through an unimaginably vast emptiness. Perhaps the only thing higher than the Angels, is your ego. 😀

    • jong

      You also better get some insurance for this mutt. He is likely to bite some one. And clearly you can see that he has rabies or something else most people have no desire to get.

  • thisoldspouse

    People used to flock by the thousands to hear men of God like Whitefield, Wesley and Spurgeon. Now, the new "religion" of militant atheism attracts similar crowds.

  • Jack Parker

    Hawking presented a logical, well thought out description of the evolution of life on earth. Anti evolutionists base their arguments on "faith" and scripture neither of which can pass the simplest objective test. In fact, there is absolutely NO objective evidence for the existence of any god and the bible is nothing more than a book of myths, allegories, superstitions, contradictions, vagueness and falsehoods. Actually, the assumption of the existence of god leads to innumerable contradictions.
    Hence by the logical principle of "reductio ad absurdum", the assumption is proven false and god does NOT and CANNOT exist.

    • KayDeeBeau

      Really ? Perhaps you should read down the thread and then offer your "brilliance"...

    • Randy Renu

      Well, the Bible pretty much has that subject covered: "Only a fool would believe there is no God.."

      Best of eternity to you and yours.

  • Randy Renu

    You won't believe this, but I used to do research in Pharmaceuticals, and to this day I still have in my home office the Biochemical Pathways by Gerhard Michal and Roche Science. I keep it as a reminder of why it would be impossible for evolution to have EVER taken place.

    For those of you who believe in evolution, I'd like to take a close look at the chart and then try to convince yourself that all the metabolic pathways which are a series of chemical reactions occurring within a cell, accidentally and without any design fell into place and worked perfectly.

    Pictured is about 1/3 of the chart.

    • Paul Zhaurov

      The fact you ask this question, shows you don't understand evolution.

      Evolution operates much faster, the more mutations you have occurring. Evolution in a highly evolved mammal, such as a human being, is slow. Our population is slow, and our rate of reproduction is slow. Evolution in a single celled organism, which reproduces extremely fast, and of which there are countless trillions in just a small space (and who knows how many in the entire world) is very quick, relatively speaking. Using complexity, which is difficult for you to comprehend, to proclaim "see! Evolution can't possibly exist; it must be God!" is a logical fallacy. What makes you think you know, what is normal and what is not? What is complex, and what is not? Hence, why there are so many unanswered questions in science.

      • Randy Renu

        You're kidding?? Who doesn't understand evolution??

        Let's see if I can enlighten you. You're being told a scientific lie....Evolution can only be a religion.

        Second, it's NOT about me and what I know. It's about what science knows and the lie you're being told. Let's stick with the subject and keep emotion out of it. Let's not discuss creation or God...let's stick with science instead.

        Mutations (chromosomal aberrations) are not a POSITIVE they are a NEGATIVE! Deformities and weakness that usually kill off the host and are not transferred to the next generation.

        You say it's "slow?" Good. Show me the thousands if not millions of transitional stages of animals that would support this. Things remain the same.

        All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of
        digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors; even DNA evidence does not help because it contradicts the fossil evidence.

        For example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats,
        but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution,
        and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often,
        but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

        Fact: Out of the billions of known fossils, not one includes a single unequivocal
        transitional form with transitional structures in the process of
        evolving. Animals are found in complete form with few if any transitional stages. Yes, single-cell organisms reproduce what's your point?

        You stated, "Using complexity?" What is that and what does it have to do with evolution? Evolution is a religion and NOT a science, and I can prove it. All you have to go on is FAITH...the faith that what the "experts" are telling you is a FACT.

        Having a princess kiss a frog and it turns into a human prince is called a fairytale; if it's taught in school it's called evolution. Go figure.

        Show me just ONE aspect of the evolution theory that has ever been scientifically PROVEN to be a fact. JUST ONE!

        Then, after you've done that, let's discuss each point of scientific FACTS that are written in the following paper (see link). By the way, creation is not part of this discussion.....only scientific FACT.

        I will assume you'll not want to discuss the scientific facts, so I won't expect a response.

        Let me leave you with this:
        The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in
        either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of
        evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of
        nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the
        second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real
        world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and
        decreased complexity.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Randy....I've always thought the the 2nd Law was one of the best arguments against evolution (as is the fossil record) and have seen a lot of circumnavigational arguing by the zombie-evolutionists, but few will take on the challenge of trying to directly refute it. (because they KNOW its impossible).

        • Randy Renu

          You're absolutely right!

          Evolutionist, the smart ones, gave up public debate of the "science" behind their theory long ago. They go down in flames when asked to explain why major physical laws don't apply to the evolutionary theory.

          Notice how they attempt to switch the subject. The supporters of evolution more often then not, go after the authors against evolution rather then the content they's much safer and less confrontational.

          Hawking presented a logical argument based on a false premise. His entire belief is based on his faith and creative imagination....just like a fairytale.

        • jong

          If you look at most of his arguments even out side evolution they are highly flawed. Smart man stupid ideas

      • jong

        However you miss some facts. Mutations are usually within a generation or two equal across the board. With humans they are not. And talking of fallacies I imagine you think that man came from apes(LOL)

  • Felina Flash

    When I look south of the border I see a hell of a lot of unevolved pond scum, primarily in DC and in many blue states. Sadly, the pond scum is running that country.

  • Chet

    Think this fool will find comfort in his evolutionary thought process as the death rattle in his throat begins to vibrate its last? And as it is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgement -Hebrews 9:27.

  • Dale Netherton

    Consider the number of people and dollars spent to hear ancient babble from people who weren't even aware of the most fundamental astronomical facts like the planets revolving around the sun.

  • fliteking

    Article: "People Pay Big Money to be told They’re Evolved Pond Scum"

    Well, Liberals ARE Pond Scum.

  • ICorps

    DeMar's deep faith and religious fervor are understandable, even admirable, but they do get in the way of rational thought ("rational" meaning reasoning logically without emotionalism).

    DeMar claims that there is no empirical evidence (that is, evidence based on observation and experiment) to demonstrate how inanimate matter came into existence, how it evolved into highly complex organisms, where it got its organized ("organizational"?) information to give it structure, and how it progressed through "millions, possibly billions" of evolutionary steps.

    First, although it clashes with faith (meaning it will be reflexively dismissed), there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. Observations can always be attributed to other causes, and experiment is impossible.

    Second, there is a long-established maxim in science that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"; in other words, just because scientists have not yet indisputably traced the transition from inanimate to animate does not mean that that transition did not occur.

    I could cite various counterpositions to DeMar's claims, but it is self-defeating to overextend a comment. However, in regard to DeMar's statement that "Nature isn't a person, a being," I feel I should remark on writer DeMar's apparent lack of familiarity with a well-known figure of speech called "personification," in which an idea, quality, or thing is represented as a person.


    When meet someone who wants to convince me "the fact of evolution," i usually ask them "Which major evolutionary theory do you believe? Gradualism or punctuated equilibrium?"

    Each one contradicts the other, yet there are those who believe one over the other.

  • Gary Calhoun

    Gary DeMar must LIKE PROVING he IS Delusional, PSYCHOTIC!!!

  • DandBA

    Problem with Hawking's theory is that those who adhere to his theory never seem to get beyond the life they lived in Pond Scum! Otherwise it is a great theory. Uh huh, yeah, okay.