Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)


One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated. The following are ten of the most groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable.

10. The Discovery of Vulcan

Vulcan was a planet that nineteenth century scientists believed to exist somewhere between Mercury and the Sun. The mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier first proposed its existence after he and many other scientists were unable to explain certain peculiarities about Mercury’s orbit. Scientists like Le Verrier argued that this had to be caused by some object, like a small planet or moon, acting as a gravitational force. La Verrier called his hypothetical planet Vulcan, after the Roman god of fire. Soon, amateur astronomers around Europe, eager to be a part of a scientific discovery, contacted Le Verrier and claimed to have witnessed the mysterious planet making its transit around the Sun. For years afterward, Vulcan sightings continued to pour in from around the globe, and when La Verrier died in 1877, he was still regarded as having discovered a new planet in the solar system.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Without La Verrier acting as a cheerleader for Vulcan’s existence, it suddenly began to be doubted by many notable astronomers. The search was effectively abandoned in 1915, after Einstein’s theory of general relativity helped to explain once and for all why Mercury orbited the Sun in such a strange fashion. But amateur stargazers continued the search, and as recently as 1970 there have been people who have claimed to see a strange object orbiting the sun beyond Mercury. Amusingly, the entire would-be discovery’s greatest legacy today is that it inspired the name of the home planet of the character Spock from Star Trek.

9. Spontaneous Generation

Although it might seem a bit ludicrous today, for thousands of years it was believed that life regularly arose from the elements without first being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction. The main purveyor of the theory was Aristotle, who based his studies on the ideas of thinkers like Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras, all of whom stressed the ways in which life could spontaneously come into being from inanimate matter like slime, mud, and earth when exposed to sunlight. Aristotle based his own ideas on the observation of the ways maggots would seemingly generate out of dead animal carcass, or barnacles would form on the hull of a boat. This theory that life could literally spring from nothing managed to persist for hundreds of years after Aristotle, and was even being proposed by some scientists as recently as the 1700s.

How it was Proven Wrong:

It was only with the adoption of the scientific method that many of the classical theories like spontaneous generation began to be tested. Once they were, they quickly crumbled. For example, famed scientist Louis Pasteur showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope helped to show that these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms.

8. The Expanding Earth

Our modern understanding of the interior and behaviors of the Earth is strongly based around plate tectonics and the concept of subduction. But before this idea was widely accepted in the late 20th century, a good number of scientists subscribed to the much more fantastical theory that the Earth was forever increasing in volume. The expanding Earth hypothesis stated that phenomena like underwater mountain ranges and continental drift could be explained by the fact that the planet was gradually growing larger. As the globe’s size grew, proponents argued, the distances between continents would increase, as would the Earth’s crust, which would have explained the creation of new mountains. The theory has a long and storied past, beginning with Darwin, who briefly tinkered with it before casting it aside, and Nikola Tesla, who compared the process to that of the expansion of a dying star.

How it was Proven Wrong:

The expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly, but it has been widely replaced with the much more sophisticated theory of plate tectonics. While the expanding Earth theory holds that all land masses were once connected, and that oceans and mountains were only created as a result of the planet’s growing volume, plate tectonics explains the same phenomena by way of plates in the lithosphere that move and converge beneath the Earth’s surface.

7. Phlogiston Theory

First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and which makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.”

How it was Proven Wrong:

The more experiments that were performed using the phlogiston model, the more dubious it became as a theory. One of the most significant was that when certain metals were burned, they actually gained weight instead of losing it, as they should have if phlogiston were being released. The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation.

6. The Martian Canals

The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that 19th century scientist mistakenly believed to exist on the red planet. The canals were first “discovered” in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. After other stargazers corroborated his claim, the canals became something of a phenomenon. Scientists drew detailed maps tracing their paths, and soon wild speculation began on their possible origins and use. Perhaps the most absurd theory came from Percival Lowell, a mathematician and astronomer who jumped to the bizarre conclusion that the canals were a sophisticated irrigation system developed by an unknown intelligent species. Lowell’s hypothesis was widely discredited by other scientists, but it was also popularly accepted, and the idea managed to survive in some circles well into the 20th century.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Quite unspectacularly, the Martian canals were only proven to be a myth with the advent of greater telescopes and imaging technology. It turned out that what looked like canals was in fact an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blown across the Martian surface by heavy winds. Several scientists had proposed a similar theory in the early 1900s, but it was only proven correct in the 1960s when the first unmanned spacecraft made flybys over Mars and took pictures of its surface.

5. Luminiferous Aether

The aether, also known as the ether, was a mysterious substance that was long believed to be the means through which light was transmitted through the universe. Philosophers as far back as the Greeks had believed that light required a delivery system, a means through which it became visible, and this idea managed to persist all the way through to the nineteenth century. If correct, the theory would have redefined our entire understanding of physics. Most notably, if the aether were a physical substance that could exist even in a vacuum, then even deep space could be more easily measured and quantified. Experiments often contradicted the theory of the aether, but by the 1700s it had become so widespread that its existence was assumed to be a given. Later, when the idea was abandoned, physicist Albert Michelson referred to luminiferous aether as “one of the grandest generalizations in modern science.”

How it was Proven Wrong:

In traditional scientific fashion, the notion of a luminiferous aether was only gradually phased out as more sophisticated theories came into play. Experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light had long rendered traditional models of the aether outdated, but it was only when Einstein’s special theory of relativity came along and completely reconfigured physics that the idea lost the last of its major adherents. The theory still exists in various forms, though, and many have argued that modern scientists simply use terms like “fields” and “fabric” in place of the more taboo term “aether.”

4. The Blank Slate Theory

One of the oldest and most controversial theories in psychology and philosophy is the theory of the blank slate, or tabula rasa, which argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities. Proponents of the theory, which began with the work of Aristotle and was expressed by everyone from St. Thomas Aquinas to the empiricist philosopher John Locke, insisted that all mental content was the result of experience and education. For these thinkers, nothing was instinct or the result of nature. The idea found its most famous expression in psychology in the ideas of Sigmund Freud, whose theories of the unconscious stressed that the elemental aspects of an individual’s personality were constructed by their earliest childhood experiences.

How it was Proven Wrong:

While there’s little doubt that a person’s experiences and learned behaviors have a huge impact on their disposition, it is also now widely accepted that genes and other family traits inherited from birth, along with certain innate instincts, also play a crucial role. This was only proven after years of study that covered the ways in which similar gestures like smiling and certain features of language could be found throughout the world in radically different cultures. Meanwhile, studies of adopted children and twins raised in separate families have come to similar conclusions about the ways certain traits can exist from birth.

3. Phrenology

Although it is now regarded as nothing more than a pseudoscience, in its day phrenology was one of the most popular and well-studied branches of neuroscience. In short, proponents of phrenology believed that individual character traits, whether intelligence, aggression, or an ear for music, could all be localized to very specific parts of the brain. According to phrenologists, the larger each one of these parts of a person’s brain was, the more likely they were to behave in a certain way. With this in mind, practitioners would often study the size and shape of subjects’ heads in order to determine what kind of personality they might have. Detailed maps of the supposed 27 different areas of the brain were created, and a person who had a particularly large bump on their skull in the area for, say, the sense of colors, would be assumed to have a proclivity for painting.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Even during the heyday of its popularity in the 1800s, phrenology was often derided by mainstream scientists as a form of quackery. But their protests were largely ignored until the 1900s, when modern scientific advances helped to show that personality traits could not be traced to specific portions of the brain, at least in not as precise a way as the proponents of phrenology often claimed. Phrenology still exists today as a fringe science, but its use in the 20th century has become somewhat infamous: it has often been employed as a tool to promote racism, most famously by the Nazis, as well by Belgian colonialists in Rwanda.

2. Einstein’s Static Universe

Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.

How it was Proven Wrong:

The theory of a static universe was problematic from the start. First of all, a finite universe could theoretically become so dense that it would collapse into a giant black hole, a problem Einstein compensated for with his principle of the “cosmological constant.” Still, the final nail in the coffin for the idea was Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift—the way the color of heavenly bodies change as they move away from us—and distance, which showed that the universe was indeed expanding. Einstein would subsequently abandon his model, and would later refer to it as the “biggest blunder” of his career. Still, like all cosmological ideas, the expanding universe is just a theory, and a small group of scientists today still subscribe to the old static model.

1. Fleischmann and Pons’s Cold Fusion

While the conditions required to create nuclear energy usually require extreme temperatures—think of the processes that power the sun—the theory of cold fusion states that such a reaction is possible at room temperature. It’s a deceivingly simple concept, but the implications are spectacular: if a nuclear reaction could occur at room temperature, then an abundance of energy could be created without the dangerous waste that results from nuclear power plants. This groundbreaking theory briefly seemed to have become a reality in 1989, when the electro-chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published experimental results suggesting that they had achieved cold fusion—and the precious “excess energy” it was hoped to produce—in an experiment where an electric current was run through seawater and a metal called Palladium. The response to Pons and Fleischmann’s claims by the media and the scientific community was overwhelming. The experiments were hailed as a turning point in science, and it was briefly believed that with cold fusion energy would be cheap, clean, and abundant.

How it was Proven Wrong:

The fervor over cold fusion died down as soon as other scientists tried to replicate the experiment. Most failed to get any kind of similar results, and after their paper was closely studied, Fleischmann and Pons were accused not only of sloppy, unethical science, but were even said to have stretched the truth of their results. For years after, the idea of cold fusion became synonymous with fringe science. Still, despite the stigma attached to it, many have argued that there was never anything necessarily wrong about cold fusion as a theory. In recent years, scientists have once again started to experiment with new ways of achieving a so-called “tabletop nuclear reaction,” with some even claiming to have achieved surprising success.

Other Articles you Might Like
Liked it? Take a second to support on Patreon!


  1. why do people always laugh and make fun of others and call them names because they don’t agree with there ideas? where would we be if the rebels of science would go where others would not dare? even in the arts people would not except change! in my own life, what i once was told to be fact were not. knowledge is learned thorough listening ,not ignoring!

  2. Most of these are theories…. not facts.. and some of them are simply untrue to begin with…

  3. You left out the flat earthers. If you sailed passed the edge you would fall off, and climate change

  4. To a large extent, science seems to be self correcting. It is a part of the scientific method to publish new theories arising out of new information so that other scientists can study them even more and then set forth more refined theories. (The new information is continuing to come forth from ever more new/better instruments of research.) The really big picture seems to be that the human race is continuously improving our knowledge of the world and earlier theories are being replaced by newer, more accurate modern theories. But even the newest modern theories leave huge gaps in our wisdom. In my opinion, as new theories are developed we are coming closer to deep wisdom that can lead us to a wisdom that we used to believe could only be accessed thru a god. Such deep wisdom could be the purpose for which we exist. And our reason for existing must be focused on continuing to explore, wonder, and understand and to lessen the obstacles to doing so. We should learn to live together, to focus more on the importance of our survival, and to focus less on the drama of our everyday lives.

    • Frederick Thornton on

      Science is only self-correcting because old scientists clinging to their beloved beliefs die off.

      “A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”…Max Planck

      I do agree with you in your last statement and it seems to be something that is missing in these comments. So much arrogance and self-assuredness,too much of I am right you are wrong and very little of, how do we get to the truth of the matter.

  5. I have just come across this website and have been amazed at the vitriolic abuse hurled by one set of opposing adherents on to the other. This is hardly an effective method of convincing each side about who is right in their beliefs because it immediately causes the aggrieved party to depart from logic and reason and instead reply with a tirade of abusive language.
    As a former science lecturer, I know well the blind alleys and wrong theories that have been held in the past regarding scientific knowledge. In many cases, these wrong scientific theories were sincerely believed to be explanations of phenomena. However once a correct explanation was demonstrated then the scientists immediately changed their views.
    Many examples spring to mind of erroneous ideas, such as the age of the Earth, the fixed universe, miasma theory of disease, the caloric theory of heat, nature of light, the luminiferous ether, and many more.
    It seems to me that nothing will persuade a religious person to change their beliefs, whereas a scientist will immediately do so provided he or she is supplied with the necessary evidence, which other scientists can verify in their own laboratories.
    I would have more sympathy for the comments of some of the correspondents if they had gained qualifications in the sciences which they deride so much. They could then verify for themselves why so many ideas are widely accepted, and if necessary, disagree from a viewpoint of knowledge about the subject.
    In science, we do not state categorically that certain ideas must be accepted just because some higher authority has declared them true. In all science courses, individual laboratory investigations are highly important so that students can confirm for themselves the validity of certain principles. Then if a student chooses for him/herself to find alternative explanations that are plausible they could be taken seriously and considered.
    Many breakthroughs in science have been made by young researchers who rejected the accepted theories of the establishment to establish their own explanations based on their own experimental work. Several such new ideas have since accepted and older theories discarded in favour of the new.
    In particular there is ample evidence, starting from the observations of Edwin Hubble, and the existence of background radiation, that the galaxies are flying apart from each other. This and other observations very strongly indicate that there must have been a fireball in which the observable universe was formed.

    Of course this might have happened by Divine Intervention as the creationists would presumably state, without any evidence.

    If we accept Divine Intervention, then the creationists would have to explain how a god came into being without him/herself first being created. Only a god can create another god who would then need to be more powerful that the original god. But he/she would need to be created by an even more powerful god in turn. This would lead to the preposterous conclusion that the universe is filled with an infinite number of gods, each one more powerful that the next, filling all time and space.

    Or, much more likely, there is no god at all.

    I would just love to believe that there is a merciful, good, compassionate, kindly Heavenly Father/Mother who is responsible for creating the world, who takes care of us and who loves us all. I would believe in such a god if there was any evidence for it.
    As a scientist, I would change my views immediately and become a believer if such an idea was shown without doubt to be true.

    Sadly any such convincing evidence is conspicuously lacking.

  6. The Blank state theory is very interesting to read, depends on gestures, behavior and cultures. The idea behind this theory look interesting but it turned wrong on behalf of some conclusions.

  7. What about the theory of evolution that skimps, speculates over fundamental problems that a theory of that magnitude should explain? The theory of cosmic origin that very much states that nothing caused nothing else to explode creating in that explosion all matter, all energy, space and time ( despite the fact the other branch of science states that matter/energy can not be created nor destroyed). The. From the cosmic evolution, we go prebiotic chemical evolution that teaches that in a warm little pond faraway and long ego, dead chemicals became alive, giving as evidence just so stories and skipping any detailed explanation of how left/right handed aminoacids were separated into living left handed leaving aside the right handed ones, statistical impossibilities of useful 300-amino-acid long sequences forming into foldable assemblies that form the simplest proteins, the many chicken and egg problems within the simplest cell, the origin of information within DNA, transition of single-cell to multicell life forms, the slow evolution of male/female life forms that evolved separately before they could reproduce sexually, Etc. The most surprising of all is that the theory is supported by a few homologous bones, some pepper moths and misrepresented embryos in Haeckel sketches. Variation and the ability of living beings to adapt is expotentilly extrapolated to major claims. These combined with many assumptions we need to accept without evidence result is a theory whose major claims and explanations cannot be seriously proven experimentally in any lab….however, even though it claims a lot and proves wry little people assume is correct. The theory is very convincing on the surface but not so when studied in detail and depth….

  8. Ashok Jaisinghani on

    ???Scientific Theory on Instincts ???

        For the proper treatment of many diseases, it is necessary to know the exact nature of instincts. Therefore, we require a correct definition of an instinct based on a scientific theory. If the hunger instinct and the sex instinct are considered as instincts, then we can define an instinct as follows: “An instinct is a biological force that has the capability to produce a periodical biological urge of a particular type.” 

        According to this theory, the following is the list of the instincts that are present in men and women:
            1. Respiratory instincts – instinct of inspiration 
                 and instinct of expiration.
            2. Hunger instinct.
            3. Thirst instinct. 
            4. Salivary instinct, which produces an urge 
                 for swallowing the saliva to keep the throat
                 and foodpipe moist. 
            5. Defecation instinct.
            6. Urinary instinct.
            7. Blinking instinct, which is for the urge to keep 
                the eyes moist during the period of waking.
            8. Instinct of sleep.
            9. Orgasm instinct (in grown-ups), commonly known as the sex instinct. The orgasm instinct periodically produces an urge for orgasmic ejaculation. 

         Besides the above-mentioned instincts, women also have the following special instincts:
            a) Instinct of menstruation. 
            b) Instinct of ovulation and pregnancy.
            c) Birth-giving instinct in pregnant women.
            d) Lactation instinct in nursing mothers. 

         Three of these special instincts make women biologically superior to men in the propagation and survival of the human race! 

       Ordinarily in healthy persons, the periodicities of these instinctive urges do not vary so much. Greater variations in the periodicities of these instinctive urges, or of their satisfaction, can cause biochemical disturbances and imbalances in the whole body. Many ailments and diseases are caused when these urges are not satisfied according to the proper periodicity of each instinct. A long delay in the satisfaction of an instinctive urge can cause uneasiness, depression, headache, and other mental and physical symptoms that can be more serious. 

  9. Barry Gregory on

    “these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms”


    Insects are produced by mummy insects, not from airborne microorganisms

  10. Ronald Derkis on

    I know global warming does not exist! Exxon, Mobil, BP, Chevron, Esso, Shell etc told me so. And why would they cover it up if it did?

  11. Laura Phillips on

    The global warming sham is still paraded around by a wrongheaded, close-minded bunch like it has credibility.

    It’s been disproven again and again and again…

    • I’m not sure that the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis ever attained the status of a theory, hypothesis or sham. It was set up as a fraud in the first place, justified (at least at UEA when I was there) under the “Noble Corruption” and “Common Purpose” principles. I was certainly a money spinner, even when its named changed to “Climate Change” when the climate started cooling. It fell down when the models continued to predict warming even when it was cooling, and then collapsed when the scandal over the falsification of weather station report was more widely publicized. The financial impact alone of the AGW fraud, measured in the trillions of dollars of public money, was many orders of magnitude greater than that of the P&F blunder, which was limited to costing some private venture capitalists a few million. The impact on “science”, as an endeavour largely respected and trusted by the wider public (in contrast to politics), has yet to be assessed by historians.

      • Barry Gregory on

        Oh yes of course those Chinese climate scientists are lying to their government for the big money they will get. The payoffs in China must be huge if they are willing to risk the consequences to risk lying to the Chinese government.

  12. “Although it might seem a bit ludicrous today, for thousands of years it was believed that life regularly arose from the elements without first being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction.”

    Uh, this one is still going strong, only now it’s called the THEORY of Darwinian Evolution, and “mud-puddle” has been changed to “seawater puddle bombarded by cosmic rays” and the time frame for “spontaneity” has been extended a bit.

    • Barry Gregory on

      Except Darwin said nothing about any of that stuff. The theory of evolution by natural selection says nothing about how life arose. It describes how natural selection acts on living organisms, not how living organisms came to be. Learn what it is you are criticizing before you criticize.

      What you are talking about is the origins of life, called abiogenesis. There is no theory about this – not enough is yet known.

  13. Oh geez. Why do I even read these comments anymore.

    Let me simplify things for everyone here.

    First, the religious believers: Science has come up with many things that can be readily verified, not just by others in the scientific community, but in everyday life. And in all honesty, much of it can be pulled into accordance with the Bible, if you are willing to listen and apply with open mind, rather than hold to the notion that a passage or statement can only be read one way (if that were true, there wouldn’t exist so many different christian scets) Example: God created the Earth in 7 days. But science has shown that Earth’s timeline is much greater than that and that many of its processes would require tens of thousands of years. This would seem in direct contradiction to scriptural word, BUT, science has also told us that the concept of a “day” is rather subjective, based on what planet you happen to be on, thereby providing a possible reconciliation. Perhaps Christ will come down and, while accomplishing the various prophecies, tell everybody, “Brethren, Darwin wasn’t actually that far off… I mean, we had to start with something…”

    As for you scientific atheists: religion is constantly mocked for being “behind the times.” But, whenever it does accept or apply change, whether in doctrine or policy, it is scorned for its “inconsistencies.” Wouldn’t it be tough if your beliefs were held to a similar standard? If the fact that Newton, Darwin, Tesla, Einstein, or anyone else proposed something that had to be modified or even disproved later made the whole world conclude that science was innately flawed? For all you know, another Einstein could come along in the next few years and turn everything on its head. So be a little considerate; Religion and philosophy have been trying to explain the universe a lot longer than scientific thought has.
    And hey, even if the Christians are right, they can’t prove it until the Apocalypse, and they aren’t even supposed to act smug about it.

    Let’s face it: No belief system – science, religion, or otherwise – has come up with all the answers. On top of that, none of us are likely to live long enough for anything to give all the answers. So, let’s just all live our lives according to our beliefs; If we desire to share those beliefs, let’s be civil and respectful about it, both on the sharing and receiving ends. Maybe even have a laugh or two at our own inadequacies and inabilities to understand the crazy world around us.

    • It maybe a waste of time to reply when most of the dialogue here is over 3 years old but I’ve a bit more time tonight than usual.

      Firstly, science is not a faith. It’s not a belief system or anything of the sort. It is a discovery or back-to-the-drawing board system that builds upon knowledge scaffolding. Now from the wording of your post it’s not for certain that you meant all atheists believe in science but it surely supports it. I would like to add that perhaps the majority do, it’s not a requisite to be a nonbeliever.

      About the validity between religion and science; neither can boast a wonderful history.

  14. Wow there is a lot of anger on here, I’m quite surprised I’m still getting emails on the same discussion. We’ve got Atheists and Christians debating, and let’s keep it a debate, not a small minded arguement please. I am a Christian, I also believe in evolution, but not the way it is commonly taught, I just believe species can adapt to there environments. I do not believe that one species can evolve in to another. And there is no real proof to prove otherwise.

      • Well put. In fact, I was reading an essay by Isaac Asimov only a few minutes ago that mentioned this very subject.

        Do not be disappointed if your request is ignored. Theists never want “real proof” (a redundancy, is their false proof?) because proof would destroy their favored illusions. In fact, they often deny proof is necessary. They claim you only require “faith”. Faith and beliefs are the same. They are accepting as true that which has no supporting evidence and may have substantial evidence to the contrary.

        You cannot reason a person away from a position they did not reach through reason.

      • Proof that one species can evolve into another species or that a species evolves or both? Wow. God is amazing!

        • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

          Again, what god? Where is any proof of any god at all?

          What is amazing is that the god in which you profess to believe would have created humans with so much intelligence and than so many choose to throw it away.

          The stubborn stupidity I see in this thread makes me wonder if evolution has not started to backtrack. So many people decide to ignore all evidence and reject facts in favor of a badly-translated, politically-edited book of lies and myths that it appears that evolution was at least not evenly distributed among the race.

        • James, Where do you say it all comes from? You have much greater faith than I do if you believe it all came from nothing!

          I only believe a creator created it, and then, God knows why, He became one of us. He even died for you. Jesus is real. That’s a historical fact. He loves you son.

    • There’s no reason a reasonable Christian cannot believe that God created us through millions of years if that is God’s plan. He created us. There is amazing proof that all was created, because it is here. Somehow it started. Somehow it started moving. Somehow it started growing and developing. We call that somehow the creator. But – then we found out that He loves us too. Nice!

  15. people who thinks that their ancesstors is from monkey actually an ignorance…how can monkey turn to human..can you believe it….it’s such a waste of time to read the ridiculous theory….try to think logically guys…

    • @no comment: I was going to reply, but sari said it best (and earlier, if you had been paying attention-

      “If you actually took the time to read Darwin’s theory of evolution you would know he never claimed we came from monkeys. What he said was that we shared a common ancestor.”

      Now, can we bury the “man descended from apes” crap once and for all?

  16. ajg the dumb ox on

    Yes its true that Hitler was baptised. So was Stalin. It didn’t stick.

    As for creation and evolution, they are not opposites. Why do you make them opposed to each other?

    Do you believe that the matter infront of you was “created” from something? Where did it evolve from? Answer the question – where did it come from? How did it start? From what? What was the cause to get it all started?

    God Bless you and keep you always.

    • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

      Renundant DNA? I’ve seem some really silly questions from creationists, but you’re near the top. In case you haven’t noticed, we have two parents. Each contribute to our personal DNA make up. The parts that are not included are truly redundant.

      • No need to throw your rattle out of your pram James. Now if you really dig deep and do your research you will find that a study on pigs found that when they were released back in to the wild, after a time there redundant DNA switched back on and they grew larger, sharper teeth, tusks, harder leathery skin etc …. So basically they evolvedin to a Boar. Researching more animals and insects we found redundant DNA in most, which is DNA that has been switched off, no longer used. This is a great argument in favour of the evolution theory. BUT!! When human DNA was tested there was no redundant DNA found what so ever, no trail at all of any evolution. I have never heard a good explanation why not so thought I’d ask on here.

        • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

          Maybe you would like to quote some references for your “research”? Or are we supposed to be like theists and believe it because someone says it’s true?

          What you also do not know is that a boar is a male pig.

          Another thing you refuse yo understand is that evolution is proven fact. There are thousands of pieces of evidence in laboratories, museums, and universities all over the world. For creationism, not one piece of evidence anywhere.

        • ajg the dumb ox on

          But creation is self evident. All this stuff in front of us came from somewhere and it was all created at somepoint. Why is it that the arguement is evolution vs. creationism? Any decent theoist believes that our creator created creation and how it evolulved or changed or developed, came out of that creation.

          In a previous note you stated that “Most of the problems of the world are, and always have been caused by religion. Think of Northern Ireland, the Mid-East, family planning clinic bombings, and the homophobic intolerance as well as the suppression of women. The consider the crusades, the inquisition, and the dark ages. Get the idea?”

          You should study your history. The Dark Ages, were not so dark. Study it sometime!

          The Crusades were a response to attacks on pilgrims by the Muslims who had in previously rooted out the Christians who lived there. You may remember that Muslim armies were for many centuries already attacking Eastern Europe and the Iberian Penisula. This does not justify anything but you have to be aware that there is a history to know more about.

          The Inquisition? Which one? How bad do you think it was? Have you ever studied it enough to find out how many people were actually killed because of inquisitions? Less that 5,000 by historical analysis. Check it out.

          You want to blame religion? In just the last century, we have seen killing by mass murder & wars (250 million) than all the previous centuries. Who caused this? Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Po Pot, and others. – they weren’t believers in God. Look it up.

          Now, incase you care at all, we are murdering over 30 million human babies every year! Brothers and sisters, and sons and daughters – killed. I wish people were either a little more religious or a little more humanistic (in the real meaning of the word).

          God bless you always.

        • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

          Creation is self evident? There is not a single bit of proof of creationism anywhere in the world. There are thousands of pieces of evidence of evolution in laboratories, universities, and museums all over the world. Only a self-deluded fool would believe something is “self-evident” when there is not proof at all.

          What theorists? What creator? Where is your proof of that?

          I have studied the dark ages and that’s when the church controlled most of Europe and suppressed learning, independent thinking, burnt heretics, tortured non-believers, and forced people like Galileo to recant obvious facts. How about you study that time from something other than a religious viewpoint.

          Tell me one thing I have said that is not true and provide proof. That’s a direct challenge. If you evade or ignore it, you’re admitting I am right and you haven’t a fact to follow.

          Your excuse for the crusade is nothing more than another lie promoted by Christians to cover up and excuse their crimes. Again, show some proof.

          All of the inquisitions. What are you saying, because it was only 5,000 people killed (again you offer no proof) that makes it OK? What about the ones tortured until they were maimed and crippled for life? They don’t matter?

          I am amazed you use that tired old Mao/Stalin/PolPot./Hitler lie. You’re wrong on every count. Hitler was a Catholic.

          “And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lordâ?? â?? Adolph Hitler

          In any case, all of those were doing the evil they did not because they were atheists, but because they were repressing any perceived threats to their power. This has been established so many times that I am amazed you are not embarrassed to even mention it.

          You must be referring to abortion. That is nothing more than a religious view and is not shared by everyone.

          What about the 27,000 children around the world that at this instant are dying of starvation and malnutrition? What is your non-existent god doing for them? Doesn’t he care?

          God bless you is very offensive. If I were a satanist (who doesn’t exist, either) and said I’ll sacrifice a couple of babies to Lord Satan for you, would you be offended?

          Stop spouting the theist nonsense and start thinking for yourself. Stop dodging questions and start providing proof.

        • This isn’t a reply to this comment. My site, in no way endorses the viewpoint of this guest. I am a Christian and his words and ideas are his own and he has a right to say them. I don’t agree with his hatred of religion, particularly of Christianity, but I will allow it to be posted on this site as long as it is said with respect. I did have to edit this post to remove insults and other aggressive language. But in the interest of free speech and because my God can handle it, I have posted it.

        • My bachelor’s is in history. The dark ages were pretty dark. Just not how some people think. The nonbelievers you listed should be revised. Hitler was a catholic. Read his book. Also, even if he wasnt, they didnt do it BECAUSE of their atheism. The Crusades were done BECAUSE of religion. That was the given reason. The inquisition didnt kill a lot of people… by SOME historical studies which were by and large funded and staffed by the catholic church. and even then they still tortured hugely more people for confessions. This is all just useless banter though because if the church is telling the truth and is all good and kind, they wouldnt have killed even one person right? The atheists at least dont say they are morally infallible by god’s whims while they kill millions. They were not “Muslim armies” they were arab armies which happened to have muslims. The crusades were a power grab by the pope at the time. Rome was faltering. Where do you get your history? It is irrelevant who started the crusades. His post didnt say christianitu started it. It said religion caused it. Islam is a religion, last i checked.

        • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on


          I see that you ignored everything I said in the email. I knew you would resort to censorship because that is how religion survives. As I said then, what you consider insults are only statements of observed facts. As I also said, if those facts offend anyone, they should stop making absurd statements and start proving their claims.

          You god cannot withstand questions, facts, or rational thinking. Those are more facts, not insults. I challenged you as I have everyone to prove that anything I have posted is not true.

          I suspect your next step will be the extreme censorship of banning me. That’s the last cowardly refuge of someone that cannot withstand criticism, especially when it is supported by facts.

        • James, I am not going to debate you, for whatever reason you want to believe. Simply put, my mind and faith will not be changed and neither will yours, at least not by my hand. What is the point. If anything, you are becoming white noise by your repeated mantra of religion hating. I believe all your 7 or so comments are cut of the same cloth: religion and Christianity is bad, blah, blah, blah.

          We get it.

          You don’t like us (Christians).

          Move on, life is short, especially if you don’t believe in eternal life. (sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

          From now on comment on the actual list and quit trying to twist any list that mentions religion into your pulpit, pun intended.

          I’m also insulted that you resorted to the “dare” of banning you from this site and then calling me a coward if I do. Ugh, how cliche and unoriginal. If I had a nickel for every commentor who used that ploy, I wouldn’t need this site. I can’t ban anyone from reading this site. You are free and welcome to continue to read the lists at your pleasure. I would only ban commentors who are continually aggressive and insulting to the other commentors. Play nice and you can stay all you like.

          Do you sent at home yelling at the TV every time a show has a religious theme? Probably not, so keep calm, enjoy the site and respect the differences in everyone, which is the very thing you complain about concerning Christians. Be a good example for us and live in harmony. No one is trying to convert you, only God could accomplish that miracle so let the rest of us live as we please. You have written your peace repeatedly. It is duly noted.

          And as much as you hate it, I promise I will pray for you. This is the last I will write on this. We both have better things to do. We have both gotten our feelings on this matter out. It is closed and finished. I expect you to obey my wishes. There are other web sites that will gladly support your views and welcome your written tirades. This is not one of them, and that will never change as long as I own it. And that is a fact. Amen.

    • I dont see how redundant dna is necessary for evolution to have occurred.. we have plenty of unnecessary dna which i would lije a creationist to explain.

      • Im not talking to you anymore. Youre just making stuff up. Its dishonest. In Mein Kampf Hitler says not just that he was baptized but also that he believes his actions were in accord with “the almightycreator”
        His soldiers had belt buckles that said Gott mit uns. That means god with us.
        Seriously. He was Catholic beginning to end. Prat.
        I don’t know whether Stalin was baptized but after what i just read from you about hitler im not going to give you any credence. You need not reply to this. Shame on you for patronizing someone about their knowledge of history

        • ajg the dumb ox on

          Dear Darris,
          Yes, you are correct historically about Hitler. Catholic through Baptism and childhood but clearly, historically as a young adult and from then on he rejected the majority teachings and doctrines of the Church and he was not a practicing, believing Catholic. No bad for all of us. He did not accept sacraficial love it seems. Nor to love God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

          But Stalin & Mao were believing, preaching, practicing atheists. Both responsble for more deaths each than Hitler. But why give atheists a bad name. Most are good people and there are bad Christians and bad Atheists. that is for sure.

          On evolution, why is there a belief that evolution and religion are opposed thinking? I know some believe in evolution and for them its proof that there is no creator. I know some religuous people that think creation had to be an instantaneous event so there could not be a human evolution.

  17. “For example, famed scientist Louis Pasteur showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope helped to show that these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms.”

    Wait, what? Maggots aren’t created by “airborne microorganisms”! They’re baby flies!

    Sheesh… I learned _that_ in grammar school…

      • No, flies are NOT microorganisms.

        From An organism that is microscopic or submicroscopic, which means it is too small to be seen by the unaided human eye.

        From Any organism too small to be viewed by the unaided eye, as bacteria, protozoa, and some fungi and algae.

  18. The problem with this list is that NONE of these are scientific theories. They are hypotheses. To be a theory, an explanation of phenomena must be supported by solid fact. Unfortunately, most people confuse scientific theory with the definition of “theory” as used in casual conversation. It’s sad but true that most Americans are scientifically illiterate.

    • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

      Tanya, sadly, you are 100% correct. even worse, the people that should be paying attention are too busy maintaining their willful ignorance to learn anything.

      • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

        As a matter of fact, many people around the world are worried about exactly that. When that moron George W. Bush was president, the worry factor went up a lot.

        Comments like yours raise it again by emphasizing that yes, there are still plenty of morons there.

        • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

          It isn’t a stereotype if it’s true. Exactly what did I post that wasn’t true? The idea that “W” was a moron or that there are plenty of morons available? Maybe it was that many people around the world are worried that the USA has so many nuclear weapons and is the only nation to ever use them?

          Enlighten me or great one. what was not true?

          FYI, I AM an American, but perhaps facts are not really of interest to you?

    • Trina Bowman, PhD on

      The Big Bang theory, though a decent sitcom, is a sham.

      “Scientists” say that it happened once, all on its own, and has never been replicated. But all “other” science is built on provable, demonstrable facts.

      Nice try, guys. I see that you’re doing your very best to have people believe that anything other than God created the universe…even if we have to believe you and you faux science.

    • Isaiah, you know nothing about me nor my education. From your comment I perceive that you are an ignorant person that thinks he knows everything even though he denies any proof is necessary.

      Show me one iota of proof of your god. I despise all religions, christianity in particular. Your religion has been the source of more human misery than any other source in history.

      Most of the problems of the world are, and always have been caused by religion. Think of Northern Ireland, the Mid-East, family planning clinic bombings, and the homophobic intolerance as well as the suppression of women. The consider the crusades, the inquisition, and the dark ages. Get the idea?

      Mankind will never truly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of truth and rational thinking.

      • ajg the dumb ox on

        Ha ha, Why was the Dark Ages the fault of Christianity? That is a good one! What is your thinking on that one?

        Why your concern over hundreds of years of “inquisition” that historically, factually hurt very few people and was a great improvement over not having inquisition courts? Less that 5,000 people kills is a great, great sin but consider it over hundreds of years and you better have something bigger target “historically”. We lost more in the drug war in Mexico over the last couple of years alone. That’s just silly.

        Sin is at fault and you find that everywhere.

        • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

          The dark ages was the fault of christianity because the church suppressed learning, science, and anything that might lesson its power over people. Those are facts. If you choose to ignore them, that’s more proof that you also choose ignorance and superstition over truth and human advancement. That’s not just thinking, it’s the way it is.

          What are you saying? That only 5,000 people murdered makes it OK? What about the thousands tortured and mutilated? Are those OK, too? Tell me, exactly when are murder and torture OK? When they are sanctioned and encouraged by a church, government, or social group?

          What sin? Things that your religion calls sin because it increases its hold on the gullible? There is only on true sin; hurting someone else unnecessarily. Everything else is invented nonsense.

        • Fabio Juliano on

          @James Smith

          You are an extremely ignorant individual, as evidenced by your claims regarding the so-called Dark Ages, and just as arrogant. Individuals like you are dangerous, as evidenced by your proposal to exile theists (that is to say, your betters) to an island, and by the fact that ignorant, arrogant atheists of your ilk have murdered tens of millions since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. You are the one who is not fit to live in a civilized society.

        • Frederick Douglass on

          The catholic church is not Christian. Real Christians were always pro-education and suppressed by the catholic church.

  19. @thos: the facts the earth is warming and ig is probably due to increased greenhouse gasses. Namely: carbon dioxide.
    Homo neanderthalis didn’t evolve from cro magnon? Where did you get that? We each have a common ancestor, that’s how evolution always works. I saw a funny picture once. It was titled “wheel of creationism!” (Like the wheel of fortune) and the puzzle on the wall said EVO_UT_ON and two contestants are saying “it can’t be evolution! There are too many gaps! The answer to the puzzle must be “Creation!” Lol

  20. Notice how the majority of those are either before the scientific method, were never even accepted by scientists, and that all of them were proven wrong by ACTUAL science
    Like evolution for instance. Jeez you people are dumb
    Theories explain WHY something happens. Evolution IS happening you’re ignoring evidence to say its not. If you think the theory of evolution doesn’t explain the observed phenomena, explain it better and support your assertion. Or shut up.

    • Darris, I agree wit what you are saying. But you are using facts and rational thinking to convince people that rejected facts and rational thinking long ago.

      “Id you could reason with theists, there wouldn’t be any theists.”

  21. There are Thousands of pieces of evidence for evolution in museums, schools, and laboratories all over the earth. How many are there for creationism? Not one. That only exists in the delusions of mentally-disturbed theists.

    There are intermediate fossils to prove “this became that”. That there are not is simply one more lie by you theists.

    There is no god. You have no proof of that, either. But you must enjoy displaying your ignorance to the world. For example, your statement that atheists “reject god.” How can you reject something that does not exist? Do you reject Thor or Paul Bunyan? For certain, you have rejected reality, intelligence, and education.

    Come on, show us even one particle of proof of god, creationism or any of your other delusions. The ball is in your court. But you will surely run and hide. The normal theists tactic is to pretend the question was never asked, then declare victory through the power of god. Every theist I have ever known has been a fool a liar, or a hypocrite. Very often, like you, they are all three at the same time.

  22. Lets add another: theory of organic evolution.

    Among many, many holes in the theory is the questions:

    Where’s the intermediate fossils to prove this-became-that?

    Evolution is a deception created by satan. It convinces us that we have no accountability before God. It is a teaching created by atheists to have a home, an alternative belief when they reject God.

  23. The problem here is, theists will always support ignorance and lies over truth and logic. Truth and logic are always fatal to any religion. So debating these morons is a zero-sum effort. The more one presents truth and rational thinking, the more they respond with stupidity and lies. I say deport all theists to some remote island where they can practice their insanity without attempting to impose it on people who can actually think for themselves. BY imposing their sick, twisted beliefs into law, they are demonstrating the intolerance that they claim to be opposing. This is hardly surprising considering that their religion, whatever it may be was founded upon lies, so why should they stop now? Show me a religion and I will show you the lies that were use to start it.

    Most of the problems of the world are, and always have been, caused by religion. Mankind will never truly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the light of truth and rational thinking.

    • Fred Thomlinsen on

      Really? When and by whom?

      I truly thought the elusive “missing link” was still both elusive and missing.

      Evolution is still a theory and is disproven almost on a daily basis.

    • John P. Morris on

      Another repeated falsehood. The static universe theory was discarded you contend because of “…Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift…and distance….” It’s a travesty of justice that Hubble’s name appears where that of Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, [17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966] is omitted.

  24. Mors_Ontologica on

    It seems that most of you have forgotten what it's like to be human. Here's a suggestion: perhaps it is not the truths of things that matter as much as what our collective beliefs tell us about our own limited human sensibilities. After all, it is environmental functionality–however we manage it–that is the overarching concern here. Belief may be as close as most, or even all, of us will ever know (whatever the hell "knowledge" means). Here's what I mean: Darwinian Evolution, Creationism, cutting-edge atomic theory (most, but by no means all, of which resembles retrograde motion, and we all know how that turned out…), et alii ad nauseam, are all incorrect as facts, but they are not necessarily False; they are merely the best–albeit flawed–tools of understanding our existence we currently have to work with, and so work with them we do. With imperfect tools come imperfect results, so continually we improve our tools of comprehension in order to get less and less imperfect results. At the end of the day, no matter how much we learn, we are still slave to what we can only know by suggestion. As for my qualifications, I have none; I'm (obviously) a Humanist. I agree; don't feed the Troll, conquer it by letting it conquer you. My advice: try psychedelics.

    I hope for most of you that that last comment has biased you all against all arguments I have made here. After all, it would only be logical for one snide, off-hand remark (or the occasional grammatical screw-up) to utterly dissuade most readers from presented arguments. After all, iIt is the loudest arguments that win the day anyways, right? I know it's absurd, crazy, and probably irrelevant, but the posts and the people who write them might not be one-in-the-same; an argumenti argumentandi?

  25. actually the one that I am suprised is missing is the big bang theory. The Big bang theory states that at one time all the energy in the universe was at one time concentrated into one mass which then exploded outward forming over time planets and stars and galaxies. the only problem with that is that its a scientific fact that matter cannot pop into existance ( you cant take nothing and get something from it) so were did all the matter come from. I would also like to point out that if the matter had "always been there" than all its energy would have been used up literately an eternity ago.

    • Thos Weatherby on

      First it is NOT a scientific fact about matter popping into existence. it's the other way around. The belief is matter CAN just pop into existence. The big bank started with a singularity. A singularity contains infinite mass. So it already had the mass when it 'exploded'. By definition, are universe is inside a black hole. You may want to investigate the latest in parallel universes. And you can not use up energy. You can convert it, into other energy or mass. Maybe this is how mass can suddenly appear.

  26. Thos Weatherby on

    Not to sure about the expanding Earth. In the last few years there has been mounting evidence that may support this theory. Actually, one can venture on to YouTube and watch the latest ideas on this topic. I don't think this one has been settled yet.

    • James Smith Jo&atild on

      Exactly what evidence? That there are kooks on Youtube? Most rational people already knew that. Maybe you're another one that likes to throw out silly ideas hoping that people will accept them with no verifiable proof. Come on, convince me.

      • Thos Weatherby on

        The first bit of evidence is that even through a static Earth, the positioning of the major plates don't exactly match up. Why does the mid Atlantic Ridge spread apart in many places. Plate tectonics don't explain this movement. But a Earth that is growing larger just might. Also, the mineral dispersion is better explained by a growing planet rather than our planet being the same size for all these years.

        The pressures of the core would model our sun. You might want to read two books from Robert Felix. Not by Fire but by Ice, and Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps. Might just change your thoughts of how evolution works too.

        And please spare me the "rational People" talk. True rational people will listen to new ideas and expand them from there. If it's only plate tectonics then explain to me the physics behind it. You can't. Looks like we may all be in the same boat.

        • James Smith Jo&Atild on

          You think that is evidence? If the earth is expanding, why does the distances between place remain the same? Why does the measured circumference of the planet not change? Why does the gravitational force not change.

        • Thos Weatherby on

          The distances do not remain the same. The circumference is not static. It's actually increased over the last 40 years. And the gravitational force has changed. Why is the moon getting further away from Earth every day.

        • James Smith Jo&Atild on

          Weatherby, you make totally ridiculous statements without a shred of proof. Show us proof that the circumference of the earth has expanded. Yes, the moon is receding very slightly at the rate of a few millimeters a year. But that is explained by orbital mechanics. How would the Earth expanding cause that? If anything, it would become closer as the Earth expands.

          But when you are espousing and nonsensical idea, facts just get in the way, don't they?

          I will not spare you the rational people talk. I'll keep it up until you either go away from embarrassment or until you start to become rational yourself.

        • Thos Weatherby on

          I'm still waiting for your proof. You are quick to criticize others for their lack of proof but you offer none of your own. Your shallow. See if you can follow this and give me the facts to disprove it.

          Subduction’s fatal flaw is easily demonstrated. Cup both hands, thumbs together, to represent Wegener's single Pangaean landmass covering one hemisphere of an imaginary fixed-diameter Earth, with Panthalassa (the eo-Pacific Ocean) occupying the rest of the planet.

          Then, to portray creation of the Atlantic Ocean, slowly move the hands apart and slide them around this imaginary globe (the left hand representing North and South America; the right hand representing Eurasia/Africa and Australia, with the Atlantic Ocean opening up between them). Now, observe what happens to the Pacific basin on the opposite side of the globe as the Atlantic basin keeps widening in conformity with plate tectonics dogma.

          Note that, as the continents are pushed around the planet under pressure of an ever-widening Atlantic Ocean, a fixed, unchanging diameter would result in subduction eventually swallowing the entire Pacific Ocean basin—IN SPITE OF continuous propagation of new ocean seafloor at the rate of ~80-160 mm/yr (~3-1/4 to ~6-1/2 in/yr) along the hyperactive East Pacific Rise (EPR) west of South America (the most active volcanic area on the planet) right in the middle of the supposed subduction area. (This is also a volatile heat source directly beneath the area where El Niños are spawned by heated Pacific waters.)

          If carried to its ultimate conclusion, subduction would cause North and South America to be moved half way around the planet from the western edge of Pangaea to the eastern edge of Pangaea, ending up against Asia and Australia after having eliminated the entire Pacific Ocean! This would occur in spite of the massive growth of new seafloor in the Pacific along the East Pacific Rise, which is today expanding the width of the Pacific Ocean basin.

          The good news is that this simple demonstration provides a method to determine which of the two processes, subduction or expansion, is correct simply by measuring any change in width of the Pacific Ocean basin. In order to prove subduction, the Pacific basin must rapidly decrease in size in order to accommodate the continuous growth occurring in the other oceans of the world. However, any increase in size would confirm that the Earth is increasing in diameter, surface area, and circumference.

          And the moon recedes about 3.8cm per year not a "few millimeters" as you stated.

          I know you won't "spare me" the rational talk. You don't have any rational facts. Please go out and get an education. Oh and according to NASA's tracking, the earthquake that hit off the coast of Sumatra in 2004 increased Earths diameter by 3.2mm.

    • James Smith Jo&atild on

      Perhaps you would like to educate us on exactly how it was inane? Or do you simply make inane accusations without proof?

  27. Evolution

    Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

    Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation

    Romans 1:20 — For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable

  28. Failure on

    Your picture for philosopher John Locke is of John Locke from the show Lost. Figure out your sources rather than doing a quick google copy/paste.

  29. All you creationists/evolutionists need to chill!

    …may you all be touched by His Noodly Appendage…

    Peace & Pasta to all.

    • Musemistress on

      All hail the mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster. And bring back the pirates, it all went wrong when they went away 🙁

      – A duly devoted Pastafarian

  30. The currently held views in physics about "the big bang and the origin of the universe" is a huge wad of Biblical gooblygook. Time, Space, Matter, and Energy/Sentience are still very poorly understood and Creationist explanations are highly unlikely to be valid answers. The Big Bang still tries to make something out of nothing… Time without beginning is much more likely…

  31. Comment to the last paragraph: it's not "nuclear reaction" it's "nuclear fission". Wiki the difference.

  32. "Acquired Characteristics" should be on this list.

    Darwin quite wrongly believed that if you cut off the tails of mice for a hundred years that mice would eventually be born without tails.
    With the discovery of genetics we now know this to be completely false.

    Interestingly it was evolutionists that suppressed the study of genetics for over 20 years because it conflicted with their belief in evolution.
    It was only after some one came up with the theory that evolution could happen through mutations that the study of genetics was able to proceed.

    My point being that you should not delude yourself that the evolutionists are the pure scientists without any agenda and only wanting to discovery the truth.
    Many are just as hard-core closed-minded fundamentalist as any as any religious fundamentalist.

    • Bennie Tucker on

      That was Lamarck not Darwin… which kind of disproves your whole subsequent "argument".

    • Mors_Ontologica on

      Thank GOD (or not, as your preference may be)! somebody finally gets it.

    • Thos Weatherby on

      Well just look at the, lack of science, when it comes to Global Warming. They start to treat the environment like a religion. How many people who believe in evolution, complain that religious people are ignorant and don’t look at the facts, then turn around are become those same type of people who believe in Global Warming and don’t look at the facts themselves.

    • Yes, Exactly why are we arguing about evolution, okay everybody hates it, forget about it and lets argue about more recent theories which scientist claim are true and great theories which quite frankly I think are a load of bull.

      Such theories woulld be:

      String Theory: The universe is made up of unimaginable amounts of strings and has elevn dimension which are too small to see so we can only perceive the 3. Who came up with this. This sounds no better than a greek philosopher’s theory of the universe.

      Big Bang Theory: 14 billion years ago there was a giant spontaneus explosion which created the univers. Sounds like a story you would tell a three year here it is translated into story language, “Once upon a time, far far away, long long ago in the vast nothingness there was a tiny spark. The spark produced a flame, the flame turned into a fireball, the fireball grew and grew and grew in size till it covered the whole nothingness. The fireball cooled leaving us with trees, rocks, buildings and everything around us”. What caused this explosion? Something must have caused not just it caused itself.

      The Higgs Boson: a particle which gives particle’s mass dependant on how particles move through it. Our entire universe is filled with Higgs particles but we can’t see it, can’t feel, can’t detect it, can’t sense it, can’t find any effects, can’t visualise it, IT DOES NOT EXIST.

      • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

        OK, give us one piece of evidence that anything you say has any substance at all. You make claims without proof because you think that, if you personally believe something enough, it MUST be true. That’s the normal position of people that like to assign supernatural explanations to anything they do not understand. “God did it” is much easier than thinking, isn’t it?

        Your statements are what are “a load of bull.”

        Keep in mind that, “Beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, do not alter facts.”

        You might also want to learn the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. That doesn’t take much learning or even thinking. All that will be hurt is your ignorant world view and that could use some adjusting.

  33. A theory is not a hypothesis. Stop being ignorant. When theory appears in this article, it should be replaced with hypothesis.

  34. Tasmanian Devil on

    I prefer to believe that life was created when a giant tortoise farted six and a half years ago. It only feels longer because we were trapped in a magic hour-glass by an evil emperor who altered our memories. I don't have any scientific evidence to back this up but because I believe it to be true I dont feel I need any. In fact, when people claim my beliefs are idiotic I just stand there with my fingers in my ears going la-la-la-la.

  35. Actually Einstein's theory predicted that the universe was expanding, but because that had not yet been discovered, Einstein created his cosmological constant. If ignorance is bliss why are creationists so angry?

    • I'm going take a stab at your question "If ignorance is bliss why are creationists so angry?" I used to be a Christian I don't claim to be one now but the knowledge of the teachings are still there. In church they teach God created the heavens and the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh. These are absolute, they don't change not even to conform to a more scientific view. In fact, I read in a Christian science school book , that even someone like myself should be in the same category as an atheist. You see, I believe in creationism but I believe that one day can be a million to God. We don't know what a day is for God. I mean for us a day is 24 hours but on a planet like Venus a day is 243 Earth days so who knows what a day would be for God. The "anger" can only be described as a brainwashing. During this time frame in which I attended church and was a Christian I kept journals of all my thoughts. I will not read these journals because of the amount of judgment I was placing on other people. The amount of hate and disgust that I felt toward those who were different than myself was all wrong. They teach you to be this way. The outrage they feel is because they are taught to have extreme faith in the entire Bible and any other ideas are wrong. When you have someone that is well beyond that and they question, "why?" they bump you to Sunday School teacher so they no longer need to answer your questions during Bible study because any other ideas are wrong and the Bible is absolute. Many of those who have the extreme belief don't have museums to show them that man is actually a lot older than a couple of thousand years old. I grew up looking at "Lucy," where I live now has art museums and nothing more (most of the art is from the area nothing cool like a Picasso or Renoir.) The anger is because many don't read beyond the Bible.

      • I don’t know which church you were at. The whole “hate your enemy and treat them badly because they don’t believe what you do” is VERY VERY anti-biblical. That isn’t to say that Christians aren’t supposed to reach out to their world. But Christians are supposed to say everything with kindness and grace.

        I’m sorry you had that experience, but it isn’t what the bible says.

        • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

          It IS what the bible says. Read it and note the genocide, murder and destruction of non-believers.

          Furthermore, it doesn’t matter what the bible says. It’s what people do. Do you deny that religions split into factions over relatively minor points of theology? DO you deny that wars have been fought over these same things?

          Instead of repeating the brainwashing you have received, observe reality.

        • Not really.. Look at Matthew 5:44. “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”. Exact opposite of your claim that it says “Hate your enemy and treat them badly”.

        • And as far as “It doesn’t matter what the bible says, it’s what people do”… So it’s the bible’s fault people decide to disobey and be hateful? To do evil?

          That’s naive, if that is what you’re saying. If it is not, I apologize. The fact is, this world could be perfect and have no evil whatsoever… The cost? We wouldn’t have free will.

          There’s just so much archaelogical proof that the Bible is accurate. How much is there that it is false? And of that, how much is from somebody who will honestly say,. “No, I’m not just trying to disprove the Bible. I honestly went in with a completely open mind and this is what I discovered.”? Every piece of so-called “Proof that the Bible is false,” I’ve seen has had one thing in common… The discoverer ADMITTED that he (or she, in some cases) simply wanted to prove the bible wrong.

          I don’t particularly feel any hatred to those who do not believe what I do, nor will I try to force one to believe as I do. I encourage everybody to look at all the facts with no presuppositions that tend to taint the minds of.. almost everybody, whether they believe or not. I do not really think many will (so many people shout “NO! NEVER!” when asked, “If I proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists and the Bible is accurate, would you believe?”, and it’s a shame. It’s also a shame that those that believe have a similar response when asked if they could be shown with 100% certainty that it is false/), and so long as you don’t badmouth me for believing, I will have no issue with you. I have several atheist pals, and… they tend to despise other atheists. Because, “If you’re going to be an atheist, hate all religions equally, don’t just bash Christianity. The majority do just bash the one, and it disgusts me.”

          Again, look at the evidence for yourself, weigh it all, and decide. That is all I want those that may read this to do. If you do not want to believe then, then so be it, at least you’ll have (most likely) learned a few things along the way and I have as much respect for those who don’t (or say they can’t) believe (at least if they are ones) that truly weighed the evidence. It has converted more than one who set out to disprove the Bible, though:

        • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

          @eh The bible is full of contradictions, myths, and lies. It also baldly states violence, murder and even genocide are acceptable to “god”.

          Here’s another quote for you:

          Matthew 10:34: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

          Sure, love and peace.

        • @eh. BTW, looking at all the evidence is exactly what you should do. Read the bible as if it had just been released and you and never heard of any religion. Make an impartial consideration of what it says. Compare the various contradictions, I have a large, but partial list if you need it.

          I would like to know exactly whom it converted. I am willing to bet that far more have been de-converted from reading the bible than have ever been converted. That includes myself.

          “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” Isaac Asimov

          Disproving the bible is ridiculously easy, all it takes is that impartial reading.

        • It takes faith to believe in anything. At some point you take a leap. Even if it is to not believe in God. Then what started everything? What/who created everything from nothing? You and everyone in the world puts their faith in some belief about our beginnings. I and many others have chosen to put that faith in God. Why does this anger you so much? If you chose NOT to believe, that is your choice and that is where your faith goes. My church helps thousands of people through its outreach and my wife just returned from a medical missions trip to Niger. All because our our Christian faith. It’s a good thing.

        • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

          “Taken out of context”? Exactly how? It’s easy to say something that sounds good when you don’t bother to give any proof. I say prove what you say or admit you just like to believe things because they make you feel smug and secure.

        • The FULL context is below. Jesus was using the phrase “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” metaphorically, as any thinking person can glean from the context (see below). Chuck Smith put it this way: “The gospel of Jesus Christ unifies men, it brings together a tax collector and a Zelote, but the gospel of Jesus Christ also divides men. It divides men into two categories: those who are apart of the kingdom of God, and those who are apart of the kingdom of darkness. But Jesus divides men as well as unifies men and many times Jesus divides those within a household. A child comes into the kingdom of light, but the father continues to rebel in the kingdom of darkness, and so division comes, and a difference comes.”

          Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

          Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

          Mat 10:36 And a man’s foes [shall be] they of his own household.

          Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

        • James Smith, it seems like you just want to fight. That was Jesus’ point: People who don’t believe in His teachings will fight with those who do. Your out-of-context quotation was blatantly misconstrued to mean something it did not, I corrected it with a direct quote that clarified the situation, and you lashed out angrily back at me.

          As for me, I’m not going to argue or repeatedly call you violent, stupid, an idiot, or intolerant. I WILL clarify glaringly inaccurate statements so that people can make an educated decision. But I’m not getting into troll wars with you or anyone else. That isn’t what Jesus taught.

      • You are correct in your idea of not literal days.

        (2 Peter 3:8) However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

        keep searching for answers!

        • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

          Scientists all over the world are always searching for answers. But not in the bible. It is nothing more than a badly translated, politically edited collection of myths and lies.

          Yes, it does contain a few events that are historically accurate and can be verified from other sources. That doesn’t make any of the rest of it true. For example:

          On the 11th of September, 2001, two commercial aircraft flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing thousands.

          Some people believe that this was an act of terrorism by an Islamic fundamentalist organization.

          It was really the power of my god directing those planes to warn the people of the USA and the world to abandon their wicked ways and praise the only true god.

          The first sentence is unquestionable historic fact. The last sentence is a delusional lie but is impossible to prove to be false. The â??truthâ?? of all â??holy booksâ?? is based upon this same technique.

      • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on


        It does not “take faith” to know there is no god. All it takes is an objective examination of the facts.

        Missionaries sometimes do good works. But they never do it without the proselyting string attached.

        FYI “faith” and “belief” both mean “to accpet something as true with no supporting evidence or even with evidence against it.” That’s the basis of all religion.

        Please note that I often invite people to demonstrate, with proof, anything I post that is not true. Not one person has ever done so. Does that suggest anything to you?

        You believe your god started everything from nothing. Doesn’t that contradict what you said? Instead of repeating the same old theist arguments, how about examining the genuine evidence?

        Science readily admits that not everything is known. Religion insists it has the answer for it all and does not permit any questions. That is an act of intellectual cowards, not of rational, open-minded thinkers.

        Science modifies its theories and statements when new, verifiable evidence is presented. Religion has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, from the dark ages. Many, but not all, theists have yet to make that trip.

  36. YogiBarrister on

    The cosmic irony is that disbelief in evolution is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  37. lol, #9 (Spontaneous Generation) is still believed by Evolutionists today. They say that life originated from muddy water when lightening struck it. Imagine a complex amoeba with all its cell functions arising because lighting struck some mud lol!

    • No they don’t! Science is not sure how life was started, which is why they cannot recreate it. I am not sure where you read this, but a little fact checking would not hurt.

      • Phil E. Drifter on

        Actually, they have recreated it, simulating conditions that would most likely have existed 6 billion years ago, using commonly available proteins and an electric charge.

        Evolution has also been proved, too, by flash-freezing every 100,000 generation of bacteria kept with 2 substances: one it could digest for food/reproduction, and another it could not. And around the time it reached it's 400,000 generation, one sample had evolved to be able to digest both supplies.

        • Evolution

          Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

          Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation

          Romans 1:20 — For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable

        • Mors_Ontologica on

          I would say

          Evolution: by the survivability, determined by success of reproduction, of a given trait or traits, the successive generations become more likely to reproduce, thereby creating a reproductive environment that will support those traits. The theory of evolution is not limited to biology (Memes as well as Genes as well as all kinds of other things), so please don't limit it to that scope.

        • Thos Weatherby on

          The Earth wasn’t around 6BYA. And they didn’t create life. They just made amino acids which are included in life. Big difference. Only parts of Evolution have been proved. But we can not create life yet. Maybe the Bible is correct when it comes to the Annunaki.

      • Michael Hurwitz on

        Abiogenesis is not too far off from spontaneous generation. We all know that when the words “somehow” and “perhaps” are used to explain a theory, it is clearly scientifically sound.

  38. Bennie Tucker on

    Great list!

    Very Interest.

    Oh and Mr "Equaliser" is clear proof that evolution occasionally backtracks <_<

      • Bennie Tucker on

        I'm English, we spell it with an "s".

        Check ms word, no red underline… unless you have a different version to me.

    • Mors_Ontologica on

      Evolution can never Back-trekk. it can only move forward in ways that seem to mimic earlier stages. Proof: whales, as far as we can tell, are not fish. They are whales.

      • Thos Weatherby on

        What about the whale. Came from the sea, evolved on land, then backtracked back into the sea.

  39. You are completely wrong about cold fusion. It was replicated thousands of times in hundreds of major labs, and these replications were published in hundreds of peer reviewed papers. In recent months, a major conference on cold fusion was sponsored by the Italian DoE, Physical Society and Chemical Society, the U.S. NRL published a major breakthrough, and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency recommended increased funding for this research.

    For more on this subject, see:

  40. YogiBarrister on

    Equalizer, you're not terribly perceptive are you? The point is, if you simply say God created everything and don't explore things in greater depth, you won't develop the capacity for abstract reasoning and critical analysis necessary to survive.

    • Thos Weatherby on

      I could turn your message around and say the same thing. Somewhere back in time there had to be an intelligence that created what we now have. Maybe it’s not in the Bible. But you need to develop the capacity for abstract reasoning and critical analysis necessary to survive. Or to at least understand or try to understand the implications of what you are saying.

  41. YogiBarrister on

    Here's the thing Equalizer. Even if the theory of evolution is disproved, someone like Jose, who studies the science of it and ignores the twatwafflery coming from the religious right, is going to end up a lot smarter than you. He will be more likely to be able to provide for his offspring, therefore his genes will be passed on to future generations. Maybe if you're lucky, your children can work for Jose's children, but only if you break the vicious cycle of ignorance and teach them how to think critically.

    • Actually because of my in-depth capacity for abstract reasoning and critical analysis evolved brain, Jose and his children works for me. I tell to my children that we're far more superior than those monkeys.

      • YogiBarrister on

        Equalizer says:

        March 15, 2010 at 11:30 am

        Andrei I feel sorry about you too. Better learn to spell English correctly before calling someone uneducated.

        Equalizer says:

        March 15, 2010 at 12:16 pm

        Actually because of my in-depth capacity for abstract reasoning and critical analysis evolved brain, Jose and his children works for me. I tell to my children that we’re far more superior than those monkeys.

        Yes Mr. Pot, your children are far superior to those pitch black kettle monkeys.

    • i believe in evolution. but as a person who has seen the movie idiocracy will tell u, the smart have less kids then the dumb and ignorant, so as much as i hate to say it, were gonna be seeing a lot more equalizers around. anyways i believe in evolution my family does, and so do most of my friends and when i have kids so will they, but if some ppl wanna believe it doesnt exist, i say let them, as long as they dont bother me with their ignorance i wont bother them with intelligence

      • James Smith Jo&atild on

        The more intelligent people have fewer (not less) children because they are more moral and socially responsible. They know that over population (especially with ignorant theists) is the largest problem facing humanity today. I'm also sure you meant "than" instead of "then".

        It's also "we're" as in "we are". There is an apostrophe in "doesn't, don't", and "won't". You might also consider reconstructing your text to include a few periods to reduce the run-on sentences. You could also try ending a sentence with a period when you do finally run out of things to say, too. Finally, "gonna" and "wanna" are not real words. Try spelling out "you" and "people" so you sound a little less illiterate.

        Not to worry, you won't bother anyone with your intelligence and education.

        • Thos Weatherby on

          Have to disagree with your statement. Having children has nothing to do with being more morally and socially responsible. There is no over population. Every family on this planet could have a quarter acre of land and everyone would fit inside the state of Texas. During the Renaissance the family size was larger than that of today. When the American Founding Fathers wrote our constitution, the family size was large than today's family. Mormons who have large families are more intelligent than the average family in the US.

          And Porto Alegre, Sao Paulo, Rio, Belo Horizonte, and Fortaleza all have larger families than Harare in Zimbabwe. Are those citizens more morally and socially responsible than all of those cities in Brazil?

        • James Smith Jo&Atild on

          You are so ignorant it staggers the imagination. Yes, there is overpopulation. The 7+ billion people on the planet are destroying the earth with pollution, habitat destruction and the heat output of ever-increasing energy use.

          You are wrong on so many level that it would take a book to elaborate them and explain the reasons,

          Mormons are more intelligent? Since when and where is your proof? I lived in Arizona among them and they are just as stupid, uninformed and arrogant about it as you.

          What a disgusting example of a human being you are. You are the poster chlld for stupidity.

        • Mors_Ontologica on

          “…are more intelligent than…”

          IQ, which I assume you mean, is only one limited scope of intelligence, and anyways, intelligence doesn’t matter one pound of green flaming zebra **** if it is not used.

  42. How about Theory of Evolution? States that all Scientists who believes in this theory evolved from monkeys.

    • You operate under a common fallacy from most of the creationist: we did not "evolve from monkeys" or any ape as you know today. What Darwin said is the modern day primates evolved from a common ancestor, which would not be a "monkey" in the modern conception of the term.

      Besides, it's been shown that gorillas share 98.6% of the same DNA as humans. I'm prouder to be related to them than some "humans".

      • Interesting Quote:
        “In the class of mammals the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the placental mammals. We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae; and the interval is not very wide from these to the Simiadae. The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.” Charles Darwin (Descent Of Man, Chapter 6, in the third paragraph from the end)

      • Interesting Quote:
        “In the class of mammals the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the placental mammals. We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae; and the interval is not very wide from these to the Simiadae. The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.” Charles Darwin (Descent Of Man, Chapter 6, in the third paragraph from the end)
        Apparently Darwin did state that Man came form old world monkeys. I don’t think he held that view later in his life (remember, Darwin believed in evolution, so his views could also evolve). Certainly, neo-darwinists do not agree with this statement made by Darwin. I surmise Darwin had many misconceptions.
        D Z

      • Then where is the proof in DNA of monkeys or gorillas changing to modern day man? Darwin only had bones to use as observation of evolution. He knew nothing about DNA since there was no science about it yet. So Darwinism is as outdated science. It is as creditable as spontaneous generation.

    • Yet another ignorant person talking about something they know nothing about. I suppose the theory of an all-powerful god creating the universe and that the earth is 10,000 years old is a more plausible theory, one which offers no explanation what-so-ever.

      • I'd rather be proud that my ancestors are "human being-ignorant" rather than evolved from "monkeys".

        Those who believes that they came from Monkeys, please put your believes to yourself. Don't include us in your Evolution Dreams…

        • If you believe that your great-great ancestors can be found in the zoo then I'm happy for you.

        • If you actually took the time to read Darwin's theory of evolution you would know he never claimed we came from monkeys. What he said was that we shared a common ancestor. There is a lot of proof of evolution: you have to read about it to understand. Your argument is based on ignorance, which in its self is a failed "science".

        • "…please put your believes to yourself."

          Don't you mean, "Please keep your beliefs to yourself," as a literate person would say? You're closer to a monkey than you might think, Mr. "Proud to have ignorant human beings as ancestors."

        • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

          Your comment reveals more about your personal ignorance than I think you would like. Evolution states that both humans and other anthropoids evolved from a common ancestor.

          There are thousands of pieces of proof of this and evolution in museums, universities and laboratories all over the world. There is not a single bit of proof of creationism anywhere.

          BTW, it’s “beliefs” not “believes”. Learn to use a spell checker and please don’t put your beliefs in a book of badly-translated, politically edited collection of myths and lies.

        • Interesting Quote:
          “In the class of mammals the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the placental mammals. We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae; and the interval is not very wide from these to the Simiadae. The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.” Charles Darwin (Descent Of Man, Chapter 6, in the third paragraph from the end)

      • So it all started with the big bang? According to quantum physics, the universe has no beginning. It even has problems with dark mass and dark energy. Science which is a very good thing, it is not exact. So where do you think life began? If not a creator, then what? Something as ridiculous as spontaneous generation?

    • YogiBarrister on

      Equalizer, do believe that your ancestors evolved from the Neanderthals? They were "human being ignorant" also, made tools and communicated verbally. Do you know that you are much more closely related to chimpanzees (who also make tools and speak BTW) than to Neanderthals? I realize we are wasting our time trying to educate you, your parents did you a grave diservice by instilling such nitwittery into that highly evolved brain of yours.

      • YogiBarrister, I'm happy to know that your father is a Neanderthal and your Mother is a Chimpanzee.

        I will keep that in my highly evolved brain.

        Thank you for the info…

        • hi i live outside the usa. only in recent years i have hurd about ppl like mr equalize here. i can't believe that people in this day and age can be so brain washed and uneducated. i feel sorry for you.

        • Andrei I feel sorry about you too. Better learn to spell English correctly before calling someone uneducated.

          Tip: type first your comment on MSWord then cut paste here.

        • Thos Weatherby on

          Your not uneducated if you don’t believe 100% in evolution. If evolution exists then God would have created it. How is it that people like you would believe in the Anunnaki or fallen angels but not other aspects of the Bible. Problem is, we don’t understand much about evolution in the first place. A new book by Robert Felix does bring evolution to a new level. I really think someday science and religion will become one. Science just needs to catch up.

        • James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on

          Don’t worry about Equalizer. As I noted above, his English is no better than yours nor does he understand the use of a spell checker. That’s only the start of his willful ignorance but it’s enough for now.

        • James Smith Jo&atild on

          Equalizer: It's ignorant theists like you that have contributed so much to the dumbing down of America. You are the one that should keep his nonsensical ideas to himself instead of trying to enact your personal stupidity into law.

          Most of the problems of the world are, and always have been, caused by religion. Mankind will never truly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of truth, logic, and reason.

        • Thos Weatherby on

          You talk about giving facts. I haven't seen 1 fact from you. I have seen name calling, personal attacks and a total lack of respect for other posters. I'm glad you're smarter than the rest of us. But there are ideas and greatness still out there. You claim truth, logic and reason but when it comes to the hoax of Global Warming you don't apply the same rules. Where are your facts? Where is your truth? You asked me where was my fact about Mormons being more intellectual. This comes from a study at UCSB tracking intelligence and different religions and non religions. Just because you knew some Mormons in Arizona doesn't impress me. Once again, I would like to see your facts and maybe a bit more respect for the rest of us.

          Thos Weatherby PhD Astrophysics – Planetary Studies


        • James Smith Jo&Atild on

          OK, let's take on global warming first. Are you saying that the ice caps are not melting, the glaciers disappearing, and the sea levels rising? That the average world temperature isn't rising? If you do, you are more foolish than you sound. These are measured, easily verifiable facts.

          What is not clear, and most global warming realists agree, is the exact causes. Human intervention? Probably but also probably not the only cause. There are too many other likely factors and not all are easily measured. But global warming is a fact easily recognizable by people capable of intelligent thought processes.

          You claim that Mormons are smarter than other people? Where is your evidence for that? As a group, they might place more value on some aspects of education than many, but that doesn't mean they are smarter. But I suspect that is a distinction that escapes someone that would rather believe fantasies than facts.

          What you think are insults are simply statements of observed behavior that verify the statements. If you resent the statements, modify your behavior.

          You want respect? Then stop acting like a moron.

        • Thos Weatherby on

          You made some statements that were not true. Let's discuss Gullible Warming. You mentioned that the glaciers were melting and the Polar caps were melting. Sorry but you're wrong. Try these sites. I can send you 50 more.

          Now as for the oceans rising. Not happening.

          Dr. Morner is an expert on ocean levels. He has written over 25% of ALL scientific papers on the subject.

          Here's some more facts.

          From Climatic History of the Holocene, by James S. Abe has written that the ocean levels are now shrinking. Not rising.

          Please stop with the personal attacks. You're showing a great deal of immaturity and your bias and naivete on the subject.

          Why did Mars warm up more than Earth? Why did Venus warm up more than Earth? Why is Pluto going through a warming period. It warmed up over 12 degrees C.

          I still haven't heard or seen any facts from you. How about this picture.

        • James Smith Jo&Atild on

          Weatherby, you are either a liar, a fool, or else both. Just because there are other people that deny obvious facts, that doesn't make them or you correct.

          Perhaps you have not seen the photographs of the ice caps and glaciers disappearing? Perhaps you have not read of the pacific islands slowly being inundated by rising sea levels? More likely, you choose to ignore these facts because they don't support your own ignorance.

          I am finished with you.

      • Thos Weatherby on

        The Neanderthals went extinct. They would have evolved from Cro Magnon. But evolutionist have a tough time explaining why there were two species and where they both came from.

    • James Smith Jo&atild on

      The FACTS are, there are thousands of pieces of evidence of evolution in museums, laboratories, and universities around the world. There is not one piece of evidence of creationism anywhere in the world.

      Furthermore, evolution does NOT state that humans evolved from monkeys, but that both evolved from a common ancestor. Once again, the ignorance of the religious reich exposes itself.

      "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt." There is no longer any doubt about you, religion and "creation science". All are foolish, ignorant, and should be eliminated from the earth.

      • James Smith JoÃ?£o Pessoa, Brazil on

        I presume you meant that as a compliment. Perhaps because I use facts and speak the truth? If I say something is ignorant or stupid, it’s because someone has demonstrated that through their posts.

        If you are being sarcastic, you don’t do that very well. If you think I have not been mature, perhaps you would give specific examples or solid evidence? Evidence, truth, and provable statements do have meaning for you? Or not?

    • To believe creation and all life happened by chance and that people evolved from monkey or apes does not have one iota of proof behind it. While life changes through time some there is zero evidence that we evolved from a one cell creature. To say it isn’t possible for man to be created is like saying it isn’t possible that a computer has had a creator.
      The beginning of foolishness is to say there is no God and reject the hundreds of prophecies of the Bible that have all come true. The beginning of wisdom is to know there is a God and that he reveals himself through Creation, Revelation and Regneration. Those who have been regenerated by God’s Spirit know that God exists and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek and find him. Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me.’ He is the way to God, the truth of God and the life of God. He not only always told the truth. He is the truth. To know Jesus is find the one in who are all the treasures of wisdom an knowledge. i found hm 61 years ago. He has performed over fifty miracles in my life through answered prayer. He is a person not a religion. in him we live and move and have our being. All things were created by him and for him and nothing was made that is made except through him. Creation is a product of a living God, not a chance cell floating in a sea.

      • Thanks for telling them the truth. The interesting thing is that truth does not become lies because some people chose not to believe the truth

      • A child of God on

        Love your response…..teary eyed….without God there is nothing ….Amen Amen Amen!!!!!!???

      • And what Christians did with Galilio….have you forgotten about what is written in Bible about Earth’s rotation. When scientific theories proven wrong those replaced by New theory … But when religious verses proven wrong you people changed the meaning of verses. Science gives you everything but you people don’t deserve it.

        • I agree I believe that people just constantly have to have something that doesn’t agree. So they create this conflict between religion and science just to keep the disagreements going and the truth is God is a superior scientist and there is no contradiction between his science or his Godly words which he has spoken about his science in the Bible That’s the spoken word in science actually is the proof of his word

    • Peter Murphy on

      It is a shame that details in Number 2, “Einstein’s Statis Universe” are not correct. It was not Edwin Hubble who discovered the theory of an expanding universe and the ‘Big Bang Theory’ but rather a Belgian Priest at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven by the name of Father Georges Lemaître in 1927. Edwin Hubble simple developed Lemaître’s theory in his published work in 1929.

      • Frederick Thornton on

        incorrect. Abbe Lemaitre hypothesized the universe expanding, in an attempt to raise credibility of his Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom which Fred Hoyle derisively called the Big Bang. When Lemaitre first introduced his BBT it was not well received. Hubble noticed a redshift in stellar objects which he suggested could be akin to a doppler effect. It was lemaitre who derived the Hubble Constant and declared the universe expanding and ever since we have been stuck with a theory which Pope Pious X in 1950 declared a confirmation of Catholicism. It should be noted that Lemaitre being a priest may have been driven by the religious dictum “creatio ex nihilo”.

        It should also be noted that Halton Arp a former student of and assistant to Hubble published a book called “The Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies” which showed many many images of stellar objects with different redshift values inhabiting the same region of space thereby bringing into question the alleged doppler effect.