I think what this survey is telling us is not that people don’t believe in god anymore but that on some level they know that the things they were taught in church when they were young and impressionable cannot be literally true which means Americans are fading into critical thinking. I see and hear this dilemma everytime I speak to a so-called Christian. Especially those who call themselves “moderates”. They are moderates for a reason and it is because anyone who has had a standard high school education has been forced to think critically. And common sense and logic just does not permit them to believe such irrational nonsense literally. I think this is a sign that Americans are starting to grow up a little.

With outfits like ISeeJesus.com in business perform religious hoaxes for commercial gain, it’s hard to see why anybody believes in religion anymore.

True that

I honestly can’t see how people can think about it and then decide God doesn’t exist. How was the first matter formed if there is no God? How was intelligence made if there is no God? How can so many prophesies come true if there wasn’t a God giving the information? Why do people who actually give an honest attempt at seeing if there is a God instead of just denying it, become Christians so often? How do miracles all over the world happen after being asked for by God if there isn’t a God? If you actually do think critically then you must realize that there IS a God.

Really? What miracles? If god performs miracles where was he on 9/11? Where was god in Darfur where females refugees fled there villages risking sexual assault? God, if there ever was one might as well not exist. If you really do have faith and believe in miracles then what’s going to happen when and if you catch the swine flu? Surely you’ll see a doctor rather than sit around and pray all day. And please explain why the ones who do refuse medical medical treatment die every time? Not some of the time or most of the time. Everytime. Ooh ooh!! I know!! Because god is imaginary.

Well the miracles I’m talking about are people being cured of cancer, diseases overcome, and even children being raised from the dead. Ya, it happens but people just refuse to believe it. And there are problems in the world, and I can’t tell you for sure why. Maybe it’s so Christians have a chance to help and can witness to others. Maybe it’s punishment of some kind (and don’t say punishment would be unfair, because fair would be all of us dying because we live such terrible lives). But I don’t know why God allows bad things to happen, but that’s his call. Also God doesn’t heal people if they are being ridiculous. He isn’t going to heal somebody that just refuses to take treatment. God intervenes when everything that can humanly be done has been attempted. Then, when God is the only chance, if whoever is asking for a miracle believes in it, then God will perform a miracle. I’m not saying God won’t perform other miracles when he is the only chance, but if somebody is being lazy or not being smart, then God may not perform a miracle. And I can tell you from first hand experiences that God is real. And so can anybody else that has given God and honest chance and experienced Him.

Children raised from the dead? How could people possibly refuse to believe that happened?

It’s so amazing how religious people pretend to be so certain about God’s ways one minute or to quote the above,”God intervenes when everything that can be humanly done is attempted”, and as soon as you ask them a tough question then all of a sudden they don’t know God’s ways or why his actions or lack of action is so absurd. Children raised from the dead? Cured from cancer? Now your just making stuff up. Your rebuttal is just the same old nonanswer or “God works in mysterious ways” cop-out for why a supposed loving God allows women in Darfur to suffer and be taken advantage of. Imagine how those women pleaded. Imagine how they must have begged them to stop and the more they cried the harder they raped them. How can anyone consider themselves moral for believing that?

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them…

-Mark 16:17-18

Now this allows an excellent and clear way to test the power of Christian belief. If you really, really believe in Jesus and you want to prove to anyone the power of belief, you only need to drink a deadly poison and, according to Jesus, it will not harm you. So I guess that leaves out your other notion that “God doesn’t heal people if they are being ridiculous”. If you describe yourself as a believer, I suggest that you drink a vial of cyanide or arsenic and prove to yourself (or any atheist) the power of your deity. If you do not feel willing to take this simple test, then what does that say about your religious claims? Do you feel up for the challenge? Probably not. I’m done with this blog since we have gotten way off subject. You can persist in delusion while I follow the wise words of Pee Wee Herman, “SHHHH! I’m trying to listen to reason”.

Try praying to a milk carton instead of God. The results will be exactly the same. BTW, did you know that if you gaze at the sun you can see up the Virgin Mary’s dress? Try it.

Look, we can all find flaws in another person’s argument and stay on that one flaw all you want. For example, scientists thought of the big bang. But they thought of the big bang of nothing. Sorry, but last time I checked some type of matter has to exist before it can explode. Unless it of course spontaneously combusted, or was created by something. So if you want to believe in spontaneous combustion, something that was proven untrue, go ahead. And yes I did know you could see up Mary’s dress. I’ve looked many times unfortunately. Thanks though.

You say “scientists thought of the big bang” as if a concise argument against theism even exists. All theories are mutable, a fact that science has inevitably had to accept time and again for hundreds of years. The Bible on the other hand is ultimate in its idea of how the universe works, and christians deny how dated and potentially full of crap it is by picking and choosing what passages should be taken literally. To make matters worse, some people try and prove something they’ve already decided is true anyway by considering anything not immediately explained by science as evidence! It’s like saying “hey look, Timmy’s cancer mysteriously disappeared; he must have collected all seven dragonballs!” It’s a joke!

First of all, I believe the entire bible is true. All the evidence shows that the Bible’s history is true. We have never, ever seen organisms grow new parts or evolve into different types of animals, only change what they already have. So why would you believe in macroevolution? Anyways, I guarantee if any of you would give God a chance and honestly try to see if he was real, you would believe.

Johnston, please link us to this evidence (and by “evidence” I don’t mean the bible) because I’m so sure you became a christian AFTER sifting through all the proof.

If microevolution is clearly evident, then why wouldn’t you believe in macroevolution? They’re the same process! “It only changes what they already have,” i. e. a hand starts functioning as a flipper. That’s called evolving

That’s my point though. A hand doesn’t start functioning as a flipper. People don’t grow feathers or scales or tails. Micro evolution involves small changes, which we see in nature all the time, but never has macro evolution been observed. Its believing in something that was completely made up by scientists. Why would you believe it if it has never occurred? We don’t see any “missing links” alive today. There are no monkey humans, no horse whales, no in between species. The fossils that are considered “missing links” are just results of micro evolution. They are small changes in one species that may make them more similar to other species, but it certainly doesn’t prove they evolved into another species. And if you want just a little proof why the history in the bible is supported then read

http://answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

or

http://answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/does-the-big-bang-fit

or

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/did-humans-really-evolve‘

or any of the other articles on that site

No transitional species observed!!!

…..Or so goes the mantra of Duane Gish, Henry Morris, Dr. Dino, Carl Baugh and to a lesser extent, Ken Ham at Answers in Genesis. Fundamentalist creationists have their own way of seeing, and of denying the physical evidence open to anyone who wishes to examine it. They like to say that dogs always come from dogs, or they claim that evolution says that man came from monkeys. For some reason they cannot understand what a family tree represents, the branching of lineages. Given sufficient time, the change in lineages can be immense. There was a time when, in some respects, the fossil evidence was scant. Today we have a marvelous series of transitional or intermediate forms in many diverse lineages. Dogs are a perfect example of artificial selection. Darwin developed his theory in part because of his study of how dogs and pigeons were bred. He knew several breeders of dogs and asked them how they selected certain traits. According to the American Kennel Club, there are over 150 different dog breeds, from tiny Chihuahuas to giant Great Danes, but they are the same species (Canis familiaris) and all are descendants of wolves. A species is a group of individuals that can reproduce with one another, producing offspring that are able to reproduce. A breed is a group of domestic animals within a species whose appearance has been determined by artificial selection over many generations. An individual of one breed will be able to successfully reproduce with an individual of another breed, but both breeds’ distinctive characteristics can be lost, this makes a mixed breed animal. Breeders taught Darwin how they selected certain characteristics and how they ensured that those characteristics made it into the next generation. That’s how different dog breeds are made. If a breeder wanted a dog with a curly coat, he or she would allow curly-coated dogs to breed and not allow them to breed with straight-coated dogs. In nature, the most well-adapted animals are more likely to survive and reproduce, but in dog breeding, the dogs with the desirable characteristics are allowed to reproduce by the breeders.

And yeah sure, this is just one big conspiracy on the part of scientist to just make stuff up without evidence to support it. Marco-evolution not observed? The fossil record provides countless examples of macroevolution over large amounts of geologic time. Different types of animals dominated different time periods. Some are still alive today. Trilobites, crinoids and brachiopods dominated shallow water environments during the Paleozoic era (approximately 540 million years ago to 250 million years ago). Rocks that were once part of the shallow marine environment of the Paleozoic are peppered with fossils of these creatures that are either extinct or much less common today but they still, in fact, exist today.

Crinoids are less abundant today. Only a few hundred species exist now. During the Paleozoic they were so common that parts of their fossilized skeletons compose entire rocks in locations of the central United States, an area that used to be part of the shallow ocean floor. To avoid predators, MODERN crinoids either live on the deep ocean floor (up to 6000 meters deep) or tuck themselves into cracks in rocks. Brachiopods are still alive today but are much less common. They’re housed in shells like clams and equipped with little nets for collecting food from seawater and were very diverse during their Paleozoic heyday. There are no trilobites alive today but they are the most diverse group in the fossil record. More than 15,000 species have been identified. So quit parading around in your misinformation campaign. Do your homework.

As for evidence of evolution for apes to humans: Apes have 24 pair and we have 23 pair of chromosomes. We know enough about primate genetics to know that a complete loss of a chromosome pair would be fatal. There is, however, a way to explain the absence of the pair in our species. In the line that led to us, 2 primate chromosomes fused to form a single pair. And the best part is, it’s testable. Chromosomes themselves have landmarks that provide clues to search for a fusion event. The tips of chromosomes contain dna sequences called telomeres. If one pair fused with another we would find telomeres where they don’t belong-right in the middle-at the fushion point between the 2 original pair. Centromeres are the places where newly replicated chromosomes are attached prior to cell division and have unique sequences of dna that are easily recognized. If our genome contained a fused chromosome, it should have 2 centromeres and in which case we would be able to identify both of them and identify the sources of both. Do we have such a chromosome? Yes we do!! It is human chromosome 2. The molecular evidence for the fusion point is so strong that we can actually identify the exact region where the 2 chromosome tips were combined, where two primate chromosomes were pasted together. DNA doesn’t lie.

Human chromosome 2 does contain telomere dna at the fusion point and carries 2 centromere sequences that correspond to the centromeres from chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13. The genes on human chromosome 2 are arranged in an exact match and, in fact, scientist working on the chimpanzee genome have now changed the numbering of the chimp chromosomes 12 and 13 to chromosomes 2A and 2B to match the human chromosome to which they correspond. The forensic case of the missing chromosome is settled beyond any shadow of doubt!! So as for you, johnston, give your fingers a rest and try debating someone of less intellect so you don’t make a fool of yourself ANYMORE.

You know Johnston, you’ve made me appreciate the fact that I’m a layman when it comes to things like geology and chemistry, which are essential for understanding the evolutionary timeline. The first link you sent me really got me thinking, and I decided to do some research. Basically, the article you sent me was bogus, and I’ll explain why.

The author argues that scientists haven’t anticipated fluctuations in atmospheric C-14 levels and quotes W.F. Libby, founder of the radiocarbon method. One problem with this is that the source they’ve decided to quote was written in the year 1952. Radiocarbon dating methods have been substantially refined in the last 50 years, and scientists are well aware that the C-14 – C-12 ratio has not remained constant throughout history. That is why the age of objects determined using the radiocarbon method are reinforced by supplementing them with other, more immediately reliable data like the age of trees and coral (examples like these contribute to what is called a calibration scale, an essential tool in the field of conventional radiometric dating. The idea is, when dates obtained using completely different methods invariably agree with each other, their conclusions are very likely correct.)

Also, this article mentions the RATE group; a team of christian scientists who began a research project in 1997 to study the age of the earth. One of the RATE groups conclusions was that diamonds (which are born deep within the earth’s crust) that contain traces of C-14 debunk the assertion that they are older than 100,000 years. This conclusion is however negligent of the fact that the radiocarbon dating method in question only works on objects that absorb carbon from the atmosphere; not those that are nestled deep underground. The RATE group is notorious for choosing to publish their findings in creation publications rather than mainstream science journals, and you can read about a few of their other “discoveries” here:

http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item14.htm

To people who aren’t geologists and molecular biologists, the argument presented in your first link concerning the unreliability of radiocarbon dating (which for the record is but one of many dating methods used to measure the earth’s age) does come off as impressive, but upon further inspection, the only other websites that agree with it are ones with names like “creationwiki,” “CRI.org” and “creation.com,” and when compared to impartial scientific sources like encarta or colombia university, its most argumentatively pertinent information is decieving. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, articles like the one you linked me to pick and choose which facts they want to accept, and which ones they want to ignore. I’ll finish reading the other two articles tomorrow; if they’re anything like that last one then I guess I’ll be untying some more misinformational knots this week

Johnston: And before you or anyone for that matter, argues that fossil evidence is dated and interpreted to meet evolutionary assumptions, remember that the geological column and the relative dates therein were established by people who believed in divine creation BEFORE Darwin even formulated his theory.

Ok let me start with Vestax. Thanks for the lecture on how people breed dogs for desirable traits. I was already aware of that and it has nothing to do with evolution or creation, especially since the only characteristics that change in this instance are characteristics they already had (micro evolution). And certain animals becoming extinct or more prevalent also has nothing to do with macro evolution. You are really making yourself look bad by telling me to “do my homework” because up until that point you had said nothing relevant. Anyways, as for the apes to human ideas you mentioned, I actually have not heard of this yet. Can you give me the place where you found this information? Because I would like to look into it for myself. But you saying that the geologic column and relative dates being made by creationists before Darwin is not true. If scientists had already thought of this information before him, why would he get all the credit for it, and why would it have been such a “break through” for science? Also it was only recently theorized that the earth was very old before Darwin started his studies, so clearly people had not already established relative dates of animals.

Scradley, I understand that radiocarbon dating has improved since it was first discovered, but it still can only date things if the C-14 to C-12 ratio did remain fairly constant. It is impossible to know what this ratio was earlier in time as the article states, and therefore impossible to accurately date objects. And as for using trees and corral that can have their age determined in other ways, how old are the trees and corral they are using? Because obviously they are not using trees that are millions of years old so it could not accurately show if carbon dating is correct for long periods of time. If the trees and corral used for this testing were still relatively young then the C-14 to C-12 ratio could still be the same at that point. And of course the only places to agree with these claims are Christian based, because if any atheist based organizations agreed with it, then it would contradict their beliefs.

He got all the credit, not for the geological column, but was credited for daring to make humans a part of the animal kingdom in the Descent of Man, In Relations To Sex and Selection. And crinoids and brachiopods do, in fact, demonstrate macro evolution. As for human evolution, sure, take it from a theist just like you!! Roman Catholic Cell Biologist, Kenneth Miller wrote a book about it called “Only A Theory” Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul”. He argued as an expert witness in the Kentzmiller vs. Dover Trial in Dover, Pennsylvania. And with each arguement from irreducible complexity, (people like Michael Behe and William Demski arguing in favor of ID) a thiest and pro-evolutionist himself, Kenneth Miller, laid out case for a supreme court judge who was appointed by George Bush and was an ID proponent himself. Try youtube and type in Ken Miller on Human Evolution and he will give you a short and to-the-point lecture himself.
Or try http://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1651.full
Also, check out Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller. Don’t take it from me. Take it from someone who worships the same imaginary person you do who when confronted with the evidence himself, had to concede to the truth of evolution. All he can do is compromise like many others and say that god started evolution which has no biblical support.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
There you go!

“And of course the only places to agree with these claims are Christian based, because if any atheist based organizations agreed with it, then it would contradict their beliefs”.
In defense of Scradely(I got ya buddy):That’s not even an arguement. That’s just side-stepping the obvious. The Bible was not inspired and written by god but by impressionable minds your own. Why would any scientist object to the notion of creationism, intelligent design or any other supernatural phenomena, should the data warrant that they deserve attention? Most scientist would be delighted at the opening up of an exciting new field of study that would undoubtedly receive generous funding.

Correction (impressionable minds Like your own)

Proof of god would be an incredible honor for anyone who is willing to use science and reason and follow the evidence rather than pointing a bull’s eye wherever the arrow hits. Much of us would love to be proven wrong but more importantly, we want real answers and not a bunch of tribal traditions that couldn’t possibly ring true and be relevant to modern day life.

Well obviously Intelligent Design is at least a possibility, but it is still not looked into. An intelligent creator is the only way matter could have first been formed. On top of this where did intelligence, consciences, morality, and emotions come from if it wasn’t a designer? What could possibly cause these things to form naturally? ID is a relevant idea to science today, but is just discarded completely. The movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” shows how ID isn’t even allowed to be investigated properly. It also has a pretty entertaining clip, where one of the world’s leading atheists, Richard Dawkins, says that aliens may have formed our world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=related

Johnston: No, living coral is not millions of years old, but fossilized coral is, and I’ll explain why without even mentioning radiometric dating at all.

As coral grows, it records its age in days with diurnal growth ridges that respond to night and day, as well as annual growth rings that respond to seasonal weather.

The Earth’s orbit around the Sun remains relatively constant, and so the total amount of time in an Earth year is also constant. But the Earth’s rotation on its axis slows by about 0.00002 seconds per year, meaning that as time moves on, Earth days are gradually becoming longer, and the amount of days in a year is decreasing. By this continuous rate of change, a year would have been 396 days long 380 million years ago, and a day would have been 22 hours long.

Because fossilized coral maintains its diurnal and annual ridges, its age can easily be determined by comparing it with the rate of of the Earth’s rotation. All you need to do is count the coral’s two types of ridges to find out how many days were in a year at the time of growth.

Radiocarbon dating is never taken as accurate on its own; it’s calibrated using data from other dating techniques. I don’t understand why you keep bringing up how unreliable it is by itself when I’ve already told you that it’s only used in conjuction with other information.

“of course the only places to agree with these claims are Christian based, because if any atheist based organizations agreed with it, then it would contradict their beliefs.”
Please don’t suggest that mainstream science is “atheist based.” To this day many scientists are christian, including those that believe in evolution and including those that support an Earth older than 6,000 years! You act as if there are two definitive camps of people who share all the same respective beliefs and who identify themselves as either religious or atheist, when in fact belief in God and belief in an ancient Earth are not mutually exclusive. Scientists have nothing to gain by making implications that contradict the Bible, they just understand that if you want to get to the bottom of something, you can’t hold on to assumptions based on old legends. Still waiting on that proof btw

I have watched “No Intelligence Allowed,” and it’s ironic in that it’s a documentary that denounces biases while managing to be one of the most biased documentaries ever. The argument that both creation science and regular science should be considered equal is based on the misconception that science supports both equally. As far as I’ve seen, creation science (or creationism, as it’s traditionally called) isn’t supported by much other than the idea that whatever it believes must be true regardless of research or evidence

“Well obviously Intelligent Design is at least a possibility, but it is still not looked into”.
That’s Your response!! I guess that means I’ve stumped you on the human genome.
No, ID has been discredited on the evidence. Their so-called theory isn’t a theory at all because it does not make or confirm any predictions as does evolution and every other theory. ID says that all life appeared out of nowhere coming from an intelligent agent that just appeared out of nowhere. Yet you are still afraid to embrace the idea of a universe that came into being on its own. Intelligence, morality,consciousness EVOLVED because they all have survival value. We decide what is morally and socially exceptable by weighing out the possible benefits of preventing unnecessary harm. We use critical thinking. All of those things are the product of natural selection. “Expelled” is just propaganda. Even the standing ovation at the end of the movie was staged. ID can, has, and must be investigated. It was in Dover Pennsylvania and was conclusively destroyed and turned on its head by a THEIST of all things. But proponents don’t want to be subject to peer review like every other scientist and so they use the power of the media to sway popular opinion and skip the peer review to be injected directly into text books and be given even footing without providing any plausible reason why we should take these claims seriously. ID doesn’t attempt to explain how life came into being but attempts to cater to one specific ideology, namely, Christianity.
Science isn’t a democracy. We’re not going to let someone teach wicca, scientology, or buddhism in the science classroom just to be fair. Those claims/beliefs are subject to the same peer review process that evolution, germ, aerodynamics, atomic, and gravitational theory and countless other theories are before they can be given an inch in our school districts.
All you can do after seeing all the evidence I have provided for you about the human genome and the genome of our distant cousins is stick you fingers in your ears and say, “Lalalalalalalalalla, I can’t hear you!! Lalalalalalalala, I don’t believe you even though modern day genetics confirms evolution in our own DNA, lalalalalalala”!! So now you have to pretend that it’s just obvious that there is a designer again with no substance to your claim at all. That’s just an affirmation of personal incredulity.

And just in case anyone attempts to say that ID isn’t a bias that caters toward one particular ideology, check this out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpL1dmfVoGA

Ian: An all present God, that is a higher power, makes a lot more sense than just somehow matter formed from absolutely nothing. If something that has always been didn’t create the first things, then where did they come from?

Scradley: How do scientists know that the earth is slowing on its axis by 0.00002 seconds per year. Wouldn’t you have to be alive for a very long time to even realize this? Because how could you possibly detect such a minor change? The point of the movie was to show that researchers are not even allowed to test their opinions, so how can advancements in the area of ID be made?

Vestax: I don’t know enough about the human genome myself to know whether this is a truly valid claim. I’ll try to look into it, but at this point I can’t say that I have enough knowledge to debate about this. But I don’t see how intelligence could ever evolve. Rocks will never become smart no matter how much time you give them. What random mutation would result in a rock or any non-intelligent thing to become intelligent?

Everybody: I’m sorry if I came off like I was trying to be a jerk. I’m not trying to make you angry, I just want to put your beliefs to the test.

We understand. And we are just simply returning the favor by putting your beliefs to the test. I’ll let your nonarguement about rocks roll off my shoulder this time. As a matter of fact, I’ll try not to be so damn right all the time and I’ll let these other guys finish you off.
Scradley, Ian, Willis, Glenn, Spoonman, and whomever I may have missed, he’s all yours.

One thing about the ape chromosomes. When this random mutation that caused the fusion to happen, how did this animal mate? Because it could not have mated with the other apes as it had a different number of chromosomes.

You all are just chumps. Who cares if person A believes in a magic man with a beard and person B doesn’t.

No on arguing here is ever going to convince anyone else of anything that they don’t already believe in so all this talk is pointless.

It really doesn’t matter to me if I make a believer out of anyone, but it doesn’t make all of this pointless. It matters to all of us that our voices are heard especially for atheist and agnostics who really have no mainstream platform for us to voice those opinions. This is what this site is for. We can and will defend our beliefs or lack thereof whether you think it is dumb or not. So why don’t you quit being a chump and add something constructive to the conversation? Your mother must have loved you with a name like that.

Johnston: You detect it with atomic clocks. Normally, seconds, minutes, and hours are counted in relation to a day, which is based on the earth’s rotation and a calendar based on the earth’s orbit. Atomic clocks are more precise than regular clocks and measure time based on the frequency of microwaves emitted by atoms. Atomic clocks have an accuracy of one second every 1,400,000 years (0.000000002 seconds per day per year). So yes, you would realize a difference of 0.00002 seconds per day per year if you compared the running time of an atomic clock to running calendar time.

And I can understand how suggesting theories based on religious beliefs would carry stigma in the academic world, but with Creationism’s approach to other things like teaching their ill-founded beliefs in public schools, I think that reputation is well-deserved. If you really want to prove creation, then do preliminary research that doesn’t assume things that haven’t been proven yet, like deities and great floods. Otherwise it’s obvious that you aren’t doing honest research and instead trying to nurture beliefs you already have

Michael: I don’t know who you think you are buddy boy, but no one and I mean NO ONE talks to me like that and gets away with it.

Scradley: What are you humming about now? atomic cocks? I wrote the book on atomic cocks back in the day, and you clearly don’t know a thing about them. Why don’t you do your self a favor and read a book once in a while huh?

As for the rest of you chumps, you should all just watch your selves.

Seacrest out!

This brings us back to our lesson on macro evolution. Individuals don’t evolve, populations do. In some region there must have been a group of primates whose genes were being selected in such a manner that not a single individual but that particular population’s genes were being fused together. And I’m not entirely ruling out the possibility that some inbreeding may have taken place, as it clearly (and disgustingly) does take place amongst humans today even though it is not necessarily very beneficial to do so. If you find a problem with the idea of inbreeding, think about your own creation story. God created Adam and Eve, right. If they were the ones who were to populate the earth then someone had to fuck someone’s sister, lol.
Now to be sincere, we do not know exactly how quickly the fusion of chromosomes 2A and 2B took place and in how many of the same lineage to make it possible for them to propagate their own genes. But we know that it happened because that is the story our DNA tells us. As I said before, DNA doesn’t lie. And while it may seem improbable, in hindsight, that such an extraordinary event could possibly take place to lead up to the incredible sophistication we see in human beings today, we should expect our origins to SEEM nothing short of miraculous. And to re-emphasize Scradley’s last statement(which was very well put, I must say), I encourage you to do some honest research instead of trying nurture what you already believe. Most of us were just like you and believed in the same nonsense but we followed our nose instead of following the leaders of our congregations, and honest inquiry is what lead us to conclude that the things we were raised to believe are not just false, but even demonstrably false.

I’m done being Professor Vestax now. Let’s move on already. If you insist on having your last word, then have at it because I know you want to.

I’m shaking in my bones. ;) Ya feel better, Penis In Your Ass And Face?

Haha! I did have the last word! And I am doing honest research and by arguing with your beliefs here it can show me areas I need to look more into. Anyway now that I do have the last word, because I wanted it real bad, I’m done too.