Lots of Non Religious Scientists - Reader comments at The New York Sun

Reader comment on:
Evolution's Trap
in response to reader comment: consider the source

Submitted by Chris Leach, May 25, 2007 07:52

There are a plethora of scientists that will say evolution does not have a leg to stand on. Many of them are, in fact, atheists as you want. They do not believe in a God, but do know that humans are to complex to just have accidently evolved into what we are.

Religious fanatics are not science hating people, as a matter of fact, they are fanatics as evolutionists truly are. We are open to science to challenge our views, where evolutionists do everything in their power to strike down any science that proves their beliefs as hokey, phoney and just plain stupidity.

Evolution scientists are proven to have a bias when they start their analysis on evolution and Creation. They are more biased to evolution, thus all their findings will be biased towards evolution. To say this isn't so, shows how bad your bias is. Some want their beliefs to be true so bad they will overlook TRUE science to make theirs look like fact.

Charles Darwin said, if the fossil record can not prove evolution within 100 hundred years, then evolution should be discarded as unproveable. Ok that isn't word for word but a paraphrase. Instead of heeding darwins analysis you have people actually CHANGING evolution to fit the times. First we came from monkeys, some hold to this still, then it was goo, then fish, and now some are saying birds. Of course I keep hearing how science has gotten better and they had to change what we started as, humans that is, because science proves it. How can science prove we came from monkeys, oh wait, thats not right, we came from goo, wait not it, fish, oh wait, new evidence and science say birds. You evolutionists are grasping at straws hoping one will hold.

Religion, Christianity, hasn't changed in OVER 2000 years, and has been upheld against pre-evolutionists and evolutionists for the same time.

Is Creationism and evolution compatible, by no means are they compatible. To believe so, means you don't believe in Adam and Eve, and Jesus who came to earth to be the Ultimate Sacrifice for our sins. To believe death, disease, corruption all existed before Adam took the bite of the forbidden fruit and committed the FIRST SIN, that resulted in the FIRST death would mean that God sees death/disease/corruption as all good things. It just isn't so.

Science proves that the human is too complex, molecules are too complex, and the needed gases, 4 of them, sorry can't remember them off the top of my head, were not around billions of years ago to create life of any type and the possibility of those 4 gases to spontaneously appearing at the right moment is astronomical to even believe. NASA scientists came to that conclusion.

Science actually disproves evolution, so why would Christians hate it? Why wouldn't we want science to continue on?

Evolutionists will try smoke and mirrors to get their hokey science, or as they say, consensus science, meaning a group of scientists agree with it, but the facts don't, passed as fact, when in real truth, they can't produce the facts needed to prove their hypothosis.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Other reader comments on this article

Comment	By	Date
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble... [MORE]	James Collins	Jun 1, 2007 11:01
At the end I would change "opposition to conservative Christian beliefs" to "opposition to religious beliefs". Christians do not have a monopoly... [MORE]	D Hollander	May 27, 2007 21:49
They believe, to generalize broadly, that evolution is just one of the ways that a deity or deities works in... [MORE]	MPW	May 28, 2007 13:02
One does not "believe" in evolution anymore than one believes in gravity. Gravity exists, and exerts its influence throughout the... [MORE]	MacTurk	May 25, 2007 13:01
MacTurk comments that "One does not believe in evolution any more than one believes in gravity. Gravity exists ... "... [MORE]	Steve Bartholomew	May 27, 2007 22:00
Regarding those writers who believe that evolution is an absolute fact have yet to show me the creatures or whatever... [MORE]	E. Koos	May 25, 2007 04:51
Dear Sir, This was a deliberate, scripted, planned in advance question designed to embarass the candidates. It was posed by a... [MORE]	Roy Lofquist	May 25, 2007 01:41
It'shard to believe that anyone claiming to be aware of the science in biology would at this date still be... [MORE]	Harry Eagar	May 24, 2007 23:37
There have been 22 species of human alone. Perhaps if we weren't in the unusual point of our evolutionary history... [MORE]	Scott Baker	May 24, 2007 16:49
When a politician is asked about evolution the question could be rephrased: "Does religion trump science in the arena of... [MORE]	Del Dodge	May 24, 2007 14:52
Its even easier to just say yes, and that evolution is just one of many laws (gravity, electromagnetism) and processes... [MORE]	Charles Miller	May 24, 2007 14:15
Mr. Blackwell is wrong on everything. First, there is no difference between macro and micro evolution. One is just a... [MORE]	Scott Baker	May 24, 2007 11:02
We can't DO evolution. We can DO hybridization (aritifical selection). We can breed animals to our hearts content, and my... [MORE]	Pepper	May 24, 2007 13:24
Scott Baker made a misstep when he talks about intermediate forms in nature. It is true there exist fish and... [MORE]	Paul Hamilton	May 24, 2007 13:50
If one is longer and more complicated then that is in fact a difference. A fish eye is a fish... [MORE]	Wallyhuck	May 24, 2007 14:31
Mr. Baker, you seem to be needlessly blind on just about every subject Mr. Blackwell mentions. 1. Microevolution and macroevolution, as... [MORE]	Mark Romer	May 24, 2007 18:31
No intermediate forms? Then why do horses have "chestnuts"? Why do whales have vestigial pelvises? Could a flying squirrel be... [MORE]	Thomas Collet	May 25, 2007 14:28
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Blackwell should really learn some real science, and not the religion infused garbage he's been reading. The... [MORE]	Grant Canyon	May 24, 2007 09:55
As the previous two comments demonstrate, "evolution" is an emotionally freighted term that is broadly defined. It seems to be... [MORE]	Charles Putnam	May 24, 2007 14:02
There is a myth propagated by opponents of Darwinian evolution that many credentialed scientists question evolution's veracity. The only serious... [MORE]	Thomas Collet	May 24, 2007 17:59
There are a plethora of scientists that will say evolution does not have a leg to stand on. Many of...	Chris Leach	May 25, 2007 07:52
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University: ‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an... [MORE]	Donald Dunnam	May 25, 2007 14:13
If any scientist can disprove evolution he needs to get his paper typed up and off to the Nobel commitee... [MORE]	Thomas Collet	May 25, 2007 17:33
You start out by claiming there are a bunch of atheist scientists who have come out against evolutionary theory. One... [MORE]	MPW	May 28, 2007 14:07