Fox News Urges Creation-Evolution Dialogue

This is at the website of Fox News: In creation-evolution debate America needs a Day of Listening. The author, Tim Stafford (that’s his page at Amazon), is: “an award-winning author, a regular contributor to Christianity Today and Campus Life magazines, and co-editor of The Student Bible.”

He mentions one of his books, The Adam Quest: Eleven Scientists Who Held on to a Strong Faith While Wrestling with the Mystery of Human Origins, which he says: “profiles scientists on all sides of the evolution-creation debate.” Then, skipping a bit, he tells us, with bold font added for emphasis:

Both sides of the creation-evolution debate want to lecture the other. And they do! The Internet has vastly increased the level of intemperance.

Those who believe the Earth is old are astonished and outraged that some large percentage of Americans (the number varies depending on whose survey you believe) remains convinced the earth is young and that dinosaurs roamed our planet with Adam and Eve.

It is astonishing, but we’re used to it. Then, being even-handed, Stafford presents the other side:

Those who believe the Earth is young are equally outraged that creation scientists can’t get their papers published in mainstream science journals — and that their narrative of Earth’s history can’t even get a mention in science textbooks as an alternative theory.

Outrageous indeed! Let’s read on:

Both sides can (and do) give you an earful about the strong evidence for their position, and the shocking and willful ignorance of those who won’t listen. What I can’t find, anywhere, are people listening to each other.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Who wants to listen to Ken Ham, or any other young-Earther? For that matter, who wants to listen to the creationist old-Earthers at the Discovery Institute? Few people in this universe have poured over their arguments more than your humble Curmudgeon, and we have no desire to actually listen to them. We know what they have to say. Stafford continues:

I would like to propose, therefore, a Day of Listening. The format is simple. Those who care about issues of creation and evolution will seek out somebody on the other side and seek merely to understand.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Life is too short to waste a day like that. Here’s more:

I know there is small likelihood that issues of creation and evolution will be solved through such an exercise. It’s not even clear that people are capable of understanding each other on these complex issues.

Creationism is complex? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Moving along:

One thing is clear to me, however: the righteousness of both sides is not getting us anywhere. People have been shouting across the barricades for decades, and nobody has budged an inch. It only makes people more angry.

Are we “righteous”? Sane would be a better adjective. Are we “angry”? Resolute is more like it. Another excerpt:

I know the objections. “We already know what they say, and they are wrong, wrong, wrong! Why should I waste time listening to them?” Interestingly, people on both sides say it.

Probably, but just because creationists say it doesn’t mean they understand what we’re saying, or that they want to. On with the article:

Maybe if they pulled back their vituperation and committed to a Day of Listening, they might make space for understanding.

Stafford is trying to be reasonable, but he doesn’t get it. We do understand the creationists. We also understand that they don’t have the first clue what science is all about, nor are they interested — they think it’s evil. We understand the situation rather well, and that’s why we know that dialogue with creationists is hopeless.

Stafford admits that he doesn’t hope for agreement, only understanding. What does that mean? Here’s how he finishes:

[T]he world was made, by whatever method and in whatever time frame. It’s done. We live in it! What matters much more than the method by which it was made is how we live in it together.

That’s very sweet. But it’s also meaningless. We assume that Stafford is an innocent in The Controversy between evolution and creationism. He has no understanding of The Infinite Evil of Creationism. But we know what drives The Controversy, and why it will probably never end. Science improves our lives, and Oogity Boogity suppresses knowledge and keeps us in ignorance so we’re more docile and easily ruled. We don’t need a Day of Listening; we need an age of freedom.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

37 responses to “Fox News Urges Creation-Evolution Dialogue

  1. I would ask Mr. Ken Ham (or his surrogate) to start by stating his theory without mentioning any opposing theories, plain and simple. Next I would ask how this theory came to be, that is evolution is associated with Mr. Darwin, is creationism associated with a name?

    Then we switch over to watching football.

  2. “Those who care about issues of creation and evolution will seek out somebody on the other side and seek merely to understand.”
    Done so, on a Dutch forum (now defunct). I had a lot of fun with it, I can’t deny. Yup, in this respect I disagree with SC a bit. Cornering creacrappers can have highly amusing results. The creacrapper listened to me as well. He had to to save some self-respect. Subsequetly he preferred to stick to his lies, no matter how often they were exposed.
    Just in case he ever reads this: I miss you, your lies and your insults, Inktvlam. Never has christianity, IDiocy and pseudoscience been better discredited than by you, exactly because you’re smart.

    MNb (known by you as Marwan)

  3. By the selfsame logic, do we need a ‘Day of Listening’ with Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 Truthers, Moon-Landing Deniers, &c &c?

    By all means, ‘teach controversies’ where real controversies exist. Where they do not, then any calls for ‘equal time’ are specious forms of special pleading for fringe agendas that have not earned the right to serious consideration.

  4. Off topic, but I think worthy of note to followers of this blog; the sad passing of Edward T. Oakes, S.J..

    I find I need to remind myself that Creationists are not only ignorant of science, they are crap at ‘theology’ as well–and an embarrassment to serious religious leaders.

  5. stephenpruis is correct but too short.
    as the young earth WAG (aint no theory) is based on?? What?
    At the answer….but that book also says the earth is flat.
    So young earthers think the earth is young and flat???
    LOL a lot!

  6. Ah, it sounds to me like Tim Stafford is quite biased from his books and writings in his Christian magazines. So it puzzles me as to what his overall expectations are from such a get-together, indeed, there’s no controversy amongst the scientific community regarding evolution, though there clearly is one between religion and science. But seeing his plea on Fox News online pretty much spills the beans regarding any unbiased attempt at at discussing any “controversy,” I suspect he’ll have no takers, and like a good creationist, blame the scientific community for not reaching out.

  7. SC: “Science improves our lives, and Oogity Boogity suppresses knowledge and keeps us in ignorance so we’re more docile and easily ruled.”

    Exactly. In order to make this clearer to a general audience, I’d suggest changing “Oogity Boogity” to “religious dogma”.

  8. retiredsciguy says:

    In order to make this clearer to a general audience, I’d suggest changing “Oogity Boogity” to “religious dogma”.

    What I hope to get across is opposition to teaching anti-science activity of any kind.

  9. It is clear the writer of this article, and those responding so far, are the ones that don’t have a first clue at what real science is all about. What an eye is, what it does, and how we treat it for disease is real science. When we get into “how” and “why” we got an eye, we are expressing our philosophical worldview beliefs. We need to teach science in a science class, and discuss the “how” and “why” questions in a philosophy class.

    Was the beginning of our universe a natural event, or a supernatural event? Was the beginning of life, a natural or a supernatural event? Who gets to decide what is natural or supernatural?

    The evidence does not speak for itself, it has to be interpreted. There are two opposing philosophical worldviews, natural and supernatural. Tell me who is funding your research, and I will tell you the results of your research.

  10. Ceteris Paribus

    Stafford kindly offers: “I would like to propose, therefore, a Day of Listening.”
    And I will graciously accept his offer to listen all day while he tells me his stories about Creationism. With just one little condition. And that is, when he gets to the end of his Creation story, he must agree to roll back on his chair and shake his belly in hearty laughter, then light up another cigarette.

    Just like my old grandfather did when he finished with the punch line to one of his repertoire of scary ghost stories that could hold any of his little grandchildren wide eyed and trembling for a full five minutes, No matter how many times we had already heard the same story.

  11. Fox.

  12. Arville said:
    “There are two opposing philosophical worldviews, natural and supernatural.”

    That’s very true Arville. And by definition the fields of science do not entertain supernatural explanations. That is the primary reason folks at the Dishonesty Institute want to change the definition of science to include the supernatural, e.g., ghosts, goblins, gods, angels, miracles, etc.

    Tell me who is funding your research, and I will tell you the results of your research.

    There are many sources of funding for scientific research, Arville. However, creationists don’t engage in any sort of research that can be considered scientific, they always start with the answer in had, i.e., “God did it,” and proceed from there, so your statement is without meaning.

  13. @Arville, L4J, says “Tell me who is funding your research, and I will tell you the results of your research.”

    This is an ignorant slander against all scientists. You hate data and evidence because it exposes the dishonesty of your pompous religious leaders, who never discovered anything, never cured a disease.

    But I’ll take you up on your arrogant challenge. My wife’s research is now funded by HHMI. What will be the results of her research? My research used to be funded by NIH. What were my results?

    Liar. Hatred of scientists and pig-ignorant fanaticism does not cure diseases.

    — Diogenes

  14. Sorry, Arville, evidence does speak for itself.
    AiG tries that “different philosophical worldviews” all the time, It’s intellectual garbage.
    As to your glib assertion that if you know who is funding our research, you can tell us the outcome: balderdash spewed by the ignorant.
    Thanks for playing.

  15. There are some of us who have repeatedly said that we want to hear what the alternative is to evolutionary biology. What happened, when and where. How things turned out this way, rather than something else. For example, given the extremely complex pattern of similarities between the human body and those of chimps and other apes, why the intelligent designers chose that, rather than one of the vast number of things that they could have done.
    Just to take a simple example, I’d like to know what it was like when the cattle-kind was first created/designed. Was there a whole herd of cattle of different ages, with some cows tending what they thought were their calves, chewing their cud as if they had swallowed it earlier, with the kind of knowledge that mammals only acquire by learning? Or whether there was a single new-born calf which could survive on its own? Or what? I really, seriously, would like to hear from anyone, whether YEC or ID or any other variety.

  16. SC: We assume that Stafford is an innocent in The Controversy between evolution and creationism.”

    I never assume that. As you said recently, unless they have an extreme mental illness they are lying. Surely this guy has heard of OEC organizations, and the DI, which admits OE and even common descent when not playing “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

    If by “both sides” he means that one side believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted ~6000 years ago, then OECs and (most) Discoveroids are on the “Darwinist” side. OTOH, if by “both sides” he means that one side does the work and critically analyze each others’ results while the other just mines data and quotes only to mislead others (and sometimes themselves), and covers up any inconvenient inconsistencies, then OECs and all Discoveroids are on his side.

    If he baits-and-switches the 2 options, he’s probably no more mentally ill that you and I, but rather in-on-the-scam.

  17. Charles Deetz ;)

    I tried this earlier this year with a guy who posted a copied screed that included the classic ‘there are no transitional fossils’. A teachable moment I thought. So I shared with him archeopteryx. His research back was talking about it’s fossils being exposed as potential frauds. Later he admitted that the fraud stuff is old and possibly disproven. Okay, I asked, so then is archeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur? Apparently then I was considered being pushy about my “agenda” and not talking about the facts. And the line went dead, so to speak.

    So we listened to each other, but quickly the facts were plain and it was time to talk about conclusions. But he was hoping for more facts to discuss, to find a hole. At least he gave up without relying on logical fallacies.

    In doing some research along the way, I found a couple articles at AIG that were actually informative (noting the obvious couple paragraphs of oogidy boogity), so I feel I’ve listened to their side ‘of the controversy’. Sometimes they honestly even give up saying they don’t know, and without any science to do, they are at a dead end.

  18. Charles Deetz: “But he was hoping for more facts to discuss, to find a hole. At least he gave up without relying on logical fallacies.”

    (bold emphasis mine)

    It sounds like you found your own “transitional fossil” – a rank-and-file evolution denier that’s on the verge of “speciating” into either (1) an anti-evolution activist, (2) remaining a literalist but giving up pretending that independent evidence supports his “theory,” or (3) beginning to accept evolution, however grudgingly.

    When they realize the blatant double standard – that science (evolution) follows the evidence where it leads, while pseudoscience (creationism/ID) plays favorites with “evidences,” and more to find “gaps” in mainstream explanations than to support their own, “speciation” is complete.

    Unfortunately, the great majority of Americans, including most who have no problem with evolution, are unaware of the double standard. Which is why species (1) flourishes.

  19. Ah, Fox News that bastion of truth that famously argued In February 2003, that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States and the Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with their feeble assertion. Besides saying so much about the Florida court system, Mr. Stafford’s assertions has more to do with pandering to Fox’s Tea Party constituency than it does toward furthering any real truth or dialog.

    As to listening to the other side I would point out that the Creationists stopped listening back in grade school since almost all of their kind, including Mr. Edgeworth, continue to be blissfully unaware of what a rigorous scientific methodology really entails. I seriously doubt that a dialog would do little other than to give credence to some addled minded faith-based dogma masquerading as a pseudo-science or in short Oogity Boogity!

    I have said this before; you cannot have a battle of wits with a committed conscientious objector.

  20. Erik John Bertel: …”the Creationists stopped listening back in grade school since almost all of their kind, including Mr. Edgeworth, continue to be blissfully unaware of what a rigorous scientific methodology really entails…

    If that were the case then either there would be no problem (all “creationists” in their own little world, bothering no one) or it would be a problem so hopeless that we’d be wasting our time even discussing it.

    But the fact is that it’s neither. At least half of evolution-deniers are not hopelessly committed, but just misinformed. They can and do come around if calmly shown their misconceptions. Unfortunately most people don’t try to help them, but either ridicule them or bash their religion. And let’s face it, many people who don’t buy creationism/ID, but fall for other pseudosciences (astrology, etc.), are also blissfully unaware of what a rigorous scientific methodology really entails.

    Anti-evolution activists know darn well what a rigorous scientific methodology entails. They know that if they used that methodology it would not support any of the mutually-contradictory creationist stories that they try to peddle. If they were blissfully unaware, we might expect some of them now and then to innocently try and fail. But for 50-100 years the have known exactly what to do (play word games) and what to avoid doing (testing their hypotheses on their own merits), then have the outrageous chutzpah to whine about being “expelled!”

    In my comment above I suggest that anti-evolution activists are not “born,” but rather “speciate” from rank-and-file evolution deniers. Actually, many begin as non-deniers. Behe is a perfect example of a “Darwinist” scientist whose radical, paranoid authoritarian ideology made him sell out to pseudoscience.

  21. So, let’s review. We have the fossils. We win.

  22. Frank J…but the fact is that it’s neither. At least half of evolution-deniers are not hopelessly committed, but just misinformed. They can and do come around if calmly shown their misconceptions.

    I wish I shared your optimism but youthful indoctrination has always been a successful methodology for all dogmatic teachings and I’m beginning to agree with others that assert religious instruction is just another form of child abuse. Moreover; the American educational system continues to fail our youth in educating and combating this superstitious nonsense. And never forget evolution challenges so many core dualistic religious assertions, particularly that man is unique among the animals, that it takes some very special mental gymnastics to reconcile the two conflicting school of thoughts, But in any case I wish you good luck with that dialog!

  23. Charles Deetz ;)

    @Erik, There are two situations, I think. While I would challenge a creationist online who wants to at least look at the facts, I would never challenge my creationist friend IRL who clings to creation mainly as a tenant of his faith.

  24. Erik John Bertel: “I wish I shared your optimism…”

    You read me wrong, as everyone does most of the time. I’m actually a pessimist. I have completely written off as “beyond hope” the demographic to which you appear to refer by “creationists.” I call them “committed evolution-deniers,” But they constitute only ~1/4 of adult Americans (and only ~half of them are young-earthers). There’s another ~1/4 that leans against evolution (and ironically more towards YEC than the 1st group), but not irreversibly. And another ~1/4 that accepts evolution but thinks it’s fair to teach “both sides” in science class. Meanwhile, the anti-evolution activists, are politically active and savvy enough to win over up to 3 times as many whom they would have without trying. They are a tiny minority of the first 1/4, but while they would never admit evolution to save their life, many of them can reasonably be suspected of >a href=””>privately accepting evolution.

    I have witnessed many members the latter 2 groups changing their mind over the years. Even a committed denier once admitted to me, after a few friendly “debates,” that the evidence does not support what he “took on faith.” Which means that it’s unlikely that he would mislead others by bearing false witness about evolution and the nature of science. And that’s all that counts – not what anyone appears to believe but what they demonstrably promote. That what the activists promote keeps getting ever more vague on “what happened when if not evolution,” and ever more obsessed with implications of acceptance of evolution (more than even the long-refuted “gaps”) ought to alone tell you that they are out to mislead and know it.

  25. ” it takes some very special mental gymnastics to reconcile the two conflicting school of thoughts”
    Perhaps, but many, many Dutch christians seem to be successful at it. I mean 70% of the Dutch are religious and still evolution isn’t a controversy at all. It is even taught at orthodox-protestant schools as it’s mandatory in the educational curriculum. Dutch scientists have a huge say in that curriculum.

  26. I’ve never commented on you site before, so I hope you don’t mind if I have a go. In my humble opinion, anyone that argues that evolution is undisputed truth, is as dense as the rock they claim to have come from. To claim there is nothing beyond the natural as observed in this 3 dimensional realm, to me is pathetically short-sighted. Arguing against the supernatural with little to no knowledge of it is the heighth of pomposity and arrogance, which of course is redundant, but I’m emphasizing my point.
    Your servant in Christ,

  27. Hi Porter:

    Were you going to offer an explanation of and any evidence for the supernatural? More specifically, for your particular version of it? Or is this just a drive-by insult?

    The reason people accept evolution is that all of the scientific evidence supports it, none contradicts it, and no other rival theory even gets off the ground. You may possibly be familiar with the converging lines of evidence from comparative anatomy, paleontology, and molecular biology.

    When scientists disagree about, say, the relative importance of epigenetics in evolution, they come up with experiments to test this or that hypothesis, and if the evidence is conclusive enough, everyone accepts the finding. What analogue do you propose to resolve the question as to whether christianity or islam is true? The point is, there is no way of telling, and no possible way of telling. Both sides have their holy book and the subjective certainty that they are right, with the result that not only do christians and muslims “resolve” the question by killing/excommunicating/anathematizing each other, but even within their own groups, that is how protestants and catholics, or sunni and shia, “resolve” their doctrinal conflicts.

    Remember, without evidence, “All faith claims are just voices in someone’s head. Whatever you call them, they are unprovable and there are millions of voices in people’s heads…all saying different things.” (comment by Raven at You may want to read this post, and the comment thread, as it directly addresses the failure of faith as a valid epistemological option).

  28. Porter, on what evidence do you base your belief that evolution is not truth? Before you answer that, keep in mind that a deeply-held religious conviction is not evidence.

    A deeply-held religious conviction can be a good thing when it leads to ethical behavior. Many would hold that it is not a good thing if instead it leads to stifling yours and other’s understanding of the universe around us.

    Think about it. And think about why you hold your religious beliefs. When did you start believing as you do? What made you acquire those beliefs?

    More importantly, why do you feel it is neccessary to portray well-established science as being false? Is it because it is somehow threatening to your own long-held religious beliefs?

    You are certainly welcome to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs you want. But don’t try to force schools not to teach science.

  29. Porter and Arville both show signs of being ignorant drive-by trolls with no interest in reality.
    Their views, such as they are, can be laughed at then forgotten. If they ever join us in the 21st century, then a conversation might be worthwhile. Until then, they can wallow in their first century superstition.

  30. David Grow said:
    So, let’s review. We have the fossils. We win.

    Being an old grouch, I can’t let a good reply like this pass without nit-picking. So, I hope that David will not be offended, but:

    First of all, it isn’t the fossils that are the best and most comprehensive evidence for evolutionary biology. If there were no fossils at all, we would still know about evolution, It is true that the fossils are nice confirmation, and they give us information about things that we would never had guessed about. (For example, who would have thought that there were trilobites? Dinosaurs, maybe, because of their descendants, the birds, but trilobites? We knew that there had to be things like Morganucodon and Tiktaalik, but it’s nice to have the hard confirmation.)

    The best evidence for evolution (IMHO) is the nested hierarchy of the tree of life. Nobody has thought of an alternative explanation for such a pattern, other than common descent with modification. (Even in other fields of inquiry, like linguistics and philology, a nested hierarchy is a sign of common descent.) Another good pattern of evidence is found in biogeography. And I have to mention the fact that evolution can be directly observed happening, right before our eyes, predictably, repeatedly, both in nature and under controlled lab conditions.

    And secondly, “we win”, if you want to phrase it that way, because the evolution-deniers refuse to enter the contest. We win by default. There is no alternative account for the history of life, there is no explanation for the variety of life (both extant and extinct) which does not involve common descent as a major factor. Nobody has told us why, for example, the human body is so similar to that of chimps and other apes, except that we are all physically related – if you exclude (and properly so) “agency which is capable of doing anything is capable of doing this”, (in other words,
    “because that’s the way it is”). If you exclude Omphalism (that world of life was made with the deceptive appearance of having had a history of common descent), there is no alternative to evolution.

  31. Let’s see, my first evidence of the supernatural might be the so-called big bang theory, where essentially something came from nothing, which I’d be glad for one of you super-intelligent brainiacs on here explain how that’s possible. Otherwise, are we merely limited to this 3 dimensional reality and what our five senses can determine? That to me would be a sadly limited and myopic view of our existence. I will assume no one on here would deny the possibility of other dimensions or parallel universes. Can anyone here answer where UFO’s come from? Do they travel great distances in this universe or are they from another dimension, or are they simply a figure of imagination of multitudes of people? I am going to further assume that no one here denies the possibility of inter- or intra-dimensional beings. I digress.
    Why do I not believe in evolution? Because fundamentally, it has no basis in reality. The idea that a coherent DNA chain the foundational block of life arose from inert matter is a joke. Anybody that believes that is a denier of the mathematical improbability, I mean impossibility of such an occurrence. Therefore, evolution is a theory without any actual foundation. To me it is sitting in a chair without any legs, all I get is a crotch level view, and that doesn’t cut it. I like a higher view, a longer view, a wider view, a more comprehensive one. I don’t want to be a possibility denier, I can accept the possibility of extra-dimensional intervention in this reality. I would suggest to the nay-sayers here, that that extra-dimensional intervention might be defined or described as a spiritual dimension. If an extra-dimensional being of an exponentially higher intelligence wanted to intervene here, how might that being do it? May I make a suggestion?
    Seek Him,
    Merry Christmas,

  32. Porter says: “Seek Him”

    Profound advice. I am in touch with sixty-nine quadzillion spiritual dimensions (some parallel to our universe, some orthogonal), and I communicate with the UFOs from all of them. But I have a question which is still unanswered. What I’m seeking is a reason to keep you around. Your behavior isn’t rude, but I’m wondering about the value of your comments. If the readers of this humble blog are amused, than I shall be benevolently indulgent and let the dialogue continue.

  33. Let’s see, my first evidence of the supernatural might be the so-called big bang theory, where essentially something came from nothing…

    Sadly Porter you haven’t been keeping up on astrophysics. Rather than throw up their hands and say something supernatural occurred during the Big Bang many physicists are investigating brane theory and in the process have begun postulating tests that could detect supergravity fields that would corroborate the existence of the multiverse. It’s the same process that occurred when Einstein proposed his Theory of General Relativity and proposed that gravitational fields would bend light. Scientists didn’t go cool theory dude but instead proceeded to search for corroborating evidence. A few years later during a solar eclipse that’s just what Sir Arthur Eddington observed – the sun bending lighting rays from another distant star. You see science keeps moving forward searching the unknown whereas your solution would basically be that god did it all and that just leads us back to the middle ages.

    So what’s your logic for proving the existence of the supernatural? Your faith, of course, to which I would reply which faith? Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu or the Spaghetti monster? Once again a creationist confuses science with faith so you will have to excuse our arrogance when we can’t even begin to debate with you on the same grounds of basic human logic. Please troll elsewhere my friend.

  34. Porter wrote: Anybody that believes that is a denier of the mathematical improbability, I mean impossibility of such an occurrence. Therefore, evolution is a theory without any actual foundation.

    Could you estimate the probability that a supernatural agency would do such-and-such? I’ll leave it to you to choose the such-and-such, but you might try “make DNA”, or “give humans the common vertebrate eye structure (rather than that of insects, octopuses, or potatoes)”. After all, aren’t supernatural agencies apt to do just about anything, with impossible things being their forte; so that my first estimate of the probability that a supernatural agency would do such-and-such is 1 divided by infinity, which is significantly less probable than “something natural did it” (no matter how unlikely that is).

    And, BTW, when we’re speaking of weaknesses of a position, It would be appropriate to notice that evolution-denial does not rise to the standard of being a theory. However weak you think the foundation of evolution, evolution-denial is in far more trouble.

    And, because we know that evolution happens, to say that it is a theory without foundation tells us more about problems with your concepts of foundations, theory, and evolution than about the real world.

  35. Porter, the way I understand it, there is no such thing as nothing. Particles pop in and out of existence all the time. So something essentially does come from nothing. Other dimensions and parallel universes are more likely than (in honor of this site) oogity boogity.

    UFO’s are driven by Bigfoot, and as we all know Bigfoot exists in at least two dimensions. Their primary dimension is where they are from, and they apparently poop there. The secondary dimension is the one we live in, and just like particles, Bigfoot pops in and out, while driving his UFO. This is why we can’t ever catch one, or find signs of its existence (poop, bones, fossils)

    It is so damn easy to answer the difficult questions when all you have to do is pull the answers out of your…say where do creationists get there answers anyway?

    I think with the UFO’s out of the bag we can safely conclude there will be no source of enlightenment from this one, and no possibility of parole.

  36. Knowing 2009

  37. This reality is not random.