<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More proof of Charles Darwin&#8217;s theories</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/10/01/more-proof-of-charles-darwins-theories/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/10/01/more-proof-of-charles-darwins-theories/</link>
	<description>Political commentary from Pulitzer Prize winner Cynthia Tucker of The AJC</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:30:05 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: ROGER</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/10/01/more-proof-of-charles-darwins-theories/comment-page-2/#comment-7880</link>
		<dc:creator>ROGER</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:46:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/?p=2135#comment-7880</guid>
		<description>Hi Cynthia,  
What on earth happened to &quot;frustrated biology student&quot;? He came up with all sorts of pseudo scientific questions questioning the theory of evolution,  but has suddenly fallen completely silent when asked to provide any sort of scientific support for the Noah&#039;s Ark biblical fairy tale.  I had hoped that he would subject it to the same sort of &quot;scientific&quot; analysis that he tried so unsuccessfully to use in debunking Mr. Darwin.  But no,  his only answer is that Noah&#039;s Ark was to have landed on Mount Ararat &quot;in the middle of everything&quot; so that all the animals could disperse and multiply.  Try as I might,  I don&#039;t feel that this is very scientific in any sense of the word. 

Yet he makes the statement that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation.

I&#039;m willing to listen to any reasonable, cogent, explanation for just about anything, including any scientific proof of the theory of creationism. But at the end of the day,  I believe there are just two simple choices here.  Either the theory of Noah&#039;s Ark is accurate and true, that is,  that all of the world&#039;s animal species - and I mean literally ALL of them were collected by Noah and his family  (it HAS to be all if evolution does not occur otherwise those not taken on board would now be extinct),  or the only other choice is that we have all, and I mean ALL,  evolved over thousands and millions of years. 

I know this is a tough one,  but I sincerely hoped that FBS could, just for a moment,  subject the so far totally and completely unsupported theory of Noah and his Ark to the same critical examination that he is so keen to apply to the theory of evolution.  The bible is replete with wonderful stories,  most of which make great reading, but so are the works of Will Shakespeare.  That does not make them true.  Surely,  we can subject them to exactly the same scrutiny that the creationists apply to evolution.   

We are living in the 21st century, and we know a whole lot more about our planet and the universe around us than did those folks who lived several thousand years ago.  Yet some of us choose to go on believing ancient mythical tales even though we know in our own hearts that that is what they are - mythical tales.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Cynthia,<br />
What on earth happened to &#8220;frustrated biology student&#8221;? He came up with all sorts of pseudo scientific questions questioning the theory of evolution,  but has suddenly fallen completely silent when asked to provide any sort of scientific support for the Noah&#8217;s Ark biblical fairy tale.  I had hoped that he would subject it to the same sort of &#8220;scientific&#8221; analysis that he tried so unsuccessfully to use in debunking Mr. Darwin.  But no,  his only answer is that Noah&#8217;s Ark was to have landed on Mount Ararat &#8220;in the middle of everything&#8221; so that all the animals could disperse and multiply.  Try as I might,  I don&#8217;t feel that this is very scientific in any sense of the word. </p>
<p>Yet he makes the statement that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m willing to listen to any reasonable, cogent, explanation for just about anything, including any scientific proof of the theory of creationism. But at the end of the day,  I believe there are just two simple choices here.  Either the theory of Noah&#8217;s Ark is accurate and true, that is,  that all of the world&#8217;s animal species &#8211; and I mean literally ALL of them were collected by Noah and his family  (it HAS to be all if evolution does not occur otherwise those not taken on board would now be extinct),  or the only other choice is that we have all, and I mean ALL,  evolved over thousands and millions of years. </p>
<p>I know this is a tough one,  but I sincerely hoped that FBS could, just for a moment,  subject the so far totally and completely unsupported theory of Noah and his Ark to the same critical examination that he is so keen to apply to the theory of evolution.  The bible is replete with wonderful stories,  most of which make great reading, but so are the works of Will Shakespeare.  That does not make them true.  Surely,  we can subject them to exactly the same scrutiny that the creationists apply to evolution.   </p>
<p>We are living in the 21st century, and we know a whole lot more about our planet and the universe around us than did those folks who lived several thousand years ago.  Yet some of us choose to go on believing ancient mythical tales even though we know in our own hearts that that is what they are &#8211; mythical tales.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henry HIbbert</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/10/01/more-proof-of-charles-darwins-theories/comment-page-2/#comment-6984</link>
		<dc:creator>Henry HIbbert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:27:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/?p=2135#comment-6984</guid>
		<description>Hey Cynthia:  Darwin&#039;s Dangerous Idea is like universal acid: nothing can hold it and it eats through everything.  Check out Dennett&#039;s book, Darwin&#039;s Dangerous Idea.  You will thoroughly enjoy it.
Kudos to you!
Henry Hibbert</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Cynthia:  Darwin&#8217;s Dangerous Idea is like universal acid: nothing can hold it and it eats through everything.  Check out Dennett&#8217;s book, Darwin&#8217;s Dangerous Idea.  You will thoroughly enjoy it.<br />
Kudos to you!<br />
Henry Hibbert</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ROGER</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/10/01/more-proof-of-charles-darwins-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-6980</link>
		<dc:creator>ROGER</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/?p=2135#comment-6980</guid>
		<description>Enter your comments here
How disappointing to read the answer to my post from &quot;frustrated biology student&quot; who failed completely to address any of the issues I raised about the &quot;theory&quot; of Noah&#039;s Ark.  He dismisses any question regarding the ark by explaining that it conveniently landed on Mount Ararat which is &quot;centrally located in the middle of everything&quot; so all the animals could male their way home.  Oh really! Not if you happen to be a creature from Australia, New Zealand, Galapagos, Japan, Madagascar, or any one of thousands of islands with their own indigenous animal populations (all of which have evolved over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.)   Maybe they were  all good swimmers. And how about the animals from South America  - what a trek they would have had to get home!

He completely failed to address the issue of how a 600 year old man with a small group of relatives could conceivably have gone out into the world and collected literally every species on earth  - and not just one, but two (or is it seven according to which passage of the bible one reads). Let&#039;s just take as one simple example,  travelling all the way down to southern Africa to find a pair of white rhinoceros&#039;s, capturing them (doesn&#039;t look all that easy on National Geographic without tranquilizers) and then transporting them all the way back home -  in what? - a wooden cart pulled by oxen, or horses, or camels.  Quite a job, but that&#039;s just one type of rhino!  Never mind catching all the species of big cats,  or the kangaroos and komodo dragons in really far off places!

And how about feeding all these creatures once they are packed on board the ark and have to be kept in separate cages to avoid the foxes eating the chickens, and the lions eating the zebras. I guess Noah&#039;s helpers would have instinctively known that those pandas they picked up in China have rather specialized diets, and so do most other creatures.  Sorry, but this particular fairy story strains incredulity beyond all reasonable limits.

As you are a biology student FBS could I recommend that you and your class take the time out to read about the findings of Professors Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton who made an in depth study of the rapid  evolution of Galapagos finches. This is just one of myriads of studies showing how evolution continues unabated as we write these posts.  And ask your teacher or professor to explain in detail how the influenza virus mutates and evolves.  

Contrary to your repeated statements, the &quot;theory&quot; of creationism doesn&#039;t even begin to stand the test of time. It is nonsensical - hence the reason it is not allowed to be taught in American schools.  In most other countries it is not even an issue  - it has been completely debunked.  As for the theory of evolution,  Mr. Darwin would be quite astonished to hear how his theory has been proved over and over countless times in countless ways.  Rather like Einstein&#039;s theory of relatively it has stood the test of time - and continues to do so. Darwin just got the ball rolling as it were.

FBS - I do sincerely hope that you were just kidding when you stated that &quot;Mount Ararat is centrally located in the middle of everything&quot;.  I have heard absurd statements in support of the literal interpretation of the tale of Noah&#039;s Ark but that one truly takes the cake.  That is like saying that the earth is located in the centre of the universe  and the sun revolves around the earth -  Oh, but wait a minute;  that&#039;s what the world, and the church, believed until Mr. Galileo proved them all wrong.  Or was he also guilty of creating a false theory!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enter your comments here<br />
How disappointing to read the answer to my post from &#8220;frustrated biology student&#8221; who failed completely to address any of the issues I raised about the &#8220;theory&#8221; of Noah&#8217;s Ark.  He dismisses any question regarding the ark by explaining that it conveniently landed on Mount Ararat which is &#8220;centrally located in the middle of everything&#8221; so all the animals could male their way home.  Oh really! Not if you happen to be a creature from Australia, New Zealand, Galapagos, Japan, Madagascar, or any one of thousands of islands with their own indigenous animal populations (all of which have evolved over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.)   Maybe they were  all good swimmers. And how about the animals from South America  &#8211; what a trek they would have had to get home!</p>
<p>He completely failed to address the issue of how a 600 year old man with a small group of relatives could conceivably have gone out into the world and collected literally every species on earth  &#8211; and not just one, but two (or is it seven according to which passage of the bible one reads). Let&#8217;s just take as one simple example,  travelling all the way down to southern Africa to find a pair of white rhinoceros&#8217;s, capturing them (doesn&#8217;t look all that easy on National Geographic without tranquilizers) and then transporting them all the way back home &#8211;  in what? &#8211; a wooden cart pulled by oxen, or horses, or camels.  Quite a job, but that&#8217;s just one type of rhino!  Never mind catching all the species of big cats,  or the kangaroos and komodo dragons in really far off places!</p>
<p>And how about feeding all these creatures once they are packed on board the ark and have to be kept in separate cages to avoid the foxes eating the chickens, and the lions eating the zebras. I guess Noah&#8217;s helpers would have instinctively known that those pandas they picked up in China have rather specialized diets, and so do most other creatures.  Sorry, but this particular fairy story strains incredulity beyond all reasonable limits.</p>
<p>As you are a biology student FBS could I recommend that you and your class take the time out to read about the findings of Professors Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton who made an in depth study of the rapid  evolution of Galapagos finches. This is just one of myriads of studies showing how evolution continues unabated as we write these posts.  And ask your teacher or professor to explain in detail how the influenza virus mutates and evolves.  </p>
<p>Contrary to your repeated statements, the &#8220;theory&#8221; of creationism doesn&#8217;t even begin to stand the test of time. It is nonsensical &#8211; hence the reason it is not allowed to be taught in American schools.  In most other countries it is not even an issue  &#8211; it has been completely debunked.  As for the theory of evolution,  Mr. Darwin would be quite astonished to hear how his theory has been proved over and over countless times in countless ways.  Rather like Einstein&#8217;s theory of relatively it has stood the test of time &#8211; and continues to do so. Darwin just got the ball rolling as it were.</p>
<p>FBS &#8211; I do sincerely hope that you were just kidding when you stated that &#8220;Mount Ararat is centrally located in the middle of everything&#8221;.  I have heard absurd statements in support of the literal interpretation of the tale of Noah&#8217;s Ark but that one truly takes the cake.  That is like saying that the earth is located in the centre of the universe  and the sun revolves around the earth &#8211;  Oh, but wait a minute;  that&#8217;s what the world, and the church, believed until Mr. Galileo proved them all wrong.  Or was he also guilty of creating a false theory!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: frustrated biology student</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/10/01/more-proof-of-charles-darwins-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-6835</link>
		<dc:creator>frustrated biology student</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:29:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/?p=2135#comment-6835</guid>
		<description>Answer to your post Mr. Roger Sharratt,

Do you know where the Ark of Noah was to have landed after the great flood?

-On Mount Ararat. What is the significance of this? Mount Ararat is centrally located in the middle of everything. So all of the animals on the ark could migrate North, East, South, or West to disperse and procreate. It&#039;s just another sign of how incredible God&#039;s plan was.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Answer to your post Mr. Roger Sharratt,</p>
<p>Do you know where the Ark of Noah was to have landed after the great flood?</p>
<p>-On Mount Ararat. What is the significance of this? Mount Ararat is centrally located in the middle of everything. So all of the animals on the ark could migrate North, East, South, or West to disperse and procreate. It&#8217;s just another sign of how incredible God&#8217;s plan was.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: frustrated biology student</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/10/01/more-proof-of-charles-darwins-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-6834</link>
		<dc:creator>frustrated biology student</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:24:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/?p=2135#comment-6834</guid>
		<description>Question for evolutionists:
As a believer in evolution you believe in natural selection, correct? So any trait in an organism that proves to lead to survival and reproductive success will be passed on from parent to offspring, according to the theory of evolution. Also, as a supporter of evolution, you choose to believe that all organisms are continually transforming, or evolving, right?

OK, now a few questions for you....

#1. When in the continual forward progress of time do scientists give an organism a scientific name? How can an organism have a name if its always evolving into some modified creature?

#2. In reference to homologies...you would believe that a human, a cat, a bat, and a whale&#039;s upper limb, all came from the same common ancestor, because of the similar bone structure (ulna, radius, humerus, carpals, phalanges, etc.) Describe to me why radial pronation is a movement completed only by humans and no other organism?

#3. As a believer in evolution can you sit in your chair, and say to yourself that you believe a giraffe and a goldfish came from the same common ancestor?

Just to let you know what we are learning in America&#039;s top universities as college students. In my biology course a student asked a question based on vestigal structures (structures that were used previously by ancestors, are no longer in use, but are still there). My professor answered the question, &quot;If given enough time, and proved to show reproductive and survival success humans would evolve to have no lower limbs.&quot; What are your thoughts on that?

God is the intelligent designer of this beautiful, amazing creation. You cannot learn about how organisms work on the molecular level with thousands of intricate details and tell me that it randomly happened over millions of years.

 It takes more faith to believe in evolution then creation. 

There are so many holes in the theory of evolution, to make up for it scientists generalize everything! Well, over some unknown amount of time, 450 million years ago, this just happened to fall into place. Open your Bible to Genesis 1, and read about how God designed his work of art.

Question: What&#039;s the definition of a theory? 
Answer: A hypothesis that has stood the test of time.

Question: What is the number one selling book of all time?
Answer: The Bible with over 6 BILLION copies sold. 

I say that the theory of creationism has stood the test of time, year after year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Question for evolutionists:<br />
As a believer in evolution you believe in natural selection, correct? So any trait in an organism that proves to lead to survival and reproductive success will be passed on from parent to offspring, according to the theory of evolution. Also, as a supporter of evolution, you choose to believe that all organisms are continually transforming, or evolving, right?</p>
<p>OK, now a few questions for you&#8230;.</p>
<p>#1. When in the continual forward progress of time do scientists give an organism a scientific name? How can an organism have a name if its always evolving into some modified creature?</p>
<p>#2. In reference to homologies&#8230;you would believe that a human, a cat, a bat, and a whale&#8217;s upper limb, all came from the same common ancestor, because of the similar bone structure (ulna, radius, humerus, carpals, phalanges, etc.) Describe to me why radial pronation is a movement completed only by humans and no other organism?</p>
<p>#3. As a believer in evolution can you sit in your chair, and say to yourself that you believe a giraffe and a goldfish came from the same common ancestor?</p>
<p>Just to let you know what we are learning in America&#8217;s top universities as college students. In my biology course a student asked a question based on vestigal structures (structures that were used previously by ancestors, are no longer in use, but are still there). My professor answered the question, &#8220;If given enough time, and proved to show reproductive and survival success humans would evolve to have no lower limbs.&#8221; What are your thoughts on that?</p>
<p>God is the intelligent designer of this beautiful, amazing creation. You cannot learn about how organisms work on the molecular level with thousands of intricate details and tell me that it randomly happened over millions of years.</p>
<p> It takes more faith to believe in evolution then creation. </p>
<p>There are so many holes in the theory of evolution, to make up for it scientists generalize everything! Well, over some unknown amount of time, 450 million years ago, this just happened to fall into place. Open your Bible to Genesis 1, and read about how God designed his work of art.</p>
<p>Question: What&#8217;s the definition of a theory?<br />
Answer: A hypothesis that has stood the test of time.</p>
<p>Question: What is the number one selling book of all time?<br />
Answer: The Bible with over 6 BILLION copies sold. </p>
<p>I say that the theory of creationism has stood the test of time, year after year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/10/01/more-proof-of-charles-darwins-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-6798</link>
		<dc:creator>William</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:03:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/?p=2135#comment-6798</guid>
		<description>To evolve into a socialist system you must first take away all religious rights and condemn it to the fullest.  

So if a man lives in the desert he would not wearing bear clothing. Ok, I accept that.  If he lived along the seashore, man would learn to fish.  Ok, I get darwin&#039;s theory now.  It makes sense, man adjusts to his environments.  I do not think you can prove I came from some primordal soup.  To suggest such an idea is just supposition and promoting an athiest agenda.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To evolve into a socialist system you must first take away all religious rights and condemn it to the fullest.  </p>
<p>So if a man lives in the desert he would not wearing bear clothing. Ok, I accept that.  If he lived along the seashore, man would learn to fish.  Ok, I get darwin&#8217;s theory now.  It makes sense, man adjusts to his environments.  I do not think you can prove I came from some primordal soup.  To suggest such an idea is just supposition and promoting an athiest agenda.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/10/01/more-proof-of-charles-darwins-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-6655</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:39:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/?p=2135#comment-6655</guid>
		<description>support</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>support</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/10/01/more-proof-of-charles-darwins-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-6654</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/?p=2135#comment-6654</guid>
		<description>Speciation- the formation of a new species- is an event that follows reproductive isolation, a period where two species can interbreed but produce only infertile offspring. Thanks to genetic shuffling and mutations, some of these products of interbreeding are born fertile, find a product like themselves and proliferate. It is with this generation that the new species takes off, increasing their numbers as they gain a foothold in their environment.This entire process takes a great many years and DOES explain and suuport Darwinian evolution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speciation- the formation of a new species- is an event that follows reproductive isolation, a period where two species can interbreed but produce only infertile offspring. Thanks to genetic shuffling and mutations, some of these products of interbreeding are born fertile, find a product like themselves and proliferate. It is with this generation that the new species takes off, increasing their numbers as they gain a foothold in their environment.This entire process takes a great many years and DOES explain and suuport Darwinian evolution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gen Neyland</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/10/01/more-proof-of-charles-darwins-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-6641</link>
		<dc:creator>Gen Neyland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:37:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/?p=2135#comment-6641</guid>
		<description>The critter found is another example of a species gone extinct. Probably due to global warming some 3-4 million years ago. Raises the question of how humans could have evolved from a critter that perished. Well, if it didn&#039;t perish, besides an artist renering of &#039;How We May Have Evolved&#039;, let&#039;s see the bones of fact leading to we&#039;uns of today. There seems to be 3-4 million year gap in human development. Hmm.  Anyway, if I evolved from that, it&#039;s no wonder I have a tendancy to scratch my groin or pick my nose in public...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The critter found is another example of a species gone extinct. Probably due to global warming some 3-4 million years ago. Raises the question of how humans could have evolved from a critter that perished. Well, if it didn&#8217;t perish, besides an artist renering of &#8216;How We May Have Evolved&#8217;, let&#8217;s see the bones of fact leading to we&#8217;uns of today. There seems to be 3-4 million year gap in human development. Hmm.  Anyway, if I evolved from that, it&#8217;s no wonder I have a tendancy to scratch my groin or pick my nose in public&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ROGER</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/10/01/more-proof-of-charles-darwins-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-6598</link>
		<dc:creator>ROGER</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:04:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/?p=2135#comment-6598</guid>
		<description>Enter your comments here
How refreshing to read your article about this incredible find in Ethiopia. Just one more piece of evidence to prove that Mr. Darwin&#039;s &quot;theory&quot;  was right all along.  Now what I want to read is proof of the &quot;theory&quot;, as told in the bible, that a 600 year old man and his family of about 8 went out and collected 2 (or was it 7 - the bible seems a little confused on this issue) of every species in the entire world - just remember that without evolution  this old guy had to collect the whole darned lot of &#039;em,  from elephants to Komodo dragons and kangaroos, from polar bears to 3 different species of giraffes, and 5 different species of rhinoceros&#039;s, at latest count over 4,500 species of mammals alone,  and then cram them, along with enough food supplies, into a wooden ark measuring, what was it, 50 cubits (is that about 450 feet long and 75 feet wide), AND keep then separate to avoid them eating each other!  Now if you want a real &quot;theory&quot; with not an ounce of proof  - vote for Noah and his amazing ark!   To put it bluntly  - if the theory of Noah is untrue then the credibility of the bible is on shaky ground, so let&#039;s have the proof.  
Roger</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enter your comments here<br />
How refreshing to read your article about this incredible find in Ethiopia. Just one more piece of evidence to prove that Mr. Darwin&#8217;s &#8220;theory&#8221;  was right all along.  Now what I want to read is proof of the &#8220;theory&#8221;, as told in the bible, that a 600 year old man and his family of about 8 went out and collected 2 (or was it 7 &#8211; the bible seems a little confused on this issue) of every species in the entire world &#8211; just remember that without evolution  this old guy had to collect the whole darned lot of &#8216;em,  from elephants to Komodo dragons and kangaroos, from polar bears to 3 different species of giraffes, and 5 different species of rhinoceros&#8217;s, at latest count over 4,500 species of mammals alone,  and then cram them, along with enough food supplies, into a wooden ark measuring, what was it, 50 cubits (is that about 450 feet long and 75 feet wide), AND keep then separate to avoid them eating each other!  Now if you want a real &#8220;theory&#8221; with not an ounce of proof  &#8211; vote for Noah and his amazing ark!   To put it bluntly  &#8211; if the theory of Noah is untrue then the credibility of the bible is on shaky ground, so let&#8217;s have the proof.<br />
Roger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
