Averaged female faces across Europe

Female Faces

Here’s a cool slide that was shown during the Ancestral Health Symposium. It’s the average of many female faces from different countries in Europe.

As you can see an average face tends to be beautiful, in every country. But that’s not the point that this slide was supposed to make. This is evolution at work.

All these women have common ancestors, but a few thousand years of semi-isolation has led to a divergence of their genetic averages. Continuing isolation would eventually lead to these people diverging into different species of humans. I guess that would take hundreds of thousands of years of isolation though. Not likely to ever happen.

Another piece of information from the conference: Only 14% of the American population completely believes in evolution. If you happen to belong to the other 86%, then feel free to make up another story about the faces.


Do you want to see average female faces from across the world? Here’s a bigger and better-quality picture.

Update august 19

WOW! A huge number of people are reading this post as it just went viral on Reddit. I decided to do an update.

If the women at the top demonstrate the difference after a few thousand years of divergence, what would happen after tens of thousands of years?


Average female faces across the world

Tens of Thousands of Years of Evolution

This is the result of roughly 40,000 years of evolution in semi-isolation.

What kind of difference can result from millions of years of genetic divergence? Here’s an example:

Distant cousins


This is a chimpanzee and a human – distant relatives. Our last common ancestors lived around 5 million years ago, maybe somewhat more.

How will humans evolve in the next five million years? Nobody knows.


Do you want great teeth? Eat Paleo

Ancestral health, obesity and smurfs

1 2 3


  1. Robert
    In response to Mike M.

    "You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. All, and I mean ALL of what you think you know that "debunks" climate change was paid for and disseminated by people who stand to lose money if we decide to combat climate change.

    Seriously man, it's like it's the 1950s and you're parroting "research" from Phillip Morris that says smoking is perfectly fine.


    Well, first off it was meant at BOTH sides, but apparently you seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with the global warming experts is only doing it for financial gain.

    Let me ask you, does that door swing both ways? Or isn't only for those who you disagree with?

    It would be interesting to see what money is funding climate change research.

    I will believe in catastrophic climate change when Al Gore quits buying properties that cost millions of dollars on coastal lands. After all, why invest in property that will be underwater?

    I am all for getting off fossil fuels, when solar and wind technology can operate a fully loaded Intensive Care Unity to keep your loved ones alive with no access to fossil fuels, until then, it can recharge my wrist watch and calculator which is all it is really good for.

    Reply: #56
  2. Magnus
    The interesting thing to find out would be how much of the actual climat change that is man-made, and how much of it that would happen no matter what we do. We´ve had ice ages Before and noone can claim that the ice melted because of anything we as a species did. Climat change seems to be occuring naturally.

    According to a friend of mine, whose knowledge and credibility in this area I have no clue of really, said that of the Co2 in the atmosphere, humans, with our factories, vehicles etc, contribute about 1%. That is so low a number that, if it´s true, I have to seriously doubt that what we´re doing is making much of a difference.

    I really found this lecture fascinating, both from a LCHF perspective as well as from an environmental perspective. Please take the time to watch it...


  3. Dave
    Not sure why LCHF creationists from America are so occupied trying to convince a Scandinavian who doesn't even share the same world-view.

    If America has already regarded Europe as a "lost cause" because the continent is too "Marxist", "Communist" or "socialist" for their taste, and refuses to touch on European politics with a ten-foot pole, then why the hell are you guys trying to impose your theology onto a person in which most of you guys have no clue about what is happening in his country?


    I guess, it's like the old adage about veganism:

    "How can you tell if anyone in the crowd is a Vegan?"
    "Don't worry, they will let you know."

    Grow up, creationists. At least recognize the person doesn't even share the same culture or education; and thus different world-view than you.

    Saying a Swede will lose his North American constituency over something he was taught in primary, secondary and post-secondary schools is a really empty threat.

    Reply: #59
  4. FrankG
    My understanding is that "climate change" is pretty much "standard operation procedure" for this planet. If anything, the last 10,000 or so years of human "civilisation" has been during an unusually stable period in Earth's history

    I also agree that we are $hi**ing in our own sandboxes and unless we clean up our act we are in danger of making ourselves extinct; with runaway pollution and unsustainable use of resources. If we poison our air, water and soil we die out.. simple really.

    What I am much less convinced about is the link between these two: yes the climate is changing -- it always has been so far as I am aware, and yes we are in imminent danger of bespoiling the one ecology or environment that we currently have which can sustain our lives BUT are we responsible for the climate change? I'm not at all convinced of that.

    I get leery of seeing these two concepts constantly being conflated -- proof of climate change is NOT proof that it is caused by humans. And quite frankly I think combining these two ideas is counterproductive.. one we stand a good chance of affecting, the other I doubt we can -- combine them and it is easy to get overwhelmed into inactivity.

    Even if we are responsible for climate change, is there anything that can be done about it? I don't really think so and I think it is the height of hubris to think that we can make much of an impact on such a relatively massive system. Humans are very adaptable.. so why fear change? The last time the Earth warmed was a period of great prosperity when the great cathedrals were built in Europe

    BUT can we clean up out act to protect our future and that of our children? I think the answer to that one is a "maybe yes we can". I'd rather focus on that achievable goal..

    Reply: #62
  5. Logan
    Yet it's the big corporate Ag right-wingers who are pushing the low-fat/high carb diet onto the public so they can profit off their farm subsidies and pharmaceuticals. They seem to have the USDA in their pockets (did you know most of the data the USDA have on the nutrient content of foods is supplied by the producers of the products? They do very little testing to verify that data independently. I know this from first hand correspondence with them when I inquired why iodine wasn't in their nutritional database) Or maybe they are just taking advantage of the vegan/peta anti-meat agenda?

    I am also not religious, nor am I conservative or liberal for that matter.

    Reply: #58
  6. Robert
    I agree Logan, I am sure some big AG right wingers are doing just that, and they have inlisted Michelle Obama and her "Let's Move" program to install it in public school lunch programs.

    The one thing the progressive left/right love is big business.

  7. Robert
    "Not sure why LCHF creationists from America are so occupied trying to convince a Scandinavian who doesn't even share the same world-view."

    Not sure why a Scandinavian needs to include a stat about American's that adds nothing to his article in any real meaningful way.

    One thing I have learned is that if you want to generate revenue and clicks, start talking religion. Like moths to a flame both pro and against.

  8. ZellZ
    Maybe it's just me, probably not, though. I think all these women look distressingly similar. I don't see any real ethnic differences, the kind that make faces around the world so very Interesting & Truly Beautiful. All these women just have the same, pretty features. It's a bit dull that they all look so similar - or, at least it's boring when you think of how Interesting faces are often not quite so Symmetrical. I feel like these faces all have the White Protestant Stamp of Approval across them. It's nice to know that the same kind of face can be found in so many different places, but I want to see faces that don't all have the look of cookie-cutter sameness.
  9. Aaron Smith
    What if evolutionists and creationists are both right? What if they just differ in the belief of HOW we came to be? What if I believe that man evolved over millions of years, but that that evolution was directed by a creator? Genesis lists the order of creation beginning with the universe (Big bang?), then goes into the changing of the earth (Late Heavy Bombardment?), then sea life (Avalon explosion?), then birds and terrestrial animals (Cambrian explosion?). Finally it talks about the creation of man.
    As long as both side are more concerned with being "right" than they are with knowing the truth, we will have these pointless arguments. Derision of others is the tool of a small mind.
    Replies: #64, #65
  10. JAUS
    Wishful thinking. A lot of the climate "skeptics" are choosing not look at the evidence in the exactly same way creationist don't. We are all monkeys (humans are apes, and apes are monkeys) regardless if you want to believe it or not, science doesn't care about your opinions, it describes reality.

    There are a lot of evidence of global warming and that we caused it. Just because you can't see carbon dioxide doesn't mean that it isn't there. Never trust your instincts, feelings or your senses they can easily be fooled. We need tools that surpasses our limitations so that we can see beyond what we could without them. Radioactivity for example is invisible for us but it can kill us regardless if we see it or not.

    Funny that you mentions hubris cause you suffer from it yourself since you actually believe to know more than all the experts on the subject.

    If you as a person only believe in what you want to believe then you are not a rational human being.

    Wishful thinking is a poison that ruins rational thinking, a true skeptic must always be prepared reevaluate everything he believes no matter how uncomfortable it makes him feel.

    I believe in many things that I don't want to be true, but I have no other choice than believe them because the evidence is so strong.

    It's tragic to see the fall of the USA, the country that put mankind on the Moon. Unless the next generation change the direction other countries will soon take over the lead while America stagnates.

  11. grinch
    I can't believe the bible thumpers here who deny evolution. Even the catholic church has accepted evolution.
    Reply: #67
  12. Remmy
    I completely agree. The Bible and science can co-exist (and do) but many (99.99%) refuse to see it. I don't refute science but I do believe that God created the earth. For example all the systems in the human body are extremely complex and very scientific, you could say the human body is 100% science. That being the case, I still 100% believe that God created and designed it. I don't understand how anyone with a good knowledge of the human body can think it all came about by chance... sure you could argue that it was evolution/natural selection and millions of years in the making but essentially you're saying the design has come from absolutely nowhere, i.e. by chance. I can't fathom that. Cells are smart! But they aren't smart enough that they could just create the design of the cardiovascular system or neurological system. And that's just the human body, wait until you get me started on the earth itself!

    "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground" - i.e. all the chemicals/molecules/atoms which make up the earth also make up our bodies - how very true and apt and I don't think one scientist could disagree. How very clever of that "random Mesopotamian guy who sat on Mt Sinai" who wrote that to recognise this scientifically proven fact at that point in time. You may as well call him the world's first micro-biologist! How about that?? The world's first scientist wrote the Bible! So what are all you scientists complaining about?

    Reply: #73
  13. Remmy
    BTW Aaron Smith, despite the argumentative tone, I am agreeing with you, my argument is directed to those saying that science disproves the Bible.
  14. Remmy
    oops, I got my quote wrong - should read: "Some uneducated primitive guy in the Sinai"...
  15. Bruce
    The catholic church is not an accurate example of true biblical beliefs. Catholics are DISCOURAGED to read the Bible without the aid of a priest, i.e. without someone there to brainwash them. All they run on is tradition and what the pope says - a peer elected man who has absolutely no authority. "Call no man Father"... "Do not worship idols"... Absolutely nowhere in the Bible does it say Mary was the mother of God or was in any way godly... and where the heck did rosary beads come from??
    All in all what I'm saying is they change their mind when it suits them, they don't get any facts straight from the Bible.
  16. claire
    wow...I came to get diet info,.. NOT to listen to Huffington Post vs Fox news...YAWN. I'm going back to" Suspicious Observers" on You Tube where people can still think for themselves
  17. shel
    if our earth was millions of years old, there would be trillions and trillions of people on the planet. it is a young earth.

    we evolve, but only within our own species, i.e. humans only into humans, not a fish into a bird etc. Surely, if we had all evolved from fish, there would be millions of fossils which were "in between" evolving into something esle, and yet there is not one that has ever been found. Darwin himself even said that there are only 2 answers, either his theory (theory not fact) of evolution or creation and most scientists now believe that evolution is flawed on every level.

    Reply: #72
  18. Mike M
    shel: "Surely, if we had all evolved from fish, there would be millions of fossils which were "in between" evolving into something esle..."

    There are. In fact, every single fossil is from something evolving from one thing to another. For some species there are very clear sets of fossils showing the transition from one creature to another over eons.

    Whoever told you otherwise did you a disservice.

    Reply: #74
  19. Mike M
    shel: "most scientists now believe that evolution is flawed on every level."

    I'm sorry but that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in years.

  20. FrankG
    The level of ignorance on display here recently, is sad.

    For example...

    Fossil Fish With "Limbs" Is Missing Link, Study Says

    Archaeopteryx ... is a genus of early bird that is transitional between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds.

    Heck, you don't even need to go to the fossil record to see potential transitional species... http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/animals/fish-animals/spiny-...

  21. François
    Please give me a break!

    The problem with creationism and intelligent design pseudo theories is that evolution true specialists are asked to prove the non existence of god’s hidden program, of this mysterious intelligent design whose only purpose is to end in a creature that is made to the image of god : us, of course, to whom god has given all rights on the earth (including the right to destroy it). The problem is of course that i sis very difficult to prove the absence of something that do not exist.

    A man by the name of Ibn Warraq said in a book "When you explain everything by the power of god, you kill every possible questioning and you also kill intellectual curiosity and any scientific progress. To say that the incredible complexity of life is a miracle serves no purpose. And it certainly is not a scientific explanation. Our universe is complex and is a true marvel. A true scientist feels this complexity needs to be explained and, by formulating hypothesis that can be tested, he will attempt to demystify the mysteries o the universe. The religious man will on the other hand will state that the universe is a marvel, something so complex no one could explain it, therefore the « proof » of the existence of god. "
    Ibn Warraq / Pourquoi je ne suis pas musulman / 1999

    When science was limited, man invented a god for each phenomenom he could not explain (god of the wind, of the sea, of the sun, of anything man could not comprehend). Creationism and intelligent design feed at the same source. They only reduced the number of gods.

    Guided evolution is only a more subtle form of creationism. Both rely on a magical superpower to "explain" things. None can be verified by observation and experience. And think of it. 98% of the creatures that once inhabited this planet are now extinct. How can such an intelligent design make so many "mistakes".

    You can interpret mesopotamian writings the way you want, (strange you seemingly acknowledge that the Old Testament is a copy and paste of mych older texts, written with a Jewish twist), all they did was to try to explain nature with the limited knowledge they had. Any interpretation you make is wishful thinking.

    As for Shel’s comments, they are the most discouraging case of science denial I have seen in a very long time. Pathetic.

    Reply: #83
  22. Shel
    Mike and Frank, there are no interspecies fossils that have been found, not one. There are lots fossils that are of their own kind. Also, when Darwin came up with his theory, he said "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down, but I can find no such case". When Darwin wrote this, approx. 150 years ago, he had no idea the mind-blowing complexity of even a single cell. Even Dawkins quotes "there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannia, all 30 volumes of it, 3 or 4 time over. Have a look at creation.com, it's a great site. ooops, I'm forgetting I'm on a diet website.... well the doctor did put this evolution thing on .....

    .... a few questions for you both:

    How can you harmonise the big bang idea (which evolutionists agree with) that chaos produced the order of the cosmos, with the second law of thermo dynamics which states that for the universe as a whole, order must degenerate to chaos ?

    explain, in evolutionary terms, the process of metamorphosis whereby a caterpillar constructs a cocoon around itself and sometime later emerges as a butterfly or moth ?

    scientists found red blood cells on dinosaur bones, red blood cells cannot live more than a few thousand years

    and what about dreams, how did they evolve ?

    Even the pro evolution magazine, National Geographic, in an article proclaiming the virtues of the theory made this admission..... the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 have been lost on the cutting room floor. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a creator.

  23. Mike M
    shel: "there are no interspecies fossils that have been found, not one."

    This is why it's pointless to discuss evolution with a creationist. You were shown examples and you simply ignored them and re-stated you're claim that there aren't any.

    I could show you thousands of examples and you'd just turn around and repeat that not a single one has ever been found.

    You claimed that the Theory of Evolution is believed to be "flawed on every level" by "most scientists". That is such an absurd and outlandish statement it left me breathless.

    Reply: #77
  24. JAUS
    For those who actually care about reality and don't live in their own deluded, close-minded, fantasy world; should watch this great example of evolution presented by Richard Dawkins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y94_FlAEkQo
  25. FrankG
    It is clearly pointless trying to discuss anything in the face of such obvious denial of the evidence.

    Parroting what another creationist, or their preacher has told them and putting blind faith in bronze-age (or earlier) bed-time stories, is just plain barmy... might as well behave as if Santa Claus and Unicorns are scientific fact!

    Personal beliefs and/or spirituality in which some people find solace, without affecting others, I have no issue with. Hateful and divisive organised religion is quite another thing. Aaron and Remmy with their "oh why can't we all just get along?" becomes a nasty lie in the face of signs reading "God Hates Fags!" While these pathetic and obvious attempts to dress creationism up as "science" would be laughable if it were not ultimately harmful to our childrens futures.

    Frankly if this blog post means we lose a few morons who can't, or won't, think for themselves, then I see that as a positive move.

    That Mitchell and Webb Look - Proof there is no God

  26. OSCAR

    Dawkins hahahaha what a fool

    You idiots believe in a world that can't possibly create itself and spout your "scientific" rubbish in order to justify your existance, when will you wake up to the deception of evolution
    I await your big words fools

    Reply: #79
  27. FrankG
    I see... so your position along with Shel is that: because science cannot yet answer all your questions, nor explain everything in the Universe, then the ONLY other possible explanation must be a supernatural "god" or "creator"..? Seriously? That's all you got?!?

    Too chicken$hit to acknowledge your blind faith but instead trying to dress it up in pseudoscience? Don't you know it is a sin to tell lies?

    Even if you can show gaps in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (and so far you have offered nothing convincing, just bare-faced denials) that is no way offers any proof for a supernatural answer. That is not how this works. Hahahaha :-P

    It is beyond hypocritical for you to take the position that you say you can disprove evolution while simultaneous offering not a single shred of evidence to back up your claims of a supernatural origin -- you can't have it both ways... either we are talking blind faith, or we are talking evidence-based proofs. Are you really going to try and to use that bronze-aged book of bed-time stories as your "evidence".

    Man... grow up and stop living in a fantasy...it will be better for all of us in the long run.

    There is no Santa (sorry kids!), there is no Zeus or Odin, there are no Unicorns -- unless you can prove otherwise?

    Science is corrosive to Religion, and Religion is corrosive to Science.

  28. Shel
    Tut! Answer my questions then ...
    Reply: #81
  29. FrankG

    Answer my questions then ...

    Why? What possible purpose would it serve?

    Even if I provide credible responses -- which I could...just like the examples of transitional fossils above -- you could simply deny them in the same ignorant way as you demonstrated above. Heck you don't even know the difference between chaos and thermodynamic equilibrium, which is the state of maximum entropy.!

    But that is beside the point anyway... as I just commented above (did you even read it?): disproving Evolution does NOT prove a supernatural answer... where is YOUR proof???

  30. Mike M
    Oscar: "...the deception of evolution"

    Looks like we've been caught. Over a century of work by hundreds of thousands of smart, hard working biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc. has all been an elaborate deception, designed solely to undermine your religion.

    Did you figure this out on your own, or did someone tip you off? Because we're all sworn to secrecy in this conspiracy and if someone blabbed they're in big trouble.

  31. Remmy

    1) Your first paragraph doesn't make sense
    2) I don't really care about Ibn Warraq's opinion, sorry. His reasoning in not my reason for believing in God/creation so it's irrelevant.
    3) I'm all for knowledge and figuring out how things are done so please explain how the designs of the cardiovascular, neurological, respiratory, endocrine and digestive systems came about out of nothing. And if you say 'natural selection' then you're showing just how little you know about them.
    3) You've missed the point - I've said that science and God can co-exist and all you've done in response is say that God doesn't exist without any real reasoning.
    4) "Mistakes" - sure you could look at it like that, the same way as you could look at a rotten tomato as a "mistake" or death as a "mistake". It's just life/science/time/human-impact/climate taking it's course.
    5) That was a quote, not my opinion, hence the quotation marks. Regarding the Mesopotamian writings and Genesis, let me put it this way. My neighbor tells me a story and I write it down to my own interpretation (i.e. inaccurately). My neighbor moves away and continues to (accurately) tell that story to their children and then their grandchildren and then their great-grandchild writes it down. Which one is the true story? Mine - because it was written first? Of course not. Abraham came from Mesopotamia and Moses (who wrote Genesis) is Abraham's descendant. Of course those accounts are going to be similar, they originated from the same place, but you can't claim the Bible is a 'copy and paste' because of this. Obviously the above is a very simplified example so please don't start making argument's which simply point out how simplistic it is.

    Look, we could argue all day. I've read hypotheses and papers with an open mind and although I may not agree with all of it (in fact no one does, consequently why there are many hypotheses), I don't refute the role of science in the creation of earth, call it what you will. However I do believe God was involved and until you've done the equivalent (i.e. read the whole Bible with an open mind) I don't think you're in a position to argue.

    Replies: #84, #85
  32. Francois
    I think we can agree that we'll disagree. Everyone is allowed an opinion and it is OK. As long as no one tries to force it on me without sufficient proof, I'm OK with people thinking different things that I do. What we are not allowed is our own facts, ie to invent facts or distort them so they can fit our view of the world.

    Out of interest, I did read the Bible from cover to cover and the Kuran from cover to cover. Rather enlightening. I also read historical accounts and (translated) old mesopotamian writings and summerian writings. In face of the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the Old testament is a copy and paste for many, many parts of much older texts, arranged to serve the purpose of the Jewish clergy at that time. Even the story of Abrajham is probably an invented one. Just an example: the camels that are referred to in the story did not exist in that part of the world at the alledged time of the story. His wife was supposed to be an incredibly beautiful woman (I have no problem with this) but when it is stated that she was so beautiful over age 70 after spending a life under the harsh sun that Egypt's Pharaoh, who had a harem of incredibly beautiful young women, fell madly in love with her, if you believe that crap, you are gullible! Look at a map. Apart from the fact that there is no oil nor tar in Egypt, Moses mother makes a basket and covers it with tar (where the hell did she find it?) and puts it on the Nile, a very dangerous and tumultuous river, filled with crocodile and hippopotamus. On the other hand, the Euphrat in Iraq is much more calm and has neither crocodiles nor hypopotamus. Pharao's daughter goes to the Nile for a bath as she does evey day (Be real! She took baths in pools in the palace, as it wa ssuicidal to wash at the river. This may make sense to someone living under a tent who has no knowledge of the Nile, but it makes no sense to anyone knowing the area. The Pharao is never named but we know the names of the nurses... No pharao ever drowned at the head of his troops... Moses story is a copy and paste from a mesopotamian legend. many christian scholars (not fundamentalist ones of course) know Jews were never slaves in Egypt but that this story was copies and pasted from other legends when they were captive in babylon(as far as we know, an historical fact).

    The point is: I have read with an open mind the Bible and the Kuran and have come to the conclusion based on facts and verification that both are inaccurate and do not represent the word of god. You may well believe something else. That is quite OK. I have very religious people in my family. I used to be one but I did my research when I had my existential crisis about this wonderful loving god when i was taking care of a cancer ward - most of my patients were kids, they were suffering and dying left and right and I had a tough time with that fact.

    So let's agree that we do not agree. But let's also keep our facts straight.

    Reply: #88
  33. FrankG

    I've read hypotheses and papers with an open mind and although I may not agree with all of it ... I don't refute the role of science in the creation of earth, call it what you will. However I do believe God was involved and until you've done the equivalent (i.e. read the whole Bible with an open mind) I don't think you're in a position to argue.

    Hmmm... so I also have actually read the whole bible -- having had a strict religious upbringing and going to a grammar school run by a religious order, and having taken religious studies 'n all. Except as a "believer" myself in those days, I'm not so sure (speaking from my current perspective) that I read it with an "open mind".

    I could definitely start quoting you chapter and verse for the god-sanctioned and god-demanded child-abuse, misogyny, murder, rape, genocide etc... Does that count?

    I could also point out that (even as you just acknowledged above) it was written by men (plural and gender-specific). And that it has been translated and re-translated.. each time with the translators adding their own slant and interpretation to the ambiguous wordings. Interesting to note that the Jewish, Christin and Muslim faithful include theologians; who spend all their time interpreting and re-interpreting the words... again traditionally this role was male-dominated (and to large extent still is)... along with the "priesthood", the gatekeepers of the knowledge.

    I'm also pretty current with the scientific theories -- you do know the difference between an hypothesis and a theory ...right? I ask because you seem to be confused as to "the role of science in the creation of earth" as if it had some part to play in it?

    From my own perspective: the scientific method is a way to gain a rational understanding of the Universe around and within us... it seeks out questions and tries to answer then in a way that can be observed and reproduced independently by others. As discussed above it allows us to make predictions such as those used to build the rockets needed to land men on the moon, to send the Voyager craft out into deep space beyond the reach of our own Sun. To understand and cure diseases. To build computers.

    Considering myself as a person who can apply the scientific method I would be willing to consider proof of a god but I am not willing to take just your word or the word of anyone else, nor will I accept it on "blind faith" -- just as I would not be convinced that cold fusion is possible without an independently reproducible experiment.

    At the risk of repeating myself: a bronze-age book of allegorical bed-time stories is NOT equivalent proof.

    Science is about proofs such as these I mention. Where are your proofs of a creator? And once again I'd remind you that disproving one theory is NOT proof of another.

  34. Jens
    Please remove the "Female Faces of the World" I´ve never seen anything as meaningless on an otherwise meaningful website. Complete waste of time.
  35. bill
    Nah. Leave them. If it ticks off
    the deniers, good.

    Besides, they're pretty.

  36. Remmy
    Perfectly fine with me. We've obviously drawn different conclusions. I'm not here to force anyone to believe anything, only to offer my opinion in opposition to those provided.
    Reply: #92
  37. Remmy
    Great, well as above with Francois, we'll obviously have to agree to disagree. We've drawn different conclusions. We don't need to argue further.

    I will just touch on what you say about proofs because I don't have "blind faith" as described. And I'll remind you that having a theory (evolution) does not disprove another (God). Now you're going to argue that 'God' is not a 'theory' - I'm simply rephrasing what you've said above so it is not me saying that 'God' is a theory it is you - so save your energy.

    My proofs of the BIble are (now this would take a while so I'll keep it breif): the fulfillment of Nebuchadnezzar's image, the destruction of the temple, the destruction of Tyre, the siege of Jerusalem (AD70), the partial fulfillment of Revelation, the scattering and regathering of Israel and it's overcoming of numerous wars against all odds - all of which were prophesied before their time. Now if you've already made up your mind that the Bible is just a heap of rubbish and holds no factual history then let me point out: Josephus' (the historian) writings, Sennacherib's/Taylor's prism, the Moabite Stone, the Black Obelisk... etc, etc. The list is very very long.

    Reply: #91
  38. Remmy
    Whoops. Post 89 in reply to FrankG (Post 85)
  39. FrankG
    Right.. so some very nebulous threads which you think give the bible an historical basis are somehow proof of god??? I don't think so.

    Once again you are not using the scientific method. Look... even if you had cast iron proof of a virgin birth or someone coming back to life that is STILL not proof of a supernatural divinity.

    Listen... as with Francois: I am OK with you having a blind faith belief in the supernatural, that is your right. Just so long as don't try to force it on others and especially so long as you don't try to dress it up as pseudoscience and brainwash future generations with your beliefs. People who do that to their children I put in the same category as those who strap their infants down into strollers or car-seats and smoke around them.

    Reply: #93
  40. FrankG

    I'm not here to force anyone to believe anything, only to offer my opinion in opposition to those provided.

    So long as it is clear that is ALL you have offered here: an opinion and nothing based in factual reality.

    There is no equivalency between the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and some supernatural creator.

  41. Remmy
    You obviously haven't actually looked into the proofs I've provided.

    So me teaching my child to read the Bible is the equivalent to me forcing them to inhale a deadly toxin so much so that they could become diseased or die young? I'm sorry, now you're just being arrogantly stupid, I'm not going to argue with a bigot.

    Replies: #94, #95, #96
  42. FrankG
    Teaching your child about the bible is one thing. Brainwashing them to believe as you do, while closing their minds to the far more credible alternatives, is stunting their growth and tantamount to abuse; just like smoking around them.

    Are you seriously suggesting that you can offer proofs of a supernatural divinity?

    As for bigotry: I have shown no intolerance for your opinions or your beliefs but if you want to discus these in scientific terms then clearly you have no substance.

  43. FrankG
    Let me put it this way: what would you think if you were seeking medical advice from a physician who told you (very sincerely) that every weekend he and a group of friends, go out to a special clearing in the woods to share food and sing songs for an invisible unicorn? He might even offer to ask the unicorn to help cure you with its magical powers.

    And you know I could find all kinds of references to unicorns (including pictures!) in books and written documents; reaching back over thousands of years, as "proof" of the existence of unicorns.

    You want to talk about bigotry, then first get your brethren to put away the signs that proclaim "God Hates Fags!".

  44. FrankG
    Or how about all those children who, through an accident of birth, are brought up in Saudi Arabia and instead of the bible, are taught that the Koran is the "word of god". Are they being "brainwashed" or is that perfectly fine in your World-view?
  45. FrankG
    Oh look...


    "The unicorn was depicted in ancient seals of the Indus Valley Civilization and was mentioned by the ancient Greeks in accounts of natural history by various writers, including Ctesias, Strabo, Pliny the Younger, and Aelian.[1] The Bible also describes an animal, the re'em, which some translations have rendered with the word unicorn.[1]
    In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, it was commonly described as an extremely wild woodland creature, a symbol of purity and grace, which could only be captured by a virgin. In the encyclopedias its horn was said to have the power to render poisoned water potable and to heal sickness."

    And no doubt all these references could be placed in historical context.

  46. FrankG
    Are you convinced yet that the unicorn is real? And if not then please tell me what manner of proof you would want to convince you otherwise.

    Then considering that we are really just talking about a magical horse with an horn that has healing properties, imagine how much more proof you would need to provide to convince me of some supernatural being who could create the entire Universe!

  47. FrankG
    A supernatural being who could create the entire Universe and EVERYTHING in it... thank god for cancer eh!?!
  48. Paul
    Debate with christians about evolution/creation does not belong to the same ball-park - not yet. Christians need to examine the origin of their religion first. Discussion should be about why christianity/islam/judaism is what it is today - leave one of the most complex theories (evolution) alone. There is large body of archaeological, historical, linguistic studies, analysis to show how and why christianity is what it is today (as it is with other organized religions) i.e. who wrote old testament and why, who and when wrote new testament and why, who wrote koran and why. Problem is that for someone with a mind-set prone to (thanks to this or that environment/upbringing) believing rather than reasoning - this is no-go zone. And here ends open dialog.


1 2 3

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts