“There were too many long words in this article for me to understand it. The only point I wanted to make is that religion itself doesn't cause all the major troubles in the world, it is people's reactions to other religions which cause trouble. Technically I am a Methodist, and therefore a Christian (not that you'd know it; I am the lazy sort). However, like most people of most religions, I just let other people of other faiths get on with it and believe what they believe. As long as people can do this peacefully, I really don't care what people think exists out there or who created Earth or where people go after they die. The problems occur when people decide that those who don't agree with their own, and start spouting off about how much nonsense religion is. By all means, disagree with peoples theories and beliefs, and yeah alright try and have a rational conversation/discussion about why you think they are wrong, but is there really any need to call people crazy etc? Surely it's when THAT happens that you start the major problems.

Other than that, I'm still undecided about the rest of it. Live and let live, eh?”

“" ...the 'Big Bang Theory' that evolutionists have faith in."

There's so many things wrong in just this one sentence.

The Big Bang isn't about evolution, it's about cosmology - the beginnings of the universe. Evolution is a theory on how life changes. It's a scientific theory, not a faith, because it's based on evidence that is abundant, increasing all the time, interconnected and easily available in museums, popular books, textbooks and a mountain of peer-reviewed scientific studies.

"With this old theory of evolution virtually discredited..."

Has it? and where has this been discredited?

The analogy about photocopiers and books is just bizarre.

Sadly, science, history, geology, biology, physics - and even modern theology - have failed to convince a minority of American-influenced fundamentalists that ancient writings were just our best first attempt at explaining the world.

Fortunately, most people of faith now see their scriptures as metaphors.”

“Just my two-pence:
As a Christian and a scientist (yet not a Christ's scientist - aha aha) I personally find faults and positive aspects to both God and evolution. Mr Jones' letter, I feel, reeks of factual inaccuracy regarding both science and religion and is dominated more by religious dogma than careful thought. "Bob" has set him straight regarding the finer aspects of molecular genetics, (although Mr Darwin's book is lacking tangible evidence for mutation - unsurprisingly, while Mr Dawkin's is rabidly anti-God and so heavily skewed), I would just like to enquire if Mr Jones would answer a couple of religious-based questions for me:
1. As many religious scholars insist, the Great Flood covered the world. Given that Mt Ararat is 5000km above sea level, that would result in a GLOBAL water column ~4500km high (allowing for the ark not descending bang on top of Mt Ararat) - a total of 2.2 billion km2 of water. Point of fact - there ain't that much water on the planet, ergo is it possible that the Bible is not a literal "Word of God"?
2. If, as you say, you follow the origins of a book to the beginning, you find the creator - does this mean that Moses, as the author of the Pentateuch, is God?

Religion is personal; why not just allow people to accept what they will rather than look foolish by insisting on ill-thought dogmas - religious or scientific.”

“Ha ha Gareth. As a wind-up it was perfect. As an accurate article it was boring, ill-thought out and lacked any convincing argument.
Well done, you have epitomised the sad religious folk we constantly hear banging on about the best selling fiction of all time...”

“Oh dear, not this nonsense again ... Gareth, I strongly recommend that as long as you remain completely ignorant on a given subject, you should entirely refrain from attempting to debate or debunk it. Your lack of knowledge on evolution (and science in general, it seems), troubles me greatly since the areas in which you display total ignorance are those with which anyone who ever actually went to school would be quite familiar and able to discuss confidently. I can therefore conclude that it is your religious upbringing that is responsible for undoing the good work education has done by replacing sound knowledge with unprovable fantasy.

I do respect your right to believe whatever you want, but I don't respect what you actually believe since you patently do so without question, and without any verifiable facts to support it. For centuries, science has proven, time and time again, the theories it proposes through experimentation, peer-review, accumulation of evidence, analysis of data, continual refinement of its ideas based on observable, measurable phenomena. Religion does none of this, and if you're going to debunk a scientific theory you should at least have the decency to hold your own replacement theories to the same standards.

In other words, its time for religion to put up or shut up ... prove your case, or move along. A 2000-year old, recycled hebrew soap opera is no more proof of its contents than Marvel Comics is proof of the existence of Spiderman.”

“Quote: "If you trace the origins of the book back to its source you find the creator of the intelligence... the author. The same principal applies to life forms; if you trace our origins back we find the creator of our intelligence: God; not an amoeba."

I always find it amusing the straws that these religious folk grasp at. The above statement/theory is completely stupid and just holds no water. Makes me think whether all the single celled organisms did evolve into a religious one.

We are now in an atheist genre/time and this movement will prevail - it's expanding pretty quick already. Maybe once we rid of all the preachers we will live in peace.

Are there any gay Christians about here? They must be suffering; poor souls.”

“Ok, I'm going to take the time now to EXPLAIN the theories you have just tried to debunk, as many of your assertions are incorrect.

"Human DNA (which contains information) is similarly copied and passed down through the generations with no natural possibility of that information increasing more than the original."

A GCSE Science student could put you right on this. Let me take you through how it works.

You have a mummy bird and a daddy bird who love each other very much. Both provide DNA. The sperm contains half the DNA structure that will dictate the characteristics of the foetus, while the egg cell provides the other half. The arrangement and number of alleles (the biological code that dictates how life emerges) dictates which characteristics that individual will have.

Occasionally, these alleles change number or rearrange in an unexpected way depending on chemical conditions within the womb. This is called a 'mutation'. If the new or changed characteristics are beneficial then the individual will live long enough to reproduce and outcompete competing males/females. If it is not beneficial (i.e. a deformity) then that individual may not live to reproduce, so the characteristic is not then passed on to the next generation. For more information on this, read 'On the Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin and/or 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. While you're at it, take a trip to the Museum of Natural History to view the huge fossil evidence, and the numerous journals that have been published and peer reviewed since Darwin's death that continue to verify his theories.

"This is, however, the 'Big Bang Theory' that evolutionists have faith in"

Firstly, evolutionism is not a 'faith' or 'doctrine'. It is a scientific theory. Those that agree with a scientific theory may or may not have faith. Are you trying to suggest that the theory of gravity is merely something we believe in? If so, I challenge you to jump out of a three story window to prove me wrong.

The Big Bang theory is clearly something else you fail to understand. Try reading 'A Brief history of Time' by Professor Stephen Hawking or the numerous peer-reviewed journals that also verify the theory. To clarify for you, we emerged from a singularity which expanded rapidly enough to produce heat and energy to form matter. 'The Big Bang' is better termed 'The Big expansion'. The universe is the only place where any kind of matter, anti-matter, dark matter, etc. can exist. There is no space, not even a vacuum outside the universe.

Science has gaps in it's knowledge, but it would appear that the gaps in your knowledge lead to a complete ignorance of the theory you're busy debunking. I am not going to challenge your faith in God as I respect your right to belief, but I have no idea why such jibberish has been published by a seemingly reputable local publication. I'll be surprised if this doesn't draw complaints.”

“What a load of rubbish. How people in this day and age can deny the fact that we have EVOLVED from those amoeba's billions of years ago. It had to come from a religious type, they are the only narrow minded people left on this world and it is the religion that causes all the worlds problems. If people actually look at the human form and the way it has evolved from when we lived in trees (yes, we did hundreds of thousands of years ago). It isnt coincidence that our hands close into a circle, like the shape of a branch.. Neither is it coincidence that we have developed full frontal incisors, we ate meat to develop our brains.
I have an explanation for religion, well, Jesus anyway, he was the first recognized mental person who was rightly crucified for saying his father lived in the sky. If someone nowadays come along saying that he would get locked up, whats the difference. The desciples were also nutcases but not as much so as jesus. Get a grip Religion.”