Top 15 Misconceptions about Evolution
- Published February 19, 2008 - 731 Comments
Biological evolution is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life. While evolution is very widely accepted, many people hold to misconceptions about it. This list should help to dispel some of those myths.

15. Evolution is a theory about the origin of life
The theory of evolution primarily deals with the manner in which life has changed after its origin. While science is interested in the origins of life (for example the composition of the primeval sludge from which life might have come) but these are not issues covered in the area of evolution. What is known is that regardless of the start, at some point life began to branch off. Evolution is, therefore, dedicated to the study of those processes.
14. Organisms are always getting better

While it is a fact that natural selection weeds out unhealthy genes from the gene pool, there are many cases where an imperfect organism has survived. Some examples of this are fungi, sharks, crayfish, and mosses – these have all remained essentially the same over a great period of time. These organisms are all sufficiently adapted to their environment to survive without improvement.
Other taxa have changed a lot, but not necessarily for the better. Some creatures have had their environments changed and their adaptations may not be as well suited to their new situation. Fitness is linked to their environment, not to progress.
13. Evolution means that life changed ‘by chance’
In fact, natural selection is not random. Many aquatic animals need speed to survive and reproduce – the creatures with that ability are more suited to their environment and are more likely to survive natural selection. In turn, they will produce more offspring with the same traits and the cycle continues. The idea that evolution occurs by chance does not take the entire picture in to account.
12. Natural selection involves organisms ‘trying’ to adapt

Organisms do not “try” to adapt – it is natural selection that enables various members of a group to survive and reproduce. Genetic adaptation is entirely outside of the power of the developing organism.
11. Natural selection gives organisms what they ‘need.’
Natural selection has no “intelligence” – it can not tell what a species needs. If a population has genetic variants that are more suited to their environment, they will reproduce more in the next generation and the population will evolve. If a genetic variant is not present, the population will most likely do – or it will survive with little evolutionary change.
10. Evolution is ‘just’ a theory

Scientifically speaking, a theory is a well substantiated idea that explains aspects of the natural world. Unfortunately other definitions of theory (such as a “guess” or a “hunch”) cause a great deal of confusion in the non-scientific world when dealing with the sciences. They are, in fact, two very different concepts.
9. Evolution is a Theory in Crisis
There is no debate in science as to whether or not evolution occurred – there is, however, debate over how it happened. The minutiae of the process is vigorously debated which can cause anti-evolutionists to believe that the theory is in crisis. Evolution is sound science and is treated as such by scientists worldwide.
8. Gaps in the Fossil Record Disprove Evolution

Actually, many transitional fossils do exist – for example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their dinosaur ancestors, as well as whales and their land mammal ancestors. There are many transitional forms that have not been preserved, but that is simply because some organisms do not fossilize well or exist in conditions that do not allow for the process of fossilization. Science predicts that there will be gaps in the record for many evolutionary changes. This does not disprove the theory.
7. Evolutionary Theory is Incomplete
Evolutionary science is a work in progress. Science is constantly making new discoveries with regard to it and explanations are always adjusted if necessary. Evolutionary theory is like all of the other sciences in this respect. Science is always trying to improve our knowledge. At present, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for all of life’s diversity.
6. The Theory is Flawed

Science is an extremely competitive field – if any flaws were discovered in evolutionary theory they would be quickly corrected. All of the alleged flaws that creationists put forth have been investigated careful by scientists and they simply do not hold water. They are usually based on misunderstandings of the theory or misrepresentation of the evidence.
5. Evolution is not science because it is not observable
Evolution is observable and testable. The confusion here is that people think science is limited to experiments in laboratories by white-coated technicians. In fact, a large amount of scientific information is gathered from the real world. Astronomers can obviously not physically touch the objects they study (for example stars and galaxies), yet a great deal of knowledge can be gained through multiple lines of study. This is true also of evolution. It is also true that there are many mechanisms of evolution that can be, and are studied through direct experimentation as with other sciences.
4. Most Biologists have rejected Darwinism

Scientists do not reject Darwin’s theories, they have modified it over time as more knowledge has been discovered. Darwin considered that evolution proceeds at a deliberate, slow pace – but in fact it has now been discovered that it can proceed at a rapid pace under some circumstances. There has not been, so far, a credible challenge to the basic principles of Darwin’s theory. Scientists have improved and expanded on Darwin’s original theory of natural selection – it has not been rejected, it has been added to.
3. Evolution Leads to Immoral Behavior
All animal species have a set of behaviors that they share with other members of their species. Slugs act like slugs, dogs act like dogs, and humans act like humans. It is preposterous to presume that a child will begin to behave like another creature when they discover that they are related to them. It is nonsensical to link evolution to immoral or inappropriate behavior.
2. Evolution Supports “Might Makes Right”

In the 19th and early 20th century, a philosophy called “Social Darwinism” sprung up from misguided attempts to apply biological evolution to society. This philosophy said that society should allow the weak to fail and die, and that not only is this an ideal situation, but a morally right one. This enabled prejudices to be rationalized and ideas such as the poor deserved their situation due to being less fit were very popular. This was a misappropriation of science. Social Darwinism has, thankfully, been repudiated. Biological evolution has not.
1. Teachers Should Teach Both Sides
There are tens of thousands of different religious views concerning creation. It is simply impossible for all of these views to be presented. Furthermore, none of the theories are based in science and therefore have no place in a science classroom. In a science class, students can debate where a creature branched off in the tree of life, but it is not right to argue a religious belief in a science class. The “fairness” argument is often used by groups attempting to inject their religious dogmas in to the scientific curricula.
This list was inspired by the brilliant Berkeley, Evolution 101 FAQ.





February 19th, 2008 at 8:07 am
awesome, awesome list!
February 19th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Wonderful List!, I can’t wait for the arguments….
February 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
A well written and informed list. Awesome!
February 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
ooo second!
February 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
You’ll stand tall with me when the creationists come rabble-rousing, right Mom424?
February 19th, 2008 at 8:12 am
fouth.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Bring on the creationists!!!!
February 19th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Evolution means that life changed ‘by chance’ is actually true in most respects. The original mutation is by chance alone. Those traits that are beneficial allow those mutated animals to propagate their new genes to more young and perpetuate the trait, but the original mutation is still by chance.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:15 am
As an interesting aside, there are some states in the Grand Ol’ USA where “public funds” are used to teach creationism as an alternate to evolution. Not a private fundamentalist christian school, but public school….scary
February 19th, 2008 at 8:16 am
And of course Slick; I got yer back….
February 19th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Back in the day I went to a school that refused to teach evolution and how to world may have been created except for there theory that God just.. “made it”..
And when we read from the science textbook instead of saying “6 million years ago..” the teacher said “But we know God made the world 6,000 years ago!” So we had to say “6,000″ years ago instead.
Complete and utter bullshit.
The support the theory of evolution.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Gutsy call on number one, but I whole heartingly agree. I applaud listverse for publishing the idea that religion has no right in the classroom.
However, I do have a problem with number 12. Well it is fundamentally true that an organism either does or doesn’t adapt, you fail to point out humans. Biologically, we are a very weak race. The only reason we truly survive is because of the advancements we have made in our technology. Thus we survived because we “tried” to adapt, we created houses and clothing to protects us, and developed weapons for hunting.
Though, it is also arguable that we evolved our intelligence and hence our ability to adapt is an evolutionary trait. Either way, I think it is worth noting that the human race adapts in a completely different way than others.
Unfortunately, it should be noted that there is some social Darwinism going on today, in that there is the belief that our advancements in technology have paved the way for those with genes not suitable for life in a more wild habitat to procreate, thus weakening the human race overall.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Peter; I disagree, evolution gave us the brain to succeed, brawn wouldn’t have been near as useful, no higher thought processes, no technology,,,we are but very smart animals…
February 19th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Awesome list man!!
Very educational! A+
February 19th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Peter: We are “trying” to adapt, but what you refer to is cultural evolution, not biological evolution. We can learn things and pass on our knowledge, but we can’t “try” to evolve anymore than my grandpa can “try” to grow hair to cover his bald spot. When a black bear moves north, he can’t say “I’m going to try to be white to match this snow!” *grunt* POOF! “I’m white!”
And with number one, YES! If creationism is made to be taught in a science classroom, then shouldn’t science be required to be taught in church?
February 19th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Peter, I don’t think that would count as social darwinism, since your example is moving us in the opposite direction of natural selection….less fit, overall, instead of more fit. Physically speaking, human beings are more-or-less evolutionarily perfect for our environment (at least, perfect for our environment several hundred thousand years ago). It is our big brains that is our ultimate evolutionary gift….physically, we have no more need to adapt to survive in the modern environent. As the species expands into environments unsuitable for us to live, our technology takes over for us and evolves to suit the situation. We are still evolving as a species….it’s just a technological evolution rather than a physical one. As for your comment about number 12, you are right that we are the only species that is purposefully trying to adapt. We are also the only species with a brain complicated enough to perceive the environment as capable of being taken advantage of.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:37 am
I love this list.
So my favorite myth about evolutionary theory that creationists always like to argue is “Well if we evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?” (I’ve heard this a lot) Wow, well there are two problems with that question. Number 1: We didn’t evolve from monkeys (not the ones still around anyway), we all evolved from the SAME ANCESTOR. Number 2: Monkeys still exist because monkeys and humans are two different branches in the complicated evolutionary tree. Branches keep evolving into different branches, and those species branch out into two more species and so on.
*sigh* I’m terrible at trying to explain this in writing…I just hate that particular argument against evolution.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Peter; Evolution has allowed many animals to adapt by changing their environment, our large brains just allow us to do it more efficiently,,,polar bears dig dens to allow them to winter over, chimps make rain shelters and beds, moles dig huge winding masses of dens underground,,,animals adapt their environment to provide the necessities of life as do we. The so-called weakening of our gene-pool is also an adaptation of evolution. Our sense of empathy allowed us to live co-operatively, an obvious asset when yer not the biggest thing on the savannah…
February 19th, 2008 at 8:38 am
All this talk about organisms is giving me a woody
February 19th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Jackie: That was pretty much the correct response to that particular myth, without getting into needless details. (The creationist probably wouldn’t know what you were talking about, anyway.) Keep fightin the good fight.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Great list J. I’ve never understood how people can beleive in creationism with all the mountains of evidence against it. I laugh when I read how God ‘put the fossils there to put us off’ or shit like that.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I am a Creationist and I have no qualms with this list. It is very nicely presented and makes sense. Evolution is real and does not in any way contradict the Bible.
I think the problem occurs when people take Evolution to explain that all things have a common ancestor. Sure species change and develop over time, but there is no evidence that a dog and a pine tree are both evolved from some single-celled organism. It begs the question of how life came to be, but I believe honest Evolutionists will say they do not know.
I believe religion should be kept out of the science classroom, just as mathematics should be kept out of the English classroom. Evolution is science. Theories about the origin of life is religion. Don’t make Evolution religion and everyone is happy.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:01 am
One of the best lists i have seen on your site till date.
I am sure you will get loads of comments on this one.
I diasgree with peter, well because early humans did try to adapt to their environment but they still had to possess the required genes for adaptation.
For example, the neanderthals were the more stronger race physically than the modern human who migrated to parts of central europe where the neanderthals had gone extinct 30000 years ago because of compeition from homo spaiens who were more intellingent than their conterparts.The neanderthals had been living there for tens of thousands of years why couldn’t they try to adapt to warmer climate or become more brainer?
The point is a organism cannot evolve into another just because it tried to adapt to a environment. Number twelve is absolutely true.
Once again a great list from the listverse.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:08 am
LOL @ buclism (#19)!!
This is an amazing list Jamie…
February 19th, 2008 at 9:13 am
The difficulty here is putting someone off of their personal beliefs. Most hard core religious folk consider evolution to be an affront to God Himself, so it doesn’t matter how much evidence you pile up in front of them. Another problematic area is that the church hasn’t had the greatest record when it comes to scientific things. (Galileo, DaVinci etc,) So it’s easy to point to the stereotypical believer with the glazed over eyes, willing to believe anything that comes out of the mouth of the dude in a slick suit and plastic hair, and willing to go to war with anyone who disagrees with the creative power of the Almighty.
Science on the other hand has difficulty in answering the really interesting questions – who am I, how did I get here and what happens when I leave and when is the ‘White Sale’ going to happen at Penneys. Everyone who has a brain considers these things.
Some think we’re trail mix for worms, others think the big black box at the end of the bed will tell us the answer, and Tom Cruise thinks Xenu holds the key to this mystery.
It’s a cosmic pickle, and only when the scientist gets on his knees to pray will he change his mind, or when the believer forsakes his god will he begin to doubt.
I think I’ll have another beer and watch Gilligan’s Island and wonder why if the Professor can make a radio out of bamboo, why the fuck can’t he patch up the hole in the boat.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Thanks SlickWilly!!
Sidereus: I wish more creationists were like you! Evolution does NOT contradict a belief in God. Everything you said I totally agree with.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Haha bucslism: “and Tom Cruise thinks Xenu holds the key to this mystery”.
Maybe we ARE all wrong and scientology is the answer to where we came from.
..ok I couldn’t even type that with a straight face.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Sidereus:
I hate to pick on you, because you seem like an honest, intelligent person. However, there is evidence of common ancestry in most animals, and most animals (even almost *all* animals) share DNA with many kinds of plants and trees. This suggests that the DNA for both organisms has a common origin. It’s not enough evidence to be considered factual, of course, but it *is* evidence nonetheless, and given how extensive our knowledge of genetic heretidity is, it’s fairly strong evidence that both dogs and pine trees evolved separately from the same primordial, single-celled ancestor.
As for the question of how life came about, any honest person, evolutionist or otherwise, will admit that they don’t know. Nobody knows. Creationists *think* that God created life, but the don’t *know* it, not like how we know about thermodynamics or natural selection. Abiogenicists (those scientists that study the origin of life – which is an entirely separate field of study from the study of evolution, and not generally related, though it does use the tenets of evolution to venture theories) don’t *know* how life started, but they have a few good ideas that are supported by a certain amount of evidence.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Siderus; Evolution is the path, God started the journey…who’s to say it didn’t begin with the big bang….
February 19th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Very, very good list. JFrater: I appreciate your being ballsy and choosing “Evolution and Creationism are Equal” for #1.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Wow. And the debate has already begun. Well done Jamie! Excellent list, well thought out and well delivered. While I’m sure to enjoy all the debates this list will stir, I likely won’t read all of them.
Mind if I write an alter list about creationism?
February 19th, 2008 at 9:30 am
I wish I knew more people like Sidereus.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Mystern: definitely – I was hoping to do one eventually so you are more than welcome!
February 19th, 2008 at 9:32 am
An informative and well-written list! Definitely one of my favorites. Even as an ardent supporter of evolution, I learned a few things. Number one was a great point. Science is not a religion, and religion is most certainly not a science. You’d think it’s such a simple distinction, no? Religion already has its place; a church. Sidereus, you hit the nail on the head with one of your points, and it’s another misconception that I’ve seen a lot of people have. So many people get the idea that evolution and religion are mutually-exclusive areas and belief in one is incompatible with belief in the other. I myself am not religious, but I have many close Christian friends and they don’t have a problem with evolutionary theory. I don’t know if a belief in both depends on how strong your beliefs really are, or how literally you interpret the bible. That’s something I am curious about.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Oh God, was this list just created to piss off the creationists? I am a Christian, and I believe that God had a hand in evolution. For all those atheists that just creamed their pants reading this article and pranced around denouncing the Bible, you have failed to realize that the Bible is largely a symbolic story full of metaphors. While it says God created Earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh, who says that it’s Earth days? One day for Him could be millions of years for us. I fully support this article, but I’m just disappointed that all the liberal atheists took it and used it to make fun of Christians. I hope your proud of how childish you look now. Way to be mature about it.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Thank you Listverse. Gutly as ever!
February 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Unfortunately in my daily experience, one of the biggest misconceptions is that evolution means one animal changed into another. Part of the problem is that “march of time” poster.
The one thing that people who promote and argue against evolution seem to not understand out in the lay world is that all animals existing today are equally evolved. No animal came from another, if you see it walking about today. People did not come from any monkey in any zoo. Those guys are just as adapted as we are.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I didn’t prance about from reading this article, ProgRapture, nor did I have an orgasm in my pants. That wouldn’t be “mature.”
I denounce the bible purely from reading the bible.
I understand the idea of metaphor, so, can we assume that God, Jesus, and the resurrection are also metaphor?
February 19th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Wonderful list!
February 19th, 2008 at 9:50 am
This is a fantastic compilation. That’s it,…all I have to say. Usually I say “great list but….” None of that here. This list is perfect. That’s not a word I like to use very often.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Hellbound Alleee, I don’t believe Jesus to be a metaphor, there is enough historical evidence to prove that he existed, and died. Personally I kinda think the whole resurrection thing is likely a metaphor, but I won’t be nasty to those who believe otherwise….lordy My uncle is a RC priest
February 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am
So I’m confused about the creationists? They say they support the list, yet still argue how God created humans. How can you support both?
- An atheist liberal =]
February 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am
What about the role of midichlorians in all of this???
February 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am
*clapclapclap* Will be sharing this with certain people when I need to
February 19th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I’m sitting in my own waste products after reading Shane’s comment.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I hate to interject here, but Hellbound and ProgRapture….can we keep the argument centered on evolution? Nobody said anything about the Bible before ProgRapture read the list without bothering to read the comments and jumped to conclusions about the people who regularly read and comment on this site. That’s no excuse for Hellbound to launch into attacks against the bible and – if this conversation continues – religion in general.
ProgRapture: “I fully support this article, but I’m just disappointed that all the liberal atheists took it and used it to make fun of Christians. I hope your proud of how childish you look now. Way to be mature about it.”
Which liberal atheists are you referring to? I didn’t see anybody making fun of Christians. Maybe some of the hard-liners, but I hardly think that handful of individuals qualifies as “Christians” in general. (I don’t even think half of those people are real “Christians” anyway, and I’m sure you would agree with me.) I think, perhaps, you jumped to the predetermined conclusion that evolutionists are small-minded, petty bullies who just a kick out of haranguing religious folks for their beliefs. There are a lot of people that do this, and truth be told, most of those folks probably know less about evolution than the creationists they are “debating” against. I think you’ll find, by and large, that the people on Listverse are civil and intelligent, as long as you approach them in a civil and intelligent manner.
Hellboun Alleee: Leave the anti-bible, anti-religious propaganda at home, please.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Definitely a valid point, Shane. Understandably, the Jedi minority want answers, too.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Really great list, Jamie! And great comments from all of you! I’m going to be entertained by this for a while.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:59 am
#24. Sidereus…Touche’! and thank you for that brief yet accurate reply.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Weren’t the midichlorians a construct of the matrix?
February 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am
No, the Cylons created the Matrix so they could charge their batteries.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:06 am
bucslim: No one really knows where midichlorians come from. Except Star Wars geeks who read too much Star Wars-related peripheral material. Perhaps those people could also venture a guess as to the nature of proton torpedoes and the inner workings of the light-speed drive.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Slick: If you really want I’ll go into proton torpedoes and FTL travel. I was gonna save it for a list I’m writing but I don’t mind spending the time now. As for the midichlorians, supposedly they are a screen adaption entirely and never made any appearance in the book but I have no citation to back this up.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I have weird beliefs when it comes to Evolution and God, I’m somewhere in the middle but leaning closer to Evolution. I believe in both, but I don’t think that God is solely responsible for Evolution, I think more along the idea that God kind of got the ball rolling and then nature took its course. That probably doesn’t make sense to anyone else but me. My brain’s way out in left field, partially why I’m not into the whole going to church thing, I can’t make my brain think the same way as other people.
And I thought I saw on that one video from You Tube that the origin of life came from a jar of Peanut Butter.
I kid, of course. I saw SlickWilly mention Abiogenicists and it made me think of that video.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Mystern: LMAO…..word. Tell ya what, put it all in a bad-ass list (which I know it will be), post it, and then we’ll dedicate a whole comment section to discussing it. (I was joking in #54, but all that SF stuff really grabs my attention. I guess my inner geek is closer to the surface than I’d like to admit sometimes.)
Also, I could be wrong, but wasn’t there a list in the last few months where a few commenters went off on the logistics behind FTL travel? Interesting stuff.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am
SlickWilly, you’re right. I kind of did jump to conclusions there…I’m on pain medication right now, and I’ve been arguing with people all day. I kind of just ranted way off topic, and I don’t want to sound like a complete ass, but that may be too late. I apologize for the accusations, and I want you to know, I respect the evolutionist’s opinion, and I do know that most evolutionists aren’t petty close-minded idiots. There’s good and bad on both sides.
And Elana, as a creationist who believes in evolution, I believe that God did make us the way we are, but he didn’t do it just immediately. He worked on us slowly, making us improve over millions of years. If He wanted us in His own image right away, things would be a lot different now. When I read the Bible, I have to look at it outside the box, very metaphorically. For instance, if Heaven truly is like a mustard seed, that would really suck!
February 19th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Shamelessly stolen content from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php which is copyright the University of California at Berkeley.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:17 am
tazx: It’s a good thing Jamie listed a source then right?
February 19th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Sidereus – I’d have to see that evolution does contradict the Bible … what about Adam and Eve?
February 19th, 2008 at 10:18 am
While this list is entirely true, I have kind of learned the hard way that there is really no swaying the most adamant of creationists. They have loads of ready made spin to counter even the most logical of arguments. It is really the equivalent of going up against a highly skilled lawyer; you shouldn’t expect to win just because you are right.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Slick: You might be referring to the list I wrote of the top 10 sci fi inventions that shouldn’t be invented. I believe that it got discussed somewhere in the comments.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I guess most people don’t read the fine print at the end of the article, because it seems that after every list posted someone has to make a comment complaining about citation.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I think he stole this list from Obama
February 19th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Wow zing Mystern(#60)!! I felt that one and I wasn’t even looking at this list at the time!
February 19th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Slick, Mystern; I am a geek, I can quote Star Trek…you know how they talk about teachin’ yer kid in the womb, classical music etc….Well my first born, no kidding, would wake right the hell up and look around whenever the star-trek music would come on…from the day we brought him home from the hospital…do the trek list,,,
February 19th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Geeks rule!
February 19th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Villaneuva; they were little hairy guys with long arms, and they lived in the damn apple tree
lol
February 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Miss Destiny and Mystern: Allow me to quote from the Copyright notice linked at the bottom of the UC Berkeley page:
“Copyright
Copyright 2008 by The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California. All materials appearing on the UCMP Web Servers (WWW.UCMP.BERKELEY.EDU, EVOLUTION.BERKELEY.EDU) may not be reproduced or stored in a retrieval system without prior written permission of the publisher and in no case for profit.”
Wikipedia is published under an open document license, but that isn’t true of the rest of the web. Citing where you plagiarised from doesn’t mean it’s not plagiarism.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Wow, what a misguided and misguiding list.
Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could.
Sheesh, even Maria got that right.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Bob – Didn’t Billy Preston say the same thing? Nuthin from nuthin leaves nuthin, and ya gotta have somthin, if you wanna be with me.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Bob: Nobody is suggesting that nothing comes from nothing. Things come from other things (plus heat). It’s amazing what you can do with enough things and enough heat.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:36 am
It doesn’t matter that the source is put at the end. Unless UCMP specifically gave you permission to republish their material, you are violating their rights. “All materials appearing on the UCMP Web Servers may not be reproduced or stored in a retrieval system without prior written permission of the publisher and in no case for profit.” Fair Use doesn’t reach as far as taking an entire article, sticking Google ads all around it, and republishing it. You’re profiting by stealing other people’s work. What you COULD have done is said “the Berkeley Evolution 101 site has a nice FAQ on Misconceptions about Evolution, here’s a link”, but then that’s just not what this site does, is it? It’s hard to get those Adsense bucks that way.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:38 am
He’s posting lists that none of us pay to read and he’s profiting from it? As for advertising revenue, I’m fairly certain (correct me if I’m wrong) that goes into maintaining the site.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Jamie:
Thank you for #1.
However, it is not ‘both sides’ – as if there are ony two views. As an occasional member of FSM (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), it is important to understand what is the real story’
Please visit http://www.venganza.org/
Pastafarians of the world untie!
(ps: just stirring the pot – no pun intended)
February 19th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Bondles and tazx: So here’s a question for you (and this is a legitimate question, I’m not trying to be a smartass or anything), if someone posts something verbatim in wikipedia and leaves a source, then someone else posts the wiki text and cites wiki, what are the copyright rules?
And, as a side note, the site owner does not actually profit from this site.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Great list! A few months ago, I was discussing evolution with someone who informed me that she did not believe in evolution because there was no evidence that any form of life had evolved or changed at all, ever. I knew that she was on antibiotics at the time so I asked her if she was taking penicillin. She responded that she was not, she was taking a stronger antibiotic because penicillin was no longer effective against whatever bacteria she had because they had become resistant to the lower strength antibiotics. At which point, of course, I got to suggest that that meant that the bacteria had evolved!
I think that this type of thing is why it is often frustrating to discuss evolution with some people; faith or reasoned rebuttal is one thing – choosing to completely ignore glaring logical inconsistencies in things that you believe is something entirely different.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Teach Planet of the Apes.
http://oregonstate.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2244354827
February 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
WHEW!
76 comments in 2.5 hours
jamie: I think that this’ll be in the top the most commented real soon!
Great Entry!
February 19th, 2008 at 10:47 am
As someone who believes the science behind evolution, I find it rather sad that so many here gleefully shower praise on the article for their “#1″ choice. Evolution should be able to stand on it’s own when opposed to creationism (Creationist is actually code for neo-pagan earth worshiper, so give the true Christians a break already!) If a students reasoning abilities are such that he or she is unable to decide which is more plausible, than that is his/her problem to deal with.
It’s like saying, “there is a raging debate between people who all basically believe the same thing in this room, and I’m afraid there is no more room for any other opinions.”
Creationism is, admittedly, idiotic. Let it be proven so in the classrooms and give the whackos one less thing to bitch about. It is still censorship when it comes from the left, you know…
February 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Mystern: The author of the original piece still holds copyright. You can’t revoke a document’s original copyright by stealing it and reposting it under an open license. The original lifting to Wikipedia is a copyright violation (and is specifically prohibited by Wikipedia guidelines.)
February 19th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Im not a Bible basher, but I think religion has a place in school. I believe in evolution but I believe every living thing has a soul, not a Christian soul, more of an inner entity that will be passed on to an afterlife when I die. Just my train of thought which I don’t cram down peoples throats like some people do on both sides of the argument. If evolution can’t tell us where we’ve originated than why can’t we use religion as a source of inspiration to find out why?
February 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Bondles; people do not seem to understand the concept of a list,
a list is by definintion a compilation and how would you know if our esteemed leader sent them a little note asking permission?..I some how can’t imagine them refusing….
February 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Ramen:
From a fellow Pastafarian to another, may the Great Flying One bless you with His Noodly Appendage, and may you forever bask in the precious, ice-cold flow of the Heavenly Beer Volcanoes and the company of many beautiful pirate strippers. RAmen.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Talking about creation… I just wondered what everyone thought about that old analogy about the watch in the forest written by the theologian William Paley… I think it goes something like… if you find a watch in the forest there has to have been an intelligent creator that created that watch and it didn’t appear by chance… same thing applies to all living creatures… they are too complex to exist by chance, they must have had an intelligent creator… any rebuttals to this analogy?
February 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Mystern: Content posted to Wikipedia *must* be copyright free, by policy. Quotations or images can be used within a fair use context, but article content must be original by the editor, or known to be public domain or GFDL licensed. If it’s not, it must be rewritten or removed. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations
What would have been valid for Listverse to do here is see the interesting list on the Evo 101 site, REWRITE it using the original as a reference, and republish it.
Is UCMP going to sue LV? Probably not. Is this a big deal? Not really. It it unethical and shoddy journalism? Absolutely. How would the LV publishers feel about a new site, LotsOfLists.com, cutting and pasting entire articles from the LV database? I suspect they wouldn’t be too happy about it.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Terrific list and great (respectful) comments. The nice thing about this web site is that most of the time there is a civil healthy attitude when debating stuff like this.
Just my 2 cents: I think many times Christians are painted as people with their heads in the sand and not willing to listen to any theory or hard facts about evolution. As goodspeed83 pointed out many Christians do not have a problem with it. My daughter goes to a parochial school and her science text book teaches evolution. Even Pope John Paul II several years ago recognized that evolution is more than just a theory. Article here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE4DA1130F936A15753C1A960958260
I just wanted to point that out because sometimes the hard core evolutionist are the ones that might be a little narrow minded about Christians.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:56 am
ds5000, here is an excellent video that addresses that idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 Essentially, watches are not reproducing organisms, and the components don’t have a natural biochemical affinity for one another. But in the video, a computer simulation of randomly produced clocks with variation over time and selection for the best time keepers produces functional clocks after a few hundred generations.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I fully agree with #1 Jamie, I am an evolutionist who was raised as a creationist (Roman Catholic) and I believe that it is important for all people to learn both ways so that they may form their own opinion.
Just because you are raised a certain way does not mean that is who you are.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:00 am
But Sumguy; thats the entire point of separation of church and state, creationism is not science, it is religion. You start teaching it in the classroom and you legitimatize it as a science. You want to start that discussion in University theology class or maybe highschool sociology, not the science class…
February 19th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Mom424: I understand what a list is. I also have a very good understanding of academic conduct with respect to citations and sources. Check tazx’s 87 for what JFrater should’ve done.
As for esteemed leader sending a note; were that the case (and had he received an affirmative reply), a note along the lines of “By permission of …” would’ve been appropriate (and it also would’ve been more ethical to be up-front about the fact that it was a verbatim copy).
That being said, given JFrater’s patchy history and Berkeley’s “in no case for profit” policy, I struggle to believe that such permission was obtained.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Either the bible is metaphor or it is not. So which is it?
February 19th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I don’t need to attack the bible, btw. It does a good enough job on its own. Deuteronomy, for example.
There are not “Two Ways,” or “both ways,” by the way. The idea that there are two things: creationism and evolution is looney-nuts. You try “teaching both” in school and you find yourself understanding what the Pastafarians are trying to get people to understand. There is not one religion any more than there is one mythology. Evolution has nothing to do with those fights, as I was trying to point out to certain Christians trying to equate evolution to their religion.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:07 am
At my school they didn’t teach evolution OR creationism! I didn’t really think abou it until years later, but that was somehow not a part of the curriculum. I guess my teachers dodged a bullet there!
February 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am
ds5000, tazx: I can’t watch the vid because youtube is blocked at my workplace, but I’m assuming its the Blind Watchmaker computer program that was championed by Richard Dawkins. DS5000, I don’t have either the energy or the motivation to go into the rebuttal of the watchmaker argument, when Richard Dawkins (a man infinitely smarter and more well-educated than myself) wrote an entire book on it (”The Blind Watchmaker” same as the computer model.) The wiki article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Watchmaker
It’s kind of a blurb though, and there are better summaries available online. You’d be better off googling “Dawkins Blind Watchmaker,” or just shelling out the money and buying the book itself.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:10 am
ds5000:
The analogy is easy to rebut. It is in fact an example of the logical fallacy called “begging the question.”
To begin with, it is fallacious to assume that life’s complexity demands an intelligent designer behind it. No, pocket watches do not evolve from grandfather clocks (something Carl Sagan said once, I believe) but then pocket watches are not equivalent to living things. (In fact living things are far more complex, but that doesn’t matter in the slightest). The evidence is clear that life evolves on its own; nowhere does the evidence suggest that an interfering hand (god’s) has been necessary every step of the way to make evolution happen; indeed, if we insist upon such godly interference, then we must really question god’s wisdom in creating some of the failed species this earth has seen. In our times we’re seeing animals who have over-specialized (cheetahs for instance) who are threatened in part because while well-adapted to their particular small niche, they are terribly ill-suited to adapt to changes in their environment. There are many worse examples than cheetahs. In fact many of these have died out, and we continue to see the extinctions happening. What’s the point, if intelligent design is behind it all? Why bother?
But if god’s hand isn’t in this on a day-to-day basis, then why is his hand even necessary to start it? Again, the evidence clearly points backwards to different stages of diversity and development, until we begin to see simpler and simpler organisms.
As Sagan also used to say, if we insist upon a watchmaker/god that made the universe… then we must ask the question, where does the watchmaker/god *come from*? And if the answer is “he always existed,” then why not simply save a step and assume the universe always existed? The same applies to life.
Yes, men make watches. But the complexity of life is its own creation. If it needs no help from god along the way, why does it need his help to get started?
February 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am
You know, I tried to be mature in the end, I apologized, I admitted both sides have logical arguments, and I was hoping my second comment got read. But I have to say, by now I have seen some of the evolutionists make accusations.
“They have loads of ready made spin to counter even the most logical of arguments.”
Excuse me? Calling my religion “ready made spin” IS immature and insulting. Some of my best friends are atheists, and I don’t stomp on their toes because I think they’re wrong.
As for teaching evolution in school, when I went to high school they didn’t teach evolution or creationism. We learned of the different branches of species, but nothing about evolution was mentioned. If you’re going to teach either one, I believe it should be done in college, where not only do you have a choice in what you learn, but by that time you have made up your mind and can hopefully maturely learn the viewpoints and opinions of either side.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Copyright and ethical issues aside, I don’t think Berkeley would matter too much that their excellent article is getting more exposure and erasing some of those myths that might still exist in the minds of some people who don’t regularly visit Berkeley’s website. Not an excuse for plaigirism, of course, but this site is completely harmless, not-for-profit, convenient and educational; I’m a big anti-plaigirism guy myself, but the pros of the format of this site outweigh the cons, and as long as the source is cited and it’s made clear that the ideas and words are not those of the author, I don’t really see a problem with it.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Haha….yeah, what Randall said. I love how this guy is always waiting in the wings and then swoops in like a superhero when he sees an opening and makes us all a little more knowledgable.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am
That may be so, SlickWilly, but it’s not your call, my call, or JFrater’s call to make. Only the author has the right to decide who may use it. He or she may disagree with your analysis, thinking that this list may draw Google hits for “Misconceptions about Evolution” away from the more complete Berkeley site. Or, he or she may just not like this site for personal reasons, or be jealous and self-centred. Which is why you ask before you take.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Another counter to the idea of “life is complex and must be designed” are the numerous examples in nature of how whoever the designer is must be incompetent, insane, or outright malicious. Examples: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html However, all of these features are explainable through evolution, which allows for organisms that are “good enough to survive”, even if they’re not necessarily elegant or the best design solutions.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I nominate Randall as one of the listverse gods; all knowing, all seeing, and a damn fine wit to boot…
February 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am
SlickWilly: Haha that’s true. Randall does tend to do that, Randall that was a pretty awesome argument I have to say.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Bondles: Just for the record, if you Google “misconceptions about evolution” Berkeley’s site is #2 on the return. You have to get all the way to page 4 before this site pops up. I don’t think that your Google argument would qualify as valid. Either way, you’re right, it’s ultimately the author’s call, I agree. However, again, nobody is making money off of the site, the original list exists in the public domain and although that doesn’t necessarily make it right, it’s essentially harmless to repost the list at anothet site, so long as the origin of the list is cited. Which it was.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I love this list! Although I can’t help thinking that Jamie only put it up in an attempt to initiate a new ‘Most Commented’ list…
Either way, it’s important that we continue to educate people about evolution, especially since something like 40% of America don’t believe in it.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Mom – and when he disagrees with thee he smites thee with a righteous smiting!
Whom should I make the sacrifice out too?
February 19th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Yeah I was waiting for Randall to write us all a novel. Brilliantly done though, I must say.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:34 am
bucslim: “….and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger all those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.”
Eh?
February 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
ProgRapture: Evolutionary biology is as solid science as atoms, plate tectonics, and astronomy. Remember that Galileo was held under house arrest just 400 years ago, for saying that the Earth orbited the Sun? That evolution contradicts a literally reading of the Bible and the belief that the world is only 6000 years old is not a problem for science, nor should it be a problem for schools and teachers. One is the scientific view supported by evidence, the other is a belief system derived entirely from a book written by a nomadic desert tribe 2500 years ago.
Evolution forms the foundation of modern biology: it is the framework that helps us make sense of all our other discoveries in biology and medicine: bacterial resistance, the relations between species, genetic inheritance, and so on. If students are to be scientifically literate and part of a technologically advanced civilization, they deserve to understand all major areas of science, rather than have them be hidden because they offend a religious minority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
February 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
SlickWilly: The original is publicly accessible, but it is not in the public domain. Reposting without permission is illegal and unethical, and we’ve already agreed that “harmless” isn’t JFrater’s call to make.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:37 am
“the original list exists in the public domain”
I think you might misunderstand what public domain means. It’s a copyrighted work. Things only become public domain after copyright expires or is explicitly released by the author. Publishing something doesn’t place it into the public domain.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:42 am
This list has now been rewritten completely – it is now derived from (but not a copy of) the Berkeley FAQ.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Slim and bucslim; I get the Pulp fiction quote, and if he looks and acts like bruce he can smite me all he likes with his “righteous tool”
February 19th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Sorry I prefer Bruce to sam jackson…..
February 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Kudos to you for doing so Jfrater. That’s commendable on your and LV’s part.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Slick, Mom, Jackie, etc.:
I am humbled and honored.
Remember when presenting sacrifices that I am no fool like that drunken letch Zeus, and I therefore insist on the good stuff… you can keep the bones and fat for soup.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Minor correction: “There are many transitional fossils that have not been preserved, but that is simply because some organisms do not fossilize well or exist in conditions that do not allow for the process of fossilization.” That should probably be forms or species.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:52 am
“…And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.”
Yeah….. I like that.
’bout time I got some respect around here.
Now bring me another glass of nectar and peel me a grape while you’re at it.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I bet there are a lot of people who don’t believe in evolution but get the flu shot every year. HA!
Although I did know someone in undergrad who believed in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. That was pretty interesting…
February 19th, 2008 at 11:55 am
tazx: thanks – corrected
February 19th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Mom:
Randall does not look like Bruce (Willis or any other Bruces) but he has at turns been told that he looks like 1) Harrison Ford or 2) Dennis Quaid. And once in college, a girl he was dating described his looks as “Shatner-esque.” It was meant as a compliment. I think.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Dennis Quaid? Really?
February 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Shatner-esque?? I’m trying to picture that in my head and I’m having a hard time!!
I must say though I am not much for Bruce Willis but I do enjoy a good early 80’s Indiana Jones-esque Harrison Ford so if Mom won’t have you, I have a spot all picked out for you in my living room!
February 19th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Quick question: Do you do the dishes by chance??
February 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Just for the record…and I know I saw a comment about it futher up, but Catholics ARE NOT creationists. I went to a Catholic school, for all of my student career until I reached college,and we were taught evolution in the science class room. In the theology class room we were taught the intelligent design theory, in which there is evolution but a higher being guided it. And then we could decide for ourselves. I always thought the set up was a good one, but its not appropriate for a public school because of the seperation of church and state.
Any way, I don’t know how it is for other Christian schools, but I do know that if it is Catholic school science and religion are kept seperate.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I was once told that I looked like I had swallowed Tobey Maguire. I had a short lived nickname my freshman year of college. “Fat Tobey Maguire.” Unoriginal but effective. (Keep in mind, these were drunk frat boys we’re talking about.)
February 19th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I just don’t understand why there would be debate over evolution and religion.. Evolution is science, it’s been proven.. Religion was created by humans. The bible was written by humans. Religion was created to form beliefs, a way of having hope and faith that there is more to life than just this. I can understand why people would want to believe there is a heaven, it makes death a lot less frightening. But please stop trying to incorporate your religious beliefs into something proven like Evolution.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Adorabelle: I can confirm that as well – the Catholic Church does not teach Bible fundamentalism.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Adorabelle: Where did you go to school?? My Roman Catholic high school did not teach evolution except in our social studies class as one of the “beliefs held by other cultures”.
Our Christian Ethics class never once mentioned the intelligent design class. My Biology teacher conveniently ignored evolutionary debate. I wonder to this day how he could call himself a Biology teacher.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Evolution is a fact, not a theory – just like gravity. Natural selection is a theory that explains how evolution probably works; there are others. Part of the problem is that one usually sees evolution spelled out as “The theory of evolution by natural selection” – which makes it sound like evolution is a theory, when in fact it’s natural selection that is the theory.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Jamie: We were not taught fundamentalism we just were not advised of all sides.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
ProgRapture:
“If you’re going to teach either one, I believe it should be done in college, where not only do you have a choice in what you learn, but by that time you have made up your mind and can hopefully maturely learn the viewpoints and opinions of either side.”
I’m afraid I don’t agree in the slightest.
The mistake you and others make on this point is that you assume Evolution and religion are somehow co-equal (but at odds) and that Evolution is in some way equivalent to a “philosophy” (as opposed to theology). In fact Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion and it is not a “philosophy” at all. Evolution is science, pure and simple. Science is its own self-correcting entity based on strict rules of order and empirical evidence. It shouldn’t cause one to question one’s religious or spiritual beliefs. If science causes us to doubt religion, then there is something wrong with the way we perceive religion, not the other way around.
It’s like saying that electricity, having no place in the Bible (it isn’t mentioned or supposed to exist) is therefore anti-religion and shouldn’t be taught in schools, as we should “choose” whether to believe in it or not. Rubbish.
Similarly, Evolution is the basis of modern biology…. and that’s ALL it is. It makes no comment on god or faith or any other spiritual matter. It’s only when people insist upon literal interpretations of scripture–and are hostile to anything that contradicts such an interpretation–that they run into trouble. We then hear talk such as yours that Evolution should be a “choice” made by adults—but in fact this is a disguised way of saying that science itself should be made a “choice”—that it should be left out of our societal dialogue until people *want* to hear it or encounter it. Such a notion is clearly ridiculous and anti-civilized. It decides to place the darkness of magic, superstition and religion on a higher plane than knowledge, awareness, and understanding. This is not what our civilization (or any successful civilization) is built upon. In fact, when societies and civilizations allow themselves to become obsessed with superstition over rationality, they fail and fall.
*God* is the possession of the individual; if you believe in him then nothing should endanger your faith. *Religion* on the other hand is an institution like all human institutions, and no more valid than science… and one could argue a good deal LESS valid.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Is this one of the lists just to see how many comments you can get?
February 19th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Shatner-esque? Good god I hope you don’t start singing.
Who better to lead us through the Squires of Gothos than a dude who’s a clone for TJ Hooker.
And jeez-um crow stop making an ass out of yourself by assuring us that the whole karate team will be able to get on the plane.
WHY?!?!? BECAUSE I’VE GOT TO MISTER!!
February 19th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I wouldn’t call the largest religion in the world a minority. I don’t know where you went to school at, but where I’m from Christians are definitely NOT the minority. I even admitted I believe in evolution, but I also said that I believe it was God’s will for it to happen. But not even any atheist or pro-evolution group have I ever seen so many people who proclaim insulting ideas about Christianity. Evolution is a science, Christianity is a way of life, a set of morals, a charitable community, and the reason America was founded in the first place! There may be extremist Christians who go around claiming you will go to Hell if you do one thing or the other, but I’m disappointed that so many atheists essentially stoop to that level.
“Religion was created by humans. The bible was written by humans.”
There was no need to say that other than to belittle Christians.
“One is the scientific view supported by evidence, the other is a belief system derived entirely from a book written by a nomadic desert tribe 2500 years ago.”
Once again, you fail to realize that most of the Bible is to be taken in a metaphorical sense, that the first 7 days of Genesis essentially stood for the first millions of years of Earth’s creation. And calling everything that America was founded on as nothing more than something made up by desert nomads is terribly insulting. What you may call the blunt truth seems to me as nothing more than wording something to be as harsh and insulting as possible.
I’ve been following the progress of The List Universe essentially from the beginning, and I always thought the readers to be open minded and friendly. I don’t know if this list brought out the worst in everyone, but I’m really disappointed by how close minded some people are.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
SocialButterfly:
I find myself nonplussed and my ego blooming like the first daffodil in April. Virtual female bulletin-boarders virtually commenting on my virtual desirability…. on the heels of being commended for my virtual intellectual contributions. What a day.
In fact I *do* do dishes… far from my favorite household chore, but I’m pleased to wade in if there is sufficient cause and if my female partner will get up off her ass and pitch in around the house too. I’m the neat and tidy sort but not obsessively so. I just don’t like to be the only one pulling his weight, if you know what I mean.
On the other hand, if she’s a particularly good sport and deliciously appreciative, I can be enticed to do all sorts of chores, though I never allow it to become a quid-pro-quo.
As for that spot in your living room… well I suppose that depends on whether “Shatner-esque” describes YOUR looks as well.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
bucslim:
Shatner is a funny bastard, that’s all I can say.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
buclism: I always thought that was Ace Ventura!! Awesome.
My favourite is Shatners version of Rocket Man.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I think it’s funny that perhaps half the comments on this list have nothing to do with evolution and more to do with Star Trek, plagarism, etc.
Anyway, I think most Christians believe in some sort of evolution. I personally believe in God but I also believe that we all evolved to some degree. I don’t quite understand everything but I think God and science could work together to some extent. I also don’t think Creationism should be taught in schools because that is a personal, religious belief and science is universal.
However, I don’t think it was very nice for some of you guys to taunt Creationists/Christians with your ready stance. Everyone has an opinion and I don’t think it fair to call it “rabble-rousing”; you’re just asking to start arguments there. Since I think a lot of Christians do believe in evolution to some degree, this thread is not going to get quite the same debate that other lists do. Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong though, we just need 1,000 more comments to compete!
February 19th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
SocialButterfly – Ace imitating James T. Kirk
February 19th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
SocialButterfly: I went to school in Delaware(yes it really does exist) St. Mark’s High School. I don’t think we went really indepth on the subject of evolution, but we definately talked about it objectively in Biology. I also know we talked about the Big Bang Theory objectively in physics class.
I think that although most of the people that taught at my school were religious(not every one was Catholic) they were scholars first and foremost and wanted to present to us the newest/most relevant information they had access to in their chosen feilds.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Randall- I worded what I meant wrong. I don’t think evolution should NOT be taught, in fact, I think it should. I just don’t think that it should be taught AS a replacement for religion. For the most part, that’s never a problem, but I have had college professors who blatantly proclaim how evolution is true, and religion is not. For a philosophy class, that’s fine, for a biology class, it’s not. Also, at least for me, it doesn’t cause me to question my religion. Like I said, I can believe in both.
I also agree that for a civilization to succeed, it should not be based purely on superstition over rationality. But I’m also saying that hypothetically if you forbid religion in favor of evolution, you essentially have taken away one of the first and famous rights of mankind.
Thanks for being civilized about this, I’ve been dealing with a lot of shit recently, and if you haven’t guessed, I’m not too patient with people who word things just to be hurtful.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
The Big Bang theory was formulated by a Catholic Priest Georges Lemaître.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Randall: Well.. pleasantly surprised is my first reaction to your post. While I was aware of your verbal accoutrements (as they say) I am impressed nonetheless.
Now while daffodils are my favourite flower, I wish you no harm with your ego and wish that you do not need to turn sideways in order to enter and exit a room.
In regard to your needing enticement… I can only say that my living room boasts the finest collection of DVD’s and a particularily comfortable couch(I have references if necessary).
My looks I believe would not unfortunately be described as “Shatner-esque” because as good looking as he is I am afraid that I would not want to be described as the manliest of men.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
ProgRapture:
You’re taking all this way too personally. The fact is that we have been dealing with an assault on science from Christian quarters on account of Evolution for decades now–over a century in fact–but in particularly odious ways over the last 20-30 years. So it’s not surprising that people who detest that kind of fundamentalist ignorance are indignant about it and fed up. I know I am. Great, you’re a rational Christian. I appreciate that, we all do. But realize how much damage the vocal minority of Christianity, in the form of fundamentalists, has done to the reputation of Christians in general. And if you’re truly a Christian, forgive people for being defensive about having to cope with these bigoted creationist schmucks.
I agree entirely that the Bible should be read metaphorically–but surely you must realize that there is a large and highly vocal minority out there who don’t agree and insist that anything that contradicts their literal interpretation is to be damned. It shouldn’t surprise you, therefore, to find yourself encountering hostility from those who don’t wish to be thus dictated to.
Lastly, America was NOT solely founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic, Prog. It has its roots in other traditions as well–most importantly in the democratic and individualistic, rule-of-law mindset of the Greeks and Romans.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
ProgRapture: those portion of Christians that interpret the Bible literally and believe in direct creation by God are a clear minority. The majority of Christians worldwide, and most mainstream Christian denominations, all accept the scientific account of the history of life on Earth. Evolution and belief in God aren’t mutually exclusive; but fundamentalist views, including that the Earth and all life were created in the last few thousand years, as believed by a subset of American Christians, are directly contradicted by the scientific evidence.
I would dispute the idea that Christianity is “the reason America was founded in the first place”. Some early settlers were puritans seeking to exercise their religion without state interference, but several of the founding fathers were non-Christian Deists. America was founded on Enlightenment age philosophies and values including individual freedom, Natural Rights as propounded by Locke, and a constitutionally limited form of Republican government. There’s no mention of God in the constitution, and the only mention of religion is there to limit the government’s entanglement with it.
The Old Testament of the bible is a collection of myths, legends, and oral traditions of a pre-scientific bronze-age group, many of which were derived from earlier, neighboring cultures. For example, the story of Noah is clearly based on the Babylonian epic of the Enuma Elish. It offers insight into their history and culture, but is not an authoritative reference for either science or history.
Nothing I’ve said is intended to offend; if you *are* offended, then I surmise it’s because you view anything that contradicts your existing views as being offensive. No set of beliefs should be immune to being question or examined.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
buclism:: AHH, the world makes sense again!
Adorabelle: I think that perhaps this was the problem, the teachers at my schools were very religious(not a fishless minivan among them) and that probably led to their unfortunate classes.
I was not entirely tainted though, I escaped the confines of religion and merrily lept my way into sin in my graduating year.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I’ve followed this thread most of the day, basically dismissing my deadlines at work, just so I can toss out a few lines of prose that make myself, and if I’m lucky, others chuckle at something that will probably be debated ad nauseum.
I’ve had my own personal run ins with what I believe is the Judeo/Christian God. I take that stuff pretty seriously. And I also recognize other people’s right to believe whatever they want to to make it through the day. I don’t take their posts as a personal attack, just as I also recognize I won’t convince anyone of my personal take on the supernatural.
Did this stuff evolve out of Chaos’ chicken boullion? Did God want it that way? How does it all end? I don’t really know. I just have faith. And faith ain’t something you can put in a test tube and swirl over a bunsen burner. I don’t think it’s superstition or magic or that I’m a stupid hick in need of a crutch.
All I can tell you is what comes out of my own personal background. Some people will snicker and others will nod in agreement. I just don’t think I can slap somebody around with a few Bible verses. That’s what pains me in this debate.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I say we put this theory to rest! It’s unsettling to see people go grapenuts crazy over a theory that everyone was a monkey. Figuratively speaking, of course. No need for ME to spark controversy.
-Andrea Carlena Beauman
February 19th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
wow, Jfrater I hope you never stop making these awesome lists available to us. I used to go to a catholic high school and my science teacher refused to teach creationism and she got hounded not by the board of education but by the PTA. I think it’s wrong that parents can keep their children from learning the well-researched theory of evolution and instead teach the ludicrous creation theory (which by the way was penned up by someone who had NO education. period. And also claims a senior citizen built an ark and rounded up two of every animal.) My argument for “why don’t monkeys still evolve today” is “why isn’t God still appearing as burning bushes today?”. Anyways, my science teacher still practiced her right to educate her students without interference from religious nuts. The reason why humans aren’t still evolving is that we don’t change to accommodate our surroundings, we change our surroundings to better accommodate us. Example, instead of growing a coat of fur to survive the cold, we hide in houses with the heat turned up. Animals can’t exactly due that, that’s why they are constantly evolving.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Mom424 at #43. I’m curious as to the historical evidence of Jesus’ existence. While I myself believe he existed, there is scant evidence outside of the Bible on this issue. In fact, my understanding is that the only non-Gospel related information is a one line comment from the 1st century historian Flavius. The veracity of Flavius’ writings are seriously in question based upon comparing them to the archeological evidence from that period. Again, I’m just curious.
Also, it seems to me that some/many creationists don’t give God enough credit. This appears to be based upon their idea that we as humans are the ultimate intended result. Perhaps we are created in the image of God, but we’re still a work in progress yet to realize our potential. Perhaps God decided that, rather than creating and being done with it, he’d/she’d/it would enjoy watching us develop, much as I enjoy watching my children move through the various stages of their development. This life would certainly be less joyful if we were fully matured physically, mentally and otherwise when we came out of the womb.
Regardless, anyone who is certain that they know what God wanted, wants, thought or is thinking had better take a better look at their theology. I’m not aware of any religious text that says we humans are even capable of understanding the wonder of Gods power. In fact, I believe they say quite the opposite.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
ProgRapture:
“Religion was created by humans. The bible was written by humans.”
I don’t see what is insulting about this. Both parts of this statement is true. As intelligent as you seem, you must agree. “Religion” *was* created by humans; God didn’t come out of the sky and build up this massive, organized spiritual institution….it was all the work of humans. The “spirituality” is from God. The bible was also written by mere mortals. God may have been “talking through them” but it was from their flesh-and-blood fingers that the original holy text was penned.
“One is the scientific view supported by evidence, the other is a belief system derived entirely from a book written by a nomadic desert tribe 2500 years ago.”
I’m not sure who posted this statement, and I’m wont to point fingers. You shouldn’t let this get under your skin. First of all, either the poster is incredibly uninformed, as the first parts of the New Testament wern’t written until about 60-80 c.e. (in which case, why care what dumb people think?) or secondly, they are referring to the Old Testament, which, last I checked, is essentially the Torah and the *jewish* holy script, not the *christian* holy script. In which case, he is insulting Jews and not Christians.
You’re argument about “everything that America was based on” is essentially calling someone unpatriotic for questioning the credibility of a book. I find this a bit laughable, not to be insulting. It’s a bit like the “if you don’t support the War in Iraq, you are un-American!” You can see the problem here. (At least, I hope you can.) Also, yes, yes, we know the Bible is to be taken metaphorically. Those LVers who do believe in God and read the bible know that. The rest of us don’t believe in God or choose not to say anything (seeing as how last time a Young Earth creationist showed up in the ranks they were quickly laughed out the door.) The point is, we *all* know the bible is metaphorical, but for some reason you keep pointing out how somehow we fail to see it and that somehow supports your argument (if you even made one?).
I think you are probably just looking for a reason to be upset at atheists in general, maybe because you had a couple of bad experiences, and are jumping into these “righteous” missives at the drop of a hat. Just chill, read the convo, interject if you have something constructive to add (including putting into check those asshole giving the rest of us atheists a bad name), just do so in a way that won’t alienate you from the rest of the community.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“I have had college professors who blatantly proclaim how evolution is true, and religion is not.”
I would consider that quite inappropriate, and that sort of behavior should be brought to other members of the faculty.
“I’m also saying that hypothetically if you forbid religion in favor of evolution, you essentially have taken away one of the first and famous rights of mankind.”
Teaching evolution in classrooms doesn’t deny anyone their religious rights. Students are free to view it skeptically, or compartmentalize it as “stuff scientists believe”, and while they should understand it, they’re not necessarily forced to accept it.
Evolution is science, creation is mythology. One belongs in science classrooms, one does not.
A comparative religions course that explores the creation myths of multiple cultures: say the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Indian, the Native-American, the Greco-Roman and so on wouldn’t violate anyone’s religious rights or violate church-state separation. But trying to introduce creationism into high-school classrooms in the guise of “Intelligent Design” is a clear agenda to promote religious belief at the expense of accurate scientific education, and why those efforts must be resisted, both in the arena of public opinion and in the courts.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Oh I’m just going to take a seat and watch as the drama unfolds. Have fun you guys!!! Call me if you need me.
-Andrea Carlena Beauman
February 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com watch this, it’ll blow your mind. the first half uses historical fact to prove that Jesus was not an actual person, the second half goes into the 9/11 conspiracy (which we’ve all heard a thousand times) BUT the first part is interesting nonetheless
February 19th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I think it’s too late. I’ve had a shitty day and I’ve said too much. I wanted to sound rational, but now I just sound like an accusing asshole. Tone isn’t conveyed well over the internet. I actually agreed with a lot of stuff said, I just didn’t agree with the connotation. I’m sorry. I’m done now.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Slick Willy: HERE HERE!!! *pounds fist on table enthusiastically*
Very well written I have a quick question for you though; who was the “last young Earth creationist” and where did they make their appearance?
This posts in this list are getting good Jamie, I think it might be appearing on the most popular lists soon.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Yodz:
You’re quite correct, there is scant evidence of Jesus’ existence outside of the bible… Josephus (Flavius was his Romanic add-on) mentions someone who is supposed to be Jesus (it’s kinda hard to imagine who else Josephus would be talking about) and that’s about it. But this is hardly a major point–the fact is that aside from Kings and Emperors and other bigshots (in this context we discount Jesus, who was not a bigshot on the political scene and only gained his major rep *after* his death) we don’t have real evidence of the existence of *anyone* from ancient times, outside of peculiar texts here and there. (Plato for instance, we know of from his own books, but there is little evidence outside of these that he actually lived).
However, it would be very hard to imagine anyone being able to make up such a character–be it Plato or, even more so, Jesus–out of whole cloth. In only a few decades after Jesus’ passing from this mortal coil, we have people writing about his life in detail and clearly talking as though he was a real person. While the evidential support for all these texts varies, in *aggregate* they must be taken seriously and as very good reason to believe that he was a genuine individual. It would simply be beyond the pale to imagine such a person being invented entirely, when contradicting stories (denying his existence) surely would have arisen to challenge the deception. Yet no such contradicting stories are known and are not even mentioned. Surely people only a short while after he lived accepted, as a general rule, his existence—and therefore we are safe to assume he was a real person.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
SocialButterfly:
“In regard to your needing enticement… I can only say that my living room boasts the finest collection of DVD’s and a particularily comfortable couch(I have references if necessary).”
Hmmm…. I was thinking of *other* enticements, if you know what I mean… though a comfy couch is a good start…
And cagey re: your looks huh?
But I grant you, there is no female equivalent of Shatner-esque, I suppose…
February 19th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
It’s ok ProgRapture, we still accept you.
-Andrea Carlena Beauman
February 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
OH MY GOD JAMIE! You may have just caused the biblical tales list all over again! but still, i love the list, i always love to argue about evolution!
February 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
ProgRapture:
Don’t beat yourself up. You’re opinions are welcome and we thrive, here, on bickering and argument.
Settle yourself and take a deep breath and feel the love.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
ProgRapture: You are welcome here. Don’t feel like we are ganging up on you to try to drive you away. It’s just the LV is notoriously composed of mostly well-educated, intelligent people who are quick to point out others’ intellectual follies. I’m sorry you’ve had a shitty day. How about getting some rest and coming back to the roundtable?
SocialButterfly: Oy….that’s a challenge. I would have to look back at the multitude of lists this site has and pick through the comments to find the person. I distinctly remember a Y.E.C. being vocal about his/her beliefs and getting the proverbial smackdown. Perhaps it’s hidden in the 1000+ comments of the biblical stories list….maybe you’d like to help me look?
February 19th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Randall, Yodz: I’m currently reading a great book called “Jesus for the Non-religious” by John Shelby Spong. It addresses the logical reasons for which the person Jesus must have existed, as well as strips him of the mythology that the bible surrounds him in by examining the nature of the four gospels (including the socio-political context in which the books were written) and drawing parallels between the Jesus mythos and that of Moses and Joshua of the old testament. If either of you get a chance, I would highly recommend picking it up.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Randall-You are probably one of the few people on here who have the connotation to not come off as insulting on here. Thank you.
Otherwise, as open minded as I try to be, it’s not the pro-evolutionists on here that get to me, it’s the people who went from talking about a list on evolution to essentially listing off reasons that “Christianity/religion in general is made up for making yourself feel better”. There’s just too many people doing that.
You mentioned that “young Earth Creationist” who was ran off? Maybe it’s because our ideas aren’t welcome here. Too many anti-creationists just looking for a place to talk about how dumb religion is.
For as long as I’ve been here, I’ve never seen so much disregard for people’s feelings. Here’s another young Earth Creationist you won’t be seeing again.
JFrater, I loved your site, but I can’t take this, my opinions aren’t welcome here.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Prog, everyone’s opinions are wanted. Yours included.
Willy!! I read 4 pages of that book!!
-Andrea Carlena Beauman
February 19th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“…You are probably one of the few people on here who have the connotation to not come off as insulting on here. Thank you.”
HA HA HA HA…. he/she doesn’t know me very well, do they?
February 19th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I’ve read it all now. Randall looks like Captain Kirk and he’s not insulting. Guess Prog hasn’t read his other posts.
Increase your calm Randall, just teasing.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Randall; thanks for the props, and how come you say what I want to? and sound so much more intelligent doing it?
February 19th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“First of all, either the poster is incredibly uninformed, as the first parts of the New Testament wern’t written until about 60-80 c.e. (in which case, why care what dumb people think?) or secondly, they are referring to the Old Testament, which, last I checked, is essentially the Torah and the *jewish* holy script, not the *christian* holy script. In which case, he is insulting Jews and not Christians.”
I was specifically referring to the OT; the NT is a quasi-historical account of the life and philosophies of a prophet and his followers. Referring to the Jews as a nomadic desert tribe isn’t insulting; it puts them in context. That’s how they lived until they settled in Israel, and reflects their sophistication as a culture. They had little exposure to contemporary Greek science, and as I mentioned, numerous parts of their mythos are derived from surrounding cultures.
The literal interpretation of the Bible promoted by fundamentalist evangelicals rests entirely on the OT, and assumes that the “Just So” story of a certain middle-eastern group is the True Word of God, and that anything that contradicts it is the work of Satan. These are the beliefs of *Christians*, not Jews, who the majority of take the metaphorical view and accept evolution.
Take a look at pictures from the Creation Science museum, and see the absurd lengths people go to uphold their belief in things like Noah and the Flood, or the contemporaneousness of humans and dinosaurs. These are not rational conclusions, but instead attempts to shoehorn reality into preconceived notions based on a narrative account that is far from scientific.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7489629@N06/sets/72157600269342444/
This would all be relatively harmless and sadly amusing, except for the fact that these people are continually trying to push their beliefs into public school classrooms around the country, by manipulating school boards instead of going through the process science has to: demonstrate the validity of their ideas at the academic level, before it gets included into textbooks for the public.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
bucslim:
Listen pinhead, I never said I look like Captain Kirk. A girl I was shagging said it to me 20+ years ago. Ass.
whoops, sorry… not supposed to be “insulting.”
Captain Kirk was one of my manly heroes though, in my youth. Along with Jacques Cousteau, James Bond, John Steed, Chuck Yeager, and my WWII Bomber-flying father. I am, by comparison, a pansy.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
ProgRapture:
I thought most of us were being pretty civil. I also didn’t see anybody on this list talking about how dumb religion is. Of course your opinions are welcome. Everybody’s opinions are welcome. I think you are feeling hurt and defensive because your comments were misperceived. Rather than hitting the “eject” button, why not just try to explain yourself and give the rest of us a chance to get on the same wavelength?
Also, I doubt you are a true young earth creationist. You admitted you believe in evolution (#58). Y.E.C’s believe the Earth is only about 6000 years old. There is a serious dichotomy there, considering evolution is necessarily a process that stretches over millions of years. Without trying to come off as condescending, how do you reconcile the process of evolution with the belief that Earth has only been in existence since around 4000 b.c.?
February 19th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Thanks Andrea, I’ll stay, but not with this name. I guess I was wrong. You are an asshole Randall.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Randall, no doubt, Jimmy Kirk got more alien tail than anybody.
John Steed was a mushroom cloud layin mofo.
And speakin of tappin that ass, I still have a crush on Diana Rigg in the leather racing suit.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Randall:
Well stated, but playing devil’s advocate I don’t know that it is hard to imagine such a person being created out of whole cloth. Writers do it all the time and what a wonderful character Jesus would be. Furthermore, I don’t know that the fact there was no contemporaneous writings saying Jesus didn’t exist is a compelling argument. I don’t see very many texts stating that Harry Potter doesn’t exist, yet we know he does not. Afterall, why would someone go to the trouble? Following the path of your argument, perhaps in 2000 years people will think H.P. was a force in our society and, as there are no contradictory texts, he must have actually existed. Likewise, that the people alive shortly thereafter accepted Jesus’ existence is also not all that compelling to me. Remember, these people also accepted that the sun orbited around the earth, and we know that’s incorrect. Last, it’s interesting to me that there are no actual accounts written while Jesus was alive. If today someone were able to perform miracles such as those attributed to Jesus, don’t you think that this information would be written about today, not 50-100 years from now?
What it comes down to for me is that Jesus’ existence is both a matter of faith and, quite frankly, a matter of hope. I hope he existed, because that would be a validation of my faith.
Nice chatting with you!
February 19th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
tazx: Sorry, I didn’t know that you had written that comment. I figured that you probably meant the OT. (Also, between the two of us, I didn’t think you were being insulting. The person who my comment was directed to did.)
I agree with you about the creation science museum. On page 6 of LV, I believe, these is a list of bizarre museums and the creation museum is on there, along with a whole convo between me, Mom424, Social Butterfly (I think) and a few others about that.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Prog:
now come on, that was just uncalled for. Unless you meant it to be funny–in which case, yeah… I *am* an asshole.
I don’t know what brought that on, but don’t insult ME until you’ve BEEN insulted, please.
I’d make a remark about your raging self-pity, Prog, but you seem the fragile sort and I don’t wish to make you mere fodder. I genuinely thought you had something to offer and was being nice. I don’t believe I said anything to you to justify calling me an “asshole.”
February 19th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Prog; I haven’t seen anything too rude; slick gets a little over the top sometimes, but thats why we love him…and you hit Randall on a good day, sometimes he can be condescending as hell, again why we love him…diversity rules
February 19th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
yodz: Regarding your comment about the biblical miracles, and the lack of a record of Jesus while he was alive….refer to my comment, #165. Read the book. I promise you will get some answers.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I saw the reference to the strawman argument that “man came from monkeys,” but the variant on that that I’ve seen the most is “A monkey didn’t turn into a man overnight.” Bad news, but a monkey didn’t turn into a man, period. What busts me up about many of the things on this list is that, if they’re turned against the Creationism believers, they’re going to be considered hateful, hurtful, atheistic, anti-religious, and so forth (Kinda like you can get certain Muslims to go batshit about cartoons, but those same people won’t quote the Koran to you about the handicapped being blown to bits in Allah’s name.). “Creationism is just a theory.” “Nobody’s ever observed a god creating anything, you know!” “Gaps [err...absences] in the observation of gods at work disprove Creationism.” “Why, religion leads to immoral behaviour…just look at how Andy Pettite rejected God by not fessing up about HGH.”
Of course, there’s always the question of “What created the creator?” Certainly, it wasn’t Jackson Roykirk or NASA, was it?
Pardon me for duplicating myself from another related thread (the bizarre museums list), but while I agree with folks that you’ll never get through to hardcore believers of fantastic explanations for things, there are parallels in language evolution that relate to the subject at hand. I mentioned that I can demonstrate that Latin evolved into Spanish (and the other Romance languages). No Latin speaker just woke up one morning in Toledo speaking Spanish, though, and the process involved time and a variety of factors. However, that I cannot document (except through philology) the existence of Latin’s mother tongue (Proto-IndoEuropean) in no way invalidates that Latin evolved into Spanish and the other Romance languages. Unfortunately, there are questions. What is the origin of the word for “dog,” “perro,” when the rest of the Romance languages derive their word from Latin “canis” (Italian “cane”, or French “chien”, for example.)? Uh oh, there’s a gap in the “fossil record,” as I don’t have have any examples of *”sutis” for the second person plural of “ser,” even though Old Spanish features “sodes” and Modern Spanish is “sois” … and wait a second, Latin had “estes” for the second person plural in Latin “esse.” How did we jump from “estis” to “sois?” We have our share of questions, to be sure, but the facts don’t lie. So, in the mind of devout Creationist, we should reject as “just a theory” that Latin evolved into Spanish, and gods dunnit, right?
February 19th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” (Luke 6)
“But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” (Mat. 12:36-37)
“In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.” (Titus 2:7-8)
February 19th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Sorry Prog that you think that your opinions are not welcome. As SlickWilly wrote, most of the contributors to this site are quite intelectual and thoughtful. It also seems that (as a class) we have a hugh reservoir of knowledge (trivia?) that we can call on to challenge each other.
I, for one, and amused and educated but this board on a daily basis.
/Steve
BTW: “…calling everything that America was founded on…” is not fully accurate. Many, though not all, of the founding fathers of the USA were Deists not Revelationists. Most were only identified as such by their writings, but a few by declaration (Tom Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine)
sources (so i don’t get scolded by Tazx, etc):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Deists
http://www.deism.com/washington.htm
February 19th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Yodz:
Just thinking about what you wrote about Jesus not being writen down until 50-100 years after he was around. If you think about in the context of the time, not very many people would know how to write. Most Jewish men learned how to read, but reading and writing are not the same thing. Of course if the same thing happened now we would write it down immediately, but that is because we happen to be a culture that emphasizes being able to read and write. Also consider the advance in technology, we can now read about things in the world as they happen, and not several months after.
Yes I say this partly because I do believe that Jesus actually existed, but I also say this because as an English major I am constantly asked to read the text in the context of the time.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
SlickWilly,
Thanks for the recommendation. I will definitely pick it up.
Mom424: I hope you didn’t take my question as insulting you or your beliefs. Like yourself, I do believe Jesus existed but am always curious about how others reached the same conclusion.
Also, sorry about the double post. Hit the button twice. Oops.
ProgRapture: I hope you continue to stick around. Keep in mind that anyone who takes the time to mock a person based upon their beliefs is obviously insecure in their own. Ignore them, they’re not worth your time.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Yodz, is it true? harry potter dosn’t exist?!?!
>
February 19th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
QDV: Another common response I see is that while (most) Americans are descended from Europeans, there are still Europeans. The notion of the evolutionary ladder, with us at the pinnacle, is ingrained in our culture despite its inaccuracy. I believe in discussing evolution with people who don’t know much about it, it’s important to describe it as a branching tree, just like someone’s family tree; and a distant group may have taken different paths and developed in different ways, but they’re still related if you go back far enough.
That reminds me of one of the most frustratingly misinformed arguments about speciation: “a dog won’t turn into a cat, no matter how much we breed dogs they’re still dogs!”. People grow up learning about different kinds of animals, and assume that these are “perfect forms”: the cat type, the cow type, the bird type, and so on, that animals are based around. They then assume that evolution means a jump from one of these kinds to another, which is completely untrue: evolution doesn’t suggest that, nor does the evidence. Evolution reveals a relatively gradual shift in body types as you go back, with disparate species and branches merging the farther back you go. A new species will always be a descendent of its forbears, and inherit many of its characteristics. Dolphins are still mammals, birds are still dinosaurs. But new features also develop over time that present clear separations from predecessors.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Adorabelle: My wife teaches English and English Lit at the local college, so I know where you’re coming from. Those thoughts had occured to me, but it’s still a reasonable position to take that someone should’ve written it down, especially when Jesus had followers, performed these wonderous deeds and was seen as a direct challenge to the rulers of the day.
That said, I’m not disagreeing that Jesus actually existed, just that there is little empirical evidence to point to.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Yodz:
Your skepticism gladdens my heart, but I’m afraid on this point you’re leaping a bit too far off the ledge. While I hardly see it as my lot in life to defend the existence of Jesus Christ, I do find him to be a damn good sort and it’s the tragedy of mankind that more of us don’t try to be like him. Parenthetically, it’s odd that the fewest numbers of those trying to emulate him can be found amongst those who claim to follow in his name.
But really Yodz, your Harry Potter analogy is more than a little half-baked.
Look…. people 2000 years ago were no more gullible and butt-headed than people today. We like to think they were—those oh-so-primitives–but let’s not forget that these people built civilizations and great cities without any of our so-called high-faluting technologies and scientific knowledge, and it doesn’t do them credit to characterize them as slope-brows who’d buy into whatever fairy-tale some inventive author or other cooked up. (In fact, *Medieval* man *was* a bit off-the-wall in his sense of proof and truth, but that was merely a matter of philosophy, not an indicator of a lack of intelligence).
The difference between a figure like Jesus and a figure like Harry Potter is, no one is going around saying that Harry Potter IS a real person… and no one is ever likely to do so, because there will never be supporting evidence for such a claim. Of course, our sense of evidence is different—we have mass communication today, the internet, books, libraries, etc. etc. but if you consider it, it would have been *harder* to invent a person of mass-celebrity back in those days of limited communication and limited travel. Moreover, a personage of such vital importance as Jesus—I mean, step back and think about it, Yodz…. this is the dude that people built a worldwide religion on! Only a few decades after his death, separate writers were writing separate stories of his life–and we even have evidence of gospels written well before then. It’s simply ludicrous to imagine these people getting away with simply inventing the man as a fictional character. Even if you follow the gospels back to their source material, that only reinforces the idea that he was a real person—there are at least TWO separate sources that were independent of one another, apparently written (though now lost) only a few YEARS after Jesus’ death. To invent such a person in that short space of time and make all the claims for him that have been made—and get away with it, without others speaking up and saying “no way, that NEVER happened!” is just too close to impossible to be worthy of our consideration.
I don’t know if, with your Harry Potter idea, that you’re thinking that somehow, over the centuries, people just came to “believe” in Jesus… but no, that just doesn’t work, Yodz… as I’ve pointed out—the guy was written about only a few YEARS after he supposedly died. It just doesn’t work that way.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Yodz; Good Lord No, I do not offend easily. I don’t believe in religion personally but neither do I believe it to be inherently evil…sure we had the inquisition and other horrendous crap in the name of god, but we also have the best scholars, the best art, the very best music,,,,,and I hate to say it but lots of that turn the other cheek stuff comes from religion too,,,either christian, jewish or muslim (I will get mad at muslim bashing)
February 19th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
This list stinks. Keep ‘em interesting jFrater. As you can see, these comments are being dominated by the same few people. I think it says alot.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Randall: Now now Cassanova, I never said I wasn’t cute, I just said I didn’t want to call myself manly…
PS: I enjoyed the pinhead comment, and I don’t think you’re an asshole
SlickWilly: I’ll look through the first half if you look through the last half!
February 19th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Man Jamie, you really picked one for controversy!
February 19th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
MPulse600: Of course! It is my favorite thing
February 19th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Comment moderation has been enabled to keep the site up. Any comments posted will be published once the influx of traffic has slowed down a little. Sorry for the inconvenience.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Randall-I was joking, I’m sorry. Every time I open my mouth on here I regret it. I broke my leg, so I’m on all sorts of painkillers right now, which is making me an emotional wreck right now. I hate it, I’m usually very easygoing and I always used to just listen, but right now I’m feeling angry at myself for the hole i talked myself into. I love this site but I can’t move, I’m itchy, and my emotions are fucked up right now. I’m just going to lay down, change my username, and hope I just forget everything that happened. It’s just hard when I hear denials of everything I’ve ever stood for in life.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Um… I dont think its been said. Well, that, and I can’t tell. JFrater, are you for or against “the theory of evolution”? (Just to put it out there)
February 19th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I know where Prograpture is coming from with the painkillers. I was on them once and I turned me into a completely different person. Not being in terrible pain is pretty awesome. Being high as the moon does have a few disadvantages, though.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“To begin with, it is fallacious to assume that life’s complexity demands an intelligent designer behind it. No, pocket watches do not evolve from grandfather clocks (something Carl Sagan said once, I believe) but then pocket watches are not equivalent to living things. (In fact living things are far more complex, but that doesn’t matter in the slightest). The evidence is clear that life evolves on its own”
The evidence is far from clear. The “evidence” is a particular reading of the data from people already intending a certain outcome–I believe you already mentioned begging the question?
“As Sagan also used to say, if we insist upon a watchmaker/god that made the universe… then we must ask the question, where does the watchmaker/god *come from*? And if the answer is “he always existed,” then why not simply save a step and assume the universe always existed? The same applies to life.”
God is altogether different. God is not matter. So, you can’t understand the difference between God and eternally existent matter? Well, no wonder you do so poorly at understanding naturaly philosophy.
“Yes, men make watches. But the complexity of life is its own creation. If it needs no help from god along the way, why does it need his help to get started?”
Who says it doesn’t? That’s exactly what some people think the doctrine of Providence teaches. On the other hand, if a watch requires my winding it to start it, would you say that necessitates my continual action to keep it ticking once I’ve wound it?
You really aren’t very good at this, are you?
February 19th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Here’s an interesting article that I happened across today from Cracked.com. It deals with Atheism vs. Christians and why we should agree to disagree. Word of warning, cracked.com tends to be a bit foul-mouthed sometimes!
http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html
February 19th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I lost the site about an hour Jamie, is that what you meant by the comment moderation??
February 19th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
This is a brilliant list! It’s really nice to see a cohesive list of misconceptions/arguments against evolution and their actual lack of truth. I think my favorite is “well, evolution is just a theory.” Gravity is also a theory. Are we going to stop teaching gravity in science classrooms? Or supplement it by also teaching…uh…I have no idea.
)
Anyway, thanks for this killer list. I’m looking forward to bringing this up at my next big family gathering!
February 19th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Congrats. i predict this list to quickly rise to the number 1 most commented on list very shortly. great list and i agree with every word you said except for number 12 that has already been discussed. Number 1 is the arguement that i use over and over to explain why we only should teach evolution in school. if one religious group complains, then we shoudl teach every religion out there and honestly, to cover all of that we would end up tacking on another 4 years of school to the 12 we have now. if you want to learn religion, study it in college.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Bob, you really aren’t very good at life, are you?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I don’ tknow what happend here, Jamie, but the whole site went kablooie for about an hour!
February 19th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Oh my God…I really lost control there for a while…thanks lightningclash, I just lost control of my emotions, I was so angry and sad for a while…Ugh. I’m sorry everyone.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Hillary:
There is no Gravity – the Earth sucks!
February 19th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I like the first picture with the computer.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I like the first pic
February 19th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I have disabled moderation – all comments will now go straight to the site. Sorry for all the ups and downs!
February 19th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Zero is missing from your list, therefor evolution didnt happen.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
All I’m going to say is you can’t get something from nothing. You can have intelligent design and evolution beliefs at the same time. I think of it as God making Earth, and then He lets his masterpieces change over time.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Is it too late to say “First!” and annoy everyone…?
February 19th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Ruairi-It’s never too late, go for it!
February 19th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
First!
(and 215th)
February 19th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Excellent List! It’s amazing to me how even fairly well educated people don’t understand the basics of evolution and can fall prey to religious zealots’ misrepresentations and outright lies.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I think the major push-back from creationists is that some use evolution as proof that God (or god if you prefer) did not exist, rather than proof that G/god was not required. Faith and science can be separate, though often, one can inspire the other. I assure you, there are plenty of people with Christian or other religious beliefs that can read their respective creation stories and not see them as literal and have no issue with the theory of evolution. I think any position on the extreme…e.g. God does not exist or evolution did not happen simply reflects a closed-mind and a desire to force one’s personal belief on others. Ultimately, this result is people try to ensure that their particular belief becomes the one taught in public schools (if any teaching actually occurs). I have two issues with this 1) Parents have a great responsibility in the formation of their children’s beliefs, morals, etc…don’t expect a school to do the hard work 2) There are plenty of private school choices and the option of home schooling 3) Children have a mind of their own and you would be well advised to let them use it if you expect it to be of any value once they become adults…otherwise, just strap a bomb belt to them and have them kill a some innocents with a belief system that opposes yours.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Fascinating that the very things we’ll probably never have a definative answers to cause the greatest uproar..
February 19th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
This list serves its purpose well. However, it is clearly biased and flawed. I would be interested in reading an unbiased scientific analysis to the same end.
“There are tens of thousands of different religious views concerning creation. It is simply impossible for all of these views to be presented. Furthermore, none of the theories are based in science and therefore have no place in a science classroom.”
I was under the impression that this was an article about evolutionary misconceptions, not religious alternatives. I leave disappointed.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I think that evolution might as well be a law, i mean creationism has like 1,000 different versions in other religions.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Plus if you want to teach your kid creationism then either home school him or send him to a catholic school, my science teacher in 6th grade taught this and said that if you think this is not real then too bad.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Ruari: F*** You! I wanted to be first! LOL!
February 19th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I personally think Penn and Teller described the teaching of creationism best in their show Bullshit, They had both sides of the argument and pretty much called bullshit on the creationism side.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
as a fan of listverse, i think this is the most biased list on the site.
it may be chock full of truth, but yr presentation really turns me off.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
well i guess i can’t be first at this point..
LAST!!!
i suppose ill be winning for atleast a few minutes
February 19th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Wow, just Wow, Incredible list and I fully enjoy the debate that has follwed. I have always believed in bioth really. Lets just say Adam & Eve were the first Homo Sapien?? Just a thought to keep the fires burning. Anyone know where I can see larger versions of the graphics used in this article?
February 19th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
yes evolution, i believe in it and i have managed to convince other into believing it without disproving there religion
February 19th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
There is no place for a God in modern society, so until that belief is eradicated, we aren’t a modern society.
If the Bible is full of metaphors, then God must also be a metaphor.
If in pagan times, lightning was caused by God, but now it’s not, then it’s conceivable that after a certain period of time, God will not exist either.
It’s ironic how Christians can think of Greek, Egyptian and Roman Gods as fallacy and folklore, and of a different calibre to that of the “real” God.
I wonder where other religions fit into this debate?
How come the Bible is taken literally for some things, and other things are completely ignored? How is it possible to believe the author sometimes, and then at other times discredit him entirely? The Bible contains an extensive paragraph about Ham, and why God coloured his skin black. If one flaw (there aren’t any however) is enough to discredit Evolution, then why isn’t it enough to discredit the Bible?
February 19th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Jono: I also believe that god was an idea that got blown out of proportion by the people that wrote the bible. I also don’t know why some people take the bible literally, its just a book of stories full of metaphors for how to live your life.
Big Skye: It is possible but highly unlikely.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
If I had a science teacher in 6th grade that taught me anything followed by stating “if you think this is not real then too bad”, then I would think less of that teacher. Similarly, if a priest were to tell me that if I didn’t think the creation story was true, specifically in its literal interpretation, then it was too bad, I would also think less of the priest. In either case, they can convey their point of view, and in the case of the teacher, he has the ability to test my memorization or understanding of this point of view. Nevertheless, the teacher or priest cannot impose their view on me.
I just don’t understand the context or need to bring religion into the discussion of evolution theory. The conflict wouldn’t even likely exist if the theory of evolution wasn’t consistently used as some sort of “booh-ya” in response to religious beliefs. Imagine you have your child with you, watching the 6 o’clock news around the holidays, and they start talking about the Christmas shopping season. The reporter is talking about the shopping, comparing sales numbers versus the previous year, perhaps interviewing a few people on their purchases, etc. If at the end, he said “a good deal of this shopping is parents buying gifts for their Santa-believing children. Kids, you need to realize the parents buy the gifts, there is no Santa Claus. Booh-ya!” What is the point in that.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
loseitbonkers: This is a site with members who use logic and faith but m ost of us don’t believe in creationism, plus if you want to see a non biased list on evolution and creationism you might as well go somewhere else.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
griff; she didn’t actually didn’t say that, she basically said she can’t teach creationism and said that you had to learn it since you go to a public school, so i just summed it up.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
LAST! For about 10 seconds
February 19th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
As a practicing Catholic I have to say, this list is DEAD ON. Good Job on it! I have to agree that any attempt to teach creationism is going to involve teaching a LOT of different creation stories, not just the Judeo-Christian one.
Come on. If Creationists believe that they are being discriminated against because Genesis is not taught in science class, how do you think Muslims, Hindus, Native Africans, Native Americans and all other non-Christians are going to feel when their creation story is not taught in science class.
Choose to believe or not believe evolution, but in the end, you’d better learn it, and learn it well, if you ever plan to debate about it.
And everyone remember, there are TWO completely different creation stories in the Bible. Which one do Creationists think is right?
Andy
February 19th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Wow, might just be 2 MINUTES!
February 19th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Andy: thats how i view the teaching of creationism in school as well as religious groups, if you let christianity in school, then you got to let in all religions and cults and groups, otherwise its just biased.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
What, no Flying Spaghetti Monster mentioned yet?
February 19th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Maybe God wasn’t responsible for the first two homo-sapiens, but perhaps God will get to pick the last two…what’s the opposite of creationism…destructionism?
Maybe God also gets to pick who is LAST for the next 10 seconds or so….
LAST!
Sorry, tired of semi-coherent arguments, I am devolving.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Fifth Sonata; Ah yes Richard Dawkins theory, might as well be fact.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
griff: 5 minutes, ITS A NEW RECORD! LOL!
February 19th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Jono-We have seen societies without any God. It’s called communism. Having faith in a higher being does not mean I am not modern. Your statement is not only incredibly close-minded, but you also show no respect to those who can show faith. And how on Earth does believing in God make a society less modern? As a Christian, we have a set of morals and goals to follow in order to try to better ourselves and society as a whole.
You seem to view Christianity and religion as a whole as a bunch of Bible thumping morons who refuse to accept science or evolution. I hate to break it to you, but we aren’t a bunch of desert dwelling bug eaters trying to stop progress.
Think before you speak, unless it was your intent to sound like a Neo-Communist.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
There has never been an ideology more misunderstood than communism. Poor Karl Marx…
February 19th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I am a logical person, i think there is a simple answer than can be found if you look at the evidence and pick the most likely answer. However, logic cannot be applied to religion, i am a catholic, and it is something that you have to separate your head which tells you that when you die you are worm meat and thats all, and your heart where you feel god and all that stuff.
as soon as you apply logic to religion you are missing the point of faith. there IS NO evidence to support creation only what the individual feels inside themself.
trying to convince a religious person that god doesnt exist by using logic is like trying to bump your ass against the sky. it is something they KNOW and that is all there is to it.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
This list gave me a pretty good laugh.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
having said that it really bothers me when people use religion to judge others and justify bad behaviour jihad for example.
religion is about the individual and how they live their life nothing else.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Exactly. Karl Marx was a genius when it came to philosophy, even if I don’t agree with it. Religion is more than just an opiate for the masses IMO.
ed9362-I agree. A lot of atheists cannot grasp why we have faith for something that cannot be proven. We’re just lucky to know the truth…We can have logic and faith at the same time.
Oddly enough a certain atheist that posted above that I have mentioned before seems to have NO logic in claiming that since the Bible has contradictions, the whole thing isn’t true. Well I’ll enlighten you. The Bible was first written by scholars, translated MULTIPLE times, some sections were cut out, and half of it is based off of events BEFORE Jesus was born, so you will have to remember much of the detail could have been lost in translation, humans are not perfect, so you can’t expect the Bible to be either, and what many people use to criticize us is in the Old Testament.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Lyric – It’s amazing to me how even fairly well educated people don’t understand the basics of creationism and can fall prey to evolutionary zealots’ misrepresentations and outright lies. (-;
To whoever wrote this list, well done. I have a few problems with the idea that the theory of evolution is not incomplete but a work in progress, there are too many flaws at a cellular level to even start it. I had always been taught that evolution worked through small step-wise changes in organisms that provided some advantage and were then fixed in a part of the population. These gradual changes over time (micro-evolution) could then accumulate and result in major morphological and species-level changes (macro-evolution).
For example, Darwin postulated that a light-sensitive spot could gradually and fortuitously change into first a very crude eye, and later a complex mammalian eye through accumulation of tiny changes. These accounts of large-scale changes sounded plausible to me.
But the plausibility of undirected evolution as an explanation changed completely for me when, after reading a book by another scientist who was skeptical of Darwinism, I finally started considering how evolution would have to work at the level of biochemistry.
Biochemistry is the nuts-and bolts level of life. When we get to biochemistry we’re dealing with discrete protein structures with incredibly complex, specific arrangements.
We know that to go from one kind of complex protein structure or function or cascade to another requires many changes.
We can, in effect, quantify those changes and their probability. We can determine with some certainty if any of the intermediate steps between one kind of protein arrangement and another kind are useful to the organism, and thus could be “promoted” or “fixed” by natural selection, allowing a Darwinian-style transition from one to the other.
When we look at all this molecular information-which amounts to a kind of engineering analysis of the micro-structure of life-the situation looks grim for neo-Darwinism. we find in nature many sub-cellular systems that are irreducibly complex. By that I mean they involve a number of interrelated parts or subsystems all of which are necessary for the system to function. This fact is a huge problem for neo-Darwinism, since by hypothesis there is no plan or purpose or intelligence in biological change that can direct the development of the parts in order to be assembled later into the whole. Second, even at the most basic level of protein folding, the latest data is showing that it is incredibly difficult and unlikely for a single protein with, say, a certain three-dimensional structure called a “fold” that results in a certain enyzmic function to evolve into another protein with a different fold and function. The funny thing is that at a macro level there is discontinuity too. But we can readily imagine, say, transitional forms between species, and literally draw a series of paintings in which one form morphs into another. At the micro level, however, we not only find deep discontinuity, but in addition our imaginations run up against hard facts. It’s hard even to imagine how to get function and benefit in the structural space “between” irreducibly complex systems, or even protein folds.
To get from one useful protein fold to another requires crossing a huge distance of amino acid sequence space, and in between there are no known folds that can be fixed by natural selection.
other problems with evolution
No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from “amoeba” to “man” would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or “the least energetic state”). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.
Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Gautama Buddha has said, not to search for the creator, since it is a waste of time due to difficulty of the task of searching.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Booya-That was a difficult read, but it was very enlightening. Your syntax was excellent, and the evolutionary zealots would only be lying to themselves if they still don’t question evolution. Your reference to entropy is something I’ve never heard before, but it makes perfect sense. Whether or not you are a religious person, your argument is excellent, and well worded!
February 19th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
last again
February 19th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Dantheman-now you’re not!
February 19th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
i had it for 5 minutes. and im just realizing that im an hour ahead of the timing here. too bad its almost 11pm
February 19th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
i love arguing evolution to people who know nothing about it. you know the ones that say “there is no link between a bird and a reptile” and “i DID NOT come from a monkey and or fish”
February 19th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Excellent try. Yet it leaves much to be desired. I was under the impression that this was an article about evolutionary misconceptions, not religious alternatives. I leave disappointed. You’ve turned a scientific topic into a argument of belief systems.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
MPulse600: I’m close minded? Well, you’re so open minded your brain leaked out.
Having faith is a petty euphemism for “stupid and unable to think for oneself”. There is absolutely no logical reason to believe in God, and accordingly there is no reason to not believe in one. The answer, is to simply question what *is* there. This is the basis of Agnosticism, which hasn’t been represented on this discussion whatsoever.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
MPulse600 – thanks, I am religious, it’s actually a paper im working on for my biochem class. It’s frusturating to see so many people making wild and or vague arguments for something that they don’t research properly. Let the records show that in my biochem class the room is split about 50/50 and we have great discussions.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Nowadays you can’t mention evolution without religious argument or mention politics without someone bashing G. Bush.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
13. Evolution means that life changed ‘by chance’
YES! The fact that natural selection comes into play is only after some features randomly appeared on the organism. Organisms randomly develop characteristics due to “Chromosomal crossover”, but whether these random mutations are for the better or for worse is NOT decided randomly by nature but by the “usefulness” of these new features. Evolution is not a complete theory, but it beats the shit out of creationism, but nonetheless evolution shouldn’t be a stop sign, people should continue to searching for a better theory.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Jono – Having faith is a petty euphemism for “stupid and unable to think for oneself”.
An interesting* take on faith, although i doubt it will ever show up in Websters big book of euphemism’s. Did you come up with that quote on your own? You should make a shirt and sell it to people, it would be something neat for the kids to wear, kids love shirts. Its interesting* that your bring up agnosticism in an article that is on evolution. Very interesting* becaust agnosticism has a lot on the topic.
**Please replace the word interesting with the word retarded.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
i was raised catholic and found out about evolution for the first time in about 7th grade and made an education decision to believe in evolution. i generally think that people believe in religion for reasons including fear of death (its a whole lot less scary when you know that you will go somewhere after you die) and to explain what people can not. In the past we had a god that would pull the sun across the sky and then we found out that the earth rotates so that god was thrown away (yes im being vague). i think that as long as there are questions unanswered (how did life start, why are we here) people will continue to believe in religion…not saying religion is wrong, but its a whole lot easier to believe in a god when you don’t question beliefs)
February 19th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Most creationists (like myself) are staying out, not because your arguments are so compelling (though they may represent your best of breed arguments), but because we tire of debating people who are self-satisfied and have no interest in real debate.
But here’s my list of misconceptions about evolution. Enjoy.
1. The reality of natural selection proves evolution – in fact, they are nearly synonymous!
2. The reality of adaptation proves evolution – in fact, they are nearly synonymous!
3. Evolution has been proven by empirical science.
4. The phylogenetic trees are factual and stable.
5. The human fossil record is significant and clearly defined (lucy anyone?)
6. Evolutionists don’t really believe in abiogenesis as part of their evolution myth.
7. Christianity and evolution are compatible
8. Evolution is in no way related to social darwinism, eugenics, and historic racism.
9. Evolution is in now way related to the Nazi approach to science.
10. Evolution has contributed meaningfully to science, and certainly has not hindered it.
11. Evolution is not a key component of the atheist world view.
12. Scientists don’t have a reason to be self-deceived about evolution
February 19th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
6. Evolutionists don’t really believe in abiogenesis as part of their evolution myth.
sorry seems like you said myth instead of theory. just wanted to help you out a bit
February 19th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
This post has only been up for a day and it is already number & on the most commented lists. Congrats!
February 19th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
ty, now i have something to link to this athiest asshole bitch
February 19th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Out of all 264 posts, I still likes # 24. Sidereus the best. I guess because I am a middle of the road kind of person. I liked hwo he is excepting of both sides, but not saying they have to be in direct contradiction of each other. but after reading all 264 comments in one sitting I am now brain dead too. lol
February 19th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Whew… I really had to scroll down a lot to comment. This comments marathon is getting too long. Well done Jamie on inciting so many people to share so many comments.
I think evolution is real. Animals and plants evolve mostly to adjust to the changing environment. However, I have trouble believing that something can evolve so much that they change their species altogether. Hence, I don’t buy into monkeys becoming humans.
Humans have been humans, always. Perhaps humans from thousands of years ago had larger eyes to see at night (no electricity), or sharper teeth to bite meat (no barbecue grills), or maybe they even had tails to hang off of trees, I don’t know. But what I do know is that we were still human beings. And different human beings evolve in different ways because of the variety of type of environment around the world. For instance people in hot climates have darker skin to protect them from the sun.
I have not studied the science myself hence I may not know for sure, but one of the arguments put forth against the monkeys-for-ancestors theory is that when something evolves, it evolves for a purpose (usually to survive), which means that it needs to evolve or else it would become extinct. Therefore when something evolves, their former species become extinct. Thats why there are no mammoths or saber toothed tigers around today. However, monkeys and several species of them are present and thriving today. If monkeys evolved into humans, then monkeys should have been extinct.
In short, evolution cannot be rejected as BS; it is a real world science. But I reiterate that WE WERE NEVER MONKEYS.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
booya: (comment 247)
Did you write that in 2004? Is your name Mark Ryland? Do you work for the center for science and culture???? cause otherwise you just ripped off someone elses work… no offense, its not an arguement I like to have because so many of my teachers just told me that we were not evolved from apes and that was the end of it, (awfully frustrating) so I see an actual scientific arguement presented to me AGAINST evolution i was compelled to do a little more research and i found it was plagarized and when someone complemented you, you thanked them. It makes you, and thus the arguement loose credibility. And this is just pov by one or two scientists, while seemingly valid, evolution is the generally accepted theory. Science is not meant to hurt anyone or put anyone down but its the search for truth and really has nothing to do with religion. The fact that we have even a vague idea about what happened all these millions of years ago inspires awe in people, in the same way people who believe in god must feel. Surely that can be appreciated by a scientific mind like yours, but I can see the desperation to disprove it. But the truth is when scientists come up with theories they work to disprove them, (like the scientist that you got your quotes from) so there is no need for religion to become involved. Disproving evolution does not prove the genesis version of creation either. (PS. if you are mark ryland and your paper is due in 2004 my sincerest apoligies)
February 19th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I came from one place, and one place only. that was my mother’s vagina. And my ancestors were not monkeys. yes, I read the list…..and I’ve had debates over this many times, and have heard both sides and the “scientific fact”. But I have my opinion, and my reasoning. So, basically. F*(& evolution and anyone else who stands by it.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Jono, post 254
as i explained there is no logic, i would say that people who cant understand that some people just feel within themselves that god does exist despite the evidence to the contrary are close minded.
i accept that the evidence does point to evolution being the truth and that there is no reason to believe in god.
it is something that a religious person can feel inside themselves that makes them believe. so of you athiests should forget about it because it appears that it is something you can understand.
nothing wrong with that BTW
February 20th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Booya- I am not a biologist, I’m still studying, but here are some points that I can make with my current knowledge on the subject.
“When we look at all this molecular information-which amounts to a kind of engineering analysis of the micro-structure of life-the situation looks grim for neo-Darwinism.”
The HOX gene account for dramatic changes such as creating webbed feet from digits and creation of 2 winged insects from 4 winged insects. These would require a lot of mutations in a lot of genes, but only one point mutation in a HOX gene could create a giraffe’s long neck. Can you imagine all the alterations that would be required to encode for longer blood vessels and more muscle, skin and bone tissue to give the giraffe its longer neck? The HOX gene controls the growth rate of certain parts of an organism during its development. So, a mutation in a HOX gene that controls the growth rate of the neck of a giraffe can make the neck grow faster relative to the rest of the body and result in a longer neck.
“We find in nature many sub-cellular systems that are irreducibly complex. By that I mean they involve a number of interrelated parts or subsystems all of which are necessary for the system to function. This fact is a huge problem for neo-Darwinism, since by hypothesis there is no plan or purpose or intelligence in biological change that can direct the development of the parts in order to be assembled later into the whole.”
The problem with your reasoning of how these complexities are caused at the cellular level to benefit the multicellular organism is wrong. You believe these changes occur due to the need of the organism. What happens is that a mutation occurs at the cellular level, which results in the beginnings of let’s say a subsystem. If this new subsystem benefits the organism, then it makes the individual more fit, hence a microevolution. Also, if the little change that will eventually create the subsystem is not beneficial, it will not cause a higher fitness. The mutation might remain in the individual if it is not disadvantageous, and perhaps eventually will form the subsystem in combination with a new mutation. If this mutation did not occur in the first place, then the organism wouldn’t change. Keep in mind that this process takes millions of years. As pointed out in misconception 11. Evolution is limited to the amount of variation that exists, it can’t create new traits because they are beneficial. Who knows how many mutations or new traits occurred that were not accepted. Evolution is not by chance.
“No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from “amoeba” to “man” would require a massive net increase in information.”
Here is a possibility: http://www.springerlink.com/content/x254140830010686/
“No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.”
There is speculation between scientist about the origin of life. Scientists argue whether the cell originated first or an RNA sequence to instruct a cell, but there have been tests done on this theory. In the Miller-Urey experiment, the atmosphere and conditions of the early Earth were mimicked resulting in the creation of monomers such as amino acid. Given enough time (millions of years), polymers and eventually a cell can be created.
More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
February 20th, 2008 at 12:11 am
“There has not been, so far, a credible challenge to the basic principles of Darwin’s theory.”
wrong.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Bucslim: I agree with you, but i believe that catholics actually accept that evolution is possible, if not probable. the only christians so against evolution is the american fundamentalists. i went to catholic school, and we learned all about evolution, and they didnt try to throw god into the science room (that was saved for religion class lol)
February 20th, 2008 at 12:21 am
i just saw a bunch of people down here posting crap like, i refuse to believe we were monkeys, WE ARE NOT MONKEYS. ok…settle down crazies. read this earlier post by jackie
So my favorite myth about evolutionary theory that creationists always like to argue is “Well if we evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?” (I’ve heard this a lot) Wow, well there are two problems with that question. Number 1: We didn’t evolve from monkeys (not the ones still around anyway), we all evolved from the SAME ANCESTOR. Number 2: Monkeys still exist because monkeys and humans are two different branches in the complicated evolutionary tree. Branches keep evolving into different branches, and those species branch out into two more species and so on.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:47 am
WOW Unfortunately I am usually not around my computer until hours and hours after lists have been posted. It took me over two hours to read all of these comments and since I am not about to get into this argument in any way I just want to say:
JFrater I love the pic with the evolution of man ending up hunched over in front of the computer just the way most of us are these days LOL.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:01 am
“While science is interested in the origins of life these are not issues covered in the area of evolution.”
Not entirely true. There are various branches of evolution.
* Cosmic evolution (the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.)
* Chemical evolution (the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.)
* Stellar and planetary evolution (Origin of stars and planets.)
* Organic evolution (Origin of life from inanimate matter.)
* Macroevolution (Origin of major kinds.)
* Microevolution (Variations within kinds)
This list brilliantly deals with the last 3 points, but evolution is very much concerned with all six.
I’m not a 7 day creationist. I believe that evolution is a fact, but the problem I have is that things which are unproven are being taught in classrooms as if they are fact. Theory should be taught as theory not as fact.
The second problem with evolution, and this is the biggest one, is that at some point in history there is just simply NOTHING; And something cannot come from nothing. No big bang, no gasses, nothing can come into existence from nothing. And that’s where science catastrophically fails because you’ll never be able to explain how something can come from nothing until you look outside the realm of science and that’s why I not only believe in evolution but also in God.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:09 am
seeker- Truths about evolution. Enjoy!
1. The theory of natural selection explains evolution. Evolution is proven is proven by scientists (refer to #3), the theory of natural selection is the process, the “how”.
2. There is no adaptation. There is variation and natural selection.
3. Vestigial structure such as wings on an ostrich that can’t fly. Developmental morphology, humans have tails and gills during the early development of the embryo. Transitional forms, fossils illustrating the transitions of whales and their land mammal ancestors. Shared DNA sequences between species, also can be used to calculate how closely related two species are. Chimps share 96% of our DNA. There are more proofs to support evolution.
4. The phylogenetic trees are factual and stable for the moment. They can be proven wrong and can change, just like any scientific theory. An example would be Einstein’s theory of general relativity that says gravitation exists but gravity does not exist. Gravity has been proven wrong.
5. The human fossil record is significant and clearly defined at the moment.
6. Evolutionists don’t study abiogenesis as part of evolution. Abiogenesis is a theory of the origin of life, evolution is the how life changed and species formed. Essentially, where abiogenesis leaves us off. This is explained in misconception 15.
7. Christianity and evolution are compatible. I personally believe in evolution and that God exists. It is a personal matter how one keeps them separate and combines them, but very possible to have both; I’m a living proof.
8. Evolution is in no way related to social Darwinism, eugenics, and historic racism. Anyone can use anything as the means for their actions. The results of social Darwinism, eugenics, and historic racism are due to interpretation of evolution by individuals. An example would be Christianity used to carry out the crusades, or Islam to cause terrorism. The religion isn’t to blame, the interpretations of the individuals are what cause these outcomes.
9. Evolution is in no way related to the Nazi approach to science. How the Nazi interpreted evolution does not make evolution the reason for their actions. How the Nazi ignored some science and chose to follow others shows how ignorant they were to the actual meaning of scientific meanings.
10. Evolution has contributed meaningfully to science, and certainly has not hindered it.
11. Evolution is not a key component of the atheist worldview. If atheists use evolution to prove the non-existence of God, good for them. Atheists believe in what they believe because they do. I don’t need God to pop out in front of me in order for me to believe in Him, just like I don’t abandon my faith in the presence of evolution.
12. Scientists don’t have a reason to be self-deceived about evolution
February 20th, 2008 at 1:22 am
booya: Great take on humor, but ultimately failed in trying to be funny. Please don’t try it again.
And my mention of Agnosticism was to end this argument.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:31 am
BTW, you can see my blowout of my post at 13 Misconceptions About Evolution
February 20th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Well we seemed to manage in the end – thanks to the great sysadmins at PacificRack!
February 20th, 2008 at 2:50 am
We are all going to die
February 20th, 2008 at 3:06 am
280. Monkey -
yes we are. just some of us not soon enough.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:31 am
My favorite creationism theory:
Dinosaurs were the dragons talked about in mythology…
ROFLMAO
February 20th, 2008 at 4:11 am
Fitting my niche quite nicely now, thankyou Natural Selection.
p.s. has anyone seen my banana
February 20th, 2008 at 4:23 am
I think, it will be great for all of us to read any of Richard Dawkins works… such as The God Delusion, The Blind Watchmaker, Unweaving the Rainbow, etc.
You can think for yourself.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:53 am
Jamie:
Shut of machine at #207 abck online at #284!
Personally, I would appreciate it if you did not post lists like this…. I really need to get some work done today
February 20th, 2008 at 5:01 am
Truly the best list I have read!
February 20th, 2008 at 5:03 am
I know that Booya’s rip-off was covered, but I couldn’t help it…
1) googled a randon snip from his text… “kind of engineering analysis of the micro-structure of life-the situation looks grim for neo-Darwinism”
2) only one response: http://www.discovery.org/a/2230
3) And he has the balls to say: “it’s actually a paper im working on for my biochem class.”
4) Feh! (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=feh)
February 20th, 2008 at 5:14 am
“Chimps share 96% of our DNA. There are more proofs to support evolution.”
People need to realize that micro-evolution (evolution of traits within a particular genetic structure maintaining DNA compatibility) is not in question on any level. It is macro-evolution (evolution of one genetic structure into another completely different, incompatible one) that is still a theory. The 96% DNA match is a red herring since one pair difference can cause reproductive incompatibility thereby causing the mutation to die off in one generation. For example, chimpanzees have 24 pairs and humans have 23 but they can not inter-breed (and unfortunately, scientists have tried it). If suddenly, one chimp had a child with a missing chromosome, who would it mate with?
February 20th, 2008 at 5:43 am
stevenh: hehe – no chance!
February 20th, 2008 at 5:44 am
abhilash, The God Delusion has been hailed by theists and aitheists alike as an embarrassment, hardly recommended reading. Proving science doesn’t disprove God.
If you want a serious book, try getting something that doesn’t attack the existence of God. That way you make sure it’s not some emotional biased ranting as in the case of The God Delusion.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:01 am
if #15 is right then #1 doesn’t belong. think about it.
Wait, “Chimps share 96% of our DNA. There are more proofs to support evolution.”
did you know we’re 50% dna compatable with a banana?
February 20th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Booya:
So you’re a kid writing a paper in a Biochem class… and we’re supposed to all bow down to you and admit defeat? Please, junior… get over yourself. Go back to class and listen a bit more carefully… or are you enrolled at some moronic institution like Liberty University where listening to the curriculum only gets you in deeper?
So Evolution… a theory that is the BASIS of modern biology–a theory that has the support of EVERY LEGITIMATE biologist at EVERY major institution across the world–that has been PROVEN time and time again… this great theory, our little Booya suddenly informs us, has great big holes in it that challenge its validity. Sure.
Skepticism and intellectual caution are primary skills for a scientist, Booya. But losing sight of the forest for the trees is also a dumb mistake. You’re in school not only to *learn,* kid, but to learn HOW to learn. You might think you’re exercising your new-found critical thinking skills here, but you’ve still got a lot of sharpening to do before their properly honed.
For example, here is what Scientific American has to say about your little “Second Law of Thermodynamics” argument… a classic creationist fallacy, which you, thinking you’re oh-so-clever, have simply parroted:
“This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.
The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.
More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun’s nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.”
Lose some of the arrogance, Booya, that makes you think from reading ONE book and taking ONE class that you can shoot your mouth off about a science which has been built up carefully and methodically, through PROVEN observation and experimentation over the last hundred-plus years.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:33 am
SocialButterfly:
Well I was certainly hoping you weren’t manly, either.
That was my point.
I prefer women who are…. womanly. And generally I prefer brunettes. With big brown eyes. But I’m open to all sorts of evolutionary traits, as long as they look nice.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Found it
February 20th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Bob:
Oh, I just love little buttheads like you. Well no, actually I don’t, I despise your type. But on a certain level you’re amusing. Science-haters who probably live in trailers parks in ridiculous places like Arkansas or Tennessee, or, god help us, in whitebread suburbs in Virginia or Indiana… my god, more than half this country, I think, has its collective head up its collective ass. And you’re right in there with the crowd, “Bob.”
Okay… sigh. Let’s pick apart your pathetic little commentary:
“The evidence is far from clear. The “evidence” is a particular reading of the data from people already intending a certain outcome–I believe you already mentioned begging the question?”
I did, Bob, but clearly you can’t grasp what it means and, like many of your ilk, you have a poor grasp of the English language. Even if what you said was true (it isn’t) it wouldn’t be an example of the logical fallacy of “begging the question.” Moron.
But anyway, oh yes yes yes… ONCE AGAIN the tired old saw always dredged up by creationists that scientists are dogmatic and fudging evidence in order to come up with an “intended outcome.” Yes yes, *yawn.*
No, sorry Bob. Science doesn’t work that way. To begin with, I’ve never met a scientist (I’ve known more, from all different fields, than you’ll ever meet in your lifetime, pal) who was dogmatic. Almost to a man (or woman) they’re open-minded, gentle sorts who have gotten where they are in life by having a great respect for the fundamental rules of science… amongst which are skepticism and an adherence to the notion of *peer review.* Sure, some scientists are egotists–some are assholes–but most just want to do their work, make a mark in some way if possible, and serve the quest for knowledge. They know how science works and they work within that frame. Outcomes of experiment and observation, in said frame, are never “designed by intent,” Bob. If someone were to try such a thing, they’d be caught up damn quickly by a dozen other fellows saying, “wait a sec… the data doesn’t say that at all.” Because the other thing about scientists is, they love to argue little points that seem to make no matter to laymen. And you can bet if someone was fudging evidence dogmatically, as you suggest–that they’d be called out for it.
But you go even beyond this—you’re hinting that science has been doing this for a long time in regards to Evolution—because let’s face it–the theory has been around for a long time now and it’s a staple, indeed the basis, for modern biology. So all this time it’s just been a dogma, huh? Nonsense, jack. You’re the one obsessed with a dogma.
“God is altogether different. God is not matter. So, you can’t understand the difference between God and eternally existent matter? Well, no wonder you do so poorly at understanding naturaly philosophy.”
I do just fine at understanding natural philosophy, a-hole. You, on the other hand, are quite obviously just plain obtuse.
And so now you’re going to mock a scholar of the rank of Carl Sagan also? You’ve handed me a laugh on a Wednesday morning. That’s nice.
The point is NOT about what god is or isn’t, “Bob.” The point made was a philosophical one, you schmuck. Your cutesy response to it doesn’t even make sense. The POINT is, if we lay god out as the answer to every question, it simply leaves us with ANOTHER question. Namely, where does god come from? This isn’t even something you can *argue* with.
And then you challenged my statement: “Yes, men make watches. But the complexity of life is its own creation. If it needs no help from god along the way, why does it need his help to get started?”
And you said: “Who says it doesn’t? That’s exactly what some people think the doctrine of Providence teaches. On the other hand, if a watch requires my winding it to start it, would you say that necessitates my continual action to keep it ticking once I’ve wound it?”
What? Make sense, crazy person!
I was simply making the point that IF we say god isn’t necessary for every STEP of evolution, then there’s really no reason to even say that he’s needed to START it. But this was meant as, again, a mere point, not as an argument unto itself. I frankly don’t care if god is there at the beginning to wind evolution (OR your freakin’ watch, smartass) up or not. And neither does science care. Science isn’t in the market to prove or disprove god–the two have nothing to do with another.
“You really aren’t very good at this, are you?”
Not perfect, but a damn sight better than you, dink.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Wow almost 300 comments and still no mention of that awesome south park double episode…cant remember what it was called
February 20th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Wow, this list got pretty interesting after I left work last night hmmm…
Randall: Brown eyed brunette’s with other evolutionary traits huh? Do opposable thumbs qualify? I think you may be looking for a gorilla!
February 20th, 2008 at 7:52 am
SocialButterfly:
“Brown eyed brunette’s with other evolutionary traits huh? Do opposable thumbs qualify? I think you may be looking for a gorilla!”
no, trust me, I prefer my own species.
And yes, opposable thumbs ARE a requirement. I was thinking of other parts as well though.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:55 am
When will everyone stop thinking evolution says we are Monkeys. We are not monkeys we are goo.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:57 am
randall:
i like reading your comments, i really do. you are well informed, thorough and usually calm and respectful. it is this last trait that i would like to address.
when you begin your responses calling names, insulting people and making absolutely unnecessary bigoted statements (i.e. living in a trailer park in rediculous places like arkansas or tennessee) you lose all respect you should be given based on your knowledge/wisdom.
you blast booyah for being arrogant yet the tone of your whole argument is that you are superior and he is not because of his age and relative lack of knowledge based on your experience. hi pot. i’m kettle. you’re black.
back off of the attitude and return to the level headed, wise man we all know and love.
although, i guess your attitude is proving your argument. based on influences and the need to “survive” this discussion your countenance has adapted to suit the perceived enviornment. evolution indeed. or perhaps de-evolution.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Randall: Damn out of luck!! I’m afraid I don’t have opposable toes, I had those creepy things fixed in high school…
February 20th, 2008 at 8:13 am
There is actually no proof, even in the Bible, that evolution is wrong because it does not exactly describe the way that humans came into existance. In fact, it could be argued that God himself created human beings over time through evolution. The Bibles creation explanation is not 100% true, as there are two different accounts, and therefore Christians cannot disprove evoulution through the Bible. This can be argued for pretty much all religions actually.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:14 am
JwJwBean: I thought evolution says we’re Monkees… I guess I’d better stop writing 60s pop songs then!
February 20th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Randall; my faith is restored, you certainly didn’t hold back any punches, good job! I frankly wasn’t looking forward to finding citations to prove what I know to be true. Should have known, all I have to do is quote Randall.
DiscHuker; Bob started it,,,,,”your not very good at this are you?”, throwin’ down the gauntlet as far as I’m concerned. He was a little nicer to Booya, probably figured it was a kid…lol
February 20th, 2008 at 8:21 am
SocialButterfly:
Now you’re just being overly-coy, honey.
But it’s *good* that you had the opposable toes fixed–shows you care enough about your appearance to clean yourself up a bit. That’s a positive.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:25 am
although this list recants facts I am already well aware of (due to my intense interest in evolution that began in my early 20’s) I find that the posters seem to ‘want” a religious debate to start!
I respect religion, although I personally do not believe in it. I consider myself a “Bright” (http://www.the-brights.net) and do not see any mystical, supernatural, or paranormal element in the natural world. (and I’m a hard atheist to boot)
My point is that I couldn’t read all the posts, (got tired by 174) and just want to say 3 things:
1.) It seems to me as if JFrater is getting a little obsessed with having lists that generate lots of posts. I know it’s a great milestone and impressive to have a ton of responses to great lists, but it has gotten to where reading the comments is almost more enjoyable (or tedious) than the original lists!
2.) Religion has no place trying to prove (or disprove) science, and science has no place to prove (or disprove) religion. These two facets of human awareness satisfy two completely different parts of the human psyche… one to explain how the universe works, and one to satisfy man’s archaic spiritual needs.
3.)Most of the “Creationism” controversy comes from (primarily) American Christians. Americans are extremely backwater in their acknowledgment of evolution and understanding of the theory of “descent with modification” The rest of the civilized, industrialized world has their religions and accept evolution without too much argument, and a wider margin of citizens of England, Australia, and New Zealand polled accept evolution over creationism.
thats it. I could debate hours about this, but since we all agree here that evolution is how every living thing has arrived at today, then there is no room for debate. Even the posters who are religious recognize that their internal spiritual life is separate from the external natural kingdoms they live in. This website has never disappointed me by the respect, honesty, and intelligent banter shown by the posters. we are the best!
February 20th, 2008 at 8:25 am
LOL!! Well if I’m being coy it may be because this is a family friendly site.
Other than the racial remarks, the sexuality, the NSFW category, the bigotted posters, the religious debates, the political debates, the alcohol… errmm I did have a point, I swear!
February 20th, 2008 at 8:26 am
DiscHuker:
Give me a freakin’ break. It’s one thing to be respectful, it’s quite another to be a mealy-mouthed wimp in the face of someone who’s clearly dissed you and has NO respect for YOU.
You got beaten up for your lunch money a lot when you were a kid, didn’t you, Disc?
But no, seriously…. come off it. This place isn’t some academic forum. It’s an online bulletin board. Your ideas are pollyannish, Disc.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:46 am
ringtailroxy: well said!
The concept of “creationism” was created by evolutionists after too many lite beers one night.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:50 am
SocialButterfly:
Shhhh…okay….. I’ve covered the kids ears. Say something dirty.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:56 am
You know that’s kind of liberating, I’m gonna do it again.
Something dirty.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:59 am
SocialButterfly:
Honestly… don’t you feel better now?
I know I do.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:00 am
SB: In following this conversation I find that your sense of propriety (read: humor) is not far from my own.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Mom:
I posted this earlier… apparently it disappeared… anyway, thank you and thanks for defending me and my right to insult.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Randall: Yes I do feel better now, thank you!
Mystern: I noticed that myself in a few conversations that we had on previous lists. I think you might not be the only one following this conversation and that it may in fact go down in LV history as the conversation that was (almost) very dirty.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Nomination: Comment 311 for the best comments list.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:10 am
February 20th, 2008 at 9:19 am
SocialButterfly:
So *now* you’re letting yourself be chatted up by Mystern behind my back?
Enjoying the attention are we?
Sure, if you like that kind of fawning, “I’ll pay her compliments to win her over” approach… (”Nomination:Comment 311 for the best comments list”… how transparent) go ahead and lap it up. But you’ll be yearning for the snarky, flirtatious Randall talk the whole time, I bet.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Exactly where is this hallowed hall of “best comments” I’ve been nominated elsewhere for some of the chum I’ve tossed out to the audience.
Guess I better get a tux and write an acceptance speech.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:28 am
o.k. i’ll retreat to just watching the disrespect. keep devolving
February 20th, 2008 at 9:29 am
copperdragon: LOL! too many light beers! the poison of the underclass! as for myself, a Magners will do the trick. or a good Black & Tan. mmm… but I won’t be spouting creationism… or any ‘isms’ really… unless it’s mumbling “Ism mah boyfryend ka-ute?” after about an hour…while I wink lasciviously at the wrong guy…
February 20th, 2008 at 9:32 am
bucslim: I believe Jamie should be working on a part of the site called “Listverse Hall of Fame” which includes everything from best comments to most comments to worst comments.
Randall: One thing I know I’ve got over you is age. I’m far closer to SocialButterfly’s generation than you. Sorry pal, but that counts for a lot
February 20th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Well if buclism’s getting a tux I best dig out my Sunday best. I suppose I should write an acceptance speech
*starts writing* ” I never thought I would win, really. But it is good to be prepared. I must thank Randall who prompted me to make such a daring comment and allthough he became a bit of a creeper later on when he picked a fight with Mystern…”
I kid, I kid…
February 20th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Mystern – Well I guess I won’t be going to the Listverse Hall of Fame – I used comment enhancing substances. I’ve got a sub-committee hearing next week to explain how my brilliant and precise responses were the result of using the cream and the clear. What they don’t tell you is that stuff shrinks your johnson and leaves a weird rash.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:43 am
That’s why you got to get the all natural stuff. You know, the CIH. Comment Improvement Hormone. It may not be allowed in competetions but it doesn’t cause the same side effects.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:46 am
LOL! First buclism’s comment about the rash and then CIH, who knew that evolution would end up being so funny!!
February 20th, 2008 at 9:48 am
SocialButterfly – you’re a sweetheart, but I gotta say it’s b-u-c-s-l-i-m.
buclism sounds like some sort of VD.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Mystern: I believe I deleted the worst comment this morning – it involved unusual sexual positions and liquids and had no relevance to any list on this site!
February 20th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Bucslim: Actually for the longest time I read your name as Busclism, which I assumed to be some sort of religion.
JF: Oh? I guess I’d better get on writing that list about my bedtime rituals. (re: Top 10 Bizarre Animal Mating Rituals comments 3, 4 and 6)
February 20th, 2008 at 9:58 am
SocialButterfly:
Let’s clear something up a bit, shall we? A) I didn’t pick a fight with Mystern. I didn’t even ADDRESS Mystern. I was addressing you. So no more “creeper” comments, thank you. B) Your head is swelling a tad, if you think I *would* bother to pick a fight…
Tsk tsk, lady.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:59 am
ScoialBotflee: As a devoted follower of Bucl, I strongly denounce evlolution.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:59 am
or evolution for that matter
February 20th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I got it right that time… did ya see.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Randall: I challenge you to a duel to the death from your insinuation against the honor of the Lady SocialButterfly. You are a dog and a cur good sir. Prepare to defend yourself.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Oh no, I’ve offended another… jeez, it’s only 10am.
I apologize Randall for my grave misjudgement on your character if I do offend you again you have my full permission to challenge ME to pistols at dawn.
As for you sir bucslim, I too am a denouncer of evlolution, but I unfortunately do support evolution.
Mystern: I appreciate the offer of protection. I shall be over here in the corner awaiting the winner.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Yah, Social, thanks for the props.
Some predicted this list to quickly grow into the most commented list. I predict it to grow into the most off topic commented list.
God I miss that dumbshit bible dude!
February 20th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Mystern:
Ordinarily I wouldn’t respond for fear of further swelling the little lady’s head, but your uncouth disrespect demands that I find satisfaction. So:
“One thing I know I’ve got over you is age. I’m far closer to SocialButterfly’s generation than you. Sorry pal, but that counts for a lot”
Okay, nancy-boy, whatever you wanna think. I ain’t exactly elderly there, skippy, and besides, a few years hardly matters–it’s what you’ve done with them. Me: lived a hearty, man’s life, made many women glad to have known me (if you know what I mean), fathered children and learned quite a few tricks along the way. You: lived in your parents’ basement, collected Star Wars figurines, dreamed of winning the love of that cheerleader in high school who would never give you the time of day.
But you’re right in one sense: if age DOES matter, it’s the ONE (as in ONLY) thing you’ve got over me. And don’t forget it.
Punk.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:13 am
“I challenge you to a duel to the death from your insinuation against the honor of the Lady SocialButterfly. You are a dog and a cur good sir. Prepare to defend yourself.”
Giant dweeb.
Okay, okay, Timmy. I’ll be right here waiting for you to don your “fighting togs” so we can engage in the “fisticuffs” to which you’ve challenged me.
Then I’ll kick your ass.
K?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:15 am
SocialButterfly: I’d love to for you to wait for me in the corner but wouldn’t that impugn your honor more? I thought you were getting married soon?
Randall: Due to the awesomeness of your comment (337) I withdraw my challenge. But I’d like to point out that I may be a geek but I am married (to a quite attractive woman, as you might know if you visited the forums), and have a child. I’ve never collected anything but bottles and I must admit that I’m glad for the well thought out comments you post. As far as making the young lady’s head get bigger, I was just doing a quasi-scientific experiment to see if I could actually make it explode.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:15 am
bucslim:
“God I miss that dumbshit bible dude!”
Hear hear pal.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I’ve gotta side with Randall here. If there’s a duel in the mix, I picture both dudes with pistols drawn, then Randall starts talking about how Mystern is holding the gun all wrong, that his gun is way more suited for ease of handling and faster FPS bullets that are more aerodynamically designed and subsequently flatten out before they hit the target. He’ll go on to degrade Mystern’s gun and how antiquated it is and that Mystern probably couldn’t shoot quickly or straight or even have the nerve to go up against him. He keeps talking until Mystern shrinks into a puddle of quivering jello, unable to even lift the gun.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
HAHAHA! Amazing! I’ve been shown the fool before but never quite that well. I applaud you Randall and bucslim!
February 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Mystern:
Your apology is accepted and your story, while ludicrous, is accepted as the “truth.”
I understand. There there.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
“Evolution has contributed meaningfully to science, and certainly has not hindered it.”
Enjoy life without anti-biotics.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:19 am
bucslim:
Pistols and duels are for pansies. I fight dirty and do a lotta cuttin’.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:21 am
buclism: You know that would be fun to see, I fully agree, this will be the most off topic commented list!!
Randall: I admit I have resorted to turning sideways through doorways now, so thank you for that. I suppose fathering children is a side effect of making women glad to know you(if you know what I mean).
Mystern: I am getting married soon. Who ever said anything about more than a bottle of wine? I agree though, I have seen your wife she is very pretty. I think you made him angry… Punk.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Wow, JT’s comment threw me off guard!! Imagine actually commenting on the list anymore…
February 20th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Randall, for the first time ever you made me chortle at my computer screen. Now my boss wants to know what is so funny. I guess I’ll have to go back to work now, if I still have a job. If listverse commentary paid anything, I’d be kicking it with Billy Gates.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Social Larva: call me buclism one more time and I’ll have to spank you.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:29 am
SocialButterfly: Only very pretty? Well I guess they aren’t the best pics in the world.
Randall: I will admit that there was a cheerleader whom I fancied and a couple years after the fact i found out she fancied me too. And I lived in my parents basement until I turned 18. I’ll also freely admit that my wife is the first girl I ever did anything with. And I mean anything.
bucslim: Wow. Aren’t we getting naughty now?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:29 am
OH NO!!!
I was trying so hard too!!
Can I call you buc??
February 20th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Mystern: Yes very pretty, I don’t want to start sounding like I originated from Sapphos. Anything, wow.. kissing too?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:32 am
bucslim:
Tell your boss I said to kiss off.
Better yet tell him/her “this job sucks so much there’s a breeze in here… and if I wanna waste some company time chuckling over internet hijinks, that’s MY business Mr. Slate, and if you don’t like it you can take your wage-slave f**king job and find it a new home in your rectum. Dick.”
trust me, he’ll respect you all the more for it.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:34 am
You can call me a ham sandwich as long as you keep talking to me. Any female attention at this point in my life is a good thing.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Randall: LOL
SB: Yes. Kissing too. Even holding hands.
ham sandwich: Does that go for guys too?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:36 am
bucslim: I’m just joking. My dad’s the gay one in the family, not me.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:37 am
MPulse600: Er, sorry to burst your very special bubble, but no, you can’t have religion and logic at the same time. Believing in a ghost impregnating a virgin woman 2000 years ago, and then that dude dying and resurrecting (amongst many other things nowadays would give you a one way ticket to the looney bin) is NOT logic. Its just the childhood blanket you bring with you into adulthood to try and protect your mind from the real world. (I plagiarized that sentence from somewhere, major apologies to the plagiarism trolls).
Religion is, has been, and unfortunately will continue to be, the worst case of “cement shoes” humankind has. Imagine, just for a minute, how far along we could have been if not for the dark ages? And in this i am not including only Christianity (Which is *NOT* the largest religion anyway), but all other drug-induced-bronze-age mythos.
You DONT need any kind of spin stories to tell you how to live a morally “right” (whatever that may be to you). Your brain is more than capable of deciding, and if not, we have invented something very capable of correcting us… its called the “law”.
Thank you for your time,
CC (reading this topic has converted me to the FSM deity. Ramen!)
February 20th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Thank you Randall, as always an eloquent and original way to dis the turd who resides in the corner office.
And now boys and girls, it’s been great debating. . .uh what were we talking about? But I gotta go to lunch.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Oh, and i have already stepped down of the high horse now. Sorry bout that, couldnt speak to all of the crowd from the ground.
CC
February 20th, 2008 at 10:39 am
ham sandwich: Maybe pretend that your boss is female, it may make what you are about to say to him (Randall’s suggestion) a little easier to handle.
Mystern: wow.. who would have thought that kind of purity still existed. Good for you!
February 20th, 2008 at 10:42 am
I love you so much. If I want to learn about creation, I would go to Bible study.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:47 am
SB: Purity? Hon, it ain’t for a lack of trying. I just happened to be a bit eccentric during high school. I remember clearly the exact moment I came into my own. I was over at a quasi-friends house and I was thinking, “Why am I here?” Suddenly, I just stopped caring about all the stupid little things in life. I just decided to put it in God’s hands (I was trying to be religious at the time). So I emerged the next day as a man on a mission to find himself. 3 years later, I have a wife, a child and have found that I control every aspect of my life.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:47 am
“Wow, JT’s comment threw me off guard!! Imagine actually commenting on the list anymore…”
When I started reading the comments, the topic was still on evolution, however by the time I posted, the list seemed to have jumped 50 comments.
Ah well. My comment still stands.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Mystern: That is impressive, I am not religion but the phrase c’est la vie, is something I say quite often.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Wow, this list exploded since yesterday! I’m exhausted from catching up on all the comments. Haha! Really great posts, though, everyone!
February 20th, 2008 at 11:43 am
You all need a life.
(Me too.
)
February 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am
One more and I jump past JwJwBean on top commenters. I really should start doing more work and less LV.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Mystern; I was the weird chick in class who hung out with the stoners and made the teacher uncomfortable by asking questions about 4 lessons ahead, often ahead of what the teacher knew…
February 20th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Mom424: I know what you mean. I was the guy who didn’t belong to any group but was accepted as a bystander to all of them. While I didn’t bother asking questions about future lessons I was the kid whom every teacher loves. Not because I did well in class, but rather because I knew how to manipulate people easily. I never did any homework, and barely did any classwork. I found busywork to be beneath me and passed my classes by passing the tests.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Kind of disappointed to see so many people nodding along with Sidereus apparently without thinking about what he’s actually claiming.
Theories about the origin of life *are* science – chemistry, specifically. Organic chemicals are spontaneously formed out of inorganic ones constantly in the lab and in nature, and all you need is one self-replicating molecule to kickstart the whole enterprise. No, nobody has, or may ever have, the *guaranteed* correct answer there, but scientists at least know the sorts of questions we need to ask. Religion just shrugs its shoulders and says “I guess God did it.”
Common descent between plants and animals is *hugely* supported. We both use DNA, and the same G,A,T,C encoding. Our cells have some of the same organelles, such as mitochondria, which are not present in simpler organisms like bacteria (in fact, mitochondria *are* bacteria, kind of). To say there’s no evidence for common descent simply ignores about five billion years’ worth of fossil history in which we can trace the development of single-celled critters like cyanobacteria and Archaea, in which we can see about when functions like photosynthesis and the production and metabolisis of sugars first appeared. For over 85% of the history of life on this planet, life consisted of nothing but bacteria and similar organisms gradually evolving the capabilities that would make multicellular life possible for the last 15%. Because of this disparity, today we are closer relatives to the pine tree than some bacteria are to each other.
My final point is that evolution, and really our scientific understanding as a whole, *does* contradict, or at least challenge, a Christian viewpoint. Life on earth has been around for over 6 billion years (mostly as bacteria), human beings for a few hundred thousand, civilization for a mere 8,000 or so, and Christianity for only 2,000… And all this is happening on one lone planet out of trillions, in one galaxy out of trillions more. Doesn’t any of that seem lopsided to you? It’s like God’s building a football stadium just to play ping-pong.
I don’t intend any disrespect, but I personally cannot see how anybody can absorb and understand the discoveries of modern science – not just in biology but in physics, astronomy and nearly every other field – and not find the picture drawn by most religions wholly inadequate.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
(before anybody nitpicks… Current best estimates are that life on earth originated about 3.5-4 billion years ago, not 6 as I said above. Clearly I need to bust out the flash cards again.)
February 20th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Mystern; Me too! Never quite fit in; not athletic enough to be a jock, not hot/ditzy/stupid enough to be a cool chick, too irreverent, mouthy and adventurous to be a nerd, too respectful (my teachers loved me)to be one of the party/scum kids…so I fringed….
Also I have never done home-work (essays/projects excepted) in my life, nor have I ever studied for an exam…either you got it or ya don’t…
February 20th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Mom424: You’re my evil good twin. No wonder we get along so well. As far as not studying for tests (and just to brag a bit), I took the ACT (west US equivalent of the SAT) without bothering to study and got a 27 in math, 29 in English, 31 in science, and 35 in reading. The max is 36. The mean for the year I took it was 21
February 20th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Bah. The HTML did not work. The evil is supposed to be crossed out.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Is it just the tone of some of you guys, or do a lot of you really hate Christianity. Seriously, a lot of you have truly gone off the deep end of talking about evolution in order to bash religion. I support both sides of evolution and intelligent design, but honestly, having faith does not make me a backwoods inbred moron.
And this is an honest question for the atheists: What is your reason for living? If you don’t believe there is anything after death, why bother trying to fix anything with the world? This is not an insult, but I’m just asking because a lot of the atheists on this board seem like really bitter people. I love my life and I love the fact I’ve got life after death. What makes your life worth living?
February 20th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Mom424:
wow, so YOU were that chick that hung with us!
I’ve been looking for you for years…
February 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
MPulse600: You know, I’m not an atheist but I do not believe in man’s interpretation of god. I would like to pose a question to you. What is your reason for living? If the afterlife is the only thing that matters why bother trying to make the world a better place?
I live for myself entirely. My life is the only thing that matters. I am not going to bother feeding people in Africa because quite honestly, I don’t care. That my sound harsh, but you must consider that I believe everyone has equal opportunity in their life. If you are born in a 3rd world country the only reason you stay there is because of your choice. Granted, there are some cases where free will of one person infringes on the circumstances of another, but that does not mean that other needs to live without dignity. If you were held captive in a cell would you cry yourself to sleep at night and succumb to playing th victim? Or would you chose to control the aspects of life that you can?
There is no such thing as blame, or fault. There is only choice. Every aspect of my life is an aspect of a choice I have made. If I was born without legs that is something I cannot control. But I can control how that affects my life. The idea that “Everything is God’s will” disgusts me. If such is the case, God is one seriously fucked up person. God has no power over my life except that which I give him. There is no meaning to life except that which I give it. Period.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
MPulse600: A lot of atheists *are* bitter people. (Come to think of it, a lot of people in general are bitter, theist and atheist alike). However, for every atheist that comes on this board to bash religion, there is at least one (but more likely two) that visit and comment on this site on a regular basis and realize the folly of hating on another person’s beliefs, no matter how misguided that belief may seem to that individual.
Most people who come on here and spout their anti-religious viewpoints and vilify those members who choose to participate in religion are people in the past who probably felt victimized by someone’s religious views in the past and are incredibly bitter about it. A lot of them see religion as an archaic and regressive institute, and simply have ill dispositions in general. However, I think that anyone who hates that strongly on another persons spiritual beliefs are either 1) Not comfortable in their own spiritual beliefs (and feel a sense of reinforcement – and consequently a short-lived sense of relief – when they express their ambivalence towards their own beliefs in the form of hate-speak against the opposing viewpoints), or 2) they have personal problems that cause them to lash out at other people. Either way, don’t let those bad eggs get to you. Most of them just have personal problems that they choose to deal with by aggressing on others. There are actually a lot of really good-natured, understanding atheists out there.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
“people in the past who probably felt victimized by someone’s religious views in the past ”
=
“people who probably felt victimized by someone’s religious views in the past”
February 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
SocialButterfly: I’m coming for you. Just 28 more comments to go. I just smoked JwjwBean, and you’re next on the hit list. Consider your card punched.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Mystern-That is a very well reasoned argument! As for me, I try to help this world and the people in it because to me, there is no greater feeling than knowing that I made someone elses life better. I also agree that the “Everything is God’s Will” argument is retarded. If that was the case, there would be no point to do anything. I love to go on mission trips to help people, I volunteer in my community, I am an Eagle Scout, and I donate to charity through my church. If all the bitter atheists think that is backwoods and detrimental to society, maybe they should rethink what is beneficial, because one of the main points of Christianity is to make the world a better place.
But anyways, come on atheists! I’m honestly curious about it! If you guys don’t believe in an afterlife, what is your motivation to do anything beneficial for society? Do you spend your life just fulfilling everything that you want? I listen with an open mind.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Mystern:
Okay, earlier I was kidding with you, but I have to call you to task for saying what is (sorry) a very ignorant thing.
“If you are born in a 3rd world country the only reason you stay there is because of your choice.”
You have GOT to be pulling our legs. Have you any concept of what it’s like to be born into that kind of REAL poverty? (Of course you don’t, or you never would have said what you did). For countless people in the “third world” there is no “choice” whatsoever–every single day is a new struggle just to live. To eat. To avoid crippling or fatal disease, or crippling or fatal violence. And you talk as though if they really wanted to, they’d just get up and catch a plane outta there.
I’m so flabbergasted I can’t believe you actually *meant* this.
This is what we get for living in a fucked up society that has spent decades patting itself on the back for being the “land of opportunity.” We’ve utterly separated ourselves from reality and what it’s like in the rest of the freakin’ world. Like we think living in Darfur or some such place is like living in Detroit—you just leave and move to the suburbs if it’s that bad.
For god’s sake, Mystern…. come on.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
concernedcitizen…
Im not very religious, but i do believe that christianity is the largest religion. Catholics alone equal around 1 billion people. also, The dark ages were not caused by religion, the catholic church meerly steped into the power vacuum left by the roman empire. The dark age of europe is hardly the first dark age in history (it probably wont be the last). dark age simply means that there is not a lot of material for historians to study, so the period is relatively “dark” compared to other periods.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Randall: Well said. I apologize for that comment. What I meant was there is a choice in how to live life.
MPulse600: I will agree that helping others is a good cause. But I disagree that the main point of Christianity is to make the world a better place. It’s far more accurate to say the main point of Christianity is to make the Christian think the world is a better place. This is not necessarily a bad thing, it just means the Christians of the world are deluding themselves into thinking they make a difference in other peoples lives.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Mpulse:
Mystern did make one good point to you that you totally missed… you keep asking how atheists find meaning in life. But again, you’ve failed to answer the same question; if the afterlife that you believe in is there anyway, and you’re headed for it… then why bother to strive in ANY way in THIS life?
Okay, in a roundabout way your answer seems to be, “to make the world a better place.” But why should this answer be any different for an atheist? What does an afterlife have to do with it, except as a candy-coated reward for those who’ve followed some arcane set of rules set down in a theology? Yay, I’ve been good and made life better–god will grant me All-You-Eat at the big Ponderosa steakhouse in the sky! But fundamentalist Christians don’t even believe in that kind of reward system… they would say that simply accepting Jesus as your savior is what you need to get in to the heavenly gated community. So again, why bother?
Regardless of an afterlife or no, most of us (except those like Mystern, apparently) want to do what we can to make this a better world. Most of us, of course, don’t really do that much. We live preoccupied with our own needs and the needs of our immediate family and maybe a few close friends and neighbors. We reach out to help sometimes, but it comes in spurts and in varying degrees.
The point you’re missing is, when we talk about looking for a “meaning” to life, it isn’t what we *really* mean at all. What we’re really looking for is an *experience of being alive.* (to quote Joseph Campbell). We’re looking to learn, to feel, to experience life, to feel alive. How we define that defines us, in turn. Me, I believe I’m here to accomplish certain things and to help others if I can. But I’m also here to experience life, as we all are. I’ve entered into friendships with people, relationships with women, traveled, learned all sorts of things–and I go on learning. I’ve fathered children and I’m working hard on making them into as successful little people as I possibly can. I enjoy sunsets and gin and tonics on the beach of my lakefront with friends, and sailing on said lake… I enjoy seeing Maine and the ocean every summer. I find fulfillment in my writing and my painting. Someday, with all hope, I’ll make it to Greece, where I’ve wanted to be all my life. I can’t wait for another day when I can meet a new person or learn a new thing, or create something new. All the little things that *I* believe god or nature or whatever it is put me here to experience. And even if there IS no god, I still feel this is what life is about.
Your question, you see, is actually meaningless. “Purpose” in life is irrelevant. It’s being alive that matters.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Randall-I wasn’t going to say anything, but you did, so I’ll just follow along…Exactly.
Mystern- Saying that you won’t help any 3rd world countries is a truly ignorant thing to say, unless you truly are as cruel as you sound. If you’re born into the sort of poverty that these countries are in, there is essentially no way out. The corrupt governments, the civil war, and the lack of technology prevents anyone from fleeing to a safer country. As one of the leading nations in technology and freedom it is our duty to help those countries in need, and saying that it is their fault, and they can get out of the squalor on their own isn’t just something a Christian wouldn’t say, it’s something ANY person with decency wouldn’t say.
You had some very good arguments other than that, and I tried to bite my tongue about what you said, but Randall was right, that was a stupid thing to say, and honestly that’s just disturbing if you really meant that. Maybe sometime you’ll realize how few choices these people have, until then, enjoy whatever twisted morals that you choose.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Randall- (for your most recent post)- I did explain why I strive to do good in this life. Not only does the Christian faith hold good deeds in high regard, I personally love helping others for the simple fact that I love helping others. The feeling I get when I see a house that I helped build for a family that can’t afford to house their kids is unexplainable. It brings me joy to bring joy to other people.
And second, my question was not meaningless. You happened to answer it by saying “It’s being alive that matters.” Regardless if you thought it was meaningless, you did explain it for me. I did not ask this to judge anyone, I asked it out of curiosity. Some of my best friends are atheists, and they were never able to answer that question for me.
I did answer my own question, i explained my view twice, and my question was not meaningless, because you did answer it.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Mystern; no lecture, but to say that living a ‘christian’ life (for lack of a better word, true Muslim or Jewish values fit too), and to believe that by living that way you can’t make a difference is wrong. You can make a difference; ie; my grandparents christian upbringing allowed them to adopt my uncle who’s parents and close relatives were killed in the salt mines in Latvia…their christian upbringing was responsible for their actions…they could not afford another child,in the 1930’s, they already had 4, one of whom, my aunt betty is crippled,,,,by the way this was before medicare,,,they paid off Sick Kids hospital in the ’60s..
On a more personal note, I try to live that ideal (i fail usually) but I know I have made a difference in many peoples lives….ask any of the old people in my neighbourhood….
February 20th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
MPulse:
What I meant about your question being meaningless is that in a sense you were asking the wrong question. It was sort of “why bother?” when it should be, “what is life about?”
But I’ll grant this is perhaps nitpicking. What I was really trying to do was to get you to think differently about the question itself.
Anyway—your atheist friends may not be able to answer because they’re young. Learning to articulate how you feel about life takes time, and experience. Remember that when you don’t find answers from your peers.
I myself used to be an atheist, but am no longer. Neither am I what you would describe as a Christian, though I believe there is some mystery (in the deeper sense of the word) to Jesus, just as there is mystery to the Buddha. Indeed, to me Jesus and the Buddha are one and the same. And I don’t believe in an “afterlife” per se…. I don’t believe in the eternity of the ego–but rather the rejoining of consciousness with consciousness.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
MPulse600: I think it is important to recognize why anyone helps anyone. The reason is entirely self-serving. The reason you take your time to go on mission trips and provide aid to those in need is, ultimately, not to make their lives better or the world a better place (these are the self-deceptions we pacify ourselves with) but to make yourself feel good. To give yourself a sense of purpose. To try to give your life some meaning by enriching your experience of yourself. People will do and say all kinds of things to keep their self-confidence high and stay happy and stress-free. We are actually hard-wired to do so, and it is not you, specifically; it is *everybody* that does this.
Nothing you can do will ever change the way things are in developing nations. There is no lasting impact that any small group of outsiders can have on the conditions the people in those countries. Why do we spend so much time on trying to change things that cannot be changed? Because it makes us feel good about ourselves, to feel like we are championing a righteous (moral) cause or that we are fighting for those people that can’t fight for themselves. It doesn’t change anything, other than your own sense of self-worth. If Mystern doesn’t get this sense of heightening self-worth from helping people in 3rd world countries, I wouldn’t call that twisted morals or saying something stupid, I would call that him being honest with himself. Which is more than I can say for some of those people out there who labor under the impression that they are fighting for the moral majority, but are really just deluding themselves into thinking that what they are doing is for some other reason than to feed their ego.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I need to leave now, but here’s my last word for today.
Alright, I’ll admit again it was a bad thing to say that people in 3rd world countries can change their circumstances. But I still say that I’m not going to contribute my time to helping those people. Yeah, I guess I really am a dick in that way. This is not to say that I don’t care in some vague human way, but rather I don’t care on a personal level. I say this because, as Randall pointed out, I have things to worry about in my own life. Now, if I had the resources, and the time, yes, I would contribute to starving children in Africa. The thing is, my one dollar is not going to count for much if I donate it to starving children when I can donate it to, say, building a house for a homeless family. The difference I suppose is what you can see. All the examples listed involve personal experiences. Sure, if I personally go to the Middle East and contribute my time I will care, but right now, I’m not going to donate money to an organization. It goes back to what I was saying, I live entirely for myself. I am entirely egotistical and selfish. I will not donate anything to a cause because of what it does for the cause, I will do it because of what it does for me.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Damn. Got ninjaed by Slick. Thanks for that.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
SlickWilly; Oh I disagree; I am nice to the bitch next-door neighbour, the only thing ego fullfilling about it is the fact that I behave better than her…I also let people out when they are stuck making a left hand turn, again no ego,,,maybe hope though, hope that maybe one day I will be treated the same courteous way I treat others….
February 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Mystern: Glad to see we’re on the same fatalistic, egocentric wavelength.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Mom424: That is ego. Entirely. You do it entirely because of your feelings.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
“If you don’t believe there is anything after death, why bother trying to fix anything with the world?”
If you don’t think there’s anything after death, what could be more important than fixing this world?
February 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Mom424: It is not something most people are consciously aware of, but that is because most people choose not to pay attention to that little guy deep down inside them that says “Yay for me!” when they help out the next-door neighbor or let the person on the left have the right-of-way. If everybody recognized it, it wouldn’t be self-deception.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Slick/Mystern; are you saying that empathy and ego are the same things..?
I am often kind, not because I get to stand on the moral high-ground and say look at me, but often because I know what its like to be stuck in traffic……
February 20th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Slick-Fair point, but although it does have some selfish concepts, the idea of helping people is a noble goal, as long as you truly want to help whoever it is your helping, rather than JUST making yourself feel better. And I partially agree on helping 3rd world countries. Monetary donations probably don’t have much of an impact, but those people who donate large amounts of food, medicine, clothes, or even volunteer over there are doing more good than just ignoring the situation. Obviously we can’t all do that, but it’s no reason to ignore it, the less we know, the less we can help.
Mystern-I admit, I was a bit harsh, because I understand, nobody can care on a personal level. Although I disagree with the how you live your life (You even claim to be selfish and egotistical), it is your own life, and neither I nor anyone else should say that it’s wrong. Just like how I may disagree with all the atheists on here, but I’m not going to go around telling them they’re going to go to Hell, because since I can’t prove to them why I’m a Christian, I’m not going to criticize their beliefs. I can only hope that some of the more bitter people I’ve seen on here will agree to disagree, and not resort to calling my beliefs or anyone else’s wrong. Of course, I could just be rambling and asking too much.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
My turn to brag; When my son was in grade 6, he got an A+ on an english assignment,,,the Topic…My Hero,,,The Subject,,,His Mom,,,and you know what the main point was,,,,My mom is nice to everyone because she knows what its like to be on the other end…
February 20th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
mom424: Thats so sweet of him!
February 20th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I personally think that creationism shouldn’t be taught in public schools even though so many people thimk so, well if you do teach it in school, then teach every other religion’s idea, oh but you can’t, there are over thousands. thats why evolution should only be taught in school.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Mom424: No, I’m saying that empathy stems from the ego. When you empathize with someone because of a bad situation, it’s because, when you hear about their situation or see it happening, it inspires the feelings in you that you experienced when you were in a similar situation. You, in turn, feel bad for the other person because you are essentially experiencing their pain, and it agrieves you. You are motivated to empathize with someone because of your own experience, wishing to help them ease the pain of the situation and ease your own at the same time. If *you* had never been in a similar situation to what the other person is experiencing, you don’t have those feelings to draw on, so the empathy you might experience (or more accurately, sympathy) is diluted and isolated. It draws on the more vague notion of experiencing empathy itself. Again, it is all centered around how your own ego has suffered (or avoided suffering) from similar situations.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
You guys are really into this conversation, aren’t you? Kudos on being brilliant, all of you. I’d argue, but I’ve nothing meanigful to say.
-Andrea Carlena Beauman
February 20th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
MPulse: No denying that you are helping ease the immediate, day-to-day suffering of those people in developing nations, and no doubt according to my own sense of morality that this is a good thing. It’s just important that the reason you believe it is a noble goal is 1) you have been told by authority figures that it is a noble goal, and 2) you want to believe it is noble because you invest so much time and energy into it, and it is an integral part of making you feel like you are a good person (essentially, it’s part of your identity). If you truly want to help someone, it still comes from the ego and not the heart. Not saying we shouldn’t try to use our priviledges and advantages of living in the most wealthy nation in the world to help those less fortunate than ourselves, because we should. (I just felt a little better about myself by stating that we should aspire to what is societally considered a moral goal.) We should just understand the true motivations for why we do things. It’s rather liberating, and not necessarily a reason to throw all morality out the window.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Do a scraping of an oak leaf and look at it under a strong microscope. You’ll see cells. Do a scraping of your own skin. You’ll see cells. The differences are that your cells won’t have a cell wall nor chlorophyl. The biggest differences can’t be seened at this level – the number of chromosome pairs. But, the chromosomes will be mae of exactly the same DNA made of the same 4 bases. This, to me, PROVES I am related to an oak tree.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
SlickWilly, Mystern; I obviously spent too much time in the last 20 years cleaning snotty noses, changing diapers, removing stitches, and not near enough time critical thinking….
Point taken, geez guys 2 lightbulbs in 2 weeks (Mystern knows what I’m talking about). Really almost everything boils down to ego, and to bring it back to evolution, those ego related things we are discussing, ie; empathy, sympathy etc are all evolutionarily advantageous, it isn’t only the legal system that stops you from killing your bitch next-door neighbour….
February 20th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Mom424: Exactly….the ego evolved as a reaction to our self-awareness and the inherent physiological dangers associated with it. It’s essentially a defense mechanism to keep those harmful cortisols from flooding our system every hour of every day so we our bodies don’t end up breaking down and dying prematurely. It’s not a bad thing, at all, and you do still *care* about others. Altruism *does* exist. It doesn’t make anybody any less of a good person, so long as their behavior is utilitarian. And, if you ask me, spending 20 years cleaning snotty noses, changing diapers and removing stitches is a far more noble act than sitting around on your ass and thinking about abstract, immaterial, and ultimately trivial concepts.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Travis Reece (#383):
You’re right about the size (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html), but that is including all subsets of christianity (please i dont want to go there, its a very scary place).
About the dark ages, there is little historic facts because scientific progress, as a whole, was, at best, slowed down during those centuries of catholic church reign over europe and parts of asia. No wonder some countries (China mainly) had different results during the same time (http://alt1040.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/darkages.gif).
Thank you for your time,
CC, Ill get my beer volcano in heaven too! Ramen!
February 20th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
K. Signal Eingang:
The fact that DNA similarities exist among various species is not evidence for common descent. It only means that both organisms operate under similar laws of biology. While it may be the case that organisms have all descended from the same ancestor, I don’t see any empirical evidence for that. Assuming that something happened just by examining the end result is shaky science.
But perhaps I’m not the greatest scientist in the world. I have another, much larger reason for not believing in universal descent and it has nothing to do with science.
I believe that God created the world and everything in it. I don’t know exactly how or when he did it, but I believe he did. I have to, because that means there is a purpose to life and every life is sacred. I believe Adam and Eve were the first humans because the Bible says so. I do not think they were any less than human. As for all the animals and other organisms, I think God created the major types (I’m being vague on purpose because I wasn’t there to see what they were like) and then used evolution to refine individual species.
I think no matter what you believe, you’re going to have to decide where life came from. If it wasn’t created by a higher power, then what significance can you claim on your life? I love people and it’s sad to me that anyone would think their life was just some cosmic joke.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Back on topic, even comparing Evolution Theory with ID is a mistake. Its apples to oranges.
It would be more appropriate if you compared ID with the Hindu (sorry if i picked the wrong one, i usually mistake the religious mythos equally) story about the giant turtle carrying everything on its back. And they are both equally illogical, ie, faith-based instead of proven scientific knowledge.
Thank you for your time,
CC
February 20th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Meaning or purpose in life has nothing to do with religion, its what you make of it that counts. Its your choice and yours alone. Religion is just a handy excuse for when things go awry because *you* or *someone* did something in a way the rest of mankind would consider inappropriate (i didnt use “right” or “wrong” on purpose).
Thank you for your time,
CC
February 20th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Sidereus:
Similarities in DNA *do* in fact suggest common descent. How do you think they can tell you and your parents are directly related, and you and your friend’s parents arn’t? Because you have more DNA in common with your parents than your friend’s parents. Given that we know how genes are transfered, and the vast role genes play in the phenotypic expression of traits, similarities in the DNA between two separate organisms can be used to determine 1) how closely they are related on the evolutionary chain, and 2) that they are in fact related. Similarities in how cells are constructed is evidence that the genes that control those cells stem from a common gene.
And researching a topic by examining the end result is not shaky science, so long as it is adhered to