Top 15 Misconceptions about Evolution
- Published February 19, 2008 - 762 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 ethically and by the standards of science which are the measures by which all science is determined to be good or bad. If it were shaky science, how can geologist make inquiries into the nature of the formation of the earth? How can paleontologists make conjectures about dinosaur behavior and the nature of the ancient world in which they live?
February 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Slick; thanks for the kind words, I’m actually glad that I’m still able to think after the child rearing fiasco,,(its actually on-going, I have a drug addiction susceptible kid whom we’ve rescued twice, and one who requires medication and refuses to take it), I really enjoy these mind expanding conversations…
THANKS JAMIE…..
February 20th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
True, but I personally disagree on determining the nobility of a goal. If it was just up to authority figures to determine that or the time and energy invested, then the Holocaust would have been considered extremely noble.
Not that you don’t have very good points of course! I do believe that the ego is what motivates you to do good, but in my opinion, the easiest way to tell if you have done good is the reaction of those you helped. Of course, this isn’t always the right way, because giving a heroin addict some heroin isn’t exactly the most noble use of effort and money. Personal morals and society’s ethics have a huge part to do with it, but overall it’s up to the individual to determine what is right, which, like you said, all relates back to the ego.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
MPulse: It’s not just up to authority figures to determine what is noble or not. It is just that they themselves have been indoctrinated by their authorities. The all-consuming presence of authority figures in everyone’s day to day life will naturally shape a developing mind. It is ultimately up to the individual, but the authority figure is the one who plants the seed, far before the mind is developed enough to think for itself. It’s why certain principles become so deeply engrained into some persons’ personalities that to question it is to question who they are. This is what most people call “conviction.”
Anyway, I can see that we agree on the important point, so I won’t press the issue any further. You seem like a competent, well-reasoned individual, and I for one, am not the type of person to question another’s morals or beliefs, so long as they arn’t blindly following them without a thought in their head.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
SlickWilly-You as well! It has been an informative and interesting conversation, and now I need some mindless entertainment to let my brain rest for a while…
February 20th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I wasn’t there for my grandfather’s birth, but I can be perfectly well-assured that it happened. Logic, reason, and inference are powerful tools, and you shouldn’t set them aside lightly.
I’m not sure why I would have to be certain where life came from in order to appreciate it, any more than enjoying a fried chicken dinner should require an intimate knowledge of poultry farming. The chicken is here. I am here. It looks delicious. Let’s eat!
February 20th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Mystern and Slick; Would you not think that humanity’s seeming need and ability (I’m assuming you’ve read about the area of the brain responsible for out of body/mystic experiences and how these responses can be triggered during brain surgery or by damn good LSD)to have mystic/religious experiences and connections an evolutionary advantage? I mean other than maybe Bonobos in the throes of orgasmic ecstasy, aren’t humans the only animals capable of that?
February 20th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Good call with number 1!
I’m so against any form of Religion in schools! I’m 14, I’m Agnostic, I respect other religions, but I don’t agree with them. I’d rather not hear about it, as I don’t preach to them about how I disagree with them!
Ergh. Sorry about that mini-rant.
And please, I’m sorry if this will bother people, but I need to get it out there:
‘BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO’ IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT!!!
Dammit people, think for yourselves!
February 20th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Cambrex: When Christians say “Because the Bible says so”, we are saying God tells us wat to do. Now, i dont beilive that every word in the Bible is true(ex:Revalations It was a vision,people! There are no monsters in the real world!) The Bible says : Thou shall not kill”. If it is not a valid argument, does that mean we are allowed to kill?
February 20th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
i love this list. If i were to choose between religion and evolution… i would choose evolution. Religion was dawned by anchient civilizations who “guessed” what the earth was made of and what the human body was consisting of and what originated the earth. I find that the bible dawned a more intellectual look towards religion. I just feel that now that we know much about the human body and the world as we know it and the possible chemical life origens, i just feel that religion might be true in some sense of the word, but the evidence does seem rather conclusive. I respect anybodies opinion on this but i feel that young children have a biological impossiblity to think for themselves unless they have gotten into the teen years. I think that because they are taught about religion young, the blindly find it to be true. I don’t beleive in religion but i don’t know for a fact that there is no God.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Religious people are so cute, they argue with people who actually know what they’re talking about based on what they’ve read in Genesis. HAHA!! it call COMMON SENSE people!
February 20th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I think that relgion is a possibility but not a probability. Evolution seems more likely then creationism. Relgion dawned from anchient civilizations that thought about what started the world and other biological things, so they thought that there was an after life and other spiritual things. The bible gave birth to a more intelligent and more organized look at religion, but soon theories of the earth and it’s origins and it’s properties were formed. Now we know a whole lot about the world and the universe around us. I don’t beleive in any of earths monotheistic religions, but i do beleive that people can construct a very interesting theory on a scientific definition and explanation of God. All in all i think that young children have a biological impossibility to think for themselves on every level which is why they must be educated at a young age. I just think that young children blindly accept relgion as true when it is taught to them. I think that after awhile all people will think about religion with an educated outlook and at least won’t deny any possibilities of it not being true. I respect everybodies opinion on the matter but for me the evidence seems conclusive.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
wow! the responses ARE more enjoyable than the original thread! (my hypothesis has been proven!)
I was going to stay as far away from this thread as possible, but can’t seem to have any self-control. (because I am a hedonistic Atheist who denounces any god and finds joy in living here, in the now, and not for some imaginary afterlife)
I never insult those who are religious. As a matter of fact, I have 2 friends who are born-again Christians. The smart kind. The kind that can debate over a cider at the local Pub and flirt and dance and play a mean game of pool. The kind that acknowledge that our difference of opinions concerning religion causes no friction in our relationships.
One of my pals became addicted to pain-killers after a horrific automobile accident, and finding “God” helped her heal her mind and body. It gave her a reason and direction in her life that she lost after her ordeal. more power to her!
the other friend was just a loser. really. no job. no education. just weed… and casual sex with a string of other loser-like woman. no… nothing. a depressed, unpleasant, negative individual. always complaining, but never doing anything to improve his situation.
He openly admits that by “accepting Jesus into” his heart and life helped him by relinquishing all responsibility for his past, present, and future actions. He will blatantly admit that his disjointed view of reality makes it possible for him to improve himself. It’s the old “I can do anything because my folks will bail me out” mentality that most of us mature out of in our early 20’s. Except he has it towards his imaginary friend who just so happens to govern everything in his life. Ignorance truly is bliss.
Hell, my life would be alot easier and I would probably prance around in a bubble of euphoric happiness if I completely believed that all my actions where pre-ordained, that everything was predestined, and that I had no control over my actions or the actions of others or circumstance because “it’s all part of God’s plan”.
Instead, I exist in a world of such astonishing beauty and perfection… where every living thing that exists is the individual survivor of other living things, long dead, that managed to survive and propagate their genes. resulting in the world I see around me every day. I have had such profound moments of bliss, when my mind sees all the connections clearly, where my relationships and decisions are the product of my own creation, that I stand in awe of the wonder of myself, of being human, and having the mental capacity to understand all of it in such prefect form.
wow. maybe i should stop smoking ganja while studying for Organic Chemistry midterms… nah…
ringtailroxy
February 20th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
MPulse600: wouldn’t you be bitter in a world where the majority of people believed in santa claus or the toothfairy and you knew it wasn’t true? A world where it said “in the easter bunny we trust” on money? would you question their general view on things and be disappointed with them? Yes. This how a lot of athiests think. we compare the belief in god to the belief in santa claus. ie both are not real and its pretty damn obvious.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
OMG. SO much for me going to work and working. I get bumped down by a slick willy.
Okay for the FSM people: My husband has told our kids about FSM. My 11 yr old had to do a research project on Marco Polo. I told my son that Marco Polo brought noodles to Italy from China. My son said so he is like our Jesus! All pray to Marco Polo the messiah. May he touch you with his noodley appendage, Ramen!
February 20th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
One thing about religious people that bothers me is DEATH METAL! They can’t even think about the possible idea that God might not exist.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Nobody has to chose between religion and evolution unless they want to now do they? There are people even in this forum like myself that get along with both. There is no reason to attack religion because it is not your belief. Not all religious people are uneducated morons, even though some are, and not all atheists are heartless people with no meaning and purpose in their lives. Let’s all be smart and stop trying to convert each other because it’s been going on for hundreds of years and we still all don’t believe in the same thing. I am faced with hard fact about evolution and still have my faith, what else can you do to change my mind? God will always be in my life and if I chose to change that, it won’t be because of someone who insults what I believe in.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
just to make sure i am not yelled at, i do remind everybody that i respect both athiests and religious people. There are morons on both sides. i am also not athiest. I am agnostic expressing what i beleive. Nothing more.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Hi. I’m Kylie.
I was googling things as I do, and I came across a link to this site. Upon reading this great debate, I was awe-struck. A place where intelligent and probably good looking fellows and fellettes can gather and debate!!
I HAVE FOUND HEAVEN. Expect more from me!
-Kylie
February 20th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Hi Kylie. Welcome and such! I’m Andrea Carlena Beauman, and I welcome you with big french american arms!
-Andrea Carlena Beauman
February 20th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Kylie, welcome aboard this crazy ride! there are no seatbelts or barf bags… so use your own modesty filter and enjoy!
ringtail
February 20th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
#421, Bananas: you’re not smart enough to join this discussion. Please vacate the internet. It’s not that I’m disgusted with your point of view, it’s just that your line of argument is blatantly invalid
February 20th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Wow I can’t believe this is still going! Really great posts from everyone. I liked the discussion about doing good for others, I think it does have quite a bit to do with ego. We do things for others because it makes us feel good ourselves. I think anything that motivates us to help one another is a good thing though.
I’m glad to see that except for a few snags, the Atheist/Theist debate is staying rather civil! That’s what I love about this site.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:27 am
11. Evolution is not a key component of the atheist world view (in post 261), in fact could you explain the reasoning behind all your points. Just curious.
Atheists are really getting a bad rap here. I’m taking my atheist support group online.
My name is Andy and I’m an atheist. I first realised I had this problem when Father S (actual name suppressed to hide victims identity) touched my friend M in an inappropriate manor and said god will be angry if he tells anyone. Then in school scripture I was told that god will never let someone like me into heaven because i questioned if the Noah’s ark story was valid. all i did was ask how they knew the world was flooded, did Noah pick up the phone and call Australia to ask if they had any precipitation problems?
After coming home still reeling from being told that my place in heaven was being taken by Ted, the man who butchered 13 people because god told him to do it. (Don’t worry people. Ted confessed to his sins, he’s ok to go up now.)
After all that disheartening news I thought I’d head upstairs and finish my assignment on the history of Jerusalem. All I could say after researching my assignment was F**K ME, nice work god. Better head down and watch cnn for a while.
After a few suicide bombings, another murder and a story on the KKK apparently in the name of god. all I could say was F**K ME over and over.
The conclusion to my assignment was that god is merely an excuse for all sorts of behaviour.
(This next part is a true story) then when my grandfather was lying on his death bed we were told that the priest won’t be coming to read him his last rights because it was after 8 o’clock, even though he had been going to his church his whole life. All I could say was F**K YOU Father and the little alter boy you rode in here on.
February 21st, 2008 at 6:33 am
I love how Slick Willy is just jotting stuff down to watch his numbers go up on the quote board. What a whore!
(jk Slick)
February 21st, 2008 at 6:41 am
Mom424: Just got through reading (alright, skimming) the comments since yesterday. I’m glad you finally had another light bulb and I hope you realize the connection to our other discussion. As far as humans ability to have religious experiences as an evolutionary advantage, there are two things you must consider. First, we generally consider other species to be lacking in intelligence, but as far as I have seen, there is no conclusive proof to that. Second, if we are the only ones who have the intelligence to have religious experiences I can only assume that it would be an evolutionary mechanism designed specifically to help the overall survival of the race. If we are all headed toward the same goal, we will not be trying to kill each other (as much), if you know what I mean.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:05 am
Mystern; my thought exactly!
February 21st, 2008 at 8:47 am
bucslim: I don’t deny these allegation you throw at me.
Mom/Mystern: I’m of the opinion that religious experiences are not necessarily evolutionarily advantageous, nor are the necessarily disadvantageous. I don’t think they can be considered adaptations, because of the nature in which they occur. (This is shaky territory for me here, and its mostly educated speculation. If I happen to make any errors here, please correct me.) Before I give my take on it, I’m defining religious experience as a unique sense of awe and piety, where the person interprets it as as the holy spirit. (If you meant something different, Mom, please let me know.)
The same thing happens, physiologically, when we experience *any* emotion. Happiness, depression, anger, fear….with the exception of the degree to which certain chemical components are released. (e.g. epinephrine release is greater during times of perceived fear than times of happiness). The only way we separate and compartmentalize these emotions as different from one another is by the way we interpret the situation in which they occur. Physically speaking, your body reacts exactly the same way when you are in love as when you are frightened; the difference is that this physiological reaction was inspired either by seeing the object of your affection or seeing that pick-up truck hurtling towards you on a collision-course. I think the same thing happens with religious experiences….the way our body feels lets us know that *something* is going on, and our brain accepts most readily the explanation that we *want* to be true. In a religous setting, this is natural, and people will be moved by their perception of the situation, as well as whether or not they want to believe. In a non-religous setting, the case is the same, for either religous people or non-religious people considering religion as a viable option (or even non-religious people who don’t consciously consider it an option, but interpret the experience as religious because of some other heuristic pathway in their brains connected to the idea of god and religion.) I don’t think you will find very many convicted atheists who will report having had, or ever having a religious experience in this way, simply because they don’t believe that those types of things happen, and perception is everything.
As such, I don’t think religious experiences are anything special to us evolutionarily. I think they might be exaptations, in that they seem to serve some kind of psychological purpose that in some people leads to greater mental health, and consequently greater reproductive fitness, but I don’t believe that we evolved to specifically intepret religious experiences, or that they in anyway directly contribute to reproductive fitness. I think we evolved to have physiological experiences we call emotions because they cause us to act in times of need, and that our self-awareness and intelligence applies the interpretation of a vast range of emotional experience, religious included.
I could be very wrong, but that is my common-sense take on it.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:09 am
What has religion ever given us?
Wars
Oh. Yeah, yeah. It did give us that.
Uh, that’s true.
Yeah.
But apart from wars what has religion ever given us?
Bigotry
Yeah. All right. I’ll grant you wars and bigotry are two things that religion has given us.
Don’t forget intolerance.
Oh yeah mustn’t forget intolerance.
Yeah. Yeah, that’s something we’d really miss.
Well, yeah. Obviously intolerance. I mean, intolerance goes without saying!
Extremism?
Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
Irrational belief?
Misinformation?
All right, but apart from wars, bigotry, intolerance, extremism, irrational belief and misinformation, what has religion ever done for us?
Brought peace.
Oh. Peace? Shut up!
*With apologies to Monty Python
February 21st, 2008 at 9:24 am
Hobbes:
War, bigotry, intolerance, extremism, irrational belief, misinformation….all the work of corrupt individuals using the church as a shield and preying on the mental weakness of the common man. Religion itself is just a framework of worship. Spirituality is just an acceptance of and appreciation for things immaterial. For every fool in the church trying to incite war, bigotry, extremism and misinformation, there is at least one person out there feeding the hungry, putting roofs over the heads of the homeless, helping the sick and giving peace to fractured families. Also in the name of religion. Before you go around stomping on religion for the things that have gone wrong in this world, stop, take a deep breath, and realize that religion never caused any of these things. Men did, men who used their religion as an excuse to carry out their own selfish agendas. Your post reeks of bigotry as well, by the way.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:54 am
Really? I thought it reeked of humour.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:59 am
Monty Python.. I love them!!
February 21st, 2008 at 10:01 am
I’m just tired of religious folks coming here and bitching endlessly about how people are hating on their religion. I’m just trying to balance the status quo. Didn’t realize it was from Monthy Python, btw, so that probably accounts for my reaction. Sorry bout that.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:17 am
SlickWilly; I was more speaking of the people who have “religious/mystic experiences” the ones who would found a religious order. The people who say they see Our Lady of Fatima while they were hovering above their body are not always lying or suffering hysteria (like the 2 little girls at lourdes?), but either through illness, chance(genetic mutation), or whatever actually experience some sort of vision/disconnection. I have seen/read this as a physiological explanation for the tunnel of light syndrome common in near death experiences…the region of the brain responsible for spatial awareness is turned off before other regions. Most human cultures actively seek this sort of experience, using different techniques but the goal is the same. Moses taking off into the wilderness for 40 (read a geezly long time) days, Native Americans use Peyote, Plains Indians use the sun ceremony and hippies in the haight used LSD. To have a vision…
February 21st, 2008 at 10:20 am
religous people are coming here and bitching endlessly aobut how people are hating on their religion???
seems the other way around. people that would consider themselves non-religous are on here bitching about how “christians” are trying to destroy science, repress the truth, “shove their religion down our throats”, etc, ad nauseum.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:27 am
DiskHuker: I agree, Christians have to stop pressing religion into schools and trying to say science is bullshit and saying “god did this and science is lying.” I saw a poll online on Channel 1’s website askingif teens thought what should be taught in school, evolution, intelligent design (creationism), or both, or neither. heres how it came out.
Evolution only-9%
Intelligent Design Only-53%
Both-25%
neither-23%
Im guessing their parents told them how to vote.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:28 am
Mom424: The explanation for that is, I think, a little more straightforward. There is chemical that occurs naturally in the brain called dimethyltryptamine, known as DMT. It is also taken recreationally and for religious purposes, and has an effect similar to – but often far more intense and profound then – peyote. (I believe it’s actually a chemical relative of bufotonin…toad-licking) About 60 – 70% of people who have taken DMT report “coming into contact with” a god-like or extraterrestial superior intelligence. It is speculated, rather recently, that DMT in the brain plays a role in the visualization and often lucid effects of dreams, where you register tactile and aural stimulation as well. Also, it has been speculated, with some research to indicate that a massive dose of DMT is released from the pineal just prior to the body’s perceived death, which would account for “near death experiences” where people supposedly see dead family members waiting for them in a column of light, etc. etc., as well as the sensation of one’s life flashing before one’s eyes. If it religious hallucinations you are speaking of, it can be explained chemically.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:31 am
DiscHuker: Yes, coming here and bitching about how people are hating on their religon. Because people *are* hating on their religion. I just want it all to stop, so we all can be spared the bitter rantings of unintelligent people on both sides of the argument. It does no good for an atheist to bash a theist for his/her religion, and it does no good for the theist to reciprocate. It lowers the general level of dialogue and it irritates me.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:33 am
SlickWilly: are you even mad that i was the fake SlickWilly, i explained it on the bond thing.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:33 am
Slick: Actually I have a friend who has taken a ton of drugs in his life and the only one he said he would ever take again is DMT. Apparently it’s very difficult to get ahold of.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:34 am
As expected, this thread is in hot debate. Just wait until an abortion themed list comes out. I bet the comments will jump over 500 within hours. As for evolution, my religion is for the whole Adam/Eve thing. Me personally, i like science and I like how it offers proof and deals with real explanations as opposed to religion(not trying to single out any) which just tells you to believe. God exsists and you should conform to his ways just because some other ordinary person told me so? Or how about most of our land mass today was covered with water at some point because scientist have found fossils of aquatic life forms hundreds of miles inland of our current coastlines. Being LDS it kind of puts me in a position to question some of my own beliefs. i guess that is just some of the duality I have to deal with
February 21st, 2008 at 10:35 am
Well im gonna nap, my school got snowed out today and i plan to sleep till 7:00PM since its cancelled tomorrow!
February 21st, 2008 at 10:36 am
Csimmons: No, not mad. It was funny….for a few minutes.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:37 am
Markj: if there is any abortion list, be prepared for World War 42!
February 21st, 2008 at 10:38 am
Slick; thanks for not getting mad, Im gonna go. See yall at 7:00!
February 21st, 2008 at 10:39 am
csimmons: i think you misunderstood me if that was your response.
as for your conclusion to those statistics, do you think it is possible that the students actually voted what they think? perhaps you should put this poll with your conclusion on the conspiracy theory list if not.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:44 am
Mystern: I’ve heard that too. I have occasionally dabbled in psychadelics, more out of curiosity than anything else, but given how intense the experience of DMT is supposed to be, I’m hesistant to consider it. I smoked Salvia, maybe twice in my entire life, and by itself it was so intense that I was the only one in my circle of fellow psycho-nauts that didn’t flip his shit, and only by a small margin. (One of my friends fled screaming into the night, the other collapsed in a fit of crying. True and morbid story.) However, it *can* be synthesized from the bark of the Mimosa Hostilis tree, but it’s a complicated process, and easy to fuck up.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:57 am
What is DMT?? I’m sorry I left the site for a few minutes to work… pssha!
February 21st, 2008 at 11:03 am
Work? What’s that?
DMT according to Wikipedia
February 21st, 2008 at 11:03 am
SocialButterfly: See my post #449.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:14 am
Thanks Mystern & SlickWilly for the info. This DMT sounds like pretty dangerous stuff.. fascinating that it may be released prior to death, may explain why people hear choirs singing..etc.
LOL@ Mystern (post 461) I know right!? Since when do they actually need me for anything…hahaha
February 21st, 2008 at 11:28 am
SocialButterfly/Mystern: First…..you…Butterfly. You’re going down. You think we may be even in comments right now, but we’ll see what the standings are in a week or so. Your number has been pulled.
Then….you….Mystern. I’m coming for you next. You have a considerable headstart, but we’ll see…..we’ll see….
February 21st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Why are you racing for comments SlickWilly, no offence but that’s lame.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:34 am
PS. talk to me about comments when you start on the forums…
February 21st, 2008 at 11:34 am
Lame because you are losing.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:37 am
Actually, I’ll be top dog in a couple weeks. It’s a running count for the month and the only reason Csimmons is so high is because of the Geek movies list and the only reason Mom424 is so far up there is because of the bible list.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:39 am
Csimmons is also high because he posts 3 or 4 comments in quick succesion.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:40 am
For example: If he were talking to Mystern & SlickWilly he would write first to Mystern and then SlickWilly.
observe:
February 21st, 2008 at 11:41 am
SlickWilly: I believe that I am technically ahead of you now, so lame that you noticed you were ahead of me and posted it.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:41 am
Eh, maybe some of us have too many thoughts that come too quickly on too many topics. I can’t help the way my brain works. Nice spin campaign though. (
)
(It’s all a joke, SB, I hope you realized that by now.)
February 21st, 2008 at 11:42 am
Mystern: Mom424 has a right to be high up there right now, that Bible Dude guy was something else!
February 21st, 2008 at 11:42 am
SlickWilly: I figured as much, but I can have some fun with ya, can’t I??
February 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am
I have never really used hard drugs before. I say never really because everyone smoked weed a time or two in high school. I’ve always wanted to try certain ones though just to see what it’s like. I always hear about these trips that people go on or the strange shit you see. Is it wrong to want to try something like DMT once??
February 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
NyQuil, NyQuil, NyQuil! We love you, you giant fucking Q!
February 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
MarkJ: No it’s not a bad thing. You’re just curious. As one who has done a couple drugs, I’d say be careful what you try. If you feel comfortable doing it, and you are in a clear state of mind, then follow your heart. If you don’t feel like it will be a good thing, then it likely won’t.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Since when did this list and/or the Listverse become a forum for recommended illicit substances?
WTF?
February 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Hey, as with anything on the net, take my advice with a grain of salt definitely.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm
SlickWilly; yup thats what I was talking about. But do you think it happens because it is advantageous or just a non-harmful by-product of evolution? Raised in the 70’s, I’ve done a fair number of illicit substances….Acid never gave me any mystic experiences…
Everybody else; I actually am embarrassed see my name up there in lights. I consider it a huge accusatory finger pointing out my faults; my incessant need to wring every last bit of information out of whomever willing, and my huge inability to shut-up…..so please take my place….
February 21st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Faults? Nay woman! Virtues! Virtues I say!
February 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Great list! Those are very common misconceptions that creationists (and even some people that do subscribe to the theory of evolution) have.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Bucslim: It is kinda funny how the forum now has nothing to do with the evolution topic and has diverted to confessions of everyones experiences with illicit drug usage. BTW, do those “system cleaning” products really work? like to beat a piss test.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
wow – this one really is going to be right up there in the top commented lists!
February 21st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
jamie: did you ever get the email i sent you?
February 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Are these misconceptions that common? If they are, there is way too much ignorance in this world. I mean anyone who thinks evolution leads to immoral behaviour is an idiot. It seems I am ignorant of the amount of ignorance out there!!!
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 am
MarkJ- I used to work for the kern county probation department and i have personally never seen one of the system cleansing test work….that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any that do, just from what i have seen, if you do drugs and get tested, you go to jail.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:51 am
ffs:
the problem is people who believe in god, don’t fully belive in god. none of them. heres why. Jesus says to sell all your possessions and follow only God. No one does this. this equals believers being full of s hit.
here why:
”
Matthew 6:19
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Luke 14:33
Any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.
Matthew 6:24
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money.
Matthew 19:21-24
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 19:28-29
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
Luke 9:23-25
Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?
Matt 13: 22
The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.
Hebrews 13:5
Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.”
Phil 2:3
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
Acts 2:44-45
All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
The message is clear. If you want to follow Jesus, you need to “sell your possessions and give to the poor.” It is a very simple message, and easy to do. Have you done it? The fact that you are reading this page would indicate that you have not. Chances are you own a computer, pay for an Internet connection every month, live in a home or apartment, have a car, etc. In other words, you live a life at a level of wealth unimaginable in Jesus’ time. Meanwhile, billions of people on the planet live in startling, abject poverty.
Why don’t you sell everything and follow Jesus, as he requests in the Bible? The reason is simple: Jesus and God are imaginary, and you know it. If Jesus were real, you would do what he says. ”
my own notes:
people need to be educated and realise they are being conned. not just by Benny Hinn, but the church in general. why is the christian religion among the richest organisations in the world? not one of these people, especially the pope, have walked in Jesus’ steps. Sell your possessions! preach the word of god!
But you won’t.
another note. people will argue and say “but mr, we can get the word of God around quicker and more accuratetely and more effectively with the internet and TV! Donations to the church and TV evangelists further the love of God lol”
If you think God exists and Jesus was his son and Jesus came back to earth and would go on TV and the internet asking for money or even just spreading the word, then you are, quite simply, a fu
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:17 am
Now it’s interesting that, including a discussion on drug usage, we now have a term paper on Christians and possessions.
I think Davo, you bring up a fair point – the ‘PR’ for Christianity has been pretty poor because of many things – slick preachers on TV who demand your donation to fuel their so-called ‘ministry’ when in reality it goes to pay for their extravagant lifestyle, the Catholic church is one of the biggest landholders in the world, the sick and poor go untended while many churches use their resources for communication systems to ‘get the word out.’ Admittedly it is sad how much of this is true.
There’s nothing in the Bible that prohibits the believer from living a normal life, getting a job and raising a family. That takes money, more so in certain areas of the globe than others. It is the attitude that these verses speak to, i.e. the treasure is where the heart is.’ I think any reasonable examination of the scriptures bears that out. It is true that if the main focus of my life’s endeavors and ‘heart’ is the constant chasing of wealth, then my ‘heart’ is following money, and as you pointed out, God condemns that. There are plenty of bad examples of that – especially in American ‘Christian’ society.
But if you think Jesus is telling me to sell my possessions and leave my family destitute, then you are flat wrong. He’s simply telling me my focus should be on the things of God, not money.
How this ties into a discussion of evolution is something of a mystery to me.
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:04 am
To be fair, the drug conversation got started because Mom asked about religious hallucinations and I said that they are most likely caused by chemicals in the brain that, in a concentrated form, are taken by recreational drug users who are looking for similar hallucinagenic experiences.
Mom424: That is a good question. I don’t know enough about biochemistry to try to answer it, but from what I know about cognitive psychology and evolution, I would say no, it’s not an evolutionarily advantageous adaptation. I can’t see any reason why the ability to have chemical-induced hallucinations would have any positive effect on reproductive fitness, and I actually believe such experiences might be detrimental to the functioning of the brain, specifically the damage that could be done to the neurons from the introduction of large doses of these chemicals. However, given the information I have available to me at the moment, I think that they might be a byproduct of the natural processes of the brain that facilitate memory formation (via the role DMT plays in the formation of dreams)and perhaps the flexibility of spatial reasoning and visualization in the brain. I should add this is educated speculation; I’m certainly no expert in neuropsychology and biochemistry.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
#14 is incorrect. Just because an organism shows no outward signs of change, does not mean that it has stopped evolving. Evolution is constantly happening. Natural Selection is constantly happening. Natural selection is selecting for an already existing form. Just because you can observe no outward changes, does not mean a species is not subject to mutations and change inwardly.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Andrea Carlena:
Humans are not evolved from monkeys. Do you see a tail on humans? I sure don’t. Look up “Ape” in the dictionary sometime. Sorry for being mean, but sometimes.. it just slips.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
The problem I see in many of these comments is the problem I see in 99% of academia. People are simply not allowed to question darwinism. It is true that darwinism is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, but that is no reason to prevent competing ideas from being researched. If someone wants to say evolution is bunk because the bible says so, then that is religion, and should not be taught in schools. If someone concludes that it is a statistical impossibility for human life to be formed without any outside influence, then that is science. A scientist should be able to argue that point without being branded a religious zealot and he should certainly not fear for his job. If a scientist analyzes the facts, and concludes from a scientific standpoint that darwinism does not explain how human life formed, then that should be his right, and he should fear no punishment from such a conclussion. This has become such a problem that Ben Stein has a documentary coming out this spring (although I imagine it will be an extremely limited release) about how countless scientists have lost their jobs and been marginalized by the scientific community for simply stating what the facts have lead them to believe. When competing ideas are not allowed to see the light of day, we fall into the same mold that the Nazi regime used in their persecutions. Before you comment, keep in mind that I am merely advocating freedom of speech being applied to the scientific community just as it is the other aspects of our culture.
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:14 am
well I have read an article about this when I was nearly 18 years old, this theory has been proven right but not all of it, all creatures evaluate, but they don’t change from a form into another. or logically we would have seen incidents of a mixture of creatures, like a horse with wings for example. Also the two scientist who discovered the skull of half human and half a monkey was proven that this skull was artificially made but the mystery is how those scientist did it without the technology equipment that all scientists stated that they would need
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:04 am
Hitler was a fan of Social Darwinism…
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Hitler was also a fan of religion.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
dave:
The main reason intelligent design is not accepted as science is because it is scientifically untestable. To point at something complex and say “someone (or something) must have designed that” is to introduce a “God of the gaps” argument, for which there is no scientic basis.
Science is a process by which we attempt to develop an understanding of the world around us. Those who engage in scientific study would not discriminate if there was sound evidence for a designer, but each new argument for ID has been scientifically refuted.
The ID “hypothesis” is based on theistic ideologies. Many of the same figures advocating ID are the same ones who went on record stating that “creationist science needs a new approach” when THAT was turned away from the science classrooms.
ID is unscientific, and the methods by which it is being pushed onto school systems INSTEAD OF PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS is essentially immoral, and should NOT be allowed.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
LePetiteMort: Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. It was created as a means to justify oppressing the poorer classes in a stratified society, by members of the wealthy class. It was intially championed by Herbert Spencer in the late 19th century, who popularized the term “survival of the fittest” and all legitimate Darwinian evolutionists in this day and age separate themselves from that archaic, bigotted institution.
ehab: Your “logic” makes no sense at all. You don’t appear to have any idea how evolution works, which I consider somewhat laughable considering you probably didn’t even bother to read the list you are commenting on. Evolved species do *not* simply evolve random body parts. Any physical adaptation an animal might have is logically consistent with the demands of its environment, and was slowly developed and streamlined according to natural selection and the reproductive “fitness” that adaptation conferred upon the animal. (The better suited an adaptive characteristic is to conquering the challenges of the environment, the more likely that animal will survive to reproduce and genetically pass on the adaptation.) These changes happen over thousands of generations, changing the physical appearance of the animal slowly by tiny minute changes in successive generations. New forms don’t simply “pop up,” and each successive form will be a logical progression from the one before it (i.e. a dog will not give birth to a cat; horses will *not* suddenly sprout wings). I don’t know what you are trying to get at with your example of this supposed “half-man/half-monkey” skull, but the skulls of our predecessors do show ape-like characteristics the farther back they go. It’s only natural, since both humans and apes descended from a common, ancestral ape-like creature.
February 24th, 2008 at 12:56 am
And to think, we have..well had.. presidential candidates that do not beleive in this..potential LEADERS OF THE UNITED STATES..who choose to beleive that we were all just here one day…damint this list says everything that i just want to yell at people who talk shit about evolution. Half of them use that stupid its “just a theory” excuse without even knowing what “theory” actualy means. And then the people who say they arent monkeys..well you arent, your apes, and anyone who ever says “well if evolution is true, then why are thier still monkeys?” has obviously never studied anything with regards to evolution short of bullshit they hear on televison. Honestly i think most people argue against evolution beucase they want thier own beleifs to be true rather than evolution being false…because evolution being true would throw thier ideas out the window..ideas they have they have usually been taught and have beleived all thier lives…to bad there isnt a way to “deprogram” bullshit outta peoples heads.
February 24th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Just one more thing:
This is what i choose to beleive personally… There MAY be a god or higher power yes… but if indeed there is, then what makes us think as humans we are capable of even beginning to comprehend what this being is or HOW it exists or even if it is in the same existance as we understand today… shit, a few hundred years ago so called intelligent people..then best and brightest of which knew for a fact the world is flat and the white people are superior to other races based on genetics…both of which are now known to be bullshit…damint, i could go on forever but that would just waste time.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Intelligent Design
Factual claim: Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that if you took out any single component of the system, the system would fail to function.
Factual claim: Irreducibly complex systems could not have evolved step by step because the intermediate or precursor systems would not have been functional.
Explanatory claim: Therefore, when we find an irreducibly complex system, we know that it must have been designed from scratch and came into existence all in one step.
Irreducibly complex: Impossible to reduce to a desired, simpler, or smaller form or amount.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
evolutionists bring me almost to the point of tears. how can it be so hard to believe that there is an all powerfull God that created everything and loves you unconditionally? we will all be judged one day and you will remember this. why do you have to make up an excuse just to make a disagreement towards God. i have seen miracles. and continue to see them every day. Jesus loves you. why can’t you love him back?
courtney (age 12)
February 27th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for this list! I am a university student (zoology major) and I am frustrated every day by people who want to argue with me about evolution and cite every misconception ever dreamed up about it. I think evolution should be a required subject in school, if only so creationists would at least be informed properly about what they are arguing against.
To Courtney, recognizing evolution is not the same thing as denying God. There are many people who believe in both.
To all creationists; make an effort to learn what you so vehemently deny and maybe you’ll see it isn’t evil, and that science and religion do not have to agree.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:54 am
to quote the writers of south park…”maby evolution is the answer to how, not why”…
February 28th, 2008 at 11:10 am
@Jenna
WHAT IS TRUTH?
Jesus said, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE: NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER, BUT BY ME-Jn 14:6.
It is not the Bible plus someone’s writings.
It is not the Bible plus another gospel.
It is not the Bible plus the traditions of a church or people.
It is not the Bible plus the traditions of a denomination.
It is not the Bible plus someone’s interpretation.
It is not the Bible plus what man says.
It is not the Bible plus dreams, visions, or prophecies.
It is not parts of the Bible, but the entire Bible of sixty-six books.
The Bible stands alone. The Bible is the Authority by which all things are to be judged. This is “truth.”
February 28th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
@ NOTW
This Bible? http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=contra
Because it looks like the Bible can’t even make up its own mind about what truth is.
I don’t care what you believe. You could believe that there are three invisible unicorns that are orbiting Saturn, or not. Whatever. Just keep away from science.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Hello,
I just discovered this interesting site, I have been reading some of the lists / comments for a few days and am impressed. This particular topic is very frustrating to debate rationally; creationists invert logic by adopting a conclusion, then rejecting–a priori–any and all evidence to the contrary. Rational people draw conclusions from evidence, not from dogmatic tradition and brainwashing from the day they can speak.
You could lay out the most eloquent, cited, reasoned argument for metaphysical materialism and you receive a reply such as: ‘yeah, butt dah bible says…blah blah blah.
Here is my own take on why I am a non-believer (I don’t think it gets much more fundamental), and have contempt for agnosticism:
1) The matter that we observe around us is infinite; it will be here in one form or another for infinity. 2) If the matter was created by a god, then the god would have to have existed forever, obviously this leads ad absurdum and ad infinitum. God A creates god B, who then creates the matter? Or was it god ABCmatter? My point is SOMETHING had to exist forever! 3) Simply invert #1 to go in the opposite direction, it always will exist and it always HAS. William of Occam would be proud.
For those who feel that the human body was ‘created’ by some all knowing being: no HUMAN engineer would place light sensing cells at the back of the eye, no HUMAN engineer would cross the openings to the trachea and esophagus, no HUMAN engineer would place useless vestigial organs in its ‘creation’. There are too many to list, and that’s not even going into disease and abnormalities.
I have no problem when people say ‘I believe in god on faith’, just save the scientific explanations for your bible study group where you can wow the uneducated about the latest ‘discoveries’ in creation science.
*polite discourse ends here*
But at least the creationists take a stand. The agnostics are cowards, I believe many of them are creationist apologists who don’t want to ‘upset’ anyone, or just plain cowards who can’t make the leap to clean atheism. When a cult leader proclaims himself god, do you say to yourself, hmmm, maybe it’s true, I will reserve my opinion? NO you don’t! Then why do people refrain from making a judgment about the existence of god? Because it’s safe! Atheism is scary, people don’t like you when you tell them, I personally enjoy shocking these people by telling them I am a demon from the underworld, or Satan (notice that I capitalize Satan but not god? I’ll tell you why at the end) himself.
In conclusion, let’s partake in a thought experiment, let’s assume that god exists and Satan is his arch nemesis. I can make the argument that Satan is superior to god, I mean just look at the state of the world, why wouldn’t god just crush Satan like a flea? Maybe he can’t? Maybe Satan is the real badass? Maybe Satan slit god’s throat? Eh, who’s to say? Who is John Galt? If I had to choose between heaven and Hell, of course I am choosing Hell! I mean if I get in Satan’s good graces I may get sent back as a demon, able to possess Tom Cruise, bang Katy, then drive his fuckin’ car off a cliff, then just jump into some other saps body…for infinity! Sounds like a damn good gig, a lot better than sitting in some white toga playing a harp…for infinity! The demon thing is a real problem because these ‘souls’ don’t seem to be suffering but on the contrary having a grand ole time!
February 29th, 2008 at 10:48 am
The Platypus is unexplainable in science. @0 years ago if I told you Pluto was not a planet you would have laughed your ass off at me, today, most of you STILL reject the notion that Pluto is not a planet. We have had the COLDEST year in recorded history by a small degree, THIS YEAR, and yet, you are all convinced Al Gozone is correct and Earth is warming because of MAN. If science makes mistakes such as these, why are you atheists so easy to believe that you “evolved” from a damn ape? God Lives
February 29th, 2008 at 11:29 am
R Brown: How can you ignore all the hard evidence that supports evolution? Why do you see the vast, logical and empirically-supported framework that science has created as a way to accurately explain the nature of the world around us, and then look for holes where you can pretend you know facts about the natural world that support your belief in creationism? Please explain this to me, as I’ve always wanted the straight dope from a creationist.
Why, when the evidence is right there….right there in front of your face, coming from people infinately smarter than you or me…why do you persist on saying that evolution isn’t true? I could say that the Ford motor company is a myth, that they never really existed and that all Fords are really just Chevrolets with a fake name plate. But that doesn’t make it true, when Ford has a world hq that you can go to…*stand* in…when they have dealerships all over the world, when their goddamn trademarked cars are driving down the street left and right? What sense does that make? Please tell me…I would love to know how you do it. If it is science you have a problem with, I certainly don’t hear you bitching about the efficacy of modern medicine, or the aerodynamics that keep 1000s of planes in the air everyday, or the physics that supports the tallest man-made structures to have ever been built in the history of the world, or the science that causes the goddamn lightbulb to turn on when you flick the switch.
R Brown, accepting evolution doesn’t mean giving up your faith. It just means accepting the world for the way it really is.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:34 am
R Brown:
You neglected to read the list. Humans did NOT evolve FROM apes but share a common ancestor in the distant geologic past. The numerous transitionary fossils support this, as does modern molecular genetics, as does modern systematics.
No matter how many times you explain this FACT to people, it goes in one ear and out the other (see above post #507), R Brown will continue to spout this myth and propogate the meme without ever actually considering the evidence rationally and unemotionally. Thus inverting logic from hypothesis/evidence to conclusion; to simply a conclusion…because oh I don’t know, maybe at the age of two R Brown was systematically brainwashed and his brain was stunted just when it was attempting to understand a rational world. The human brain does not accept mysticism easily, it must be forced upon it at an early age.
Enjoy your willfull ignorance.
D
March 1st, 2008 at 1:44 am
I disagree with 10, 9, and 1.
Evolution is only a theory and trying to make it more than a theory is the issue that most people object to. Just as ’science’ disregards the idea of creation because they don’t want to believe in God and a belief in God would automatically put the evolution of life into the same class as evolution of architectures. Ie. First God created this and them used this aspects to create that, and borrowed these properties here and there. It is the very need to replace God that evolution of life became a theory.
Even if we observe cases of mutation in our current time it doesn’t prove evolution any more than observing a biologist create a new species via genetic manipulation would prove creation.
There exists multiple theories to explain all that is currently observed , evolution of life does it without some superior external influence but there is no evidence that there wasn’t in fact a superior external influence.
There exists a mathematically probability greater than zero (but exceedingly small) that natural forces could build the great pyramids or that trees in the woods could fall so as to form the walls of a log cabin but if we would stumble upon a cabin in the woods or a pyramid we would assume someone built it even if we didn’t have evidence of the builder. Why? and why do we assume that we evolved to were we are without a builder?
Why should alternatives not be taught? Do you think the theory of evolution is so frail that it won’t hold up against the competing theories. Newton’s theorys are still taught even we we know they are wrong, why are evolutionist so afraid of competing theories?
To believe blindly in evolution is as bad as believing the entire world was created in 6 literal earth days. We have no proof that we are a lone in the universe and if we happened here by pure chance then there exists a good chance that others also happened a long, possibly long before us.
If we are at the point were we can genetically manipulate life and almost to the point were we could colonize other worlds, why do we need to eliminate all possibility that some other civilization may have aided our development, look at all possibilities.
March 1st, 2008 at 6:43 am
“To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of lunacy”—David Brooks: The Necessity of Atheism (1933)
This quote is so great I wanted to put it in its own post, the following post contains it also.
March 1st, 2008 at 6:44 am
Robert,
There is also no evidence that I didn’t create the world, or maybe my cat did (she is very bright, but not a bright).
There is also no evidence that the world was even created, maybe it is grand mass delusion created by a Descartian ‘evil genius’. Interesting that you claim it silly that “god created the Earth in 6 literal days”—YOU CAN’T DISPROVE THIS EITHER! Continue chasing your tail. In your entire post you never stated the reasoning behind your belief (probably because you can’t), it might go something like this: ‘The bible is the final word, it is truth, god is the savior’. I love the way these simpletons attempt to ‘prove’ god by disproving evolution.
Don’t you see when you dissolve rationality, anything goes, and if you don’t need evidence for your claims/beliefs then you destroy ALL knowledge. God is not rational, and when you claim that evolution is “only a theory” you expose yourself as ignorant at best.
Wow! The Paley argument, sir give credit to Paley for butchering his very elegant argument for a god (there are some good arguments, believe it or not, but they all eventually lead to a cosmological ad absurdum and/or ad infintum), I really respect Paley’s argument; it was a very logical argument IN HIS TIME.
Even though the people who write these pieces are unredeemable, someone may be reading this post who is just beginning to become a skeptic, starting to think that all the bull shit that they have been fed from an early age is just that…bull shit. I write to that person, I realize that the likes of Robert have made up their minds and rationality has long ago been extinguished in their vacant craniums. For these people I recommend the following books to investigate:
1. Atheism: The Case against God—George Smith
2. Evolution and the Myth of Creationism—Tim M. Berra
3. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea—Daniel C. Dennett
4. The Blind Watchmaker—Richard Dawkins
5. Darwin for Beginners—Jonathan Miller & Borin Van Loon (for younger readers, hilarious illustrations)
6. Critiques of God—edited by Peter A. Angeles
7. The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism—Niles Eldredge
8. Atheism: A Reader—S.T. Joshi
And finally here are a few favorite quotes along with a few more of my recommended readings:
“To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of lunacy”—David Brooks: The Necessity of Atheism (1933)
“Religions are the state-protected nurseries of pseudoscience, in a way it’s an artifact from times long gone. In some countries nearly everyone believes in astrology and pre-cognition, including government leaders. But this is not simply drummed into them by religion; it is drawn out of the enveloping culture in which everyone is comfortable with these practices, and affirming testimonials are everywhere.”—Carl Sagan: Demon Haunted World (1996)
“For many years priests have attempted to give our government a religious form. Zealots have succeeded in putting the legend upon our money: In god we trust; and we have chaplains in the army and navy, and legislative proceedings are usually opened with prayer. All this is contrary to the Declaration of Independence, and contrary to the constitution of the United States.” Robert Ingersoll—god in the constitution (1890)
March 1st, 2008 at 7:42 am
Oh yes, and for those who would like an interesting HYPOTHESIS (much different than a THEORY) on the origin of life.
A River out of Eden—Richard Dawkins again
In fact anything from Dawkins is a MUST for anyone interested in expanding their knowledge on this topic. A captivating writer, he can make dry topics such as genetic replication riveting and full of color.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:44 am
Hypothesis on the origin of language?
Tower of Babel–Roger Pennock
March 1st, 2008 at 8:48 am
I disagree, I don’t doubt your scholarly ability but even if your date back to the Greeks there is plenty of evidence that the world is still older. I can’t be so sure about your cat because cats seem to never really die, they just seem to come back in another body.
Let’s not to into philosophy because in my limited experience you either can’t get beyond the proof of the existence of something or you end up taking insurance bets against the worse case situations.
In all of your sciences you have basically 4 things:
1)Observations – That which is and can be observed and sometimes even measured.
2) Assumptions – Things that are assumed to be true but can not be proven true. The ultimate goal is to minimize these but you need to be clear what they are, and sometimes you add some in order to simplify an idea.
3) Postulates and theories. I am putting them together because Postulates are just theories that haven’t been vetted yet. These embody the the belief which tries to explain the Observations.
4) Tests – Ideas which use Theories to predict future observations based upon current assumptions and understanding.
Even after 1 million successful tests may allow a postulate to be considered a theory but it still won’t make a theory more than a theory. All it takes is a single failed test to lead to either a failed theory or wrong assumption. Sometimes the theory is so useful that we just add another assumption to the theory and accept it for what it is.
Newton’s theories about motion are wrong (incomplete- they fail as speeds get closer to the speed of light) but we still teach the theory because it’s very useful for most cases where things are not moving close to the speed of light.
There was even a recent new article that mentioned discrepancies in expected and actual speeds of some satellites, so we know their is a problem with either the assumptions or the theories they are using.
In all the other sciences they welcome challenge in theory, though in practice scientist are often very fond of their beliefs and slow to accept anything which contradicts them.
Take cold fusion. A group observed it where current theories held it couldn’t happen and they were ridiculed when others could not immediately duplicate the test. Years later more labs have duplicated the tests and it’s becoming more widely accepted that it can happen but it’s still not well understood.
So, now let’s go back to the the observations that evolution tries to explain. What assumptions does evolution make, the biggest is that there is no mastermind that stepped in to make modifications and that we aren’t here by some grand design. The creationist make the very opposite assumption.
So you have two theories which can be both be self consistent within their assumptions and they both can fix observed evidence.
Can you truly say one is better than the other? No, not if you really have an open mind, they both make assumptions and until or unless that assumption is proven wrong in one of the cases there can’t be an answer. To ridicule one of the other is just to show your own closed mind.
You can believe in Evolution but if an alien species shows up on our proverbial door step tomorrow and announce that their science experiment is turning out nicely where will your theory be? You based it on an assumption that could very well be proven wrong.
Btw- The constitution makes no prohibition against religion and it’s really a crime that the current trend is for our government is anti religious. The constitution really strives to put all religions on an equal footing which includes the religion of atheism. The government should not prohibit anyone from expressing or practicing their belief, and that is why chaplains exist in the arm forces. The money thing and the bastardization of the pledge was cold war propaganda to differentiate us from communism which was really anti religion government.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:39 am
Robert,
Robert said:
“So, now let’s go back to the the observations that evolution tries to explain. What assumptions does evolution make, the biggest is that there is no mastermind that stepped in to make modifications and that we aren’t here by some grand design. The creationist make the very opposite assumption.”
Damian’s reply:
Scientists correctly do NOT make that ridiculous assumption, why would they? They also (correctly) don’t make the assumption that aliens have created an “experiment”.
Assumptions are based—once again—on evidence, how do you not grasp this? The rest of your argument is elementary, irrelevant, or just stupid.
My mind is not “open” it is active. Always on guard to defend TRUE science and to expose frauds like yourself who attempt to soil its great name. It’s indicative though, creationists simply ignore all of the evil right in front of their faces in their own little book— the bible/Koran etc.–(rationalize it all away) done by their evil, vindictive, sadistic, murdering, enslaving, rapacious god. Is it any wonder that they pick and choose the science that suits them? Think about it, this ancient evil book used as a mind-control tool to control the masses; written and re-written and edited and re-edited over and over has more scientific validity than work done by some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever known. Yeahhh that’s really intelligent.
Robert, my advice is to stop now, you’re embarrassing yourself.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“My mind is not “open” it is active. Always on guard to defend TRUE science and to expose frauds”
So your ready to burn the heretics. You sound quite like the six day literalist and their defense against all the “elementary, irrelevant, or just stupid” evolution evidence!
Time will tell, If some God or other entity shows up with proof, then I’ll probably have to stand in line to tell you ‘Told you so’.
And read my previous post again, ALL scientific theories are based upon certain assumptions and if those assumptions are some how invalidated then the entire theory is debunked. Since the existence of God is an Assumption (either way, there is no concrete scientific proof either way).
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
One question. If Noah’s Ark were to be found, how would this change everyone’s pro-evolution views?
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
#1 Don’t you mean #Christianity” as the other side.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
That’s jrjb.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Probably wouldn’t change anything. Assuming the ark was found and there was enough of it intact to verify that it matched the biblical account (measurements, etc..) it would lend more support to the bible’s historical accuracy. The ark may prove a flood but would not really prove the scope of that flood, and even if you had proof of a truly global flood it still would not address how we got here.
I will go as far as to postulate that even if we found the graves of Noah and his children and all their spouses, were able to verify using DNA and other accepted technicals that all current humans are descendants from Noah. Ie, he and his family at some point were the only living humans to survive and procreate, it still would not change many people’s view. Though in the later case, it would probably change a few opinions.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
It wouldn’t change a thing. Evolving into a man would have happened long before Noah’s Ark happened. So even tracing DNA back to everyone being a decendant of Noah would not change the thoughts on evolution.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:05 am
Mpulse600:
Now, my problem would be that despite the “lost-in-translation” and “humans are not perfect”………… since it was god (allegedly by christians) that inspired the writing of the book, how come he was so incapable, so incompetent to bring us a book 100% accurate to his wishes?
If god was able to move billions of tons of mass to create the world, if he was able to manipulate living matter to create the plants, and animals, to command the sun to shine on us, how was he not able to edit a mediocre book?
The bible is a pathetic try to show the existence or even the probability of god.
Baron d’Holbach:
If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them, and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve its own interests..
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Noah’s arc? LOL!
The arc would need to be the size of Texas!
Man’s blind-faith has no bounds! Too preposterous to even comment on rationally!
That Noah was one great seaman! Safe to say he had a little bit of Tarzan in him, I wonder if he had a similar call like Tarzan.
Maybe it went a little something like this:
Noah: “Aoaoaoaoaaaaaahhhhhhh”
Wildebeast (to the Lion): “Yo, Leo we gotta put our beef to the side for now, Noah’s gonna fuck this place up, somethin’ about humans havin’ too much fun or somethin’ we gotta go”
Lion (to the Wildebeast): “Well old chap, I was just about to take a sizable chunk from your hind quarters, but I do say that it is raining, and you are correct in your summation, shall we share a cab, I certainly do not want to be the second male lion to arrive.”
March 4th, 2008 at 10:42 am
520. Robert – March 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Probably wouldn’t change anything. Assuming the ark was found and there was enough of it intact to verify that it matched the biblical account (measurements, etc..) it would lend more support to the bible’s historical accuracy. The ark may prove a flood but would not really prove the scope of that flood, and even if you had proof of a truly global flood it still would not address how we got here.
I will go as far as to postulate that even if we found the graves of Noah and his children and all their spouses, were able to verify using DNA and other accepted technicals that all current humans are descendants from Noah. Ie, he and his family at some point were the only living humans to survive and procreate, it still would not change many people’s view. Though in the later case, it would probably change a few opinions.
My Rpley:
1. Geologists do NOT recognize and evidence for a world-wide flood. None.
2. How does finding a few planks of wood prove that it was Noah’s arc? Or prove a deluge? It obviously doesn’t.
3. Modern genetic studies suggest that hominids originated in Africa then migrated to every habitable area on the Earth culminating ~11,000 years ago—reaching South America.
4. Why would you use genetics? That is hardcore science, the same methods used in Genetics are used to assert evolution as a scientific fact. Why do you expect to have your cake and eat it too?
5. I love it, deny the science behind evolution, (because evolution is distasteful), but accept other forms of science if it is useful.
Not too bright.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Obviously, you don’t understand the Scientific Principle both it’s limitations as well a strengths.
1) Geologist have not found any evidence of a world wide flood, which is quite a bit different from ‘recognize’. It’s the same thing as finding ketchup in the refrigerator with the only difference being that the refrigerator is much smaller, small enough to completely search in a lifetime. You also didn’t read my post, I mentioned that even finding the ark would not be sufficient to prove a world wide flood.
2) A few planks of wood wouldn’t. Even finding a completely intact structure buried in ice that could be carbon dated to an appropriate time frame wouldn’t, but it would be closer. As for proving flood, well… good question but if there is no evidence that the ark had been built in that location that it must have been moved there. If it was moved there then the question is how one logical answers would be that it floated there (assuming that the ark showed evidence of being in water) and depending upon the altitude and what the time frame ark was created and what geologist say about the land mass it was found on… a whole lot of ifs but they are ifs.
3) Finally a realist statement…. suggest is an appropriate term. Science is very much about a process: observe, postulate, test and observe. Make your assumptions, create your theories and try to predict results. Correct your theories and assumptions as needed.
4) You obviously aren’t a scientist, if you would you would never use the word fact with regards to any theory. Assuming that there was no god or other superior power that guided the creation of humans, Evolution does a good job of explaining the process. That’s a huge assumption, but it does a good job of simplifying the theory. Your average genetic scientist doesn’t need to care or worry about if God created humans as they are or if evolution created is, they only need worry about what currently (plus or minus a few thousand years) is.
5) I love science it’s the abuse of science that I refute.
Also see http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Proof for more idea to use for your proof.
Could you please locate a elementary or high school science book and refresh your memory as to what the scientific process is all about. It the same principle and process for physics, earth science, biology, chemistry as for evolution. Math follows a slightly different process because math gets to define it’s entire scope, but Evolution needs to follow the same rules as all the other sciences.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:34 am
wow!!!! you wrote a novel!!!
March 22nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Here ya go. Roy Zimmerman sings about Creation Science 101.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs&feature=related
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
NOTW: I just noticed that you Credited, as Proof, both Religion AND Intelligent Design. So to you it’s God And Aliens??? If God created Man, then what are the aliens. If Aliens created Man what is a god?
Which is it?
March 22nd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
“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.”
Uhh what? You are totally contradicting yourself. When you say sharks and fungi are “imperfect” you’re being completely arbitrary, natural selection isnt about good or bad or perfect or imperfect, its about one thing only. And that is propegating traits that allow the organism to survive in its environment. A trait thats awesome in one environment may be horrible under other circumstances and thats when extinctions and change happens. If sharks and fungus havent changed much it doesnt mean theyre imperfect, it means their traits have been suited to their environment in perpetuity.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I love how people assume that thee is now God and as such we evolved via evolution, and since we got here via evolution there must not be any God. They are as bad as those that say, God created everything, look at everything and how it’s created, that’s proof that there is god.
All the evidence shows is that at various time in our past various creatures showed up in the fossil record and that these creatures share many traits with previous creatures in the fossil record. There is no evidence that these new creatures spontaneously evolved or that some entity didn’t intervene and create them. If you assume there is no entity that created them then that only leaves evolution, but by making that assumption you gave up your right to use it as evidence that there is no god. If you assume that there was a god or some other entity that created the creatures, you give up your right to use it as proof that there is a god or entity that creates.
Let me ask you all, what do you think of the Man man species. I believe they are currently mostly limited to plants but give them time and we will have new species which could eventually end up in the fossil record.
Will these new species be used as proof of evolution or for creation? Or one better, are these new species that will eventually be created, are they proof of creation or evolution?
If we are (or will be ) willing to credit man with our current and near to have technology with having the power to create life and we don’t have proof that we are a lone in the infinity of space, how much can you really trust that we evolved here without outside interference?
If it’s just evolution then, start lobbying your legislators now so they don’t unduly give credit to some lab coats.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Robert,
That was one IMPRESSIVE ‘word salad’. Holy shit man, are you on acid?
Take this excerpt: “Let me ask you all, what do you think of the Man man species. I believe they are currently mostly limited to plants but give them time and we will have new species which could eventually end up in the fossil record.”
What the hell is a “Man man species” [SIC]
I have NEVER encountered the term in biology. Are you referring to species with ONLY male members? Well, that does not exist.
Again Robby, you’re making a jackass of yourself.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
HA!
March 28th, 2008 at 1:55 am
You caught me… I should have proof read that better before I clicked submit, I know you never would have made the jump to ‘man made’ versus ‘man man’. Sorry I didn’t make baby food to spoon feed you. Can you make the mental correction or should I copy my previous note again and make the correction from man man to man made?
March 28th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Robby,
You are misusing the term “man made” (Man man in your original 3rd grade level post). Humans have manipulated the meiotic cell divisions of certain plant species; transforming the plant from diploid to triploid (and other polyploidy), this creates seedless watermelon etc.
There is no difference between what the Botanists do than what ancient humans did with the domestication of animals. Are dogs “man made” also? How about Felinus domesticus?
Sarcasm, when spiked with intelligence can be funny, informative and thought provoking.
Sarcasm, when spiked with back woods willful ignorance, is pathetic, sad and elicits the ‘gag reflex’.
Now go run and look up the words that you clearly don’t understand.
Also, I am sorry for not understanding your mangling of the English language, I am not talking about simple grammatical errors (I never criticize such small-fry stuff), your writing is not just ungrammatical—it is unintelligible. Maybe you should learn how to communicate first, then you can comment on things that you clearly don’t understand, this way we will at least be able to ‘understand’ that you clearly don’t understand what you are talking about.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:30 am
One more thing:
How does one make the “typo” from Man made to Man man?
Just look at the keyboard. That wasn’t a typo, you just didn’t know, you thought it was correct originally…then I pointed it out to you, then you ran to your ’source’ and corrected the error.
Man mad is a typo I could understand;
Man Madr too;
BUT NOT MAN MAN…that was just ignorent!
AND YOU KNOW IT!!!
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:10 am
When I first heard the argument “If humans came from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?” I suspected it was a joke. Asking “why are there still apes today? Shouldn’t they have ALL evolved?” is like saying “If my Great Great Great Grandparents came from Russia, then why do Russians still exist now? Shouldn’t they have ALL immigrated?”
And when I hear people say OH IT IS SO OFFENSIVE TO THINK WE ARE RELATED TO A BUNCH OF CRAP THROWING APES! I just roll my eyes. If you hated the Russians and their culture, how would that be evidence against my relatives having been from there?
April 4th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Most of you people have no clue what you are talking about.
http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5862/creation.html
April 4th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Evolies, you’re not the only one who can post links.
http://www.talkorigins.org
http://www.creationtheory.org
Understand, I am not an atheist. I am not saying that there’s no God, but when you tell me that I am an evil man because I don’t think the world is just a couple thousand years old, you don’t deserve the time of day, buddy.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Regarding “natural selection is not random”, I think it is fairer to say that natural selection uses local random search around the current genome to seek out maximization of the survival function. The direction of search is random, but it is filtered by the survival function value.
In mathematics, we often use iterative algorithms to “search space” for optimal solutions to complex functions. The Monte Carlo method is precisely a local random search around the current best guess to find the most optimal next best guess.
The complication compared to typical mathematical function optimization is that as the environment changes, the survival function landscape changes as well. Thus species that don’t change are in long-term local maximums of the survival function, but a catastrophic event (such as a meteor impact) may shift the survival function, pulling the species genome in a new direction.
Moreover, evolutionary genetic algorithms are used by computer scientists and mathematicians to solve complex function optimization problems. If the function is more analyzable, steepest descent and conjugate gradient techniques are preferable, but in less analyzable functions you may have no choice than to use a Monte Carlo or evolutionary genetic algorithm.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Math guy: Isn’t it great being a nerd!
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
There is no difference between what the Botanists do than what ancient humans did with the domestication of animals. Are dogs “man made” also? How about Felinus domesticus?
Wow… don’t tell all the companies that are patenting the modifications. I suppose they also had chickens laying eggs with human insulin.
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/Jul/msg00006.html
I also suppose that ancient humans had the ability to also breed across species like our slicing and dicing of DNA.
See: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question148.htm
or maybe http://www.purefood.org/text.html
As to typo, perhaps miss-edit would be more correct as I tend to re-read and try to simplify some of the more difficult wording for simpletons like you.
As for the randomness of Natural Selection, it really depends upon the what exactly you mean by the term. If you mean the mutation then it’s random, unless you believe that some force really is guiding the process. If you are talking about the mutations that survive and prosper then you are correct, they are not random.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Don’t really have time to read through all the comments right now, but just wanted to say – great list!
And, since I’m new to the site: I am obsessed with lists and I’m so happy I found this place!
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Kudos to all the smart people out there that can use big words to say things that I have no idea what they mean. If that sentence even makes sense. But whatever.
Robert, forgive me for questioning, exactly what DO you believe? I’m a little confused.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:51 am
well, this summary list that offers no substantial argument has me thoroughly convinced, along with the rest of the sheep! i’m gonna go put my head back in the sand now. k thx, bai.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:35 am
My belief, well… since whether anyone wants to admit it or not the belief in Evolution or Creationism hinges on one’s belief in God. As I am agnostic I believe that there could be a God (with a capital G) but there might not be, which leads me to believe that Evolution and Creationism are both theories.
Contrary to what many would like to believe proof is a very difficult idea. In logic there are Definitions, Postulates, theories and proofs. While one can go from a theory to proof you can’t shake the definitions and postulates that you based everything on. It is amazing to me that people would even utter the sentences “Evolution is the simplest explanation that fits all known observations”, this assumes that there is no God. If there is a God, it it not much simpler to believe that we are a creation of God. If you don’t follow this, then see if you can find some of the old (really old) astronomy theories that explained the movements of the planets when they believed that the earth was the center of the universe. Back then they would have been saying the same thing because they held the idea of the earth as the center of the universe in the same regards as many hold the process of evolution as our means of being.
Anyone who truly believes in Science needs to accept that we don’t know everything and if they really accept that then they can’t and won’t rule out a God. If you don’t rule out a god then you can’t rule out the possibility that if there is (or was) a god that God may have created us. Anyone who is truly open minded also needs to accept that that their may not be a God, or even if their is or was a god, that maybe God was more of a bystander than a participant during the process of our evolution. If God didn’t make us, it is only logical that we got here via some other process. Evolution would be a logical process that could fit the evidence.
If you read many of the sites which are pro or anti evolution or creation you will notice that they both spend a lot of time trying to not only support their position but also to attack the other’s view. This is a key indicator that there isn’t enough (nor will there ever be enough) evidence to prove on or the other.
On a slightly different topic, you should all know that you can’t prove that 1 + 1 is equal to 2. The closest you can really come to that would be to define ‘+’ to be a function for advancing in an ordered set and defining ‘2′ to the be first item in the list after ‘1′. There is no proof there, only definitions.
So, what do I believe… I don’t know … Evolution is a nice theory but only a theory and can be closely match with the theory of creationism.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Robert: Interesting take on this dilemma. The fundamental difference between evolutionism and creationism is that evolution has been observed in process, and has evidence to support its theoretical framework, where creation by an intelligent designer has never been scientifically observed (since, as you said, definitions play an important role in science and it is impossible to define what the designer is, or exactly what creation in progress would look like) and consequently does not have tangible evidence to support it. Evolution is not an attack on God, as you said, though some fundamentalists cling so desperately to their view of the world that they are willing to villify any and all opposing viewpoints, not the least of which is evolution.
I think you’ll find that the majority of anti-evolution websites focus on the holes in the theory of evolution (often through mischaracterization…I often browse anti-evolution websites to unearth the legitimate grievances IDists have with evolution, and it’s very difficult to get anything substantial. Most of the time, such websites invent strawmen to attack without taking evolution head-on), and pro-evolution websites focus on correcting said mischaracterizations of evolution, as well as explaining why intelligent design does not qualify as science, and by extension, is not a legitimate scientific theory.
You’re absolutely right that a true scientist will withhold judgement about anything, including God, when there is as much evidence to support it as there is against it (that is…nothing), and a fundamental mistake that a lot of would-be atheistic “scientists” make is assuming absence of evidence is evidence of absence. A true scientist can have beliefs one way or the other, but will admit freely that believing that God doesn’t exist takes as much faith as believing that he does.
I’m not quite sure I understand your number analogy though. “+” means addition, adding, that is combining the value of the integers to create a new value. The value of “1″ is a single unit. Two independent single units merged together becomes a new value, a double unit, respresented as “2″. If you have a marker for that unit, say an apple, and you have one apple in your hand, and someone hands you another single unit (another apple), you are now holding a value double that of the original value…two apples. 1 + 1 = 2. Correct me if I misunderstand your argument.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
bye bye Fumduck!
May 9th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I did not intend to contest the idea that 1 + 1 = 2, as far as I know it does in all math systems except binary and modulo 2 in which it equals 10 and 0 respectively. The intend was to highlight the idea of proof, because the more you understand about logic and/or philosophy the more you understand that much which we believe is not provable but consists of definitions and assumptions (postulates). Math is a great subject to demonstrate this because math is modeled after the real world but is it’s own creation. Ie… someone long ago created the symbols to represent quantity and symbols to represent function and while it is used to model reality, it is almost all theory.
For example, we define 1 to be a single unit and we define 2 to be one more than a single unit, ie. 2. We then define + to be a process of combining (adding). Since we already defined 2 to be equal to 1 more than 1 and + to be addition, then it follows that 1 + 1 = 2.
There is no logic in the above, it is only definitions. The problem that most people make when they think they are being logical is that ALL logic is based upon definitions and postulates (that which is assumed true, for the sake of the argument). Almost all ‘Proofs’ which are later shown to be incorrect are invalidated due to an assumption later being proved wrong, not a real flaw in logic.
Evolution relies on certain assumptions as does creation, if you realize that they are both based upon in many cases opposing assumptions then it makes it very easy to entertain both theories and not feel threatened. The debate really can not be settled until the assumptions are both understood and somehow unified. The first part can be done now, but the second is something which we may never be able to do.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:25 am
bullshit!!! look at more facts!!
May 14th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
*chuckle*, enlighten me. What observation do you ascribe as fact and do you even know the difference between fact and observation?
May 16th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Hey just want to see want you all think but want is really life’s purpose?
May 16th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
I’m printing this and posting it around my school, I’ve always known these things, but I’ve never been able to articulate my thoughts into a list so well put together. Thanks for doing that, whoever wrote this. This is perfect. Creationists will only be able to hide behind their “The fool sayeth in their heart, there is no god” or whatever BS.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
alright, so, here’s the deal: ID and evolution should be taught side by side because when you ignore or completely invalidate one side or the other of any argument, you’re missing out on 50% of the ideas, and even if you disagree with the ideas, they can help bolster your own thinking or open up new avenues of thinking that would have previously gone observed.
for example:
if i only read creationism, it will never occur to me that the biblical creation happened right in the middle of the phoenecian empire, and i’ll never think to a. understand what the story is really about, b. see why the earth really is only 10,000 years old, or c. create an understanding of the story that’s anything but strict literalism.
if i refuse to validate any kind of ID arguments as anything other than fantasy, then i ignore some thought provoking questions like a. if all animals are continuously evolving, and humans wouldn’t have gotten the monopoly on “king of existence” on the animal world for almost 3 million years, why are we the only creature (out of millions) that’s gotten out of the tree to ask “why?” b. neolithic farmers performed special breeding of weeds to produce now harvestable staples of our diet such as wheat, oat, rice, etc.? really? c. why are people so vastly inferior to apes in every way except mental capacity, and every known example of a human skeleton verifies this. why would we lose our foot thumbs too. that makes no sense. that’d be so damn handy.
if you completely ignore or invalidate any one side of any one argument, eventually you fall into foolishness. this goes for anything.
i don’t think so much the problem is “which one is true, and let’s fuckin’ fight over it because i’m right, you little skank,” as “there has to be one, and only one, right way. everything else is crap.” because, let’s face it. no one was there, no one recorded it. at the end of the day, when we get home and take off our hats and watch american idol, it’s anyone’s guess, and some guesses are better than others, but really, no one knows for sure more than any other person. and what does it matter? so what, you die and meet nothing. oh damn. you died being right. or wrong. whatever. you’re nothing. or you die and meet God. oh, turns out he did do it. oops. well, life and death goes on. the world didn’t quit turning because you did or didn’t figure it out.
that’s my actual argument.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Oh. That clears up some things. You’re agnostic. I can’t say I blame you. I’m pretty much the same, but leaning towards atheism. Looking around and using the evidence that I DO have, he doesn’t seem to be doing enough interacting to qualify him for existing. But that’s just me. And totally not related to evolution, but whatever.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I AM curious…what’s all this evidence for macroevolution everyone keeps talking about?
June 28th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
If you teach creationism, its mostly going to be the christian view point. That leaves out muslum, jewish, hindu, and any other religious views. The only way to be fair to everyone is to ONLY teach that which has no opposing view points founded in the same system, that is science. Religion should be taught at home and at church. Hence the separation of church and state in America. I am personally agnostic, but I feel peoples religious views are important, and teaching christian creationism in a classroom is like reading the Koran or Torah or Bible as a text book. Some students may find it interesting and important, but the rest will feel cheated out of an actual education, as it is not what they were taught to beleive. The only thing that should be taught on the subject is fact, and thats what evolution is.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
sorry to rant, but….
Evolution can be seen VERY easily in the recent emergence of the so called “superbugs” Bacteria have never been completely killed by antibiotics, most of an infection were, but a few always survive. Those survived because they have a genetic resistance to the substance that was fatal to its peers. The bacteria that survive then reproduces, making new bacteria with the same resistance. If they ones without the resistance keep getting killed by the same substance, sooner or later EVERY bacteria of that species will have the resistance, leading to an bacteria that can no longer be killed by the substance at all. This is evolution at a rapid pace, and needs to be looked at more by skeptics
June 29th, 2008 at 8:06 am
malfore -
1. it’s interesting that whether it’s creation or evolution, both are taught to be “true.” also, i can tell you don’t really study religion anyways because you’d realize that muslim, jew, christian all attribute the creation of the universe to genesis, as it’s the root of all three faiths. but going back to the idea of being “taught truth,” i know that creationists bulk at this and would call anyone who says it a simpleton, and evolutionists would do the same (which is why you guys should all sit down and have tea), but seriously. was anyone there? no. did someone write down what happened as it happened? no. therefore, we DO NOT KNOW in the same way we KNOW that gravity works that we evolved OR that we were created. and there’s no way to know, unless someone can go back in time and tell us (and i think the answer would shock everyone). all we have are two factions of thought making a guess based on the facts presented to them, but it’s ridiculous (especially if you’re a scientist) to hold fast to ANY idea. EVERY, and i mean EVERY, idea that science has ever held dear has been turned on its ass at one point or another. therefore, it’s ridiculous to assume that what we think now won’t get turned on its ass at some point. both points of view are faith based, and therefore, neither can be “true” in the empirical sense. i think if the two warring groups of children could wrap their minds around that, then we’d see a lot more progress towards finding out what actually happened.
2. you don’t really study biology either. bacteria’s become immune because they become retarded by the antibiotics. they don’t get better, they get dumber. and just like with human inbreeding, it takes a couple generations of interbreeding with the rest of humanity to iron it back out. the biotic will end up missing the chromosome that makes it susceptible to that particular antibiotic, but it’s not a new bacteria. it’s the same bacteria minus a chromosome, so much like how a human retard may possess herculean strength, it’s not in fact better, just stronger. the bacteria isn’t better (in our view it might be, but simply because penicillin isn’t working), it’s just missing a chromosome. but, because the dna it has contains the plans for that chromosome, when the next generation of bacteria emerges, it will have the missing chromosome and once again become susceptible to bacteria.
or, if this is better, take the case of salt and pepper moths during the industrial revolution in england. at the start, there was a marked decrease in pepper moths because they stood out to the birds eye against a brightly lit england. pepper moths populations went down while salt moth populations rose. well, obviously salt moths were more evolutionarily equipped to deal with england’s climate! duh! they were able to blend in with pale concrete and white flowers! but then when the revolution hit and the skies became choked with smog, the salt moth population dropped as birds were able to recognize them against the dark skies. well, obviously pepper moths were more evolutionarily equipped to deal with englands’s climate! duh! they were able to blend in with dark smog and soot covered streets!
actually, neither is the case. same moth, altering circumstances. now, the populations have leveled out in the last century as things have been de-industrialized.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
http://answersingenesis.org/
that is all
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
http://www.talkorigins.org
http://www.creationtheory.org (anti-creationism)
That’s all, he who uses the word “devil” in his name.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:35 am
wow
this is the single most well written list i’ve ever read on this site
August 23rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I guess I’m on the edge, because I think you need to be created before you can evolve.
Both sides booyah!
But yeah, if I end up hearing about creationism in my science class. I’m gonna have to slap a hoe.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:45 am
If a tree falls in a forest and no THING is around to hear it does it make a sound?
It doesn’t matter. The tree tells a story when it’s found, but only to those who know how to listen.
It’s the same with fossils.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Hello
August 27th, 2008 at 12:02 am
evolution rocks! creation sucks! Booyah!
August 28th, 2008 at 12:18 am
The tree tells a story just like the fossils do, the question is do we currently know how to properly fully understand the story they tell us? Science is a process and it is always correcting itself. Remember that science has told us many different things at various different times in history. It was once thought that the larger the brain the ’smarter’ the brain. I just saw a news article that the Neanderthal where not stupid: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825203924.htm. So, the scientific view of the last 60 years has been shown as wrong.
Fossils are also only static pictures of past creature. If we look at ruins of old buildings and compare them with our current buildings with also get a collection of static pictures, but in the one case we wonder at the advances made in the creation and in the other we marvel at the evolution of things, is their really that much of a difference.
The difference is NOT in the records, in both cases we know with some certainty what existed at various times in the past. The difference is in how we view the data, we don’t want to believe in a creator of life so we talk about how it evolved but we know that we can and do create buildings so we talk about the advances we have made.
Evolution is and always will be a theory, and it’s not the only theory. It may or may not be correct but to rule out other theories because you don’t want to believe in god is stupid. You might as well join the flat earth society.
Random though: How many mutations occur in each new life? How many current lifes are there, counting all current species? What percentage of mutations lead to a new species? Shouldn’t be be seeing new species on a regular basis? Maybe a ant this year, a lizard next year, etc…
September 1st, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Can anyone tell me where I might find some of the graphics in better quality? I could really use visuals like this to teach evolution more clearly, but these don’t come out too well when I pull them off the page. Thanks!
September 17th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Ralatalo: Please read about the theory of evolution before attempting to denigrate it. Or at least read the post. Two points: Few mutations lead the the creation of a new species, and the timescale is enormously larger than “a year”, even with punctuated equilibrium.
And since it’s midnight where I am, I’m not going to go through the rest of your statements, but really – at least look it up in Wikipedia or something.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:31 am
It’s simple math. If over x (billions) Years there were y (millions) of new species created, then on average (so sometimes more, sometimes less) there are y/x new species a year? Unless evolution uses some other math or has stopped happening? Also, individual mutations happen some percent of the time for each new birth (most are either neutral or fatal) but with larger populations and more births one would expect to see more mutations. Again, simple math, if .0001 times X is 1 then if Y is 1000 times X then, .0001 times Y would be 1000. Forgive my ignorance, but how does evolution makes progress if it doesn’t happen in any given year? I thought the whole premise of evolution was small, infinitesimal, changes which over time created larger changes? I am curious what the mathematical model looks like, someone must have done one!
September 19th, 2008 at 6:43 am
“I thought the whole premise of evolution was small, infinitesimal, changes which over time created larger changes?”
No.
Go read. Honestly. It doesn’t take that much effort.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Wow, I can see sarcasm really is lost. I have read, really I have, I’ll be honest in that I have not read everything written and if you tell me that you have then you must be well over 100 years old and a speed reader. If it’s not small changes over time, then how can the dominate change of color in a moth be called supporting evidence?
Also… explain this:
“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).”
September 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Ralatalo:
I’m coming in on the middle of this conversation, but in glancing through your posts… please. Whatever you’ve read has clearly been *extremely* limited. You’re mis-characterizing evolutionary theory and distorting simple terms. Moreover, your feeble attempt at grafting irrelevant mathematics onto the question warrants barely a “nice try.”
In point of fact your post #566 was very poorly worded, to the point where it makes little sense, and it’s quite clear from this context that you are not at all versed in the “theory” you’re trying to undermine. Aoede was merely trying to point out the obvious, but clearly didn’t have the time to waste or the patience to throw at you.
At any rate, enough with the “theory” gambit to assail evolution. It doesn’t work. Science is replete with extremely well-established theories that ARE tantamount to fact and/or solid law. Evolution is one of them.
If you have questions, phrase them reasonably and openly, and don’t try to play creationist BS games. We’ve been dealing with this on another thread and if you want your answers, you can also go there.
http://listverse.com/your-view/your-view-should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/
September 19th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I think facts are relevant and I think the theory of evolution would be better understood if religion fanatics like you stopped treating it like a religion. Please name 3 of the ‘replete’ theories that are tantamount to fact? Newton’s laws of motion while still taught and still useful is known to be wrong. Even the theory of relativity which replaced it may not be completely accurate. Let’s talk about quantum physics or radioactive decay, they are all talked about in chance but they have known mathematical models.
Evolution is a theory, and if you are arrogant enough as newton was to believe that certain theories are laws, then you really don’t understand science at all. Science is not about facts or laws, it is about a process and observations and theory.
Try reading post #566 again after you have read post #563. If it still doesn’t make sense then let me give you a suggestion that is taugh in most if not all map reading courses. If you are lost and have a map, don’t look at the map and try to figure out where map features are around you. Look around you and see what is there and then look at the map to see if you can find those features on the map.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
“Evolution is a theory, and if you are arrogant enough as newton was to believe that certain theories are laws, then you really don’t understand science at all. Science is not about facts or laws, it is about a process and observations and theory.”
WTF? Who’s saying that a theory is a law, here?
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
The main problem i seem to have with Evolution is the lack of evidence concerning Transitional fossils. You will notice that many books explaining Evolution use stetches and not photographic evidence. I realise there is a massive divide between Creationists and Evolutionists but lets be realistic – if there are few transitional fossils and if those are a weak or doubtful in proving the theory shouldn’t we look closer at this theory which is considered as ‘fact’ amongst many scientists today? Without the transtional fossils the theory of Evolution cannot survive due to its belief that all living things come from one stem of atoms.
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Misconceptions
There, I did your work for you.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:26 am
Question. is the Theory of evolution fact of Theory?
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
What a bunch of blubbering vaginas.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:02 am
And yet even on that link the pictures shown are coloured pictures drawn to show what they expect these creatures should look like if they should find them.
Try this link
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
December 12th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Ok I actually read through all the posts 500+ paid close attention to the latest ones, you guys are more current.
On molecular level genetics… gene mutations are not just additional, they are synergistic. They are not one for one. People who use straight linear statistical models for an argument against evolution, (this one has been made for a least the 30 years I’ve dealt with it) just don’t get the big picture. Yes the model is different mathematically, and if you’d bother to look at the recent postings out of genetics the last ten years, you’d know this. Instead I just get rehashed arguments from the Evolution Crusher so I’ll just have to school your lazy butt. Genes control other genes. One gene can cascade to turn on or off whole sets of genes. If you get a mutation in a Hox gene your in for big changes in body plan. So it ain’t an additive process. You sound smart, but once people realize your using a math model that does not fit this evidence you are revealed to be just a parroting buffoon. Do you know about psuedogenes? Transposons? Look these up and see how there are MULTIPLE copies of genes being experimented with while the good ones keep working…. Paying attention? This simple mined 1+1 = 2 argument over gene mutations is SHOT DOWN! God I love killing the HORRIBLE logic these people use.
On the fossil record. I love these people. They will say you can’t cut string. If you cut it, then they say yeah, but you can’t cut it there or there. Cut it in those places and they point to others spots between the cuts with the same statement. It’s an endless game and it shows that you can not make demands on evidence! Even worse, with each new claim for an uncuttable string these people just look stupider and stupider. This backwards and quite false logic has been used on evolution. Darwin moaned over the lack of intermediate fossils and predicted they would be found! Hey, how about that… a good scientific theory makes a prediction that is testable… guess what? We found those fossils. The Cambrian explosion was a testament to fact that hard body parts that fossilize well. But now, with electron microscopes, soft bodied life forms are now found in rock BEFORE the Cambrian … why would people even look for them? Because evolution predicted they’d be there and oh my gosh, they were! But these people keep asking for transitions between transitions between transitions. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO CUT THE FREAKING STRING BEFORE YOU PEOPLE STOP MAKING RIDICULOUS DEMANDS OF PERFECTLY GOOD PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS! I’ll save the best for last here, the real fossil record is in our DNA! In the vast stretches between active genes lie the unused genes from every form of life that lead to us, even bacteria. What the hell are those genes doing there? They represent how the entire genome changed over time. With the genome project continuing to sequence all species, I predict a DNA fossil record that will be the final blow for this now quite repetitively stupid argument of Where are the transitions.
Did you catch that? All of you who say evolution is the same as creationism? Evolution makes predictions… testable ones. Creationism does not. THERE IS THE DIFFERENCE to anyone who makes this ridiculous argument. In fact, Creationists go out of their way to not predict anything. I’ll make a simple prediction for you Creationists out there. Plant pollen is ubiquitous. It is in all sedimentary rock where flowers were. If Creationism is right there should be plant pollen in Devonian rock. Just find it and you put a dagger through the heart of evolution! What? Your not doing things like this to support your argument? That’s right, because it’s NOT THERE! That’s why your NOT science and evolution is. If you keep on insisting on arguement this after such a lucid explanation, then you are simply lying for God. All Creationism does is try to prove evolution wrong. Any middle school debater knows you don’t prove A by disproving B. This is really crappy logic. Yet this is all these people have. And God bless them for it, because that’s how science works. Evolution has been challenged for 150 years and is now stronger than ever because of it. Let me repeat this for you Creationists. You don’t prove Creationism by looking for flaws in evolution, you just make evolution stronger. Find proof (proof is not an argument, that is philosophy, bring evidence to the table) for ID and publish… HAH Like that will EVER happen!
For those of with “teach both sides” argument. Please note once again that the theory of evolution makes testable predictions. It always has, and has done so successfully. This is why it is SCIENCE. No one argues about evolution, it is a fact. Go ahead an argue theory vs law all you want. I don’t say theory, I don’t say law, but I do say, as do all biologists, evolution is a FACT. Listen carefully now… it is the MECHANISM that is a theory, or actually many theories. Are you too simple to get this very real distinction? Sure there’s debate here… IT’S SCIENCE! Theories for mechanisms for evolution have abounded for 150 years: Natural Selection, Punctuated, Lamarkian, Neo-Darwiniam… and on and on. All of these are various interpretations of the evidence on how evolution works. NO ONE in biology argues evolution did not occur It is a FACT that it did happen. The debate is and always will be how.
On top of this, ID is as anti-science as I can imagine. ID says ” No, it is too complicated, we’ll never understand this, GOD must have done it”… SPARE ME! You people would of kept ringing bells and burning incense during the black plague! None of the above mentioned theories (natural selection, punctuated evolution) of the mechanism for evolution SAY GOD DID IT. However, that IS what ID says. ID is Creationism and don’t let anyone tell you differently. These Charlatans were caught red handed in court. They have taken the sheep’s skin of Creation Science off the wolf of Creationism and traded it in for a shiny new polyester suit called ID. I will not teach Creationism/God/ID in a science class, not ever! Not until a new inquisition burns me at the stake! God help us all as the religious zealots lie for their gods to get them into our public schools.
Why don’t we teach alchemy with chemistry? Astrology with astrogeophysics? Why not Intelligent Falling vs Gravity (which has never been proved just measured) Why don’t we teach these controversies? Because they aren’t sciences either, but I will tell you astrology and alchemy have more going for them than ID!
Lastly. I’m sick and tired of all you ID people claiming your religious view is science too. If you going to play on my side of the street I can do like wise so HERE GOES:
GOD EVOLVES!
I have PROOF from the BIBLE, GOD OWN WORDS OF TRUTH, that He has evolved! LO and Behold as the eye for an eye god of old testament EVOLVES into the turn the other cheek of the new.. YES GOD EVOLVES! OPEN YOUR EYES! Satan has cast a shadow over the eyes of all creationist sinners. Open yourselves at the TRUTH. GOD EVOLVES! Darwin should be sainted for showing us the true path to heaven and divine inspiration! Blessed are the evolutionists who believe that we, made in God’s image, must evolve as He does. Damn to all Creationists, they are the agents of Satan and will be damned to eternal hell fire.
GOD EVOLVES! GOD BLESS ST DARWIN!
So, how did that feel… feeling indignant? Insulted? Furious? Well, that’s how science teachers feel when you want ID taught as science. Stop this ID BULLSHIT now or I will start a movement that will blow your collective Creationist ass away!
And good night America!
December 12th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
well, all the capitals convinced me. my dad told me once, “son, folk who type sentences in capitals know way more than you.”
also, i didn’t realize it before, but a group of people working to get a theory (even if it isn’t scientific) taught in school is a lot like burning jews at the stake. can’t believe i didn’t see it. huh.
December 13th, 2008 at 9:59 am
While RockyMtnGuy draws certain unwarrantable conclusions from the basic facts, his knowledge of evolutionary theory is less impeachable.
Yes, he’s being immature, but in the first few paragraphs, he does include certain nuggets of useful and accurate information about evolution. To all literal-Creationists reading this: if his comments offend you, then at least read up on evolutionary theory yourself. In legitimate sources. Please.
December 13th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Geez cuyler… Im used less than 1 percent capitals, I checked, for emphasis. You act like I screamead the whole thing… oh well… Burn all the Jews you want, the argument I present stands quite firm.
December 29th, 2008 at 6:29 am
I am Catholic….. that being said, what I am going to say is mostly my own personal views and not those expressed by the church for the most part. I believe in creation and I believe in evolution. If I mistakenly write that I don’t believe in evolution or that there is no proof of evolution then please forgive me as that is not my intention. What I mean to say is there is no proof/evidence that humans evolved from apes/monkeys (Just to also clear up the apes/monkeys issue I refer to Hominoidea superfamily of primates not including humans or if there is another more common name I’m supposed to be using I’ll use it once I’m familiar with it).
There are many forms of evolution and I believe some were even mentioned in a post a while back but I don’t remember where, and I did read many of the posts. Many cases of evolution are given like Down Syndrome and someone even mentioned God evolving, point being I believe in evolution. Normally I would stop there, but I have come to a realization that I need to point out. I have always been Catholic, but have just recently started re-learning about my religion. So it may be the reason why I make this statement it may not be. First let me state that some Christians believe the bible should be taken literally and others that it should not be taken literally, I believe that some parts are literal and some parts are not to be taken literally.
My comment is that I personally feel that the bible has the only proof/evidence of macro-evolution or more specifically human evolution. In the bible it talks about 2 instances of it. The first is God forming Man out of clay/sand, and the second is God creating Woman from Man’s rib. There is more that I will add if any replies sincerely to what I have said.
December 29th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Immortalisland:
The theory of evolution does not ever state that humans evolved from apes or monkeys. No respectable evolutionary scientist would ever say that humans evolved from apes or monkeys. What there IS ample scientific evidence for is that humans, apes, and monkeys evolved from a certain common ancestor, but diverged at varying points in their evolutionary histories to reach their current forms. We are cousins to the apes, not descendants.
December 29th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Aoede:
Which is why I made this statement:
“if there is another more common name I’m supposed to be using”
So if the correct “statement/term” that I’m supposed to be using is common ancestor, then that is what I’ll use from now on. The main point being that there is evidence/proof of other forms of evolution, but only theories or speculation, no evidence/proof of human evolution from a common ancestor. The best that most people can do is point to this website or that website that talks alot about X subject but no evidence/proof. And no matter how much you want it to be a theory will not be fact/evidence/proof, because once it is they call it something else and it is no longer a theory.
December 29th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
My point being that 1) the common ancestor was NOT an ape or a monkey or anything of that sort at all, and 2) there IS evidence, unless you’re of the group that discounts fossil evidence as well.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:08 am
Aoede:
You seem to be nit-picking here, so let me say this. I am in agreement with you about you’re point “1″ I never said I wasn’t. I specifically stated in my original statement that I may have been wording it incorrectly and once the correct terminology was provided that I would gladly use that term. I misspoke, miss wrote when I said that we evolved from apes/monkeys. Now I’m correcting this for the 2nd time so we can get past that subject and on to the point of my interest which is your point #2. Which fossil evidence are you referring to? and please keep in mind that I new here so if I am saying something wrong please forgive me.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:08 am
This link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Genus_Homo
should pretty much cover the pre-sapiens species for which we have found fossils. There’s a useful diagram next to the “Homo ergaster” section which shows a relationship between the different species, based on the distribution (both spatial and temporal) of the fossils, and probably somewhat based on the skeletons’ physical characteristics as well.
I encourage you to read in detail, and even look into the footnoted references if you have the time. There ARE many points of disagreement in the scientific community – but about the details rather than the veracity of human evolution.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
why are there never pictures of these fossils? always diagrams and coloured sketches, some kind of prediction by scientists of what these beings may have looked like.
even the top of this page mainly has drawings. No solid evidence. one must remember Evolution is still classed as a theory therefore not fact.
There is a lack of water-tight evidence for evolution to say for certain that this theory is true.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
You, flat28, are either incredibly lazy or incredibly stupid. Please note that gravity is also “just” a theory – in scientific terminology, “theory” carries a whole lot more weight than it does in colloquial speech. If you want pictures, then look for them! The reason why sketches are more commonly seen is because it’s presumed that the general public is more interested in seeing fleshed-out versions than in the plain dry bones. If you’d even bothered to LOOK at the individual species pages, you would have seen some nice photos of both fragments and complete skeletons.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
im just saying iv been looking for some time, and the fossils iv seen look either incomplete (which is understandable) or desperate to make it something that it blatetantly isnt. And where did all those transitional fossils get to? for millions of years we have been supposedly evolving and yet a handful of fossils have been found that ‘prove evolution’. Im not doubting the number of fossils that have been found but i am finding it hard to believe these fossils found show direct evidence towards evolution. People assume we come from apes and yet all iv found are fossils of the ape and the man – all these missing links that appear in this theory go unexplained.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
See my previous comment.
If you’re suspicious, then GO DO YOUR RESEARCH.
1) As I’ve said before, HUMANS DID NOT DESCEND FROM APES.
2) The page I’ve linked? TRANSITIONAL SPECIES.
3) I’m not sure where you’re getting “a handful of fossils”. Please don’t mistake propaganda for fact.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Aoede:
I was reading the link you provided and one click lead to another and I got to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens
Under the topic History/Origin I read this:
“It has been estimated that the human lineage diverged from that of chimpanzees about five million years ago, and from that of gorillas about eight million years ago. However, a hominid skull discovered in Chad in 2001, classified as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, is approximately seven million years old, which may indicate an earlier divergence.”
What I understood from this is that humans “diverged” or separated from monkeys about 5 millions years ago and “diverged” separated from gorillas about 8 million years ago. I’m not trying to point any fingers here as you and I have already established the “common ancestor” in previous posts, however can you clarify exactly what this statement is trying to say? BTW I’m still in the process of reading the 1st link you provided.
Two more things:
1. The link I provided is from the same website that you provided for your link and I got to it from your link.
2. If I’m reading it correctly, then what were humans before the divergence?
December 30th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Hm, how to explain this… Rough analogy using families: my great-grandmother is a “common ancestor” for myself and my (first) cousin, and so is my grandmother, but our “lineages” “diverge” at the parent level. You could say that approximately five million years ago, a gorilla ancestor was no longer OUR ancestor. (I think that’s a more accurate but also more confusing way to put it; whichever works best for you.)
Humans, if you define “human” as “Homo sapiens”, didn’t technically exist before the divergence. They were pre-humans, so to speak… and pre-apes as well, if you want to think of it that way.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 am
surely if this world has been evolving for millions of years then surely the evidence given through fossils would be undeniable through the sheer number of fossils preserved over that time and yet the lack of evidence would suggest otherwise. Also we must ask the question how reliable is carbon dating? Plus one must ask the ultimate question that surely all of evolution can’t have been born from nothing, let alone it happening by coincidence or accident.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I’ve spent the morning reading through the various lists on this site and have greatly enjoyed them. I even enjoyed this one although I am a christian and don’t believe we were descended from apes. I didn’t read all of the comments, over 600 opinions are just too overwhelming on such a controversial subject so it’s possible this question may have already been asked. I couldn’t find a search function anywhere so don’t know if a list has been made regarding my question but I have always tried to remain open minded about anything which crosses my path and to see things from other peoples perspectives and forming my own beliefs and opinions after arguing both sides to the best of my ability in my own mind. Therefore, considering that although this list may not have been written in absolute objectivity, at least it doesn’t appear to have been to my understanding as the author offers his/her own statements and opinions, I wonder if there is a list here that offers the top misconceptions about creationism, preferably by the same author as one of my greatest beliefs is never to take a side until you’ve stood and fought for both sides, even if only in your own mind. The greatest minds are those who consider objectively every side of an issue, not just the one that sounds right and ignorance is in great abundance where opinions abound. Quick to judge and believe hence leading to lists such as this which is a great start to revelation of truth but so often sorely lacking in objectivity and even more painfully obvious, a pronounced bias which only shows the willingness and intent to stick to ones guns rather than exhibiting the courage to stand up for the other side and see where that leads. Isn’t that what science is really supposed to be about? Checking out every possible path? Personally I think science has failed miserably in the issue of evolution because it refuses to consider all aspects and because it has pronounced a conclusion to a little understood and constantly misinterpreted theory. Evolutionary scientists are as guilty as fanatic creationists in their blindness and ignorance and insistence on forcing their beliefs and conclusions on a world which has already condemned both groups. They’re both just too blind to see that.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
The fossil evidence IS overwhelming.
This list includes only facts. Hard, verifiable facts.
I GIVE UP.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Aoede:
When I first read 595 I didn’t understand it but after having gone over it a few times I understand it better.
And if I understood it correctly I’ll rephrase it and you can tell me if I got the jist of it. I’ll add a bit of humor to it as well, please don’t be offended.
Our great-grandmother gave birth to our grandmother and our grandmother gave birth to my human mom and your gorilla mom and that’s why my family couldn’t have descended from yours because we have the same grandma, but having the same grandma means that we have a common ancestor.
If this is correct I’ll try to keep this in mind from now on whenever I reply/comment to such controversial subjects/forums.
I am still looking up the other material, slowly but surely.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Analogically correct. I thank you for your willingness to read and listen.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:36 am
I do love the fact that so many theists knock evolution, unusually implying there is not enough evidence. If only they’d apply the same requirements to their own beliefs!
I do however believe, that some, do have a point on teaching creation theory and evolution theory in the science classroom, I mean it’s only fair.
Just as soon as the creationists have gathered enough evidence to propose a scientific ‘theory’ I’ll be right behind them.
ID has so far failed to be recognised as science… let alone theory!!!
January 13th, 2009 at 1:12 am
I’ve read a lot of these comments, and honestly, you guys that are calling out Christians are retarded. To say that creationism and evolution can’t go together is absurd. Here’s how it breaks down: God creating the universe, being the First Cause, is as good a proposal as any at this point, and a damn likely one if you study it. I believe in the Big Bang, evidence supports that it happened, but it had to be caused, and had to be caused by a force outside our universe.
Ok, that’s out of the way. Next, the words that are translated as “day” in the Biblical creation story actually translate to “Time.” So basically, the “Days” referred to could be any amount of time, just certain measurable periods. Obviously, though, this took a great deal of time.
Thirdly, while I’m not all knowing on the subject, I’ve not seen any convincing evidence for macroevolution. Microevolution, I’m all for. Scientific evidence supports it, but there’s a difference between the two that people often miss. Macroevolution is one species turning into a completely different species. Microevolution is adaptations and changes within a single species. Macroevolution is BS propagated by Big Science.
Show me the line of apes that gradually walk more and more upright, and I’ll point you to a chimpanzee, then a bonobo monkey, then a human. These are all alive at the same point in time, without any correlation between one becoming the other.
Basically, the point is, God created the universe and all the life in it to adapt. And there’s no reason to say it’s ridiculous to think so.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Clae
Macroevolution is just microevolution over a long period of time.
What mechanism stops microevolution from making so many ‘adaptations’ that the distant ancestors are no longer the same species? Obviously you realise that an animal doesn’t wake up one morning ‘a different species’, it’s a gradual process.
Also, if we assume the ‘big bang’ required a prime mover – we have no evidence for what that was. Science says “we don’t know what the prime mover was”… you say “it was my particular flavour of god”… but what created your god?
Oh wait… I know… you’re going to say something like “MY god is outside time”… or “MY god doesn’t need a creator”… or…
“MY reasoning just ‘buck passes’ the first cause problem somewhere else, which I then ignore, all the while I’ll assume a highly complex being did it, that I can talk to using telepathy, oh an he LOVES beetles!”.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:59 am
ProgRapture: Christianity is not the largest religion in the world. Islam is and has been for quite some time. I can’t believe no one caught that
January 14th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Well, Blah Blah, first of all, you’re awfully defensive for someone who is apparently so smart. Did I strike a nerve?
Of course a species doesn’t just wake up and is a new species. That’s my point. Though adaptations occur, there is no evidence that organisms become other life forms.
Frank Turek used bacteria as an example. You have an illness, so you take an antibiotic. When the antibiotic attacks the bacteria, the surviving group of bacteria may be resistant to the antibiotic. They are resistant because the parent bacteria possessed in their genes a capacity to resist. Since the weak bacteria die, the surviving bacteria multiply, and thus, dominate. Fair enough. This next part is vital for those who believe that observation is key for good science: Bacteria always stay bacteria. No matter how many generations they go through, and how many changes they make, they remain bacteria. They never evolve into another species. Thus, by observation, it can safely be said that microevolution is true, whilst macroevolution is thus far unobserved and unsubstantiated.
Secondly, of course the first cause had to be outside of time. To say anything else is, honestly, just unintelligent. Time didn’t exist until the universe did, it couldn’t have. Logically, the first cause must be beyond our universe.
And another thing, so what if my idea of God isn’t completely accurate? Does that change the fact that the rough equivalent of what I call God, that is, a being more intelligent and more powerful than anything in this universe, must exist?
And when did I say anything about beetles?
January 14th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
wikipedia citing Encyclopedia Britannica:
Religious adherents in 2005
Christians 33.06% of world’s population
Muslims 20.28%
A way to go yet!
January 15th, 2009 at 3:31 am
The whole discussion can be summarized by..
Percent chance we are here = 100%
Percent chance that God exists = X%
Percent chance that new species can be created by self (versus – externally being controlled) evolution = Y%
Percent chance that if God we are His/Her/Its creation = Z%
Do you believe that X+Z is greater than Y?
Or do You believe that Y is greater than X+Y?
How do we know that one species can evolve into a completely different species, well… we are here… so it must be possible!!
That argument only works if you believe that either X or Z is so small that combined they could not possibly account for us being here!
On the other hand, if you are going to wave your hands and blame everything on God then why stop at creation why study science at all?
Many people on this forum (but far from all) need to take a really deep look at their own beliefs and biases. Pick up an elementary science book and re-read what the scientific method is all about. It’s a process, nothing more and nothing less. It’s about observations and explanations which fit the observations and which may be used to predict future observations.
If you want predictive power… read genesis’s account of creation… The earth was first a formless void and then it was covered in water, then later there was plant life before the first water creatures and then later land creatures and one of the last species to be created humans? That is a distinct ordering, and if you think a day is 24 hours… well… then throw out your computer because the day of the computers came a long time ago.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Clae
Typical… you either ignored or didn’t want to answer the point of my post.
Firstly, to say “there is no evidence that organisms become other life forms” (by which I assume you are talking about macro-evolution) is intellectually dishonest. It might be better to say that you are unconvinced by the evidence.
Secondly to say that macro-evolution can’t be right because it is not ‘observed’ is just stupid, on many levels. What do you expect to see? A bacterium turning into a monkey perhaps?
Thirdly you say “No matter how many generations they go through, and how many changes they make, they remain bacteria. They never evolve into another species.” Clearly as a man of science you’ll have backed this up with ‘observation’? Just how many generations have you observed?
Again do you know what unsubstantiated means? How can you say evolution theory is unsubstantiated? Surely even a non believer must acknowledge that there is supporting evidence?
As you didn’t actually answer the questions in my post.. perhaps I could remind you what they were.
What/who created your god?
What is the mechanism that stops microevolution from creating so many ‘adaptations’ that a new species is recognised?
January 15th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Perhaps my language was a little strong. For that I apologize. I didn’t mean to insinuate that there was no evidence at all of evolution. There is enough for it to have been a great theory for its time; however, using what we know now, it really just doesn’t seem that plausible except to those who blindly adhere to their own biases. I realize the same could be said about me, the only difference is that I know I have biases. I am not blind to them, and I do my best to overcome them. Complete objectivity is impossible anyway. Ultimately, we see what we want to see until we can no longer realistically hold on to our view of the world as logical. It happened to Einstein with the Theory of Relativity, and it’s how he became a Theist.
I did answer your question about who or what created God, and yes I did say that he wasn’t created. Check what I said about the first cause. Logically, the first cause must be beyond our universe, and thus beyond time and the laws of our universe.
As for your questions about adaptations, I honestly can’t satisfy you no matter what I say. As I said, I don’t know all there is to know, but I’ll do some more research and come back to you with that one.
But it doesn’t take millions of years to see evolution, only several generations. You could take a species with an extremely short life span, the fruit fly for instance, and in the process of a few decades you should see significant changes in the dna of that creature. Possibly even seeing it become an entirely different creature altogether.
However, this has not been the case. Species have never, as far as I know, become completely different species whilst under observation. I don’t know if there is a mechanism that stops it, I’m just saying that it’s unobserved. The evidence for macroevolution is unsubstantiated in that a great deal, though certainly not all, of the so called evidence we have for it is speculation. Scientists notice a pattern in similar life forms’ DNA and so they hypothesize that perhaps they evolved from the same source. While not entirely unrealistic, it’s basically unproven, possibly unprovable.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Incorrect. Your definition of “macroevolution” includes the genetic changes that occur in bacterial populations of the same line that have been separated. Furthermore, larger species (such as a certain African cichlid, if I do not misremember, as well as birds and snails) have also been observed in the process of speciation by means of geographical isolation; that is to say, members of geographically isolated populations originally of the same stock were no longer able to produce viable offspring. (That, by the way, is the working definition of a species.)
January 16th, 2009 at 7:19 am
When might ask why haven’t humans evolved at all whilst being human beings?
January 16th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Quoted by famous Evolutionist;
“Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. …In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny.” (Fortey, P. L., “Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores,” 1982, p. 120-121)
January 16th, 2009 at 7:29 am
And one more;
“The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. …The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground.” (Ricklefs, Robert E., “Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution,” Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59)
How can we argue which is correct, Evolution or Creationism when Evolutionists can’t agree amongst themselves, even disprooving their own theory by digging deeper.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Flat28. Asking “When might ask why haven’t humans evolved at all whilst being human beings?” shows a real lack trying… I mean you could have gone to wiki to find information about our species’ evolution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution)
Yes it is true that PE isn’t agreed on by all scientists. You seem to be contending that because some aspects of evolutionary biology have competing ideas, that ‘evolution theory’ isn’t correct? A clue is in the title.
Do you think that fossils are the only evidence for macro-evolution?
I assume that you don’t believe in any god from the bible, as there are so many competing ideas about god? According to your thinking, that negates everything?
Are you actually interested in learning about evolution – or would you just prefer to quote mine? For example, the first quote is quite interesting… do you know where Fortey was going with it?
January 16th, 2009 at 9:19 am
My view on the world is if we all accept everyone else for who they are then there would be no conflict. I personally am not religious but I have nothing against religious people as long as they in turn respect my views. I agree with Evolution but I don’t think any less of people who don’t never in human history will 100% of people agree with anything. That’s just how humans are.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Clae
Do you think there are any other theory’s that are correct, even though the mechanics are unobserved (or indeed unobservable)?
Other than Aoede comments which are interesting… just actually thinking about it yourself. If you believe that species can adapt (and I’m sure you agree they can adapt quickly in some respects), over millions of years with changing environments, migration etc… do you honestly think that an ‘original’ animal from say 10 million years ago would be able to successfully mate with its modern counter parts? What about 20, 30 million?
Also why is it okay for a highly complex god to pop into existence without an even more highly complex creator doing the creating?
January 16th, 2009 at 9:59 am
I do not know where fortey was going with it – please enlighten me.
I agree that there are many different Ideas of God however all will agree that he was the higher being who created the Universe.
With so many writers on this blog who agree with the same theory and then contradict each other must imply that Evolution is at this stage of time, unsatisfactory, and more research is needed. I can’t see how people can so passionately defend their theory and have completely different versions of the theory itself. One can’t simply quote something as fact without having made the theory water-tight.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Flat28 – Can’t you see the irony…
Your saying that because there are different ideas of certain aspects of evolution, the entire theory must be flawed. I’m sure you’ll agree that (and I’m paraphrasing you) ‘they (those scientists for and against PE) all will agree that evolution is a very worthy theory’?
How is that different to “I agree that there are many different Ideas of God however all will agree that he was the higher being who created the Universe.”?
I’m not sure I follow the “completely different versions” comment in your post? Please explan the completely different versions you think exist (or are you just talking about PE)?
One I agree with is that more research is required, that is the beauty of science, they don’t just sit back and relax saying “god did it, because it says so in this book!”.
“One can’t simply quote something as fact without having made the theory water-tight.” and yet you say “all will agree that he was the higher being who created the Universe.” Where is your water-tight evidence for this?
January 16th, 2009 at 10:42 am
PS. “I do not know where fortey was going with it – please enlighten me.”.
Why would you quote something you don’t understand? If you’d like to be ‘enlightened’… search the paper title and you’ll be able to read the paper online.
Next you’ll be quoting Darwin re: the eye couldn’t have evolved! etc…
January 16th, 2009 at 11:08 am
PC # 615- “never in human history will 100% of people agree with anything.”
I disagree.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
In response to comment 620
Really. You honestly think that the world will one day all think the same. Then I hope to never see that day because when it comes our individuality will go. For that is why people will never agree 100% with everyone else on the planet. While we can all think differently we can all make our own views on everything. Religion, Politics, Everything can be decided in the persons mind by themselves and so the earths population will never totally agree with each other as while they have their own personality they can all think differently.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
PC 621: I’m pretty sure bucslim was being ironic.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
OMG!!
January 16th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
How am I supposed to know.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Ah, calm down, it’s hard to detect sarcasm on an internet that is filled with trolls. There are indeed people who would say ridiculous things in all seriousness.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Well i would take my evidence from the bible. I can’t find a contradiction throughout, its historically sound and also prophesizes events that happened later in History. This seems a much more sound argument than any you have brought forth so far. Obviously, I’m not going to say ‘this is without a doubt absolute truth’ (despite me believing so) on the basis that Christianity is a faith, despite being built upon fact from science.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Just pullin yer chains guys. It’s all good.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
While I agree that SOME of what the bible says may have some truth to it (such as Noah’s flood relating to the flooding of the black sea), I view it as more of a moral teacher. It has good views on how to live your life e.g. don’t kill people and try not to upset people. However I for one won’t soon be following it to its every word though I have nothing against anyone who does.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
flat28, I myself am Christian. However, God did not give us the Bible as a science textbook – God gave it to us as a record of divine justice and mercy, a message-in-a-bottle from someone so far above us that we couldn’t imagine it if we tried. For science, God gave us brains.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Oh definately, im just stating that i believe that Science proves Genesis aswell as dating to prove historical accuracy i.e the age of the book, Isiah who predicted Christ’s birth several hundred years before it came to be, not to mention the psalms predicting the way he was to be killed.
Im also stating that Creationists shouldn’t shy away from Science and simply lay the phrase ‘God did it’ but also look to science to prove God’s Creation.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
If I walk away from the screen, will I find myself in the 2009 I know, love and recognise, or is this some wierd, spooky, timewarp dream I’m scrolling into here?
I think I’m more comfortable with our local Chilean peasants who believe stick insects grow huge and change into the Devil’s horses after dark.
January 17th, 2009 at 5:15 am
flat28. Nice to see you ignored any issues raised in my posts. You dump a couple of quotes you didn’t really understand… to knock eveolution then say the source of your belief is the bible.
So you are not convinced by the evidence for evolution, but somehow the bible provides enough evidence for you to believe in… a personal god that interfers in our lives, virgin births, talking donkeys, talking snakes, adam and eve, etc… etc…
Also how anyone can hold up the bible as an example of justice and mercy is beyone me… have you not read the old testimament?
I would in future actually try to understand evolution before you start quote mining again.
Lets be honest you reject various scienctific ideas purely because they contradict the bible. Not because you’ve weighed up the evidence (let alone understood it).
January 17th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Sweetheart, the topic is evolutionary theory, and I, not flat28, made the justice and mercy statement. I’d be more than happy to discuss the Bible with you elsewhere, but this is not the place to do it.
flat28, what I am saying is that the Bible has nothing to do with science, and should therefore not be used as a litmus test for scientific theories. Do descriptions of the sun rising and setting from our point of view, which are in accord with science, mean that science has “validated” the Bible? No! That wasn’t the point of those descriptions! Similarly, Genesis was not meant as a detailed scientific record of how creation happened; Genesis exists to say that God made the world and to convey the splendor of that act.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Aoede.
Thsnks bunnykins… I thought I was discussing evolutionary theory – however it was others that somehow implied that if evolution is incorrect, that somehow proves god created life.
I’m more than happy to draw attention to the fact that the standards some set to accept evolution theory seem much higher than the belief they replace it with.
My comments were indeed aimed at you, but I forgot too insert ‘Snugglewumps’ to show to whom I was responding. I would be happy to discuss ‘the bible’ with you – however I doubt you’d be able to convince me that your ‘god’ wrote/inspired the bible.
I mean, god starts off well with the big bang… then creates the earth, bang creates a bunch of animals, then manages to create adam and eve…. I mean thats pretty awesome.
After that he seems to be running out of steam must, he can only manage a flood, some frogs, a few locusts etc… a burning bush??? How lame is that!
Then he totally gives up and sends his son to sort us out. But it turns out his best trick was dying and somehow managing to blame it on his own kin the Jewish people (of course the Romans are pretty much blameless).
Now all he can manage is bless the world with a jesus shaped stain.
I digress and have drifted off topic again, please point me in the right direction and I’ll happily discuss your favourate book.
Thanks darling.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Belovedest, I do not attempt to convince when the one with whom I converse grows hostile. Such would be futility. And that is the absolute end of this off-topic conversation – I have a gmail called aoede.cloudgate if you wish to discuss, not insult.
As regards the relationship between belief and evolutionary theory – there shouldn’t be one. Belief is belief and science is science; one can never replace the other.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I think you’re confusing hostility with sarcasm.
Is it “hostile” to knock evolution? What exactly was “hostile” in my post? I think some may well have found humourous (well perhaps too many).
Did I take offence at your condenscending “sweatheart” comment? No… I took it with good humour. However if someone comments on your beliefs its all of a sudden ‘hostile’.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
If someone comments on my faith with disparaging sarcasm when I am attempting to seriously discuss it, I consider that to be hostile. Your opinion may differ. Now, really, let this stray thread die. I refuse to reply to anything else off-topic.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Aoede:
While reading other links from the one that you provided I came across a couple of quotes/writings that I wanted to ask about.
["]The dominant view among scientists is the recent African origin of modern humans (RAO) that H. sapiens evolved in Africa and spread across the globe, replacing populations of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis. Scientists supporting the alternative hypothesis on the multiregional origin of modern humans (MTO) view modern humans as having evolved as a single, widespread population from existing Homo species, particularly H. erectus. The fossil evidence is insufficient to resolve this vigorous debate,[2] while studies of human population genetics have largely supported a recent African Origin explanation.["]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Question #1 The insufficient fossil evidence that is mentioned here, is that insufficient evidence of whether or not the origin is RAO or MTO or is it insufficient evidence of evolution from existing Homo species?
["]Charles Darwin was one of the first to suggest that all humans had a common ancestor who lived in Africa. In the Descent of Man he writes:
“ In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is, therefore, probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man’s nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere.[4] ”
The prediction was highly insightful because at the time, in 1871, there were hardly any human fossils of ancient hominids available. Almost fifty years later Darwin was vindicated, as anthropologists began finding numerous fossils of ancient hominids all over Africa (list of hominina fossils).["]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_origin_theory
Question #2 A lot of people agree/concur that humans originated in Africa, the above is a quote about how Darwin was vindicated. I don’t have a problem with this origin theory and if the Bible is taken literally, which some people do, after Noah and the Flood, a common place where Noah is said to have landed is near Turkey which is not too far away from Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahs_Ark
My question is not about the origin, but about the fossils.
In the 2nd quote the fossils being found are those of ancient “hominids” aren’t these fossils just human fossils? The first quote talks about H Sapiens “replacing” H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis. Is that a miss-quote was it not supposed to be “evolved from”?
Question #3 All the fossil evidence that I’m reading “so far” either talks about human fossils or fossils of other species that “might” have been ancestors or even cousins.
[While some of these other species might have been ancestors of H. sapiens, many were likely our "cousins", having speciated away from our ancestral line.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Genus_Homo
So the question is: what is the common ancestor? (And I’m not asking for a definition of “common ancestor” here)
I mean if we came from a common gene pool, we didn’t just step out of this pool as humans, from our talk before our common ancestor is our grandparent then you have our great-grandparent, our great great-grandparent, and so forth. Exactly how far back does it go and why does our grandparent not have an actual name? We are called humans and apes are called apes and trees = trees and so forth. With all the fossils that are providing conclusive evidence of human evolution why is our grandparent still called “common ancestor” and not been properly named/classified?
January 19th, 2009 at 12:25 am
618. Blah Blah:
people say what you commented on a lot, maybe not in this thread but I have seen it other places.
Why do theists/Christians ask for “water-tight” evidence of human evolution, but do not provide any themselves when it comes to God or say that the Bible is our evidence?.
My answer to this question is that my faith in God is dependent on me believing that what the Bible says is true, if I can’t do that then I cannot use the Bible as a source of proof/evidence. So the Bible is my evidence and my faith is the knowledge I’ve gained through reading the Bible, and going to church for me is how I have my questions tested/answered and also how I maintain/upkeep/study my faith and the bible.
Whereas science requires data/information in the form of observations/evidence/phenomena and the analysis and testing of said data in order for it to be called science, let me know if I’m wrong cause I might be.
So in other words you/science needs evidence and this evidence needs to be as you stated “water-tight”.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Immortalisland.
I think I understand what you’re trying to say re your faith. However it is difficult for me to accept that we should have different standards of acceptance for any of our beliefs.
You say that you “believe that what the bible says it true”… you must have formulated this belief using some amount of reasoned logic. If like myself you were indoctrinated from an early age, perhaps this could account for the ‘blind’ faith I have experienced, and of course often see.
Of course there comes a point when one must look at the evidence and accept a belief (substitute fact,thoery,belief etc…) or not. Why should acceptance of the bible have a ‘lower bar’ than say accepting evolution?
I wonder if we signed up for a classes in evolutionary studies and gained a greater understanding of the subject – would that not give us a more objective base from which to base our beliefs?
If we read the Koran would we believe in that holy book? Probably not, however, if we were raised in the Muslim world, things could be very different.
How would you convince a Muslim that his holy book is flawed, and yours is correct? Surely you would attempt to employ logic, reason, etc…
One thing I don’t understand is why we seem to venerate those who have ‘faith’ in a religion. As if believing in something with any evidence is a good thing. I don’t mean to sound sarcastic, but if someone say had faith that the earth is flat, because they believe in an old 18th century book – we’d probably put them in a loony bin.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Immortalisland,
For your first question, I think the context “insufficient to resolve this vigorous debate” makes it pretty clear that it’s talking about this specific issue (RAO vs. MTO).
For your second question, no, it is not a misquote. There’s a bit of confusion over whether Neandertals are a subspecies of H. sapiens (mitochondrial DNA evidence suggests not), but no matter what the answer to THAT issue is, they are not ancestors of H. sapiens sapiens (i.e., us). But as cousins, they are probably a heck of a lot closer to us than the great apes!
And for your last question: “common ancestor” is a relative term. For example, if I was talking about the common ancestor of, say, humans and chimpanzees, that would have a VERY different answer than if I were talking about the common ancestor of humans and plankton. Since evolution doesn’t try to describe the origin of life (see misconception #15 on the original list), and the ultimate common ancestor would basically be the first life-form, that’s outside the bounds of evolutionary theory.
I don’t know a lot about that particular scientific field (Wiki informs me that its name is “abiogenesis”), but I do know two things: that it was a really long time ago and that the scientists don’t know very much about it either. One part of the problem, I think, is that we can’t very well look for fossils – you only get fossils if there’s hard body parts like bones and such, and when you start going into the single-celled territory, you’re certainly not going to get bones.
But if you’re interested there’s a long, long article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis. It seems to be largely based on the hypothetical chemical conditions of early Earth; I would venture a guess that said conditions were extrapolated from air trapped in ice cores or perhaps the properties, quantities, and locations of different rocks.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Aoede:
Another link that I have to add to my list lol, but I asked so yes I am interested. So you are stating that our grandparent is the “Abiogenesis”?
I glanced at the link, but I’ll have to read it later once I get a chance, but I did see this and although it might be off topic I had a question about it.
“”As of 2009, no one has yet synthesized a “protocell” using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called “bottom-up-approach”).”"
How important is this statement and could you clarify/expand on what is being said here?
Is there any other physical evidence besides fossils to prove human evolution? (sorry for ignorance here, my brain is at the shop for a tune up atm lol)
January 19th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Nah, it looks like abiogenesis is the name of the subject itself.
A protocell, hm. Well, a cell is the basic unit of life today, so I guess a protocell would be one of the first steps toward life, something like that. If they haven’t managed to make something like that yet, it means that none of the current hypotheses can really. be verified – which, I think, makes that statement pretty important as an assessment of the progress in this field.
Besides fossils, there’s at least two other places that scientists look. One of these is current physical traits: comparative anatomy, vestigial traits, etc.; see http://listverse.com/science/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man for several examples of the latter.
The other is DNA evidence: mitochondrial DNA, which is generally inherited from your mother and separate from the rest of your DNA, doesn’t recombine – unlike your “normal” DNA, which was formed by “shuffling” genes from both parents and therefore changes from generation to generation. There’s a much more clearly-worded explanation here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA#Use_in_identification), especially toward the end of that section.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Oh, and please don’t apologize for “ignorance”. You’ve been patient and polite, and “ignorance” is remediable. The remedy may sometimes even be fun.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:03 am
It’s interesting that Evolution theory often seems to suffer from such mission creep…
Some assume evolution must account for the first spark of life (abiogenesis) often this is done by referring to abiogensis as prebiotic evolution, which is an unfortunate term.
I’ve even heard some connect evolution with the big bang!
Aoede: My apologies for my perceived hostilities. I shall be more careful in future.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
640. Blah Blah:
“blind faith” is a problem for me, as a catholic I was raised that way and was told whenever I asked a question “that that’s just the way it is” but because I have been out of the church loop for over 15 years, and have just recently in the last year returned, I question everything. I also read and like here I discuss/debate and share my opinions.
And my blind faith may still be a little blind, but that black/white cloth is slowly but surely being peeled away from my face. And although these questions at times might give me some doubt about my religion/faith I also have plenty of answers that help me along the way, not to mention the questions I have that are not church related or even about evolution that cannot be answered by science or even if they can be explained are still miraculous, for instance someone being declared dead and coming back to life(link posted below), Nazca Lines, “reincarnation”, crop circles, people like Boris Kipriyanovich or Daniel Tammet & Kim Peek or Ben Underwood & Daniel Kish who have extraordinary talents/abilities, and many other TANGIBLE things in the world that are hard to explain or cannot be explained at all.
So if those things that are tangible and impossible or at the very least hard to explain then it makes perfect sense that a concept like God will also be very hard/impossible to explain/prove.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357463,00.html#
643. Aoede:
You said other evidence is mtDNA, I thought that’s what they were getting from fossils, are there other places/things that provide mtDNA?
January 21st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
mtDNA and comparative anatomy are techniques used to determine the relationships between two different organisms — and they can be used on both living organisms as well as fossils. Of course, I should think that both these methods are also a lot more reliable with living organisms (who have whole DNA instead of fragments, and whose non-fossilizable features can still be seen).
January 21st, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Youse dudes a been missin out on a fine debate in the top ten signs of evolution in modern man list, i haven’t even bothered to read any of the comments on this age but i bet they’re rubbish compared to the kind of informed debate that’s been going on on that other page i mentioned, right?
A Blessing on all your lineages
January 21st, 2009 at 8:18 pm
i mean page not age, duh
February 6th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Everyone is missing the point that just because it isn’t creationism doesn’t mean it has to be evolution. Could people in the dark ages have envisioned modern advances such as the internet or wireless information transfer. But also it would be extremely not scientific to say you knew one way or the other that god existed, because there is no proof, no reproducible experiment with variables that don’t change, and that is the major difference between “having faith and having proof.”
Science will fly you to the moon
Religion will fly you into a tower
February 7th, 2009 at 4:19 am
A bit of a generalisation there…
I’ve never known Christians, Buddists, Sikhs or Jews to create devastation i presume you’re refering to in ‘Religion will fly you into a tower’ remark. Its both crude and untrue.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Great information. People seem to think that scientists completly rule out the possibility of a God which is not true. The only thing is, there’s no evidence to support such a thing therefore research is focused on what we know and how we can improve our knowledge of what we know. Until the day that God comes down and proves his existence to all of us(or at least a vast majority of populaiton), there seems to be no point in even investigating it(especially since there’s plenty of scientists out there that have studied religious texts and have found to evidence to support such delusions)
FACT BASED ON PROFOUND EVIDENCE
February 12th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Apologies for my last post. I mean to say “have found ‘no’ evidence to support such delusions”
FACT BASED ON PROFOUND EVIDENCE
March 10th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
As an anthropology student, this list makes me so very, very happy. Thanks for presenting the truth about evolution. I get so tired of explaining these things to people.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:03 am
Wow, that is a lot of comments! I’m guessing that noones gonna read this but I’ll say what I was gonna say anyway…
At my school here in the sunny UK we get taught both creationism and evolution. In chemistry we are taught about where everything evolved from ie what the world was like however many million years ago. In physics we are taught about the big bang theory and in biology we are taught about evolution and natural selection. They are all taught as fact and 99% of people in my classes believe it as such. There was one girl who said that she did not believe it and hat she believed God had created everything but our teacher was very respectful and said that’s fine so long as you know the scientific arguments so that you can answer the questions in the exams.
On the otherhand, we are taught the religious ideas in religious education. (and by religious ideas I don’t just mean chrisianity but also Hinduism Islam etc ) Also we get taught all of the different Christian theories for GCSE such as the cosmological argument.
And just in case anyone was wondering, I go to a state school and as far as I know the same things happen in the majority of state schools and I think private schools too.
I don’t know what it’s like in America but surely this is he best method, where they are kept entirely seperate and people are allowed to believe whatever they want.
Anyhoo that’s my rant over, I just hope someone gets a chance to read it!
April 9th, 2009 at 4:31 am
655. Libby
Read it. It sort of works/worked that way (that is how I was taught) but not everywhere in the US where some people refuse to keep it separate. It’s grown gargantuan but read any portion of the Your View: Should Creationism be Taught in Schools? and you’ll see where I’m getting at.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
im sure im not the first to say that this list seems quite ludicrous to someone from the UK. The amount of Americans still desperately clutching to their anti-evolution ideals is genuinely scary!
April 9th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I agree completely…It’s also scary how many are so scared to have evolution called a theory or have any alternative to it taught or discussed. It America it’s ok to question ideas as long as those ideas aren’t considered main-steam. It’s not just Evolution, think Cold Fusion and Global Warming. I really liked the idea of how you Brits do it.. Assume Evolution and teach how it could work… Assume Creation(s) and teach how they could work. Those that won’t consider the possibility that their notion of how we got here could be wrong are ignorant, no matter what they believe.
April 10th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Please don’t lump all Christians together. That is just as ignorant as lumping all athiests and agnostics together. I strongly belive in evolution. I also believe in God. The Fundamentalists want everyone to believe that these are two incompatable beliefs, when in fact they are not. If you look at the creation myth in the bible, first came plants, then animals, then people. This is a simplification, but essentially the same accepted path of evolutionary theory. I don’t think it’s ignorant to believe that this path was guided by a higher power.
Now, for the Fundamentalists who write off evolution as herasy and belive that dinosaur bones were planted by satan to test our faith… Go ahead and insult away.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
“Social Darwinism has, thankfully, been repudiated.”
I wish that were the case. I believe it is now known as Reaganomics.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
creationist here. which came first the chicken or the egg?
April 13th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
think carefully though… your answer might disprove evolution
April 13th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
the egg came before the chicken because there were eggs before the chicken, but then the chicken evolved out of something that laid eggs, and it kept the trait.
April 13th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
ah, very well put bob but are you saying that some decently functioning animal such as flying bird or crawling bird-reptilian evolved into a pitiful chicken? a fat, slow bird which cannot fly or jump 3 feet high? and was most probably in the stomach of a 1000 or more people at the local KFC? i thought that evolution was about “being the best you can be” so to speak.
April 13th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
get back to me people, let’s see if you can turn me…
April 13th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
mr_pedro: Have you even even heard of Google? Type in Modern Chicken, and look at it’s history. The modern Chicken was bread to be the way it is.
When you get down to it though, a bird is a bird, a reptile is a reptile, and the Archeopteryx was the one in between.
Do you own research please.
April 13th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
cool my comment is 666. I can’t help but be amused.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:04 am
@ 664. mr_pedro
The chicken did not evolve. It was created by man. Humans bred characteristics that they wanted in a chicken: Plenty of meat inability to fly or escape. This does not prove that evolution does not exist it simply proves that species CAN AND WILL change over time, be it through selective breeding by man or through natural selection in the wild.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Also, for the seventy billionth time: evolution does not create increasingly “better” organisms.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Wow, this list is not biased at all!
April 14th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
to believe in religion is not wrong to live your life by religion is not wrong. to not strive to increase your understanding of the world around is wrong to ignore the facts when they have been proven beyond any doubt is wrong
April 14th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
When you’re discussing established facts then bias is not an issue. If you choose to disbelieve the evidence then I’m afraid you are the one who will have to make concessions when we discuss this, not the rest of us.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Great list. Thanks for clearing up some misconceptions and oversimplifications. I see legitimacy in this theory, but the one I have trouble with is the Big Bang theory. “Big Bang” still needs a lot of work.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Baxter:
how can one establish a fact with no evidence? that is just impossible. you need hard evidence. all evolutionary evidence is in the bias. if the bias does not concur with the facts then the evidence, which is the bias itself, cancels the theory. as a WHOLE.
this just had to be made clear.
concerning the cock fight, the ancestor of the modern chicken is the red junglefowl, a bird of indian descendence. this bird was just was just pitiful as the chicken. I say -was- because it has become extinct. now tell me: where are the ancestors the hundreds of thousands transitional forms that would have led to the birth of the red junglefowl? are they missing because they were all gobbled up by other meat-devouring land animals? or can you provide with a sleek alternative? I KNOW that the transitional forms never existed. just as 1+1=2
my thanks to Crimanon for the wise tip of doing a little research. wikipedia really comes through for the creationist!!!
April 14th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Regarding evidence: There IS evidence. Fossils. “Living fossils”. Genetic evidence. Embryonic comparisons. Vestigial organs. Witnessed evolution of microorganisms (who have a short lifespan and are therefore easier to observe). Witnessed speciation of geographically and otherwise isolated populations formerly belonging to the same species.
Regarding the red junglefowl:
1) Non-anthropogenic extinction? Yeah, that’s natural selection at work. Which is an evolutionary pressure.
2) Transitional forms? Even just looking in the fossil record — which is incomplete because in the overwhelming majority of cases, only organisms with hard body parts can get fossilized — there are transitional forms galore. Case in point: Genesis literalists have held up for years the “lack” of a transitional organism between land animals and whales, yet in the 1990s, one was found: Ambulocetus, a cetacean capable of both walking and swimming.
3) Yeah, all that stuff is also on Wikipedia. Cherry-picking evidence doesn’t make for a good argument.
April 15th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I’m a Christian and believe taht everything was created, and God used evolution to make it what it is today
April 16th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Aoede
i think i have to explain some things to you.
-natural selection is something real and appliable in nature, however you are confusing this with micro- and macro-evolution
-microevolution are subtle changes which help the animal or human adapt to its current environment. for instance, say we have two golden retrievers from the same mother; one shipped to northern Canada and the other to Argentina. with microevolution the dog in canada will produce more fur in order to stay warm while the one in argentina will have less fur in order to avoid being toasted by the heat. the microorganisms you wrote about acquire a strength to fight whatever medicine or compound that is potentially harmful to them. no radical changes occur to the animal or human in this process(food allergies are a type of microevolution but they are actually not very useful). this evolution type is true
-macroevolution is the belief that after microevolution takes place the subtle changes will mutate or change in order to continue “advancing”. here you are completely wrong. 1)if the animal was able to survive in its curret state why would it need to change at all? 2)if it ever did change why are there no more than 50 “credible” transitional forms between animals? (such as cats and dogs)
natural selection may give the opportunity to microevolution but never to macroevolution; nevertheless, you are free to prove me wrong if you can
April 16th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
the ambulocetus? have you even seen a picture of it? the animal has fingers or toes or whatever you want to call them in its front paws and hooves on its back paws (those paws were not “evolved” for swimming). also the ambulocetus was found in the same strata as its “ancient ancestor” the pakucetus, better known as the most ancient cetacean. do you mean to say the most immediate form between whales and land animals and the eldest cetacean lived in the same epoch? correct if im wrong but this seems utterly illogical
April 16th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
to the sea captain,
how can you be good christian if you think that the Bible’s Genesis is metaphorical? When the Bible is metaphorical it says it will speaking in metaphors right before you read it. those seven days of creation were exactly seven earth days. no more, no less. thinking otherwise would be saying the Bible is lying which is incorrect because the Bible is from God and God does not lie. consider this before writing anything which might disrupt the message of God.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:14 am
Have YOU seen a picture of the ambulocetus? What hooves? It has four webbed paws.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
How long was the first Earth day …before there was an earth day. What day was it that they created day and night?
April 17th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I see you have most conveniently avoided the strata argument of the ambulocetus’s “predecesor” in the same epoch. crafty, but not crafty enough.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
RAlatalo:
-you see, in ancient times people measured days using day and night: the sun came up, the day started; the sun came down night began until sun came up again and the day started again and so goes on this process. nodody had any idea what a second or minute or an hour were, therefore time could not be measured. with this I can conclude that there was no “day” before the first earth day.
however, if you want to know how long God and nothingness existed before the first earth day the answer would be that they both had always existed (until nothingness ceased to exist when something was created). I also must STATE that this idea (or theory or however you would like to put it) must be accepted by blind faith just as believing in the big bang or the other theories require evolutionists to accept these theories by blind faith.
-light and day and the earth and the heavens were made the first day of creation.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
mr_pedro
Can you tell me where its stated the beginning of the earth?
April 17th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I mean the sequences. How it followed up. And, how do you know Gos has always existed? How can you have so much faith in this sole thing?
April 17th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Pedro, there’s a thing called “assumption of good will”. I was not attempting to avoid anything. I was specifically addressing your incorrect evaluation of Ambulocetus’s appearance. I have already spent a lot of time explaining things to multiple other stubborn… people… earlier in this thread, and I am tired.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
For the sake of my mental health, I will therefore unsubscribe from this thread. Pedro, I would like to direct you to a book called “Why People Believe Weird Things” — check out the section on antievolutionists; the author makes a detailed listing of common antievolutionist arguments and debunks them on their own ground. Fellow thinking folks, will one of you please take up the mantle? Rational debunking, not impassioned invective.
Yr humble svt
Aoede
April 17th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
“Rational debunking, not impassioned invective”, said Aoede just before storming out of the web link. can’t blame him. who doesn’t like to storm out? LOL
April 17th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
to mr_pedro
I’m catholic and I would want to agree with you on some things, but I also agree with Aoede on others as we have talked here on this page previously.
However I cannot agree with you about the bible being literal unless it specifically says it is being metaphorical. There is no way you can make that statement without, how should I put it “evidence”. Young earth creationists believe in that; but that, like the bible, is their belief.
I used to care a lot about the age of the earth, it was a big thing to me before I started learning more about my religion and my faith, although I now believe the earth is as old as scientists say, it really doesn’t matter. The primary point of the bible is the message, so if the earth was created in 7 days or millions, once again it doesn’t matter. The message is that God created the earth, that is what you need to keep in your heart and use that to support your faith.
However just to expand on my explanation in the bible itself, it specifically says:
“2 Peter 3:8
But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.”
So one day to God did not necessarily have to be one human day.
And just to clarify my point I believe in evolution, such as micro evolution, and I believe in macro evolution, because I believe in the literal version that God created man from sand and breathed life into him and women from the rib of man.
And that in and of itself if you think with your heart is the only proof of macro evolution that exists and that proof just happens to be in the bible:)
Lastly, do not quote what I say as what Catholics believe, although I’m catholic I’m still learning so some if not all of this is my personal view.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Beth05:
please (EVERYONE) read this all and analyze it before you resume your blogging
Day 1: God created the heavens and the earth. after this He made light which he separated from darkness
Day 2: God created the expanse which separated the watersA from the watersB (A and B are not in the Bible) He called the expanse sky. watersA are the heavens and watersB are those which covered the earth. This expanse what we call atmosphere and outer space.
Day 3: God made the waters of the earth gather in one place so there would be dry ground (land and seas). afterwards, God made the land fetile for vegetation and then created plant and trees, which would all reproduce after their own kind.
Day 4: God created the sun and the moon and all other stars, galaxies, planets, moons, asteroids, etc. He made these lights so man could correctly measure time (days, seasons and years all of which appear in the Bible and which we all still use today). the sun would light the day and the moon would light the night.
Day 5: God created all animals of the sea and all winged birds. He commanded the sea animals to reproduce after their own kind and to multiply in the sea. He commanded all winged birds to reproduce after their own kind and to multiply in the land.
Day 6: God created all creatures of the land (livestock and wild animals, which include mammals, reptiles, amphibians, all kinds of invertebrates, etc.) God then created man in His image. He made man and woman. He commanded man to subdue all animals and God gave to man every plant there had been created for food and He gave to every animal all green plant for food and it was so.
Day 7: God saw all that He had made was good and rested on the seventh day and blessed this day for it was the day in which creation had ended.
this is how everything came to exist. I believe God has always existed because the Bible says so in John 1:1-2
1}”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God. 2} He was with God in the beginning.”
I have faith because I chose this faith. EVERYONE at any time can choose any faith. that is why there are so many religions around the world, people chose to believe what they believe is true. Christians, Evolutionists, etc., have chosen their paths and they can take any other path at any other point in their lives. we all have FREE WILL so we all are entitled to our opinion.
I am convinced that creation is true. Assuming that you are an evolutionist, i suppose you are convinced that evolution is true. i am convinced you are wrong and you are convinced that i am wrong. i had previously challenged everyone to try to turn my belief in God since you think there still might be “hope” for me. i am here to see if there is still “hope” for you. Aoede gave up on me; maybe you won’t or will you?
alas, my belief in evolution is close 0% since it is constantly being disproved and the fact that other evolutionists have resorted to lying just to prove the theory right. Creation depicted in the Bible has not been disproven yet and I very highly doubt it will be disproven anytime soon.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
let’s see who saves who eh, Beth05. and everyone…
April 18th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Well… Your answer is very convincing… I must say: I have not yet met an evolutionist who can truly prove ¨missing links¨ or their ¨transitional forms¨ beacause it all seems to be just a theory… Sometimes it feels as if they find a fossil and they plug it in to a story, without running complete investigations…
So, in the end, aren´t both of them accepted by faith?
If God created us, and loved us, and gave us free will (which sounds ok because, love can never be an obligation!!) then it is only reasonable for us to beleive he created us…
If Evolution is true, then we did evolve an are developing into smething more, but we are made from dust, and to dust we will return…
How can the Bible prove your God? How did He write it?..
So, Mr.Pedro I would really appreciate for you to answer my questions (and everyone elses) here and yet to come…
and I give you my word I will believe in your God, beacuse if HE truly exists, then HE will have convinced me through you.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
690. mr_pedro
alas, my belief in evolution is close 0% since it is constantly being disproved and the fact that other evolutionists have resorted to lying just to prove the theory right. Creation depicted in the Bible has not been disproven yet and I very highly doubt it will be disproven
Where have you seen evolutionists resort to lying? I’d like to see published source material on this. Where have I seen Creationists, particularly Young Earth Creationism, lying? Pretty much everywhere. Greg Neyman, a creationist himself, wrote an article criticizing the YEC museum stating:
“[museum display] illustrates why the young earth creationist is such a bad scientist… the young earth creationist uses the opposite order [of the scientific method]. They read the Bible, and assume the earth was created in six 24-hour days. Therefore, they have already reached the conclusion that the earth is young, even before they examine the scientific evidence. When they examine the science, they are not objectively looking at it…they are trying to figure out how to make it fit into the time frame of the 6 day creation event. This is why they get it wrong, and why their errors are so obvious. To make it fit, they have to selectively choose which information fits their cause, twist the evidence, or, in some cases, some young earth creationists have even made up information.”
“Creation Science Rebuttal: Creation Museum – A Preliminary Review.” by Greg Neyman, published April 2007. Found in “Answers in Creation” website.
Creationism has not been disproven? Read any of the rebuttals to your comments here – I mean REALLY read them. Visit the ‘Your View: Should Creationism be taught in Schools?” (found in near the bottom of All Lists tab) and you’ll see you haven’t presented any statements that haven’t been disproven already. INCLUDING your chicken and egg crap that you thought would confound the rest of us… Frankly, I don’t feel like reiterating everything from that list to here. I suppose I could C&P like I did with that article excerpt above but why please you? And quit with the ‘I dared anyone to convince me my beliefs were wrong but they didn’t’ mantra. Anyone reading the comments can see you weren’t open minded about this topic. You had already shored up your defenses long before you entered. Believe what you want but I refuse to allow you to spin your lies onto unsuspecting bystanders.
In regards to 690 in particular… The Listverse commenting FAQs strictly prohibit preaching, which is what that entire comment was about. Argue your ‘facts’ and just that.
Aoede:
You seemed to be doing a decent job thus far. Take a breather and get back in the ring when you’re ready. It gets exhausting and feels redundant to the extreme but so far no other options are available right? And word of advice (this applies to everyone on this list…) if you want to roll with the big kids in the Creationism in School Your View… don’t use Wiki as source material. Its open-edit feature makes it hard keep reliable. Even if they agree with what you’re saying, they will eat you alive if you use wiki, haha. J
April 18th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
678 mr_pedro. Regarding Ambulocetus and Pakicetus. As far as I am aware they were not found in the same strata at all, there was several hundred feet between the two, Pakicetus being lower which indicates it is older. Also they were found in different types of rock deposited in very different environments. A geological epoch is several million years long, it’s not illogical for an earlier form to exist in the same epoch, they are easily long enough to encompass seemingly drastic evolutionary changes. Both Ambulocetus and Pakicetus are defined as early Eocene fossils which puts them within at least 3-5 million years of each other possibly more. Even three million years difference is enough to be deemed “ancient” by anyone’s standards.
Further,and more importantly, geological ages are essentially defined by the particular type of fossil found within them – remember the labelling of geological ages is simply a convenient way to refer to certain parts of history and is an entirely manmade concept not much different to labelling 1837 to 1901 the Victorian Period. The method used is to separate chunks of time according to the types of life that existed and more specifically to the earliest known example of a particular fossil.
So for instance if the Eocene were defined as being the epoch of cetaceans, the date of the Eocene is adjusted to allow for the earliest cetacean that has been found. If a cetacean was found that predated Pakicetus by say 3 million years, then the date for the beginning of the Eocene would be adjusted accordingly (in this example). Note this is not to say that timescales are altered, just our label for a particular timeframe is shifted. The time when a prehistoric creature lived is not defined by the epoch, the epoch is defined by when it lived.
April 19th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
gabi319: you can’t disprove something that has no evidence for it, and therefore have no way to prove it. there is plenty of evidence that evolution occurs. an example is that there aren’t any human fossils from when the trilobites were around, but we can trace a lot of animals back to common ancestors. as for the missing link of humanity, it could be that it was such a fuck up that it quickly evolved into the next “stage.”
mr. pedro: on your micro-evolution thing, that’s wrong. the growing of extra hair on the offspring in canada,it was already in the genetic code. if it was an evolution, the mother or father would have had to lived in a cold area, so they passed a mutated genetic gene on to the offspring. evolution passes from parent to offspring. what you’re talking about was lamarck’s theory, which is that an organsims will change characteristics not in the genetic code within their lifetime, but it was disproven.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:53 am
Evolution and Creation are both Beliefs and both Theories.
The most interesting thing is that there is basically as much ‘proof’ of one as the other. The same ‘facts’ can be interpreted in different ways based upon the Belief Frame they are imported. Is there a God? Is there evidence for the existence God? If you believe the first then you certainly believe the second, but if you don’t believe the first then you don’t believe the first.
But, there should be evidence before belief… We exist, that’s proof. We are so complex that there must have been a God who created us. But, wait, there is no god, so our existence is proof of evolution.
What is the real evidence. There is a fossil record which gives a series of snapshots which includes some (but not all) species with some time reference. That’s it… everything else is in the interpretation. We can’t get more because of the time frames involved or because God has finished his creation.
Creationist believe that God created everything according to some grand plan. Evolutionist believe that there must be some process which caused/allowed the species in the earlier snapshots to become the species in the later snapshot. Is there any evidence which can or could ‘prove’ if we are all part of God’s grand plan or the product of random chance?
Is it really simpler for all the one in a million chances that evolution requires than for God to have created us? If you believe in God no, in fact if you believe in God you can even accept that God may have used evolution as a tool in the process of creation. If you don’t believe in God then you are stuck with the alternative. If you want proof of God, you have a much harder time. Why, because all that which is proof of God does have a plausible explanation though evolution, but that does not dis-prove god. But, if there was a God why do all the creations look so similar? Look at all our automobiles and buildings. If you took a series of snapshots from the first hut to the latest construction… can you see the evolution?
Creation and Evolution are both beliefs…. and they both have the same proofs, it’s just a matter of how you look at the evidence.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:28 am
695. bob
Confuse me much? I don’t know where you’re getting at here…I didn’t discuss fossils. Didn’t discuss much but pedro’s angle of “Creationism has not been proven wrong” which I refuted using another Creationist who blatantly criticizes YEC.
Evolutionist here.
696. RAlatalo
“Is there any evidence which can or could ‘prove’ if we are all part of God’s grand plan or the product of random chance?”
This is not a question we have to answer for you. This is a question you have to answer for us. Evolutionists have provided mountains of evidence to support Evolution Theory and yet no true scientific data has been collected for Creationism. If you have any, I’d like to see peer-reviewed articles rather than creationist propaganda.
Before you spew word vomit from your mouth again, I suggest you learn meanings of words before using them. You do not know what a theory is, you do not know what evidence is and if you are implying belief to be synonymous with religion, then you do not know what belief is as well.
And what is with the recent Creationist tactic to use interpretations and presuppositions as a way to subvert evolution as a scientific theory? No. It does not work that way. A true scientist is trained to view evidence objectively. That is how they can accept that their hypothesis is wrong if the evidence contradicts it, modify it and continue again to find a true conclusion, which (if supported enough through many tests) becomes a theory. Mr. Neyman of the creationist article (693) even states that the weakness of YEC is that they will distort or even ignore evidence that does not fit within their fixed conclusion. That is NOT a theory.
Evolution is not proof of god’s existence or not. There are quite a number of religious scientists who believe not only in god but also that creationism is whack. So they are not ’stuck with the alternative.’ They learned the facts and saw evolution as far more logical than creationism.
“Look at all our automobiles and buildings. If you took a series of snapshots from the first hut to the latest construction… can you see the evolution?”
Are you seriously comparing the evolution of species to the architectural and engineering advancements of the hut and auto? Stop. Just stop while you’re behind. Research the facts before coming back here with a rebuttal.
April 25th, 2009 at 3:20 am
to gabi319
“and yet no true scientific data has been collected for Creationism. If you have any, I’d like to see peer-reviewed articles rather than creationist propaganda.”
Let me get this straight, your asking a creationist/theist for scientific data?
Even if there is scientific data that’s just not the way it works, I don’t know why scientists and atheist would even want scientific data from a creationist/theist.
Let me rephrase this in a non “creationist propaganda” way so you can see what’s been bothering me for a while a while now and not just with this list.
Asking a creationist/theist for scientific evidence is like asking a farmer that has never gone to school or read any books or even been home schooled to explain to you what the procedure for brain surgery is on how to remove a brain tumor. Isn’t that the job of the Doctor to explain, wouldn’t that be his area of expertise. I exaggerate a bit here to make my point, that is that the bible/God is not a science you don’t have to get a degree in order to be able to discuss the bible/God, maybe some people should before some of the things that are said here are said, but I digress.
Scientists provide scientific data that is their area of expertise, theists provide their own data but it will never be scientific data, because that’s not what the bible/God is.
The bible/God is a teaching, a way of life, a message to us theists, our evidence is the bible, not its not scientific but it doesn’t make any less real to us than your theories are to you. You choose not to believe the bible because their is no “scientific” evidence that is your choice.
I’m not here to convert anyone, but just letting you know that asking for scientific evidence is not the way to go we have evidence you just need decide whether you want to believe it or not.
P.S. Like I’ve mentioned before, I do believe God and in most evolution, just not the one concerning that humans were not humans previously.
April 25th, 2009 at 5:49 am
With respect Immortalisland, many Creationists, especially proponents of the Young Earth theory, do indeed believe they have “scientific” data. Some of them have tried and still try to this day to have their version of events taught alongside evolution as a scientific alternative – not just from pulpits but in courts of law and school boards. There is a post and comment thread that deals with this specifically (http://listverse.com/your-view/your-view-should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/). There are many websites that aim to show this scientific theory. Many scientists work in that area and these websites are the forums they use to reach a wider public.
Personally I am unmoved by their data. There exist flaws in the application (and indeed non-application) of the scientific method which ultimately does render their work unscientific although some writers for YEC have stated that the Method is flawed and needn’t be adhered to. However many will and do argue that Creationism is a valid scientific theory with attendant evidence which at least equals if not exceeds the evidence for evolution.
One could argue that it’s not fair to demand the same scientific rigour from a creationist but they themselves exposed their theory of events to that searchlight by entering the fray claiming such proofs existed and further that they can prove evolutionary evidence is flawed (eg that dating methods are wrong). Honestly I’m not sure why they did. As you yourself state, if one believes in the Bible that should be truth enough. I think the problem lies in the erroneous assumption that if evolution is true, God is false. Some people felt the need therefore to counter evolutionary theory and they chose science as their weapon. Surely their own faith should have been enough. Honestly, it confuses me.
I’m not linking directly or my post will be moderated however you could check out
biblicalgeology (dot) net
biblicalgeology (dot) com
answersingenesis (dot) org (heed Gabi’s warning about the awfulness of this site)
Anything by Kent Hovind
creation (dot) com
A chap called Baumgardner, sorry his first name escapes me momentarily, could be Philip.
These are a few of the more popular websites but as I have said, this view exists in real life, away from the internet. However like anything else these days, the ‘tubes are where they get the info out.
I think science and religion can coexist quite happily, it is in the choice of individuals to make that so but really I don’t see why either side should expend energy on bothering with the other. However that choice was made, Creationism has been touted as a science the equal of evolution and because of this Gabi I feel was entirely justified in asking for evidence. I myself feel that I should defend evolution against spurious supposedly scientific arguments (partly because it touches upon my area of study). I don’t do this because I want to convert anyone – I don’t see why it would alter their thinking about God anyway – but I hate to think that the sum of their scientific knowledge comes from Answers in Genesis and I honestly just want them to see the other side. Usually they don’t, seeing the other side is said (by the proponents of Creationism as science) to be denying the word of God.
The unsuspecting readers of such books, thinking they are getting something from ‘Bible-believing Christians’, expect encouragement and faith-building material. They are generally unprepared for the explosive mixture of heretical theology, poor science and vehement attacks on Bible-believers.
For example, the author Alan Hayward claims to be a ‘Bible-believing Christian’. However, he is a unitarian, which means he denies the tri-unity of God. The deity of Christ is clearly taught in the New Testament (e.g. John 1:1–14, 5:18; Titus 2:13; for more information, see Is Jesus Christ really God? and Is one God really three persons?), yet Hayward denies this.6 Clearly, ‘Bible-believing’ Hayward chooses to reinterpret those parts of the New Testament with which he disagrees.
He works the same way with the Old Testament. Instead of accepting the clear teaching of Genesis, he reinterprets the passages to fit his billion-year preference for the age of the earth.7
In so doing, of course, he introduces confusion and problems that destabilise readers. We are warned to beware of teachers who vandalise the clear teaching of Scripture to fit with their philosophy (Colossians 2:8).
From Tas Walker’s Biblical Geology biblicalgeology[dot]net[slash]2005[slash]The-Young-Earth
April 29th, 2009 at 8:36 am
It seems evolution is being weeded out by natural selection
April 29th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
to Spange
I understand what you are saying and I want to clarify that what I stated, I was trying to make a point, I did not mean to say that there are no creationists or even YEC that are trying to prove things using science or scientific data, what I was trying to point out is that in my opinion it seems that these churches, religions, religious people are doing what I would like to call “the fight fire with fire method”.
These religious churches/people feel that to them science and/or evolution is wrong or just a theory but it is still mandatory to teach in school, so they feel that the same should apply with creation. Even if to them they can prove it that proof will never be enough for anyone outside of that belief, same goes for evolution, no matter how much proof you present anyone outside of that circle is just not going to believe it.
So to expand on what I said before there are many religious people/churches that do not use science or scientific data because as you and I both stated our faith should be enough, so for people like us it would not be fair (not that fair counts for much these days lol) to ask us for scientific evidence of God/Jesus even though like I stated before their might be some out their its just not what our faith is about, its about the message and the experience I gain from it.
Also, I’m not sure I mentioned it here or in another list but there are tons of things that science cannot explain that happen in this world. If things like that can happen and are impossible to explain or at the least, very hard to explain then a concept like God who is not of this world should only make common sense that he is going to be a lot harder to explain than something of this world.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Look at the eye study it. do you think something as complex as the eye came from chance? that millions of mutations could create a fully functional eye? I know this part isnt evolution but where did everything come from how was it just there?
May 7th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Thanks Spange! Nicely written
Essentially what I would have written if I were here.
Immortalisland:
That comment was directed to RAlatalo. He/she wanted to make the the assumption that Creationism is a science so I approached his comment from a scientific viewpoint (to avoid confusion, I’m simply picking a gender. Sorry RAlatalo if it’s the wrong one). If he wanted to declare it a theory and state that there is evidence and scientific proof, then I expect it to stand true to the same rigors that every other scientific hypothesis must go through to prove itself a theory. Religion you can have untouched by me. I’ve always said that is a very personal and introspective journey that cannot and should not be influenced by outside sources. But when people like RAlatalo try to use the unexplained and the scientifically untested to refute scientifically-validated theories, then I step in. RAlatalo was trying to use Creationism (which as I mentioned earlier he viewed as a science) as proof of God’s existence so I continued on from that angle to get him to expand on that with the science he believes to possess. He was the one asking Evolutionists to prove or disprove god but that’s not an aspect of the Evolution Theory so I essentially gave RAlatalo back his own question.
And if you see others doing that in the comment boards in LV a majority of them are taking it from the same angle. (at least those who have stood in defense of Evolution time and time and time again rather than the random drive-bys only seeking to bash religion)
“same goes for evolution, no matter how much proof you present anyone outside of that circle is just not going to believe it.”
Not necessarily. Well…I suppose so… Am I confusing you? Yes those outside the circle will not believe evolution HOWEVER the circle is not exclusive; they just believe it is. There are many who don’t believe in evolution simply because it’s supposedly too hard to understand, but they just haven’t learned it correctly. There’s a New Scientist article in another list (it’s nearly 3000 posts long…I’m not in the mood to find the link) that states an overwhelming majority of grade school science teachers who taught creationism in school did not take courses specifically focused on evolution prior to earning a degree. Had they done so, they would understand evolution claims no battles with religion (as stated by those who taught evolution in their classrooms). In fact, a number of scientists and science teachers I know are evolutionists and devout Christians. No drama between the two.
“what I was trying to point out is…churches, religions, religious people are doing …“the fight fire with fire method”…to ask us for scientific evidence of God/Jesus even though like I stated before their might be some out their its just not what our faith is about….”
If that was the point you’re trying to make, then you should have addressed that comment to RAlatalo instead of me. He seems to be the one who has this confused.
May 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Please re-read my comments….
I asked for belief in God only for the sake of the argument. I also mentioned that everyone filters new information though their own belief system. Evolution and Creationism are both theories, the difference between the two boils down to design. If you believe in Creationism then you believe there was a design before the fact, if you believe in Evolution you believe there was no design. For all those that claim to believe in both God and Evolution should either believe that Evolution was a tool used by God or that God was or is indifferent to our existence. I say, should because the only other alternative that I can think of is that God is also a product of Evolution.
Evolution is a process of mistakes being propagated. I don’t mean the theory but the process. If each organism propagated perfectly they would never change and their would be no chance of Evolution. Even with the ‘normal’ variations that occurs with the merging of genetic code from both parents, there is no chance that one species would ever evolve into a different species. Evolution depends upon the small chance that some mistakes won’t only not result in the death of the offspring but will also replicate in future off spring.
It further depends upon the multitude of these small non-fatal, replicating mistakes will change future generations.
Please let me know if you disagree with either of the previous two paragraphs and why.
Next, let’s examine a hypothetical chamber which has newly been found. How do you determine if it was made by design or happened by chance? I theorize that it’s easier to decide and prove that something was designed and built rather than happened by chance. I will state that this is true, even if you don’t know who the builder is and even if you don’t have any evidence of their being a builder. If you find tool marks, or substances which do not naturally occur in the areas, etc.. I will further go one to speculate that finding of something which is extremely unlikely to have occurred naturally will be used as evidence that some creator actually was at that location, etc..
If you don’t believe that, then tell me what the whole science of Archaeology is all about? Why do they talk about the builders of log cabins or pyramids or burial mounds instead of percentage chance that they would occur naturally. There is little thought given to the chance that they occurred naturally even if there is no known creators, it is considered proof that there was a creator which needs to be found.
There is a major disconnect between all of the other fields of science and evolution. Evolution’s whole purpose is to provide an alternate theory to creation.
This is historical fact.
Let’s look now at proof. Evidence falls into three categories: it can explain/support a theory, it can contradict/break a theory, or it can not relate or not be address by a theory. If you have two competing theories then evidence can further be divided such what it either ‘proves’, ‘disproves’, or ‘ignores’ each theory independently.
While to one person the complexity of Humans and various complex organs supports the existence of God and Creation, to someone else the fact that evolution can explain this is proof that there is no God. In reality it proves nothing.
While to one person the fact that we are here is proof that evolution works to others it’s proof that God exists. In reality it proves nothing.
While to one person the fact that there has been no documented record of a new species being formed is proof that evolution doesn’t work, it really doesn’t prove anything.
I don’t believe that either Creationism or Evolution are sciences. Science involves observations, theories, and experiments which can either support or disprove the theories. The sciences have been expanded to include a number of pseudo sciences, pseudo in that they attempt to use logic and evidence to support theories but they are devoid of experiments which test theories. Mathematics have theories but it’s not a science, doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with Mathematics but it’s not a science.
May 11th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
to 704. RAlatalo
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52366.html
quoted from above link
“Subject: Re: Is math a science or an art?”
“That is, the mere fact
that math is an orderly study of something makes it a science.
It is different from natural sciences, however,”
May 11th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
I guess it always matters what is meant by math, what is meant by science, and art. Mathematics [generally] is the study and the assignment of value/quantity to observations, entities. However, all things must be held constant in order for it to work.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
There are not two theories please. There is a theory and a book telling otherwise based on nothing but the beliefs of uneducated people. Science is not something to be believed in. It is our understanding of the life as best as we can manage.
People may believe what they want. They may believe the earth is flat, they may believe UFOs will take them away to prosperous lives, they may believe in jihad but their BELIEF cannot be put against science.
does anyone think where this takes us? “I don’t believe in gravity but in god chaining us to earth.” If you are laughing at the above phrase you cannot let anyone say i believe in creation. They are basically same. What makes one laughable to you and other a serious comment is the number of people believing in the latter. Nothing else.
There may be fossil gaps and other incomplete parts in evolution but there is NO proof that Jesus, as believed has ever lived. So these two are of separate realms and everyone should be taught of evolution in science class but not the others.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Burak,
Many of the people that wrote the various books of the Bible were some of the most educated and learned people around; Doctors, Kings, Prominent businessmen, Religious Leaders.
And, you wont find any knowledgeable scholar or historian that would ever dispute whether or not Jesus lived, died, or was buried. There are multiple sources even outside of the Bible that verify this. Many historians documented events of Jesus life. The most prominent probably being Josephus, a first century historian, who was commissioned by the Roman government to Chronicle Jewish history.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
““I don’t believe in gravity but in god chaining us to earth.”
Indeed gravity does not exist. His Noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, keeps us on the earth through use of His Noodly Appendages. That is why people have gotten taller over time. More people means there are fewer noodles to hold us down! It is all being covered up, however, by the Judeo Christian church!
June 11th, 2009 at 5:19 am
I agree with cymraegbachgen87
Gravity is nonsense just like breathing and the use of pants:D We should all accept and praise the awesome the Flying Spaghetti Monster XD
June 11th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Here is a quote and a challenge to anyone who doesn’t believe in God.
”
The “Life Element”
The human body is composed of twenty-eight elements. None of them are alive. None of them even hint at having something alive about them. Carbon is not alive. Iron is not alive. Lead is not alive. Calcium is not alive. Arsenic is not alive. None of the other twenty-three elements that make up our body are alive either. But it is error to say these elements are dead as that injects the thought that life is in some way connected with them. Organic chemistry is itself composed of elements that are, in and of themselves, inorganic. Show me one atom that is alive. If we take all the elements of the human body, even in proper proportions, and put them together,all we make is an inorganic soup. Life, whatever it is, is alien to each of these elements. How any combination of these non living materials come to life is a total mystery. This “life element” escapes the empirical scientist. Something is there, but whatever it is eludes the scientist’s grasp. That in itself is mysterious because life is so obviously present when it is there -and so obviously absent when it is not. ”
What makes a human alive, or how does that “what” make a human alive?
The mere fact that saying we are alive because we breathe or our heart beats is nothing more than what a believer in God would say.
June 15th, 2009 at 5:32 am
http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/theageoftheearth3.html
When it comes to determining the age of something, radioactive measurements are regarded as one of the most important methods. With these measurements, attempts to calculate both the age of the Earth and the age of animals and humans on the Earth have been made, and these methods have usually given the age as millions of years, especially when it is a question of rock types and elements. The measuring principle is based on radioactive materials generally having a certain time in which they change and decompose into other elements. For example, the basic idea of uranium/lead dating is that uranium should change entirely into lead always with the same speed and over a certain time.
The fact is, however, that these methods are unreliable. By them, one can indeed measure the contents in stones and samples but it is another thing whether or not they have anything to do with the age. This is because in the measurements there are suppositions, which are impossible to prove afterwards scientifically.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:14 am
Thats my real name and real email address.
I am non religious and once and for all in my book soon to be published i am GOING TO DEVASTATE THE FICTION of Darwinian evolution..Its Called “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIOUS NONSENSE” Darwin and his modern deluded disciples are the “High priests of the highly improbable foisting the impossible on the impressionable.”
Wake up and smell the coffee all you evolutionists who PRETEND you have evidence for the greatest DECEIT in the history of science.
No religious fundamentalists need answer because i dont give a fxxx what u say.
John J May
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:21 am
@Immortalisland (711):
Yes that’s an interesting question… what’s your answer? I don’t believe in god, and I don’t have a clue where you’re going with your post.
Can you be clearer re your question… are you specifically talking about “life” as in animation, or are you drifting towards conciousness?
Obviously I would expect you to back up your explanations with some amount of logic or proof. Oh, and I really hope your answer to the question is not just… “God did it, because Genesis says so!”.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 am
@telson7 (712):
Sorry… I’m not following. The strengths and weaknesses of the various dating methods used today are well understood. The various methods used agree within their tolerances and are scientifically sound. Which of the following methods are you saying are unreliable – and of course how have your objections been proved?
Uranium-lead dating
Samarium-neodymium dating
Potassium-argon dating
Rubidium-strontium dating
Uranium-thorium dating
Radiocarbon dating
Fission track dating
Chlorine-36 dating
Optically stimulated luminescence dating
Short-lived extinct radionuclides dating
I’m sure you’ve some pretty convincing sound scientific reasoning behind your objections. Please share it with the topic.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:50 am
@John J May (713):
I can’t wait for your book. I hope it’s written with the same expert literary style employed in your post.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
@ Blah Blah
Since you seem a bit confused, let us first look at Merriam-Webster’s definition of “alive”.
Alive:
1. having life: not dead or inanimate
2. still in existence (e.g. kept hope alive)
3. knowing the existence of
4. marked by alertness, animation
Hope that helped, not sure if you need me to clarify any further, but if you do let me know.
As for backing up my “explanations”, what backing up do you need, what is written are facts, 28 elements all of which are inorganic, look it up.
As for me giving you an answer, well….. how a conversation normally goes, after I ask a question, you answer and then I respond to that said answer that you gave. I can only respond to your answer. (And yes there are other forms of conversations but this is the one I am looking for.)
As for the remark about God and the Bible, although I am Catholic, where is there anything religious in my original question? So no I will not say because God did it, just in case you are wondering.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:14 am
@Immortalisland (717):
Well thanks for clearing that up. Do you think that pasting in all the definitions was required; I did ask a direct question – animation or consciousness? Some might view your reply as almost patronising.
What I expected you to ‘back up’ was not the periodic elements contained in humans, but your own explanation of the so called “life element”.
Clearly you’re after some ‘ideal’ conversation here, but in my experience in debate, people don’t necessarily want to be lead, but attempt to get to the heart of the issue. That’s what I was trying to do.
You said, “where is there anything religious in my original question?” I assume this is some kind of trick question? You start your original post off with “Here is a quote and a challenge to anyone WHO DOESN’T BELIEVE IN GOD.” Then have dumped a quote from what is obviously a Christian website (http://www.truthaboutabortions.com/). You also finish with talking about how a theistic viewpoint is the same as scientific one. So I think it should be clear to one and all that there’s plenty of religious framing for your question…
July 10th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Continued
I’m going to assume you were referring to life as definition 1 from Merriam, rather than the 3 others you needlessly posted.
Obviously defining life is very tricky… the PICERAS idea is interesting.
I’m still not sure as to the point of your post. What are you getting at? I don’t see any difference between ‘what’ make a human alive to ‘what’ makes a fish alive.
Are you talking about what caused the first ’spark’ of life? Are you thinking about how that initial spark, driven by evolution, ended up in Humans?
Perhaps, as I alluded to, consciousness is what you’re getting to? Is ‘life’ with consciousness different to ‘life’ without consciousness?
Anyway, humans are ‘alive’, according to one definition, because we fulfil our definition of what life is, according to the ’seven pillars’, i.e. PICERAS.
I’ve attempted to answer your question. Here are my questions…
Why is this a challenge to those that don’t believe in God, rather than those that do?
As you said you don’t believe ‘God did it’, please give your explanation.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Continued – Link to the PICERSA idea….
For some reason it wont let me post the address!? Search on google for…
“The Seven Pillars of Life” science magazine
August 5th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Actually, #12 is wrong, a recent experiment done on paramecium showed that they would actually rearrange their own DNA to a point where they can adapt to their surroundings. It was done by James Shapiro, I think
August 22nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
@blah blah
Radiometric dating is consistently unreliable.
In one instance, newly formed rock (hardened magma) from Mt St Helens was tested and given a dating of 14 million years.
Also two rocks, one from an upper strata of the grand canyon and one from the lower were taken to an independent labratory. The upper was dated older than the lower by 130 million years which would not hold to any generally generally accepted geologic notions.
Also, famous case of a leather boot found in a rock. The rock was dated 230 million years old. That’s one old cowboy.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:26 am
radiometric dating is just another flawed method used by sceintists to show their lies that the earth is millons of years old. you can’t know about the past just by looking at the present, no matter how “accurate these dating systems seem
August 25th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
@Nicolai (722):
To say that “radiometric dating is consistently unreliable” is intellectually dishonest at best.
You’ve spouted the usual handful of cases where radiocarbon dating has produced anomalous results, unfortunately you’ve not quoted your sources – so no one can refute directly your claims.
Can we assume that your ‘evidence’ for ‘consistent unreliability’ is these few examples? Do you actually have any sources or proofs?
With regards the examples…
I can’t remember the study off the top of my head (if you had given sources I could have been sure) – but the volcanic rock dated to 14MYO was actually dating minerals inside the magma – minerals that would not have destroyed by the forces at work in volcanic processes. Again if you provide source I’d be happy to check.
As regards the Grand Canyon, again you’ve not given a source. If your referring to the isochron dating used by Austin ‘92 – the conclusions reached from this paper have been shown to incorrect, years ago in fact. More importantly science understands why they were incorrect.
As for the ‘Limestone Cowboy’, you must be joking… that is pure idiocy. The dishonesty is almost breathtaking. Please do post any scientific analysis of the boot that is supposed to contain a fossilised human leg, I’d love to see it!!!
) This is interesting though http://paleo.cc/paluxy/boot.htm
So if you actually are interested in refuting radiometric dating (which I doubt, as disinformation seems to be your game), please do point us to something more than idiotic claims and concentrate on something more provable.
PS. Fundie Man. Again please provide proof of your claim, I can give you lots of links to studies that support radiometric dating if you’d like. I find it ironic that you think you can’t understand the past by looking at the present – because I expect you believe you can understand the past, present and future by reading your magic book written by your favourite sky fairy.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
@blah blah
You seem more interested in name calling than honest discussion of what all the evidence taken together suggests. I didn’t realize this website constituted a scientific journal and I had to cite my sources. This is funny to me considering the website source you chose to quote, as well as your lack of source for dating the magma (I cant remember the study of the top of my head…). I don’t appreciate your double standard. That, my friend, is intellectually dishonest.
Regardless, here are a few of the studies I found that have taken on the Mt St. Helens dating dilemma.
1. Pringle, P.T., Roadside Geology of Mount St Helens National Volcanic Monument and Vicinity, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Information Circular 88, p. 120, 1993.
2. Swanson, D.A. and Holcomb, R.T., Regularities in growth of the Mount St Helens dacite dome, 1980–1986. In: Lava Flows and Domes, J. Fink (ed.), Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Vol. 2, pp. 3–24, 1990.
3. Swanson and Holcomb, Ref. 2.
4. Swanson and Holcomb, Ref. 2.
5. Cashman, K.V., Crystallization of Mount St Helens 1980–1986 dacite: a quantitative textural approach, Bulletin Volcanologique 50:194–209, 1988.
6. Cashman, K.V. and Taggart, J.E., Petrologic monitoring of 1981 and 1982 eruptive products from Mount St Helens, Science 221:1385–1387, 1983.
7. Cashman, K.V., Groundmass crystallization of Mount St Helens dacite, 1980–1986: a tool for interpreting shallow magmatic processes, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 109:431–449, 1992.
8. Swanson and Holcomb, Ref. 2.
9. Cashman, Ref. 5
10. Heliker, C., Inclusions in Mount St Helens dacite erupted from 1980 through 1983, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 66:115–135, 1995.
11. Heliker, Ref. 10.
12. Heliker, Ref. 10.
13. Rutherford, M.J., Sigurdsson, H., Carey, S. and Davis, A., The May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens 1: melt composition and experimental phase equilibria, Journal of Geophysical Research 90:2929–2947, 1985.
14. Rutherford, M.J. and Devine, J.D., The May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens 3: stability and chemistry of amphibole in the magma chamber, Journal of Geophysical Research 93:11949–11959, 1988.
15. Endo, E.T., Dzurisin, D. and Swanson, D.A., Geophysical and observational constraints for ascent rates of dacitic magma at Mount St Helens. In: Magma Transport and Storage, M.P. Ryan (ed.), John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 318–334, 1990.
16. Cashman, Ref. 7.
17. Cashman, Ref. 5.
18. Heliker, Ref. 10.
19. Faure, G., Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 42, 1986.
20. Dalrymple, G.B.and Lanphere, M.A., Potassium-Argon Dating: Principles, Techniques and Applications to Geochronology, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, p. 49, 1969.
21. Dalrymple, G.B., 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6:47–55, 1969.
22. Dalrymple, Ref. 21.
23. Krummenacher, D., Isotopic composition of argon in modern surface volcanic rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 8:109–117, 1970.
24. Laughlin, A.W., Poths, J., Healey, H.A., Reneau, S. and Wolde Gabriel, G., Dating of Quaternary basalts using the cosmogonic 3He and 14C methods with implications for excess 40Ar, Geology 22:135–138, 1994.
25. Patterson, D.B., Honda, M. and McDougall, I., Noble gases in mafic phenocrysts and xenoliths from New Zealand, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58:4411–4427, 1994.
26. Honda, M., McDougall, I., Patterson, D.B., Doulgens, A. and Clague, D.A., Noble gases in submarine pillow basalt glasses from Loihi and Kilauea, Hawaii: a solar component in the Earth, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 57:859–874, 1993.
27. Heliker, Ref. 10.
28. Karpinskaya, T.B., Synthesis of argon muscovite, International Geology Review 9:1493–1495, 1967.
29. Poths, J., Healey, H. and Laughlin, A.W., Ubiquitous excess argon in very young basalts, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 25:A–462, 1993.
30. Patterson et al., Ref. 25.
31. Broadhurst, C.L., Drake, M.J., Hagee, B.E. and Benatowicz, T.J., Solubility and partitioning of Ar in anorthite, diopside, forsterite, spinel, and synthetic basaltic liquids, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 54:299–309, 1990.
32. Broadhurst, C.L., Drake, M.J., Hagee, B.E. and Benatowicz, T.J., Solubility and partitioning of Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe in minerals and synthetic basaltic melts, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 56:709–723, 1992.
33. Broadhurst et al., Ref 31.
34. Dalrymple, G.B., Potassium-argon dates of three Pleistocene interglacial basalt flows from the Sierra Nevada, California, Geological Society of America Bulletin 75:753–758, 1964.
35. Huber, N.K. end Eckhardt, W.W., Devils Postpile Story, Sequoia Natural History Association, Three Rivers, California, p. 30, 1985.
36. Hamblin, W.K., Late Cenozoic Lava Dams in the Western Grand Canyon, Geological Society of America, Memoir 183, Boulder, Colorado, p. 139, 1994.
37. McKee, E.D., Hamblin, W.K. and Damon, P.E., K-Ar age of lava dam in Grand Canyon, Geological Society of America Bulletin 79:133–136, 1968.
38. Hamblin, Ref. 36.
39. Young, D.A., The discovery of terrestrial history. In: Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World’s Formation, H.I. Van Till, R.E. Snow, J.H. Stek and D.A. Young (eds), William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 26–81, 1990.
40. Mor, D., Har Odem Geological Map, Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, scale 1:50,000, one sheet, 1987.
41. Bar-Yosef, O., Geochronology of the Levantine Middle Palaeolithic. In: The Human Revolution, P. Mellars and C. Stringer (eds), Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 589–610, 1989.
With that said, dates taken from rock are consistently inaccurate. Geologists quote this all the time:
“In general, dates in the correct ballpark [millions of years] are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published, nor are discrepancies fully explained.”
–Richard L Mauger
There is a much guesswork that goes into radiocarbon dating as objective “science”. That makes it innaccurate and intellectually dishonest.
In regards to the Grand Canyon, there wasn’t one landmark study that has been done at the Grand Canyon showing the innaccuracy of radio carbon dating, there have been so many that it isn’t even considered necessary. Many scientists have performed these tests. You, as a novice scientist could go and perform the exact same test today. You could call it the Aug 2009 Blah Blah study, and have your cited test as evidence. Regardless, There is a much guesswork that goes into them as “science”. That makes it innaccurate. That doesnt make me intellectually dishonest. Im quoting what the studies are saying.
If you would provide me an email address, I can find the rest of the studies peformed, and get those to you. Then we can have a discussion outside of the comment section on this website.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
@Blah Blah (724)
Have you read the site that you quoted concerning the limestone cowboy? Are you familiar with the work of the page’s author? I strongly advise you to take another look at what claims Glen J Kuban, an unaccredited amateur geologist is actually making. Apparently, his word is good enough for you. Im assuming you either know him personally or are highly familiar with his work.
The author claims he has never studied the remains, nor has even seen them. Therefore, can he make any valid or substantial claim? He raises questions, albeit good ones, but they prove nothing, and can even be considered misguided. At one point he even questions if the remains in the boot are human. I don’t know how many animals (cattle, horses, coyote for geographics sake) you or Mr Kuban have seen walking around wearing cowboy boots, but maybe you’ve witnessed differently. I hope you understand that I have to question any conclusion he draws from it, or extrapolation you make from his ideas thereafter.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:19 am
@Nick Namoff (725):
& Nicoli
Sorry for the long post.
I’m currently checking those references; some of them are not available through my Athens account, so, some I’ve emailed for directly others I’m still looking into. Please, please… don’t just block quote from a web site! Your one and only source is http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp. You quoted those sources as though they were your own… but in reality they are from AIG, that omission again is intellectual dishonesty.
Quote: “I don’t appreciate your double standard”. Oh please, I made it quite clear, if you’d have provided the sources I could have checked if this was the paper I was thinking of. You originally posted…”In one instance, newly formed rock (hardened magma) from Mt St Helens was tested and given a dating of 14 million years.”
Please provide the source for this claim – on its own – the ONE INSTANCE. “I think” as I said previously – from memory – this is the study I referred to in my post. How is that intellectually dishonest!?
Quite openly I said, and I thought I was clear about this… “unfortunately you’ve not quoted your sources – so no one can refute directly your claims.”. Is this intellectually dishonest???
Secondly, not once did I claim the web site I linked to as anything other than ‘interesting’. I would think that its obvious I couldn’t link to anything about “the boot” that’s published scientific work – because there isn’t anything published (or at least I can’t find it). So again, please provide a reference to published study, from a reputable journal, that proves your claims about “the boot”. As your claims are pretty damn spectacular!
Quite rightly you don’t accept the information provided by some random website I quoted (that I thought was interesting). I assume then, that for you to accept your assertions re “the boot” you will be able to provide me with some pretty damn good proof, because it seems we’re all keen to avoid double standards.
Are you saying that all scientists that use dates derived from radiometric dating are intellectually dishonest?! I quote “That makes it (radiocarbon dating) innaccurate and intellectually dishonest.” [Brackets mine].
I not sure of what you mean here, I quote “You, as a novice scientist could go and perform the exact same test today. You could call it the Aug 2009 Blah Blah study, and have your cited test as evidence.”. You seem to be missing the whole ‘getting it peer reviewed and published bit’. Incidentally I wouldn’t even consider myself a novice scientist in the field of geology. What is your point?
With that said – it will take me some time to look into the various quoted sources (FROM AIG – NOT YOU), and as I am not a geologist it might take some time to refute them, if, of course they can be… I’ll keep an open mind.
If you are happy to post your email address online in this forum – I’ll send you a link to a temporary account of mine you can reach me on.
Nicoli… Quote: “I don’t know how many animals (cattle, horses, coyote for geographics sake) you or Mr Kuban have seen walking around wearing cowboy boots, but maybe you’ve witnessed differently.”. This again is idiocy on your part.
Nicoli – again provide proof re “the boot”. I notice you avoided answering re your bible reliance on understanding the past, present and future. Now there’s a double standard.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
@ Blah Blah
I think you’re overusing this intellectual dishonesty claim. I know intellectual honesty is important, but I feel you’re using it as a buzz word/trump card to strike down anything you don’t agree with.
Why would I for the sake of this website not be able to block quote? The work has been done, I am just bringing it into this forum. Of course this isn’t my work. I’m not a scientist, do you feel there is a need to perform all these tests again anytime they are discussed? Is that what you are referring to in terms of intellectual honesty?
I have referred to Aig, simply because, in addition to being a ministerial organization, it is an aggregator of studies, research work, quotes, findings by scientists in many different fields. Not all of the studies referred to were performed by or funded by, or owned by AIG. Some of them are. Point is: this is not “one source” as you claimed. If AIG ceased to exist, you could still find these works. Maybe what you mean, and I would agree with, is that it is one area (site) on the world wide web where all these studies and tests happened to be linked together to provide some context on a topic. And I brought them here.
Let it be abundantly clear these sources are not my own. I own no piece of their content, nor any of their intellectual property. I was unsure why you assumed I was claiming that. Again, I am not a scientist, I did not perform, nor was a part of any of the tests or studies that I refer to.
Because I have omitted some sources, or omitted a reference to the exact source or study does not mean that they did not take place, or are any less valid. I have referred to examples for the sake of commentary. I do not keep these studies on hand. I suppose I will have to from now on. I can come up with some of the studies, but it will take a lot of time to find the exact ones, as I’ve come across them at various times over the past five or six years. Does that mean I’m not allowed to refer to them? Or that it invalidated them? I don’t believe that should be the case.
In regards to the boot, The claim I made was in pure sarcasm, I thought that was obvious. But in all seriousness, lets look at any time artifacts are found in rock, and just look at it logically. In regards to these objects, it is not the object itself that is interesting, or the talking point. It is the dating of the rock surrounding the object that is interesting. The rock or sedimentary layer in which the object was dated is reportedly millions of years old. So, how can this be? Again, I do not have the specific documentation of the findings of the researcher/scientist. But, again, I know this has happened countless times by many different people. I will try to find it for you. But, let me ask you, have you ever heard of a geologist taking a rock to an independent lab and having it dated to a hundred years old or less? No, it never happens, because regardless, it is given a date in the millions. (again, see Mauger quote from previous entry, also below). This is purely and simply a logical fallacy, I don’t feel that any more information is needed, or that one needs to prove anything beyond that. In this case, we let logic speak for itself. How can rock millions and millions of years old contain obvious human artifacts?
Your double standard is showing itself again. If you are refuting Austin’s 92 work, what is your source that disproves it? And does it disprove some of Austin and his colleagues more recent work? Here are some more references in regards to the Grand Canyon dating that are not mine:
Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, and the Creation Research Society, St Joseph, Missouri, in preparation, 2005.
Austin, S.A. and Snelling, A.A., Discordant potassium-argon model and isochron ‘ages’ for Cardenas Basalt (Middle Proterozoic) and associated diabase of eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 35–51, 1998.
Snelling, A.A., Austin, S.A. and Hoesch, W.A., Radioisotopes in the diabase sill (Upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: An application and test of the isochron dating method; in: Ivey, R.L. Jr., (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 269–284, 2003.
Austin, S.A., Testing the assumptions of radioisotope dating, using whole-rock and mineral isochron methods by K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb radioisotope pairs; in: Vardiman et al., ref 2.
Snelling, A.A., Isochron discordance and the role of inheritance and mixing of radioisotopes in the mantle and crust; in: Vardiman et al., ref 2.
Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay; in: Vardiman et al., ref. 2.
Snelling, A.A., Radiohalos in granites: evidence for accelerated nuclear decay; in: Vardiman et al., ref. 2.
Baumgardner, J.R., 14C evidence for a recent global Flood and a young earth: in; Vardiman et al., ref. 2.
The peer review process is not lost on me. In regards to your 2009 Grand Canyon study, please feel free to have your findings peer reviewed. I think that is an excellent call on your part. Then, we can both reference your findings for future discussion’s sake.
Heres the quote from my previous post concerning the peer review process:
“In general, dates in the correct ballpark [millions of years] are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published, nor are discrepancies fully explained.”
–Richard L Mauger
I realize the peer review process is important to become published in a scientific journal. I’m not familiar with the Athens database you referred to, and I’m assuming it’s a UK thing? But it seems that you are using that like its your Bible, that if it doesn’t exist in the archive, we must throw it out of any conversation and assume it has no truth value. I would certainly argue against that. How many times have studies’ findings that appear in peer-reviewed journals been proved wrong over the years? Simply because something is peer reviewed does not necessarily make it true. It just makes it peer reviewed. It is still at the mercy of assumption and bias. And, as I hope it is readily obvious, there are strong biases that affect the scientific community.
September 21st, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Nick Namoff: At least scientific journals are peer-reviewed. What credibility does the bible have as a book that is portrayed as infallible?
You said, “Simply because something is peer reviewed does not necessarily make it true. It just makes it peer reviewed. It is still at the mercy of assumption and bias. And, as I hope it is readily obvious, there are strong biases that affect the scientific community.”
How much less true and more filled with assumption and bias then is the bible when it is not peer-reviewed? How much more readily obvious is it that there are strong biases that affect the creationism community?
September 21st, 2009 at 10:51 pm
GenessorDios: I wasn’t using the Bible as a reference, and never mentioned it – so I’m unsure why that has come into the discussion. Moreover, with your question you are comparing apples to oranges, so it’s tough to answer you specifically. If you can provide a more specific question, I can try to provide you with a more specific answer.
You said “At least scientific journals are peer reviewed” Again, this still does not make them true. Why would the Bible need to be peer-reviewed? For one, it is not a science book, nor a collection of hypotheses and theories that needed to be presented before a “scientific community.” It is an account (testaments) of people and a nation who had relationship and interacted with God through time. It was written over a long period of time ending around the first century AD. Peer Review got going around the 17th century AD, quite a bit later.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:11 am
My mistake, I saw a mention of the bible in your previous posts (708), saw the block quotes that you took from the Answers in Genesis website (725) and the creationist source of the first few studies you quoted (727) so I assumed you were a creationist. I will assume then, that you are not referring to the bible as an alternative to evolution and are instead debating the merits of evolution & peer reviewing itself on a non-religious basis, please correct me if I am again mistaken.
As for your opinions on the peer review process; doubtless, it is an imperfect process. After all, humans are imperfect. You say that having something peer reviewed does not make it necessarily true, to which I would ask, what is your alternative? This is, as far as I know, the best method of reviewing new findings or claims or theories or what have you in the scientific community and thus the results of this rigorous process should be accepted until someone comes along with a radically different idea that is then peer reviewed and accepted as correct.
Again I ask, if peer reviewing is so flawed to the extent that it is your belief that the findings should not be made public and accepted by the scientific community, what then is the alternative?
Furthermore, you yourself ask Blah Blah to have his findings peer reviewed. Wouldn’t this be pointless since as you said, peer reviewed studies are not necessarily true?
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
GenessorDios:
You actually assumed correctly that I am a creationist, even though it’s not important to this debate or any that we label people. Because, you are also correct when you assume that I am debating the merits of evolution and peer review on a non-religious basis. I think its important that science should debate science.
To answer one of your questions: I don’t believe there is an alternative to the peer review process, except honest scientists. As I mentioned in earlier posts, I recognize the importance of the peer review process, its just that it does not necessarily make findings true or factual(because they are subject to bias and assumption).
I think you said it best; humans are imperfect. So too, our science and scientific experiments can be. We are subject to bias, and simple everyday mistakes. This is why I believe the peer review process is good and helpful, just not the end all be all of establishing scientific hypotheses theorems, etc. It IS the final stamp of approval to getting published though. And I agree that it is important that findings are published for the sake of the scientific community. So, to make a jump back then – The difference being that having a work published and being “true” are not necessarily one and the same. Again, how many tests and findings that have been published in the past have been thrown out as they have been disproven over time? Does that make sense?
Blah Blah was holding fast to the notion that peer review and publication in scientific journals is validation for holding truth value, and its just not necessarily so.I was sarcastically jabbing him to perform a field test and have his findings peer reviewed if he held it in such high regard. I cont care if he performs the test or not, if his findings are peer reviewed or not, just that should he perform such a test, or anyone for that matter, that whatever steps are taken, that reporting of findings would be done so honestly, and that we would let the truth of the findings speak for itself, and not have a bias interpretation of it by yourself or your “peers”.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:19 pm
I think you are contradicting yourself. The reason articles are peer reviewed is to ensure the correctness and repeatability of the results, in effect proving the honesty of the original researchers.
I am really confused as to your view. Peer reviewed articles may not all be completely correct, but they’re the best we have and it’s in our best interest to assume that they’re correct until shown otherwise, or no progress will ever be made.
Do you or anyone you love drive a car? I’m sure you are aware that the vehicle will go through some safety tests but obviously they are not 100% accurate, they’re just done to the best of the manufacturer’s ability. Do you wait until you are absolutely sure of the safety of the car or do you place your trust in the manufacturer and drive the car anyway?
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:06 am
GessorDios
We share the same view. According to what your last post said, I am in agreement with you.
October 17th, 2009 at 12:48 am
I’m protestant Christian, but it’s ridiculous to argue the idea of natural selection when it’s so well documented. Is it really more divine for the creator of the universe to birth mankind out of mud, or a begin a biologic process that creates sentience out of millions of years of selection? I’m no bigot, just a thought.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Is there anyone who has a well defined idea of what the theory of evolution actually states? I mean, the list confirms misconceptions, and even some of these are up for debate; But, its theory, obviously, or there would not be a debate. But what are the major tenants of evolution? If Im going to believe evolution is real, what do I subscribe to?
It seems so subjective across the board, that no one really is very clear, that its more about being right. Why would this be pushed so hard by some members of the scientific community, the public, and schools if it is so misunderstood? It makes no sense. I think that’s why there is so much push back from Christian conservatives – even those that don’t totally understand their own beliefs.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:40 pm
“A fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”-Winston Churchill
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 am
This has to be one of the best lists ever published! Thank you so much for killing off some of those misconceptions regarding evolution! And thank you even more for enlightening those who have yet to accept the beautiful truth of our history.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Having trawled through about 80% of the posts (ignoring those written by the more obviously mentally deficient) I’ve come to the conclusion that some of you, you know who you are, just need to let it go. Look at it this way, in a hundred years the Lord our God will strike down the unbelievers.. woo hoo. Or, in a hundred years we will look back at religion as an unfortunate part of our past that held back science and progress in the dark ages.
Personally, the creationism vs evoloution argument is largely confined to the USA and has only been adopted by newsagencies over here (the rest of the World) in the hope of raising thier sales by promoting it as ‘a big problem we need to worry about’.
At the end of the day it’s a non issue, anyone who subscribes to creationism will not get a job working or teaching in an area where evolution and its related subjects are central to the job. So just shrug your shoulders and say “yeah, whatever” if you happen to meet one of these poor deluded people. To quote Ross and Phoebe from Friends – “Opposable thumbs, explain them Pheebs?” “maybe, the Space overlords needed them to steer their spaceships”.
December 5th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
@originofkind77
-In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution (I know that Wiki isn’t a peer reviewed site, it however does provide an ample description of evolution)
You don’t “subscribe” to evolution. You either accept the science or you don’t. If you don’t accept the science behind evolution, then what science do you accept? Cars? Computers? Aeronautics? If you accept one facet of science to be real and tangible, like biology (that is connected to evolution), but deny another is foolish. If you go to a doctor do you not let him use scientific advancements to treat you? That’s not to say all science is perfect, though the ultimate goal of science is truth. If a hypothesis is wrong, or evidence invalid, it prevents it from being a working theory. With that said, evolution has enough facts and truths behind it to make it valid and relevant.
Evolution is primarily misunderstood do to the massive amounts of disinformation, half-truths and lies that are out there. It’s easy to create a lie and cause doubts. Crocoduck anyone? Case in point, you may have misunderstand the use of the term theory as it’s related to science. A theory that hasn’t been confirmed is called a hypothesis. When Darwin began investigating natural selection, it started as a hypothesis. Then as evidence, observed, testable evidence, sprouted up it evolved to being a theory. Words have multiple meanings and therefore can be easily used for manipulation or misdirection. Ex. – Lead. If i don’t use it in a sentence how would you know what I am referring to. This same principle applies to theory, a lot of times they misuse the definition and place it out of context.
The reason why religious people push so hard (especially creationists) is that evolution calls their beliefs into question. The ones that take the bible as a literal time line can not account for the fossil record, evolution, or just the general age of the Earth. They typically use hyperbole or rhetoric to “defend” their religion. Even though evolution itself does nothing to negate the possibility of (a) god. It just changes the interpretation of the bible bringing genesis to represent a time frame, not a literal work. If )a) god does exist would (s)he exist under our perception of time anyway? Wouldn’t time be completely irrelevant to an immortal?
Evolution isn’t a subjective topic, it’s observable and testable, which makes it an objective science. However people’s interpretation of the material (both scientific and religious) is subjective.
@The Music Hearer
Isn’t the paramecium’s ability to alter it’s DNA mid-life cycle a preexisting adaptation? Much like the frogs that can switch genders or the fish that can grow lungs? It’s not a “choice” to adapt, it’s a genetic aspect to it’s being. It adapted to be able to adapt. One could argue that I am arguing semantics, but I think my point is valid.
REG:Human Adaptation
Humans didn’t try to adapt themselves, we adapt the environment. That is our adaptation, the ability to mold the environment to suit OUR needs. Of course now, with stem-cell research, cloning etc. We are working to “adapt” our DNA, therefore making a conscious choice. As I said though, our ability to alter our world is our adaptation. That is why we are the beings that we are. Our ability to survive isn’t natural in the same ways it is for other animals. We don’t have thick hair or fur for warmth, we actively build shelters. We can no longer eat raw meat (and the arguement can effectively be made that we shouldn’t eat meat), nor can we kill and skin an animal with our bare hands. Yes we can strangle an animal, if we can catch it, however due to our lack of claws and predatory jaws we need tools to process the dead animal; and fire to eat it.
People that disagree with evolution do so, by and large, because of misinformation and an inability to correlate it to their religion. Evolution is inappropriately labeled as a religious debunker, it’s not. It is just simply an explanation as to how life on this planet got to where it is. Science has no explanation for how life began, they have multiple hypothesis but no workable testable theory… yet.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:59 am
Tell ya what guys… when Jesus comes back, we’ll all know the answers to how life started, the mysteries or heresies of evolution, and who is going to heaven and hell. =)
January 23rd, 2010 at 5:16 am
This is the only list I’ve coma cross on this site which I didn’t like. It’s abundantly clear which side you take in the debate and also as clear that you did not take the time to research both sides, only your own. For every ‘evidence’ proposed by evolutionists there is an equal and opposide ‘evidence’ for creationists. Also, creationists as a whole never say that there is no such thing as evolution. Nor does it go against the Bible. Its the beginning that the two sides disagree on. In your list you use the word ’scientists’ when referring to those who are on the evolutionist side, there are just as many accredited scientists on the creationist side as there are on the evolutionist side. You really didn’t do your research on this one, I suggest you re-investigate and rewrite the list or make a new one with all of the facts, not just the ones that support your side.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:35 am
Charles Darwin (Who i admire as a Taxonomist and brilliant nature lover) and his modern acolytes Richard Dawkins (Who is a brilliant writer..love his books) et al… “ARE THE HIGH PRIESTS OF THE HIGHLY IMPROBABLE FOISTING THE IMPOSSIBLE ON THE IMPRESSIONABLE.”
I have spent 18 years researching and 18 months writing my book..”THE ORIGIN OF SPECIOUS NONSENSE.”
In it i expose tho pox of organised religion and the insulting FICTION of Darwinian evolution.
Love your site
Take care
John J May Dublin Ireland
January 25th, 2010 at 1:30 am
My boyfriend has a habit of when he doesn’t agree with something he says he doesn’t believe in it. For example instead of “I don’t think it’s right to hit women” he will say “I don’t believe in hitting women.” I’m always like,how can you not believe in something that just exists? Like saying “I don’t believe in interracial marriage.” It doesn’t make any sense. Even if the believer is sincere a false belief is still not knowledge. Science is not based on faith, evolution is not just a guess, there are real facts backing it up. Things you can’t logically argue. Just because we can’t remake it in an hour in a lab doensn’t mean it’s wrong. There is too much evidence supporting it to say “I just don’t believe in it” it’s not Santa Claus FFS
By the way, I do believe in God. And I believe in evolution.
February 1st, 2010 at 5:39 am
Darwin didn’t kill God. He explained him. Personally, I think God snapping his fingers would sound a lot like a big bang.
February 6th, 2010 at 3:23 am
I’ve seen taped interviews in which scientists, who once believed in the theory of evolution, say they have changed their minds and now believe in intelligent design. A dvd called ‘unlocking the mystery of life’ is one such production. It presents scientific theory to support intelligent design & shows CGI of inter-cellular DNA production & the amazing workings of the flagellum motor. Definitely worth a look.