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.
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.
Dennis Quaid? Really?
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!
Quick question: Do you do the dishes by chance??
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.
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.)
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.
Adorabelle: I can confirm that as well – the Catholic Church does not teach Bible fundamentalism.
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.
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.
Jamie: We were not taught fundamentalism we just were not advised of all sides.
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.
Is this one of the lists just to see how many comments you can get?
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!!
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.
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.
bucslim:
Shatner is a funny bastard, that’s all I can say.
buclism: I always thought that was Ace Ventura!! Awesome.
My favourite is Shatners version of Rocket Man.
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!
SocialButterfly – Ace imitating James T. Kirk
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.
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 ***** recently, and if you haven’t guessed, I’m not too patient with people who word things just to be hurtful.
The Big Bang theory was formulated by a Catholic Priest Georges Lemaître.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 ***** 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.
“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.
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
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
I think it’s too late. I’ve had a *****ty day and I’ve said too much. I wanted to sound rational, but now I just sound like an accusing *****. 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.
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.
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.
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…
It’s ok ProgRapture, we still accept you.
-Andrea Carlena Beauman
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!
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.
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 *****ty 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?
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.
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.
Prog, everyone’s opinions are wanted. Yours included.
Willy!! I read 4 pages of that book!!
-Andrea Carlena Beauman
“…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?
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.
Randall; thanks for the props, and how come you say what I want to? and sound so much more intelligent doing it?
“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.
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.
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.?
Thanks Andrea, I’ll stay, but not with this name. I guess I was wrong. You are an ***** Randall.
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.
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!
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.
Prog:
now come on, that was just uncalled for. Unless you meant it to be funny–in which case, yeah… I *am* an *****.
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 “*****.”
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
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.
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 bat***** 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?