The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[Boss]

Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?

One word: arrogance.

They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal. We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.

Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth. Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them. They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis. With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.

Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.

So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.

Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!

I did not abandon science. I am pointing out the arrogance and intellectual shallowness of a creationist position. If anything, the creationists have abandon science to embrace mythology.

And you're right. There was a chemical reaction that initially spawned life. It took the brain pan and intellect of Man to invent a myth about creation, a myth which exists in every culture. It takes science to prove how when and why life began.

Glad you have it all figured out and know all answers... no more need for science OR god... right?

 

[rightwinger]

If there is a God....why did he create his animals over 500 million years ?
Couldn't he make up his mind?
Why would God have to rely on trial and error?

 

[sealybobo]

...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.

How is one different from the other?

Who made God?

Made? Explain.

February 2009 Gallup Poll reported only 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. While a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% said they don't have an opinion either way.

The same poll correlated belief in evolution with educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education. Clearly, the level of education has an impact on how people feel about evolution.

Another variable investigated by the same poll was how belief in evolution correlates with church attendance. Of those who believe in evolution, 24 percent go to church weekly, 30 percent go nearly weekly/monthly, and 55 percent seldom or never go.

Not surprisingly, and rather unfortunately, religious belief interferes with people's understanding of what the theory of evolution says.

 

[rightwinger]

...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.

How is one different from the other?

Who made God?

Made? Explain.

You seem to be troubled with evolution being able to explain the exact movement of creation yet seem perfectly willing to accept a creator who always existed

 

[Boss]

You seem to be troubled with evolution being able to explain the exact movement of creation yet seem perfectly willing to accept a creator who always existed

Nothing has explained the exact moment of creation. I seem to have trouble accepting some idiot on a message board's pontification of their faith-based beliefs being passed of as science.

I asked you to explain "made God" and you ignored my question. Why?

 

[sealybobo]

...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.

How is one different from the other?

Who made God?

Made? Explain.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It's in the fossil record, carefully dated using radioactivity, the release of particles from radioactive isotopic decay, which works like a very precise clock. Rocks from volcanic eruptions (igneous rocks) buried near a fossil carry certain amounts of radioactive material, unstable atomic nuclei that emit different kinds of radiation, like tiny bullets. The most common is Uranium-235, which decays into Lead-207. Analyzing the ratio of Uranium-235 to Lead-207 in a sample, and knowing how frequently Uranium-235 emits particles (its half-life is 704 million years, the amount half a sample decays into Lead), scientists can get a very accurate measure of the age of a fossil.

But evidence for evolution is also much more palpable, for example in the risks of overprescribing antibiotics: the more we (and farm animals) take antibiotics, the higher the chance that a microbe will mutate into one resistant to the drug. This isin-your-face evolution, species mutating at the genetic level and adapting to a new environment (in this case, an environment contaminated with antibiotics). The proof of this can be easily achieved in the laboratory, by comparing original strands of bacteria with those subjected to different doses of antibiotics. It's simple and conclusive, since the changes in the genetic code of the resistant mutant can be identified and studied.

 

[rightwinger]

You seem to be troubled with evolution being able to explain the exact movement of creation yet seem perfectly willing to accept a creator who always existed

Nothing has explained the exact moment of creation. I seem to have trouble accepting some idiot on a message board's pontification of their faith-based beliefs being passed of as science.

I asked you to explain "made God" and you ignored my question. Why?

Made God

The assumption is evolution is invalid because they can't explain the exact moment of creation.....yet accept a God who has always been a as a reasonable alternative

 

[Boss]

...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.

How is one different from the other?

Who made God?

Made? Explain.

February 2009 Gallup Poll reported only 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. While a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% said they don't have an opinion either way.

The same poll correlated belief in evolution with educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education. Clearly, the level of education has an impact on how people feel about evolution.

Another variable investigated by the same poll was how belief in evolution correlates with church attendance. Of those who believe in evolution, 24 percent go to church weekly, 30 percent go nearly weekly/monthly, and 55 percent seldom or never go.

Not surprisingly, and rather unfortunately, religious belief interferes with people's understanding of what the theory of evolution says.

Well, silly boob... I believe in the theory of evolution if we are talking about micro-evolution... small adaptive changes over time to form new species. I don't believe in macro-evolution, that all life sprang forth from a common single cell... because there is no evidence for that belief.

But aside from all that... how intelligent people are and what percent think a certain thing, has nothing to do with scientific evidence or the scientific method. IF that were how man determined scientific facts then the Earth would still be flat.

 

[Boss]

Made God

The assumption is evolution is invalid because they can't explain the exact moment of creation.....yet accept a God who has always been a as a reasonable alternative

Still no explanation for "made God" here. Why can't you answer?

 

[sealybobo]

...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.

How is one different from the other?

Who made God?

Made? Explain.

February 2009 Gallup Poll reported only 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. While a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% said they don't have an opinion either way.

The same poll correlated belief in evolution with educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education. Clearly, the level of education has an impact on how people feel about evolution.

Another variable investigated by the same poll was how belief in evolution correlates with church attendance. Of those who believe in evolution, 24 percent go to church weekly, 30 percent go nearly weekly/monthly, and 55 percent seldom or never go.

Not surprisingly, and rather unfortunately, religious belief interferes with people's understanding of what the theory of evolution says.

Well, silly boob... I believe in the theory of evolution if we are talking about micro-evolution... small adaptive changes over time to form new species. I don't believe in macro-evolution, that all life sprang forth from a common single cell... because there is no evidence for that belief.

But aside from all that... how intelligent people are and what percent think a certain thing, has nothing to do with scientific evidence or the scientific method. IF that were how man determined scientific facts then the Earth would still be flat.

Does evolution really need to be such a stumbling block for so many? Is it really that bad that we descended from monkeys? [Formally, we didn't "descend from monkeys" but shared a common ancestor with monkeys in the past. In fact, all common living species shared a single common ancestor]. Behind this strong resistance to evolution there is a deep dislike for a scientific understanding of how nature works. The problem seems to be related to the age-old God-of-the-Gaps agenda, that the more we understand of the world the less room there is for a God.

 

[sealybobo]

It seems reasonable to look for something that the USA, Turkey, and Cyprus have in common that makes people not accept evolution.


Yet even as creationists keep trying to undermine modern science, modern science is beginning to explain creationism scientifically. And it looks like evolution—the scientifically uncontested explanation for the diversity and interrelatedness of life on Earth, emphatically including human life—will be a major part of the story. Our brains are a stunning product of evolution; and yet ironically, they may naturally pre-dispose us against its acceptance.

 

[sealybobo]

What are these features of the human brain that evolved to favor religion over evolution? What are the seven reasons that cause our brains to pre-dispose us against accepting evolution? Here they are:


· Biological Essentialism

· Teleological Thinking

· Overactive Agency Detection

· Dualism

· Inability to Comprehend Vast Time Scales

· Group Morality and Tribalism

· Fear and the Need for Certainty

 

[Nosmo King]

Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?

One word: arrogance.

They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal. We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.

Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth. Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them. They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis. With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.

Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.

So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.

Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!

I did not abandon science. I am pointing out the arrogance and intellectual shallowness of a creationist position. If anything, the creationists have abandon science to embrace mythology.

And you're right. There was a chemical reaction that initially spawned life. It took the brain pan and intellect of Man to invent a myth about creation, a myth which exists in every culture. It takes science to prove how when and why life began.

Glad you have it all figured out and know all answers... no more need for science OR god... right?

Plenty of need for science to answer the questions. And plenty of need for God to place a lamp unto your feet for moral guidance. But don't let God teach science! And don't rely on science to prove the existence of God!

 

[Boss]

Does evolution really need to be such a stumbling block for so many? Is it really that bad that we descended from monkeys? [Formally, we didn't "descend from monkeys" but shared a common ancestor with monkeys in the past. In fact, all common living species shared a single common ancestor]. Behind this strong resistance to evolution there is a deep dislike for a scientific understanding of how nature works. The problem seems to be related to the age-old God-of-the-Gaps agenda, that the more we understand of the world the less room there is for a God.

In fact, all common living species shared a single common ancestor

Not "in fact" ....in THEORY. Stop trying to make your faith-based belief into a fact please.

 

[Boss]

Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?

One word: arrogance.

They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal. We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.

Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth. Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them. They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis. With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.

Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.

So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.

Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!

I did not abandon science. I am pointing out the arrogance and intellectual shallowness of a creationist position. If anything, the creationists have abandon science to embrace mythology.

And you're right. There was a chemical reaction that initially spawned life. It took the brain pan and intellect of Man to invent a myth about creation, a myth which exists in every culture. It takes science to prove how when and why life began.

Glad you have it all figured out and know all answers... no more need for science OR god... right?

Plenty of need for science to answer the questions. And plenty of need for God to place a lamp unto your feet for moral guidance. But don't let God teach science! And don't rely on science to prove the existence of God!

Answer questions? You've already answered them, haven't you? God is a myth and we are the product of some common single cell which happened randomly through chemical reaction.... right?

 

[Nosmo King]

Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?

One word: arrogance.

They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal. We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.

Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth. Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them. They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis. With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.

Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.

So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.

Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!

I did not abandon science. I am pointing out the arrogance and intellectual shallowness of a creationist position. If anything, the creationists have abandon science to embrace mythology.

And you're right. There was a chemical reaction that initially spawned life. It took the brain pan and intellect of Man to invent a myth about creation, a myth which exists in every culture. It takes science to prove how when and why life began.

Glad you have it all figured out and know all answers... no more need for science OR god... right?

Plenty of need for science to answer the questions. And plenty of need for God to place a lamp unto your feet for moral guidance. But don't let God teach science! And don't rely on science to prove the existence of God!

Answer questions? You've already answered them, haven't you? God is a myth and we are the product of some common single cell which happened randomly through chemical reaction.... right?

I did not say God is a myth. I said Genesis is a myth.

 

[Boss]

I did not say God is a myth. I said Genesis is a myth.

Have you proven it is? Where's your evidence?

And why do you keep jumping from one inane point to another? This all started when you decided you didn't want to talk about science but instead, religious philosophy. I pointed out you were abandoning science to talk about philosophy as if that somehow compensates for your lack of science... you denied this and proceeded to continue talking about philosophy and not science. You spoke as if you have all the answers and no question remains... things are myths and people are arrogant, God shouldn't teach science. I point this out and suddenly you claim you do still need science to answer questions but then you go right back to philosophizing. Then you want to nit pick about God isn't a myth but Creation as told in Genesis is.... but you don't KNOW that... it's only your OPINION. Not everyone agrees with your opinion.

Still sitting silently on the table is this notion that life somehow originated from a single living cell that popped into existence out of nowhere through random chemical reaction. And that one magical cell produced trillions and trillions of various forms of interdependent and interconnected life through a process of evolution. When asked to support your theory with science you run back to philosophy and start espousing your opinions again.

 

[Nosmo King]

I did not say God is a myth. I said Genesis is a myth.

Have you proven it is? Where's your evidence?

And why do you keep jumping from one inane point to another? This all started when you decided you didn't want to talk about science but instead, religious philosophy. I pointed out you were abandoning science to talk about philosophy as if that somehow compensates for your lack of science... you denied this and proceeded to continue talking about philosophy and not science. You spoke as if you have all the answers and no question remains... things are myths and people are arrogant, God shouldn't teach science. I point this out and suddenly you claim you do still need science to answer questions but then you go right back to philosophizing. Then you want to nit pick about God isn't a myth but Creation as told in Genesis is.... but you don't KNOW that... it's only your OPINION. Not everyone agrees with your opinion.

Still sitting silently on the table is this notion that life somehow originated from a single living cell that popped into existence out of nowhere through random chemical reaction. And that one magical cell produced trillions and trillions of various forms of interdependent and interconnected life through a process of evolution. When asked to support your theory with science you run back to philosophy and start espousing your opinions again.

I am relying on science for answers. The musings of some Bronze Age philosopher as accounted in the mythological Book of Genesis provides no answers for the origin of life.

I want the truth too. But I can't find it in the fairie tale told in Genesis. I believe truth comes by way of empirical evidence and the scientific method, not mythology.

Every culture has produced a creation myth. Why oh why would the actual truth be found in the Judeo-Christian mythology and not in the mythology of other cultures?

I am not dismissing God as a myth, but the stories made up to explain God to Bronze Age man ring more of myth than science, superstition more than fact and intellectual shallowness rather than proofs provided by the scientific method.

 

[sealybobo]

...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.

How is one different from the other?

Who made God?

Made? Explain.

February 2009 Gallup Poll reported only 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. While a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% said they don't have an opinion either way.

The same poll correlated belief in evolution with educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education. Clearly, the level of education has an impact on how people feel about evolution.

Another variable investigated by the same poll was how belief in evolution correlates with church attendance. Of those who believe in evolution, 24 percent go to church weekly, 30 percent go nearly weekly/monthly, and 55 percent seldom or never go.

Not surprisingly, and rather unfortunately, religious belief interferes with people's understanding of what the theory of evolution says.

Well, silly boob... I believe in the theory of evolution if we are talking about micro-evolution... small adaptive changes over time to form new species. I don't believe in macro-evolution, that all life sprang forth from a common single cell... because there is no evidence for that belief.

But aside from all that... how intelligent people are and what percent think a certain thing, has nothing to do with scientific evidence or the scientific method. IF that were how man determined scientific facts then the Earth would still be flat.

I found a great article that explains why it's so hard for a religious brain like yours to believe in evolution.

The evidence is clear that both our cognitive architecture, and also our emotional dispositions, make it difficult or unnatural for many people to accept evolution. "Natural selection is like quantum physics...we might intellectually grasp it, with considerable effort, but it will never feel right to us. Often, people express surprise that in an age so suffused with science, science causes so much angst and resistance.

 

[Boss]

What are these features of the human brain that evolved to favor religion over evolution? What are the seven reasons that cause our brains to pre-dispose us against accepting evolution? Here they are:

All due respect to your opinion.... I don't accept the theory of macro-evolution because there is no scientific evidence supporting it at this time. I've pointed out numerous times, micro-evolution happens all the time, we have clear indisputable evidence of it. But micro-evolution is merely life adapting to changes. Sometimes, life cannot adapt to changes fast enough and it becomes extinct. It simply doesn't spawn an entirely new genera of life, DNA doesn't allow it. You do not have any scientific evidence to support this theory but you continue to present it as fact, and you pretend that it's a well-established fact that most people accept. It's simply not.