╌>

Why Do People Believe So Strongly in Evolution?

  

Category:  Health, Science & Technology

Via:  heartland-american  •  6 years ago  •  355 comments

Why Do People Believe So Strongly in Evolution?
Belief in a False Doctrine

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Prior to the nineteenth century, most geologists and paleontologists believed that the earth’s land features and fossil rocks were the result of the biblical global flood. With the publication of Origin of Species by Charles Darwin in 1859, the theory of evolution gained wide acceptance in university circles. Geologists began to assume evolution and old earth as established fact—and subsequently, began to interpret geological land features and their fossils, and even the origin of life, based on the assumption of evolution.

As evolutionary theory spread, so did the idea of uniformitarianism—that physical processes have remained constant during earth’s history. For more than a century, such beliefs have been taught as fact in schools and universities, and students (who are teachers today) rotely accept such doctrine without independent study and unbiased research of their own. Teachers today continue to march to the evolutionary mantra: “Darwin said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” 53 And students continue to be taught evolution and the old earth model as “proven fact,” and they carry this erroneous belief throughout their lives without question. Acceptance of evolution as fact is one of the “one of the biggest, if not the biggest, stumbling block to people being receptive to the gospel of Jesus Christ.” 54

Evolutionary theory is completely contrary to natural laws—including the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, Law of Biogenesis, and Law of Causality . Yet people are willing to accept unknown evolutionary processes—chaos to cosmos all by itself—without question. The sudden appearance of the universe without cause, complex genetic machinery (heart, stomach, teeth, nerves, brain, skin, muscles, bones, and the other organs, all working together), and human consciousness could not have arisen by random chance without a Creator.

Although many people reject evolution for these very reasons, particularly with the knowledge that there are no transitional types anywhere in the fossil record, the possibility of creation in six literal days and a young earth seems a difficult barrier for many. Again, this is because people today have been indoctrinated with the idea of evolution and an ancient earth by secular teachers or professors.

Consider the words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon in 1877. 55 “What is science? The method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance… Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles.” [Read full quote]

Secular scientists (as well as some misguided theologians) underestimate the God of creation and judgments. In the words of Jesus Christ, “ You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures or the power of God. ” (Matthew 22:29, NAS)

The fact of the matter is, an overwhelming majority of scientific evidence (i.e., geology, biology, physics, astronomy, anthropology, archaeology, etc.) supports creation and a young earth. So why do people (scientists and laymen) believe so strongly in evolution? Essentially, there are four reasons:

1.         In 2 Peter 3:5 (NIV and KJV), it states, “they deliberately forget” and “they willfully are ignorant.” In today’s world, the term “supernatural” or the concept of God or creation is considered outside the realm of real science. Life is here on earth, so secular scientists feel they must explain life “naturalistically”—consequently, they believe that evolutionary doctrine and ignoring data contrary to evolution is legitimate. Thus, any evidence that supports a young earth or creation is automatically rejected or ignored. There is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting a young earth and Divine Creation—yet such evidence has been ignored by secular scientists because they would have to admit that evolution is wrong.

2.         Most scientists hold to the evolutionary doctrine for fear of being ridiculed. As one good naturalist put it, “Any hint of teleology [i.e., intelligent design or purpose] must be avoided.” 56 A geneticist once said that the scientific community requires the scientist to maintain two insanities at all times. “One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.” 57

3.         Evolution is taught in school (science, history, philosophy, and even religion courses) as “proven fact”—and then later in life, students perpetuate this false doctrine without question as teachers, journalists, and parents. Teaching evolution is upheld by the man-made concept of “separation of church and state” and, consequently, opposing arguments are rarely, if ever, presented to students. For example, most students have never been taught or even considered the merits and scientific evidence of global catastrophism, which support creation and a young earth. Evolution is widely accepted because many leading scientists and educators, as well as some progressive-minded clergymen, voraciously assert evolutionary doctrine and exclaim that only the ignorant would believe otherwise.

4.         But there is an even more ominous reason for belief in evolutionary doctrine. Humanity, ever since the rebellion of the first man, Adam, has had an inborn tendency to oppose the Creator’s rule or sovereignty over their lives as foretold in Genesis 3:6 and Romans 5:12. Rebellious and idolatrous history of humanity is graphically portrayed in the Bible (pagan antediluvian and postdiluvian times); the Dark Ages; World War I and World War II; and by today’s continual worldwide ethnic conflicts. It is also tied to the repugnant (more appropriately, evil) behavior of some clergymen over the ages—physical cruelty, collusion with political dictators, and abhorrent sexual abuses—all of which has alienated many from the Christian faith. The problem has never been with the God of the Holy Bible but with the corruption and moral depravity of humankind. The Bible speaks of it in Romans 1:18–22.

In spite of all known physical and biological laws and principles and overwhelming geologic evidence of worldwide flood and sedimentary flood deposits, scientists continue to devise various schemes and false assumptions to explain and uphold evolution . Despite the impossible improbabilities of evolution, scientists continue to adhere to Darwinian evolution from primeval chaos to a state of high organization and complexity.

The concept of creation and a Divine Creator is utterly avoided in all secular scientific literature (except creation research journals, papers, and creation-science books). Because of atheistic views of university academia today, the belief that life spontaneously generated from nonlife has been universally accepted as the explanation for all life forms including man. The most impossible improbabilities are considered more probable than the preponderance of scientific evidence for creation and a Divine Creator .


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    6 years ago

“Evolutionary theory is completely contrary to natural laws—including the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, Law of Biogenesis, and Law of Causality. Yet people are willing to accept unknown evolutionary processes—chaos to cosmos all by itself—without question. The sudden appearance of the universe without cause, complex genetic machinery (heart, stomach, teeth, nerves, brain, skin, muscles, bones, and the other organs, all working together), and human consciousness could not have arisen by random chance without a Creator.

Although many people reject evolution for these very reasons, particularly with the knowledge that there are no transitional types anywhere in the fossil record, the possibility of creation in six literal days and a young earth seems a difficult barrier for many. Again, this is because people today have been indoctrinated with the idea of evolution and an ancient earth by secular teachers or professors.

Consider the words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon in 1877.55“What is science? The method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance… Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles.” [Read full quote]”

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.1  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    6 years ago

Your understanding of evolution is quite glaringly lacking!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1    6 years ago

... based largely on incredulity.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    6 years ago

Yep, as well as a close minded bias against actual facts and evidence. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1    6 years ago

Evolution is fake pseudo science pure quackery.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I support creation science and believe in a literal 7 day creation week and young earth🌎.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
1.1.4  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.3    6 years ago

Do you also deny radiocarbon dating, fossils, and geology?

How are coal and oil created if you claim to be a YEC? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.3    6 years ago

You can keep telling yourself that. But it doesn't make it true. It only shows how little you actually understand science and evolution. Try telling your creation nonsense to the NAS. After all, they're science experts. So im sure they can tell you if creationism is a legitimate science or not.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.3    6 years ago
I support creation science and believe in a literal 7 day creation week and young earth🌎.

So dinosaurs coexisting with human beings, eh?

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
1.1.7  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.6    6 years ago

Bummer, I was born 5500 years too late to have a pet stegosaurus to ride to school. All I ever had were goldfish and guppies.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  epistte @1.1.7    6 years ago

A pterodactyl sounds more fun.  And time-saving.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.8    6 years ago

A pet you can ride anyehere.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @1.1.7    6 years ago

Ultimately though this is serious stuff.    YECs alone are about 10% of the USA population ~ 32 million people.    These people are actively indoctrinating their children in the firm belief that the Bible trumps science.   That any conflict between the Bible and science means science is wrong.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
1.1.11  epistte  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.8    6 years ago
A pterodactyl sounds more fun.  And time-saving.

I want to change my answer to a pterodactyl. I could sleep an extra 15 minutes and still make it to school.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
1.1.12  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.10    6 years ago

I am well aware of this. Many of them have college degrees and still believe that the Bible trumps science. I'd rather not say just how aware this is to me. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.10    6 years ago

It's basically promoting stupidity over intelligence and not questioning anything.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @1.1.12    6 years ago

Belief may not be so directly related to intelligence.   There are many highly intelligent people who believe that which cannot be evidenced.   I think it is just that some people are predisposed to believe that which makes them feel comfortable while others are interested in the truth - even if the truth is not as pleasant at the belief.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.13    6 years ago

I would use 'ignorance' but I do agree with your point.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.15    6 years ago

You are being gentler than I am. This has gone beyond ignorance. In this day and age, people should really know better.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.17  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.10    6 years ago

The number of people believing in creation is far higher than 10%.  Despite the teaching of evolution pseudoscience quackery in our public schools many simply parrot what is needed to pass that part of biology while holding to their belief in creation.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.17    6 years ago

Argumentum ad populum.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
1.1.19  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.17    6 years ago
The number of people believing in creation is far higher than 10%.  Despite the teaching of evolution pseudoscience quackery in our public schools many simply parrot what is needed to pass that part of biology while holding to their belief in creation.  

What is it about the myth of creationism that is so attractive to you and other religious fundamentalists? 

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
1.1.20  Freefaller  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.17    6 years ago
The number of people believing in creation is far higher than 10%

If true that is evidence of ignorance, indoctrination and intellectual laziness only.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
1.1.21  A. Macarthur  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.3    6 years ago

Here's a test for Creationists … one that will enable them to validate the commitment to their faith and simultaneously prove their position on evolution.

1) Allow yourselves to be exposed to a disease pathogen until it is clear that infection has been incurred.

2) Begin the use of an antibiotic and repeat infection/antibiotic tandems until such time as the pathogen/antibiotic tandem fails … then ALLOW THE INFECTION TO CONTINUE IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR FAITH, BOTH IN ITS HEALING POWERS, AND, TO DECLARE YOUR CONTINUED DENIAL OF THE VIABILITY OF EVOLUTION, since, "if organisms can't evolve, a pathogenic organism can't evolve and mutate in order to become immune to antibiotics."

Let us know when you're ready to proceed.

NOTE: What do you know about fossils?

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
1.1.22    replied to  A. Macarthur @1.1.21    6 years ago
Here's a test for Creationists … one that will enable them to validate the commitment to their faith and simultaneously prove their position on evolution.

1) Allow yourselves to be exposed to a disease pathogen until it is clear that infection has been incurred.

2) Begin the use of an antibiotic and repeat infection/antibiotic tandems until such time as the pathogen/antibiotic tandem fails … then ALLOW THE INFECTION TO CONTINUE IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR FAITH, BOTH IN ITS HEALING POWERS, AND, TO DECLARE YOUR CONTINUED DENIAL OF THE VIABILITY OF EVOLUTION, since, "if organisms can't evolve, a pathogenic organism can't evolve and mutate in order to become immune to antibiotics."

Let us know when you're ready to proceed.

E.A   Questions::

 Does this remind anyone of the " Witches Tests "?   if so, where are we?

CDC says what about the 1- 4% of Pathogenic carriers? is that 74 - 99 % Of Transmissions ? so is the CDC Part of the above Claim?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.23  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.6    6 years ago
So dinosaurs coexisting with human beings, eh?

Haven't you seen documentaries on prehistoric earth called The Flintstones? "Yabba-Dabba-Doo"...

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
1.1.24  epistte  replied to  @1.1.22    6 years ago
CDC says what about the 1- 4% of Pathogenic carriers? is that 74 - 99 % Of Transmissions ? so is the CDC Part of the above Claim?

Is there a standard English translation for this statement?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.25  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.3    6 years ago
Evolution is fake pseudo science pure quackery.

And I guess the bible is full of facts? laughing dude eek

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.26  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.13    6 years ago

....The most obvious explanation for a young earth and universe is superluminal speed and decay of the speed of light over the last 6,000 years. One of the most credible solutions is gravitational time dilation in which Einstein suggests that time is not a constant—thus light from the extremities of the universe has the potential of reaching earth in a relatively short period of time.

It is interesting to note that the concept of gravitational time dilation is compatible with the mathematics and physics associated with general relativity. Nevertheless, all this remains extremely hypothetical and far beyond the understanding of even the very brightest astrophysicist.

The single greatest problem for the Big Bang theory is the Cause of the universe and the Origin of matter and energy within space—how space, matter, and time suddenly came into existence. The fact is, astrophysicists and other scientists don’t have the faintest idea. They have never been able to explain the origin of the original infinite mass and energy and Why there is a universe in the first place.

God stated in Genesis 1:1-2 (NAS), “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” Jeremiah10:12 (NIV) states, “But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.” [Bold, emphasis added] The authority of the Bible should never be compromised by mankind’s “scientific” theories and hypotheses. .... http://creationsciencetoday.com/30-Other_Evidences.html

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.27  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.25    6 years ago

It is.  Some will make the free will choice not to accept those facts.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.1.28  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.26    6 years ago

Wow, so much ignorance in one post. Clearly you have no clue what gravitational lensing is, the observations made of the universe itself, and instead rely on a logical fallacy to support your entire argument. no wonder your nonsense is so laughable, in a pathetic sort of way.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.1.29  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.27    6 years ago
Some will make the free will choice not to accept those facts.

Let us know when you get some actual facts. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.17    6 years ago
The number of people believing in creation is far higher than 10%.  

I was referring to Young Earth Creationists.   About 10% of the USA believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old;

In short, then, the hard core of young-earth creationists represents at most one in ten Americans—maybe about 31 million people—with another quarter favoring creationism but not necessarily committed to a young earth.

Creationists in general (those who believe God created human beings) are a much larger group.   Gallup puts them at 40% of the USA:

More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades. 

The demographics tend to be:

Historically, Americans' views on the origin of humans have been related to their religiousness, education, and age.
  • Religiousness relates most strongly to these views, which is not surprising, given that this question deals directly with God's role in human origins. The percentage of Americans who accept the creationist viewpoint ranges from 69% among those who attend religious services weekly to 23% among those who seldom or never attend.
  • Educational attainment is also related to these attitudes, with belief in the creationist perspective dropping from 57% among Americans with no more than a high school education to less than half that (27%) among those with a college degree. Those with college degrees are, accordingly, much more likely to choose one of the two evolutionary explanations.
  • Younger Americans -- who are typically less religious than their elders -- are less likely to choose the creationist perspective than are older Americans. Americans aged 65 and older -- the most religious of any age group -- are most likely to choose the creationist perspective.

Ultimately, even 10% is way too many people believing, in 2018, that our planet is ~10,000 years old.   That is almost as willfully ignorant as believing the Earth is flat.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.26    6 years ago
God stated in Genesis 1:1-2 ...

Ancient men with pens stated in Genesis 1:1-2 ...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.1.32  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.31    6 years ago

I guess the lesson is, just as you shouldn't give a child a loaded gun, you shouldn't give an ancient man a pen. winking

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.1.33  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.30    6 years ago

That's a sad commentary on society.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.34  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.27    6 years ago
It is.  Some will make the free will choice not to accept those facts.  

No, there are no facts in the bible HA. The bible is jammed to the rim with ambiguity, and those are not facts. 

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
Sophomore Silent
1.1.35  Phoenyx13  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.27    6 years ago
Some will make the free will choice not to accept those facts.

this is demonstrated quite nicely by your comments and the seeded article. Thank you for illustrating it for everyone 

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
1.1.36  Dig  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.26    6 years ago
....The most obvious explanation for a young earth and universe is superluminal speed and decay of the speed of light over the last 6,000 years. One of the most credible solutions is gravitational time dilation in which Einstein suggests that time is not a constant—thus light from the extremities of the universe has the potential of reaching earth in a relatively short period of time. It is interesting to note that the concept of gravitational time dilation is compatible with the mathematics and physics associated with general relativity . Nevertheless, all this remains extremely hypothetical and far beyond the understanding of even the very brightest astrophysicist.

Every nonsensical YEC or ID claim has its rebuttal (with actual science included), this particular one is from Rational Wiki ...

c -decay theory [note 1] is a pseudoscientific creationist cosmology put forward by cdesign proponentsists . It attempts to solve the starlight problem by claiming that the speed of light in a vacuum was faster in the past and has since decayed to the value we observe it to be today. [1]

Since the development of electronic digital counters and pulsed lasers, it has been possible to measure the speed of light in the laboratory with extraordinary precision. Even if the speed of light reached the proximity of its final value decades ago, there would be enough residual decay as the value reached its limit asymptotically for our modern apparatus to detect. There is none, forcing the proponents of the theory to toss out the exponential decay which governs nearly every phenomenon in the universe in favor of wild trigonometric functions they found by brute force curve-fitting, without an underlying explanation of "why". Ultimately, even many creationists have abandoned c-decay. [2]

Keep in mind that, in order to be useful for validating an age of the universe less than 10,000 years rather than more than 10 billion years, the speed of light needs to be more than a million times faster, a difference which would be difficult to miss. We're not talking about a difference of a fraction of a percent.

Notes about c

Creationists would have us believe that the speed of light is arbitrary and somehow separated from the rest of reality; however, c is not just "the speed of light." It is a universal constant which is observed as unchanging no matter who is observing it. It can be thought of as the speed which all objects fly through the four dimensions of spacetime — if you move along "space" you have less of the speed left to go through "time" and you experience the effect of time dilation. " c " is also used in many equations related to electromagnetic phenomenon such as Maxwell's equations; and it is the fact that these equations mention c without asking what the speed is relative to as should happen in a relativistic universe that lead to the notion that c is constant for all observers. It is also a key component in Einstein 's famous E = mc 2 equation; in this case, if c was larger in the past, then matter would have had more unit of energy per unit of mass in the past. Spontaneously losing this energy would at least violate the law of conservation of energy in some way.

The speed of light may be intimately related to two other physical constants: the vacuum permittivity ε 0 and the vacuum permeability μ 0 :

c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_0\epsilon_0}}

Therefore, a variation on the value of c implies variation either on ε 0 or μ 0 or both. These properties of space are measured in experiments that don't even involve light, such as experiments with capacitors and magnets.

c -decay , therefore, does not simply mean that "light travels a bit faster;" it means that the very fabric of reality would be subject to change in the temporal dimension. So believe us, anyone who postulates that " c may decay" needs to understand that it has very serious and very far-reaching consequences. One of the most far-reaching being that the speed of light changing with time implies that energy is not conserved.

Why do people still quote bullshit that was thoroughly debunked years ago?

By the way, if anyone was wondering about the strange word " proponentsists"  at the top of that, here's where it comes from:

"Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view."

Of Pandas and People , 1987 draft version.

The term " cdesign proponentsists " came into being following the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in Pennsylvania over the legitimacy of teaching intelligent design as  science .

A crucial piece of the defense (pro-intelligent design) was a book called Of Pandas and People  which was marketed as a science textbook for middle and high school children. During the trial, previous copies of the book were subpoenaed for review. It was demonstrated that, whenever previous versions of the book had the terms "creationist" or " creationism " or some similar form, it had been replaced in almost all cases with the terms "design proponents" and "intelligent design" in later editions.

Remember when they tried to sneak that shit into schools as a textbook?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.1.37  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.3    6 years ago

You just have to look at today's horse to know that evolution is not poppycock.  The horse way back when was much smaller and had three toes which evolved into hooves eventually. Also look and man himself to know that we evolved physically and mentally.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.38  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.37    6 years ago

Hello all.  My cell phone died while I was doing an extra day at work so my time here will be limited until its fixed or replaced.  Please be on your best behavior while im limited to PC only or I'll ask badfish to lock this on you if you don't at his discretion. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
1.1.39  SteevieGee  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1    6 years ago
 Unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, - Richard Dawkins
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.1.40  Gordy327  replied to  SteevieGee @1.1.39    6 years ago
here is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, - Richard Dawkins

Absolutely agreed.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
1.1.41  Skrekk  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.3    6 years ago
Evolution is fake pseudo science pure quackery.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I support creation science and believe in a literal 7 day creation week and young earth

It sounds like you've confused biology with astrophysics.    That's very typical of Cretinists.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
1.1.42  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.3    6 years ago
I support creation science and believe in a literal 7 day creation week and young earth

Of course you do. You also believe Trump is good for our country, liberals and progressives are all evil sinners and vaccines cause autism. I'm almost surprised you're not ranting about fake moon landings and a flat earth.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.1.43  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.42    6 years ago
You also believe...and vaccines cause autism.

Really? That's one thing I do not remember seeing him talk about. Although, I wouldn't doubt it either.

Trump is good for our country, liberals and progressives are all evil sinners 

Standard conservative talking points.

I'm almost surprised you're not ranting about fake moon landings and a flat earth.

Give it time. lol

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.44  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.13    6 years ago

That is what those who believe in the pseudoscience of evolution are doing.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.1.45  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.44    6 years ago
That is what those who believe in the pseudoscience of evolution are doing.

Keep demonstrating your ignorance of science with statements like that. It's quite amusing and only makes you look foolish.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
1.1.46  Dig  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.45    6 years ago

It also makes him look like a paid troll. He keeps bumping his content with simple but intentionally hyperbolic replies to posts that are weeks old and then disappearing. He never engages as if he were serious about backing up any of his nonsense. It's as if he's just trying to piss people off and bait them into increasing the comment counts on his seeds, which is exactly what a paid troll would do if they were being compensated in some way for traffic.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
2  epistte    6 years ago

Creation science? LOLOLOLOL

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  epistte @2    6 years ago

That’s correct.  There are a lot of places doing creation science research at institutes, universities, on line sites, and others.  Creation science and intelligent design are real sciences unlike the evolution backed by people engaging in pseudo science who are largely bigots against all who presume to dare to disagree with them.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
2.1.1  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1    6 years ago
That’s correct.  There are a lot of places doing creation science research at institutes, universities, on line sites, and others.  

How many of them are religious-based? 

Creation science and intelligent design are real sciences unlike the evolution backed by people engaging in pseudo science who are largely bigots against all who presume to dare to disagree with them.  

All of them are nothing but an attempt to wrap the story of Genesis to give it some appearance of respectability to those people who are unfamiliar with either empirical science or logic

How does biological evolution violate either law of thermodynamics, as if you have any understanding of thermodynamics? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1    6 years ago

Creation science is an oxymoron.  Creationism and ID are not actual sciences. Neither are they recognized as legitimate sciences. So tryin to declare or equate them with real sciences is disingenuous at best. And there is no actual science or evidence which supports either position or claims. Creationism and ID is just religious based nonsense.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
2.1.3  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.2    6 years ago

Any legitimacy that Intelligent Design ever had died during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @2.1.3    6 years ago

ID never had legitimacy. 

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
2.1.5  Dig  replied to  epistte @2.1.3    6 years ago
Any legitimacy that Intelligent Design ever had died during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

And to make matters hilariously worse for the I.D. crowd, they got their asses handed to them in court by a biologist who is a self-identifying Christian (Ken Miller).

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dig @2.1.5    6 years ago

It is the theory of evolution with all its missing links that is pseudoscience.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
2.1.7  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.6    6 years ago
It is the theory of evolution with all its missing links that is pseudoscience.  

There are no missing links if you understand DNA.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.6    6 years ago

What "missing links" would those be?

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
2.1.9  Freefaller  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.8    6 years ago

Lol obviously he's referring to the half bacteria, half man missing link.  Or maybe it's the half fish, half man missing link, I guess it could be either

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.10  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.2    6 years ago

Feel free to believe what ever you want.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.9    6 years ago

Piltdown Man

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.11    6 years ago

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.12    6 years ago

Fun link!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
2.1.14  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dig @2.1.5    6 years ago
by a biologist who is a self-identifying Christian (Ken Miller).

Yeah, but he's not a "real" Christian in the minds of these "types."

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
2.1.15  Freefaller  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.11    6 years ago
Piltdown Man

Piltdown Man was a hoax, not a missing link

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
2.1.16    replied to  Freefaller @2.1.15    6 years ago
Piltdown Man was a hoax, not a missing link

E.A and let us  not forget the finding that it indicated " Human Sacrifice " by the Locals as the  Romans Legions reported!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.17  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.15    6 years ago
Piltdown Man was a hoax, not a missing link

Gosh!   Winking 2

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.1.18  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1    6 years ago
That’s correct.

There is no science at all that says creationism is based in facts.. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.10    6 years ago
Feel free to believe what ever you want.  

Clearly that's what you prefer to do. But unlike you, I don't go by belief. I prefer actual facts and evidence. Something which you failed to provide for your assertions.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.1.20  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.10    6 years ago

Still waiting on those "missing links."

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.20    6 years ago
Still waiting on those "missing links."

I'm still waiting on evidence that science supports YEC.  Good thing I'm not holding my breath.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.21    6 years ago

There is no evidence. At least no real evidence. The only "evidence " you might get will probably involve the bible in some way, which is not only circular reasoning, but also a cop out. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
2.1.23  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.9    6 years ago

Maybe it is Al Gore's man/bear/pig.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
2.1.24  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.6    6 years ago
It is the theory of evolution with all its missing links that is pseudoscience.

"The University of California, Berkley, defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses." 

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts. 

An important part of scientific theory includes statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton's theory of gravity , has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently."

When you start by examining the evidence without a preconceived conclusion you're trying to prove such as "God", then you're bound to have "missing links" aka gaps in the physical evidence since we don't come to the table with a puzzle with no pieces missing that we merely have to assemble. Biologist, paleontologists and other scientists have to comb the planet for the hidden pieces and then work to find where those pieces fit in the ever growing puzzle of life. Creation science (which is a misnomer because they do not use the scientific method) seek to take work done by real scientists and then they play match game where they attempt to best match the evidence to their already existing theory of creationism while dismissing any evidence that doesn't fit their religious theory claiming it as immaterial when faced with a magical God or even Gods arch nemesis, who in their minds, can do just about anything, even planting fake fossils with fake radiocarbon dates just to confuse or "trick" humans.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.1.25  Gordy327  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1.23    6 years ago
Maybe it is Al Gore's man/bear/pig.

Forget climate change! MBP is the real threat to humanity! 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.1.26  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.21    6 years ago

In the meantime, here is some evidence which does support evolution:

Here is one example of evolution in action:

There's also the Eastern fence lizard :

Then there's the classic Darwinian finches .

Those are just a few examples of evolution. Creationism by contrast posits that god created everything as is, no change whatsoever. But since we can clearly see the evidence for evolution, including the aforementioned examples, that not only shows evolution is real and a valid scientific theory, but it also discredits creationism. So the idea that creationism is true and/or evolution is false is nothing more than dogma overwhelming rationality and an emotional or psychological need to place mere belief over actual facts and evidence. I doubt creationists would actually consider such absurd beliefs could be wrong, especially in light of actual empirical evidence. It just shows an intellectual weakness and/or lack of intellectual honesty and integrity.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.27  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.26    6 years ago

Sorry but simply disagreement with you is not a character flaw or moral defect in anyone who does so.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.1.28  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.27    6 years ago

Disagreement with me and the facts presented, while offering nothing to refute them shows a plain willful ignorance, a total lack of credibility, and a weak argument. The character flaw is the lack of intellectual integrity and honesty  by avoiding challenges made or making baseless assertions with nothing to back them up other than mere belief or dogma. So my assessment stands and still applies.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.29  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.28    6 years ago

You have no facts.  You stand on pseudoscience and nothing more.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.29    6 years ago

Evolution is the foundation of contemporary biology.   If you label evolution 'pseudo-science' you are dissing modern biological sciences.   

Is DNA/genetics pseudo-science too?:

As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.  ( link )
--   Francis S. Collins   M.D. Ph.D. (born   April 14 ,   1950 ) is a physician-geneticist noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his administration of the   Human Genome Project   (HGP). He is the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and current director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.1.31  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.29    6 years ago

It seems you haven't been paying attention then. I provided facts in my post 2.1.26 above, among my other posts. Others have also posted facts. Perhaps you should pull your head out of the sand and look at them. Speaking  of facts, you haven't provided a single one to either  support creationism or refute evolution. All you've done is make empty, baseless assertions as declarations of fact, but offer nothing of substance to support them, much less address challenges against your claims. The one thing you did prove beyond a shadow of doubt is my prior assessment regarding the lack of intellectual integrity and honesty. It's no wonder no one takes you seriously or that you completely lack any credibility !

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.31    6 years ago

Willful.

( Note:  posting ludicrous comments is a technique for comment fishing to keep an article timely. )

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.1.33  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.30    6 years ago

I think he's just dissing science in general because it conflicts with his beliefs. Either that or he's clueless about science, especially evolution.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.1.34  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.32    6 years ago

To the extreme.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
3  Dig    6 years ago
Evolution is widely accepted because many leading scientists and educators, as well as some progressive-minded clergymen, voraciously assert evolutionary doctrine

Actually, evolution is accepted because of an astonishingly large amount of cross-disciplinary evidence. Evolution might just be the most supported theory of all time. We're talking mountains of evidence for evolution (pun fully intended), and ZERO for some kind of supernatural 'design'.

That's what makes anti-evolution arguments such garbage. It's just embarrassing at this point.

and exclaim that only the ignorant would believe otherwise.

Yes. Ignorance. The only way to deny it is to not understand it. Once the evidence and basic mechanisms are understood, it becomes impossible for any intellectually honest person to deny.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
3.1  Gordy327  replied to  Dig @3    6 years ago

It's not just embarrassing, it's just plain sad.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4  charger 383    6 years ago

Evolution makes more sense and has more evidence than anything else   

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @4    6 years ago

But some people still prefer their dogma over actual science . Go figure.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1    6 years ago

Too bad so sad.  The belief in creation science will never go away.  Not ever.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
4.1.2  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.1    6 years ago
Too bad so sad.  The belief in creation science will never go away.  Not ever.

Just like flat earthers. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.1    6 years ago
The belief in creation science will never go away.

Yes, and that is in good company with those who continue to believe in:

  • a young Earth
  • prosperity gospel 'men of God'
  • faith healers
  • psychics
  • conspiracy theorists (many varieties)
  • ...

Being proud that one believes something in spite of clear, formal findings to the contrary is just bizarre.   ' I am a proud Flat Earther !'   Face Palm

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.1    6 years ago

Key word there is "belief," as that's all it is.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.3    6 years ago

Young earth as we know it does not fit in with any of that other stuff.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
4.1.6  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.1    6 years ago
Too bad so sad.  The belief in creation science will never go away.  Not ever.  

Like the belief in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy? 

There is no science to support the story of Genesis.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.5    6 years ago
Young earth as we know it does not fit in with any of that other stuff.  

Young Earth doesn't fit with any evidence or semblance of rationality.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
4.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  charger 383 @4    6 years ago

Ah,  is this the classic fall-back myth of "common sense."  As in, it was  just "common sense" for thousands of years to think the earth was the center of the universe.  It just had to be.  Just look at how the stars and the moon and the sun revolve around us.  And it was just good common sense that disease was due to the imbalance of the four "humors" or demon possession or the will of the gods.  Etc., etc., etc.

Or, is this just the regular ol' "this doesn't make sense to me so it can't be true" fallacy?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5  Gordy327    6 years ago

Whenever someone equates evolution with belief, it's clear they don't any idea what they're talking about, much less actually understands evolution and possibly science in general.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6  sandy-2021492    6 years ago
The fact of the matter is, an overwhelming majority of scientific evidence (i.e., geology, biology, physics, astronomy, anthropology, archaeology, etc.) supports creation and a young earth.

I'm sure you'll be presenting the evidence for this, right, HA?

Or is it a flat-out lie?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
6.1  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6    6 years ago

A link to the National Academy of Sciences to support that assertion would be nice too. But I'll go with the flat out lie option.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6    6 years ago

[Deleted]

[if you want to complain yet again,]

[Take it to] the [complaint article you have posted in Meta]

and [continue] the [pity party there.]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
6.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2    6 years ago

Wow, now that sounds like a conspiracy theory. "AntI creation forces," LOL

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2    6 years ago
I know that the anti creation forces can accept no dissent what so ever,

It is not anti-creationism really.   It is actually  anti-[anti-science].

Those promoting ideas based on zero evidence that fly in the face of well evidenced findings are doing a disservice to society.   

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
6.2.3  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2.1    6 years ago
Wow, now that sounds like a conspiracy theory. "AntI creation forces," LOL

Were they from an alternate galaxy in Star Wars? 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
6.2.4  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2    6 years ago
So, expect a bunch of pro creation seeds from other sites until my appeal of the rating at the rater site is heard.  This site may ban seeding from sites they rate a certain way but that site has an appeal process which I used today.  

How your psyche manages to deal with the constant soul-crushing religious persecution that you face on a daily basis is something that I do not understand. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
6.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @6.2.3    6 years ago

They were from some fantasy universe.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
6.2.6  Dig  replied to  epistte @6.2.4    6 years ago
How your psyche manages to deal with the constant soul-crushing religious persecution that you face on a daily basis is something that I do not understand. 

I've wondered about that, myself. Is there some kind of psychological disorder that causes people to actively seek out abuse from others? Some warped version of a persecution complex, but one that requires daily affirmation and gratification?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
6.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  Dig @6.2.6    6 years ago

There's probably some emotional component that cant mesh with reality.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.2.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2    6 years ago

So, no evidence, huh?  Just attacks to deflect from the fact that you have no evidence?

I'm shocked.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
6.2.9  epistte  replied to  Dig @6.2.6    6 years ago
I've wondered about that, myself. Is there some kind of psychological disorder that causes people to actively seek out abuse from others? Some warped version of a persecution complex, but one that requires daily affirmation and gratification?

He could be a religious masochist.  "Beat me with Cat-o-nine-tails to prove Jesus loves me."

Maybe there is a 1-900 number for this kink...............$6.66 a minute.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.2.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dig @6.2.6    6 years ago

They think they're fulfilling some grand prophecy.  They think their god told them that they'd be persecuted, so they fancy themselves persecuted.  That makes them feel all righteous and warm and fuzzy and shit.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
6.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.2.8    6 years ago

No evidence. Just mere belief. No surprise either. It's pathetically comical how some people equate belief with evidence or facts. It's as if they really can't tell the difference between belief and evidence or reality.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.2.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2.11    6 years ago

The really sad thing is the pride in that inability.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
6.2.13  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.2.12    6 years ago

Indeed. And not only that, they think everyone else is wrong or is plotting some conspiracy against creationism or ID. it's delusion at its finest.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
6.2.14  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2    6 years ago
So, expect a bunch of pro creation seeds from other sites until my appeal of the rating at the rater site is heard.

Let me see if I have this right. You are trolling the collective membership of this site because an admin ruling didn't go your way? I have to tell you, HA, even though I have found you to be an obnoxious and abusive community member, I have never once flagged you for your never-ending nonsense. But this is a different matter because you are jeopardizing the integrity of NewsTalkers with this idiotic display. Not only that, but your threat to continue this idiotic display makes the matter 10 times worse. You need to man-up and take your temper tantrums and petty complaints off-line.  

As for your thoughts regarding creationism, the fossil record is pretty much in your face.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
6.2.15  Gordy327  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @6.2.14    6 years ago

Clapping Thumbs Up 2 thumbs up

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.2.17  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2.13    6 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2.18  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2.17    6 years ago

hopefully next week. buh bye

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.2.19  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @6.2.14    6 years ago

No it’s not.  The account in Genesis of our origins covers it all from the beginning.  The foundations of this earth are ancient and so is the universe as God has always existed and has been creating throughout His existence.  Genesis 1-1 describes what was here before God returned to finish His creation here.  The great world wide flood mentioned in the account of Noah caused most all of what we see of the earth today.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.2.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2.19    6 years ago

And then all that water went where?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
6.2.21  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2.19    6 years ago
No it’s not.

How do you know? Because the Bible says so? LOL

 The account in Genesis of our origins covers it all from the beginning.

No it doesn't, it gives a generalization of what savage, uneducated people thought back then.

 The foundations of this earth are ancient and so is the universe as God has always existed and has been creating throughout His existence.

So, a little philosophy for you here. How long is a day to Yahweh? We know that a day for us is 24 hours but, does Yahweh tell time the same way we do? The Bible says Yahweh created the whole universe in six days and, rested on the seventh but, to Yahweh, how long is a day?

 Genesis 1-1 describes what was here before God returned to finish His creation here.

And, how do those ancient savages and, uneducated people know this? Because Yahweh told them? Really? No one has ever proven that Yahweh even exists.

 The great world wide flood mentioned in the account of Noah caused most all of what we see of the earth today.  

There is no evidence of a world wide flood, there is evidence that certain areas flooded but, not the whole world at the same time.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.2.22  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2.19    6 years ago
The foundations of this earth are ancient and so is the universe as God has always existed and has been creating throughout His existence.  Genesis 1-1 describes

PROVE IT! 

Also, the bible was written ~400 years after Christ died, it was written by humans and there is not one shred of proof that it was written by 'god'. NONE. ZERO. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
6.2.23  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2.17    6 years ago
I wonder when individual members of NewsTalkers will be banned from here for advocating creation over evolution like the honest respectable evangelical Christian news site The Stream was for promoting creation.  

Spare us the persecution complex. I doubt anyone will get banned. But don't expect to post your creationist nonsense and not get called out or challenged on it. Especially when it's intellectually dishonest and lazy when faced with actual science and evidence.

The account in Genesis of our origins covers it all from the beginning.

For a made up story. Fortunately, science has a more rational explanation supported by evidence.

The foundations of this earth are ancient and so is the universe as God has always existed and has been creating throughout His existence.

First you have to prove there's a god.

Genesis 1-1 describes what was here before God returned to finish His creation here.

See previous statement.

The great world wide flood mentioned in the account of Noah caused most all of what we see of the earth today.

Except the flood never happened and there's no evidence to support such an event. if anything, current evidence directly contradicts it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7  Bob Nelson    6 years ago

Faith in creationism inevitably implies a trickster God. The only "logical" way to have a thirteen-billion year history in a six-thousand year-old universe is to have God create "fake proof of age" along with the universe.

That is to say... God is at best a trickster, at worst a liar... if Biblical "creation" is literally true.

"Creationists" create their own contradiction.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
7.1  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @7    6 years ago

Creationists also seem to have a need for the emotional comfort or security of a god. They have a need or desire to feel special. The idea of an omnipotent god creating you special and will be with you in a heavenly afterlife makes for quite an emotionally satisfying story. Reality, including the scientific understanding of it including but not limited to evolution, might be too harsh for some to accept.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1    6 years ago

I agree... but it mystifies me.

The only way to hang on is to make God into a nasty trickster. A very ugly person.

And for what? Why do this?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
7.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.1    6 years ago
The only way to hang on is to make God into a nasty trickster. A very ugly person.

Well, at least god has a sense of humor.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.1.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.2    6 years ago
Well, at least god has a sense of humor.

Well, that's obvious,

The_Platypus_Project_aims_to_harne123449.jpg

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.1    6 years ago
Why do this?

The same reason some argue that slavery is not always immoral (in reference to the God of the Bible never condemning the owning of a person as property) - to preserve the illusion of an inerrant, divine Bible at all costs.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
7.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.4    6 years ago
to preserve the illusion....

Or delusion.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.4    6 years ago
... to preserve the illusion of an inerrant, divine Bible at all costs.  

Yes... but why?

Is the Bible more important than God?

In order to preserve a perfect Bible, these people are transforming God into a reprehensible trickster.

I can only suppose that they have not thought through their own arguments...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.6    6 years ago
Is the Bible more important than God?

To some the divinity (and inerrancy) of the Bible is the core of their belief system.  Their 'God' comes crashing down if the Bible is merely the words of ancient men.

God, to them, is what is described in the Bible (and other holy books).   I wish people were more deistic but that does not seem to be the case thus billions run their lives thinking that words in an ancient book is divine guidance from the grandest possible entity.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.5    6 years ago
Or delusion.

Or to troll, which I believe is what's going on here.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.7    6 years ago

There’s a word for it: "bibliolatry".

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.9    6 years ago

I did not know that!   Thanks.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.10    6 years ago

Thumbs Up 2

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
7.1.12  Freefaller  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.8    6 years ago
Or to troll

Bingo!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.13  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.7    6 years ago

Because that is exactly what The Holy Bible is.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.14  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.13    6 years ago

The OT is documentation of religious incest and pedophilia. The NT is a reward promise for not killing religious hypocrites in this life.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.1.15  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.13    6 years ago
Because that is exactly what The Holy Bible is.

No, the Bible of today is a bunch of story's put together first by the Roman Emperor Constantine, 300 years after the death of Jesus, then it was changed again 400 years later, then it was changed again and, again and, again, etc., etc. Even the books purporting to describe what Jesus said can't be trust to be true since the first one of those was written 100 years AFTER Jesus died.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
7.1.16  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.4    6 years ago
The same reason some argue that slavery is not always immoral (in reference to the God of the Bible never condemning the owning of a person as property) - to preserve the illusion of an inerrant, divine Bible at all costs.   

How can a book of plagiarized myths written by ancient men possibly be divine?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.13    6 years ago
Because that is exactly what The Holy Bible is.  

The Bible defines an omniscient God who is surprised when the creatures He created disobey.   Explain, logically, how an omniscient entity could be surprised by anything.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.1.15    6 years ago

I'm going to argue that the origins of hundreds, if not thousands of years of oral story telling preceded the first attempts by the Sumerians and Egyptians to write these stories down.

The Egyptian "Book of the Dead" precedes the Old Testament by 350 years.

Stories of great calamities like floods, genesis and even virgin births and resurrections are common in ancient texts.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.1.19  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.18    6 years ago
Stories of great calamities like floods, genesis and even virgin births and resurrections are common in ancient texts.

Of course, the creation story and, the story of the flood are told in the tales of Gilgamesh and, that story predates the Genesis story by hundreds of years if not thousands, in fact there's a lot of historians that believe the story of Noah is nothing but Gilgamesh retold.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
7.1.20  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.17    6 years ago
The Bible defines an omniscient God who is surprised when the creatures He created disobey.   Explain, logically, how an omniscient entity could be surprised by anything.

You're not supposed to read the Bible and think critically.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @7.1.20    6 years ago

IMO most who hold the Bible divine and inerrant have not read it.   To wit, they do not know what they are talking about and have not even bothered to look under the covers at the foundation of their belief system.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
7.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.13    6 years ago
Because that is exactly what The Holy Bible is.  

Yeah, a book of fairy tales and superstitions which some people are clearly unable to discern fact from fantasy.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
9  livefreeordie    6 years ago

It is a false accusation that no scientists believe in creation science

Furthermore there is no conflict between the Biblical record and the age of the earth being approximately 5 billion years

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
9.1  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @9    6 years ago

Who said scientists do not believe in creationism? But no credible scientist will posit creationism as a valid explanation for anything either. Neither is creationism a science.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @9    6 years ago
It is a false accusation that no scientists believe in creation science

Who made that claim?

Furthermore there is no conflict between the Biblical record and the age of the earth being approximately 5 billion years

For the old Earthers you are correct.   But have a chat with HA (or another young Earther) who accepts Archbishop Ussher's analysis which places the planet at ~6,000 years old.   These people reject all forms of scientific dating and insist everything we see came about over the past 6,000-10,000 years.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  livefreeordie @9    6 years ago

Exactly and well said! Clappingthumbs up

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.3    6 years ago
Exactly and well said!

How revealing.   Livefreeordie just contradicted your belief that the Earth is ~6,000 years old and you applaud and give a double thumbs up??

Do you read these comments?   Read this:

livefreeordie  @ 9  - Furthermore there is no conflict between the Biblical record and the age of the earth being approximately 5 billion years

It is your position as a Young Earth Creationist that the biblical record absolutely contradicts an Earth that is billions of years old.   Hello?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
9.3.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @9.3.1    6 years ago

Rut roh.  Disagreement among the ranks.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.3.2    6 years ago

Apparently he did not understand the disagreement.    Odd.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
9.4  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @9    6 years ago
It is a false accusation that no scientists believe in creation science

Where is the evidence to support "creation science"?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
9.4.1  MrFrost  replied to  epistte @9.4    6 years ago
Where is the evidence to support "creation science"?

giphy.gif

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
9.4.2  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @9.4.1    6 years ago

I’m traveling currently. Canada and US and little time or internet connection to post. Saw this while having breakfast. On the road until I return to Canada in October for two months

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
9.4.3  Gordy327  replied to  MrFrost @9.4.1    6 years ago
Where is the evidence to support "creation science"?

In theists imaginations, along with their god.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
10  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    6 years ago

Here we go again....another one of this NTer's BS bombs.  It's trolling.  Best to just ignore him which I'm now going to do on this seed. 

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
10.1  Freefaller  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10    6 years ago

Divisiveness and rhetoric do seem to be what this NTer does best

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freefaller @10.1    6 years ago

Whining.  You forgot the whining.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.2  devangelical  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10    6 years ago

teavangelical persecution complex

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
10.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10    6 years ago

Please stay on the topic of the seed which is that evolution is a false belief and why it is and not attack the source, author, or seeder as none of that is on the topic of this seed.  Thanks for your future cooperation on this matter.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.3.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10.3    6 years ago
evolution is a false belief and why it is

You've yet to provide any evidence for that statement.

Why is that, exactly?

Unable to defend your own topic?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
10.3.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.3.1    6 years ago
You've yet to provide any evidence for that statement.

That might be because the falseness is to claim a scientific theory is a "belief."  It's an attempt to drag down it down to his level. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.3.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10.3.2    6 years ago

That's just one thing wrong with this ridiculous article.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
10.3.4  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10.3    6 years ago
Please stay on the topic of the seed which is that evolution is a false belief

Calling evolution a "belief" or even a 'false belief" is an ignorant and erroneous claim at best, and a flat out lie at worst, especially since you can't even provide one shred of evidence to discredit evolution or establish it as an actual belief. it also shows a profound ignorance of what constitutes a scientific theory.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
12  MrFrost    6 years ago

Can't even prove god exists much less that 'god' created everything... Literally ZERO proof...none. There is evidence of evolution. 

Prove that "God" exists...then we can entertain the myth of creationism. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.1  devangelical  replied to  MrFrost @12    6 years ago

scorch marks on the ground where religious hypocrites once stood would lead to my instant conversion

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
12.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  MrFrost @12    6 years ago

Creation is no myth.  Evolution is pseudoscience quackery. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @12.2    6 years ago
Evolution is pseudoscience quackery. 

Writes an individual who believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
12.2.2  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @12.2.1    6 years ago
Writes an individual who believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

HA loves to make that sweeping claim but he is also very short on evidence to back up his claim. Its almost as if he is stirring the pot with his numerous bumps.  

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
12.2.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XXJefferson51 @12.2    6 years ago
Creation is no myth. 

Prove it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @12.2.3    6 years ago
Prove it.

Just to 'evidence' it would be a staggering accomplishment.   Nobody has done that in all of recorded history but HA just declares it truth.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
12.2.5  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  TᵢG @12.2.4    6 years ago
Just to 'evidence' it would be a staggering accomplishment.   Nobody has done that in all of recorded history but HA just declares it truth.

Blind faith can lead one over a cliff.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
12.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @12.2    6 years ago
Creation is no myth.

That's nice. prove it! Let's see the evidence to support creationism! Funny how you have yet to do so, even when challenged. Creationism is as mythical as any of the other creationist myths out there.

  Evolution is pseudoscience quackery. 

Repeating that nonsense doesn't make you right. It only makes you look foolish. Not to mention demonstrates your ignorance of evolution. Especially since the scientific community largely disagrees with you and has actual evidence for evolution, unlike your creation MYTH!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
12.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @12.2.2    6 years ago
HA loves to make that sweeping claim but he is also very short on evidence to back up his claim.

Not to mention he offers not one shred of evidence to discredit evolution in the slightest. Surely if evolution was "pseudoscience," it would be quite easy to discredit it with any evidence.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
12.2.8  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @12.2.4    6 years ago
Nobody has done that in all of recorded history but HA just declares it truth.

To be fair, he's not the only one. I can think of certain NT users who make similar declarations while dismissing evolution.

Just to 'evidence' it would be a staggering accomplishment.

They have "evidence." Too bad it's from religiously biased sources, probably most notably the bible. I guess certain creationists do not understand what constitutes objective empirical evidence, just as they do not understand evolution (and possibly science in general).

Writes an individual who believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

And "belief" is all he has to offer. Certainly nothing that's actually scientific. It's as if they think belief equals fact. go figure.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
12.2.9  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @12.2.7    6 years ago
Not to mention he offers not one shred of evidence to discredit evolution in the slightest. Surely if evolution was "pseudoscience," it would be quite easy to discredit it with any evidence.

How can you logically discredit something that has no substance to begin with? "I believe" isn't an argument. It's an excuse. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
12.2.10  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @12.2.9    6 years ago
"I believe" isn't an argument. It's an excuse. 

It's also a cop-out. Not to mention an exercise in intellectual laziness.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
12.2.11  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson51 @12.2    6 years ago
Creation is no myth.  Evolution is pseudoscience quackery. 

That comment is why we never want you to go away, C4P, [aka HA, aka Xxjeffwhatever or your next iteration will be]. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
13  MrFrost    6 years ago

The Flintstones is NOT a documentary! 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1  devangelical  replied to  MrFrost @13    6 years ago

Quest For Fire is the documentary on the evolution of teavangelical xtianity.

 
 
 
Old Hermit
Sophomore Silent
13.1.1  Old Hermit  replied to  devangelical @13.1    6 years ago
Quest For Fire is the documentary on the evolution of teavangelical xtianity.

Ah,"Quest For Fire"! 

Most accurate documentary on human evolution ever? Related image

Related image

Or would the first BJ be definitive proof that there really IS a god?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Old Hermit @13.1.1    6 years ago

his religious conversion was complete with the introduction to missionary

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
14  lady in black    6 years ago

The remains have been dated to between 18,000 and 28,000 years ago.

So according to creationists the scientists are wrong and they are right in their assessment of the earth only being 6,000 years old....LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
15  MrFrost    6 years ago

Evidence of Evolution


The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as the search for truth.  Science does this by continuously comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world.  When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform.  In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations.  In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time.  Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified.  Because of this fundamental difference in the approach to understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of the biological sciences.  However, religious creation stories and the idea of "intelligent design" can be taught in philosophy, religion, or history courses.  Religion and Science provide different approaches to knowledge.  It is important to understand both.

What Is Evolution?

Biological evolution is genetic change in a population from one generation to another.  The speed and direction of change is variable with different species lines and at different times.  Continuous evolution over many generations can result in the development of new varieties and species.  Likewise, failure to evolve in response to environmental changes can, and often does, lead to extinction.

When scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation.  It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories.  Most people would consider such fundamental theories to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts.  As a result of the massive amount of evidence for biological evolution accumulated over the last two centuries, we can safely conclude that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.  All life forms, including humans, evolved from earlier species, and all still living species of organisms continue to evolve today.  They are not unchanging end-products.

For those who have difficulty in accepting evolution because of what they perceive as contradictions with their fundamental religious beliefs, it may be useful to distinguish the ultimate origin of life from its later evolution.  Many, if not most, biological scientists accept that primordial life on earth began as a result of chance natural occurrences 3.5-4 billion years ago.  However, it is not necessary to believe in that view in order to accept that living creatures evolved by natural means after the origin of the first life.  Charles Darwin modified his religious beliefs, as did many others, as a result of the discovery of convincing proof of evolution.  Darwin's religious faith was also severely challenged by the death of his 10 year old daughter Annie in 1851.  Apparently, he came to believe that his God created the order of the universe including the rules of nature that result in biological evolution.  His famous book,   On the Origin of Species , was not a denial of his God's existence.  However, he did reject a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible.  His religious beliefs were probably very similar to those who advocate "theistic evolution" today.

We now understand that there are a number of different natural processes that can cause evolution to occur.  These are presented in a later tutorial of this series ( Modern Theories of Evolution ).


How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:

1.    the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4.  the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

The Fossil Record

 
Geological strata containing an
 evolutionary sequence of fossils

Remains of animals and plants found in   sedimentary     rock deposits give us an indisputable record of past changes through vast periods of time.  This evidence attests to the fact that there has been a tremendous variety of living things.  Some extinct species had traits that were transitional between major groups of organisms.  Their existence confirms that species are not fixed but can evolve into other species over time.

The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection.  The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or "missing links in the chain of evolution" are filled with transitional fossil specimens.  One of the first of these gaps to be filled was between small bipedal dinosaurs and birds.  Just two years after Darwin published   On the Origin of Species , a 150-145 million year old fossil of   Archaeopteryx     was found in southern Germany.  It had jaws with teeth and a long bony tail like dinosaurs, broad wings and feathers like birds, and skeletal features of both.  This discovery verified the assumption that birds had reptilian ancestors.
 

Since the discovery of  Archaeopteryx , there have been many other crucial evolutionary gaps filled in the fossil record.  Perhaps, the most important one, from our human perspective, was that between apes and our own species.  Since the 1920's, there have been literally hundreds of well-dated intermediate fossils found in Africa that were transitional species leading from apes to humans over the last 6-7 million years.  This evidence is presented in the last 3 tutorials of this series.

The fossil record also provides abundant evidence that the complex animals and plants of today were preceded by earlier simple ones.  In addition, it shows that multicelled organisms evolved only after the first single-celled ones.  This fits the predictions of evolutionary theory.

Chemical and Anatomical Similarities

Living things on earth are fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop and in their chemical compositions.  No matter whether they are simple single-celled protozoa     or highly complex organisms with billions of cells, they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division processes.  After a limited life span, they also all grow old and die. 

All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements.  In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements.  This is not a mere coincidence.

All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of genes.  Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are, in fact, segments of   DNA     molecules in our cells.

section of a DNA molecule

These segments of DNA contain chemically coded recipes for creating proteins by linking together particular   amino acids     in specific sequences.

simple protein molecule
      

Human arm bones
(typical vertebrate pattern)

All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are mostly made of only 20 kinds of amino acids.  Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things.  This is evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life.

In addition to molecular similarities, most living things are alike in that they either get the energy needed for growth, repair, and reproduction directly from sunlight, by   photosynthesis   , or they get it indirectly by consuming green plants and other organisms that eat plants.

Many groups of species share the same types of body structures because they inherited them from a common ancestor that had them.  This is the case with the   vertebrates   , which are the animals that have internal skeletons.  The arms of humans, the forelegs of dogs and cats, the wings of birds, and the flippers of whales and seals all have the same types of bones (humerus, radius, and ulna) because they have retained these traits of their shared common ancient vertebrate ancestor.

All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes.  These facts make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species.

Geographic Distribution of Related Species

Another clue to patterns of past evolution is found in the natural geographic distribution of related species.  It is clear that major isolated land areas and island groups often evolved their own distinct plant and animal communities.  For instance, before humans arrived 60-40,000 years ago, Australia had more than 100 species of kangaroos, koalas, and other   marsupials     but none of the more advanced terrestrial   placental mammals   such as dogs, cats, bears, horses.  Land mammals were entirely absent from the even more isolated islands that make up Hawaii and New Zealand.  Each of these places had a great number of plant, insect, and bird species that were found nowhere else in the world.  The most likely explanation for the existence of Australia's, New Zealand's, and Hawaii's mostly unique biotic environments is that the life forms in these areas have been evolving in isolation from the rest of the world for millions of years.

Genetic Changes Over Generations

The earth's environments are constantly changing, usually in subtle and complex ways.  When the changes are so great as to go beyond what most members of a population of organisms can tolerate, widespread death occurs.  As Charles Darwin observed, however, not all individuals always perish.  Fortunately, natural populations have genetic diversity.  Those individuals whose characteristics allow them to survive an environmental crisis likely will be the only ones able to reproduce.   Subsequently, their traits will be more common in the next generation--evolution of the population will have occurred.

This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium.  When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off.  However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive.  The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors.  That is the case with the purple bacteria in the Petri dishes shown below--the bacteria population has evolved. 

Evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria     

This same phenomenon of bacteria evolution speeded up by human actions occurs in our own bodies at times when an antibiotic drug is unable to completely eliminate a bacterial infection.  That is the reason that medical doctors are sometimes hesitant to recommend an antibiotic for their patients and insist that the full dosage be used even if the symptoms of illness go away.  They do not want to allow any potentially antibiotic resistant bacteria to survive.

............

Much more of this article at..

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
18      6 years ago

E.A Questions::

CDC says what about the 1- 4% of Pathogenic carriers? is that 74 - 99 % Of Transmissions ? so is the CDC Right Wrong or Indifferent?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
18.1  A. Macarthur  replied to  @18    6 years ago

If a pathogen is initially mitigated by an antibiotic, then subsequently ceases to be adversely affected by that antibiotic, it has necessarily mutated (evolved) to an immune state.

Your statistics in no way negate my comments.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
18.1.1    replied to  A. Macarthur @18.1    6 years ago
If a pathogen is initially mitigated by an antibiotic, then subsequently ceases to be adversely affected by that antibiotic, it has necessarily mutated (evolved) to an immune state. Your statistics in no way negate my comments.

E.A  False as Usual No matter  your Font SIZE.

 Question::

 Can a Virus be Killed? if not!

A Reduction to the CD 4 T Cell count means what?

Does " Blood Mary " ring a bell?

Ebola and ZIKA are now proving what about " Sex Tourism "?

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
18.1.2  lennylynx  replied to  @18.1.1    6 years ago

Font size adjusted by EA and AMac...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
18.1.3  A. Macarthur  replied to  @18.1.1    6 years ago

We're not talking "viruses" necessarily … there are other pathogens such as bacteria …

Spell out your argument instead of dumping bits of unexplained innuendo that neither clarify your "reasoning" nor explain themselves.

About Resistance

Antibiotic / Antimicrobial resistance is the ability of microbes to resist the effects of drugs – that is, the germs are not killed, and their growth is not stopped. Although some people are at greater risk than others, no one can completely avoid the risk of antibiotic-resistant infections. Infections with resistant organisms are difficult to treat, requiring costly and sometimes toxic alternatives.

Bacteria will inevitably find ways of resisting the antibiotics developed by humans, which is why aggressive action is needed now to keep new resistance from developing and to prevent the resistance that already exists from spreading.

And get off the font business; it's what is used to cover weakass commentary.

Pretend the fonts make words and the words give information.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
18.1.4    replied to  A. Macarthur @18.1.3    6 years ago
We're not talking "viruses" necessarily … there are other pathogens such as bacteria …

E.A   LOL so You say!

 Read what I said without ANY distortions, and I take your " Medical " Opinion on Ebola and ZIKA, and then " spread further " but note  stick to the Truth!!!

18.1.1 Eagle Averro replied to A. Macarthur @18.1

Question::

 Can a Virus be Killed? if not!

NOTE::: 

 Above just a reminder that a VIRUS is what I asked about, while you do the tap dancing!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
18.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  @18.1.4    6 years ago

Does this have anything at all to do with the topic at hand?

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
18.1.6    replied to  sandy-2021492 @18.1.5    6 years ago
Does this have anything at all to do with the topic at hand?

E.A                                                devil

 As some one interested in a search for " truth " I am sure  you  read the  topic heading " believe-so-strongly-in-evolution "

 So tell US, if " Mutation " and Pathogens have no Input in " Evolution " what does?

IF CD 4 T Cell Count means nothing to Human metabolism what is APOPTOSIS 

If Truth does not need Facts, what are YOU after?

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
18.1.7    replied to  sandy-2021492 @18.1.5    6 years ago
Does this have anything at all to do with the topic at hand?

E.A ask the same to ::

19 A. Macarthur

LOL  " The Higher they are the harder they fall!! "?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
18.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  @18.1.6    6 years ago
 So tell US, if " Mutation " and Pathogens have no Input in " Evolution " what does?

Where did I say they didn't?

Now, how about you actually make your point, instead of expecting all of us to fill in the blanks of your disjointed and incoherent comments?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
18.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  @18.1.7    6 years ago

Mac's comment's relation to the topic is clear, because Mac comments coherently and rationally.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
18.1.10  A. Macarthur  replied to  @18.1.7    6 years ago

Pronouncements, condescension, allusion, and font-critiquing makes for poor dialogue.

But I must confess, those who attack fonts reveal their troll-I.D. .*

* I urge everyone to take close notice of the nature of the comments that include the font-police objections … and, the general type of commentary seen from those who regularly express such objections.

Very revealing.

AMac

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
18.1.11    replied to  A. Macarthur @18.1.10    6 years ago
Pronouncements, condescension, allusion, and font-critiquing makes for poor dialogue.
But I must confess, those who attack fonts reveal their troll-I.D. .*

* I urge everyone to take close notice of the nature of the comments that include the font-police objections … and, the general type of commentary seen from those who regularly express such objections.

Very revealing.

AMac

E.A  Yes Thank YOU also, yes ALL read and note the Scientifically Truthful answers to the questions posed and who voted for what, Please do!!

                                            Digging a wholeDigging a wholeDigging a whole

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
18.1.12  A. Macarthur  replied to  @18.1.11    6 years ago

And yet, you still have not explained your position … and the cartoon additions are favorites among the font-folk.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
18.1.13  epistte  replied to  @18.1.6    6 years ago
As some one interested in a search for " truth " I am sure  you  read the  topic heading " believe-so-strongly-in-evolution "

 So tell US, if " Mutation " and Pathogens have no Input in " Evolution " what does?

IF CD 4 T Cell Count means nothing to Human metabolism what is APOPTOSIS 

If Truth does not need Facts, what are YOU after?

Where and when did you get your education in molecular biology?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
18.1.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @18.1.14    6 years ago
Can't we change the subject?

Then we'd be off topic :)

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
19  A. Macarthur    6 years ago

How do bacteria become resistant?
Some bacteria are naturally resistant to certain types of antibiotics. However, bacteria may also become resistant in two ways: 1) by a genetic mutation or 2) by acquiring resistance from another bacterium.

Mutations, rare spontaneous changes of the bacteria's genetic material, are thought to occur in about one in one million to one in ten million cells. Different genetic mutations yield different types of resistance. Some mutations enable the bacteria to produce potent chemicals (enzymes) that inactivate antibiotics, while other mutations eliminate the cell target that the antibiotic attacks. Still others close up the entry ports that allow antibiotics into the cell, and others manufacture pumping mechanisms that export the antibiotic back outside so it never reaches its target.

Mutations are manifestations of evolutionary changes for the purposes of adaptation.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
20      6 years ago

[delete]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
20.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  @20    6 years ago

You know, there's a place to discuss meta.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
20.1.1    replied to  sandy-2021492 @20.1    6 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
20.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  @20.1.1    6 years ago

Your comment is meta.  That doesn't mean it's blocked, and I have no power to do so.  But there is a forum for the discussion of meta, which is as available to you as to anybody, and this isn't it.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
20.1.3    replied to  sandy-2021492 @20.1.2    6 years ago

Deleted, again

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
20.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  @20.1.3    6 years ago

annoyance

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
20.1.5  A. Macarthur  replied to  @20.1.3    6 years ago

Apoptosis is the death of cells that occurs as a normal and controlled part of an organism's growth or development. In-and-of-itself it is not a disclaimer of evolution nor of natural selection. In fact, it seems to have no direct relationship to this discussion.

Many pathogens are unicellular and consequently, there is a distinction between the death of cells within a multicellular organism and the death of the organism itself … but I must ask why you introduced apoptosis into the thread.

Further, you have yet to definitively explain whether or not you believe organisms evolve; FYI, I have a degree in biology with a specialty in aquatic ichthyology, limnology, lotic ecosystems, and, ornithology.

As for "creationism," I personally find the term "intelligent design" to preclude any explanation of life-on-earth to have proceeded from "creation" to the present … in the absence of evolution and natural selection.

See if you can address that in complete thoughts.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
22  TᵢG    6 years ago
Teachers today continue to march to the evolutionary mantra: “Darwin said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

No.  Wrong.   Absolute bullshit.

Portraying the science of evolution as a religion again.   Scientists and science teachers do not operate based on the statement of any scientist.   It is the actual demonstrated science that convinces, not what someone says.   Science is not a belief system no matter how much YECs want this to be so.   Science is based on well-founded evidence and logic.   Science follows the evidence to where it leads.   Religion finds 'evidence' to support where it wishes to go.

This is the kind of glaring nonsense that YECs seek to teach.   They seek to indoctrinate the next generation with a totally confused view of science ('science is just another belief system but ours is better because we go by the Bible').

The USA makes a good home for the YECs.   No other nation is so accepting of YEC's methodical disinformation on science.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
22.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @22    6 years ago

Talk about the "dumbing down" of America. It's the indoctrination of creationist nonsense and the  rejection of established science that does it.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
23  A. Macarthur    6 years ago

The first reference to "the dumbing of America" came from Ralph Waldo Emerson … in 1837 …

"The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself."

Ralph Waldo Emerson offered that observation in 1837, but his words echo with painful prescience in today's very different United States. Americans are in serious intellectual trouble -- in danger of losing our hard-won cultural capital to a virulent mixture of anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations. 

Susan Jacoby

Sunday, February 17, 2008

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
25      6 years ago

It Says it all :-)

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/Eagle_Averro/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxOTA2MzAwNQ==/?ref=1

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
25.1  epistte  replied to  @25    6 years ago

How does that rock disprove anything? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
25.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  epistte @25.1    6 years ago

It proves nothing.  All about its origins is nothing more than theoretical guess work just like evolution is. 

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
25.1.2    replied to  epistte @25.1    6 years ago
How does that rock disprove anything?

E.A  One has to start with reading what is posted with it!

Then one has to have basic comprehension level, on Geology and Petrology!

Then it follows one has to know what is a " Mother lode " and how and where that is used.

And use Earth Geology to make a Scientific evaluation.

eg: They claim ~17 " Martian Meteorites " that are on Earth, the Morphological spectrum on them can be studied, and one can then see how " Close " they are to one another.'

 Then Take Seventeen Location on Planet Earth, Pick a Rock and do the same analysis, the Odds that they all would have the same " Rate of Similarities " then the so called " Martian Meteorites " would  Make a Point!

If one does not comprehend what 16 MILLION Years orbiting the Solar system would do to the changing the Morphology, then I recommend one does not even bother to start on the above Task!

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
25.1.3    replied to  XXJefferson51 @25.1.1    6 years ago
It proves nothing.

E.A  It Proves, that ALL Science is FAITH Based, they make Arse U Mptions that best suit what they are " Looking for " Read what is posted on the Photo and Comments under it and also what I posted as a reply to  Epistte and was deleted!

Italics seems a server error occurred it is now there!
 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
25.1.4  epistte  replied to  @25.1.2    6 years ago
If one does not comprehend what 16 MILLION Years orbiting the Solar system would do to the changing the Morphology, then I recommend one does not even bother to start on the above Task!

Geologically 16 million years is not a long time.  What do you think would have happened to the rock in that time period? The firey entry into Earth's atmosphere would have been the biggest change to the rock, despite the time that it spent in space.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
25.1.5    replied to  epistte @25.1.4    6 years ago
Geologically 16 million years is not a long time.  What do you think would have happened to the rock in that time period?

E.A Thank YOU

 I rest my Case.

[deleted]

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
25.1.6  epistte  replied to  @25.1.3    6 years ago
E.A  It Proves, that ALL Science is FAITH Based, they make Arse U Mptions that best suit what they are " Looking for " Read what is posted on the Photo and Comments under it and also what I posted as a reply to  Epistte and was deleted!
Italics seems a server error occurred it is now there!

Science cannot be faith-based because the very basis of science is empirical knowledge. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
25.1.7  epistte  replied to  @25.1.5    6 years ago
E.A Thank YOU

 I rest my Case.

 Now go and play elsewhere!

What is your point? If the universe is only 6000 years old than rocks cannot be 16 million years old. 

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
25.1.8  Skrekk  replied to  XXJefferson51 @25.1.1    6 years ago
It proves nothing.  All about its origins is nothing more than theoretical guess work just like evolution is.

Heck, there are trees in California which are older than your sky fairy.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
25.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @25.1.1    6 years ago

Speaking of proving something, let us know when you can prove creationism is true! BTW, evolution isn't a guess. It's a scientific theory which has empirical evidence, unlike your creacreationism nonsense. It's comical that you don't seem to know the difference.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
25.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  @25.1.3    6 years ago

Claiming science is "faith based" is almost as laughable as claiming creationism is true or evolution is "pseudoscience." 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
25.1.11  epistte  replied to  Skrekk @25.1.8    6 years ago
Heck, there are trees in California which are older than your sky fairy.

So is the Chinese civilization. How does creationism explain that?

During excavations near Peking (Beijing), China, between 1929 and 1937, researchers discovered several partial skulls of the species Homo erectus. These hominids lived around 400,000 years ago and came to be known as Peking Man.

The first complete skullcap discovered at the Peking Man site was unearthed by a Chinese team in a candlelit pit in 1929. The sloping forehead and thick brow ridge in front and protruding occipital torus in back are typical Homo erectus features.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
26      6 years ago

The New Health Care
Congratulations. Your Study Went Nowhere.
Researchers should embrace negative results instead of accentuating the positive, which is one of several biases that can lead to bad science.

By Aaron E. Carroll
Sept. 24, 2018

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
27      6 years ago

"I want to be useful. I wanted to do something that had some practical value to humanity," he said.

Australian doctors say it is time for a radical new approach to Alzheimer's disease after more than 100 drug trials and studies have failed to find a treatment that stops the devastating brain condition.

The leading hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease is that it's caused by an accumulation of a sticky plaque known as beta amyloid, which strangles healthy brain cells and destroys memory function.

Over the past 30 years, with all the drugs that have been developed globally to flush out this plaque, the failure rate has been nearly 100 per cent.

Now a small, but growing group of scientists is examining everything from gut health to hormone imbalance and insulin resistance as the new possible frontiers of understanding Alzheimer's.

"There's no point flogging the same dead horse," associate professor Stephen Macfarlane, head of clinical services at HammondCare, said.

"If you try too many failed attempts, the drug companies back out of drug development and don't pursue it.

10299550-3x2-700x467.jpg

Photo: Barrie Pittock said he joined an experimental trial in Alzheimer's research to "be useful". (ABC News: Danielle Bonica )

Font Bold and Colour added by E.A

 
 

Who is online





devangelical
Ed-NavDoc


454 visitors