Why Do People Believe So Strongly in Evolution?
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
Who is online
114 visitors
“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]”
Your understanding of evolution is quite glaringly lacking!
... based largely on incredulity.
Yep, as well as a close minded bias against actual facts and evidence.
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🌎.
Do you also deny radiocarbon dating, fossils, and geology?
How are coal and oil created if you claim to be a YEC?
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.
So dinosaurs coexisting with human beings, eh?
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.
A pterodactyl sounds more fun. And time-saving.
A pet you can ride anyehere.
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.
I want to change my answer to a pterodactyl. I could sleep an extra 15 minutes and still make it to school.
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.
It's basically promoting stupidity over intelligence and not questioning anything.
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.
I would use 'ignorance' but I do agree with your point.
You are being gentler than I am. This has gone beyond ignorance. In this day and age, people should really know better.
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.
Argumentum ad populum.
What is it about the myth of creationism that is so attractive to you and other religious fundamentalists?
If true that is evidence of ignorance, indoctrination and intellectual laziness only.
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?
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?
Haven't you seen documentaries on prehistoric earth called The Flintstones? "Yabba-Dabba-Doo"...
Is there a standard English translation for this statement?
And I guess the bible is full of facts?
....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
It is. Some will make the free will choice not to accept those facts.
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.
Let us know when you get some actual facts.
I was referring to Young Earth Creationists. About 10% of the USA believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old;
Creationists in general (those who believe God created human beings) are a much larger group. Gallup puts them at 40% of the USA:
The demographics tend to be:
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.
Ancient men with pens stated in Genesis 1:1-2 ...
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.
That's a sad commentary on society.
No, there are no facts in the bible HA. The bible is jammed to the rim with ambiguity, and those are not facts.
this is demonstrated quite nicely by your comments and the seeded article. Thank you for illustrating it for everyone
Every nonsensical YEC or ID claim has its rebuttal (with actual science included), this particular one is from Rational Wiki ...
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:
Remember when they tried to sneak that shit into schools as a textbook?
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.
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.
Absolutely agreed.
It sounds like you've confused biology with astrophysics. That's very typical of Cretinists.
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.
Really? That's one thing I do not remember seeing him talk about. Although, I wouldn't doubt it either.
Standard conservative talking points.
Give it time. lol
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.
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.
Creation science? LOLOLOLOL
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.
How many of them are religious-based?
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?
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.
Any legitimacy that Intelligent Design ever had died during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.
ID never had legitimacy.
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).
It is the theory of evolution with all its missing links that is pseudoscience.
There are no missing links if you understand DNA.
What "missing links" would those be?
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
Feel free to believe what ever you want.
Piltdown Man
Fun link!
Yeah, but he's not a "real" Christian in the minds of these "types."
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!
Gosh!
There is no science at all that says creationism is based in facts..
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.
Still waiting on those "missing links."
I'm still waiting on evidence that science supports YEC. Good thing I'm not holding my breath.
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.
Maybe it is Al Gore's man/bear/pig.
"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.
Forget climate change! MBP is the real threat to humanity!
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.
Sorry but simply disagreement with you is not a character flaw or moral defect in anyone who does so.
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.
You have no facts. You stand on pseudoscience and nothing more.
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?:
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 !
Willful.
( Note: posting ludicrous comments is a technique for comment fishing to keep an article timely. )
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.
To the extreme.
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.
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.
It's not just embarrassing, it's just plain sad.
Evolution makes more sense and has more evidence than anything else
But some people still prefer their dogma over actual science . Go figure.
Too bad so sad. The belief in creation science will never go away. Not ever.
Just like flat earthers.
Yes, and that is in good company with those who continue to believe in:
Being proud that one believes something in spite of clear, formal findings to the contrary is just bizarre. ' I am a proud Flat Earther !'
Key word there is "belief," as that's all it is.
Young earth as we know it does not fit in with any of that other stuff.
Like the belief in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy?
There is no science to support the story of Genesis.
Young Earth doesn't fit with any evidence or semblance of rationality.
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?
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.
I'm sure you'll be presenting the evidence for this, right, HA?
Or is it a flat-out lie?
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.
[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.]
Wow, now that sounds like a conspiracy theory. "AntI creation forces," LOL
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.
Were they from an alternate galaxy in Star Wars?
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.
They were from some fantasy universe.
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?
There's probably some emotional component that cant mesh with reality.
So, no evidence, huh? Just attacks to deflect from the fact that you have no evidence?
I'm shocked.
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.
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.
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.
The really sad thing is the pride in that inability.
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.
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.
[deleted]
hopefully next week. buh bye
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.
And then all that water went where?
How do you know? Because the Bible says so? LOL
No it doesn't, it gives a generalization of what savage, uneducated people thought back then.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
For a made up story. Fortunately, science has a more rational explanation supported by evidence.
First you have to prove there's a god.
See previous statement.
Except the flood never happened and there's no evidence to support such an event. if anything, current evidence directly contradicts it.
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.
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.
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?
Well, at least god has a sense of humor.
Well, that's obvious,
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.
Or delusion.
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...
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.
Or to troll, which I believe is what's going on here.
There’s a word for it: "bibliolatry".
I did not know that! Thanks.
Bingo!
Because that is exactly what The Holy Bible is.
The OT is documentation of religious incest and pedophilia. The NT is a reward promise for not killing religious hypocrites in this life.
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.
How can a book of plagiarized myths written by ancient men possibly be divine?
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.
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.
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.
You're not supposed to read the Bible and think critically.
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.
Yeah, a book of fairy tales and superstitions which some people are clearly unable to discern fact from fantasy.
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
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.
Who made that claim?
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.
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:
It is your position as a Young Earth Creationist that the biblical record absolutely contradicts an Earth that is billions of years old. Hello?
Rut roh. Disagreement among the ranks.
Apparently he did not understand the disagreement. Odd.
Where is the evidence to support "creation science"?
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
In theists imaginations, along with their god.
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.
Divisiveness and rhetoric do seem to be what this NTer does best
Whining. You forgot the whining.
teavangelical persecution complex
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.
You've yet to provide any evidence for that statement.
Why is that, exactly?
Unable to defend your own topic?
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.
That's just one thing wrong with this ridiculous article.
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.
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.
scorch marks on the ground where religious hypocrites once stood would lead to my instant conversion
Creation is no myth. Evolution is pseudoscience quackery.
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.
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.
Blind faith can lead one over a cliff.
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.
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!
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.
To be fair, he's not the only one. I can think of certain NT users who make similar declarations while dismissing evolution.
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).
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.
How can you logically discredit something that has no substance to begin with? "I believe" isn't an argument. It's an excuse.
It's also a cop-out. Not to mention an exercise in intellectual laziness.
That comment is why we never want you to go away, C4P, [aka HA, aka Xxjeffwhatever or your next iteration will be].
The Flintstones is NOT a documentary!
Quest For Fire is the documentary on the evolution of teavangelical xtianity.
Ah,"Quest For Fire"!
Most accurate documentary on human evolution ever?
Or would the first BJ be definitive proof that there really IS a god?
his religious conversion was complete with the introduction to missionary
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
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:
The Fossil Record
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.
These segments of DNA contain chemically coded recipes for creating proteins by linking together particular amino acids in specific sequences.
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.
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..
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?
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 "?
Font size adjusted by EA and AMac...
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.
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!
Does this have anything at all to do with the topic at hand?
E.A
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?
E.A ask the same to ::
19 A. Macarthur
LOL " The Higher they are the harder they fall!! "?
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?
Mac's comment's relation to the topic is clear, because Mac comments coherently and rationally.
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!!
And yet, you still have not explained your position … and the cartoon additions are favorites among the font-folk.
Where and when did you get your education in molecular biology?
Then we'd be off topic
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.
[delete]
You know, there's a place to discuss meta.
[deleted]
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.
Deleted, again
annoyance
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.
FYI:
Genetic polymorphism and the role of mutation in evolution
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.
Talk about the "dumbing down" of America. It's the indoctrination of creationist nonsense and the rejection of established science that does it.
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.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
It Says it all :-)
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/Eagle_Averro/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxOTA2MzAwNQ==/?ref=1
How does that rock disprove anything?
It proves nothing. All about its origins is nothing more than theoretical guess work just like evolution is.
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!
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!
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.
E.A Thank YOU
I rest my Case.
[deleted]
Science cannot be faith-based because the very basis of science is empirical knowledge.
What is your point? If the universe is only 6000 years old than rocks cannot be 16 million years old.
Heck, there are trees in California which are older than your sky fairy.
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.
Claiming science is "faith based" is almost as laughable as claiming creationism is true or evolution is "pseudoscience."
So is the Chinese civilization. How does creationism explain that?
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
"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.
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