Evolution is a Fact

[Nathan Poe]

Why is it that those that support the theory of evolution always begin with the assertion that anyone who disagrees with them must be an uneducated moron?

Not always -- Sometimes I assume that those who disagree are well educated people who are exploiting uneducated morons.

Hovind and AiG come to mind.

There is a great deal of research on the proof available for creation, without the inclusion of the biblical record.

That claim is tossed around often, but when actually put to the test, falls laughably flat.

There are a multitude of PHds out there who are fully convinced, based on the scientific evidence of the fact that the universe is the result of intelligent design. Many of these are not even believers in the bible!

The panspermists notwithstanding, when pressed as to who this designer would be, their religious colors quickly show.

You spout 'facts' about evolution, though none of them prove macro evolution. [No one argues that micro evolution happens. But there is literally NO proof of one species becoming the next.

Well, except for these, for starters:

Observed Instances of Speciation

Furthermore, there is not a single viable or provable explantion for where everything came from in the first place, besides God.

I thought this was a nonreligious argument? Your colors showed through quickly enough.

Many, many scientists have turned away from crazy theories such as the Big Bang because they have realized that such a scenario is insupportable. I am no scientist, but I can say that I've seen 'science' change dramatically over the course of my life and have realized that whatever they may say is 'proven' is up for grabs until the next guy 'disproves' it.

And this is a bad thing how?

You want security, buy a blankie. You want answers, be ready to change your mind a lot.

The Bible, however, keeps gaining more and more ground with archealogical discoveries mounting proof upon proof that it is historically accurate.

Are you talking the Bible or creationism?

You may wish to thumb your nose at creationist, that is your choice, but the God and Creator of the Universe will have the last word and you will bow the knee.

Not to you, sparky.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Oh, and while we're making recommendations, feel free to visit the sites below for a different scientific point of view.

The Institute for Creation Research
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

Question: Do you really think you're the first creationist to mention these sites?

At least you get credit for not promoting Hovind.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I disagree, but I'm sure that lumps me into the moron pile. I submit that the belief system (and yes, evolution requires far more faith that creation ever will) is what is full of errors.

Your words, not ours.

As to your recommendation, I will respectfully decline. I see no point in studying the arguments for evolution which are created by biased evolutionists.

So, you have no interest in learning anything, then?

At least the creationist honestly tell you that they are not objective.

So, you prefer the people you know are liars as opposed to the ones you merely think are liars? Your prerogative.

 

[pgp_protector]

Oh, and while we're making recommendations, feel free to visit the sites below for a different scientific point of view.

The Institute for Creation Research
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

I disagree, but I'm sure that lumps me into the moron pile. I submit that the belief system (and yes, evolution requires far more faith that creation ever will) is what is full of errors.

As to your recommendation, I will respectfully decline. I see no point in studying the arguments for evolution which are created by biased evolutionists. At least the creationist honestly tell you that they are not objective. We proudly tell you that the basis for our belief is the bible. Evolutionists rant and rave about their objectivity but never once look at the situation from the creation perspective. I have been educated in this country and have had as much evolution learning as I care to receive. Thank you.

So you see no point in viewing one side, but want them to view your side.
What's that called again????

 

[AV1611VET]

See, AV, what you've done there is construct a flawed "test".

No, I haven't.

If you would take the time to actually answer these questions, you would see that.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Don't know.
2. No. It would just mean that Dinos were placental mammals. This would turn the field of paleontology completely on its ear, but is not related to evolution.
3. I've heard it, but so what? Whether or not behemoth or leviathan were referring to dinosaurs is debatable.

Thank you --- I appreciate the honest answers.

You don't have to believe it yourself, I'm just asking if you know or not it is taught.

I take it you're not in shock like our student is?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it that those that support the theory of evolution always begin with the assertion that anyone who disagrees with them must be an uneducated moron?

I get the impression, Ursie, that most of these people are here to vent their frustrations on life out on us.

Frustrations on life, anger against God, or whatever --- we're an easy target.

I get the feeling sometimes that they aren't addressing us, they're talking directly to God, Himself.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So you see no point in viewing one side, but want them to view your side.
What's that called again????

In regards to creationism, it's called "typical."

 

[Nathan Poe]

Thank you --- I appreciate the honest answers.

You don't have to believe it yourself, I'm just asking if you know or not it is taught.

I take it you're not in shock like our student is?

I'm not easily shocked -- as both a student and a teacher of mythology, as well as someone who debates creationists on a regular basis, I've had plenty of experience with absurd ideas.

First one's always the toughest, however.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not easily shocked -- as both a student and a teacher of mythology, as well as someone who debates creationists on a regular basis, I've had plenty of experience with absurd ideas.

First one's always the toughtest, however.

That's my point though.

You do realize that this "absurd idea" has been taught for [probably] centuries?

 

[thaumaturgy]

No, I haven't.

If you would take the time to actually answer these questions, you would see that.

Sorry, Dr. Logic but here's the flaw again:

IF one makes any claim about dinosaurs and navels it has nothing whatsoever NECESSARILY to do with Behemoth until you prove that Behemoth was a DINOSAUR.

Which, of course, you cannot.

You can hypothesize, but that is all.

Now, interestingly enough I just ran across this LINK which discusses an amniotic "stalk" that some egg-born creatures may have. It is an analogue to the mammalian navel, but on a non-mammal.

So let's tally the logic train here:

1. Behemoth had a navel (source: Job)
2. Dinosaurs were reptiles born from eggs (source: data)

IF one could find an "amniotic stalk" on a dinosaur one might be able to make the argument that some dinosaurs had navels.

HOWEVER, just because some dinosaurs had "navels" (amniotic stalks in this case) does not mean that all things which have navels are dinosaurs.

So Behemoth may or may not have been a dinosaur. The "navel" route is off the table.

The presence of "navels" on dinosaurs may not necessarily pose any problem for evolution.

But generally:

Any argument relating what one finds on Behemoth has no necessary relationship with dinosaurs.

Unless you can provide sufficient evidence that Behemoth was a dinosaur you are stuck with trying to tie two unrelated topics together without evidence that they are in any way related.

WE are not required to make your argument for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unless you can provide sufficient evidence that Behemoth was a dinosaur you are stuck with trying to tie two unrelated topics together without evidence that they are in any way related.

WE are not required to make your argument for you.

I'm not required to do anything.

Our student is "shocked" at this revelation, and I'm saying it is common knowledge.

Once again, you are avoiding answering the questions --- and I can't say as I blame you.

You guys who act like you've never heard this before --- I'm not buying it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's my point though.

You do realize that this "absurd idea" has been taught for [probably] centuries?

Many absurd ideas have -- that doesn't make them any less absurd.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Our student is "shocked" at this revelation, and I'm saying it is common knowledge.

Actually, it's not -- it's an old fringe belief, largely unknown outside Biblical studies, and mostly ignored by serious scholars.

You guys who act like you've never heard this before --- I'm not buying it.

I've heard it before -- and I don't buy it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Many absurd ideas have -- that doesn't make them any less absurd.

Well, in my opinion, anyone who debates creationists for any length of time, then says they're "shocked", hasn't been debating creationists for any length of time.

Creationism is so much different than evolution, it's hard not to be shocked --- unless you're hearing something for the first time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, it's not -- it's an old fringe belief, largely unknown outside Biblical studies, and mostly ignored by serious scholars.

I disagree.

You might want to Google it and see for yourself.

 

[bobguk]

Job is a piece of religiously inspired fiction (Job trusted in god and all was OK despite the trials and tribulation he was put through, unless you were a member of his first family of course, they all stayed dead). However, its unnamed author probably described real creatures.

Behemoth was a hippopotamus.

The description of him ‘drinking up a river’ fits the river-dwelling hippo. He was an animal that could have been observed by the author of Job. If he had a navel, and hippos do, then he was a placental mammal like a hippo (although I would not recommend looking for yourself, they are bad tempered and dangerous brutes).There is nothing to suggest that Behemoth was anything else.

And now we come to Job 40:17, and I quote:-

"He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together."

Someone is going to tell me that a hippo only has a little tail. Yes I know they do.

This verse isn’t talking about his tail, but his (ahem) “tail”. It’s a euphemism. Look at the verse again; what do you suppose his stones are? Now what do you suppose his tail is.

The hippo being described is a little boy hippo – or rather if “it” really was like a cedar, he was a great big boy hippo. His “Tail” and “Stones” are his family jewels, his meat and two vegetables, his wedding tackle.

He could not have been an Apatosaurus; they all died out at the end of the Jurassic, about 150 million years ago. (Although I believe that one species lasted to the end of the Cretaceous, I’m not sure and I’m open to correction on this point). It would be lovely if we had a real life Apatosaurus to examine, but they are all dead. Which is a shame.

And this has no bearing on the Theory of Evolution, which says nothing about when a lineage of animals must die out. If we are wrong about Apatosaurus being extinct, as we were when it was thought Coelacanths were extinct, that would be great, we would have a real living specimen to examine (although I have no idea where a single Apatosaurus, still less a breeding population of them, could be hiding in today’s world)

Bob

 

[hangback]

I disagree, but I'm sure that lumps me into the moron pile. I submit that the belief system (and yes, evolution requires far more faith that creation ever will) is what is full of errors.

As to your recommendation, I will respectfully decline. I see no point in studying the arguments for evolution which are created by biased evolutionists. At least the creationist honestly tell you that they are not objective. We proudly tell you that the basis for our belief is the bible. Evolutionists rant and rave about their objectivity but never once look at the situation from the creation perspective. I have been educated in this country and have had as much evolution learning as I care to receive. Thank you.

Ursie I don't know you and you don't know me, so I have absolutely no reason to tell you lies, I don't know why you are a creationist, perhaps you were brought up to be a creationist perhaps you decided yourself to become a creationist only you know how and why, the how or the why is not important because you are a creationist.
You will not agree but I can assure you of one thing that will happen to you before you die, you are going to realise that creationism is a lie and that you have been misled for years, (at this point you will be saying I am the biggest fool ever if I believe that because it's just never going to happen) well I'm not and it will, all you can hope is that you will come to your senses sooner rather than later.
All the leaders of creationism are con men, all they want is money, don't believe me? look at the books and DVD's on sale on all of the creationist web sites there are hundreds on each site.

 

[TheReasoner]

Oh, and while we're making recommendations, feel free to visit the sites below for a different scientific point of view.

The Institute for Creation Research
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

You know Ursie, I have been quoted those sites up down and sideways. I'd even have quoted them myself some years back had I known about them as I was a creationist myself then too.
The thing is though, I'm a critical thinker. I was sure that creationism was right and would stand up to any scrutiny. Truth does that. If you analyze it, it'll still come out ahead. The thing is though that as I analyzed this objectively I found that the arguments presented were full of serious holes, and I am yet to find an argument in favor of creationism that isn't an attack on another non-creationist theories. Oh sure you have the whole water sphere hypothesis and the like, but that doesn't stand up to simple high-school physics. Let alone more serious stuff.
I'm sorry, but these websites do - as a rule - not present any information that is credible and scientifically valid. When they do it is criticizing weak points that are acknowledged in the scientific community but cannot in any way be said to be tilting the picture towards creationism at all.

I disagree, but I'm sure that lumps me into the moron pile. I submit that the belief system (and yes, evolution requires far more faith that creation ever will) is what is full of errors.

I am not a biologist. But let's just draw a little parallel here. Do you know anything about quantum mechanics? That stuff is really freaky. It doesn't make much sense from our common sense perspectives, yet is experimentally proven in the lab. Does it require a lot of faith? Perhaps. The stuff is extremely counter intuitive so I guess you could say work in hat field quite often is a work on faith. It works though. Counter intuitive though it may be. It's still fact. Demonstrably so. The same happens to be true for evolution. Even if you believe it to be counterintuitive or requiring a great deal of faith, it's still fact. We know new species evolve as we have seen it in the lab and in the wild. We know it happens, the increased resistance to antibiotics we encounter in bacteria is a great example. Yes, it's a long way from that to a multi-celled organism evolving from a single cell one.

As for you being stupid for believing in creationism? No. I don't think that's necessarily true. If you base your faith on it that's a stupid act as you'll be basing your faith on the works of humans rather than the work of God which is creation, but it doesn't make you as a person stupid. Plenty of extremely intelligent people were creationists - before Darwin's time.

As to your recommendation, I will respectfully decline. I see no point in studying the arguments for evolution which are created by biased evolutionists. At least the creationist honestly tell you that they are not objective. We proudly tell you that the basis for our belief is the bible. Evolutionists rant and rave about their objectivity but never once look at the situation from the creation perspective. I have been educated in this country and have had as much evolution learning as I care to receive. Thank you.

No, your basis is NOT the bible. It is a subjective interpretation of a few select verses. An interpretation which is demonstrably weak and has lead many people to despise Christianity. People who otherwise could have been Christians promoting the love of Jesus. I nearly ended up in that category myself because of you creationists. You nearly convinced me the two were one and the same. Had I been sufficiently convinced I would have been an avid atheist today. Not because of biased evolutionists either. Oh sure some of those exist. But I think you're creating a monster in your own minds. One which does not exist. I think it's a little bad to be so whiny about it though. Flat worlders do the same. They whine about not being heard, but what is one to do? Should we give them the right to teach the world is flat in our schools and colleges simply because they consider the rest of us 'biased against them'? Of course not. Sure we may disagree with the flat worlders. I certainly do. And while I do want to respect them as people I do find it hard to consider their positions equal to those held by all of science. The same is true for young earth creationism. The arguments I have seen from Hovind and other creationists have been largely asinine. Sorry to use such strong words but consider the abuse of the second law of thermodynamics for instance. Or the complete misapplication of the law of conserved angular momentum. Not only are the arguments weak, they are hollow, rotten, empty and utterly utterly wrong. But I have little belief Hovind and the other leaders within the community are uninformed enough to consider them valid. In short, I am convinced some of the leaders in creationist circles are there only to get money from believers. Chief among these it seems we find "Dr." Kent Hovind, currently in prison for tax fraud or whatever it was.

If you really think creationism is valid and true, examine it. If you do maybe you'll end up believing in the strong anthropic principle instead. Which is far more beautiful and honoring than creationism. In my opinion anyway.
Just don't abandon your faith if you find that creationism is false. God is still God even if He does not fit into the boxes we make for Him.

God is too big. Way too big to be so confined by the limits imposed on Him by creationists. God is too great to have created such a boring universe as what they outline. And He is too good to have wanted to deceive us with creation itself.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Why is it that those that support the theory of evolution always begin with the assertion that anyone who disagrees with them must be an uneducated moron?

Most of us don't start that way. But after seeing the debate now for nigh unto 30 years of my life I'd have to say that education in the specific area of discussion is not of top priority for many, many Creationists.

I have personally on this board over the past couple of years asked if any of the various Creationists have ever even had one geology course. So far I don't recall any of them confessing to having darkened the door of a geology class.

"Morons"? Usually not. "Uneducated"? Often.

There is a great deal of research on the proof available for creation, without the inclusion of the biblical record.

Very little that I have seen is even marginally valuable or reasonable science. (I have a PhD in geology just for comparison's sake, so at least from the point of view of earth history I've seen a goodly bit of data).

There are a multitude of PHds

Multitudes? In the earth and biological sciences? I can tell you from experience in the earth sciences that I have met very, very few.

out there who are fully convinced, based on the scientific evidence of the fact that the universe is the result of intelligent design.

Moving the goal posts. "Intelligent design", while a moderated "cover" to wedge creationism into mainstream thought, is a watered-down pseudo-a-religious concept. Certainly it's own debate.

You spout 'facts' about evolution, though none of them prove macro evolution. No one argues that micro evolution happens.

No one argues that now precisely because evolutionists had to battle tooth and nail with the forces of ignorance just to get them to face that fact.

But actually there are numerous proofs of "macro evolution". Here's the "Classic" "29+ Proofs of Macroevolution" as has been posted before.

But I will more simply point to the fossil record. Now certainly many Creationists like to point at it and say "see the animals appear to 'spring' into existance!" But that would require "Special Creation Events" happening throughout geologic history over the course of almost the entire history of the planet. To my knowledge there is absolutely no evidence of that from the Bible which only provides special creation during the so-called CREATION WEEK.

Surely God could do "special creations" every second of every day. But then that would bear little resemblance to the Bible which acts as the foundation of Creationism proper, thus eliminating the only 'support' for creationism.

Furthermore, there is not a single viable or provable explantion for where everything came from in the first place, besides God.

I can see you are new to the debate. Welcome. Now please do learn the difference between EVOLUTION, ABIOGENESIS and COSMOGENESIS.

These three distinct concepts will come in quite handy as you continue to engage the debate.

Many, many scientists have turned away from crazy theories such as the Big Bang

Many? Again, I'm a scientist, please quantify "many".

Now granted cosmological origins is a big, big question. The "ultiamte origins" question. In fact some may think it "unanswerable". But just plopping the Judeo-Christian God into the "gap" doesn't necessarily solve anything. It merely brings up more questions. Where did God come from? Why that God and not this other one over here?

because they have realized that such a scenario is insupportable. I am no scientist, but I can say that I've seen 'science' change dramatically over the course of my life and have realized that whatever they may say is 'proven' is up for grabs until the next guy 'disproves' it.

Actually it would be very helpful if you learned how scientists actually function. You'd see we are not some anti-religious monsters hell-bent on destruction of all that is holy just to spite God. We are merely trying to play the game by the rules that make sense. Interjecting religion into science serves nobody. It opens religion up to extremely uncomfortable scrutiny as to its claims and it ruins any value science can develop from its own claims.

The Bible, however, keeps gaining more and more ground with archealogical discoveries mounting proof upon proof that it is historically accurate.

Have you read:

"David and Solomon" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman?
("The Bible Unearthed" is also an interesting read by the same authors). Both deal with archaelogical evidence in relation to the O.T.

While I have no doubt whatsoever that parts of the Bible are accurate in regards to place, just as Stephen King's "The Stand" does mention real places, there are points which seem to diverge from what is presented in the Bible.

You may wish to thumb your nose at creationist, that is your choice, but the God and Creator of the Universe will have the last word and you will bow the knee.

I only thumb my nose at them when they start attacking science they have little interest in understanding themselves. At that point, when they wish to get their ignorance enshrined on equal footing with the hard work of countless scientists over the centuries then you can bet I will be fighting that.

I do so love it when Christians pull back their veils a bit and show their teeth. Their thirst for "vengeance". It shows you are all human. Just like the rest of us. No better, no worse. But for all your religious piety, you still harbor that little burning candle of vengeance.

I see it dripping from the lips of even the kindest people some times. "God will have the last word and you'll pay!" or "God will make you bend your knee!"

It is refreshing to see the raw, utter humanity. The base animalistic instinct that Creationists fear acknowldeging so much.