A few days ago I came across a great book just published by the National Academy of Sciences entitled Science, Evolution, and Creationism. It’s a quick 54-page read on how evolution is the “only tested, comprehensive scientific explanation for the nature of the biological world today that is supported by overwhelming evidence and widely accepted by the scientific community.”
It’s a great read and I encourage everyone to take a peek. You can go to their site and register to download it for free or grab it locally here to save yourself the hassle :)
The reason I posted this article today was due to an email I received from Scott in Oklahoma. Scott claims that evolution is baseless and has little supporting evidence if any at all.
Even though I here this often, it still shocks me that in this day and age people refuse to accept what countless independent researchers from every faith, race, and culture have tested and come to accept. It truly is baffling.
Take a gander at Scott’s email and see what you think. To me this is like arguing that Earth is flat and not accepting the fact that we have seen the planet from space much less circumnavigated it :)
Please be thoughtful and thorough in your responses. Maybe we can enlighten just one person :)
Scott from Oklahoma writes:
Hey,
I’ve read through some of your site and see the usual excuses and focus on people’s opinions. My question is have you really considered what is true. It’s easy to say something is not true if you see corruption, ignorance, abuse and a host of other anomalies within a movement or religion. That’s just an excuse to not believe something. Don’t make the mistake of associating these religious shortcomings with the truth.
Whether you and I agree or not does not change the truth. I hope you would at least agree that there is an absolute in this world. If not then I’m talking to the wrong person. It’s interesting to hear your discussions of evolution and how un-scientific the creation story is. I guess those same nagging questions within the “religion” of evolution about lack of scientific evidence don’t ever come up. Like those silly Laws of Physics and how they get in the way of evolution religion. Oh well, what’s a little matter being destroyed or created for the sake of a religion that makes it easier to deny God. Yeah, I can really see how the universe is getting more organized at the same time it is becoming less organized.
It’s just amazing that someone of reasonable intelligence like yourself can buy into a theory that was eventually abandoned by the ones that came up with the whole thing. If I were you I’d really look at this whole evolution religion thing a little more closely. I personally think you’ve been duped and hate to see you misled. Maybe start with logical questions like where are all the remains, fossils, etc of the actual trans-species of animals or humans. I guess I’ve missed out on all the amphimammals out there or the dino-birds that we’ve dug up. Not that I’m denying there were dinosaurs. Just questioning that everything came from a few central life forms.
Oh yeah, if the evolution theory of natural selection actually happens then how after millions or billions of years or whatever the latest guess is, how are there still weaker species of animals that are predated on by stronger species. Seems like they would all be gone. Oh well, again these are just pesky questions that don’t have to be considered when you believe in a religion like evolution. Unless you can prove that evolution is true (you can’t because it’s a theory) then if you believe in it, it’s a religion to you. Oh, wait a minute you don’t believe in religion. That’s a serious problem I think. Good Luck!
Scott
PS I tried to be smart and answer your challenge question with a silly answer,
but you got me.
Related posts:
Phenomenal read guys. I am very pleased by the level of logical debate. Scott, you are putting some very interesting arguments to test. I am enjoying reading this entire thread.
Snurp, that post was epic. It did a very good job of explaining some things like mutation and fossils. I never thought about how hard it was for a usable fossil to form.
Beats me why so many have an obsession with evolution when it is neither an argument for or against the existence of god. If there is one, he could have created the various rules of the universe including evolution.
The arguments over the existence of god as an abstract concept are pointless anyway unless you go further and believe in one who has a personal interest in our salvation. If god exists but has no interest in us and there is no afterlife then it would hardly matter if we believed or not. Toss a coin.
That is where the whole thing falls down for me, how is there a soul when a bang on the head can totally change us? how is there free will when we are so clearly the product of our biology, our natures and our upbringing? If, for the sake of argument, Islam was the one true religion, how does anyone brought up in a strict Christian household have a chance of salvation?
xoggoth,
Good questions. To me, Christianity (and Isalm, for that matter) is attempting to define the infinite in finite terms by creating god in man’s image. How can a supernatural, bipedal, male humanoid be infinite?
I don’t, and can’t, believe in such a limited version of the Creator, but I do believe in a Creator. The best definition I can come up with is that the Creator is All and All is the Creator. Each of us in our own right is part of the Creator, so, in a sense, we are indeed created in the Creator’s image. But, in a larger sense, so is everything else, natural and man-made.
It is not possible to truly “know” the Creator because the infinite can never be fully understood (elsewise, it would be finite). But as we observe, as we question, as we learn, as we evolve, we grow closer to the Creator. Death is not the end of life, just a transformation to another part of the Whole.
As humans, we like to place everything in nice, neat, little boxes for ease of definition and understanding. When we do this, however, we place blinders over our eyes and fail to see the Whole. Unfortunately, boxing is so ingrained in our psyche and our learning that it’s hard to unlearn. The cliche “Failing to see the forest for the trees” is appropo. You’re so intent on seeing the parts, you can’t see the whole.
Fortunately, we don’t have to understand the Whole to know it Exists. This is what it really means to have faith. But we should always be questioning that faith, never blindly accepting it. Questioning your faith leads to enlighenment; blindly following your faith only leads into darkness.
AggieCowboy, actually faith really is blind acceptance.
AggieCowboy, I assume your comment about a limited version of the creator means that there is not one true religion, perhaps that we could all reach him in different ways.
Fair enough in principle, but there is an obvious problem. When you depart from the dogma of established religion, what exactly is it one is supposed to believe to reach salvation? Are we supposed to decide for ourselves? just lead the best life we can according to own consciences? It takes us back to belief in god being an irrelevance since most of do that, even us atheists, I think very few set out to do what they themselves believe is wrong.
I have to say I find your comments are very vague. True enough, I have a very prosaic engineer’s mind, but I do notice that whenever I pose a few concrete questions about trees to someone like yourself I simply get assertions about a forest that may not exist. “Start with what we know” is a fairly sound principle too.
Milo, I disagree. I don’t believe that faith is blind acceptance, but, rather, faith is simply an acceptance that we cannot know everything (we’re defining the word differently). You do not need to blindly accept that which you do not understand. By blindly accepting something you close your mind to further learning.
xoggoth, yes, there is no “one true religion”. Religion in and of itself is irrelevant. What is salvation? What is Hell, for that matter? These are man-made concepts used to “guide” others within the specific dogma of a religion. Religion is not a requirement to lead a good, moral life. Treating others with respect and equality, despite their differences, however, is.
Perhaps, I was rather abstract, but how do you define that which cannot be defined without being abstract and vague? I never said the forest may not exist. What I meant was that if you only look at the trees, you miss everything else in the Whole. A forest is not composed of just trees. It contains different terrains, ecosystems, flora and fauna, ecosystems within ecosystem, macromolecules, atoms, subatomic particles, energy, and on and on and on. Each is an individual entity, but is also part of the Whole.
To continue the metaphor (and to try to bring the abstract into something definable and concrete):
The forest is the Creator, the Whole. Everything else is a part of this Whole and, yet, each piece is a Whole in and of itself, a Creator. Each Whole follows certain Rules and Laws that are common to all. Even a tree follows the Laws of quantum mechanics. Now, take the forest and extrapolate it to the infinite.
The Creator is, in a limited, finite sense, the Universe (actually it’s more than that, but, again, how do you define the undefinable?).
I agree that we should “start with what we know”, but it shouldn’t end there. We have to keep pushing our comfort zones in order to grow. I know I’m pretty much just preaching to the choir here, but just because there are aspects of evolution that we do not fully understand, it is no reason to assign a supernatural cause. Instead of closing eyes, sticking fingers in ears, and going “nahnahnahanah, God, nahnahnahnah”, people need to open their minds and see the wonderful intricacies of nature.
Well, i’ve read the whole thing, and it follows the standard pattern so far.
Creationist posts his “Reasons evolution is wrong”
he is reminded that astronomy and statistics are not evolution and his “proof” is discarded using high-school level physics.
Creationist is asked to proof creationism.
And that’s where we are now. So Scott, go for it. Safe your face and pose at least some small proof that shows creationism is true.
of course, don’t forget that Evolution allready explains, and is supported by, 1)- The fossil record. 2)- the genetic record. 3)- the fields of geology and biology. 4)- physical observation.
Evolution is also: A)- Predictive. B)- fully explanatory. C)- a near-perfect match for all new evidence.
So, I challenge you to proof creationism. Build a strong enough case so that creation cannot rationally be denied. I would go as far as to offer you 100 US Dollars if you succeed in building a strong case for creationism.
Scott:
Empathy is the greatest virtue. From it, all virtues flow. Without it, all virtues are an act.
AggieCowboy: I somewhat agree with your take on the forest and the creator. If you accept the notion that “the creator” may have simply been a random sequence of events rather than a sentient god of some type, it still fits your “religion”. On the other hand, the creator could actually be a godlike entity. We don’t know.
What I’m trying to work out is whether your approach would make it easier to understand our place in the cosmos, or whether it is basically saying “i can has relidgin, too?” I don’t mean that derisively but it probably sounds that way — sorry if I offend!
I like the way you accept that not knowing is a kind of faith. I am not sure I like the way you mold that definition of faith into a quasi-religious standing. By framing it in a religious fashion, you add a lot of baggage.
AggieCowyboy
I dare say you haven’t actually said anything.
Metaphores only work when you have something firm to base them on. What you’re saying can be interpreted by a scientist as saying one thing, and to a fundie another. Are you agnostic?
Also, if you’re not going to use the standard definition for faith, then maybe choose a different word?
I’m not trying to be mean, nor are my words meant to have any kind of malice, but I’m just saying you’ve said nothing useful. =)
“Hey Jayman,
Adam and Eve were actually humans and so are you and I. If you ended up as a cat or pig and I was a hippo then you might have a point.”
Umm no
We are talking 4-odd billion years of evolutionary process. thats a looooong time for things to slowly change.
And yet you are trying to tell us that we are all decendant from one man and one woman, who only had two sons… so where did everyone else come from in your 6000 year creation story?
well, 6000 years would be more then enough time to repopulate the earth, asuming 1.2 children per person and everyone reproducing at age 30.
The real question is of course, If Scott’s correct, and mutation is only degradational (despite physical evidence to the contrary), where did all the seperate genomes come from? There are 7 major genes for eye color, for example. Noah and his wife could only have carried 4 at maximum, where did the other three come from?
And here are some questions that need answering before Christian Creationism can even begin to look like a valid theory:
And how did noah fit all of those animals for 314+ days worth of food and fresh water aboard the ark? How did Koalas, penguins, lamas, dodos, nile crocodiles, buffalo, condors etc etc etc all get to the ark? and how did they get back? How did Noah feed them? How did the Ark float, as a wooden ship cannot possibly be that big?
Why do we find fossils of less-’advanced’ species only in deeper soil layers? Did they dig holes before death and fossilisation? Why, if evolution is wrong, can it accuratly predict where a fossil will be, before we even start looking? Why, if evolution is wrong, can we observe it happing right now? (anti-biotics resistant bacteria for example)
Why doesn’t the bible describe dinosaurs in daily life? If the bible is true, why can’t we find any evidence of the millions of people who left egypt during the Exodus (ignoring the logistical impossibility of it)?
Why do we not find fossils of modern animals anywhere, when there are many fossils of ‘less advanced variants’ of the same animal, with the more basic version lowest in the soil? How is it possible that we have evidence of millions of years of geological deposition, when the earth is only 6000 years old. Why isn’t there a geological record of the great flood? If the universe is 6000 years old, why can we see further then 6000 lightyears?
(note, when you say that your god created the universe to appear old, you’re going against your own dogma and state that your deity of choise is a deciever)
I could go on for ages, but I think it’s very VERY amazing if you manage to explain each and every one of those points, using Christian Creationism.
Off on a bit of a limb here – as an English observer may I pass comment on the quality of the posts? I may have nothing to add to the discussion (others have recorded my thoughts very well)but I feel obliged to congratulate all your contributors on their measured and intelligent arguments. This is not condescension on my part – this kind of discussion is virtually unknown in the UK, and anyone venturing near the subjects of Evolution or Creationism would be barred from the Pub pretty sharpish. Mind you, I don’t think I personally know of anyone who would even understand the word ‘Creationism’. Perhaps that’s a good thing.
Scott: Nil Carborundum Illegitimus (we were invaded by the Romans a long time ago). It’s fake Latin for ‘Don’t let the bastards grind you down’.
Speaking as an unreformed Atheist, I have a lot of time for Scott. He has remained calm under fire and has not resorted to insult or infamy. Unlike some of my own side.
Everyone else – would you like to come to the UK and teach us some manners?
Well, the UK doesn’t have the problem of Christians attempting to pass of creationism as actual science and trying to teach it in schools as “an alternate theory”, so I guess we, in sane world, should be happy that our leaders aren’t religious nutcases.
mike:
If it weren’t for the horrible rain, the terrible food and the rude people, I’d move to England in a heartbeat. (Or France for that matter)
“Don’t pray in my school, and I won’t think in your church.”
“If it weren’t for the horrible rain, the terrible food and the rude people, I’d move to England in a heartbeat. (Or France for that matter)”
Im hoping you arent American, but I’ll correct you on the rude people and bad food bit – the old ideas about dull/bad british cuisine have long long passed, and I thought the people there were truly lovely, enlightened cultured people (and I can say this, having lived there for 4 years). Compare this with say American food which was easily the worst, most non-natural, ultra-processed of any country ive ever visited, and although the people were generally friendly, your poor service industry employees defined the word rude!
Frenchies rude? No, Parisians maybe, but hot damn, there are sooooo many hot women in france. that accent certainly helps though. :p
And an aside – it aint the horrible rain in England thats the problem, its the damn constant grey skies that get you down! Apart from that, England is a great country and I’d move back there in a flash if I had the opportunity.
Back to the expose on the fairy tale that is Creationism…. :)
This discussion brings to mind a very good Sam Harris talk – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2oJgsGR6c
I think your link is dead.
Http/1.1 Service Unavailable
Actually, youtube seems to have trouble, not just the link. Ignore the above post.
Back to waiting for Scott´s evidence and his responce to the explanations above.
Shaze:
I’m surprised at you. Perhaps you’ll think better of your post in the morning. Have you ever been to England? And please remember, we were here before the USA was even thought of. I have shirts older than the USA. As if rain never falls on North America (no hurricanes here, mate)…. and McDonalds (supersize me please). And rude? Ha!
Thank you Jayman.
Is there anyone out there in cyberland who can cut through this nonsense and finally admit that Islam, not Christianity, is the target for our posts? Poor old Xtianity, admittedly mad as a box of frogs, is these days harmeless enough. The other lot are not. So stop banging on about the Jesus followers and have a serious pop against the Prophet. If you dare. It’s crazy to keep up a tirade against Xtian belief whe the real enemies of our society are nothing of the sort. What are we trying to prove?
My point is this – the followers of Jesus, misguided though they are, didn’t carry out the 9/11 thing. So leave them alone. They’re harmless. Try having a go at the other lot.
Just a thought.
Best wishes to all kindred souls out there!
Mike, on the topic of Islam vs Christian zealotry:
In the US, the Christians are quite a bit more powerful than I understand they are in western europe. Perhaps Italy would be a different story? Anyway, the Christians here are not blowing up very many buildings, but they have wedged their beliefs into the everyday lives of everyone, regardless of their own belief structure. It starts with simple things like definitions of vice and sin, and rises quickly to matters of international policy.
My life may run its course without encountering the slightest bit of trouble from the Islamic world, but I will not make it through an entire day without witnessing Christian wackoism.
Granted, that is not the whole issue. There are very real divides between the Islamic world and most western states. But they exist on different levels.
Andy
Books like Margaret Atwood’s ‘The Handmaids Tale’ are reason enough not to turn our backs on Christianity as a threat… Sure, it may appear less harmless than Islam in some respects, but do we just need an upset in global politics for this to change? Its capable of the Inquisition, so who’s to say it isnt again?
F**k, the amount of American Republicans party members who actively believe in bringing on the ‘rapture’ is more than enough cause for concern!
so in summary:
FUCK YOU MOHAMMED!
FUCK YOU JESUS!
ALL YOUR FOLLOWERS CAN EAT SHIT AND DIE.
all equal now.
Did we not go over this Thermodynamics talk some time ago in a very friendly manner? So back to the barricades and sorry if this has already been explained.
The basic flaw in that sentence is that entropy is not equal to atrophy. Nothing is wasting away and that is also the problem many have with the second Law of Thermodynamics, total misunderstanding of the whole law, some do so intentionally, some just recite what is told to them.
In reality the law states that when ignoring self-gravity in a totally isolated physical system the differences of temperature, pressure and density even out or in other words get to be the same in all parts of the isolated system.
Entropy is merely a yardstick depicting how far the process has advanced, it is comparable to yards when measuring distances or percentage of something. It does not have any destructive connotations when used with the Thermodynamics.
The key points to remember are that earth is not isolated, we happen to have that yellow spherical power furnace blasting earth making claims of earth following the second law of thermodynamics null and void.
Secondly, entropy does not mean waste or chaos. It is more akin to average than anything else.
It is not actually correct example but it does point out the principle.
We need a FAQ section for all these basic explanations or what?
To add to Jag’s explanation above:
If we were to say that all systems must increase in entropy, like Scott seems to be doing, then it would be impossible to defrag your harddrive, to learn anything or to unshuffle a deck of cards.
The only reason we can do these things is because none of them are closed systems, but keep in mind that in all circumstances entropy does increase in the universe. Unshuffeling the cards requires energy, which is provided by food, which grow with energy from the sun, which increases entropy.
The earth to, is by no means a closed system. We radiate energy into space and recieve energy from the sun.
“We need a FAQ section for all these basic explanations or what?”
might be a good idea…
kinda like this one perhaps, set out for ‘talking with climate change deniers’ with all the phoney “arguments” that global warming skeptics put in to obfuscate the scientific/social/economic reasons to deal with this problem, or that global warming isnt happening/costs too much to fix/is happening but is not our fault etc etc etc.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
nicely set out methinks
There is a sort of FAQ for the common creationist arguments developed by Scientific American.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&page=1
Point 9. deals with the second law of thermodynamics
nice link
maybe it should be a main hyperlink entry/reference for this board in general? this creationism > evolution crap is becoming a bit of a broken record.
This has been great reading! I don’t know much about the UK, what do the majority of people there believe?
(Scott, I too, am waiting for your response)
“what do the majority of people there believe?”
well thats just the difference, a lot of them simply DONT ‘believe’.
“what do the majority of people there believe?â€
Doesn’t matter. Reality is not a democracy.
but, for statictics:
23.2% non-religious
71.6% christian
2.7% muslim
the non-religious include 390,000 Jedi :p
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293
It should be noted though, that only 7% of UK residents visit church more then once per year.
ask someone their ‘religion’ and they’ll usually quote what branch of church their family comes from, not what they actually believe ~ hence those statistics.
it would be interesting to know what the actually no of agnostics were in that 71% – i’d say a great majority.
yes, i’d say that 71%-7%=64, so lets conservatively put the number of true christians around 25%. The rest being agnostic
i am surprised that Sid has not written anything. Where is Sid? just curious. did i miss anything?
I think people who play the probability card should read John Allen Paulos’s books, especially Innumeracy and Irreligion.
[...] creationism should be taught in schools – A laughable suggestion. “No dear that’s not the bones of a dinosaur it’s the [...]
Re post 86, I agree. Sarah Palin is a creationist nutcase and the fact that she is even a candidate to be VP of the United States should be a national embarrassment.
Religion is ridiculous.
[...] Creationism–A Veil Of Ignorance [...]
IN “Origin of the species”, page 183, Charles Darwin wrote regarding the general theory of evolution,”If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,successive,slight modifications,my theory would absolutely breakdown.” One place where his theory breaks down is in the formation of living cells.There are no such things as simple cells.Bacteria cells,like human cells,are complex beyond our imagination.A single cell is like a huge library,astoundingly complex,not even remotely simple.Each cell contains many different systems required to keep it alive and enable it to reproduce itself.For the evolutionist to be correct,all of these various incredibly complex systems would have had to have been formed simultaneously by chance. Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 each say, “The fool has said in his heart,there is no GOD….”The evolutionist begins with the false premise that there is no Creator.Therefore,to explain our origins,the evolutionist has to assume that we must have somehow evolved out of organic material over billions of years.So basically the evolutionist pre-determines the answer from the beginning.He is convinced that the earth has to be billions of years old,and that it is just a matter of finding evidence to support it.The majority of the evidence he finds,which suggests that the earth is much younger,must therefore be wrong and must be thrown out and ignored.However,an honest man who examines all the evidence must conclude that the earth is very young.Romans 1:20 says “…..the invisible things of him(GOD)from the creation of the world are clearly seen,being understood by the things that are made,even His eternal power and Godhead,so that they are without excuse…”.
Brian, claims of a young earth are simply ludicrous in the face of the fossil record, geologic evidence, and much more.
Your claims of evidence against evolution are also utterly specious. Do some actual reading of modern science, such as the excellent summary text such as What Evolution Is, by Ernst Mayr. Your ignorance of science is truly astounding. Again, I have to point out that modern biological science stands upon the sound foundation of evolution.
The creationist young-earth viewpoint is now only held by very stupid and ignorant people. It is quite pathetic that they still cling to it when it is utterly contradicted by evidence and reason.
Religion is for the gullible and the stupid, and for those who would profit from them.
I will provide information from reliable sources which contradict evolution.But first I would like to know;How do you refute Darwins own words; which I previously posted.”Origin of the species”page 183, Darwin wrote;”If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly be formed by numerous,successive,slight modifications,my theory would breakdown”.One place where his theory breaks down is in the formation of living cells.Before I go any further I would like you to explain this,because if you cant,there is no point going any further,your argument is dead in the water.Will you actually address this specic point or dismiss it,as you frequently seem to do and then begin your childish namecalling? Solid foundation of evolution?THAT is indeed laughable!
Those who believe in evolution must accept it on faith. Someone properly summed up the situation by rewording Hebrews 11.1 for evolutionists as follows, “Now the faith of the evolutionist is the substance of fossils hoped for and the evidence of links unseen”.
Brian,
Despite the persistent efforts of evolution deniers such as yourself to paint the picture as other than what it is, there is no scientific controversy about the fact of evolution. Evolution is observed on a daily basis in fast-breeding species such as Drosophila melanogaster, and per recent statements in the National Geographic and elsewhere, the evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Get used to it; reality is biting you hard.
It’s time for you and other evolution deniers to accept the reality of evolution, and for you to put your sky fairy creation stories aside. Those creation stories are no more valid than many other primitive creation myths, and science shines a light right through them.
I’ll quote again from a report from the National Academy of Sciences,
“The discovery and understanding of the processes of evolution represent one of the most powerful achievements in the history of science. Evolution successfully explains the diversity of life on Earth and has been confirmed repeatedly through observation and experiment in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines. Evolutionary science provides the foundation for modern biology. It has opened the door to entirely new types of medical, agricultural, and environmental research, and has led to the development of technologies that can help prevent and combat disease. Regrettably, effective science education in our schools is being undermined by efforts to introduce non-scientific concepts about evolution into science classrooms.”
Religion is for the gullible, the ignorant, and the stupid, and those who would profit from them.
For every link you post, supposedly confirming that evolution is true, I could post ten that point out its flaws and how it cant possibly be true, but you disregard the facts and swallow the evolution folly whole;(you must have a terrible stomach ache). I think its ridiculous that you spew out this folly as fact, but hey, you can wallow around in your foolishness all you want.
Brian, I was pretty skeptical about evolution when it was first taught to me in school. It was too elegant, it summed up so many questions I had and answered them so neatly. I studied the subject intensely and realized how a simple property of nature and life can have such massive implications. The fact is no other explanation fits with the information we have.
Yeah, Brian, there are a lot of links out there to be posted, aren’t there. In fact, this one seems a popular one, well suited for your cause.. However, it remains a fact that the scientific controversy that you are trying to put forward is a fabrication by creationists, with no valid support in science. The quote that I presented previously speaks to that directly, as do recent issues of Scientific American.
It isn’t surprising that you and others like you will fight tooth and nail to preserve your creation myths. You have a lot vested in your beliefs, and your religion has a lot to lose, financially and otherwise, as it (inevitably) declines.
Your battle is however, pathetic and wrongheaded. The evidence speaks against you in spades, even in evolutionary clues that you walk around with in your body every day. Creationism’s day passed more than 150 years ago (it never should have been), and Christianity itself is also being left behind by progressive societies, as it should be. Evolution is an observed reality with overwhelming support in evidence, and it really is time for you to get used to it, and to put your archaic sky fairy myths from your childhood to bed.
So, had that appendix of yours removed yet? Ever wonder what it’s doing there?
Religion is a disease of the mind. Inoculate against it with reason.
But don’t you see Korgan? It’s a conspiracy, the “scientific” community will do anything to silence the truth. They’ll fabricate information and only publish research that contradicts the bible.
The sad thing is I’ve had multiple conversations with different people who believe exactly that.
Korgan, my appendix is doing stuff for my body. I had a chance to remove it one time. The Doc said, do you want us to take out your appendix since we’re inside” I said, NO WAY! I told the Doc. it is there for a reason but no thanks Doc.
We don’t silence that truth for the truth is based on the Bible.
By the potters commands and the potters hands everything has been made by Him.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This world and space were created by God from 100% nothing to 100% something. How can you create 100% something from 100% nothing? I love your fairy tales that you speak of.
There is a designer of this world and when the creation was done said, it is good. I say, I do agree Korgan and Irish it is GOOD.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
For an objective look at both matters at hand, I’d encourage you all to read the book ‘Refuting Evolution’, by Jonathan Sarfati.
If someone else’s opinion that differs from your own ‘baffles’ you so much, it’s fairly likely that you havent got nearly as much of an understanding of other’s beliefs and opinions as you think you do.
I used to ‘believe’ in evolution. I’ve really done my share of studying the science behind it, and you couldnt sway me if you tried. This is an easy stance to take.
Now I’ve done my research, talked to all sorts of people about it, thought independently for myself, not just accepting what people from either side of the argument say. I was surprised at the things I found out during my research, and I encourage everyone to do yourselves a favour, and diligently research the OTHER side of the argument, whether you are creationist or evolutionist. Read books about it, check out some internet articles. Make sure you’re in the know. Also recognise that your research should never really stop.
To argue a case so passionately while you really don’t understand the issues of one or both sides is very foolish. This is an important topic.