The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe in It

[ChristineM]

As a student of mathematics I have to point out a semantic error you made. Nothing in science is ever proven, and most people have a poor understanding of what a rigorous "proof" actually is. In fact, there is no such thing as a "proof" of anything in the physical world. But in any case, I agree with you overall. Of course there are mountains of evidence for evolution, and thus the need for creationist propaganda due to the fact that evolution so strongly conflicts with core Christian beliefs.

I said proven beyond doubt.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe It | Wisdom of God

Just couldn't resist talking about this. This is kind of silly.

For example...

Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms

Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis.

Meaning only one pair of a male and female of the kind “dog” was created, only one pair of a male and female of the kind “horse” was created, and from these parent kinds, came forth many varieties within their kinds.

Evolution isn't about a dog birthing a completely new breed. It is about a gradual change in each species. Depending on environment an external forces, some changes allow better chances for survival and just because they survive better and procreate more, that genetic trait becomes dominant in the species.

The big problem here IMO is these folks have a strawman idea idea of what evolution is and are stuck on attacking the strawman instead evolution.

An incomprehensible strawman bonfire.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As a student of mathematics I have to point out a semantic error you made. Nothing in science is ever proven, and most people have a poor understanding of what a rigorous "proof" actually is. In fact, there is no such thing as a "proof" of anything in the physical world. But in any case, I agree with you overall. Of course there are mountains of evidence for evolution, and thus the need for creationist propaganda due to the fact that evolution so strongly conflicts with core Christian beliefs.

There is more than one definition of "proven". Granted, it is not proven by the mathematical definition, but it could be easily said to be proven by the legal standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

But otherwise I agree.

One more point, the linked website in the OP sets off my McAffee. I don't feel like putting my computer at risk. Does anyone know why it would do that?

 

[shunyadragon]

There is more than one definition of "proven". Granted, it is not proven by the mathematical definition, but it could be easily said to be proven by the legal standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

But otherwise I agree.

One more point, the linked website in the OP sets off my McAffee. I don't feel like putting my computer at risk. Does anyone know why it would do that?

I much prefer falsified beyond any reasonable doubt.

I generally reserve the concept of proof to math and logic, and in neither is anything consider necessarily true if 'proven.'

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I said proven beyond doubt.

Fair enough. IMO, the word "proof" should never be used except in regard to maths and alcoholic beverages. But to each their own.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

There is more than one definition of "proven". Granted, it is not proven by the mathematical definition, but it could be easily said to be proven by the legal standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

But otherwise I agree.

One more point, the linked website in the OP sets off my McAffee. I don't feel like putting my computer at risk. Does anyone know why it would do that?

True that it definitely meets the criterion for a court of law. As far as the link goes I have no idea. I never click on links posted by strangers on the Internet lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

True that it definitely meets the criterion for a court of law. As far as the link goes I have no idea. I never click on links posted by strangers on the Internet lol

I looked at why and for some reason McAffee seems to think that religions links are a threat.

 

[Etritonakin]

The primary mistake creationists make is not even referencing the first sentence of the bible -"...God created the heavens and the Earth" -which certainly includes the elements which do self-assemble under the right conditions.

Misreading the bible, they abandon all reason in order to make things fit their beliefs. Apart from the errant non-biblical belief in a young earth due to assumption about scripture, nothing in the bible is actually contrary to the occurrence of evolution.

The fact is that evolution does happen -and it has nothing to do with God's ability to also directly create or tweak anything on the fly. We, ourselves, are evidence that evolution and creation are part of the same whole.

 

[blü 2]

The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe It | Wisdom of God

Just couldn't resist talking about this. This is kind of silly.

For example...

Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms

Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis.

Meaning only one pair of a male and female of the kind “dog” was created, only one pair of a male and female of the kind “horse” was created, and from these parent kinds, came forth many varieties within their kinds.

Evolution isn't about a dog birthing a completely new breed. It is about a gradual change in each species. Depending on environment an external forces, some changes allow better chances for survival and just because they survive better and procreate more, that genetic trait becomes dominant in the species.

The big problem here IMO is these folks have a strawman idea idea of what evolution is and are stuck on attacking the strawman instead evolution.

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School set out the "tenets of biblical creationism", among them these ─

2 The [books of the] Bible [...] as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

4. [...] sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence.

5. The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and fall of man, the curse on the creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human government) and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.
​

The Institute no longer exists in that form, but the tenets live on.

No other part of theology can equal in silliness the theology of Young Earth Creationism. Unfortunately it's not only silly, it's deeply pernicious. It should never be taught to children.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As a student of mathematics I have to point out a semantic error you made. Nothing in science is ever proven, and most people have a poor understanding of what a rigorous "proof" actually is. In fact, there is no such thing as a "proof" of anything in the physical world. But in any case, I agree with you overall. Of course there are mountains of evidence for evolution, and thus the need for creationist propaganda due to the fact that evolution so strongly conflicts with core Christian beliefs.

90 proof (he posts with a grin), but I agree with you none the less.

The theory and the evidence conflict with Genesis, but the fear of what that means is only in their imagination. The existence of evidence and theory that explains it, does not even lead to a demand that the Bible be tossed. It just means it requires new insight to interpret. Thankfully, most Christians are not scared of knowledge.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure, I just thought there might be someone about willing to defend the position since someone created a post about it. And, really hoping it might help someone still confused about evolution.

I will take up the challenge and defend the position.

Nope.

I could not come up with anything.

Sorry.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The big problem here IMO is these folks have a strawman idea idea of what evolution is and are stuck on attacking the strawman instead evolution.

While it is technically a strawman, to dismiss it as a strawman is to ignore the issues of the highly insular nature of the Evangelical culture that allows for such views to exist and perpetuate.

 

[Nakosis]

While it is technically a strawman, to dismiss it as a strawman is to ignore the issues of the highly insular nature of the Evangelical culture that allows for such views to exist and perpetuate.

Hopefully a few will show up on RF and get an education.

 

[shunyadragon]

Fair enough. IMO, the word "proof" should never be used except in regard to maths and alcoholic beverages. But to each their own.

. . . and logic, but in logic and math proof does not necessarily mean it is true.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As a student of mathematics I have to point out a semantic error you made. Nothing in science is ever proven, and most people have a poor understanding of what a rigorous "proof" actually is. In fact, there is no such thing as a "proof" of anything in the physical world. But in any case, I agree with you overall. Of course there are mountains of evidence for evolution, and thus the need for creationist propaganda due to the fact that evolution so strongly conflicts with core Christian beliefs.

I like Dawkin's use of the word "theorem" as a way to clarify that in all but the purest philosophical sense evolution has been proven true. I also agree that it should be considered a law, as it is necessary in explaining phenomenon and theories across multiple disciplines. Basically, any science that deals with anything living is predicated on evolution. From it's cellular structure to it's behavioral patterns to the fossils its ancestors left behind, our explanations are often inadequate without first assuming evolution (and the various selections made for reproduction) is true. Treatment resistant bacteria requires evolution. The fossil record as we see it does not happen without evolution. Similar biology among different species doesn't happen without evolution. Understanding the behaviors of social animals is ill fated without realizing social animals evolved to be social, unlike solitary animals who evolved for a life of solitude. Without we are deliberately ignoring most of the evidence that leads to better explanations of natural phenomena.

 

[Faithofchristian]

CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION.


The Introduction to Genesis (and to the whole Bible) Gen. 1:1-2:3, ascribes everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving, and speaking. There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation. One must be true, the other false. All God's works were pronounced "good" seven times . Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31. They are "great," Ps. 111:2. Rev. 15:3. They are "wondrous," Job 37:14. They are "perfect," Deut. 32:4.

Man starts from nothing. He begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is seen only in human affairs: from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade and ploughshare to machines for drilling, reaping, and binding, &c. But the birds build their nests to-day as at the beginning. The moment we pass the boundary line, and enter the Divine sphere, no trace or vestige of evolution is seen. There is growth and development within, but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another. On the other hand, all God's works are perfect.

In the Introduction to Genesis (ch. 1:1-2:3) forty-six times everything is ascribed to direct acts and volitions on the part of God as the Creator.



God (or He) created
6 times
1:1, 21, 27, 27, 27; 2:3
God moved
1 once
1:2
God said
10 times
1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29
God saw
7 times
1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31
God divided
2 twice
1:4, 7
God (or He) called
5 times
1:5, 5, 8, 10, 10
God (or He) made
7 times
1:7, 16, 25, 31; 2:2, 2, 3
God set
1 once
1:17
God blessed
3 times
1:22, 28; 2:3
God ended
1 once
2:2
God rested
2 twice
2:2, 3
He sanctified
1 once
2:3

It will be noted that the word "God" (Elohim.) occurs in this Introduction thirty-five times (7 x 5), the product of 7 and 5, the numbers of spiritual perfection, and grace.

There are also ten words connected with the word "God"; this is the number of ordinal perfection

There is only one verb used alone with the pronoun "He", instead of "God", and that is the verb "rested". This makes eleven in all; for the significance of which.

The word "and" is repeated 102 times: thus by the figure Polysyndeton marking and emphasizing each separate act as being equally independent and important.

Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things. It is admitted by all scientists that no one of these theories covers all the ground; and the greatest claim made for Evolution, or Darwinism, is that "it covers more ground than any of the others."

The Word of God claims to cover all the ground: and the only way in which this claim is met, is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it. This is the special work undertaken by the so-called "Higher Criticism", which bases its conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documen 4e tary evidence of manuscripts, and Textual Criticism does.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hopefully a few will show up on RF and get an education.

IMO, they are insular against outside information, and even when it's taken in it often takes a significant life event (or a chronic series of events) to shake their faith hard enough to even get them to question their faith. It also helps to have other things like them having a degree of dissatisfaction with life that is due to their religious beliefs.
If all it took where an education, George Washington wouldn't have wrote that he was stunned Christianity survived into his day of more widespread education, literacy, and Enlightenment. But here it still is 300 years later.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things. It is admitted by all scientists that no one of these theories covers all the ground; and the greatest claim made for Evolution, or Darwinism, is that "it covers more ground than any of the others."

Evolution is the only science for the explanation of the history of life on earth, and abiogenesis is basically the only science of origins of life that fits the evidence in contemporary science.

What are the others?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION.


The Introduction to Genesis (and to the whole Bible) Gen. 1:1-2:3, ascribes everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving, and speaking. There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation. One must be true, the other false. All God's works were pronounced "good" seven times . Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31. They are "great," Ps. 111:2. Rev. 15:3. They are "wondrous," Job 37:14. They are "perfect," Deut. 32:4.

Man starts from nothing. He begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is seen only in human affairs: from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade and ploughshare to machines for drilling, reaping, and binding, &c. But the birds build their nests to-day as at the beginning. The moment we pass the boundary line, and enter the Divine sphere, no trace or vestige of evolution is seen. There is growth and development within, but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another. On the other hand, all God's works are perfect.

In the Introduction to Genesis (ch. 1:1-2:3) forty-six times everything is ascribed to direct acts and volitions on the part of God as the Creator.



God (or He) created
6 times
1:1, 21, 27, 27, 27; 2:3
God moved
1 once
1:2
God said
10 times
1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29
God saw
7 times
1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31
God divided
2 twice
1:4, 7
God (or He) called
5 times
1:5, 5, 8, 10, 10
God (or He) made
7 times
1:7, 16, 25, 31; 2:2, 2, 3
God set
1 once
1:17
God blessed
3 times
1:22, 28; 2:3
God ended
1 once
2:2
God rested
2 twice
2:2, 3
He sanctified
1 once
2:3

It will be noted that the word "God" (Elohim.) occurs in this Introduction thirty-five times (7 x 5), the product of 7 and 5, the numbers of spiritual perfection, and grace.

There are also ten words connected with the word "God"; this is the number of ordinal perfection

There is only one verb used alone with the pronoun "He", instead of "God", and that is the verb "rested". This makes eleven in all; for the significance of which.

The word "and" is repeated 102 times: thus by the figure Polysyndeton marking and emphasizing each separate act as being equally independent and important.

Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things. It is admitted by all scientists that no one of these theories covers all the ground; and the greatest claim made for Evolution, or Darwinism, is that "it covers more ground than any of the others."

The Word of God claims to cover all the ground: and the only way in which this claim is met, is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it. This is the special work undertaken by the so-called "Higher Criticism", which bases its conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documen 4e tary evidence of manuscripts, and Textual Criticism does.

It would be rather silly for god to give us a tail bone if we never had tails.

 

[Twilight Hue]

My read of the rules is that you may not call people "stupid" even if you hide behind the title of a link.

That would likely qualify for half the Trump threads here.