5 ms·

Your comment is so ironic. You complain about conservatives wanting to "shut up" the media. And yet here you are advocating shutting up conservative ideas abou

Your comment is so ironic. You complain about conservatives wanting to "shut up" the media. And yet here you are advocating shutting up conservative ideas about creation in school. How hypocritical. As for science, macro evolutionary theory isn't even science. The scientific method requires testing and 200 years isn't long enough to verify something that takes tens of thousands of years to occur. Secondly, the fossil record shows all kinds of stuff that just doesn't jive with evolution. Darwin said if he was right the ground would be full of innumerable transitional fossils. But what we find is that as soon as something appears in the fossil record, it stays very similar. The Cambrian explosion is another thing that just doesn't make sense evolutionary speaking. And all this is made worse by the fact that somehow evolution spent billions of years unable to move past unicellular organisms, and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years? Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old. The difference is astonishing and yet supposedly happened in an exceedingly short period of time, when life couldn't get out of the bacteria stage for a billion years? There are a lot of holes in evolutionary theory. What is unscientific, and all to common among liberals is ignoring those who point out inconvenient facts

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
david38 9y ago
Not hypocritical. Religion isn't science. It's fantasy. Physicists vs chemists would be be a scientific debate. A proper conservative creationist debate would be vs Roman paganism. X isn't perfect so Y must be the answer is the oldest false choice gimmick going. I can easily point to how shitty everyone practices their religion and prove it's fake that way too. Seriously, how many people are reading the Bible? Some. The best available translation? Fewer. The original untranslated text? Very few. It's the actual word of God and you don't think it's important enough to read in the original? Please. Give me a break. Let's set that aside though. Let's just go for the big stuff. Is Jesus cosubstancial with the father? You would figure something that profound would be easy to ask God himself. How this question was resolved is proof of the popularity contest that was / is the Christian church. Science keeps chipping away at the Bible. The reverse doesn't happen. Just because X doesn't solve everything perfectly (and doesn't claim to) doesn't mean Y is anything less than fantasy.
- ableton 9y ago
  Great question about translation. I read "Youngs literal translation" which is much more accurate. And I frequently use the Blue Letter Bible website which has an amazing resource to help you understand the Greek/Hebrew meaning of any word! Science doesn't "chip away at the Bible". Bad science does though. Anecdotally I think what happens is that people want to have sex outside of marriage so they accept bad science to validate their choices. Sex hormones make people do really irrational things.
  - Xoros 9y ago
    Isn't irrational the base of the religion (in opposition to rational : "based on facts and reason, not emotion" according to Cambridge dictionary) ?
eesmith 9y ago
"Macroevolution" in modern biological theory is microevolution acting across geological timescales. "Geological timesscales" is far longer than "tens of thousands of years". "Testing" is a more encompassing term than "experimentation". To give an example, a test of evolutionary theory is the prediction that the transition from fish to amphibians started during the Devonian. Indeed, after years of work, Tiktaalik fossils were found in Devonian rock. Evolutionary science is full of tests like these. As I understand it, you also do not consider astrophysics to be a science. There are many transitional fossils, including Tiktaalik. The transitional fossils for cetacean history make a quite lovely series. All fossils of a given species are "very similar" for the simple reason that the species labels "are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation", to quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil . What aspects of the Cambrian explosion are you talking about? There is much we don't know about it, but nothing which forces us to reject well-established evolutionary theory. Modern humans evolved from archaic humans starting about 200,000 years ago. Archaic humans evolved from Homo erectus, which evolved from Homo habilis, which evolved from Australopithecus, etc. The common ancestor of humans, chimps, and bonobos was about 10 million years ago. The common ancestor of humans and the non-ape monkeys was about 29 million years ago. This is far longer than the 10k years you mentioned. For that matter, we have found human remains from Combe-Capelle, La Brea, Cheddar, and Kow Swamp which are about 10k years old. Are you seriously proposing that humans "jumped" into existence 10K years ago and within 1K years were found from North America to Australia? You write "Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old". But "monkey" isn't a species name, so what you wrote is meaningless. "Monkey" has multiple meanings. Humans are part of the family of Old World monkeys, so yes, humans are monkeys. However, apes, including humans, are traditionally not included as a monkey in that sense, making "monkey" a polyphyletic term. All told, your critique shows no real knowledge of the evolutionary theory that you are trying to challenge. I would much rather have inconvenient facts than the fabrications you presented.
throwaway2016a 9y ago
> What is unscientific, and all to common among liberals is ignoring those who point out inconvenient facts So against my better judgement I'm going to not ignore (downvote) you and reply briefly. Key word being briefly. I have no interest getting into a debate. No one is ignoring those "inconvenient facts" 1. Calling them "facts" is a red flag you are not open to debate. A fact has a very specific definition and what you said is not a fact and I wouldn't call it one even if I agreed with the idea. 2. The "no transition fossils" idea has been thoroughly debunked (there are indeed many). 3. The Cambrian Explosion has been debated and written on quite significantly and the research is pretty convincing for most people. 4. On your comment about the speed of evolution. The number of mutations needed to change the DNA of a chimpanzee to that of a human is far fewer than a single celled organism. A common first program in bioinformatics courses is to calculate the longest subset of similar DNA between species. The differences are very subtle. Which incidentally is why a small mutation can cause a human child to be born with very different physical properties than a healthy human child. In fact, if you take the time to study how DNA works it is very clear to see how evolution works. After studying the subject it very clear and clean cut. I think one of the biggest problems with science education is that we talk a out evolution on a marcro scale. Talking about it at a DNA level I think the amount of closed-mindedness to deny it would be astounding. Edit: As another aside, assuming you are Christian, what is it about the bible that you think 7 days and 7 nights is to be taken literally? The bible is meant to be allegorical not literal. Most Christians I know have long since stated that they believe in evolution and that they do not feel that contradicts their faith.
- ableton 9y ago
  1. As for facts, I am referring to things like the Cambrian explosiom, and the lack of transitional fossils. For example how about Lucy? Lucy was clearly a chimp. You can go read the actual PBS interview with the guys who reconstructed it. They said when they reconstructed it at first, the hip looked just like a chimpanzee hip. Since there wasn't much anything else to make it transitional, they decided there must be something wrong. So they broke the hip up and put in together again in the "right way". This is another fact that people just ignore. I think actually Google had a "Lucy day" when Lucy is clearly a hoax. >The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html 2. This has not been thoroughly debunked at all. In fact over and over again the "missing link" turns out to be a fake. Or how about archaeopteryx? It has fully formed wings and feathers. Where is the creature with half wings and partial feathers? Surely feathers couldn't have developed overnight! Yet it simply doesn't exist. 3. It's convincing for "most people". Well it's not convincing for a lot of others. So should the opposing position be censored? I don't think so. 4. Speed of evolution. Observing the mutation rate of Malaria is instructive. It is a eukaryotes, not a prokaryote, so is much more similar to our cell structure. Up to 1 trillion malaria organisms can infect the host. 250 million get malaria per year. That's up to 250 million trillion organisms per year. Which is millions of times the number of generations between monkeys and people. Yet it takes years for malaria to develop a resistance to a single anti malarial drug. There is no way the far more complex transition from monkeys to humans occurred in 1/1millionth of the number of generations. The rate of evolution is simply too slow. To your edit: the Bible is meant to be allegorical in some parts. But as for creation, trying to somehow rectify the Bible + evolution is no good. The Bible says God created them so they would reproduce according to their "kind" https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=esv&strongs=h4327 https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=e... This is exactly what we see in the fossils. When something shows up in the record, it stays the same. Thanks for engaging, not downvoting! Your a cool guy (or girl)
Oletros 9y ago
> As for science, macro evolutionary theory isn't even science. The scientific method requires testing and 200 years isn't long enough to verify something that takes tens of thousands of years to occur Lensky experiment, try another thing > Darwin said if he was right the ground would be full of innumerable transitional fossils. Darwin published his booke more than 100 years ago. Science has advanced a lot since then > and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years What? > There are a lot of holes in evolutionary theory Examples
flukus 9y ago
Have you actually tried finding answers to all your questions? I assure you, those answers already exist if you actually look. The fact that you don't bother to look is an indication of how weak your opinion/faith really is. > And all this is made worse by the fact that somehow evolution spent billions of years unable to move past unicellular organisms, and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years? Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old. The difference is astonishing and yet supposedly happened in an exceedingly short period of time, when life couldn't get out of the bacteria stage for a billion years? This bit in particular stood out for how poorly informed you are, the last common ancestor between humans and monkeys was 8-6 million years ago. You are no where near informed enough on evolution to criticize it at all.
anigbrowl 9y ago
And yet here you are advocating shutting up conservative ideas Untrue. Jemfrost critiqued conservatism, rather than calling for it to be shut down. If you can't deal with criticism. I'd like to address the rest of your objections, but your starting out with such self-evident falsehoods suggests I'd be wasting my time.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

david38 9y ago

Not hypocritical. Religion isn't science. It's fantasy. Physicists vs chemists would be be a scientific debate. A proper conservative creationist debate would be vs Roman paganism. X isn't perfect so Y must be the answer is the oldest false choice gimmick going. I can easily point to how shitty everyone practices their religion and prove it's fake that way too. Seriously, how many people are reading the Bible? Some. The best available translation? Fewer. The original untranslated text? Very few. It's the actual word of God and you don't think it's important enough to read in the original? Please. Give me a break. Let's set that aside though. Let's just go for the big stuff. Is Jesus cosubstancial with the father? You would figure something that profound would be easy to ask God himself. How this question was resolved is proof of the popularity contest that was / is the Christian church. Science keeps chipping away at the Bible. The reverse doesn't happen. Just because X doesn't solve everything perfectly (and doesn't claim to) doesn't mean Y is anything less than fantasy.

ableton 9y ago
Great question about translation. I read "Youngs literal translation" which is much more accurate. And I frequently use the Blue Letter Bible website which has an amazing resource to help you understand the Greek/Hebrew meaning of any word! Science doesn't "chip away at the Bible". Bad science does though. Anecdotally I think what happens is that people want to have sex outside of marriage so they accept bad science to validate their choices. Sex hormones make people do really irrational things.
- Xoros 9y ago
  Isn't irrational the base of the religion (in opposition to rational : "based on facts and reason, not emotion" according to Cambridge dictionary) ?

eesmith 9y ago

"Macroevolution" in modern biological theory is microevolution acting across geological timescales. "Geological timesscales" is far longer than "tens of thousands of years". "Testing" is a more encompassing term than "experimentation". To give an example, a test of evolutionary theory is the prediction that the transition from fish to amphibians started during the Devonian. Indeed, after years of work, Tiktaalik fossils were found in Devonian rock. Evolutionary science is full of tests like these. As I understand it, you also do not consider astrophysics to be a science. There are many transitional fossils, including Tiktaalik. The transitional fossils for cetacean history make a quite lovely series. All fossils of a given species are "very similar" for the simple reason that the species labels "are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation", to quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil . What aspects of the Cambrian explosion are you talking about? There is much we don't know about it, but nothing which forces us to reject well-established evolutionary theory. Modern humans evolved from archaic humans starting about 200,000 years ago. Archaic humans evolved from Homo erectus, which evolved from Homo habilis, which evolved from Australopithecus, etc. The common ancestor of humans, chimps, and bonobos was about 10 million years ago. The common ancestor of humans and the non-ape monkeys was about 29 million years ago. This is far longer than the 10k years you mentioned. For that matter, we have found human remains from Combe-Capelle, La Brea, Cheddar, and Kow Swamp which are about 10k years old. Are you seriously proposing that humans "jumped" into existence 10K years ago and within 1K years were found from North America to Australia? You write "Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old". But "monkey" isn't a species name, so what you wrote is meaningless. "Monkey" has multiple meanings. Humans are part of the family of Old World monkeys, so yes, humans are monkeys. However, apes, including humans, are traditionally not included as a monkey in that sense, making "monkey" a polyphyletic term. All told, your critique shows no real knowledge of the evolutionary theory that you are trying to challenge. I would much rather have inconvenient facts than the fabrications you presented.

throwaway2016a 9y ago

> What is unscientific, and all to common among liberals is ignoring those who point out inconvenient facts So against my better judgement I'm going to not ignore (downvote) you and reply briefly. Key word being briefly. I have no interest getting into a debate. No one is ignoring those "inconvenient facts" 1. Calling them "facts" is a red flag you are not open to debate. A fact has a very specific definition and what you said is not a fact and I wouldn't call it one even if I agreed with the idea. 2. The "no transition fossils" idea has been thoroughly debunked (there are indeed many). 3. The Cambrian Explosion has been debated and written on quite significantly and the research is pretty convincing for most people. 4. On your comment about the speed of evolution. The number of mutations needed to change the DNA of a chimpanzee to that of a human is far fewer than a single celled organism. A common first program in bioinformatics courses is to calculate the longest subset of similar DNA between species. The differences are very subtle. Which incidentally is why a small mutation can cause a human child to be born with very different physical properties than a healthy human child. In fact, if you take the time to study how DNA works it is very clear to see how evolution works. After studying the subject it very clear and clean cut. I think one of the biggest problems with science education is that we talk a out evolution on a marcro scale. Talking about it at a DNA level I think the amount of closed-mindedness to deny it would be astounding. Edit: As another aside, assuming you are Christian, what is it about the bible that you think 7 days and 7 nights is to be taken literally? The bible is meant to be allegorical not literal. Most Christians I know have long since stated that they believe in evolution and that they do not feel that contradicts their faith.

ableton 9y ago
1. As for facts, I am referring to things like the Cambrian explosiom, and the lack of transitional fossils. For example how about Lucy? Lucy was clearly a chimp. You can go read the actual PBS interview with the guys who reconstructed it. They said when they reconstructed it at first, the hip looked just like a chimpanzee hip. Since there wasn't much anything else to make it transitional, they decided there must be something wrong. So they broke the hip up and put in together again in the "right way". This is another fact that people just ignore. I think actually Google had a "Lucy day" when Lucy is clearly a hoax. >The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html 2. This has not been thoroughly debunked at all. In fact over and over again the "missing link" turns out to be a fake. Or how about archaeopteryx? It has fully formed wings and feathers. Where is the creature with half wings and partial feathers? Surely feathers couldn't have developed overnight! Yet it simply doesn't exist. 3. It's convincing for "most people". Well it's not convincing for a lot of others. So should the opposing position be censored? I don't think so. 4. Speed of evolution. Observing the mutation rate of Malaria is instructive. It is a eukaryotes, not a prokaryote, so is much more similar to our cell structure. Up to 1 trillion malaria organisms can infect the host. 250 million get malaria per year. That's up to 250 million trillion organisms per year. Which is millions of times the number of generations between monkeys and people. Yet it takes years for malaria to develop a resistance to a single anti malarial drug. There is no way the far more complex transition from monkeys to humans occurred in 1/1millionth of the number of generations. The rate of evolution is simply too slow. To your edit: the Bible is meant to be allegorical in some parts. But as for creation, trying to somehow rectify the Bible + evolution is no good. The Bible says God created them so they would reproduce according to their "kind" https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=esv&strongs=h4327 https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=e... This is exactly what we see in the fossils. When something shows up in the record, it stays the same. Thanks for engaging, not downvoting! Your a cool guy (or girl)

Oletros 9y ago

> As for science, macro evolutionary theory isn't even science. The scientific method requires testing and 200 years isn't long enough to verify something that takes tens of thousands of years to occur Lensky experiment, try another thing > Darwin said if he was right the ground would be full of innumerable transitional fossils. Darwin published his booke more than 100 years ago. Science has advanced a lot since then > and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years What? > There are a lot of holes in evolutionary theory Examples

flukus 9y ago

Have you actually tried finding answers to all your questions? I assure you, those answers already exist if you actually look. The fact that you don't bother to look is an indication of how weak your opinion/faith really is. > And all this is made worse by the fact that somehow evolution spent billions of years unable to move past unicellular organisms, and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years? Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old. The difference is astonishing and yet supposedly happened in an exceedingly short period of time, when life couldn't get out of the bacteria stage for a billion years? This bit in particular stood out for how poorly informed you are, the last common ancestor between humans and monkeys was 8-6 million years ago. You are no where near informed enough on evolution to criticize it at all.

anigbrowl 9y ago

And yet here you are advocating shutting up conservative ideas Untrue. Jemfrost critiqued conservatism, rather than calling for it to be shut down. If you can't deal with criticism. I'd like to address the rest of your objections, but your starting out with such self-evident falsehoods suggests I'd be wasting my time.