No not at all, unlike those who just accept what some one wrote in a science book to cover up their own religions agenda, most who have learned how to think for themselves look at the glaring holes in evolution, such as no explanation for how life Begin, no explanation for where all the matter originated that was in the "big bang" No explanation for the complete failure of the fossil record to show just one ( of the billions) of species evolving into the next species, we all know that the fossil record shows EVERY species coming into being intact. After looking at those many holes we reject the religious undertones of the naturalistic cult that those "brightest minds" you mention belong to. And chose to think for ourselves.
32 comments
"....unlike those who just accept what someone wrote in a science book to cover up their own religion's agenda, most who have learned how to think for themselves......"
My irony meter just collapsed in on itself forming a micro black hole.
ToE =/= Abiogenesis =/= Big Bang Theory
Also, the evolutionary tree is just that, a tree, not a ladder.
I'm baffled as to why fundies think the Big Bang is in any way related to evolution. However, I have a theory which takes into account their obsession with sex (other people's, that is): Perhaps they think Big Bang is the polite term for some type of cosmic clusterfuck resulting in the procreation of all living things. Dunno, wouldn't put it past them.
As to what prevents them from acquiring the knowledge that there is abundant evidence of transitional fossils, I haven't a clue why they haven't a clue.
Beginnings of life? Big bang? Oh, I know, he's talking about the fundy version of evolution. Of interest: the last time I googled "transitional fossils" I got 1,200,000 hits. I wonder how many hits there'd be if such fossils existed.
... look at the glaring holes in evolution, such as no explanation for how life Begin, no explanation for where all the matter originated that was in the "big bang"
Suppose God created the first life. What does that have to do with whether or not humans and chimps share a common ancestor? Suppose God created the universe. Again, what does that have to do with whether or not humans and chimps share a common ancestor?
The question of whether or not humans and chimps share a common ancestor is the only one that matters to Christians. If they do, then there were no Adam and Eve, therefore no "Fall", therefore no need for Christ's redemption for Adam's transgression.
we all know that the fossil record shows EVERY species coming into being intact.
We don't know that at all. If two fossils are fairly similar, creationists say they're the same species. If they're just a little less similar, they say they're different species and there's a gap between them. If we show one species turning into another, they say "that's micro-evolution - they haven't changed 'kind'" ("kind" being left undefined so they can change the definition when more evidence shows up).
most who have learned how to think for themselves look at the glaring holes in evolution, such as no explanation for how life Begin
no explanation for where all the matter originated that was in the "big bang"
No explanation for the complete failure of the fossil record to show just one ( of the billions) of species evolving into the next species
"we all know that the fossil record shows EVERY species coming into being intact."
Ofcourse they do. Did you wait with growing your second arm until you were in second grade? Did you start growing a nose because you wanted to smell something? Or did you have all of those the second you were born (and a bit before that)?
Evolution deals in a certain trend in a (sub)species towards adopting a certain trait across all members of that (sub)species, not about change in an individual during its life.
The strangest thing is, when we see two moderately similar organisms in two widely spaced strata, the theory of evolution would suggest that in between those two strata we might expect to see something that was half-and-half (or maybe third-and-two-thirds) like each of them. If each was a special creation, there is no reason to think that 'inbetween' organisms would occur after the older organism and before the younger.
Guess what? We may not have found them all, but we have found hundreds, if not thousands, of organisms with the characteristics the ToE would suggest, in rock of just the right age.
Special creation can't explain why this should be so, evolution can, and this is the second biggest hole in creationism. The biggest creationist 'hole' is a tie between Kent and this guy!
I am in no way an expert on (Edit: the theory of) evolution. I don't even remember it being taught in biology (of course, I don't remember most of the specifics taught in high school). However, it seems to me that, in the evolution of a given species, to get from one step to another, it would need to get to something halfway between the two. But, to get halfway, it would need to get a quarter of the way. Basically, applying Zeno's (Edit: Dichotomy) Paradox, and I am not knowledgeable enough to come up with a satisfactory (to me) refutation.
Of course, the only refutation I can come up with to Zeno's original paradox is the fact that reality pretty well contradicts it, or at least renders it irrelevant; it's probably the same case with this incarnation.
Wurdulac wrote: "However, it seems to me that, in the evolution of a given species, to get from one step to another, it would need to get to something halfway between the two. But, to get halfway, it would need to get a quarter of the way. Basically, applying Zeno's (Edit: Dichotomy) Paradox, and I am not knowledgeable enough to come up with a satisfactory (to me) refutation."
Zeno's paradox is a reductio ad absurdum because whatever the distance that must be covered, you must first cover half of that. Quite aside from the fact that Zeno's assertion that as such a series involves an infinite number or tasks, it can never be completed (or solved), in the case of living organisms, we are dealing with a finite genome for both the modern and ancestral creature. Given this limitation there can only be a finite number of discrete differences between them, hence a finite number of necessary steps to transition from one to the other.
So it's not so much similar to Zeno's paradox as it is to those word-ladder games where you change FOOL into SAGE in six steps.
Claiming evolution is a religion, two strawmen (the old abiogenesis & cosmology tie-ins), ignorance of transitional fossils, a made-up lie about the fossil record, and ironic claims of thinking for oneself by believing whatever creationist sites tell you.
That's epic fail, DL.
"No explanation for the complete failure of the fossil record to show just one ( of the billions) of species evolving into the next species, we all know that the fossil record shows EVERY species coming into being intact. "
We have fossiles of transitional forms, we win.
Jezebels sister:
In fundyland the origin of species and the rest of the universe is the same: the book of genesis. They then warp science into a form of their mythology by making cosmology and evolution into the same thing.
They can't understand anything except as a twisted mirror image of themselves, that's why they accuse others of the same behavior they engage in themselves.
image
Well, I tried to link this, but it doesn't seem to want to link, so kindly refer to this URL: http://cectic.com/069.html . It states the situation here pretty succinctly.
The fossil record shows no such thing, quite the opposite.....but how would a fundie fuckwit know that, being as you probably know nothing at all about palaeontology beyond a few strawmen erected by other fundie fuckwits.
OK
Your explanation is God did it
Pastafarians explenation is He did it
Pagans faiths say this is how it happened.
The latter two have a better shot than your blood-god
OK
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
