Creatards are Idiots. We Already Know That.

[Minimalist]

I do disagree with #5.  If xtianity could get away with it they would gladly tie evolutionary biologists to a stake and light 'em up.  Pricks.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/more-tha...evolution/

More than ‘just a theory’: The five most common misunderstandings about evolution

[Cecelia]

Missing the biggest misunderstanding of all:

"Who are you going to believe? A bunch of Scientists or God?"

The Bible isn't the word of god. No matter how much Christians wish it were so. So it's not God vs Scientists. It's a clear majority of the world's greatest scientific minds vs goat herders from ancient times who didn't know the first thing about germ theory, let alone about how humans came about.

The claim that the bible was inspired by god is entirely unproven. At most we have people claiming inspiration. Which is absolutely pointless. People can be inspired by all sorts of texts. The Bible happens to be influential because Christianity happens to be one of the largest religions in the world and has been for a significant period of time. If L. Ron Hubbard had peddled his bullshit 2000 years ago, and it became the most popular religion, then we'd be hearing the same arguments about Dianetics being the most inspiring text. It's that simple. Exposure is the reason for it having inspired so many. Often people will cite personal revelation. "I know these things to be true." That's essentially saying "I choose to ignore reality to live in my own little world.'

That these people were inspired by god is a claim that is unsupported. Instead of taking the claim at face value, everyone should inspect the claim and see if it stands up. It doesn't.

Let's start with the fact that we don't even know who wrote the bible. Even the first Christian Church likely didn't know the authors of the old testament. People are too trusting of nameless figures who claim to have been inspired by god, and not enough trust of evidence, reason, logic, and science. The church was not infallible by any means or measure. Yes, they probably spent a lot of time examining each of the texts. But that doesn't mean that they didn't get it all wrong. One thing about the church-- they didn't leave any room for people to review their decisions. Scientists do.

They believe because the bible remains constant in it's claims, that it's more reliable than science who change their claims. Somehow they don't get that science changes based on evidence. The more we learn, the more it changes. This is a fundamentally good thing.

If you're really looking for the answer to a question, you might change your mind several times over the course of investigation.

John, who maintains that Scarlett shot Mr. Green in the Library, never changing his believe even when the evidence points otherwise is not more reliable or more accurate than Jim who maintains that Ms. Scarlett shot Mr. Green in the Library until he discovers that there's evidence Mr. Green's body was moved to the library, and was shot elsewhere. He then finds a bullet casing in the kitchen, and maintains that Mr. Green was shot in the kitchen by Ms. Scarlett. And then when he discovers Ms. Scarlet was in the living room at the time of the shooting, he might look for another suspect. John however maintains Ms. Scarlett shot Mr. Green in the library because it gives the appearance of a crime scene. "The body was found there!" John says. "You can't prove Mrs. Scarlett was in the living room at the time, it's only a theory!" Jim brings up the bullet casing found in the kitchen, but John continues insisting that it was for another crime.

[Excited Penguin]

Let me just state how amazed I am that people still take religion seriously enough to write articles about it, let alone try and make it compatible with evolution.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Missing the biggest misunderstanding of all:

"Who are you going to believe?  A bunch of Scientists or God?"

The Bible isn't the word of god.  No matter how much Christians wish it were so.  So it's not God vs Scientists.  It's a clear majority of the world's greatest scientific minds vs goat herders from ancient times who didn't know the first thing about germ theory, let alone about how humans came about.  

The claim that the bible was inspired by god is entirely unproven.  At most we have people claiming inspiration.  Which is absolutely pointless.  People can be inspired by all sorts of texts.  The Bible happens to be influential because Christianity happens to be one of the largest religions in the world and has been for a significant period of time.  If L. Ron Hubbard had peddled his bullshit 2000 years ago, and it became the most popular religion, then we'd be hearing the same arguments about Dianetics being the most inspiring text.  It's that simple.  Exposure is the reason for it having inspired so many.  Often people will cite personal revelation.  "I know these things to be true."  That's essentially saying "I choose to ignore reality to live in my own little world.'

That these people were inspired by god is a claim that is unsupported.  Instead of taking the claim at face value, everyone should inspect the claim and see if it stands up.  It doesn't.  

Let's start with the fact that we don't even know who wrote the bible.  Even the first Christian Church likely didn't know the authors of the old testament.  People are too trusting of nameless figures who claim to have been inspired by god, and not enough trust of evidence, reason, logic, and science.  The church was not infallible by any means or measure.  Yes, they probably spent a lot of time examining each of the texts.  But that doesn't mean that they didn't get it all wrong.  One thing about the church-- they didn't leave any room for people to review their decisions.  Scientists do.  

They believe because the bible remains constant in it's claims, that it's more reliable than science who change their claims.  Somehow they don't get that science changes based on evidence.  The more we learn, the more it changes.  This is a fundamentally good thing.  

If you're really looking for the answer to a question, you might change your mind several times over the course of investigation.

John, who maintains that Scarlett shot Mr. Green in the Library, never changing his believe even when the evidence points otherwise is not more reliable or more accurate than Jim who maintains that Ms. Scarlett shot Mr. Green in the Library until he discovers that there's evidence Mr. Green's body was moved to the library, and was shot elsewhere.  He then finds a bullet casing in the kitchen, and maintains that Mr. Green was shot in the kitchen by Ms. Scarlett.  And then when he discovers Ms. Scarlet was in the living room at the time of the shooting, he might look for another suspect.  John however maintains Ms. Scarlett shot Mr. Green in the library because it gives the appearance of a crime scene.  "The body was found there!" John says.  "You can't prove Mrs. Scarlett was in the living room at the time, it's only a theory!"  Jim brings up the bullet casing found in the kitchen, but John continues insisting that it was for another crime.

An English committee wrote the Bible around the year 700 AD.  It didn't exist before then.  Later on other committees revised and formatted it into its current form.

[Gawdzilla]

Let me just state how amazed I am that people still take religion seriously enough to write articles about it, let alone try and make it compatible with evolution.

They're serious enough around here to kill you for doubting their religion.

[robvalue]

I have no problem with someone saying they don't understand the theory of evolution, and so they don't feel comfortable believing it. I would actually respect that a lot. It's intellectually honest.

What I don't respect is people who obviously don't understand it and have no intention of learning about it announcing it is "wrong"; usually inserting their own totally unsupported magical explanation in its place.

Theist (creationist) considers evolution: turns scepticism up to infinity.

Theist considers their personal favourite holy book: turns scepticism off completely.

But I'll take a scientifically literate theist anyday over an ignorant atheist, if I want to have a serious discussion.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think I'm going to bow out of the evolution debate. I can't spend the rest of my life (or any meaningful portion of it) answering the same seven or eight objections to evolutionary theory by people who want to know why there are still monkeys in the world, or why dogs don't give birth to cats. I've explained the difference between 'theory' and 'fact' (and why evolution is both) until I'm blue in the face. I'm bone tired of pointing out that abiogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution. I've had it up to HERE with people wanting to know why tornado + scrapyard = Boeing 747, and how Darwin didn't believe his own theories.

Creationists are still a danger and shouldn't be ignored, but I'll leave it to those with more patience than I can muster to deal with them.

Boru

[ignoramus]

[Homeless Nutter]

If man was made from dust - why is there still dust?

[robvalue]

I think I'm going to bow out of the evolution debate. I can't spend the rest of my life (or any meaningful portion of it) answering the same seven or eight objections to evolutionary theory by people who want to know why there are still monkeys in the world, or why dogs don't give birth to cats. I've explained the difference between 'theory' and 'fact' (and why evolution is both) until I'm blue in the face. I'm bone tired of pointing out that abiogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution. I've had it up to HERE with people wanting to know why tornado + scrapyard = Boeing 747, and how Darwin didn't believe his own theories.

Creationists are still a danger and shouldn't be ignored, but I'll leave it to those with more patience than I can muster to deal with them.

Boru

Such people don't want to learn. They don't have scientific objections. The reason they fight against one very specific area of science while leaving the rest alone (even trying to co-opt it for their case) is that it makes them uncomfortable. It makes their beliefs look stupid. So they make it an issue, when there is no issue.

They want to carry on believing evolution is "wrong" somehow, and learning more about it does not help them with that goal. Continuing to misunderstand it, often intentionally I imagine, is how they cope.

It's really sad. At least on a public forum, onlookers can benefit from the discussion even when the recipient is totally closed minded and unwilling to learn anything.

But I'm with you, I've given up on many people. It's just not worth the effort. I'll save it for people who at least try and have an honest discussion.