So much stupid

[Rahul]

My relatives forward me stupid chain emails everyday. This is the worst offender I've seen in a while:

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

What? Humans have never observed the process of evolution?

Humanity can't prove that evolution is an on-going fact of life?

What?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

My relatives forward me stupid chain emails everyday. This is the worst offender I've seen in a while:

What? Humans have never observed the process of evolution?

Humanity can't prove that evolution is an on-going fact of life?

What?

Creationists consider "the process of evolution" to be "macro-evolution" where one "kind" evolves to another "kind" over millions of years i.e. a cow evolving to be a whale. Since no one has seen such a thing occur then saying that it has occurred is an unproven statement of "faith".

Creationists will agree that small changes from generation to generation are seen. THey say this is just "micro-evolution" which is "variation within a kind." They deny however that macro-evolution can result from a series of occurrences of micro-evolution and assert that there is a "barrier" that prevents a "kind" from changing into another "kind."

So creationists think all evolution that does occur is just variations on a theme. Though there can be many variations, the variations never get so deviant that the theme itself changes.

This is just an unproven assertion however. There is no reason to assume that a "kind" can't evolve into another "kind" through a series of continuous evolution. Any assertion of a "genetic barrier" and denial of the possibility of macro evolution comes about from a reading of Genesis and not from an observation of the facts.

[Bad Writer]

Has this "barrier" between "kinds" ever been proven? Can't prove what's not there, IMO. So if "micro-evolution" goes far enough down the line, then it adds up to "macro-evolution", and the fossil record indeed shows that. That has been proven.

[Faith No More]

This reeks of so much bullshit, but the first obvious hint comes with the hot and cold, light and dark questions. I could see a teacher saying yes, hot and cold exist without seeing that the Christian is trying to make the point one is merely the absence of the other, but after being schooled on that, do you think that even the most low-level phsycis teacher would fall for the same trap with the light and darkness question?

What's so amazing to me is that it's not enough for Christians to have a story that confirms their beliefs. It has to be embellished to the point of impossiblity as to demonstrate the true glory of their beliefs.

[Rahul]

Creationists consider "the process of evolution" to be "macro-evolution" where one "kind" evolves to another "kind" over millions of years i.e. a cow evolving to be a whale. Since no one has seen such a thing occur then saying that it has occurred is an unproven statement of "faith".

A cow evolving into a whale? Really, Tea. I expect better from you. The closest living land mammal to a whale is the Hippo. Cows are way off on their relational chart. I think cows are more closely related to us humans than whales.

I've been debating theists online for six years. I know what they mean. Believe me. I've been awash in their ignorance and idiocy for years.

However, humans have observed speciation (macro-evolution).

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

That's just one example. But not the only one at all. Not near so.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

the problem with the "kind" argument of creationism is that they're unable to define what a "kind" is. The idea of a "kind" stems from ignorance of how evolution works, they expect one modern species to magic into another modern species, so they call it "kind" or some shit. But I don't think anyone's defined what it is. Is it reptile to mammals? The difference between ducks and chickens? The abilities to do certain things like fly, swim, breathe underwater and whatnot? They haven't defined it, have they? They just go, oh we mean like, a duck won't turn into a frog. Yea? And who said it would?

They also do not seem to realize that even if they prove evolution false, we're certainly not going to start opening departments of creationism in university.

[Bad Writer]

...we're certainly not going to start opening departments of creationism in university.

:Channels PeterPriesthood:

Hey! Creationism may not be an exact science, but then God doesn't need Science in order to create. Our Heavenly Father can just wave his hand and will things into existence. What do we need with a Scientific Method when all we need is faith? Also, we should definitely teach Evolution, since everything it presents to us is steeped in scientific research and evidence! Let's not just discard empirical evidence simply because we don't like it. Our prophet Joseph Smith taught the true doctrine of Plural Marriage, but we couldn't just get rid of it because we didn't like it, y'know.

But if you want Creationism taught at the University, one only needs to attend Brigham Young University at Provo, UT! We give you the best of both schools of thought!

:Ends channeling:

[NoraBrimstone]

What in the name of fuck?!

[CleanShavenJesus]

That's bad, but not as bad as this:

Teacher: Can you see God?
Class: No.
Teacher: Can you touch God?
Class: No.
Teacher: Then there isnt a God!
Student: Sir, can you see your brain?
Teacher: No.
Student: Can you touch your brain?
Teacher: No.
Student: Oh ok so you have no brain?

I see this very often on social media and I puke in my mouth every time.

[Minimalist]