Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Well, that's your definition of what religion does, but I can tell you that for my life I can see also the damage that the lack of religion has in the lives of people.

That was brilliant. Avoided every relevant point.

No need to consider that young people who are given religious based "abstinence" education also live amongst epidemic levels of common STD's with higher levels of unwanted/teen pregnancy and abortion, nor the flow on health and sociological problems...

While in secular countries where comprehensive education that allows people to make informed and intelligent choices (which is considered a basic human right) these "common" STD's are becoming rare or have been eradicated, where unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates are low... Nothing religion could learn there, obviously...probably just god punishing sinners anyway.

Or the higher levels of poverty that accompany religious populations across the entire western world (regardless of gdp). Or the charity based welfare that is a dismal failure compared to programmes in secular countries that see basic welfare/health care as a human right. Nothing religions need take note of here, obviously. After all, jesus loves you more if you suffer, apparently.

The higher incarceration levels, that in the US are quite incredible and are also heavily weighted against christians.

The massive income inequality that also rises with increase in religion.

The lower health and life expectancy generally, in religious countries. As opposed to largely secular ones.

The wholesale rejection of science, in preference of paranormal explanations.

The list is quite lengthy. It might be different if we could find areas where religion clearly shows or correlates with clear benefits. There doesn't really appear to be any.

This is what the best and most comprehensive figures show. The studies are there, some already provided. Religious followers (the informed ones at least) no longer seem to argue this or put up their limited and cherry picked surveys, instead usually offering irrelevant bs and doublespeak or arguing (rightly) that it doesn't show causation. This overlooks that it is related and not only could be causal, but very obviously appears to be a cause in some instances.

If we look at the more fundamentalist regions of the world (the middle east and the US), the thing they do seem to excel at is conflict. With leaders from both areas known to claim mandate for their decisions from an imaginary friend. Nothing to be concerned about there, surely.

Hitchen's was right. It does appear that religious faith causes people to become more mean, selfish and above all, stupid. If not always individually, the figures bear that out in an overall sense. It is worse that none of them seem the slightest bit interested in understanding why, or trying to rectify this. The imaginary friend is all important it seems, whatever could portray it in a bad light can be discarded.

This is why Christianity is becoming extinct across the modern world. It has been struggling to adapt since the time of Copernicus and Galileo...not to mention Darwin. It is not possible to accept the bible in any literal sense while simultaneously accepting known and understood physical reality. Instead of descending to some godless anarchy, the trend to secular principles in the first world shows a commensurate increase in health, prosperity, education and societal health in general.

To equate modern understanding of evolution with "Darwinists" in any genuine sense, is like equating modern heliolophysics or broader cosmology with "Copernicists"...as if to infer science is still somehow struggling with , or that there might be some doubt, that the earth revolves around the sun.

So I'll leave you with it. It is obvious this thread was simply a way of promoting your religious beliefs.

a reply to: WarminIndy

277 cultures with flood stories that are pre-Christian and have no Christian influence, leads me to suspect that some type of flood occurred. If massive glaciers did melt to such an extent that certain parts of the world were covered under water and remain to this day covered, then it could still be considered a flood, which is nothing more than a dry area covered by water.

Just because there are 277 (or whatever the number is) cultures with flood stories doesn't mean they are all talking about the same flood.

Floods do occur all over the planet, in desert areas, on savannahs, in jungles, on small islands, high in the mountains, and in river valleys. Everywhere. In general, large scale glacier melt is not the cause (of course if a beaver dam collapses in a glacier melt stream, then people downstream will surely be inconvenienced).

A locally devastating flood will be remembered in tribal lore. Its impact will grow with the telling as the tale is passed on from generation to generation. As more floods occur and are added to the tale they get conflated and soon you have a worldwide catastrophe as punishment from the gods.

Of course there is another possibility, for which I have no evidence what-so-ever. As the glaciers retreated 11,000 years ago (or so), the climate would have been very variable. Coastal areas would have been inundated. Years of comfortable living would be turned upside down by years of flooding, swamps appearing where open plains used to be, coastal fishing grounds disappearing. Certainly something like the Black Sea hypothesis could be responsible for the Babylonian tales, but not the east Asian or American ones. The extreme weather caused by the climate change event 11,000ya could have provided grist for all the stories all over the world. In this case the '40 days and 40 nights' could very well have been 4000 years.

a reply to: hydeman11

I need to ask for citation of these claims of the San Andreas fault causing California to fall into the Pacific. I find this claim very difficult to believe, but I am open to any sources of information that might persuade me otherwise.

See, I find it difficult to believe because the San Andreas is a right-lateral strike slip fault, meaning that the plates are moving towards the right when an observer is on one plate looking at the other... This image might help.
nationalatlas.gov...

From Wikipedia: San Andreas Fault

The Pacific Plate, to the west of the fault, is moving in a northwest direction while the North American Plate to the east is moving relatively southeast under the influence of plate tectonics. The rate of slippage averages about 33 to 37 millimeters (1.3 to 1.5 in) a year across California.

So it will be millions of years before the cartographers need to draw the Angeles-Baja Island onto their maps.

Pity we don't have the text to go with these slides, but they are beautiful: UCBerkelySeismologyLab Lecture Slides: San Andreas Fault

It is currently thought that there is enough accumulated stress for a scale 7 to 8 earthquake in the next few years (between 21% and 59% in the next 30 years). Hopefully a number of smaller quakes (4, 5, 6) will lessen the chance of the 'big one'. The southern section is most overdue for a 'big one'.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Answer
To the OP:

You could do yourself a big favor and seem less aggressive if you try to understand this basic fact:

Science deals in observable phenomenon and makes educated statements based on that phenomenon. When I say "phenomenon", I'm not talking about a single instance, I'm talking about repeatable evidence. The reason there are very few ideas put forward as hard fact is because scientists leave an opening for future discoveries to change the current ideas. Religious people love to point out all the "assumptions" and "theories" and "suppositions" in science but it makes them look extremely foolish. Simple fact is, no scientist is going to say "this is absolutely 100% fact and there's no way anyone can further explain what I've just discovered." This does not mean that scientists are presenting random wild guesses as truth, as religious folks tend to claim. Scientists put forward the best possible explanation using what we currently know about any given subject.

Religion deals in mystical explanations straight out of the writer's imagination to explain phenomenon that are either unknowable or were not known at the time of the text's writing. The big difference is that many religious followers accept these primitive explanations as absolute truths without a hint of irony even though their own religious texts evolved over thousands of years. Which version of the creation story do you believe? The one in the King James Bible or the one believed by the Sumerians? Both talk about God creating the universe but they have different accounts. Both versions were considered by many of their followers to be the absolute unwavering truth.

If I asked 1st grade students to write down how the universe was created, there's a good chance I'll eventually get a story very close to what's in the bible. "God did it" is the easy way out instead of putting some effort into discovering the truth about our world. Most well-educated religious followers leave some room for science to explain some of the more general ideas in the bible. Uneducated religious followers who don't want to bother with LEARNING use their chosen bible as the explanation for everything and shun science mainly because they can't process what's being proposed. "We come from monkeys? Well that just don't sound right... Science is a load of horsesh!t!!"

I was raised in Mississippi and I spent 12 years in a Christian school. I'm very familiar with the great divide between science and religion.

I had a lot to say, but didn't want to seem too aggressive, so I will just say this...

Thank you for the common approach. I am sure with your help I will learn to see the world the way that you.

You posted a thread with questions. People tried to answer your questions and were met with sarcasm, deflection, and the internet version of the classic fingers in the ears and "LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you!"

If your mind is completely made up and you aren't going to be open to ANYTHING anyone says, why did you post this thread? I just can't make sense of your motives.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Answer
To the OP:

You could do yourself a big favor and seem less aggressive if you try to understand this basic fact:

Science deals in observable phenomenon and makes educated statements based on that phenomenon. When I say "phenomenon", I'm not talking about a single instance, I'm talking about repeatable evidence. The reason there are very few ideas put forward as hard fact is because scientists leave an opening for future discoveries to change the current ideas. Religious people love to point out all the "assumptions" and "theories" and "suppositions" in science but it makes them look extremely foolish. Simple fact is, no scientist is going to say "this is absolutely 100% fact and there's no way anyone can further explain what I've just discovered." This does not mean that scientists are presenting random wild guesses as truth, as religious folks tend to claim. Scientists put forward the best possible explanation using what we currently know about any given subject.

Religion deals in mystical explanations straight out of the writer's imagination to explain phenomenon that are either unknowable or were not known at the time of the text's writing. The big difference is that many religious followers accept these primitive explanations as absolute truths without a hint of irony even though their own religious texts evolved over thousands of years. Which version of the creation story do you believe? The one in the King James Bible or the one believed by the Sumerians? Both talk about God creating the universe but they have different accounts. Both versions were considered by many of their followers to be the absolute unwavering truth.

If I asked 1st grade students to write down how the universe was created, there's a good chance I'll eventually get a story very close to what's in the bible. "God did it" is the easy way out instead of putting some effort into discovering the truth about our world. Most well-educated religious followers leave some room for science to explain some of the more general ideas in the bible. Uneducated religious followers who don't want to bother with LEARNING use their chosen bible as the explanation for everything and shun science mainly because they can't process what's being proposed. "We come from monkeys? Well that just don't sound right... Science is a load of horsesh!t!!"

I was raised in Mississippi and I spent 12 years in a Christian school. I'm very familiar with the great divide between science and religion.

I had a lot to say, but didn't want to seem too aggressive, so I will just say this...

Thank you for the common approach. I am sure with your help I will learn to see the world the way that you.

You posted a thread with questions. People tried to answer your questions and were met with sarcasm, deflection, and the internet version of the classic fingers in the ears and "LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you!"

If your mind is completely made up and you aren't going to be open to ANYTHING anyone says, why did you post this thread? I just can't make sense of your motives.

She's done this on other threads. Her motive is clearly to proselytize her religion and absolutely nothing more.

originally posted by: danielsil18


The bible says that light was created before the Sun was created, which doesn't make sense.

See my post on this subject here: Creationism v Creation

If you don't want to, I will repost what I posted there, about the six creative days in Genesis:

(Genesis 1:2) . . .Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.


At this stage in earth's history there was a lot of water, but it was dark on the surface of the earth. Again this was because the atmosphere was to thick to allow light to penetrate down to the surface.

What happens next? Notice:

(Genesis 1:4, 5) 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.


Notice that in verse 3 God's active force (or holy spirit) was moving about over the watery surface, and then God said "Let there be light." So there was a clearing up enough of the atmosphere for light to penetrate to the surface at this point in earth's history. How God did this is not specified. Only that he used his tremendous power to do so. In what way? We do not know.

What happens after this first creative day? Notice:

(Genesis 1:6-8) . . .Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.


At this point God wanted to divide the sky and the oceans, or the watery surface of the earth. And thus the division was made, one with water on the earth's surface and on with a water canopy above in the earth's atmosphere. (This is the same water canopy that later came falling down during the world-wide deluge.

Before the flood of Noah's day the entire earth was of a moderate tropical climate. The water canopy that God put in the heavens protected the earth completely from the sun's harmful rays and made the entire earth's climate perfect for human life. You could wonder around naked all you want anywhere on earth, you would never get too cold, or too hot, and you would NEVER get a sun burn.

But that is a digression. This division between the waters formed day two.

What happens next? Notice:

(Genesis 1:9-13) . . .Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. 12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.


So now God collects the oceans into one place and dry land appears. He calls the dry land earth, and he calls the collection of waters the Seas.

After this plant life appears. First he creates grass, and plants, and fruit frees.

This is in accord to the fossil record. Plant life is the first form of observable life appearing in the fossil record. Moses got it right.

Also, this plant life, in the sea, and on dry ground would be needed in "transforming the earth's atmosphere. From a carbon-dioxide rich environment, to an oxygen rich on. So the plants no doubt helped in clearing the atmosphere even more at this stage in earth's preparation for human life.


This leads up to the next creative day where we are told:

(Genesis 1:14-19) . . .Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

So on this fourth day of creation (not literal day remember) the earth's atmosphere had been cleared up enough by the plant life created on earth on the third creative day that finally the suns light was able to clearly shine through to the earth's surface. The sun and the moon became visible, as well as the stars in the heaven. And a division was clearly made between day and night.

The following creative day we are told that the creatures of the sea were created, and the flying creatures of the heaven.

And finally on the last creative day land animals appeared, both wild beasts and domestic ones, and after then God made man and woman.

All again verified by the fossil record. After plant life appeared, sea-life and birds appear, then lastly land animals and then lastly humans.

This is an accurate and scientific account of earth's history.

It is not creationism. It is proven by the historic record.

It is reliable.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: WarminIndy

277 cultures with flood stories that are pre-Christian and have no Christian influence, leads me to suspect that some type of flood occurred. If massive glaciers did melt to such an extent that certain parts of the world were covered under water and remain to this day covered, then it could still be considered a flood, which is nothing more than a dry area covered by water.

Just because there are 277 (or whatever the number is) cultures with flood stories doesn't mean they are all talking about the same flood.

Wow, this is ignorance at its most base level imaginable.

Wait...I know why...it is an ignorance based on arrogance.

originally posted by: iSomeone
--------
This is an accurate and scientific account of earth's history.

It is not creationism. It is proven by the historic record.

It is reliable.

Sure it is. LOL

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: iSomeone
--------
This is an accurate and scientific account of earth's history.

It is not creationism. It is proven by the historic record.

It is reliable.

Sure it is. LOL

Good job. Thumbs up? Oh wait. You didn't even counter one point, just used your haughty arrogance to deny everything said, that is verified from Genesis in the geological record. That is, when Genesis is explained the way it is meant to be, you have no come back, than to laugh in haughty arrogance, and ignore the evidence. OK. I should base my trust in you?

originally posted by: danielsil18


The bible says that light was created before the Sun was created, which doesn't make sense.

Not supporting genesis in any way (it is unsupportable in any scientific sense), but this isn't necessarily as unrealistic as it sounds. Not necessarily pertaining to visible light, as much as er radiation. A stretch, I know, but...

Then some 380,000 years after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe dropped to about 3,000 Kelvin, cool enough for protons and electrons to settle down as hydrogen atoms. With the meddlesome electrons safely locked up, photons were free to spray forth through the cosmos, and the young universe was filled with dull red and infrared light. We can still detect the vestiges of this light

.oneminuteastronomer.com...
jwst.nasa.gov...

"In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth" is a little more problematic lol (we know the age of the earth and that stars had to go supernova before it could be formed, accretion etc).

A planet teeming with plants, herbs, fruits etc. before the sun existed is also somewhat problematic (photosynthesis).

Not only are these stories devoid of any real explanation and very obviously myths, there are different biblical accounts of the same thing that conflict with themselves.

Yes there are some inconsistencies (yes, that's also an understatement lol).

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: danielsil18


The bible says that light was created before the Sun was created, which doesn't make sense.

Not supporting genesis in any way (it is unsupportable in any scientific sense), but this isn't necessarily as unrealistic as it sounds.

jwst.nasa.gov...

"In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth" is a little more problematic lol (we know the age of the earth and that stars had to go supernova before it could be formed, accretion etc).

A planet teeming with plants, herbs, fruits etc. before the sun/stars existed is also somewhat problematic (photosynthesis).

Not only are these devoid of any real explanation and very obviously myths, there are different biblical accounts of the same thing that conflict with themselves.

Yes there are some inconsistencies (yes, that's also an understatement lol).

You ignorant ape, trying to read.

Actually go back and read my comments before yours. And then respond.

originally posted by: iSomeone

You ignorant ape, trying to read.

Actually go back and read my comments before yours. And then respond.

If I had any interest in your comments, I would have. I don't...and therefore didn't.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

And why, pray thee, tell is that? Because it explains the Genesis account and the scientific record, you ape, who tries to feign he can read and understand, correctly?

Mr. Ape, I should add, that I've posted this many times and on many different forums, and no one, not one single person can stand up to it. Are you, Mr. Ape, able too?

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

And why, pray thee, tell is that? Because it explains the Genesis account and the scientific record, you ape, who tries to feign he can read and understand, correctly?

It's because it is the normal meaningless religious flibbertyjibbert.

Mr. Ape, I should add, that I've posted this many times and on many different forums, and no one, not one single person can stand up to it. Are you, Mr. Ape, able too?

I enjoy a bit of light hearted and harmless banter as much as anyone. As long as it doesn't descend into gratuitous ad hominem.

Will have a look later, but just to begin with...gen. 1.1 and 1.2 are wrong. There was no "earth" before the 1st gen stars that went supernova and gave rise to the elements that it is almost entirely made of.


It is up to you to demonstrate that the earth is the oldest heavenly body in the cosmos (at around 4.5 billion yrs) and that these heavier elements existed from the beginning ie. "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth". No he didn't. Even if we give into the completely unsupported assumption that he exists, to begin with.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

What you're really saying, in the finale, is you didn't read anything that was written ape? That is too bad. You, Mr. Ape, think you are so smart that you didn't even have to read what was written? And yet all the arguments you raised Mr. Ape (this time literally as you Ape everything you have been spoon-fed, brain-washed to believe) was already answered. And yet you couldn't even take the time to read, or you cannot understand what you read, if you really did read, that you APE these arrogant questions.

You have disappointed me Mr. Ape. And I thought, I might have a lively talk with an Ape. Now I really don't know.

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

What you're really saying, in the finale, is you didn't read anything that was written ape? That is too bad. You, Mr. Ape, think you are so smart that you didn't even have to read what was written? And yet all the arguments you raised Mr. Ape (this time literally as you Ape everything you have been spoon-fed, brain-washed to believe) was already answered. And yet you couldn't even take the time to read, or you cannot understand what you read, if you really did read, that you APE these arrogant questions.

You have disappointed me Mr. Ape. And I thought, I might have a lively talk with an Ape. Now I really don't know.

No, that's your assumption.

I said that I found it uninteresting and thus didn't comment upon it. I have commented at your request, but I still don't find it very interesting.

Ah, disappointment comes with the territory for us lowly apes. Just ask god.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

What you're really saying, in the finale, is you didn't read anything that was written ape? That is too bad. You, Mr. Ape, think you are so smart that you didn't even have to read what was written? And yet all the arguments you raised Mr. Ape (this time literally as you Ape everything you have been spoon-fed, brain-washed to believe) was already answered. And yet you couldn't even take the time to read, or you cannot understand what you read, if you really did read, that you APE these arrogant questions.

You have disappointed me Mr. Ape. And I thought, I might have a lively talk with an Ape. Now I really don't know.

No, that's your assumption.

I said that I found it uninteresting and thus didn't comment upon it. I have commented at your request, but I still don't find it very interesting.

Ah, disappointment comes with the territory for us lowly apes. Just ask god.

No. But your reply belies your ignorance and arrogance. In the first instance, if you did not care you would not have replied, In the second, if you had a reply you would have. Of that there is no doubt. But do not be down-hearted by your inability. No evolutionist has been able to answer, and they ALL without exception do as you do: ignore, and then scorne in haughty arrogance.

But ignorance and haughty-arrogance leads to NO enlightenment. I cannot defect you from it if you do not want to. But you cannot fool others who can see through it. And believe me, those on your side, are all as blinded as you. But there are many that just pity you all.

originally posted by: iSomeone

No. But your reply belies your ignorance and arrogance.

Thanks, quite convincing so far then...

In the first instance, if you did not care you would not have replied, In the second, if you had a reply you would have. Of that there is no doubt.

I replied to a poster to point out a possible inaccuracy. Of that there is no doubt.

But do not be down-hearted by your inability. No evolutionist has been able to answer, and they ALL without exception do as you do: ignore, and then scorne in haughty arrogance.

So commenting, at your request, is ignoring? Is there some rule that your particular posts must be found interesting?

But ignorance and haughty-arrogance leads to NO enlightenment. I cannot defect you from it if you do not want to. But you cannot fool others who can see through it.

I have already pointed out a couple of problems within the first two verses. So far your only explanation is pointing out "haughty arrogance".

And believe me, those on your side, are all as blinded as you. But there are many that just pity you all.

No, I don't believe that you have a genuine explanation for existence. I appreciate the "pity" sentiment but would appreciate an explanation of the incongruities already mentioned much more, for starters.

a reply to: iSomeone

Wow, this is ignorance at its most base level imaginable.

Wait...I know why...it is an ignorance based on arrogance.
edit on 8-9-2014 by iSomeone because: (no reason given)

Ouch. Please stop. Don't hurt me any more; I give up!

Man oh man, I have been on the receiving end of a monumental biatch slap.

I may never recover.

Swoon.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

In other words. 'I did not read' or Did not want to acknowledge what I read, what you posted. Have no rebuff, no answers, as No other who has been brain-washed to believe in evolution has either. So I will not respond to your questions. And I cannot really answer any of your arguments.

OK. Ape. You are a good Ape. Of those who have left you without knowledge but have trained you well.