Posted by Samurai why not a Holocaust theme park? it's harmless right.

I've been to a Holocaust Museum, and thought it was worthy of my time.

you know what's wrong with a theme park based on this fairy tale? It's dangerous because it is supplanting known scientific truth and law with a fairy tale.

Their are plenty of "fairy tale" theme parks. Look at the new Harry Potter park.

In fact, science was so dangerous to the colossus of organized religion that early scientists had to research and publish in anonymity for fear of being killed for heresy. And now, along comes some evangelical idiots who want to rewrite the past 400 years of scientific and historic knowledge with a theme park dedicate to what is, honestly, a lie.

Most of the Religious persecution came from the Organized Catholic Church, which I disagree with wholeheartedly. The spread of persecution under Catholicism is unconscionable to a true follower of Biblical doctrine.

god did not create the universe. god did not create man.

The Earth shouts DESIGNER

The tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation is at 23 and 1/2 degrees. The direction of the rotational axis stays nearly fixed in space, even as the Earth revolves around the Sun each year. It is as if Earth were purposely hung in space, at just the right angle and distance from the Sun.

The Earth recieves just the right amount of energy from the Sun. Even a tiny change could transform our planet. Just 1% less energy, and the Earth would soon be covered with ice. Just 1% more and Earth would soon be unbearably hot. Yet the energy Earth recieves is just right.


Think of the complex mixture of water and gases that make up the Earth's atmosphere. It is as if the Earth was provided with just the right amount of every element for life to exist.


There was no margin for error. For example, only the precise amount of gravity on the Earth allows people and animals to walk about freely and not fly off into space.



The Human Body shouts DESIGNER

Each human begins life as a single cell. From that one tiny cell comes a body that will have 26,000,000,000 (26 trillion) cells. What's more amazing is that all the information for all the body's complex system came from that one tiny cell. Did you know that the human body has 75,000 miles of blood vessels. That's enough to take you around the Earth 3 times! The human eye is so amazing in it's design. The eye is no larger than a ping pong ball, but it has so many millions of tiny electrical connections that it can handle 1 and 1/2 million
messages at the same moment!



How could a human eye be created by accident?

religion does not answer questions. it's like stuffing your head in the sand and not taking a good hard look at the world around you. and this theme park is a ridiculous attempt at brand marketing bullshit.

Brand Marketing is what sells, If you don't like a particular brand, why purchase it in the first place?

Yeah, tek sometimes can make things personal. He's like that. But more to the point...

Fossils are notoriously rare. There simply aren't that many animals that survived predation, scavenging and simply rotting away enough to make it into the fossil record. Yes, there are millions of fossils (I've even found some in my yard!) but compared to the number of organisms that have ever lived, they're a tiny fraction.

However, transitional fossils do indeed exist! There are at least eight intermediate stages identified in whale evolution. With humans, there are at least a dozen known intermediate fossil stages since hominids branched off from great apes six millions years ago. One of them, ardipithecus ramidus, was partly discovered by people from the university I work at. Also, geological strata consistently reveal the same sequence of fossils. Regardless, "gaps in the fossil record" do not necessarily equal creation. We know evolutioni occurred not because of a single transitional fossil, but because of a convergence of evidence from diverse fields such as geology, paleontology, comparitive anatomy, molcular biology, genetics, and many more.

Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.

Actually, organic molecules abound in the universe. There was an experiment at Cornell in the late '70s that took the gases and stuff that Earth's early atmosphere was made of, sparked it, and created an organic "soup." I don't remember all of the details, so I'm greatly simplifying it. I will find out more, though. One of the arguments that has been posited in favor of creation is how precarious Earth's position in the solar system is, and how being a little bit closer to or farther from the sun would render Earh uninhabitable, and how improbable it is that life evolved on a place so well suited for it. This is backward logic. Life evolved here because it could. Life didn't evolve on Mars because it couldn't.

Recent discoveries in astronomy also prove that the universe was created, not evolved. For example, the presence of microwave radiation throughout the universe proves, according to scientists, the validity of the "big-bang" theory of creation while disproving the possibility that the universe has always existed in a relatively-unchanged condition.

Your second sentence contradicts your first, does it not? Existing in a "relatively unchanged condition" means creation, right?

Likewise, the fact that the galaxies of stars are shooting out into space away from each other indicate a common point of origin at the beginning of their existence, once again proving the theory of creation.

That common point of origin is the "site" of Big Bang, dude. All objects we can observe in the universe are moving away from us, and the farther away they are, the faster they're moving. One of my colleagues can explain this much better than I:
http://blog.case.e...or_beginners/index

Warning: It's very long, starts at the bottom, and gets pretty technical.

Another item you might want to read is Why Darwin Matters: The case against intelligent design by Michael Shermer. I'm reading it now. Of course, if you're a true believer, it will do nothing to convince you. But I have to ask: How old do you think the universe is? I'm asking seriously.

The main underlying reason people don't accept evolution is because they don't want humans to be "reduced" to mere animals and that it robs life of "meaning."

Posted by sgbofav The Earth shouts DESIGNER ... There was no margin for error. For example, only the precise amount of gravity on the Earth allows people and animals to walk about freely and not fly off into space.

And I shout "Bullshit!" Like I said in my previous post (which I was writing whileyou posted this) life evolved here BECAUSE it could. If I scatter a bunch of fish eggs all over my yard, the only ones that will grow into fish will be the ones that land in my pond (and even then they'll have a bit of difficulty!). Likewise, the only organic molecules that later evolved into what we call "life" are the ones that were in a spot that was conducive to it. Also, the early Earth wasn't particularly hospitable to animals, either. It took millions of years of plant life to make an environment in which animals could evolve.

The Human Body shouts DESIGNER Each human begins life as a single cell. From that one tiny cell comes a body that will have 26,000,000,000 (26 trillion) cells. What's more amazing is that all the information for all the body's complex system came from that one tiny cell. ... How could a human eye be created by accident?

My body shouts "He had black beans on his nachos last night!" You misunderstand evolution. It is not random chance. It is the exact opposite of chance. Initially, light-sensitive cells provided information to the organism about the source of light, then it evolved from there into modern eyes. Vestiges of all the intermediate stages are present in modern eyes. However, the modern eye shows anything but "intelligent" design. Its built upside-down and backwards, requiring light to travel through several structures before reaching the retina.

And there are other vestigial structures within the body that provide evidence the mistakes, misstarts and leftover traces of evolutionary history. Modern whales have a tiny pelvis for hind legs that were present in their land ancestors but have vanished today. Likewise, wings on flightless birds. Here's some stuff in the human body:

Male nipples: Or did Lord Krishna put these here just for women to play with?
Male uterus: It's a remnant that hangs off the prostate gland
Thirteenth rib: about 8 percent of people are born with a 13th set, which is a leftover from out primate ancestors
Coccyx: Tail remnant
Wisdom teeth: Before stone tools, humans were primarily vegetarians and needed the extra grinding teeth for all those veggies and grains we ate
Appendix: It used to be used to digest cellulose
Body Hair: A summer day at the beach teaches you all you need to know about that
Goose bumps: Like our ancestors, we can fluff up our hair when frightened or cold
Moving ears: Not everyone can do this, but it's a remnant of our past
Third eyelid: Our remnant of a nictitating membrane is the fold of skin in the corner of our eyes.

So there you go. Discuss.

Posted by sgbofav The Earth shouts DESIGNER The tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation is at 23 and 1/2 degrees. The direction of the rotational axis stays nearly fixed in space, even as the Earth revolves around the Sun each year. It is as if Earth were purposely hung in space, at just the right angle and distance from the Sun. The Earth recieves just the right amount of energy from the Sun. Even a tiny change could transform our planet. Just 1% less energy, and the Earth would soon be covered with ice. Just 1% more and Earth would soon be unbearably hot. Yet the energy Earth recieves is just right. Think of the complex mixture of water and gases that make up the Earth's atmosphere. It is as if the Earth was provided with just the right amount of every element for life to exist. There was no margin for error. For example, only the precise amount of gravity on the Earth allows people and animals to walk about freely and not fly off into space.

None of the above is evidence of a designer.

Improbable does not mean impossible.

Your argument just point out facts about the universe and does not connect them to your conclusion in any way.

The fact that this planet has those conditions doesn't make it either likely that only in those conditions will living things exist, nor that life like ours can only exist in those conditions (there may be other ways life can survive to something similar to us). The fallacy here is affirming the consequent, or inferring from the fact that the premises are consistent with the conclusion, that the conclusion is true. First, you have to establish that the premises are true.

If design was a plausible explanation, which it is not, then the universe, based on the available evidence, was created to manufacture black holes.


Try this on:

Since the bible contracdicts this and all other scientific facts we know abou the origins of the universe and life on this planet, the bible must, at least in part, be incorrect.

Posted by sgbofav The Human Body shouts DESIGNER Each human begins life as a single cell. From that one tiny cell comes a body that will have 26,000,000,000 (26 trillion) cells. What's more amazing is that all the information for all the body's complex system came from that one tiny cell. Did you know that the human body has 75,000 miles of blood vessels. That's enough to take you around the Earth 3 times! The human eye is so amazing in it's design. The eye is no larger than a ping pong ball, but it has so many millions of tiny electrical connections that it can handle 1 and 1/2 million messages at the same moment! How could a human eye be created by accident?

The concept of irreducible Complexity (your rephrased argument) has been rejected as a pseudoscientific argument in countless peer reviewed journals.

Your argument is flawed in that Behe's argument had been rejected as an argument from ignorance. All of his examples have since been proved false.

What this boils down to is that you are simply unable to believe that the human body could have been created over billions of years through a series of small changes.

Your incredulity is not in of itself a valid argument for or against anything, it is simply another form of the false dichotomy.


Current evidence does suggest possible evolutionary lineages for the origins of the anatomical features of the eye. One likely chain of development is that the eyes originated as simple patches of photoreceptor cells that could detect the presence or absence of light, but not its direction. When, via random mutation across the population, the photosensitive cells happened to have developed on a small depression, it endowed the organism with a better sense of the light's source. This small change gave the organism an advantage over those without the mutation. This genetic trait would then be "selected for" as those with the trait would have an increased chance of survival, and therefore progeny, over those without the trait. Individuals with deeper depressions would be able to discern changes in light over a wider field than those individuals with shallower depressions. As ever deeper depressions were advantageous to the organism, gradually, this depression would become a pit into which light would strike certain cells depending on its angle. The organism slowly gained increasingly precise visual information. And again, this gradual process continued as individuals having a slightly shrunken aperture of the eye had an advantage over those without the mutation as an aperture increases how collimated the light is at any one specific group of photoreceptors. As this trait developed, the eye became effectively a pinhole camera which allowed the organism to dimly make out shapes—the nautilus is a modern example of an animal with such an eye. Finally, via this same selection process, a protective layer of transparent cells over the aperture was differentiated into a crude lens, and the interior of the eye was filled with humours to assist in focusing images. In this way, eyes are recognized by modern biologists as actually a relatively unambiguous and simple structure to evolve, and many of the major developments of the eye's evolution are believed to have taken place over only a few million years, during the Cambrian explosion.


Evolution provides plausible causes of apparent design and purpose in animals. That's why it was accepted by scientists, because it explains these things.

There is no evidence at all of design.

You have no arguments to show that design is a probability, only (rather bad) arguments to show that nothing else is, specifically (your strawman version of) evolution.

The eye provides evidence itself of "poor design" see below.



The human body, is if anything an argument against design (or for a very unintelligent design).

1) We are vulnerable to our environment and can live in only a small portion of the earth's surface since it is either covered with water or too cold.

2) Our heads are so large that we normally injure or kill our mothers in the act of child birth without significant medical interventions.

A fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.

3) Our bodies are vulnerable to innumerable parasites, bacteria, toxins and viruses that populate our environment.

4) Barely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot,that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case.

4) The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.

5) The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but rather indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate. Oxygenless asphyxiation in a pure-nitrogen atmosphere has been proposed as a humane method of execution that exploits this oversight.

6) The structure of humans' (as well as all mammals') eyes. The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot. Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice.



1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are suboptimal. (see above)
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

You don't need evidence for a theory that by overwhelming political pressure is assumed to be true. Anything will do. As Hitler said, if you repeat a really big lie often enough many will believe it. Propaganda, dogmatic assertion by experts who all assume that other experts outside their field have proved the theory - these are the true keys to evolution's popularity.



Evolution cannot point to the original source of information. Darwinist dogma demands randomization. Is their a mathematical process that could somehow generate new information just using random information as the input?



No model has ever successfully been given for the evolution of the first biological cell from random chemical reactions over a long period of time. Just as a mousetrap that misses just one part has no use, so the majority of bio-chemical mechanisms in nature would not work if just one of their component parts were missing (waiting to be evolved). Then how would blind chance ever favor these incredibly improbable PARTIAL inventions? It would surely destroy them.

What we are being asked to believe is that random processes generate real information in the genetic code. Using this logic, enough nuclear accidents would lead to great improvements in the human race. Even Microsoft Windows 95 with all its faults was not the result of random events (though some might contest that!). How much less the human DNA code?


Evolution just ends up being an affirmation of the theory debunked by Pasteur, of "spontaneous generation". Things just appear. Genetic information just suddenly changes and appears out of random processes.. No God needs be involved. Take it on trust. Its only your eternal soul that's at stake

Posted by sgbofav You don't need evidence for a theory that by overwhelming political pressure is assumed to be true. Anything will do. As Hitler said, if you repeat a really big lie often enough many will believe it. Propaganda, dogmatic assertion by experts who all assume that other experts outside their field have proved the theory - these are the true keys to evolution's popularity.

That's just as true for ID as it is for evolution. Evolution, however, has thousands of pieces of evidence, collected by thousands of different people, over more than a hundred years, and gradually at that. Theories don't just spring up overnight. They're tested by independent parties over the course of several years in order to become more than hypotheses.

I work in a medical school (casemed.case.edu), and we had a lecturer last week made a joke about "that's how God made it," in reference to something in the brain. He then went on to say that the whole of medical research hinges on an understanding of evolution.

... What we are being asked to believe is that random processes generate real information in the genetic code. Using this logic, enough nuclear accidents would lead to great improvements in the human race. Even Microsoft Windows 95 with all its faults was not the result of random events (though some might contest that!). How much less the human DNA code? edited for brevity

Again with the random. Evolution is not random. Example. In Africa, lions like to eat zebras (I assume. Could be any predator/prey relationship). Let's say you have two zebras grazing in a field, being stalked by a lion. The lion pounces and the zebras take off. Does the survivor need to run faster than the lion? No, he needs to run faster than the other zebra. So, the faster one survives. Over time, zebras get faster. Any normal variation which helps them go faster (tougher hooves, less degeneration of the leg joints with age, better muscle tone, etc.) adds to the chance of survival, and thus causes them to evolve into faster runners.

Re: DNA, about 75 percent of human DNA is unused. They call it "junk DNA."

Posted by sgbofav You don't need evidence for a theory that by overwhelming political pressure is assumed to be true. Anything will do. As Hitler said, if you repeat a really big lie often enough many will believe it. Propaganda, dogmatic assertion by experts who all assume that other experts outside their field have proved the theory - these are the true keys to evolution's popularity.

Wow. Just wow.

Ironically, if the germans had asked for more evidence for Hitler's (very catholic) assertions that the jews were responisible for so many evils, the war would not have happened.

You need to understand how the scientific method works and the concept of falsifiabily works before you post this junk.

There is so much evidence that supports evolution that it can be considered a fact. You need an encyclopedic ignorance of the history of science to miss that.

Posted by sgbofav Evolution cannot point to the original source of information. Darwinist dogma demands randomization. Is their a mathematical process that could somehow generate new information just using random information as the input?

This is a classic strawman argument. You misrepresent the theory and then point to it's improbability. You are telegraphing your ignorance of the concepts of evolution when you parrot these asssertions without any evidence.

Evolution is by no means random. There are random mutations introduced that are then selected or not selected depending on wether they have evolutionary value. These tiny changes accrue over vast spans of time into complex organisms that bear the appearance of design.

Your assertion completely ignores the concept of natural selection. Fail.

Posted by sgbofav No model has ever successfully been given for the evolution of the first biological cell from random chemical reactions over a long period of time. Just as a mousetrap that misses just one part has no use, so the majority of bio-chemical mechanisms in nature would not work if just one of their component parts were missing (waiting to be evolved). Then how would blind chance ever favor these incredibly improbable PARTIAL inventions? It would surely destroy them.

You competely misrepresent the concepts here again. Your assertion that there are no models is simply false. (Look up abiogenisis, demonstrably falsisify every model and get back to me.)

1) Just because science does not explain everything does not mean that there is no explanation or that you make up one that you like better.

2) Even if this was true (and there are plausible explanations that require no magic if you care to look), the rest of the facts support evolution and the ABSENCE of evidence, for or against, is proof of nothing.

3) I'll remind you here that you have not put forth a valid explanation of your own.

4) You are still harping on Behe's simplistic and disproven concept of irreducible complexity. Again you commit the fallacy of personal incredulity:

In cases where removing a certain component in an organic system will cause the system to fail do not demonstrate that the system couldn't have been formed in a step-by-step, evolutionary process. By analogy, stone arches are irreducibly complex—if you remove any stone the arch will collapse—yet we build them easily enough, one stone at a time, by building over centering that is removed afterward. Similarly, naturally occurring arches of stone are formed by weathering away bits of stone from a large concretion that has formed previously. Evolution can act to simplify as well as to complicate. This raises the possibility that seemingly irreducibly complex biological features may have been achieved with a period of increasing complexity, followed by a period of simplification.

Posted by sgbofav What we are being asked to believe is that random processes generate real information in the genetic code. Using this logic, enough nuclear accidents would lead to great improvements in the human race. Even Microsoft Windows 95 with all its faults was not the result of random events (though some might contest that!). How much less the human DNA code?

Strawman fallacy, argument from incredulity. Fail.

You are not using logic here, and your analogy is not only simplistic, but supports evolution as the rest of the acedemic world understands it.

Posted by sgbofav Evolution just ends up being an affirmation of the theory debunked by Pasteur, of "spontaneous generation". Things just appear. Genetic information just suddenly changes and appears out of random processes..

This is a version of the red herring called an association fallacy and again, your strawman fallacy of randomness. You deliberately misrepresent the facts, and supply no evidence for your assertions.

You are attempting to make equivalent abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, when if fact they are completly different. Anyone that has google can confirm this in seconds.

Posted by sgbofav No God needs be involved. Take it on trust. Its only your eternal soul that's at stake

and there's the rub.

No god, eh? Who is your designer? Why is there no evidence of a designer? Why then do you bring up the soul (with no evidence to support your assertion that there is one)?

Take it on trust? Not hardly. I reject poorly constructed arguments where intellectually lazy people can no longer find the intelligence, or the energy to keep asking why and just accept the most attractive explanation on faith.


You need to take a course on critical thinking, and then read a bit.

Your argument that it is just too hard to believe simply shows your limited subject knowledge and lack of imagination. Try arguing about something else like how we need religion for morality, or something while you read up on evolutionary processes.

I'd suggest starting with the blind watchmaker. It's a hard read, but it includes things your pamphlets do not:

logical construction, and evidence. Or take the easy way out and not ask why the universe is like it is.

More against randomness:

In order for the proverbial monkey to type "To be or not to be" would take 26¹³ (26 time 26, 13 times) trials to guarantee success. That number is 16 times the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the life of our solar system. In other words, it ain't gonna happen. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, as happens in natural selection, the process operates much faster. A computer program was constructed by Richard Hardison in the '80s in which letters were "selected" for or against, and it took an average of only 335.2 trials to produce the sequence of letters "tobeornottobe," which on his computer took less than 90 seconds. The entire text of Hamlet can be generated in four and a half days. The results were reported in his book Upon the Shoulders of Giants. There's more about it here:
http://surge.ods.o...starc/20020621.HTM

What that illustrates is that evolution keeps the good stuff and tosses out the bad stuff. That's why zebras run pretty darn fast. (I like zebras, that's why I keep using them as examples) You might ask, though, how come they don't run REALLY fast, like 100 MPH? Good question. Besides the physical limitations of their physiology (which presumably would improve with evolution), they really only need to be able to outrun or out manuever a predator, then there's no advantage to being any faster. Zebras that are fast enough survive just as well as ones that are faster.

On falsifiability:

In order for something to be true, it has to be falsifiable. In other words, there needs to be a set of conditions under which an assertion could be shown to be not true. Evolution is falsifiable. One way it could be falsified is if mammal fossils were found in the same geographic strata as, say, trilobites. (If this only happened in one location, that would just be an aberration and not disprove evolution. It would have to happen in several disparate areas.)

This would show that mammals existed at the same time as trilobites, which wholly disappeared 250 million years ago. Mammals didn't appear until 50 million years later. These fossils haven't been found together .

So what does this mean for creation or ID? A lot. Neither can be falsified, therefore they cannot be proven true.

Posted by splumer Upon the Shoulders of Giants. There's more about it here: http://surge.ods.o...starc/20020621.HTM

I hadn't read that, thanks.

look here for 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense from Scientific American

http://www.swarthm.../wackononsense.pdf



Our friend also misunderstands the term "theory":

The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:


1) Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
2) Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
3) Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
4) Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.


Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well, thus far there is no evidence that would falsify evolution.

It is very unlikely that would happen considering the mass of evidence, such as all of Biology, or Paleontology.

Someone explain how we got here then, and how (in detail) everything evolved, without this "God" character of course. Then we will really see which idea is more outrageous/idiotic.

I want to know why and how it happened. How did we really evolve from apes? Why are apes still around if we evolved from them? How did venomous animals evolve without dying from their own venom? When did we evolve, and why is there no historical written documents of the beginning of mankind or their history of being ancestors of animals?

How did elements and compounds which rely on other elements and compounds in order to be stable evolve?

Ya'll make a pretty good case, but you haven't explained anything.




Edit* God bless you sgbofav, your patience and faith will be tested here, ha!

Posted by Mr_Fiend Someone explain how we got here then, and how (in detail) everything evolved, without this "God" character of course. Then we will really see which idea is more outrageous/idiotic. I want to know why and how it happened. How did we really evolve from apes? Why are apes still around if we evolved from them? How did venomous animals evolve without dying from their own venom? When did we evolve, and why is there no historical written documents of the beginning of mankind or their history of being ancestors of animals? How did elements and compounds which rely on other elements and compounds in order to be stable evolve? Ya'll make a pretty good case, but you haven't explained anything. Edit* God bless you sgbofav, your patience and faith will be tested here, ha!

Somebody did. Charles Darwin.

Read the Origin of the Species.

Richard Dawkins lays the entire concept out, complete with references, analogies and EVIDENCE.


These are books and have relatively small numbers of pictures, but they accomplish exactly what you ask - the task is too complex to complete in this forum - but if you are willing to take a small amount of time you just might learn something.

If you disagree, and can honestly refute what is contained in those books, then you will better off for it.

If books are beyond your means or take too much time, here is a gross simplification:

1) It is possible for the DNA of an organism to occasionally change, or mutate. A mutation changes the DNA of an organism in a way that affects its offspring, either immediately or several generations down the line.

2) The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. If the change is harmful, then it is unlikely that the offspring will survive to reproduce, so the mutation dies out and goes nowhere. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and so will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads. The process of culling bad mutations and spreading good mutations is called natural selection.

3) As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form. Over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection have created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between.


If you want more - read the above. If that is too complex check nickelodeon. Spongebob is funny shit.


I've read your books and arguments and examined all of them with a critical eye.


I think I'm trying to piss up a rope here, though. Reading and critical thinking are mental heavy lifting compared to the alternative of accepting ridiculous ideas on faith alone.



There is a philosophical danger to critical thinking that lies at the root of religious objections to evolutionary theory:

You are not the centre of attention of a kind and caring god, and in all likelihood you will not survive your own death to be reunited with lost loved ones.

Both sides in this argument could benefit from watching this:

ok... let me ask this, or at least TRY to coherently word this:

you want us, the non-believers, to explain our position logically when you faithweirdos cannot do the same? you cannot provide any semblance of scientific data confirming their is a god. All you keep referring to is that idiotic collection of fairy tales written 2000 years ago by glorified sheepherders and people that would be considered lunatics by todays standards... and you want this accepted as rule?

tekwriter has provided chapter and verse scientific evidence that religion is beyond full of shit... and you still believe in your imaginary friend!?!?

WHY?
You tell me right now WHY you NEED to believe in this shit.
WHAT happened where you feel the need to believe in something so obviously full of shit.

Posted by tekriter Read the Origin of the Species.

And how bout you try reading some material on my side of the fence.

This is for starters, it's just the introduction, but the whole book is well worth your time.

http://books.googl...=onepage&q&f=false

Posted by Mr_Fiend And how bout you try reading some material on my side of the fence.

you folks seem to be the ones with more to prove than science... they've already proved their case.
Faith is probably with the first case of advertising in the history of mankind and like advertising today, the truth is that it's bullshit people buy but don't need.

Posted by Mr_Fiend Someone explain how we got here then, and how (in detail) everything evolved, without this "God" character of course. Then we will really see which idea is more outrageous/idiotic. I want to know why and how it happened. How did we really evolve from apes? Why are apes still around if we evolved from them? How did venomous animals evolve without dying from their own venom? When did we evolve, and why is there no historical written documents of the beginning of mankind or their history of being ancestors of animals? How did elements and compounds which rely on other elements and compounds in order to be stable evolve?

A good question, and a common misconception. We did not evolve from apes. Apes & humans evolved from a common ancestor that shared traits of both. I won't respond to your questions, simply because I don't have the expertise and don't want to give wrong information. On the Origin of Species would be a good place to start, but it's written in 19th-century vernacular and isn't what I'd call light reading. Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable are more accessible for today's layman.

The reason that there is no written record of early mankind is because we didn't develop written language until about 3000 BCE, in Sumeria. Modern humans existed long before that, and there are still some pockets of people with no written language. Native American languages do not have writing (though some use a pictographic script to communicate basic ideas), the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert in Africa and the Yanomamo people of the Amazon basin also do not have writing.

But humanity's evolution was gradual. Lucy (the fossilized pre-human found in Ethiopia in the '70s) didn't have a hairless, prominent-foreheaded baby.

Posted by Mr_Fiend why is there no historical written documents of the beginning of mankind or their history of being ancestors of animals?

I love this. Absofuckinglutely fantastic!


The thing that always amazes me the most is that evolution, from random elements bumping into each other to the varied complexity of life and the entire biosphere, is a far more glorious and splendid proof of God and His intelligent design of the universe than believing fairy tales written, collected, and edited by sinful, deceitful, vain men.

Why don't you accept that, even if your only source of knowledge is the Bible, there is nothing in there that says that evolution isn't factual? Isn't it far more likely that you are simply being played for political power, as has always been the most reliable tool of religion, throughout all of recorded history?

I do not believe in your concept of a conscious, vengeful, arbitrary God, but I have a deeply spiritual relationship with existence and the wonder of the universe, which is far most majestic than the stories of drama, incest, and murder that defines your God.

Posted by MutantMandias I do not believe in your concept of a conscious, vengeful, arbitrary God, but I have a deeply spiritual relationship with existence and the wonder of the universe, which is far most majestic than the stories of drama, incest, and murder that defines your God.

there are times, even now, when i could have your children...

Posted by Mr_Fiend And how bout you try reading some material on my side of the fence. This is for starters, it's just the introduction, but the whole book is well worth your time. http://books.googl...=onepage&q&f=false

I just read the introduction, and it made two demonstrable errors: first, that evolution is "blind chance" and that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The author shouldn't have to lie if his point is true.

Posted by Mr_Fiend And how bout you try reading some material on my side of the fence. This is for starters, it's just the introduction, but the whole book is well worth your time. http://books.googl...=onepage&q&f=false

"the secular science community has joined forces with the media, the education establishment, the universities and even members of the general public to make sure that the weaknesses of Darwinism are never exposed."

Jim Nelson Black, Ph.D,

Right Jim, the creationist are being persecuted.


I had this book, I loaned it to a friend. We laughed. We actually used some of his writing to demonstrate fallacies in a critical thinking discussion group.

It parrots all the usual arguments, see 15 Answers...


While he cites authors, he often misquotes them or misrepresents thier arguments (Strawman argument fallacy)

The book is long on drivel and arguments from incredulity, and contains not one single peer reviewed scientific study or any evidence of any kind for that matter.

Black points to evolution's role in the rise of eugenics programs, but fails to mention that it was Christian legislators in the U.S. who enacted and enforced the eugenics programs that Hitler later emulated.

He also thinks that Paley was an early critic of Darwin. Classic. Junk.

Fail.