Who else is sick of reading all of the lies creationist tell about Evolution?

Question

Especially the crap about "Science says we came from monkeys". That one really get's on my nerves. Oh and the one about "there are no transitional fossils" really pisses me off too.
Look, if you creationists are going to talk about something, make sure you stick to mythology. It's what you're best at after all. Do NOT make comments about science and established fact (yes, Evolution is a fact and a theory at the same time, just like gravity and thermodynamics).
I will include some links here for you explaining, in simple terms, things like; what a theory means in science. How many thousands of transitional fossils have been found and so on. Please read and try, and I mean TRY to understand the materiel. If you have trouble with it, say so. I'll do my best to explain what's going on in language you can, hopefully, understand.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
What evolution is. And what it's not.

More of these to follow...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Evolution is a fact AND a theory. Just like gravity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
How christianity and evolution can exist together.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Transitional fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Macroevolution, yes it's been observed.

Hopefully that's not too much for you. Again, if you have questions, ask and I'll try and answer.

Julia,
once again you reply with crap. Your intellectual cowardice is legendary on this board. Congrats for sinking to a new level...

Emma,
*swoon* I think I love you!
Excellent link! I'm keeping that one!

Morgan,
I think your right man. My dad always said "son, you can lead an idiot to knowlege, but you can't make him think"
But I feel I have to, at the very least, lead them to it. After that, not my problem. But at least I did my job.

i love jeebus,
thanks for proving my point about christians. you believe yourselves to be ABOVE all of the other animals (yes that's what we are, primates to be precise) so that seems to cloud your judgement about your place in nature. Once you grow up to the point that you no longer need an intellectual crutch like your sky-pixie, we can talk. Until then though your opinions are like your mythology, utterly useless.

radrich,
Why would I bother with your book of mythology? It's not germain to the real world. It deals with fantasy and myth.
We're talking about facts and reality here. Remember that, it's important.

Morgaine,
Thanks for the pious fraud. Excellent example. You misquote Gould masterfully.
But a lie is still a lie. The answer lies in one of the links I provided. Can you find it? Or are you too afraid of discovering that your cut-and-paste answer is nothing but bunkl? I think we both know the answer to that question...

lavamoto,
it seems to me that you DO need someone to spell it out for you. If your gullible enough to believe that the world was "created" in 6 days then you certainly do need someone to intellectually hand-hold you.

Answer 1

It is probably the thing that annoys me the most on here. In our modern world of easily accessible information, ignorance is very unnecessary.

Answer 2

I am. I think it is great that science's assumptions get criticized, but unfortunately creationism offers no decent criticisms. Every criticism of evolution I have ever come across is based on a deep misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. If a person is so certain that a widely accpeted theory is false, shouldn't they at least go through the efforts of doing some basic research before launching criticisms? The ignorance of creationists about their subject is appalling.

Again, there needs to be a place for valid criticism, its what makes the search for truth and knowledge strong. But the arguments put forth by creationism are hardly valid criticisms. I have spent 3 years now looking into the evolution/creation "controversy" and have yet to hear a critique of evolution which either is not totally based on ignorance or would not also invalidate all other theories, including heliocentric theory, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, germ theory, etc.

Sarah W: You totally misunderstood what he was saying.

i love jesus: You believe that man was created from clay and dirt. Isn't that really what pond scum is? And primates and monkeys are not the same thing. All monkeys are primates, but not all primates are monkeys. Creationists tend to say that "evolutionists" claim that humans evolved directly from monkeys (that is, our most recent non-human ancestors were monkeys). This is a very ignorant misrepresentation of what "evolutionists" are in fact saying.

radrich: You are right, people should read about opposing opinions. But people that believe in evolution are not making statements about the bible, they are making statements about biology. A person who studies biology does not need to read the bible to have an understanding of biology. And if you think so, then why not the Qu'ran also? And the bhagavad gita, and the Guru Granth Sahib, and all the other religious books. Yes, if a person is attacking the bible, he or she should have read some of the bible. Likewise if a person wants to attack the Qu'ran, they should have an understanding of it. If, as you say in order to defend a certain theory about creation, one needs to read all other possible creation myths, people will get nowhere. A reading of the bible, while certainly beneficial even to the nonbeliever, is not essential to a defense of darwinism or an attack on scientific creationism.

Answer 3

I see no clash between science and religion.

Unfortunately I simply think Darwin was wrong in describing the mechanisms of evolution. Isolated species develop along the lines of the gene pool they brought with them. They do not become a new species. Evolution has problems even defining species. One of the definitions has to do with reproduceability.

Individuals of two different species cannot reproduce. But, when faced with a Liger, a Taglon or a Mule, the response always goes to the next level. That is to say two mules cannot reproduce.

But how can we be sure that there have been no cases of cross breeding that did not produce reproductive offspring? And how can we be sure that the red lyrebird on one island is a different species from the blue lyrebird on another? Perhaps their refusal to mate with each other is simply a learned cultural response. The blue lyrebird female simply learned to to be attracted to blue feathers.

If anthroplogists knew nothing of dogs and found only bones, would they conclude that a Pomeranian and a Russian Wolfhound were the same species? (which, of course, they are) And what about dogs? Why in all the centuries of selective breeding has no new species appeared?

The planet teems with life. We locate unknown species every day. To go from a one celled creature to.not only man, but to tens of thousands of other species, both current and extinct, must have taken trillions of the mutations which led to each "'most fit" adaptation. Unless we are very wrong about the age of our planet, there has not been time for so many changes. Neither history not the fossil record supports the appearance of a single new species since the appearance of Cro Magnon man.

I know that to counter that, supporters of Darwin must resort to saying that the mutations happened at a much faster pace earlier in our history. Even so there must be a geometric progession of mutations as we approach the dawn of Earth time.
I think it is difficult to support.

So I believe that multiple species arose simultaneously. Does that make me a Creationist?

Well, I suppose it does. But it is interesting how the latest Big Bang theory description semms to be getting ever closer to the Biblical, "Let there be light".

Answer 4

Huh?

Well, I guess I'm one of those people you hate, then.

I'm not sure what's a lie. The scientific community DOES say we came from monkeys (ok, primates, but let's not be picky). So, when someone says that's what they say, why would that be a lie?

Anyway, if people are saying things they believe to be true, it is, by definition, not a lie.

Surely, there are people who believe in Creation who haven't got all their facts straight, but there are at least as many followers of evolution who are clueless and spewing falsehoods. Why don't you hold everyone equally accountable?

In the end, it really looks like you're just taking an emotional position. I understand that you firmly believe what you believe, and that you feel that it has ample scientific evidence to back it up. Some of it surely does, but there are points of the macro-evolution theory that I still find highly questionable. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a scientist, and probably shouldn't be taking this question on, but the primary point you're trying to make is that people who disagree with 'established science' should just shut up and go away. The reality is that science comes to a standstill when that attitude takes hold. And, in fact, Christians have not been a hindrance to science over the years, but instead, have been at the forefront of scientific discovery for many generations. The simple fact is that there's no harm to having a variety of different outlooks on the nature of reality, even if some of them are contradictory, and even if they seem like utter foolishness to the 'scientific establishment'.

Religionists, as you call us, can't stop progress in science in a free country, so stop panicking. But at the same time, if it is to be a free country, you need to back off and allow people to believe, and even promote beliefs, which you find thoroughly abhorent. That's the nature of free inquiry, and frankly, the scientific community today scares me a little bit on this issue. I know they think Creationists are a bunch of morons, but that really shouldn't matter. If their beliefs prove to be untrue, their existence will not have impeded your inquiry one moment, so just chill!

Answer 5

In response to your "there are no transitional fossils" comment:

Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, was asked why he had included no transitional forms in his book on evolution. He replied:

‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils … I will lay it on the line there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’

Dr Colin Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April, 1979, as published in Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, 1984, p.89.

‘All three divisions of the bony fishes appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and they are heavily armoured. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier intermediate forms?’

G. T. Todd, American Scientist 20(4):757, 1980.



‘each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, without leaving a directly descended species …’

Tom Kemp, ‘The Reptiles that Became Mammals’, New Scientist 92:583, 4 March 1982

In response to your comment about the established "fact" of gravity :

I wonder if you would so zealously defend the absolute authority of gravity when Einstein was proposing his theories of relativity that turned Newton's concepts about gravity on its head.

Answer 6

I respect your stance, Yoda, but it's just not going to happen. You can show them all the evidence you want and they'll just ignore it, or baselessly claim it false, or better yet, claim the devil put the evidence there to deceive you. Must be nice to just be able to make up the truth in your head like that, don't you think? As they're so fond of saying; pearls before swine, my friend, pearls before swine.

Edit: Tell me about it. I'm not giving up either, just brooding, forgive me.

Answer 7

Evolution DOES ultimately teach we not only came from
primates, but that we originally (millions/billions of years)
came from pond scum. How's that make you feel about
yourself, monkey/scum man?

This forum is supposed to be for people having a legitimate question, and seeking answers to the same, not to rant and
rave about some group you obviously hate with devilish delight!
At least we (saved folk) don't say YOU came from animals-we
believe you were created by God.

Answer 8

You are right creationist/Christians in general should read science. At that same time you Evolutionists who are so irritated by us creationists who wont read science, What have you read of our bible? Have you read how it "really" happens ( note that fact that I said "really" not to offend you. I am a creationist. I read science. Science is nice makes a lot of good points. Either way you look at it though, you need faith to beleive your science, not everything is fact ( not yet that I have seen at least). Just like you need faith to beleive that God created everything.

Answer 9

well some people look like they came from monkeys, and some people are just about as smart as them, so that kinda helps the evolution theory.... but considering the earth, and everything just came about by time.. and all that there is no way...

Answer 10

Ok, I guess I don't understand your question. So, you DO support evolution or you DON'T?

All I can say is that I believe that God created the world in 6 days, and if you don't believe that, please at least respect MY beliefs. Thank you. Btw, Christians are not dumb, unintelligent beings. We don't need you to spell everything out to them.