Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
SunDogDayze

15 misconceptions about Evolution

48 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Genocyde
No ones making such a claim here. You can tell someone knows nothing about a given topic by what they type. IE see the quotes I posted above.

Theres a high number of people who post blatantly false information on the Spirituality and SvS forum compared to the regular science forums.

I didn't say it happened on this website, I meant in general in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
IamsSon
Well, I only assume all that about Christians. Because if they follow that religion then they would need to truly believe in that religion's bible - otherwise they have already proven themselves to be hypocrites (which is another word for liar) and why would anyone care about what a hypocrite had to say in the first place?

So I think it is much more polite to assume that Christians are simply unaware of the imense, huge, overwhelming body of scientific evidence and simple observable examples of evolution than to assume that they are aware of the facts about evolution but choose to still call themselves Christian.

I mean, if you believe every organism on the planet lived inside some big boat a few thousand years ago then there is no way you could possibly believe in evolution without being a hypocrite.

Isn't this obvious to everyone?

Who believes that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber
I didn't say it happened on this website, I meant in general in the world.

ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah
Who believes that?

There are plenty of people who believe in Noah's Ark my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Papaver
Actually what I said is true. Can you show me a religious forum that does not have topics about evolution? If not please retract your statement. THanks. :)

I've seen homosexuality discussed on pretty much every religious forum too. By your logic that makes homosexuality a religion. I suppose abortion is a religion too then?

So if a subject comes up regularly on a religious forum that makes said subject a religion. I'm afraid that makes no sense at all but having read much of you "work" I think that you are either lacking even a basic grip on the tenets of logic or are trolling with such obviously flawed statements.

Edited by Papaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

QUOTE (Repoman @ Feb 20 2008, 04:07 PM)

Well, I only assume all that about Christians. Because if they follow that religion then they would need to truly believe in that religion's bible - otherwise they have already proven themselves to be hypocrites (which is another word for liar) and why would anyone care about what a hypocrite had to say in the first place?

So I think it is much more polite to assume that Christians are simply unaware of the imense, huge, overwhelming body of scientific evidence and simple observable examples of evolution than to assume that they are aware of the facts about evolution but choose to still call themselves Christian.

I mean, if you believe every organism on the planet lived inside some big boat a few thousand years ago then there is no way you could possibly believe in evolution without being a hypocrite.

Isn't this obvious to everyone?

Who believes that?

--------------------

I believe in Noah's ark and I believe in evolution. That in no way makes me a hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunDogDayze
I've moved this thread back however in future please include a few words of your own to remove any ambiguity over why you were posting it, as it is the opening post contains only quoted material from another site and there's no indication that it has any special significance in the spirituality boards.

Evolution is inherently a science topic not a religious topic, unless specified otherwise topics that appear to be be purely discussing evolution will be moved to that section. It's usually only when the topic is taken in the context of the origins debate that it becomes a discussion for the spirituality boards.

If you disagree with the moving of a thread you are very welcome to hit "report" and appeal the decision, your post naming specific moderators as the culprits however has been removed; villianising whoever moved it isn't going to help your case to have it moved back.

Sorry, Saruman. I will make sure to add something to posts from now on so that it is clear to everyone why I posted it. (This is not sarcasm.)

You are right about how it is usually only in the context of origin that it becomes a religious topic, but the article mentioned that. I also apologize that I seemingly villainized anyone, I just have already had an issue with a particular mod, and it seemed ironic to me.

I hardly ever have any problems on these forums, and I don't want to begin now.

Thanks for moving it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Repoman
I believe in Noah's ark and I believe in evolution. That in no way makes me a hypocrite.
How in the world can you believe both? If two of every animal that walked the planet earth was stuck inside a boat that landed in Turkey a few thousand years ago, how did 3-toed sloths make it to central America? There were only TWO of them! How did an animal that moves so slowly travel 5 thousand miles in a single lifetime? If either of them drowned while swimming across the entire Atlantic Ocean then we'd have no sloths. Oh wait - is that your proof - that sloths must be able to swim across oceans because there are sloths in the western hemisphere? Also, how could a single pair of sloths a few thousand years ago populate the entire rain forest? And what about people? How did 6 billion people come about if there were only a few people alive on the ark? Edited by Repoman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
There are plenty of people who believe in Noah's Ark my friend.

Yes, BM, but, those who believe the account of Noah's Ark and know the account as it is written in the Bible also know it was NOT every single organism on the planet, it was a pair of most animals and seven of a few.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Repoman
Yes, BM, but, those who believe the account of Noah's Ark and know the account as it is written in the Bible also know it was NOT every single organism on the planet, it was a pair of most animals and seven of a few.
Just the land organisms then. OK, that changes things. MUCH more believable... NOT!

What about the pair of Three-toed sloths? Or where there 7 three-toed sloths on the ark? And how did they walk from Mt. Ararat all the way to the ocean and then swim all the way across the ocean? Any why aren't there three-toed sloth bones in the middle east?

Why do the existing three-toed sloths not show mitochondrial DNA lines that would suggest they all came from a single ancestor a few thousand years ago?

How did blond-haired, blue-eyed white people become blond-haired, blue-eyed white people if they were descended from Noah or his annoying sons?

How did 4' tall, dark-skinned, afro-wearing pygmy bushmen become 4' tall, dark-skinned, afro-wearing pygmy bushmen if they were descended from Noah or his annoying sons?

How can anyone believe in evolution and the noah's ark story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
Just the land organisms then. OK, that changes things. MUCH more believable... NOT!
Hey, I was just pointing out that it was NOT every single living organism. Whether you choose to believe that an all-knowing being created life and has interacted with His creation throughout time, or you enough faith to believe that an event whose odds not even the most degenerate gambler would not take on actually happened, more power to you! :tu:

What about the pair of Three-toed sloths? Or where there 7 three-toed sloths on the ark? And how did they walk from Mt. Ararat all the way to the ocean and then swim all the way across the ocean? Any why aren't there three-toed sloth bones in the middle east?
Amazing what an all-powerful being can do, isn't it?

Why do the existing three-toed sloths not show mitochondrial DNA lines that would suggest they all came from a single ancestor a few thousand years ago?
who said that the account of Noah's Ark has to have occurred a few thousand years ago? AND who's to say that a hundred or even 20 years from now, some scientist, using some newer, more powerful tools will not uncover that we have been misunderstanding the information in mitochondrial DNA and that what we thought was indication of millions of years of activity is not actually closer to thousands?

How did blond-haired, blue-eyed white people become blond-haired, blue-eyed white people if they were descended from Noah or his annoying sons?

How did 4' tall, dark-skinned, afro-wearing pygmy bushmen become 4' tall, dark-skinned, afro-wearing pygmy bushmen if they were descended from Noah or his annoying sons?

I wonder if the various "races" of man are not simply indication of in-breeding.

How can anyone believe in evolution and the noah's ark story?
I can believe change happens within populations while not accepting the time line, and/or understanding that man's understanding of evolution is flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Repoman
who said that the account of Noah's Ark has to have occurred a few thousand years ago?
From http://www.wordsight.org/btl/000_btl-fp.htm

The ark was completed. (Circa. 2348 B.C.) Gen. 7

The 120 years of warning came to an end. Gen. 7

The flood deluged the earth. (2348 B.C.) Gen. 7 (Noah and his family were in the ark one year and ten days. They entered in 2348 B.C. and exited in 2347 B.C.) The Deluge: Different Dates Assigned: Usher and English Bible, 2348 B.C.; Hebrew Bible, 2288 B.C.; Playfair Bible, 2352 B.C.; Clinton Bible, 2482 B.C.; Samaritan Pent, 2998 B.C.; Josephus, 3146 B.C.; Dr. Hales, 3155 B.C.; Septuagint, 3246 B.C.

AND who's to say that a hundred or even 20 years from now, some scientist, using some newer, more powerful tools will not uncover that we have been misunderstanding the information in mitochondrial DNA and that what we thought was indication of millions of years of activity is not actually closer to thousands?
So when the science matches religion, you begin to believe the science?

But you are certainly correct that everytime science shows how impossible it would be for some of these biblical stories to be true, a believer can simply say that god has super-magical powers and thus negate the entire scientific argument. :D As the Church Lady would say, "How convenient" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Akadra

Creationism also couldn't be observed and wasn't proved by anything, grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Science is a series of corrected mistakes.

That's a succinct way to put it. Don't worry - you'll do well here. Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wombat
Creationism also couldn't be observed and wasn't proved by anything, grow up.

Remove "also".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunDogDayze
Remove "also".

Evolution is observed and has been proven numerous times.

It is not even comparable to Creationism. Which shouldn't be mistaken for a scientific theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wombat
Evolution is observed and has been proven numerous times.

It is not even comparable to Creationism. Which shouldn't be mistaken for a scientific theory.

Yeah, that's what I am saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Most Christians that believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, are scientifically ungrounded. Most are mislead and brainwashed by Christian leaders. For example, I was talking with a Christian yesterday about evolution, and he couldn't understand how I believed it. This is what he believed evolution states. There was a pile of sludge, and a lightning bolt hit it. There was a few cells. They had kids and fish were born. The fish had offspring and we got reptiles. Then birds. Then monkeys. Then humans. He then asked where the other creatures came from and why don't offspring turn into new species today. I tried to explain that evolution was nothing like that but he'd have none of that. He gave me a book of his, From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo, written by Harold Hill. The book was immensely amusing and filled with outright, seemingly intentional lies. The point is, most who don't believe in evolution are misled, not all however.

My guess is that MOST Christans do not share the views of the more-vocal fundamentalists. Most of my department consists of scientists who are also Christians, except for one Muslim who would make a better Christian than some "Christians" I know. One even runs a Christmas tree business as a sideline and he is a STAUNCH evolutionist.

There is a whole continuum of Christians from the Bible-thumping Fundamentalist (We have one in the department, but he doesn't do much thumping around the office.) to the Christian Atheist who does not believe in God, but thinks people should emulate Jesus in their daily lives. In all, that's about 15 scientists who are also Christians, one Muslim and an eccentric agnostic Quaker, all of whom come down on the pro-evolution side of the coin.

This has also been my experience in the general community. Most Christians out there are not as scientifically illiterate as you seem to believe. And most of them also accept evolution, or some variant, even if they don't really understand it. So, I think you are wrong to categorize most Christians as "brain-washed". The majority are pretty good at spotting the charlatans.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

I notice one thing right off the bat: "These guys" claim that "A growing number of scientists believe that geological evidence indicates our world has undergone a catastrophic flood," then fail to name any of that "growing number." The "growing number" is seven, up from two about six months ago.

The two were geologists named Ryan and Pitman who in 1996 found evidence of a sudden rise in the level of the Black Sea during the 8200 PB Cold Period, caused by a collapse of the last remaining pro-glacial ice dam. They speculate (without any supporting evidence) that this MAY HAVE given rise to the "myth" of Noah's Flood. Note that a Christian website by G. R. Morton (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bseaflod.htm) doesn't think that this was Noah's Flood, either.

About six months ago, a group of geologists led by Dallas Abbott announced a theory that a giant asteroid had struck the earth, creating the Burckel Crater on the floor of the Indian Ocean. This event would have produced tsunamis at least 600 feet high, based on debris piles observed on Madagascar, and torrential rains rivalling the worst of hurricanes, possibly reaching Mesopotamia and the Red Sea. An anthropologist named Bruce Masse supported this idea with a study of Flood legends that referenced eclipses and other celestial events, allowing an estimate of the date to be made: "on or about May 10, 2807 BC." This date coincides very nicely with Mesopotamian legends that list "kings before the flood" and "kings after the flood." Comparison with other cities allows a date to be set at "about 2800 BC" for the Mesopotamian flood.

A study not yet published will confirm that there was a major climatic disturbance in the years 2806 BC to 2801 BC. This study will not try to link the climate disturbance to Noah's Flood.

So there might now be eight scientists who think that Noah's Flood could have been one of these events. The christiananswers website is misleading, if not actually untruthful in its presentation.

The christiananwers website also states: "Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed." This last week, the History Channel ran a program on one of two giant Chinese exploratory fleets, one of which may have made it to North America in 1421. The flagships of both fleets were considerably larger than the figures christiananswers uses for Noah's Ark. There was also a gigantic ship built on the orders of the Emperor Nero which may have been larger.

The following paragraph is from christiananwers: "Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)"

In order for Woodmorappe's 2000 animals to produce the millions of animal species now in existence, he would have no choice but to invoke evolution. There you have it: Christiananswers is supporting the Theory of Evolution.

I submit that christiananswers should be renamed christianwronganswers.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder
Amazing what an all-powerful being can do, isn't it?

good lord, that was just sad. and id like to know, if noah but Two of every animal on the ark, how come we have different breeds of dogs or cats out there? when only two were brought on? it doesnt make sense. and how did he get all the animals on there anyways? and how come they never decided to kill each other?

i wonder if the various "races" of man are not simply indication of in-breeding.

and so the story of noah means his sons kids had to have sex with each other, and then they made Their kids have sex with each other which is just friggin nasty if you ask me. feel sorry for the kids, and noah and his family shoulda been put in jail.

finally, were dinos around then? according to the bible anyways. and if so, how come they werent brought on the ark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
and so the story of noah means his sons kids had to have sex with each other, and then they made Their kids have sex with each other which is just friggin nasty if you ask me. feel sorry for the kids, and noah and his family shoulda been put in jail.

finally, were dinos around then? according to the bible anyways. and if so, how come they werent brought on the ark?

The Pharaohs married their sisters (usually half-sisters) and daughters. Apparently, the women were quite willing as it gave them a chance at the throne.

At least one of the 3+ historical Moses prototypes was probably married to his half-sister and Lot's daughters (Genesis) are said to have had relations with their father, from which sprang one of the OT tribes.

The first century BC Irish kings also participated in the practice: Luigaidh nDerg was the product of a four-way affair between Derbriu and her three brothers; the stories say he had two red stripes on his body and that each part resembled a particular brother. Derbriu is remembered as Derbriu the Pig; one of her sisters was Medb of Rath Cruaghan (Roscommon), remembered as the fairy Queen Mave of the Arthur legends; another sister, Ethne, remembered as The Lady of the Lake, was married to King Connor Mor (who had several different sisters as wives), who is remembered for sending an army against Julius Caesar in the Gallic Wars. There was also another king at about the same time who was the product of a mother-son affair and one who was the product of a brother-sister affair.

I know personally a couple kids from different families who were planning to get married. The man's father and the girls' mother took them aside and advised them not to do it because the girl was the guy's half-sister. At least, they were stopped before they reached the marrying stage; I don't know what preceded it. Up to that point, the parents had been able to keep the secret. So it almost became a 20th-century practice.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder

^

yeah...thats still pretty gross though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.