The evolution of a paleontologist

[Dennis2]

mikrofon wrote:

<quoted text>
The tone of your responses do not seem to be those of someone who desires and honest exchange of views. I seriously doubt that you or most of your fellow bloggers on this thread could benefit further from any information I might be able to give until you all deal with your anger.

Oh what a pathetic copout response. Is that your hint that you're going to run off and hide because you can't answer ANY of the questions presented to you? You are the one speaking as if you know exactly what your god did and how he did it. The problem is, your explanations are senseless. They amount to...no matter how anything looks, even though every piece of evidence found falls into what one would expect from evolution, it was simply that your god chose to make it look that way. You have no basis whatsoever for that. But if he did, why he did is a valid question. So again I ask, was it to fool us? If not, then why?

[mrbananas]

exhibit A:
http://borderland-tours.com/v2/images/stories...

exhibit B:
http://www.rainforestinn.com/images/birds/Pue...

exhibit C:
http://www3.telus.net/public/a5a24186/bird2.j...

its still just a bird.[/sarcasm]

[tomk52]

mikrofon,

Are you still here?

I have a couple of questions for you. Sincere questions.

tk

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

mrbananas wrote:

exhibit A:
http://borderland-tours.com/v2/images/stories...
exhibit B:
http://www.rainforestinn.com/images/birds/Pue...
exhibit C:
http://www3.telus.net/public/a5a24186/bird2.j...
its still just a bird.[/sarcasm]

Nice photos!

[Lord Vader]

Hey, Creationists, I have some questions for you.

1. What is your scientific evidence - no, not myths from the Bible - that evolution is wrong?

2. What is your scientific evidence (again, not Biblical myths) that creationism is correct?

3. What is your scientific evidence that God exists?

These are actually honest questions. I would like to know the answers, although I am quite certain none of you will be able to properly answer them.

[Lord Vader]

Ah, creationists.

You all have some nerve coming onto a scientific forum, pretending to be scientific, yet dismiss almost a century's worth of scientific consensus in favor of a particular interpretation of a few verses of the Bible - a book whose "science" is truly lamentable - and specifically a chapter from the outrageous book of myths that is known as the Book of Genesis.

Of course, if anyone else came onto a scientific forum blindly advocating any other Creation Myth - such as that of the African tribe who believe the Earth was created by the excrement of ants, or of the Apache tribe who believed it was formed by gigantic animals physically terraforming unformed ground - they would, most likely, be banned as a nuisance. You who believe in the Yahwist Creation myth are certainlly no less of a nuisance, and, in fact, perhaps even more a nuisance as there are many of you, as opposed to just one. And the problem is most creationists really have no scientific education. Instead, they cling onto a complete myth, churning out tons of propaganda and false, supposed "evidence." Why? Because 99% of them have been home-schooled AKA brainwashed since they were kids.

And, of course, most creationists also believe that the Bible is inerrant. Inerrant? Well, if a man decides that he will believe a book is inerrant, no matter what, there is little can be done for him. Nothing in the universe can be absolutely proven, or absolutely disproven, and that is true of Biblical inerrancy. We can, however, examine whether or not the claim is reasonable, and anyone who studies even just a few verses of the Bible will come to the conclusion that the Bible is riddled with contradictions and the like, and is also a filthy, disgusting book no better than those of the pagans. Take, for example, the several dozen ENTIRE CHAPTERS about how to murder thousands of animals, spill their blood, and then use their stinking corpse as a "sweet savour" to Jehovah, or the man who cuts his dead girlfriend into twelve pieces and sends each little bit - intestines, livers, brain and all - to the leaders of each tribe of Israel. Or how about the oh so great hero Samson, who killed hundreds of foxes by burning them to death, while destroying all the food of the Philistines (which probably led many Philistine families to starve to death, by the way).

The Bible, or certainly the Old Testament, is no better than any other dirty pagan book of myths, and it has just as many errors and contradictions in it as other books, if not more, plus a load of Bronze Age "science," which could be more accurately described as a load of garbage. Just for one example, the Bible says that placing breeding animals among striped reeds will produce striped offspring, which, of course, is utter nonsense. There's thousands more of mistakes, but, alas, there are so many I doubt I'll be able to fit them into this post as we are only allowed 4,000 characters in a post.

Basically, long story short, the Bible has absolutely no science in it at all. You may be able to argue that it is a "good book," (although the Old Testament certainly would not appear to be a "good book), but it is most defenitely not a scientific book that any paleontologist, biologist or any other scientist should rely on.

Anyway, I have a sort of "series" of posts to do, because I won't be able to do a very long post covering all subjects to do with creation due to the 4,000 character or less rule.

[Lord Vader]

Most creationists say, "The Bible is inerrant. Since it is inerrant, then I will believe in creation, which means evolution is false." There are a handful who say, "Even if the Bible was NOT inerrant, I'd still believe in creation because there is so much scientific evidence for it."

Which, of course, is a complete lie. In actual reality, there is not one little scrap of evidence supporting the creationists. What there *is*, however, is some evidence against evolution. But, the only problem is that even if evolution is incorrect (although I doubt it, as, of all theories trying to explain what caused life, evolution has by far the most evidence), this does not mean the Yahwist Creation "theory" is correct. There are a thousand and one alternatives to evolution, but they all have one thing in common: they have no positive evidence.

So there is no evidence supporting creation, only a bit of evidence against evolution.

And even this evidence against evolution is really quite pathetic.

Probably the most common is, "Hey, if evolution is true, there should be few, if any, missing links, since we've been looking for them for centuries!"

Which is wrong. The fossil record is certainly very sketchy. Scientists believe only 1% of dinosaur species have been discovered, so we certainly would not expect to find these so-called missing links.

Besides, most missing links are no longer missing! The only problem is that creationists absolutely refuse to believe the missing link is no longer missing. Take, for instance, Australopithecus afarensis. Not a human, or just a basic, chimp-like ape, but more like a chimp with a bit of human mixed in. A. afarensis was hailed as the missing link between man and traditional ape. Of course he was. But the creationists cheated, and said he was just a typical ape, no different than a chimp or gorilla. Just an ape. Then several more species of Australopithecus were found, such as A. robustus, which were even more human than A. afarensis. Creationists still claimed it as an ape. Homo habilis was then found, even more human-like. It was obviously the missing link between Australopithecus and Man. But the creationists said it was merely an ape, just like Australopithecus.

Of course, Homo erectus was found - the missing link between Homo habilis and Man. Can you believe what the creationists said? It was a 100% man! Not an ape, not a half-ape-half-man, just a 100% man.*Sigh.

They just never accept what is a missing link and what is not. And then they go screaming their heads off that no missing links have been found.

I'll be responding to two other common anti-evolution points next post.

[Lord Vader]

Anti-Evolution Evidence #2:

The observation of nature today should be the crowning glory for proving evolution, shouldn't it? Why don't animals evolve any more?

And the very simple answer? Animals DO evolve, right today.

The average creationist basically says that evolution within a species is fine (i.e., just very minor, natural changes, like a breed of dog etc.). They draw the line at species-to-species changes. Which is very illogical, by the way (I'll go into that later).

The only problem is that species-to-species evolution is confirmed; the wolf, Canis lupus, is known to be the ancestor of the domestic dog. Well, creationists will say, "Of course it is! Dogs are just a breed of the wolf! They're the same species! That isn't evolution!"

But, in fact, the domestic dog is known as Canis familiaris, another species, just as seperate from the wolf as a jackal or coyote is. Which means, Canis lupus has evolved, over the period of a few thousand years, into Canis familiaris.

There are many, many other examples also.

Another point is that most creationists completely misunderstand evolution. In my own opinion, species-to-species evolution does not technically occur, because species don't really exist. Instead, there is only one huge tree with loads of branches. I.e., there was one little creature three billion years ago, who's offspring, and offspring's offspring, and offspring's offspring's offspring... and so it goes... gradually adapt better to their habitat. One of these little creatures might wander off to colder temperatures, for example. So it's descendants grow some more cells to cover them and keep him warm. After billions of years, we get the results: trillions upon trillions of different creatures, all different. Some eat meat. Some eat plants. Some live on land. Some live in the water.

Creationists often mock evolution by saying, "Ha! Evolutionists think that animals change into different animals! Can you imagine a gecko becoming a crocodile? A fox changing into a deer? A little dog becoming a lion? A cow becoming an elephant?"

This is another case of creationists missing the entire point of evolution. Evolutionists actually mock creationists when the creationists try and mock the evolutionists. Why? Because every single evolutionist does *not* think a cow will magically change into an elephant. No, they think that small genetic changes, mutations, will, over time, gradually "change" a species.

For example, some humans are born with six fingers. A genetical "mistake," if you will. Imagine if six fingers somehow becomes more advantageous? You know what will happen. Even though we have made our life much easier than an animal's with civilization, medicine etc. it's still a "battle for survival." And if six fingers was more advantageous, then more humans with six fingers would survive, and those with five fingers would die more. Which means a few thousand years later, humans would now have six fingers. And what if a lot of hair becomes an advantage when, say, the temperature suddenly drops a hundred degrees worldwide? Then within a few more thousand years, humans would have so much hair they'd be considered furry. Or what if albinoism is an advantage? Then we'd turn white... in a few thousand years, you'd have a white, furry human with six fingers and red eyes... And if skeletal changes occur as well, I'd image soon this type of human would be classified by scientists as another species.(Although, as I was saying earlier, there are really no such things as different species. Instead, there is just one huge big species in different forms.)

[Lord Vader]

There's a few more things I want to say as well. Not directly linked to creation, but linked to the creator and his great big book, the Bible.

Here's a few examples of contradictions and mistakes in the Bible.

1. The Earth is a rectangle. Incorrect: It is a spheroid.

2. Pi is exactly 3.0, or at least < 3.10. Incorrect: The value of Pi is 3.1415926535...

3. Dew "falls" from the sky. Incorrect: Moisture permeates the entire atmosphere - it does not "fall" any more than the water droplets in an ocean "fall."

4. Placing breeding animals among striped reeds will produce striped offspring. Incorrect: Utter nonsense...

5. Rabbits chew their cud. Incorrect: Simply untrue.

6. Grasshoppers have four legs. Incorrect: All insects have six legs.

7. Rain and flooding comes from "windows in the sky" and "fountains in the ocean." Incorrect: The excute that it is "poetic" or "figurative" is very unlikely - we can tell from other records that the acients believed such claims in a very literal way. And besides, if you decide that this is figurative, on what grounds can you fairly hold that Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 are not figurative?

8. There was no rain before Noah's flood. Incorrect: It is physically impossible for life to exist without water.

9. Humans reason, and have imagination, within their heats. Some have "wise hearts," others unwise, the Bible claims. Incorrect: Again, this is not figurative. This belief was held by many other primitive societies (even the fairly 'advanced' ancient Egyptians). A human simply does not think with his heart any more than he thinks with his anus.(Although I must admit, it can be hard to believe that many creationist ideas came from anywhere else).

10. The Earth has foundations. The ocean has doors. Incorrect: A freestanding object in a vacuum cannot be describes as having foundations, and the "doors of the ocean" simply don't exist.

There's actually hundreds more, some more clear cut, others less so. There's even an entire website all about "700 Mistakes and Contradictions in the Bible."

And there's also Jehovah himself, who, although called good, would actually be incredibly evil if the Bible is correct. An example of this is that Jehovah apparently cannot make a creation without ruining it! Adam and Eve supposedly sinned when they ate a magic apple. We could then heap all the blame on Adam and Eve for all sin. But then we actually come to the conclusion that the nasty, evil Serpent was behind it. A talking snake persuaded Eve to eat the apple. So the Serpent is behind all sin! But no. The Serpent was BORN evil and treacherous. He was simply "programmed" that way. Jehovah made the Serpent evil. It wasn't the Serpent's fault at all! It was Jehovah's fault. And Jehovah also created Satan. So Satan is no more evil than Jehovah. Like the Serpent, he was made that way. He was made to be evil and cruel, by Jehovah himself. So, if the Bible is correct, then Jehovah is actually evil, not Satan or anyone else.

And, it would defenitely seem that way if we saw some of the "nice little stories" in the Bible, where men, women and innocent children are all murdered by "God's chosen people." Where men cut up their girlfriends into twelve pieces. Where millions of animals are killed so their blood can be offered to Jehovah as a nice little drink, and their stinking corpses for a "sweet savour."

Disgusting, really. The entirety of the Old Testament. And the New Testman is better, but it still has it's fair share of errors and contradictions.

Anyway, four entire posts on the subject was probably unneccesary, but hopefully some creationists might see some sense and come to the conclusion that their "scientific book" is full of holes and mistakes, and, not only that, is a dirty, dirty book, incredibly violent and full of disgusting stories, which, if accurately made into a movie, would most likely be known as a very graphic "horror movie."