Evolution is just imagined

[Elle]

If you want to blow your own mind, consider that *something* has always been here. There was no beginning to time, whether you believe in a God or not. Sometimes I think about that and suddenly feel so small and helpless in the great cascade of events, kwim? There was no "in the beginning" because there was something before the beginning. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

I happen to be a theist, but the same beauty and the same smallness of human life remains no matter what you believe. I believe religion attempts to makes us bigger, more important. But look around the universe. Just look around. We are so very small, and all we have is each other.

I've thought about that, about how, if there was a beginning, then what was before THAT. Like the edges of the universe. What's beyond that? So for things like this, I'm satisfied with the answer, "Fuck if I know." In those words. And then stop thinking about it, because there is literally no way, with any technology in our lifetimes, will we ever be able to find out, and no answer actually makes sense. With the Big Bang, how did the particles get there that went boom? So that's no answer. If a god created all, who created god? There is no answer, and it's outright foolish to insist that one has the absolute, indisputable answer.

[crassy]

Oooh, what did you say? Were you mean?

Not at all actually (which is REALLY unusual for me). I pretty much just copied and pasted what I wrote earlier in this post. She did not like that at all...so I went to a different post and trolled there to explain why she is wrong about abiogenesis. I imagine it will be deleted and commenting banned as well. She is doing the internet equivalent of sticking her fingers in her ears and screaming LALALALALALALALALA!

[crassy]

I've thought about that, about how, if there was a beginning, then what was before THAT. Like the edges of the universe. What's beyond that? So for things like this, I'm satisfied with the answer, "Fuck if I know." In those words. And then stop thinking about it, because there is literally no way, with any technology in our lifetimes, will we ever be able to find out, and no answer actually makes sense. With the Big Bang, how did the particles get there that went boom? So that's no answer. If a god created all, who created god? There is no answer, and it's outright foolish to insist that one has the absolute, indisputable answer.

This is why people say 'We don't know...yet'. There is also no indication that time was the same as we understand it now. Time is a human construct and what was 'before' if there even was a before, existed in the same 'time'. Nobody has ever said that abiogenesis is 100% fact because it isn't. It is not a scientific theory, it is a field of study at this point. The only people talking in absolutes are the crazy fundies with their bashed bibles. The issue I have with this whole thing written in that blog is that, as usual, a fundie is confusing abiogenesis with evolution. They are NOT the same thing. They don't even deal with the same field! However, the Miller-Urey experiments are mighty compelling leading to a suggestion or a higher chance of probability than creationism and, as of right now, it is the best model we have.

[debrand]

I've never understood the conflict between Genesis and evolution. If I am not mistaken, isn't the creation story a poem in Hebrew? It isn't supposed to be read as a factual account. However, the bible's description of the stages of creation could roughly line up with evolution. Plants, sea animals, land animals....isn't that the order of the Genesis story?

Because I'm not a scientist, I might have this fact wrong. Didn't the human population bottle neck at one time and nearly die out? Well, there you have both the first humans and where Cain(or was it Abel?) found his wife.

[Guest Anonymous]

I think that it is a mistake to try and line up evolution with Genesis. Obviously, Genesis was written at a time long before anyone had any concept of evolution. Any similarities between the two ideas are coincidences (which is fine, I guess) but the differences can only be papered over by desperate clutching at straws: 'X' must represent 'Y', 'A' could almost be 'B', etc., etc. It's silly and it's unnecessary.

[crassy]

I think that it is a mistake to try and line up evolution with Genesis. Obviously, Genesis was written at a time long before anyone had any concept of evolution. Any similarities between the two ideas are coincidences (which is fine, I guess) but the differences can only be papered over by desperate clutching at straws: 'X' must represent 'Y', 'A' could almost be 'B', etc., etc. It's silly and it's unnecessary.

Couldn't agree more.

[debrand]

I think that it is a mistake to try and line up evolution with Genesis. Obviously, Genesis was written at a time long before anyone had any concept of evolution. Any similarities between the two ideas are coincidences (which is fine, I guess) but the differences can only be papered over by desperate clutching at straws: 'X' must represent 'Y', 'A' could almost be 'B', etc., etc. It's silly and it's unnecessary.

I think that the only way that we can convince fundamentalist to accept evolution is by pointint out that it doesn't really conflict with creationism. When I was in school, we were taught evolution. It wasn't a big deal.

In some places in the south, teachers aren't supposed to cover evolution. Evolution should not be controversial yet in my husband's college class, the teacher had to spend the first day explaining why she would teach evolution in a biology class!

There has been a growth of conservative values being equated with Christianity.I'm not a Christian, however, if helping conservative and fundamentalist Christians clutch at straws gets students access to scientifc facts, I don't see the harm.

[Patsy]

I think that it is a mistake to try and line up evolution with Genesis. Obviously, Genesis was written at a time long before anyone had any concept of evolution. Any similarities between the two ideas are coincidences (which is fine, I guess) but the differences can only be papered over by desperate clutching at straws: 'X' must represent 'Y', 'A' could almost be 'B', etc., etc. It's silly and it's unnecessary.

Agreed. There are claims about all sorts of religious texts predicting scientific theory, but those 'predictions' are meaningless if they don't actually clearly describe the theory in question (and reasons it is plausible).

The Bible seems to me to pretty clearly describe a flat earth, geocentrism, and light emanating from the moon. Modern-day creationists explain that away by saying no, clearly that's figurative and means something else, but creationism isn't figurative.

What we don't say is 'the writers said the moon shines, but what they meant was (some modern quantum mechanics theory)'. We say 'they were describing the current perception of the time, which was partly accurate'. I think the exact same is true of creationism, and see no reason to presume that the scribes actually knew some underlying theory (otherwise undocumented) that came through indirectly.

Here's my favourite ad-hoc explanation, btw: The Koran incorrectly explains sperm production, so the answer is... it's actually giving an explanation of developmental embryology, when the testes are formed! http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an_and_ ... an_86:7%29

(there's some convenient interpretation in there on earlier embryology, which the Koran also gets incorrect, too -

Thus according to Muhammed, the drop of sperm remains in the womb for 40 days

Um, nope, according to Muhammed, the drop of blood remains. But sperm sounds slightly better so obviously that's what was meant :roll:)

[slickcat79]

Hm -- with the quote marks, that sounds like the people on her side of the argument were the ones being offensive/emotional. :lol:

They always are. I participate on another board (unrelated to fundies or religion) and they have a whole section devoted to people ranting and/or arguing with each other, to keep the main board on on topic. After awhile, the mods announced that you could no longer discuss religious topics even on the rant board because people were "offended". Three guesses who the offended parties were :roll: They certainly didn't have more than a handful of people there who were not Christian or maybe Jewish, and certainly no one who would go full-on Dawkins with them. They just get defensive because they cannot logically promote their POV, and some of them are genuinely shocked to find that people don't agree with them. Disagreement = persecution, after all...

[crassy]

[thoughtful]

They always are.

Oh, I know -- I just rather doubt that she meant it that way! :lol:

[Elle]

This is why people say 'We don't know...yet'. There is also no indication that time was the same as we understand it now. Time is a human construct and what was 'before' if there even was a before, existed in the same 'time'. Nobody has ever said that abiogenesis is 100% fact because it isn't. It is not a scientific theory, it is a field of study at this point. The only people talking in absolutes are the crazy fundies with their bashed bibles. The issue I have with this whole thing written in that blog is that, as usual, a fundie is confusing abiogenesis with evolution. They are NOT the same thing. They don't even deal with the same field! However, the Miller-Urey experiments are mighty compelling leading to a suggestion or a higher chance of probability than creationism and, as of right now, it is the best model we have.

I do know people who insist that it absolutely, without a doubt was the big bang or was creation. No question about it, that's the answer. I do not have the ability to investigate myself as I'm not a scientist with the abilities and access to the equipment, so all I have to go on is evidence presented to the public, and what we know is we really don't know. It does make for an interesting discussion though, but I'm not going to break my brain trying to figure it out based on what we, those outside the scientific community, know.

There have been experiments done proving that physical speed can alter the speed of time! I think the concept of time is a human construct, but time itself exists like electricity. We are just starting to learn that the we can manipulate the speed of it. I wish with all my heart that I could have gone to college for this. Thanks to my underclassman years being spent sick and my school sucking balls about making sure I was still able to get the classes I need, I got some two-bit homeschool program that was inadequate and put me at a distinct disadvantage in my last two years. Since that was before student loans were basically guaranteed and my parents didn't have the money to help me, college wasn't possible. I even tried the military, took the ASVABs, etc., but my medical condition is an automatic ban and results in immediate discharge of soldiers who develop it after being in the military. So no GI bill. By the time student loans started being tossed on people and were a sure thing, I'd been out of high school too long to get in any program worth a damn.

I love physics and astrosciences and biology, and always wanted to go into one of those fields. Bah. Oh well. I'll just have to be content reading what I can, what's presented to us, and wonder what else is known that hasn't been released.

[crassy]

I do know people who insist that it absolutely, without a doubt was the big bang or was creation.

Yes, I imagine a few people do, but I was more addressing the scientific community and people who have two brain cells to rub together...at least when it comes to saying the BBT is 100%.

I understand why creationists say that they are 100% correct. They have to, without that there is no real basis for their faith and it would probably crumble.

Have you looked at Open Yale?(http://oyc.yale.edu/ ). They have all sorts of free lectures and whatnot. It may at least satisfy your thirst!

[Mind UR own uteress]

Long time lurker, first time poster. I get really frustrated when Christians dismiss evolution without even having studied it. I was agnostic/neutral when I was an undergrad and in no way, shape, or form did my science instructors ever suggest that there wasn't a God. I studied chemistry but was also pre-med so i took a lot of biology and biochemistry classes in addition to non-bio science classes. Science is all about trying to discern what is true and real, not about having an agenda and trying to make your observations "fit" into that agenda.

This has probably been brought up here before, but there's a really great lecture by Dr. Jerry Coyne called "Why Evolution is True" on YouTube. It summarizes the evidence supporting evolution. I have an extremely hard time understanding how people can flat out reject the overwhelming evidence. For me, some of the most compelling pieces are: that all living things share the same genetic code (the same 3 DNA bases will code for the same amino acid no matter if it's in a bacteria, a tree, a jellyfish, or us, etc etc); the fossil layer goes from more simpler forms of life to more complex ones- if creation occurred you'd expect to see everything all mixed together, not in distinct layers; there is evidence for evolution on the molecular level- if you compare various enzymes or other proteins across different species, you can see how the protein changed genetically over time; plus many many more supporting pieces of evidence.

When i was in college, it was before we knew what a lot of our human inactive, "filler" DNA was for. Now that it has been sequenced, it is apparent that our DNA is loaded with "dead genes"- genes we no longer use or which are broken. For example, we have genes to make vitamin C but they are broken, so for us, we have to take it in from food. I thought there was abundant evidence for evolution before we knew what was in the filler DNA, now I think the evidence is overwhelming, yet the people most likely to dismiss it are those who ignore it altogether. I cringed when i saw the "Creation Museum" being passed off as "the truth". It's hard to know that so many home-schoolers are being taught things that are false, and being taught that the evidence is false.

I get really annoyed by other Christians who tell me I'm not a real Christian or somehow a sub-standard Christian because I believe that evolution is true. I've had a pastor friend tell me that i'm bringing "much shame to the cross" for believing it. The problem is, i can't un-believe it. I didn't become a Christian because "the Bible told me so". I became a Christian in part because science, to me, does seem to point to a whole realm that we do not understand, where time and space as we know them do not exist.

[Minerva]

I do know people who insist that it absolutely, without a doubt was the big bang or was creation. No question about it, that's the answer. I do not have the ability to investigate myself as I'm not a scientist with the abilities and access to the equipment, so all I have to go on is evidence presented to the public, and what we know is we really don't know. It does make for an interesting discussion though, but I'm not going to break my brain trying to figure it out based on what we, those outside the scientific community, know.

I don't like it when people tell you they believe evolutionary theory or the BBT 100% and then can't tell you anything about them or try and explain it and get stuff wrong. I get that there aren't many hours in the day and not everyone is a science major, but if people want to claim to believe something with absolute certainty, I really wish they'd do the legwork and read up on it. It's not a matter of them being caught "off guard" by creationists because creationists generally know so little about ET and BBT anyway, it's about not deriding people for believing something on faith alone and then doing the same yourself. Though I guess at the end of the day no one is hurt, and it isn't my business, so end rant.

Long time lurker, first time poster. I get really frustrated when Christians dismiss evolution without even having studied it. I was agnostic/neutral when I was an undergrad and in no way, shape, or form did my science instructors ever suggest that there wasn't a God. I studied chemistry but was also pre-med so i took a lot of biology and biochemistry classes in addition to non-bio science classes. Science is all about trying to discern what is true and real, not about having an agenda and trying to make your observations "fit" into that agenda.

This has probably been brought up here before, but there's a really great lecture by Dr. Jerry Coyne called "Why Evolution is True" on YouTube. It summarizes the evidence supporting evolution. I have an extremely hard time understanding how people can flat out reject the overwhelming evidence. For me, some of the most compelling pieces are: that all living things share the same genetic code (the same 3 DNA bases will code for the same amino acid no matter if it's in a bacteria, a tree, a jellyfish, or us, etc etc); the fossil layer goes from more simpler forms of life to more complex ones- if creation occurred you'd expect to see everything all mixed together, not in distinct layers; there is evidence for evolution on the molecular level- if you compare various enzymes or other proteins across different species, you can see how the protein changed genetically over time; plus many many more supporting pieces of evidence.

When i was in college, it was before we knew what a lot of our human inactive, "filler" DNA was for. Now that it has been sequenced, it is apparent that our DNA is loaded with "dead genes"- genes we no longer use or which are broken. For example, we have genes to make vitamin C but they are broken, so for us, we have to take it in from food. I thought there was abundant evidence for evolution before we knew what was in the filler DNA, now I think the evidence is overwhelming, yet the people most likely to dismiss it are those who ignore it altogether. I cringed when i saw the "Creation Museum" being passed off as "the truth". It's hard to know that so many home-schoolers are being taught things that are false, and being taught that the evidence is false.

I get really annoyed by other Christians who tell me I'm not a real Christian or somehow a sub-standard Christian because I believe that evolution is true. I've had a pastor friend tell me that i'm bringing "much shame to the cross" for believing it. The problem is, i can't un-believe it. I didn't become a Christian because "the Bible told me so". I became a Christian in part because science, to me, does seem to point to a whole realm that we do not understand, where time and space as we know them do not exist.

:shock: Have I been cloned? With the exception of 2 details (and I won't say which), we have everything in common going by your post. Welcome aboard.

[Mind UR own uteress]

Thanks Minerva!

[gardenvarietycitizen]

OK, I said this in the Evolution Test thread, but I think it bears repeating because some other idiot has said the whole "Evolution is just a theory" thing. Tim Minchin says he loves these people, because if gravity is only a theory, too, they'll float away.

Perhaps that's what the Rapture is really all about! :D

[keeperrox]

jennysblessednest.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolution-faith-vs-fiction.html

Hmmmmm... let's see here...

It is so difficult to remind people that the Story of Creation is just that... A story. It isn't rooted in fact, but in imagination, and sprang into widespread popularity to explain things that ancient people didn't have the science to understand.

Ahhhhhh, that's a bit better. Sometimes I think the logical part of the brain is non-existant in the fundies we discuss.

[alba]

I don't like it when people tell you they believe evolutionary theory or the BBT 100% and then can't tell you anything about them or try and explain it and get stuff wrong. I get that there aren't many hours in the day and not everyone is a science major, but if people want to claim to believe something with absolute certainty, I really wish they'd do the legwork and read up on it. It's not a matter of them being caught "off guard" by creationists because creationists generally know so little about ET and BBT anyway, it's about not deriding people for believing something on faith alone and then doing the same yourself. Though I guess at the end of the day no one is hurt, and it isn't my business, so end rant.

I tend to be more forgiving of people who wholeheartedly accept evolution and don't know anything about it than creationists simply because the people who don't know about evolution but accept it as fact are acknowledging the study and research of people who are far more knowledgeable on the subject than they are, whereas creationists are appealing to an authority that's not even proven to exist, and to a text that may or may not be the inspired word of said authority. It's still a logical fallacy if someone says "I believe in evolutionary theory because Sir David Attenborough does", but I don't mind people saying "Scientists have been studying this for more than a hundred years and pretty much unanimously agree that it's a fact, so I'm not qualified to argue otherwise and will accept it as fact".

[Minerva]

I tend to be more forgiving of people who wholeheartedly accept evolution and don't know anything about it than creationists simply because the people who don't know about evolution but accept it as fact are acknowledging the study and research of people who are far more knowledgeable on the subject than they are, whereas creationists are appealing to an authority that's not even proven to exist, and to a text that may or may not be the inspired word of said authority. It's still a logical fallacy if someone says "I believe in evolutionary theory because Sir David Attenborough does", but I don't mind people saying "Scientists have been studying this for more than a hundred years and pretty much unanimously agree that it's a fact, so I'm not qualified to argue otherwise and will accept it as fact".

Good point, that.

[Mind UR own uteress]

sorry if this has already been shared, but i found this cartoon amusing:

http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/freedumb.html