This is part I of a series on NeuraLOGICA and focuses on the creationists blatant dishonesty on the issue of transitional forms. Creationists claim that transitional forms do not exist, yet, nearly every fossil is a transitional form. If a rational person uses such an argument, then the creationist will counter that there are gaps in the fossil record. The explanation for this is rather simple, as fossilization is a rare occurrence as only certain conditions allow for fossilization to occur, and with each new species/transitional form/fossil discovered, two new "gaps" appear. If evolution were false, then one of these marginal creationists could submit their paper, have it peer reviewed, and win their nobel peace prize. Instead, they focus on convincing the scientifically illiterate that science is wrong and that goooooddddddddd did it. In six days. And created the earth in life such a way that contradicts what is known to be true (the notion of the earth existing before light is just a bit stupid). Creationists are incapable of offering an alternatice to evolution that can be scientifically verified. Instead they look at an incomplete fossil record, which does show a progression of life through a vast expanse of time, and cry an imaginary victory. Their god lives in the gaps of scientific dark spaces. Those dark spaces get a little bit smaller each and every day. To make those spaces appear they are larger than they are, creationists lie. The big wigs anyway. The minds in the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis are liars. They use these lies to persuade the scientifically illiterate. There are two groups who deny evolution in favor of myths, liars and those who do not understand evolution. One of those is excusable, the other is not. I doubt I will post each part, if you click home on NeuroLogica, you will find the list. Part 2 was posted today.
Way to windy to read. I will say this though, most Christianists should be jailed, but they did bring us one good thing: Creationism. I've been oppressed by the heresy of the evolutionary theory for all my life. When I was a child my mother tried to evolve me into a fish by making me swim with the swim team. Of course it didn't work because the evolutionary theory is false.
Too good not to post: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/44-reasons-creationists-are-deceptive-cont/#more-8382
They're people who believe dinosaurs survived a flood by riding on a boat. Why they receive the undue attention they do is almost as absurd as their beliefs
True, but this is reading a lot about what is really a dead horse for most people. Do you really think you're going to get through to the kind of people that fall for this bunk? Or are you trying to say that they represent all/most theist? I can't see what else you would be trying to say. Either one is a waste of time. sorry - - - Updated - - - [
There are not many creationists left. Mostly the elderly or very extremist groups but that's about it. The majority of Chirches now teach that evolution was just a tool used by God to develop the species but the origin of life was still done by God. Evolution does not address the origin of life.
I know fundamentalist that are still creationist. They use the adult formed earth explanation. In other words god created it all in seven days exactly like it would have been if it formed over billions of years. So evolution exist because its the only way things can be like they are, God just hit the super fast forward button. So to speak.
They probably pulled from the water the dead floating carcasses of the many milliions who drowned and used that for lion food: as for the bacteria,,, well if you knew anything about bacteria, it would have been in a perfect environment inside that floating wooden craft. Just a tiny bit of imagination could have answered those serious concerns of yours.
Where do you live? I personally know about a dozen in a population much less than a cubed of 12. Yet, contrary to your claim, some 40%+ percent of the US population believes in a myth over science: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/creationism-america-survey_n_5434107.html You are right on one issue, evolution does not address the origin of life. However, there are two issues: 1. If abiogenesis addresses the origin of life, why is there such opposition to the fact of evolution? 2. If creationism is such a minority view, why do so many GOP candidates make a platform issue of adopting the belief in a myth over reality? 3. If abiogenesis is not entirely clear on the origin of life, why is the automatic and imaginary valid belief is that gooooooodddddddd did it?
Wrong, the boat would have favored only some types of bacteria not all therefore they would have need certain refrigeration units. Im wondering if noah ate the same thing as the lion or if he ate then lion after it died on its rotten people diet. Wasnt the ark rather high? Can you tell us how they scooped up the carcasses? That activity would require some special equipment. Secondly ...probably? Why is it you guys never have an actual answer? Where did they store the excrement? Did they throw it overboard into the water where they were pulling food from or not?
They recieve attention because they run for school boards and then try to foist their idiocy on the children.
Abiogenesis and evolution both rely on a single universal common ancestor, which is far from proven, only assumed because, well, it must have existed in order for evolution to be true. Political candidates from both sides of the two-headed monster support the belief in a Creator, because most of them believe we were created by the Creator, whether or not they understand evolution; believe in evolution; or even belief and/or understanding of a combination of both creation and evolution. Abiogenesis cannot be tested, therefore it's unscientific. It's imagination, filling of gaps.
I don't think they are deceiving anyone who has a brain. The Spinosaurus would seem to be 'transitional'. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/spinosaurus/mueller-text It had a sail like a Sailfish or Marlin... and was an aquatic carnivore... and it was HUGE.
That assertion of yours will definitely require proof of claim. When was the Noahs ark discovered and scientifically examined? Yeppir many questions could be asked regarding my suggestion. However, you did not ask any questions about my closing comment: " Just a tiny bit of imagination could have answered those serious concerns of yours."
Yeah, everything I read says "scientists believe" or "it's possible that" or "research suggests." The tests don't validate the hypotheses. They only serve to provide possible explanations.
Yet we have scientists, physicists like Tom Campbell and others, who say this universe is a virtual reality, created by Big C Consciousness, that lies outside it. In that virtual reality, evolution is a part of it. And not only is life evolving, but the universe itself is evolving. Now this Big C Consciousness doesn't fit in with what humans imagined a god to look like, to act like,etc. But IT is the Creator. Does it gripe arses when some physicists think Consciousness is the fundamental, and not matter, as the philosophical materialists ASSUME? Do materialists understand that thinking that consciousness comes from matter is just an assumption? And that the other assumption which makes even more sense, is that matter comes forth from Consciousness, that acts in some way like a Computer, as it creates the virtual reality we call the universe? It is just a shame that there are so many ignorant people, who do not recognize that views of reality are based upon assumptions?
I really find this not worth debating, we are here and think so we can all agree on that and further science can observe and explain what we observe most of the time when it examines some phenomenon. I favor the bigger question do deities exist or one deity, the nature of them or it, and then decide from the evidence is there one and I simply don't see such evidence but rather a mechanical universe. But am always open to evidence if its sensible evidence.