"the Evolution Deception"

[Guest The Drop]

Has anyone ever seen this video?

Just wondering, what is the rational secular response to it?

[Guest kcdad]

Has anyone ever seen this video?

Just wondering, what is the rational secular response to it?

 

Can't help you with that, but I can offer a rational follower of Jesus response: What exactly determines what a species is? The difference between micro and macro evolution seems to hinge on this definition.

 

As far as transitional forms, have you not met Cro magnon, Neanderthal, Homo Habilus, Australiopithicus and the others?

 

Would you like to take a shot at explaining exactly what makes a bonobo different from a human?

 

As to the faith and works based religions... only Western Christianity (thank you Constantine) is a belief based religion. Jesus taught you MUST love another, you must feed the hungry, heal the sick, visit the imprisoned and help out the poor... Jesus taught a PISTIS based active faith... not a passive belief system.

 

Belief is nothing... even the demons believe.

 

Other than these questions and observations... scaring someone into belief is not faith... it is fear. What does Paul say about? Love drives out fear.

What did Jesus say about that? Be not afraid. Do not worry.

 

The animation was kinda ok.

[GraphicsGuy]

Holy crap! From anti-evolution to hardcore evangelizing...yeesh...

 

These are the oldest arguments Xians have and nearly every video dealing with evolution deals with them in some fashion.

 

One major error is when it states, "...you believe you came from a rock..." Can't get organic material from a rock.

 

The issue here is that Xians don't understand the first thing about science or evolution. I still don't, but at least I did educate myself a little after leaving the fold and understand that DNA has been restructuring life on earth for millions of years. We all come from two DNA-packed, microscopic organisms. Change something within that DNA and you have evolutionary changes.

 

Makes more sense than some invisible being waving his magic wand and making everything appear.

[Ouroboros]

Ring species are examples of micro-evolution becoming macro-evolution, at least if we accept one of the definitions of macro-evolution which is when two species can't mate.

 

I strongly recommend reading this short article on Wikipedia to understand what Ring-species are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species.

 

Another thing is that evolution don't believe we evolved from a rock, it's a gross over-simplification only for the purpose of making it sound silly. While Christians do believe humans came from dirt. So what is the issue here? Why are they so scared of humans coming from a rock in the first place, when they believe we are dirt and God's breath? Another thing is that God, if he created humans, he had to use matter. We are physical matter, regardless if we have a spirit or soul, or not! So the whole, "coming from a rock" argument against evolution is really an admission to ignorance and strawman argument.

 

And the missing link is also a false argument. Of course the missing link is missing, because every individual is THE link between their parents and their children, and we can't find every possible skeleton of every individual who ever existed in history. It could only be done if no biological breakdown occurred, and no dogs ate bones, and no disasters... If I died and was cremated, the biological, genetically, and evolutionary link between my dad and mom, and my children, would be lost, and that would mean to creationists that I never existed. Another short article from Wiki to get the gist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_...#Misconceptions

 

Gosh... I can't watch more of that movie. It's so full of straight-out lies, but hey, what can you expect from Venomfx.

[Guest kcdad]

Can't get organic material from a rock.

 

NO? But I bet you can get a rock from organic material.

[Guest kcdad]

While Christians do believe humans came from dirt.

 

NOT DIRT, Dust... different substance... and although dust is theoretically impossible at creation, since it is the cast off of living organisms, dust is organic while dirt may or may not me. So I suppose in some 22nd century Frankenstein kind of way, it would be possible to collect enough dust, charge it with some Oxygen, glucose and electricity and make a living ... er... thing.

[Ouroboros]

Can't get organic material from a rock.

 

NO? But I bet you can get a rock from organic material.

That's kind'a funny.

 

It's true we can't get organic material from a rock, but organic material is afterall matter. So we could get the material we need from the right selection of rock, liquids, gases... Where else does the human body come from? I'm quite sure it's not incorporeal or an astral projection. Even Christians must believe that our physical body comes from physical matter, or they are five inches away from an insane asylum.

[Ouroboros]

While Christians do believe humans came from dirt.

 

NOT DIRT, Dust... different substance... and although dust is theoretically impossible at creation, since it is the cast off of living organisms, dust is organic while dirt may or may not me. So I suppose in some 22nd century Frankenstein kind of way, it would be possible to collect enough dust, charge it with some Oxygen, glucose and electricity and make a living ... er... thing.

Same difference. Lets say its "dust", that means God must have picked it up from under his bed, where dust had been gathered for a long time. No? Oh, I just checked, it was dust from the ground... eewh! Dirty dust!

 

But wait... if it's cast off from living organisms, that means we are bi-products of the other living things from what lived before Adam and Eve was created. And how where those creatures created? From dust too, or from existing matter? Hmm... I think we are getting into an infinite regression of biomatter from dust, dust from biomatter.

 

And another thought, in Genesis, God commands the oceans to "bring forth life." In essence, he told the oceans to evolve the life. So what kind of dust did the ocean use?

 

Sorry for my very scattered thoughts. The first cup of coffee hasn't really kicked in yet.

 

---edit---

 

I just looked up the Strongs for "dust" in Gen 2:7:

Transliteration: 'aphar

 

Definition: dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish

 

1. dry or loose earth

2. debris

3. mortar

4. ore

 

The last definition is very interesting. Ore means: a naturally occurring solid material from which a metal or valuable mineral can be profitably extracted. So really, the Bible and Evolution agrees. I think I remember that öre in Swedish had something to do with the dirt at the riverbanks, and I think it came from the red iron filled banks during the Viking age, or something. Here's a wile speculation: maybe the redness in the iron ore was seen as the primal-blood for humans, and also life?

 

So why do Young Earth Creationists lie about their own Bible?

[shantonu]

While Christians do believe humans came from dirt.

 

NOT DIRT, Dust... different substance... and although dust is theoretically impossible at creation, since it is the cast off of living organisms, dust is organic while dirt may or may not me. So I suppose in some 22nd century Frankenstein kind of way, it would be possible to collect enough dust, charge it with some Oxygen, glucose and electricity and make a living ... er... thing.

Same difference. Lets say its "dust", that means God must have picked it up from under his bed, where dust had been gathered for a long time. No? Oh, I just checked, it was dust from the ground... eewh! Dirty dust!

 

But wait... if it's cast off from living organisms, that means we are bi-products of the other living things from what lived before Adam and Eve was created. And how where those creatures created? From dust too, or from existing matter? Hmm... I think we are getting into an infinite regression of biomatter from dust, dust from biomatter.

 

And another thought, in Genesis, God commands the oceans to "bring forth life." In essence, he told the oceans to evolve the life. So what kind of dust did the ocean use?

 

Sorry for my very scattered thoughts. The first cup of coffee hasn't really kicked in yet.

 

---edit---

 

I just looked up the Strongs for "dust" in Gen 2:7:

Transliteration: 'aphar

 

Definition: dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish

 

1. dry or loose earth

2. debris

3. mortar

4. ore

 

The last definition is very interesting. Ore means: a naturally occurring solid material from which a metal or valuable mineral can be profitably extracted. So really, the Bible and Evolution agrees. I think I remember that öre in Swedish had something to do with the dirt at the riverbanks, and I think it came from the red iron filled banks during the Viking age, or something. Here's a wile speculation: maybe the redness in the iron ore was seen as the primal-blood for humans, and also life?

 

So why do Young Earth Creationists lie about their own Bible?

 

This is isn't the only lie: At 1:15, the video claims that the Bible mentions dinosaurs "several times," and cites Deut. 32:33, Psalms 74:13, and Job 41:19. But none of these passages mention dinosaurs, at least as far as I can tell.

 

Deut 32:33 says: "Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps," in the King James Version.

Psalms 74:13 says: "You divided the sea by Your strength; You broke the heads of the sea serpents in the waters," in the KJV.

Job 41:19 says "Out of his mouth go burning lights; Sparks of fire shoot out."

 

I don't see how any of these references are to dinosaurs. And if they are references to dinosaurs, shoudn't the dinosaurs have been dead already by the time Moses handed down Deuteronomy. Psalm 74 mentions Mount Zion, so that was composed after the presence of the Israelites in the land of Canaan--in other words after the Flood.

 

With respect to the reference in Job, that is a reference to the Leviathan (as is the Psalm reference). But Leviathan's actual nature is controversial. This is from the Wikipedia page:

 

"In the book of Job, both Behemoth and Leviathan are listed alongside a number of other animals that are clearly mundane, such as goats, eagles, and hawks, leading many Christian scholars to surmise that Behemoth and Leviathan may also be mundane creatures. The animal most often proposed for Leviathan is the Nile crocodile.

 

Like the Leviathan, the Nile crocodile is aquatic, scaly, and possesses fierce teeth. Job 41:18 states that Leviathan's eyes "are like the eyelids of the morning". Major difficulties of this view are that in Job chapter 41 Leviathan is described as breathing fire like a dragon, and that the crocodile does not seem to fit the descriptions of Leviathan given in other Bible passages, such as in the book of Psalms.

 

During sea-faring's Golden Age, European sailors saw Leviathan as a gigantic whale-like sea monster, usually a sea serpent, that devoured whole ships by swimming around the vessels so quickly as to create a whirlpool.

 

Some Young Earth Creationists have alleged that Leviathan was either a dinosaur, such as Parasaurolophus (despite being a herbivore and a non-aquatic animal), or a giant marine reptile, such as Kronosaurus (despite lacking armor and a serpentine body). The current consensus among Young Earth Creationists is that the giant crocodilian, Sarcosuchus, best fits the description in the Bible.

 

Others suggest that the Leviathan is an exaggerated account of a whale."

 

So leaving aside whatever scientific misrepresentions there might be, there is also considerable misrepresentation and fabrication regarding Biblical sources.

[Ouroboros]

This is isn't the only lie: At 1:15, the video claims that the Bible mentions dinosaurs "several times," and cites Deut. 32:33, Psalms 74:13, and Job 41:19. But none of these passages mention dinosaurs, at least as far as I can tell.

 

Deut 32:33 says: "Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps," in the King James Version.

Psalms 74:13 says: "You divided the sea by Your strength; You broke the heads of the sea serpents in the waters," in the KJV.

Job 41:19 says "Out of his mouth go burning lights; Sparks of fire shoot out."

 

I don't see how any of these references are to dinosaurs. And if they are references to dinosaurs, shoudn't the dinosaurs have been dead already by the time Moses handed down Deuteronomy. Psalm 74 mentions Mount Zion, so that was composed after the presence of the Israelites in the land of Canaan--in other words after the Flood.

Yeah. I've seen and heard that YEC (young Earth Creationists) is trying to make a connection between dragons and dinosaurs. The reference to the snake is kind of strange, since I don't think snakes are directly related to dinosaurs.

 

On a sidenote though, humans and certain surviving species of dinosaurs did and does co-exist. Birds are descendants of the dinos, as far I as understand.

 

...

 

So leaving aside whatever scientific misrepresentions there might be, there is also considerable misrepresentation and fabrication regarding Biblical sources.

True. That's how myth works, it can be modified to fit.

[Crazycatlady]

In all honesty, I think the rational response is to burst into laughter and commend the creator for an excellent (though slightly overblown) piece of satire, because no reasonable person with a high school education could truly believe that to be anything other than a joke.

[shantonu]

In all honesty, I think the rational response is to burst into laughter and commend the creator for an excellent (though slightly overblown) piece of satire, because no reasonable person with a high school education could truly believe that to be anything other than a joke.

 

It's for real. They are not joking and many of these Young Earth Creationists are quite clever and sophsticated. My response is usually to be humble and say that while I don't understand all the puzzles off how evolution works, science isn't about certainty but about coming up with models that lead to fruitful areas of research, and Biblically-based investigations don't lead anywhere. And besides, the book talks about purported facts that occured before the Flood, so how reliable could it really be?

[Neon Genesis]

And the missing link is also a false argument. Of course the missing link is missing, because every individual is THE link between their parents and their children, and we can't find every possible skeleton of every individual who ever existed in history. It could only be done if no biological breakdown occurred, and no dogs ate bones, and no disasters... If I died and was cremated, the biological, genetically, and evolutionary link between my dad and mom, and my children, would be lost, and that would mean to creationists that I never existed. Another short article from Wiki to get the gist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_...#Misconceptions

 

Gosh... I can't watch more of that movie. It's so full of straight-out lies, but hey, what can you expect from Venomfx.

This is what I don't get about fundies. When you challenge a fundie to provide proof that God intervenes with the universe, like asking a fundie why God doesn't always answer prayers and allows suffering, they'll respond by saying God's ways are mysterious and we can't understand everything about God, but you should still blindly believe in the existence of God because it just might be true, yet they don't hold evolution to the same standard. So, it's ok to believe in God even if you don't understand everything about God if you just have faith but you can't accept evolution as a fact if there's even one "missing link", even if there's far more overwhelming evidence for evolution than there is for God. Going by the same logic, the xtians should disbelieve in God too since they don't have understand everything about God or they should accept evolution as fact anyway in case it might be true.

[Crazycatlady]

In all honesty, I think the rational response is to burst into laughter and commend the creator for an excellent (though slightly overblown) piece of satire, because no reasonable person with a high school education could truly believe that to be anything other than a joke.

 

It's for real. They are not joking and many of these Young Earth Creationists are quite clever and sophsticated. My response is usually to be humble and say that while I don't understand all the puzzles off how evolution works, science isn't about certainty but about coming up with models that lead to fruitful areas of research, and Biblically-based investigations don't lead anywhere. And besides, the book talks about purported facts that occured before the Flood, so how reliable could it really be?

 

Oh, I know it's for real. I just don't think it should be taken seriously.

[Ouroboros]

I just skimmed over an article from a recently published issue of a science magazine which says: Darwin Was Wrong.

 

The fact is, he was wrong, and scientist have (through study and experiments) concluded this. And what is the part he's wrong about? The Tree of Life. It has to be renamed to Tree of the Web instead. Because there are evidence for cross-breeding, it's not a tree, branching out, but more like a spiderweb, spanning out and crossing over occasionally.

 

The point is, sciencists find errors in their models, and they fix them. So they don't try to keep the "holy book" liturgy from last year at the level of faith and defend it against every evidence which disprove it. If there is proof against the theory, scientists change the theory.

[Looking4Answers]

Turned off the video when it made the magical leap to the gospel.

 

Sheesh. Talk about making a bunch of statements and backing up absolutely NOTHING along the way.

[Guest kcdad]

Because there are evidence for cross-breeding, it's not a tree, branching out, but more like a spiderweb, spanning out and crossing over occasionally.

 

Mules? Ligers? Catdog?

Doc1.doc

[Ouroboros]

Mules? Ligers? Catdog?

And crockoducks (or is the proper name duckodiles?)

 

Just for the sake of giving reference: Article: Why Darwin Was Wrong About the Tree of Life, New Scientist

[Guest kcdad]

Mules? Ligers? Catdog?

And crockoducks (or is the proper name duckodiles?)

 

Just for the sake of giving reference: Article: Why Darwin Was Wrong About the Tree of Life, New Scientist

 

I don't believe in crocoducks, and resent your blasphemous assertions of their existence. I have evidence for Mules, ligers and catdog. I am orthodox.

[Ouroboros]

I don't believe in crocoducks, and resent your blasphemous assertions of their existence. I have evidence for Mules, ligers and catdog. I am orthodox.

I got a picture:

 

So they must exist! I believe any photoshopped picture. No smoke without a fire, so no one could make a photoshop unless it did exist for real!

[Guest kcdad]

I don't believe in crocoducks, and resent your blasphemous assertions of their existence. I have evidence for Mules, ligers and catdog. I am orthodox.

I got a picture:

 

So they must exist! I believe any photoshopped picture. No smoke without a fire, so no one could make a photoshop unless it did exist for real!

 

I BELIEVE!!!!

 

... but then again, I was predestined... I mean predisposed to believe.

[Ouroboros]

... but then again, I was predestined... I mean predisposed to believe.

And then sometimes I feel more indisposed to believe and dispose of it completely.

[Jedah]

Nothing new really. It follows the basic format of creationist BS propaganda.

 

-1. ) Discredit certain parts of Evolution with old disproven science, twisted facts, or just plain make shit up.

-2. ) Do not quote any sources. Simply put on a face of sincerity. Hope people will take your word for it. VIOLA ! Evolution is disproven !

-3. ) Now that Evolution is gone, fill in the gap it left behind with God. Obviously, this God of the gaps must be the protestant Christian God. How do you know ? Simple ! You know because you know !

-4. ) Ignore all evidence to the contrary. treat all those who lift the veil off of your bullshit as sinners / enemies of God. Make conspiracy theory claims.

-5. ) Wrap it up with a good ol' fashion threat of eternal damnation towards those who don't believe you in order to seal the deal.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

Creationism vs Evolution....argh. I just try so hard to keep my mouth shut; it isn't worth it. Then I can't, and I ask, "So humans being related to monkeys is bad, but created from worm shit and a bone is perfectly fine? Ok. I got'cha. Humans are shit! I knew it!"

 

I remember overhearing my old roommate's brother, in all serious, point out how the layers of the Earth don't prove anything, because, "as you know," flooding and glaciers moved everything around. So you can't trust dinosaur bones found in one particular layer, because obviously a flood could have moved them....down. Or something. O, the pain of keeping my mouth tight. And he was a nice guy and all, but WELS people are just smacking of dumb.

[Etchison]

Quote from the video: "Evolution requires adaptation from Genetic Information that's already there. It can't create anything new."

 

Ignoring the fact that the author doesn't understand evolution, it's actually wrong. NEW genetic information can be introduced to a species. Check this out for the true geeks at heart:

 

http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2963