I was taught evolution as fact, but there were so many questionable theories, I never really bought into it. Evolutionists bash Creationists calling it bad science. But from a common sense view think of this. What are the odds of a big explosion forming life on this planet. There is so much order. Days and nights, seasons, years just to name a few. And what are the odds that a one cell thing could evolve into the complexities of a fly yet alone a human? And what are the odds that a single ape became human or had a human? Charles Darwin knew nothing of DNA. With DNA much of evolutionist teaching can be sent where the world is flat was sent. Also, after Mt St Helen's erupted, a canyon has appeared in Washington 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon. It was caused by water displacement of the Spirit Lake then settling, forming the canyon. Evolution science says it would take millions of years to make this canyon, yet it was not there in 1979!
42 comments
I don't even know where to start.
First of all the big bang wasn't an explosion that started life. It was a rapid expansion of the universe.
The order is nothing more than the laws of physics doing their thing.
Odds are largely irrelevant given millions of years of cumulative selection. The fact that it landed on us is absolutely meaningless as it could have just landed some other way.
DNA actually supports evolution very very well.
I don't know about the Mt St Helen thing so I can't really comment.
And
Geologists makes the claim that the grand canyon is millions of years old, not evolutionary scientists who would be biologists.
@Jonathan
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html
Short form:
Grand Canyon, carved from solid rock.
Toutle River Canyon (Mt. St. Helens), carved from volcanic ash.
I can dig through (cold) ashes with my bare hands. I am very unable to dig through solid rock the same way.
For the 1,000,000+ time, the big bang and evolution are not the same thing - except in the minds of fundie fucktards for whom all science is EVOL.
The fact that Darwin was able to come up with the TOE before DNA was discovered helps prove his genius.
Evolution has nothing to say about crater formation.
And the rest is equally stoopid.
One of the wonders of science is that, years before it was discovered, Darwin formulated a theory that was PRECISELY backed by a discovery he couldn't foresee. Far from discrediting science, it is extra brownie points to evolution, becuase it's the proof that he was right.
Evolutionists bash Creationists calling it bad science."
No, we bash creationism because its theology and doesn't even qualify as bad science.
"What are the odds of a big explosion forming life on this planet."
Site me one scientist or scientific theory that makes that claim. If you are refering to the big bang it wasn't an explosion but the expansion of the universe from singularity.
"With DNA much of evolutionists teaching can be sent were the world is flat was sent."
Hardly, DNA is a huge confirmation of the theory and fact of evolution.
"Also, after Mt St Helen's erupted, a canyon has appeared in Washingto 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon. It was caused by water displacement of Spirit Lake then settling, forming the canyon."
Correct, but that canyon was formed thru volcanic ash, NOT thru solid rock as the Grand Canyon was.
"Evolution science says it would take milliions of years to make this canyon, yet it was not there in 1979!"
No, geology says that, evolutionary biology is the study of how species change over time, get your sciences straight.
Rather than shouting fundies talking points you should go learn some real science.
Also, after Mt St Helen's erupted, a canyon has appeared in Washingto 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon. It was caused by water displacement of Spirit Lake then settling, forming the canyon."
Here's a "science" experiment you can try yourself. First, make a big pile of sand and dump a pail of water on it. See how the water cuts channels into the sand? Now try the same thing with a big rock. See any channels cut into the rock? That's the difference between how water wears away the sand-like volcanic ash at Mt. St. Helen versus the sandstone at the Grand Canyon. Stop trying to make silly analogies.
Darwin's biggest doubts came from the fact that he knew of no mechanism through which evolution could operate. The discovery of genetics and DNA actually strengthened Darwin's theories by identifying the mechanism.
"What are the odds of a big explosion forming life on this planet."
Argument From Personal Incredulity. Just because you don't believe it can be true doesn't mean it isn't, and it's sad when you can't employ the evidence to arrive at a logical and reasonable conclusion.
Take me, for instance. Every time I see a jumbo jet go arcing up into the sky, I just can't see how the hell that even works! But I see that it does work, so I accept the fact that it does. It still freaks me out, though.
I was taught evolution as fact, but there were so many questionable theories, I never really bought into it.
So, you didn't buy reality, eh? Because reality is just wrong.
Evolutionists bash Creationists calling it bad science.
Again, pulling things out your arse and then testing them does not qualify as science.
But from a common sense view think of this. What are the odds of a big explosion forming life on this planet. There is so much order. Days and nights, seasons, years just to name a few. And what are the odds that a one cell thing could evolve into the complexities of a fly yet alone a human? And what are the odds that a single ape became human or had a human?
None. But you're missing a minor point; that is anything but evolution.
Charles Darwin knew nothing of DNA.
And this is where Mendel did all the menial work for him.
With DNA much of evolutionist teaching can be sent where the world is flat was sent.
Correct, except the exact opposite.
Also, after Mt St Helen's erupted, a canyon has appeared in Washington 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon. It was caused by water displacement of the Spirit Lake then settling, forming the canyon. Evolution science says it would take millions of years to make this canyon, yet it was not there in 1979!
What the hell does evolution have to do with geology?
"after Mt St Helen's erupted, a canyon has appeared in Washington 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon. It was caused by water displacement of the Spirit Lake then settling, forming the canyon. Evolution science says it would take millions of years to make this canyon, yet it was not there in 1979!"
Creationists have a well thought out(by fundie standards) narrative for this. They claim the grand canyon was cut in a few months by the tail end of Noahs flood draining away. At that time the mile+ pile of sediment deposited by the flood was still mud, not rock. The massive flow of water(not the comparative trickle of the present Colorado river) cut out cubic miles of the soft mud quickly.
This doesn't explain the disconformities and igneous intrusions, but most people don't know about that so the creationists figure this mud story is a good enough lie to fool most people.
Short form: Grand Canyon, carved from solid rock. Toutle River Canyon (Mt. St. Helens), carved from volcanic ash. I can dig through (cold) ashes with my bare hands. I am very unable to dig through solid rock the same way.
Not to mention it probably rains 100 times more often in the Pacific Northwest than it does in Arizona.
@Trovore:
Given the timeframe (Millions of years), the size of the Colorado River watershed feeding into it, and so on, the amount of rain in Arizona doesn't really matter.
And what are the odds that a one cel thing could evolve into the complexities of a fly, let alone a human?
Apparently pretty good.
And what are the odds that a single ape became human or had a human?
Zero. Evolution does not work that way.
With DNA much of evolutionist teaching can be sent where the world is flat was sent.
What planet do you live on? DNA has strengthened evolutionary theory. We can use it to see the evolutionary connections between animals.
And evolution science has nothing whatsoever to say about geology.
What are the odds Lorrie can rub two brain cells together to form a coherent thought?
That she can't grasp enough basic science to even get a rudimentary understanding of the ToE is painfully obvious.
This is why that museum, along with the combined works of Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Michael Behe, et al. is damaging to the intellect of the USA as a whole.
Don't you guys have enough fundie retards already?
"There is so much order. Days and nights, seasons, years just to name a few."
And where do you think we got the concept of order from , genius?
Evolutionists bash Creationists calling it bad science.
Then they're poor evolutionists and scientists. What they should call it is non-science. It isn't science in any way, shape, or form. Once the supernatural is invoked then, by default, it ceases to be science. Bad science is somebody screwing up an experiment through sloppiness and getting the wrong result.
Stop butchering Darwin's theory please! No apes (and certainly no monkeys) BECAME human; rather, we both evolved from a shared ancestor which may or may not have looked quite similar to a modern ape.
Also, DNA actually strengthens the case for evolution in that you can tell from its analysis how similar humans actually are to other animals.
Gah, I get so impatient when people open their mouths and drone on about things they know nothing about.
You didn't listen when they tried to teach you evolution, did you? Evolution is biology, not cosmology nor abiogenesis. It's just life changing over time, through random mutations and natural selection. It has NOTHING to do with any explosion or expansion.
As "a one cell thing" has evolved into the complexity of a fly and a human, the odds are 1:1. All humans ARE apes, so there, too, the odds are 1:1.
It's correct that Charles Darwin knew nothing of DNA. But, with the discovery of DNA, a lot of the things that he just speculated about, became proven facts. DNA strengthens the Theory of Evolution, stupid.
Geology science says that the Grand Canyon formed over millions of years. Mt St Helen might not have the same minerals or composition as the Grand Canyon, and might form a canyon faster. Biology (where evolution belongs) doesn't say anything at all about the formation of canyons.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.