digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

How Creationists Explain Evolution

docstoc.com — A creationist view of how the world was really created and why evolution is just at bunch of bunk. And Kansas really wants to start teaching this to kids in classrooms? Scary.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • greenroom628, on 07/02/2008, -0/+29according to slide 21, it never rained until after noah's flood?

    wow.
    • skidzilla, on 07/02/2008, -1/+18And the Earth was surrounded by a 'ring of water'... Yeaaah, sure, whatever.

      Noah's flood may have occurred, but it was most likely just some middle-eastern river overflowing, not the whole planet being flooded. But to small-minded *people* who wrote the old testament, it would have seemed to be the latter. This small mindedness and ignorance continues to this day.
      • custal, on 07/02/2008, -1/+16What is now the Black Sea, north of Turkey, has been proven to once have been a steppe inhabited by people. Some time after the last ice age the whole area was flooded.

        It's been theorized that part of that incident may have influenced the creation of the story of Noah's flood, since it roughly fits the area where Noah's flood supposedly happened. And, Noah's arch supposedly can be found on top of mount Ararat, which again is somewhat close by the Black Sea.

        Then again, the origin of the story can be placed in Iraq, which itself is (or at least used to be) prone to recurring floods...

        After all, most of the old testament is a mishmash of stolen Mesopotamian stories and fairytales.
      • TheCatsPants, on 07/02/2008, -0/+12I find it weird that they need to have any explanation of where the water came from. If God decides to make a whole universe, surely making enough water to cover the earth and make it go away again is hardly difficult. "Goddidit" should be enough to explain everything. With the "ring of water" idea they have to explain how that water stayed up over the earth. Goddidit? So God can will some things to happen, but not others. Or is it ok to break the laws of gravity, but to create water out of nothing is somehow too far-fetched?
        Surely also it must also be a "sphere of water" to provide the protection they claim it was for, or is this the 2D model of the universe?
      • gordonj, on 07/02/2008, -0/+9They're bible literalists.
        Isaiah 40:22: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth.
        A circle is a flat sphere. That slide is entirely accurate of the creationist world view.
      • eir574, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8"But to small-minded *people* who wrote the old testament, it would have seemed to be the latter. "

        I think it's important to remember that the people who initially witnessed that flood were not necessarily small minded. If it did appear to them that the whole world had flooded, that would have likely been a consequence of their limited knowledge about world geography. That limited knowledge was in turn a consequence of the times in which they lived. It's the people who lived after the point at which the globe had been more thoroughly explored and yet who refuse to entertain the possibility that their global flood was in fact local who are small minded.
    • Cate320, on 07/02/2008, -0/+14I found slide 3 to be bloody hilarious. So now Evolutionary Biologists are claiming that Gravity, Thermodynamics and the gas laws evolved as well?

      That is news to me.

      • judsond, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7That confused me also, I'm not sure that was what they meant, but who knows...
    • TheOtherOne135, on 07/02/2008, -0/+9Yeah, I was raised very religious, and I remember being taught in elementary (church) school that the reason Noah was mocked for claiming there would be a flood was that it had never rained and no-one believed that rain, much less a "flood", was possible.

      (They never did explain how water moved before the flood . . . . How was there enough water in rivers to water fields?)
    • bertdevriese, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3people used to become 1000 years... nice!
      and offcourse, you could ride on the back of dinosaurs. which is pretty awesome!
  • hvsahin, on 07/02/2008, -0/+35How evolutionists explain creationists: http://www.acorscadden.com/wp-content/uploads/2007 ...
  • carpespasm, on 07/02/2008, -2/+9Is this slideshow serious or a bad joke? This slide show looks like a hoax to me. I've never met a creationist who tried to make the argument that it's humanists who made up evolution. I'm not inclined to think this was used in a Sunday school unless I head where this came from originally.
    • judsond, on 07/02/2008, -0/+15I highly doubt it. I've been involved in some crazy religious stuff when I was younger, this isn't that odd for them. (of course it could be a fake, but it's a fake well within the limits of what's really out there)
      • gordonj, on 07/02/2008, -0/+13That's the problem with these religious fruitcakes - the stuff they believe is so ridiculous that rational people have a hard time deciding whether they should laugh or be very scared. It would be hilarious...if there weren't so many real consequences.
    • Wakkyweed, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5If you think this is just a bad joke, check this website out. These nutjobs really believe this crap.

      http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.a ...
  • alphgeek, on 07/02/2008, -3/+24It all comes back to the same thing in the end. Sorry, I can only pseudocode in BASIC:

    REM HELLO WORLD BY F.C.CHRISTIAN
    REM
    10 The Bible is the factual, inerrant, historical account of the Universe's creation
    20 I know 10 is true because God tells me the Bible is his true word and must be obeyed word for word ELSEIF GOSUB 60
    30 I know 20 is true because it says so in the Bible
    40 GOTO 10
    50 END
    REM
    60 Except for where I get to pick and choose the bits I want to believe in and avoid the really embarrassing *****, like God's slaughter of innocent children, the whole bit about slavery being OK, God really being a bit of a prick, all things considered
    70 ENDSUB

  • AlexanderZero, on 07/02/2008, -1/+16God these people are ***** stupid. How can you deny something that is proven, like the fact that the earth and universe is billions of years old? ITS BEEN PROVEN!
    • Daz3, on 07/02/2008, -1/+18Because it conflicts with the religious meme that breaks down critical thinking; sorry, I really do consider the irrational thinking that Christians (I don't mind generalizing in this case because I am right - argue it with me..) display to be an illness of the mind.

      The inability to question and examine ones own beliefs is a form of mental retardation.
      • donjacko, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7eloquently put
      • ApokalypseNow, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8This is all part of the immune system of the theistic memeplex - I posit that the creationist's willful misunderstanding of science comes from a deep-seated knowledge that their beliefs are not supportable. The emperor really isn’t wearing clothes, and they know it at some level. The part of their brain which normally would question such belief on insufficient evidence has, however, been shunted permanently into bypass mode. No one wants to feel deficient. So they play up the virtues of this “cognitive bypass” and call it “faith.” They’ve traded truth for comfort as a survival strategy which allows them to maintain the requisite levels of cognitive dissonance.
        But they can’t completely shut down their critical thinking–which gives them a permanent inferiority complex, albeit at an unconscious level. Though they may have outer comfort, they still feel the sands shifting beneath their feet, because they know they can’t be sure they’ve chosen the ‘right’ belief system out of the countless thousands possible. The more time they have devoted to the system they chose, the more the bypassed critical thinking skills will have atrophied, and the more likely they are to defend their faith to the death. Knowing they suffer from this insurmountable uncertainty, they simply must attempt to level the playing field. (To do so, many have devoted lifetimes or built entire libraries of theological texts based on their presuppositionalism–essentially intellectual castles in the air.)
        Rather than take the difficult and painstaking steps of learning to live within the confines of evidence-based knowledge, they attack its most basic value. They try to bring the discussion down to their level, where their preferences for softer ‘truths’ untethered to an unbending natural world can carry the day.
      • Daz3, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1It is not bereft of irony that the theistic/religious meme has observably evolved during even our lifetimes; the organisms with less obvious logical flaws survive and reproduce whilst the others fall into extinction. They once even served as an explanatory model of the universe but science has systematically pushed these into oblivion, now the last remaining species of this meme cling to alpha and omega - the origins life and the afterlife.

        Our very own Lancet Fluke.
  • swordedge, on 07/02/2008, -0/+13That slide show is ridiculous
  • wonderbriefs, on 07/02/2008, -0/+20Oh God. This is making my head hurt. I can't even get past slide 10. This slide show is saying, "They're wrong and we're right. We don't have any scientific evidence to begin to support our claims. But everything they say is a lie! There's the line. Now get on one side or the other!"
  • icdapoakr, on 07/02/2008, -0/+11I love how they say evolution is false, yet they say micro-evolution is true.
    • eir574, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7I once saw someone on digg compare that to saying that he believes in micro-walking, which can get him to the nearest street corner, but not macro-walking, which some people try to say could get him into the next state.
  • Cate320, on 07/02/2008, -0/+14"Your faith is humanity has decreased by 50 points!"

    I just have to keep hoping that the teachers themselves will rail against this. And if they don't, perhaps Texas, Kansas, Louisiana and any other state that is considering this need to also reconsider their teacher certification requirements.
  • kalidav, on 07/02/2008, -0/+10The propaganda is so good even I almost believed it! Wait no, I didn't.
  • markduyvesteyn, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7thats *****
  • dwninjungleland, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1Wow. I don't know WHAT to believe anymore.... SIKE
  • matt510, on 07/02/2008, -2/+18So one thing to keep in mind here is that there are plenty of Bible believing Christians around who are actually quite interested in science and who don't believe in "Creationism." Just make sure you aren't grouping all Christians together in the same category.
  • angusm, on 07/02/2008, -0/+15The whole slide deck is so riddled with errors and misrepresentations that it's hard to decide if the authors are just completely ignorant or entirely dishonest. I suppose one doesn't exclude the other.
    • TheCatsPants, on 07/02/2008, -0/+10It's ok to misrepresent science and twist the truth if the purpose is to save souls from the eternal hell-fire of God's infinite wisdom and love (apparently).
  • DuggDowner, on 07/02/2008, -0/+10According to slide 15 we have yet to find the "Mixing Link." Wonder if anyone tried Home Depot.
    • jezsik, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I found a few at the local bar ... and I mean that literally and figuratively.
  • DuggDowner, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2According to slide 15 we have yet to find the "Mixing Link." Wonder if anyone tried Home Depot.
  • EatingPie, on 07/02/2008, -12/+4The first 4 slides actually explain why there is even a debate, and I do believe they are accurate in their assessment (bear with me).

    Evolution was popularized in part because it was used to eliminate God as a causative factor in human development. Removing God removes all eternal consequence to our actions in Judeo-Christian cultures (where evolution came from, and was popularized).

    Modern Christianity has reacted to this "removal of God" by attacking the theory of evolution itself. And indeed, every evolution/religion debate always breaks down to a dichotomy between the two, becoming huge arguments most often without attempt to any middle ground, or any ground for that matter.

    Where the debate should be addressed is not in the scientific realm, but in the philosophical. This is where core of every debate resides -- coming down to the existence of God -- and the only place it can be adequately addressed. But this is almost never where the debate occurs.

    -Pie
    • swrostmore, on 07/02/2008, -1/+17The debate over a scientific theory belongs exclusively to the scientific, and not philosophical, realm. Evolution is a testable hypothesis supported by empirical evidence, creationism is an unprovable belief. It is apples and oranges, you can't discuss either one in terms of the other.

      -Pie
    • Acglaphotis, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5Why do you sign your comments?

      -3,14
    • Dimensio, on 07/02/2008, -1/+7"Where the debate should be addressed is not in the scientific realm, but in the philosophical. This is where core of every debate resides -- coming down to the existence of God -- and the only place it can be adequately addressed. But this is almost never where the debate occurs."

      Your suggestion is irrational. The theory of evolution addresses events within biological systems. It does not, and cannot, address the existence of any deities. It is a scientific theory, and it cannot be falsified through an appeal to purely philosophical claims.
    • Linzee82, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2I think that what EatingPie is trying to get at is that science will never prove or disprove the existence of god. The Theory of Evolution is all scientific. You can't discuss that anywhere but the science classroom. But what does belong in the philosophy classroom is the discussion of whether or not god may have been the force driving evolution. Rather than trying to have a good philosophical discussion about both possibilities, many people are trying to use science or their bibles as 'proof' of god's existence or non-existence.

      At least that's what I got out of it.
  • graderguy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7OK, But why not leave Kansas out of the headline? We happily UN-elected the idiots on our St. Board of Ed. that were promoting "intelligent design" and now have a board that is not full of anti-science bible thumpers. Kansas may be backwards, but not all Kansans are retarded.

    • dood, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Eh. Someone elected them in the first place. Apparently, the majority of voters. If anything, the lesson here is to always vote, and vote carefully.
      • graderguy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1A lesson I believe many Kansans have taken to heart. Hopefully we won't be quite as red in the fall, you can't believe the number of die hard republicans in this (seemingly) redneck state that have told me "I ain't votin' fer them republican sonsabitches no more, no way!"
    • jezsik, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Get out! Get out while you still can!
  • Acglaphotis, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7This was a parody, right?
  • sandersdamnit, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2Christians = Fear+ Denial
    • matt510, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1Yes, the sums up all us ignorant Christians...

      /sarcasm
      • sandersdamnit, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I believe it does, you are AFRAID that there just might be a god and that he is going to send you to hell if you don't grovel, and you deny scientific evidence. If you can explain it to me better, please elaborate.
      • matt510, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I have degrees in physics and astronomy. I don't deny scinetific evidence. It is a false dichotomy to say that science negates religion or that religion negates science. It is a stupid argument.
  • spercival, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Slide now 5 is great, who needs a twitter fail whale when you have "the fail"
  • jdbranded, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Slide 6: Not only did atheists invent evolution, but French atheists! I'm sold!
  • Squidwalk, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6Here I thought I knew something about creationists, but I'd never heard of the ocean in the sky! Makes you wonder if it's a misunderstanding of why the sky is blue.
  • Enlightenment, on 07/02/2008, -1/+7
    Mandatory sterilization for everyone that believes in this crap! Spreading lies and ignorance MUST stop!!!



  • GhostyBoy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Why can't religion evolve to co-exist with reality like everything else does?
    • izackcarson, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3But that separation from reality is part of what religion strives to achieve. That old quote "Religion is the opiate of the masses" came along before LSD. Religion is definitely a drug, some combo of psychedelic and opiate.
  • Weekapaugr00ve, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0My favorite part is that average life span was apparently 900 years before the flood!!! but now it's dropped to 70... damn flood.
    • Blackstar69, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1I say we reinstall this awesome water canopy I've heard so much about.
  • pilchardboy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0I like the fact that the average lifespan was 900 years pre-flood. How do they then make that the average generational life was only 50 yearswhen taken across the whole of that 6000 year existence?

    I think there's a math problem here.

    Oh wait, no, my mistake: it's a general retard problem.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.