RE: Creationist nonsense

Adding to what wyldeling said…

Nice excuse. It’s called the oomphalos hypothesis, and I doubt anybody with half a brain buys it.

I understand the claim — I note that the evidence fails to support it.

Yes — it would take a tremendous amount of power to do that, so, on the surface, it’s hard to believe. We should expect some proof. Instead, we have stupid excuse-making like the oomphalos nonsense.

That there’s such extensive evidence that it was not done in six days displays “his” absence.

Project much?

Evolution came about to explain the diversity of life. It’s the foundation of biology and medicine — virtually nothing in those sciences make sense without evolution.

The thought that it’s sole purpose might be to disprove or disregard your superstitions is an example of how much you fear that it succeeds in doing so. And it does — prior to Darwin’s time, there weren’t any good explanations for the diversity of life. Those creation myths were as good as any.

Darwin’s theory became the central fact of biology because it works — it explains diversity, it offers testable predictions that have been borne out time and again. But it had the side effect of showing that supernatural causes — including the Christian god — were unnecessary in explaining the world around us.

The idea that evolution makes your god unnecessary terrifies you, so you don’t bother learning anything about it, except for the strawman nonsense your preachers lie about.

Ah, that’s why it took so many pains to hide any trace of evidence that it might exist? It buried all those fossils to make us love it? It lets babies die of horrible wasting diseases because he loves them?

Yeah, right.

Hard to believe these are still in circulation. Are you really so ignorant about evolution and science in general? Have you never looked for yourself to see whether these questions have ever been addressed?

Clearly not — damn near every evolution vs creation site out there includes them, since they’re such standard strawmen.

The theory of evolution is as provable — and as proven — as the theory of electricity.

No, it wouldn’t. Just like the theory of electricity needs no such thing. The theory of evolution is about how life changed after it came about.

The theory of how life came from non-life isn’t evolution, it’s called abiogenesis. There are a number of hypotheses out there that propose explanations for it, but none of them have sufficient evidence to be called “proven”.

Of course, the standards for proof in that sort of scientific theory are far more stringent than any offered for superstitious explanations (like “a god did it”).

In fact, most scientists who’ve studied the question of abiogenesis have a fairly good idea of what must have happened. The particular areas in which they currently experiment are mostly about finding the particular circumstances that can result in the sort of self-sustaining chemical reactions that resulted in life.

The question of how matter came to exist in the first place isn’t relevant to either evolution or abiogenesis. It’s considered as a part of physical cosmology, and is in a similar state to the theory of abiogenesis. There’s no single dominant theory, but they’ve a pretty good idea of what the theory would have to look like.

Well, given the fact that you’re actually using the “evolution is merely a theory” canard, you clearly know nothing of the actual evidence for any connections, so your claim that there’s no such “evolutionary bridge” is at best, hot air.

I’m not sure why you’d expect there to be a link between plant skin and human skin, since neither evolved from the other. Similarly, feathers evolved from scales in the late Jurassic period, and exoskeletons evolved prior to the Cambrian — again, no reason we should expect a link there. Mammalian fur, like feathers, evolved from scales — though through a rather different route, so again, you’re claiming a gap exists where nobody’s claiming a connection.

The stupidest thing you’ve said, yet. Gravity, electricity, thermodynamics, and relativity are all theories in exactly the same sense. I guess you don’t believe those, either.

Except that it’s not. Archaeologists have virtually no evidence that anything the bible suggests is true. Here’s Hector Avalos, a professor of Religious Studies at the University of Iowa giving some detail.

Modern archaologists know that the bible is a completely unreliable source of history.

Well, he’s still going to have to wear a condom.