Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[PratchettFan]

So Christians believe that the world wasn't made in 6 days, that Noah wasn't 600 years old, that the flood never happened... Which means you're not a Christian. Pretty simple really.

I would say most Christians believe those were allegories rather than factual descriptions. But, of course, that means they are not Christians because a Christian is what you say it is regardless of what the facts might say. As I said, you don't have to be a Christian to fall into the category of insisting what you believe is true regardless of the facts.

If you were referring to me specifically, I'm not a Christian and have never been one.

In general, not just referring to you, if you don't believe that the bible is true and is god's words, then you're not a Christian. You can believe that you still are, but you'd be wrong.

You can believe that if you like. But if you think your belief alone makes it true, then you are rejecting science.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Before grass evolved herbivores were eating the leaves of shrubs and trees.

are you certain that shrubs and trees evolved before grass?.....

Yes!

DINOSAURS DID NOT EAT GRASSES

The origin of the grasses can be dated by the appearance of grass pollen in the fossil record. The grasses and their relatives have distinctive pollen that is nearly spherical and with a single pore. Grass pollen itself can be distinguished by minute channels or holes that penetrate the outer, but not the inner, pollen wall (Linder and Ferguson, 1985). The earliest firm records of grass pollen are from the Paleocene of South America and Africa, between 60 and 55 million years ago (Jacobs et al., 1999). This date is after the major extinction events that ended the age of dinosaurs and the Cretaceous period.

Additional fossil pollen grains that may be grasses or may be grass relatives have been found in Maastrichtian deposits of Africa and South America (approximately 70 million years ago); these were fossilized just before the end of the Cretaceous. Because of the way the pollen was preserved, however, it is impossible to tell whether it had the channels in the outer wall that are characteristic of the grasses (Linder, 1987; Jacobs et al., 1999).

These pollen grains give upper and lower bounds for the date of the ancestor of the grasses (arrow in Fig. 1). Based on the fossil record, this ancestor lived before 55 million years ago but probably after 70 million years ago. This range of dates is used to calibrate molecular clocks, which are then used to calculate the times of other events in the history of the grasses (Box 3).

WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE GRASSES ORIGINATED

Some characters associated with the success of the grass family evolved long before the first grass appeared in the forest and thus cannot be used to explain their current ecological dominance. The grasses are wind-pollinated but so are all their relatives (Linder and Kellogg, 1995). From this we can infer that wind-pollination originated millions of years before the grasses appeared on earth. Along with wind pollination comes a reduction in perianth size and loss of pollen stickiness (Linder, 1998). All the relatives of the grasses similarly accumulate silica somewhere in the plant so that silica accumulation also must have originated well before the grasses themselves did. In addition, a large set of monocotyledonous plants, including not only the grasses, but also the gingers, pineapples, and palms, have cell walls rich in ferulic acid. Ferulic acid in the cell walls must therefore be an ancient characteristic preserved in the grasses.

Previous Section
Next Section
WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE GRASSES ORIGINATED

Other “grass” characteristics originated long after the first grasses (GPWG, 2000; Kellogg, 2000). The most notable of these is drought tolerance and the capacity to grow and thrive in dry open habitats. The original grasses were plants of forest margins or deep shade, characteristics that are retained today inAnomochloa, Streptochaeta, Pharus,Puelia, Guaduella, the bamboos, and the basal pooid, Brachyelytrum. The phylogeny shows that the grasses persisted for many millions of years, and apparently did not diversify much in such habitats. The shift in habitat occurred at the points marked by O on Figure 1. This preceded the major diversification of the family, detected in the fossil record by a marked increase in the amount of grass pollen in the mid-Miocene epoch (Jacobs et al., 1999).

Evolutionary History of the Grasses

 

[pinqy]

What this shows is a) science has disproved the bible, so it can't be the word of god, and b) there are for sure tons and tons of fakers who think they follow the bible, but don't, and just pick and choose what they want to believe in.

I disagree. What I have shown is that those particular instances cannot have occurred exactly as described. It does not preclude them being embellished stories and it doesn't speak at all as to any kind of divine inspiration. Additionally, it is my understanding that Judaism has never insisted on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, and neither has the Catholic or other ancient churches. It was only with the creation of Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal churches that literalism became an issue. As far as I know, only the so-called "Fundamentalist" Christian churches and "Fundamentalist" Muslim groups adhere to literalism in the Creation story.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Riddle me this, if the scientific accuracy of the Bible, (inherent, ineffable, infallible Word of God and all that) can't be trusted to get junior high math right, why in the world should I be expected to just throw away the four centuries of scientific work we've done in favor of said Bible?

perhaps because anyone with a lick of intelligence would realize that the Bible wasn't written to teach you mathematics.....now again, what scientific work of the last four centuries do you have to throw away to believe in what the Bible says about God, you, and your relationship?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

If you're looking for examples of willful ignorance look no further:

"man evolved from some original single celled organism that spontaneously erupted from a puddle of mud"

well imagine that.....we agree on something......I only consider myself an agnostic regarding that claim...would you consider yourself an atheist when it comes to macro-evolution and abiogenesis?......

We are here. The only mechanism to get us where we are today I can see any evidence for is evolution.

the fact we are here is as much proof of God's creation as it is proof of macro-evolution.....in a nutshell, none.....attempting to claim otherwise is only circular reasoning.....

Abiogenesis is another thing we both agree on.

that it is willful ignorance, yes....

 

[BillyP]

I would say most Christians believe those were allegories rather than factual descriptions. But, of course, that means they are not Christians because a Christian is what you say it is regardless of what the facts might say. As I said, you don't have to be a Christian to fall into the category of insisting what you believe is true regardless of the facts.

If you were referring to me specifically, I'm not a Christian and have never been one.

In general, not just referring to you, if you don't believe that the bible is true and is god's words, then you're not a Christian. You can believe that you still are, but you'd be wrong.

You can believe that if you like. But if you think your belief alone makes it true, then you are rejecting science.

Science just describes what a god created, if such a god even exists. So seeing as the bible doesn't line up with science, it can't be the word of the god.

 

[BillyP]

What this shows is a) science has disproved the bible, so it can't be the word of god, and b) there are for sure tons and tons of fakers who think they follow the bible, but don't, and just pick and choose what they want to believe in.

I disagree. What I have shown is that those particular instances cannot have occurred exactly as described. It does not preclude them being embellished stories and it doesn't speak at all as to any kind of divine inspiration. Additionally, it is my understanding that Judaism has never insisted on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, and neither has the Catholic or other ancient churches. It was only with the creation of Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal churches that literalism became an issue. As far as I know, only the so-called "Fundamentalist" Christian churches and "Fundamentalist" Muslim groups adhere to literalism in the Creation story.

If you don't believe that god plopped down Adam fully formed and made Eve out of his rib, then you're not a Christian. Kinda simple really.

 

[Zmrzlina]

There was a talking donkey, too.

wiser than the average atheist, I've been told......

Remember geometry in 9th grade? You might have been exposed to the formula for circumference of a circle. C=2πr

Turns out that math in the Bible is slightly different. Seems Solomon was building some stuff for God's Temple, including big bowl thing. The Bible very clearly says the diameter of this bowl thing was "ten cubits from the one brim to the other" but the circumference of this big bowl thing was "and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (1 Kings 7:23)

If the diameter is 10 cubits, that means the radius is 5 cubits (because 1 diameter is equal to 2 radii. 10/2=5). So using our formula, we can plug in the values we have. So

C=2*π*5
So our answer is 31.416 cubits

Wait a minute. Our answer is 31.416 cubits, but the Bible answer is 30.0 cubits exactly.

What gives? Is the Bible wrong or is math? If it's the literal truth, is rounding down consistent with every word being the Inherent and Ineffable Word of God?

So maybe a talking ass is wiser than me, but at least I can still do junior high math.

A cubit was the length from a person's elbow to their fingertips, so it was a subjective unit of measurement to begin with.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Before grass evolved herbivores were eating the leaves of shrubs and trees.

are you certain that shrubs and trees evolved before grass?.....

Yes!

as I recall, the shrubbery eaten by dinosaurs went extinct at the same time the dinosaurs did.....when did the shrubs and trees of the dry savannas that giraffes eat evolve?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

What this shows is a) science has disproved the bible, so it can't be the word of god, and b) there are for sure tons and tons of fakers who think they follow the bible, but don't, and just pick and choose what they want to believe in.

I disagree. What I have shown is that those particular instances cannot have occurred exactly as described. It does not preclude them being embellished stories and it doesn't speak at all as to any kind of divine inspiration. Additionally, it is my understanding that Judaism has never insisted on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, and neither has the Catholic or other ancient churches. It was only with the creation of Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal churches that literalism became an issue. As far as I know, only the so-called "Fundamentalist" Christian churches and "Fundamentalist" Muslim groups adhere to literalism in the Creation story.

If you don't believe that god plopped down Adam fully formed and made Eve out of his rib, then you're not a Christian. Kinda simple really.

and has science proven otherwise?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

wiser than the average atheist, I've been told......

Remember geometry in 9th grade? You might have been exposed to the formula for circumference of a circle. C=2πr

Turns out that math in the Bible is slightly different. Seems Solomon was building some stuff for God's Temple, including big bowl thing. The Bible very clearly says the diameter of this bowl thing was "ten cubits from the one brim to the other" but the circumference of this big bowl thing was "and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (1 Kings 7:23)

If the diameter is 10 cubits, that means the radius is 5 cubits (because 1 diameter is equal to 2 radii. 10/2=5). So using our formula, we can plug in the values we have. So

C=2*π*5
So our answer is 31.416 cubits

Wait a minute. Our answer is 31.416 cubits, but the Bible answer is 30.0 cubits exactly.

What gives? Is the Bible wrong or is math? If it's the literal truth, is rounding down consistent with every word being the Inherent and Ineffable Word of God?

So maybe a talking ass is wiser than me, but at least I can still do junior high math.

A cubit was the length from a person's elbow to their fingertips, so it was a subjective unit of measurement to begin with.

wait.....you mean everyone's forearm isn't the same length?.....obviously we'll have to rethink salvation!.......

 

[Zmrzlina]

Remember geometry in 9th grade? You might have been exposed to the formula for circumference of a circle. C=2πr

Turns out that math in the Bible is slightly different. Seems Solomon was building some stuff for God's Temple, including big bowl thing. The Bible very clearly says the diameter of this bowl thing was "ten cubits from the one brim to the other" but the circumference of this big bowl thing was "and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (1 Kings 7:23)

If the diameter is 10 cubits, that means the radius is 5 cubits (because 1 diameter is equal to 2 radii. 10/2=5). So using our formula, we can plug in the values we have. So

C=2*π*5
So our answer is 31.416 cubits

Wait a minute. Our answer is 31.416 cubits, but the Bible answer is 30.0 cubits exactly.

What gives? Is the Bible wrong or is math? If it's the literal truth, is rounding down consistent with every word being the Inherent and Ineffable Word of God?

So maybe a talking ass is wiser than me, but at least I can still do junior high math.

A cubit was the length from a person's elbow to their fingertips, so it was a subjective unit of measurement to begin with.

wait.....you mean everyone's forearm isn't the same length?.....obviously we'll have to rethink salvation!.......

That was exactly my point, are you dense?

 

[BillyP]

I disagree. What I have shown is that those particular instances cannot have occurred exactly as described. It does not preclude them being embellished stories and it doesn't speak at all as to any kind of divine inspiration. Additionally, it is my understanding that Judaism has never insisted on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, and neither has the Catholic or other ancient churches. It was only with the creation of Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal churches that literalism became an issue. As far as I know, only the so-called "Fundamentalist" Christian churches and "Fundamentalist" Muslim groups adhere to literalism in the Creation story.

If you don't believe that god plopped down Adam fully formed and made Eve out of his rib, then you're not a Christian. Kinda simple really.

and has science proven otherwise?.....

Science hasn't proved that, so,it can't be a scientific fact. See how that works?

 

[Zmrzlina]

PostmodernProph you keep insisting that there is no evidence of Macro-evolution but simply saying something over and over doesn't make it so. There are far too many examples of macro-evolutions to even list and more are discovered everyday. As I mentioned earlier the evolutionary adaption for resistance in bacteria to commonly used antibiotics is an example of macro-evolution we have witnessed in our lifetime. It is a scourge of the medical field and according to proponents of intelligent design dogma it is a complete fantasy.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Riddle me this, if the scientific accuracy of the Bible, (inherent, ineffable, infallible Word of God and all that) can't be trusted to get junior high math right, why in the world should I be expected to just throw away the four centuries of scientific work we've done in favor of said Bible?

perhaps because anyone with a lick of intelligence would realize that the Bible wasn't written to teach you mathematics.....now again, what scientific work of the last four centuries do you have to throw away to believe in what the Bible says about God, you, and your relationship?......

Given that one of the core disciplines of Science is Mathematics you would have to drop Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Astronomy, Geology, Engineering, etc, etc.

FYI the bible not only fails at Pi, it also fails basic counting and addition sums.

 

[Derideo_Te]

are you certain that shrubs and trees evolved before grass?.....

Yes!

as I recall, the shrubbery eaten by dinosaurs went extinct at the same time the dinosaurs did.....when did the shrubs and trees of the dry savannas that giraffes eat evolve?.....

Please provide credible substantiation that the "shrubbery eaten by dinosaurs went extinct at the same time the dinosaurs did".

 

[Nosmo King]

To the Creationists:

Is mankind animal, vegetable or mineral? I know it sounds silly at first read, but I think that Creationists are not about to admit that Homo Sapiens is part of the animal kingdom. You fervently believe that mankind was 'created' separately from all other animal life. You believe that mankind emerged upon the scene wholly formed, like a potted geranium. That mankind was 'created in the image of God' and therefore uniquely immune to the vagaries of evolution.

I further believe that you Creationists see the theory of evolution as a means to refute God. And that you see the theory of evolution as flawed because of its packaging as 'theory', not law.

Evolution does not refute God. It does refute the mythology set forth in Genesis. Evolution, along with Biology in general are tools to understand the mechanics of the natural world. This understanding is granted by God due to our massive brain pans. Do you suppose mankind would have advanced from a nomadic people to a species capable of travelling from the earth itself without science and mathematics? Why then should mankind be shackled to mythology?

Other cultures developed an origin of the species myth. Why should the myth of Genesis be the only valid one? Why should this myth be taught in science classes?

 

[PratchettFan]

In general, not just referring to you, if you don't believe that the bible is true and is god's words, then you're not a Christian. You can believe that you still are, but you'd be wrong.

You can believe that if you like. But if you think your belief alone makes it true, then you are rejecting science.

Science just describes what a god created, if such a god even exists. So seeing as the bible doesn't line up with science, it can't be the word of the god.

So what?

 

[PratchettFan]

What this shows is a) science has disproved the bible, so it can't be the word of god, and b) there are for sure tons and tons of fakers who think they follow the bible, but don't, and just pick and choose what they want to believe in.

I disagree. What I have shown is that those particular instances cannot have occurred exactly as described. It does not preclude them being embellished stories and it doesn't speak at all as to any kind of divine inspiration. Additionally, it is my understanding that Judaism has never insisted on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, and neither has the Catholic or other ancient churches. It was only with the creation of Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal churches that literalism became an issue. As far as I know, only the so-called "Fundamentalist" Christian churches and "Fundamentalist" Muslim groups adhere to literalism in the Creation story.

If you don't believe that god plopped down Adam fully formed and made Eve out of his rib, then you're not a Christian. Kinda simple really.

If you don't wear bunny ears on alternative Thursdays, then you're not a human being.

 

[pinqy]

I disagree. What I have shown is that those particular instances cannot have occurred exactly as described. It does not preclude them being embellished stories and it doesn't speak at all as to any kind of divine inspiration. Additionally, it is my understanding that Judaism has never insisted on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, and neither has the Catholic or other ancient churches. It was only with the creation of Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal churches that literalism became an issue. As far as I know, only the so-called "Fundamentalist" Christian churches and "Fundamentalist" Muslim groups adhere to literalism in the Creation story.

If you don't believe that god plopped down Adam fully formed and made Eve out of his rib, then you're not a Christian. Kinda simple really.

If you don't wear bunny ears on alternative Thursdays, then you're not a human being.

So I'm good, then? Or do they have to be pink?