Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

[Dagosa]

Your gods are not a part of any reality. Science does not "back up" the bibles. You have not proven anything about science.

His gods are in his own mind. He doesn’t even know that the vast majority of Christian’s sects officially believe in evolution.

 

[Dagosa]

The supernatural of the Christian God is a big part of life as we have the days of creation, the Bible and how science backs it up. You don't understand real science and evidence if you believe evolution.

Babble.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.

Interesting parallel to Einstein's crime of providing a wacko explanation for "light travel" -- and, more problematically, light energy transfer -- that required no medium. The difference being Darwin advanced his field of study by at least a century while Einstein dragged his backwards roughly the same.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.

HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION
Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018

""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist. That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.

Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
[....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
[.....]
If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.

What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?
[.....]
[.....]

How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution

For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins

www.smithsonianmag.com

Quick question: What makes you think it's your business to "talk to" evangelicals about anything? Why do you care so much what other people believe?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!

Science = settled!

Can I get an Amen?

We have Concensus!

I hate to break it to the fanatically evangelical atheists, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

 

[BackAgain]

Quick question: What makes you think it's your business to "talk to" evangelicals about anything? Why do you care so much what other people believe?

It offends his religious sensibilities. He can’t even grasp that his version of atheism is a religious belief. He is a zealot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How to talk to evangelicas about evolution:

You don't. You give them and F on the 7th grade science quiz and say, "See you back in this class next year, better luck next time".

Otherwise, nothing else to say.

"I just assume that I'm so much smarter than everyone else, and don't engage in discussions where I might find out that I'm conceited over something that doesn't exist."

 

[Cecilie1200]

It offends his religious sensibilities. He can’t even grasp that his version of atheism is a religious belief. He is a zealot.

I was going with, "Hating religion makes me feel smart when nothing else on Earth can manage it. I must preach about how I finally don't hate being me". As near as I can tell, that's all he has.

 

[abu afak]

Quick question: What makes you think it's your business to "talk to" evangelicals about anything? Why do you care so much what other people believe?

It was clearly Smithsonian Magazine's idea. They hired a Non-Atheist to do so.
Highly esteemed Mag it is too.
Worth a read.
"what other people believe," be it religion or politics IS What we talk about on Political message boards.
we have sections on Science, Religion, and Politics to discuss those ideas/opinions. Hark!
I hope that answers your idiotic and now failed 'question.'

`

 

[Cecilie1200]

IT was clearly Smithsonian Magazine's idea.
Highly esteemed Mag it is too.
Worth a read.
"what other people believe," be it religion or politics IS WHAT we talk about on Political message boards.
we have sections on Science, Religion, and Politics to discuss those ideas/opinions. Hark!
I hope that answers your idiotic question.

`

Oh, so Smithsonian Magazine forced you to come to this message board and start a thread about how "brilliantly" you were going to "destroy" evangelical Christians by explaining something they 1) already know about, and 2) don't care about in regards to their religious beliefs, because it doesn't affect them in the slightest?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were being ruthlessly held hostage by Smithsonian and forced against your will to gloat and crow over your many imagined debate triumphs. Do let us know if you need us to send someone to rescue you from your captivity.

In other words, you didn't answer shit, AND the only one idiotic here remains you.

Did you want to try for a better response than running and hiding and blaming someone else? Maybe you could start by having a thought of your own, rather than just cutting-and-pasting other people's thoughts and claiming to be "smarter than" on the strength of those you follow.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Quick question: What makes you think it's your business to "talk to" evangelicals about anything? Why do you care so much what other people believe?

Oh, noes! I have been brutally down-thumbed by Abu. I guess that's me thoroughly and rigorously rebutted. Nothing makes a more incisive argument than, "Dislike button, so THERE!"

 

[abu afak]

Oh, so Smithsonian Magazine forced you to come to this message board and start a thread about how "brilliantly" you were going to "destroy" evangelical Christians by explaining something they 1) already know about, and 2) don't care about in regards to their religious beliefs, because it doesn't affect them in the slightest?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were being ruthlessly held hostage by Smithsonian and forced against your will to gloat and crow over your many imagined debate triumphs. Do let us know if you need us to send someone to rescue you from your captivity.

In other words, you didn't answer shit, AND the only one idiotic here remains you.

Did you want to try for a better response than running and hiding and blaming someone else? Maybe you could start by having a thought of your own, rather than just cutting-and-pasting other people's thoughts and claiming to be "smarter than" on the strength of those you follow.

Another hostile empty post.
Clearly I have been posting/wrestling for years with the topic.
(many related thread starts)

And I did say/show THAT is what this board is for, and has Specific sections for that and other topics.
You were now answered twice .. and Porked.

Should you have any Topical material, be glad to straighten you out on that as well.

`

 

[Cecilie1200]

Another hostile empty post.
Clearly I have been posting/wrestling for years with the topic.
(many related thread starts)

And I did say/show THAT is what this board is for, and has Specific sections for that and other topics.
You were now answered twice .. and Porked.

Should you have any Topical material, be glad to straighten you out on that as well.

`

Let me just drag you down out of your fantasies of towering, incisive brilliance yet again, because if I had the time and patience for delusional people, I'd be a psychiatrist for $500 an hour.

YOU came to this message board, uninvited and decidedly undesired, and started a thread with these words:

"Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently."

Then you proceeded with a long, boring, driveling cut-and-paste that amounted to nothing more than, "Look at this person I've decided to admire. Agreeing with him will make me feel so smart and superior."

When I asked, quite reasonably (from the point of view of someone who can have her own thoughts, anyway) what made you think you needed to tell anyone anything, you immediately backpedaled and denied all responsibility for any of the views expressed in YOUR OP, deflecting off onto "THEY said it, not me". This despite the fact that the first words in this thread, as I've pointed out, were YOURS, clearly claiming identification with the diatribe you parroted at us.

Then, when I pointed this out, you come back with, "Another empty post." Well, if that's so, perhaps it's because your posts to which I'm responding are so empty themselves.

NOW you seem to think you get to demand that I shoulder the burden of providing arguments and evidence, while you just sit back and snipe at them and tell me how stoooopid I am for not "knowing the truth", otherwise known as "agreeing with your masters".

Sorry, Chuckles. YOU started the thread; YOU presented the claims. YOU get to substantiate and defend and answer questions, not the other way around.

And you can save yourself the trouble of your "devastating" downvotes. Yet another thing that's different in the real world from your fantasies is that no one actually cares about your disapproval of them. Definitely not someone to whom you've made such an unimpressive and cowardly show so far.

I'll ask you again, and this time I'll even be nice enough to explain the words for you: Since you've gone to all this trouble to start a thread on, "How to talk to people I've decided are stupid about the thing I've decided makes me smart, lol lol I'm sure they'd be devastated if I ever got the stones to actually talk to one", perhaps you could tell us WHY you think you need to talk to anyone about anything, or even why you think they would care what you have to say at all.

You're going to have to do better than this if you hope to ever "break it to them gently" in anything but your daydreams of rhetorical victories.

 

[abu afak]

Let me just drag you down out of your fantasies of towering, incisive brilliance yet again, because if I had the time and patience for delusional people, I'd be a psychiatrist for $500 an hour.

YOU came to this message board, uninvited and decidedly undesired, and started a thread with these words:

"Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently."

Then you proceeded with a long, boring, driveling cut-and-paste that amounted to nothing more than, "Look at this person I've decided to admire. Agreeing with him will make me feel so smart and superior."

1. This is an open message board.
Everyone comes "uninvited."
You fallacious @sshole.
2. I edited the article down to it's gist for this audience.
3. since you know shit about this section and it's interactions, let me tell you the most important thing about the article. It's talking from the perspective of a person of faith, not an "Atheist."
3a. You see, anyone here talking science/evo (and most of us are atheists/agnostics), is accused/discounted of being as an "atheist scientist," "a religion" they claim.
But as it turns out/the article points out, you can be a religionist and believe in Evolution. The anti-Evos here are mostly Biblical Literalists (Evangelicals) and ergo YEC/Young Earth Creationists.
That was the perspective, who I was talking to. Dead on the issue at hand.

When I asked, quite reasonably (from the point of view of someone who can have her own thoughts, anyway) what made you think you needed to tell anyone anything, you immediately backpedaled and denied all responsibility for any of the views expressed in YOUR OP, deflecting off onto "THEY said it, not me". This despite the fact that the first words in this thread, as I've pointed out, were YOURS, clearly claiming identification with the diatribe you parroted at us.

We/No one posts what we don't agree with unless one says so immediately/outright.
I bolded 3 short passages what I felt were the most important parts.
Obviously.

Then, when I pointed this out, you come back with, "Another empty post." Well, if that's so, perhaps it's because your posts to which I'm responding are so empty themselves.

NOW you seem to think you get to demand that I shoulder the burden of providing arguments and evidence, while you just sit back and snipe at them and tell me how stoooopid I am for not "knowing the truth", otherwise known as "agreeing with your masters".

Sorry, Chuckles. YOU started the thread; YOU presented the claims. YOU get to substantiate and defend and answer questions, not the other way around.

And you can save yourself the trouble of your "devastating" downvotes. Yet another thing that's different in the real world from your fantasies is that no one actually cares about your disapproval of them. Definitely not someone to whom you've made such an unimpressive and cowardly show so far.

I'll ask you again, and this time I'll even be nice enough to explain the words for you: Since you've gone to all this trouble to start a thread on, "How to talk to people I've decided are stupid about the thing I've decided makes me smart, lol lol I'm sure they'd be devastated if I ever got the stones to actually talk to one", perhaps you could tell us WHY you think you need to talk to anyone about anything, or even why you think they would care what you have to say at all.

You're going to have to do better than this if you hope to ever "break it to them gently" in anything but your daydreams of rhetorical victories.

"""..perhaps you could tell us WHY you think you need to talk to anyone about anything, or even why you think they would care what you have to say at all..."

Again vacuous/non sequitur guy..
This IS an Open Political Message board.
EVERYONE comes to give/blurt out their opinions.
Using Smithsonian for this particular OP, is just a much higher quality starter than most and again, directly addressing the opposition audience.

I use the best sources both here and in 'Environment.' (other Science section).
Those two are where I post.
What are YOU doing here BTW? 54,000 posts, where ya been BOY?
You thought this section was just like politics/80% one-line trolls?
Wrong BOY. There's some smart people here and in Env. Not you.

You fancy yourself quite the wordsmith do you?
Well you aren't.
Your posts are 90% Fallacies and strawmen, and you're not close to finessing or debating me.. BOY.
Back to Mensa for me, back to trolling the lesser trolls on USMB for you.

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I hate to break it to the fanatically evangelical atheists, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

They think that the very idea of "me" is supposed to be...what, chemistry? A slightly different ratio of carbon?

Insanity!

 

[Cecilie1200]

They think that the very idea of "me" is supposed to be...what, chemistry? A slightly different ratio of carbon?

Insanity!

I am reading a book that is actually called "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", because frankly, this is what I'm left thinking every single time I listen to an atheist trying to make a logical argument (and it's pretty rare that they even do try).

1) The scientific evidence confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing. You'd be hard-pressed to find a major, respected scientist who doesn't accept the Big Bang Theory. Either someone or something created something out of nothing (the Christian view), or no one and nothing created something out of nothing (the atheistic view). Which one requires more faith? The atheistic view.

2) The genetic structure of even the simplest life form on Earth contains a complex code equivalent to 1,000 encyclopedias worth of information. Christians believe that coded information that complex requires an intelligent being to code it. Atheists believe that non-intelligent natural forces can create it randomly. Which one requires more faith? The atheists.

3) The birth, life, and death of a man claiming to be God were foretold in ancient writings hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. His birthplace, bloodline, and time of death were all predicted. Multiple eyewitnesses testified to these events happening, even though they had nothing whatsoever to gain by doing so. In fact, many of them persecuted and killed in horrific ways for doing so, but not one of them ever recanted. Ancient historians and writers allude to or confirm these events, and archaeology is increasingly corroborating them. If this were a criminal investigation, we'd already be preparing indictments. Atheists nevertheless just wave it all away, or more rarely try to produce the multiple theories that would all have to be true all at once to explain those things away. And, most notably, they have no evidence for any of those theories, much less all of them. Which viewpoint requires more faith? The atheists.

Sorry, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist. I am a Christian because I'm just too realistic and skeptical to close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, and proclaim a belief in the face of contradictory evidence. I'll leave the pie-eyed, unicorn-fart fantasies and daydreams to the fanatical atheists.

 

[surada]

I am reading a book that is actually called "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", because frankly, this is what I'm left thinking every single time I listen to an atheist trying to make a logical argument (and it's pretty rare that they even do try).

1) The scientific evidence confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing. You'd be hard-pressed to find a major, respected scientist who doesn't accept the Big Bang Theory. Either someone or something created something out of nothing (the Christian view), or no one and nothing created something out of nothing (the atheistic view). Which one requires more faith? The atheistic view.

2) The genetic structure of even the simplest life form on Earth contains a complex code equivalent to 1,000 encyclopedias worth of information. Christians believe that coded information that complex requires an intelligent being to code it. Atheists believe that non-intelligent natural forces can create it randomly. Which one requires more faith? The atheists.

3) The birth, life, and death of a man claiming to be God were foretold in ancient writings hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. His birthplace, bloodline, and time of death were all predicted. Multiple eyewitnesses testified to these events happening, even though they had nothing whatsoever to gain by doing so. In fact, many of them persecuted and killed in horrific ways for doing so, but not one of them ever recanted. Ancient historians and writers allude to or confirm these events, and archaeology is increasingly corroborating them. If this were a criminal investigation, we'd already be preparing indictments. Atheists nevertheless just wave it all away, or more rarely try to produce the multiple theories that would all have to be true all at once to explain those things away. And, most notably, they have no evidence for any of those theories, much less all of them. Which viewpoint requires more faith? The atheists.

Sorry, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist. I am a Christian because I'm just too realistic and skeptical to close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, and proclaim a belief in the face of contradictory evidence. I'll leave the pie-eyed, unicorn-fart fantasies and daydreams to the fanatical atheists.

There is NOTHING about Jesus in the old testament.

 

[Dagosa]

The scientific evidence confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing.

You immediately started out with made up shit. Everything after that is just babble. At least get the initial statement correct.
Energy and sub atomic particles are not “ nothing”.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is NOTHING about Jesus in the old testament.

Unsurprisingly, you are incorrect, Oh Great-Scholar-Of-Things-You-Dismiss-As-Silly.

Isaiah chapter 7, verses 13-14:

(For context, in this chapter, two armies were marching on Jerusalem to try to conquer it. Obviously, the people of Jerusalem were terrified. God sent His prophet, Isaiah, to meet with Ahaz, the king of Judah, and tell him to be calm and to ask for a sign from God. Ahaz refuses, saying, "I will not test the Lord". Isaiah gets impatient with him, and this is his response.)

13Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God as well? 14Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgine will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel.

Isaiah chapter 53, verses 1-8:

1Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no stately form or majesty to attract us,
no beauty that we should desire Him.
3He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.
Like one from whom men hide their faces,
He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.
4Surely He took on our infirmities
and carried our sorrows;
yet we considered Him stricken by God,
struck down and afflicted.
5But He was pierced for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,
and by His stripes we are healed.
6We all like sheep have gone astray,
each one has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid upon Him
the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet He did not open His mouth.
He was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so He did not open His mouth.
8By oppression and judgment He was taken away,
and who can recount His descendants?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
He was stricken for the transgression of My people.

The book of Isaiah was written over 700 years before the birth of Jesus.

Micah 5:2:

2But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me
One to be ruler over Israel - One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.

Micah was written 800 years before the birth of Jesus.

Psalm 22:

(I have selected the sections relevant to this discussion.)

1My God, my God,
why have You forsaken me?
Why are You so far from saving me,
so far from my words of groaning?
2I cry out by day, O my God,
but You do not answer,
and by night,
but I have no rest.

7All who see me mock me;
they sneer and shake their heads:
8“He trusts in the LORD,
let the LORD deliver him;
let the LORD rescue him,
since He delights in him.”

16For dogs surround me;
a band of evil men encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet.
17I can count all my bones;
they stare and gloat over me.
18They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

Psalms was written by King David 1000 years before Jesus' birth. The accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke of His crucifixion state that all of these things happened.

 

[Dagosa]

Unsurprisingly, you are incorrect, Oh Great-Scholar-Of-Things-You-Dismiss-As-Silly.

Isaiah chapter 7, verses 13-14:

(For context, in this chapter, two armies were marching on Jerusalem to try to conquer it. Obviously, the people of Jerusalem were terrified. God sent His prophet, Isaiah, to meet with Ahaz, the king of Judah, and tell him to be calm and to ask for a sign from God. Ahaz refuses, saying, "I will not test the Lord". Isaiah gets impatient with him, and this is his response.)

13Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God as well? 14Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgine will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel.

Isaiah chapter 53, verses 1-8:

1Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no stately form or majesty to attract us,
no beauty that we should desire Him.
3He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.
Like one from whom men hide their faces,
He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.
4Surely He took on our infirmities
and carried our sorrows;
yet we considered Him stricken by God,
struck down and afflicted.
5But He was pierced for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,
and by His stripes we are healed.
6We all like sheep have gone astray,
each one has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid upon Him
the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet He did not open His mouth.
He was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so He did not open His mouth.
8By oppression and judgment He was taken away,
and who can recount His descendants?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
He was stricken for the transgression of My people.

The book of Isaiah was written over 700 years before the birth of Jesus.

Micah 5:2:

2But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me
One to be ruler over Israel - One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.

Micah was written 800 years before the birth of Jesus.

Psalm 22:

(I have selected the sections relevant to this discussion.)

1My God, my God,
why have You forsaken me?
Why are You so far from saving me,
so far from my words of groaning?
2I cry out by day, O my God,
but You do not answer,
and by night,
but I have no rest.

7All who see me mock me;
they sneer and shake their heads:
8“He trusts in the LORD,
let the LORD deliver him;
let the LORD rescue him,
since He delights in him.”

16For dogs surround me;
a band of evil men encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet.
17I can count all my bones;
they stare and gloat over me.
18They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

Psalms was written by King David 1000 years before Jesus' birth. The accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke of His crucifixion state that all of these things happened.

Gee, and they’re still predicting the second coming….Trump. How many times do “ they” have to be wrong before they’re declared fake news ?