Quote:

The fossil record is quite extensive, and goes a long way in proving that species not just change over time, but do indeed become separate species. Especially in the animal record, which thanks to sedimentary mountains pretty much all over the planet, we can see the slow, gradual progression of species changing. The oldest rocks nearest the bottom of sedimentary deposits contain the oldest fossils, and they progress through several sedimentary layers.

I suppose the case could be made that the entire fossil record is an illusion, or that the progression from one species to the next itself is an illusion as well, but it's ignoring the evidence that we do have, and creating an excuse for one that we don't have any proof of at all.

The fossil record isn't everything though, we also have plenty of genetic evidence to show that most (possibly all, as far as we know) organisms on the planet are related, or at the very least share similar DNA structures. Genes show physical traits that carry over in one generation to the next, and by comparing DNA in species that are living today, we can infer that certain changes can be attributed to genetic mutations that separate species over time.

I guess I don't understand why some people can believe in micro evolution (that which can be proven in laboratory conditions) but completely discredit the idea of macro evolution only because we haven't witnessed it with our eyes directly. We witness macro evolution in other ways other than seeing it happen right in our face. We collect evidence and make statistical inferences. We compare data among a broad spectrum of scientific practices to see what fits and what doesn't. Whether it be the paleontological record, the genetic traces we see in every living thing we've gathered data on, or the act of breeding other species, we take all this knowledge we've accumulated and come to a conclusion that indeed, life evolves over time. Life adapts to it's environment, or it dies, and traits are carried over through several generations.

What I want to know, is why when faced with the evidence, people choose to deny it over a belief that it was created all at once by a god. What I really don't get is why these beliefs can't coincide together. Why for some reason, God can create the earth and all the life on it, but can't program macro evolution into the equation even though we have plenty of evidence that evolution is not only what got us here, but is still happening every single time a gene mutates somewhere on the planet (every nano-second, of every minute, of every day, of every epoch). Is it willful ignorance? Deep seated tradition that dates back centuries?

Whether the universe (or earth) is billions of years old or only a few thousand, it seems to me that there was painstaking detail made to ensure that there is a comprehensive illusion of evolution throughout billions of years. If the earth was created only a little bit ago with these illusions already set in place, then they are convincing enough that we should take the evidence itself as reality, because whatever put us here 6000 years ago wanted us to see it that way it would seem.

Of course, this is only if we take the texts to be 100% literal, which I feel many fall prey to. Our religious mythology was never meant to be taken literally, it's metaphorical in it's nature. In my opinion, various bibles are (or were) merely collections of coded text, written by people who needed to conceal ideas from those who could not wrap their heads around them. People who lived in times when ideas about how the universe truly worked could get you killed if told in the wrong way. What better way to spread them than by coding them in the very mythology everyone already believed. If we look deep into biblical writing, it makes much more sense - as an astrological calendar, a geometric study guide, a music theory text book, an architecture physics manual and perhaps more importantly as a language barrier to keep those in the know connected, and those outside of it satisfied - than it ever has as verified, unhindered truth in every word.

What is perhaps demoralizing to me, is that we live in a time where it isn't necessary, where a big chunk of the human population is educated from birth and where it is less likely you'll be hung for spreading information, yet people cling to the idea of the bible as completely literal in it's intent, and completely true at that. This allows for people to twist words in an already discombobulated block of text, and infer whatever moral legitimacy might be to their liking, while disregarding the rest. Because if we take it word for word, it doesn't quite add up. Not realistically. Not morally. It is a book full of contradictions on purpose, and it isn't the only book made for this purpose. All the major religions are connected in this way. By controlling the language, you control thoughts themselves, and by accessory you control a population; and these texts (in my opinion) were the old guides to manipulating our environment for those in the know, and belief systems for those that weren't.

Sorry to rant.

---

zappaisgod said:

4.  Imma gonna go with science but based on the bullshit that some whacks are trying to pass off as science I will reserve my complete embrace of the word pending a definition.

---

Gorlax said:

Creationism is bullshit.

---

zappaisgod said:

I don't like your poll.

1.  The "Who gives a shit anyway?" option is kinda useless since you are only inquiring of people who do give a shit
2.When you say evolution do you  mean evolution by natural selection?  Evolution is surely a fact.  Natural selection is a theory.  I am such an asshole aren't I?
3.  Soup is yummy
4.  Imma gonna go with science but based on the bullshit that some whacks are trying to pass off as science I will reserve my complete embrace of the word pending a definition.

---

mtlmike90 said:

I disagree there is a difference between science and creationism. Just like you said science is a process to figure things out through careful emprical evidence. Creationism is the exact opposite There is no need to figure anything out or learn something about our origins because the creator did it.

---

Shroomin Capote said:

Gorlax said:

Creationism is bullshit.

---

then explain this mr smarty pants

---

mtlmike90 said:

Shroomin Capote said:

Gorlax said:

Creationism is bullshit.

---

then explain this mr smarty pants

---

Damn I want my 2 minutes of life back. Great post nonetheless troll.

---

mtlmike90 said:

zappaisgod said:

I don't like your poll.

1.  The "Who gives a shit anyway?" option is kinda useless since you are only inquiring of people who do give a shit
2.When you say evolution do you  mean evolution by natural selection?  Evolution is surely a fact.  Natural selection is a theory.  I am such an asshole aren't I?
3.  Soup is yummy
4.  Imma gonna go with science but based on the bullshit that some whacks are trying to pass off as science I will reserve my complete embrace of the word pending a definition.

---

I was trying to be funny, obviously ur incapable of understanding humor unless it's you're own assery. Anyway you are wrong that natural selection is theory it is not. It's what drives evolution.

---

PatrickKn said:

mtlmike90 said:

I disagree there is a difference between science and creationism. Just like you said science is a process to figure things out through careful emprical evidence. Creationism is the exact opposite There is no need to figure anything out or learn something about our origins because the creator did it.

---

All I'm saying is that creationists might use the scientific method to arrive at conclusions that conform to their world view, as do many people for various reasons. If a is surely a, and b is surely b, but c isn't a factor in the study whatsoever, then people with a creationist world view can point to c as "a creator" to justify a being a, and b being b.

---

zZZz said:

everyone kinda believes in stuff without really knowing for themselvs, whether it be in science or creationism we kinda take what we are taught in faith. unti someday we find out foroursselves these truths, but until then we´re all just kinda believing whatever shit people say.

---

exactly.  the only real knowledge, to me, comes from direct experience.  but we don't even know wtf reality is so who gives a fuuuuuuq anyway

Shroomin Capote said:

gravity is a theory too.  theories are just hypotheses that can be tested and repeated pretty much.  the word theory doesn't mean its fact or fiction, rather that the idea can be tested

---