Jimmy Khan, “evolutionists”–which is a stupid name given to those who understand that evolution is a fact–dismiss non-arguments as what they are: worth nothing. I agree this might feel offensive for those who make the arguments, in case they are not smart or educated enough themselves to understand the arguments are wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that “evolutions” are right. Unlike other subjects, where one can really talk about “everybody” being right, or giving credit to each point of view, this cannot hold for science. Scientifically speaking, a position is either right, or wrong, or we do not know yet. We do not know yet how the Universe came into being; we do know for sure that living beings evolve; and we know for certain that different species of animals and plants appeared progressively, and were NOT “created” simultaneously from nothing by some all-powerful god.

The claim that evolution happens, but does not change living beings “too much” is ignorant on several levels. Firstly, distinctions between species are arbitrary human divisions. Many different races of dogs would be called different species if we had encountered them in the wild. Which brings us to the next interesting point, that dogs used to “be” wolves. Like a number of other animals, dogs were specifically selected (genetically engineered, if you will) by people to suit our purposes. Same happened to cows or (domestic) sheep, as well as to any number of species of plants.

If you think microevolution (small changes within the species) is possible, it is illogical to not understand that macroevolution (changes from one species to another) is inevitable. Richard Dawkins (from which I “borrowed” the domestic animals example, too) asks us to imagine our entire female genealogy. Think of your mother, you mother’s mother, your mother’s mother’s mother, etc. Your mom probably looks a lot like you. Your grandma will look similar to you. But differences surely exist, and as you go back the generations, it is not surprising that your ancestors will start looking less and less like you. It is hard for human beings to imagine periods of time longer than a few decades, but please try to imagine what would happen over 1000 generations; 10 000 generations; 100 000 generations. Your ancestors would slowly, very slowly, become shorter… it’s not a monotonic decrease in size, you grandma might have been taller than your mom. But if you average over dozens of generations, and look back tens of thousands of years, you’ll see a sure trend of people growing shorter, more hairy, their arms would be longer compared to their trunks… The fossils that you ignorantly seem to believe don’t exist are just snapshots of the process I’m describing. And they look exactly like what I’m describing: a species that is progressively turning into another one. Small changes add up to big ones. That’s also how mountains were formed, by the continuous collision of tectonic plates, and then shaping by winds, waters etc. You can’t notice these changes during a lifetime, but do you doubt they exist? Do you believe your god also created all the mountains and rivers and sea and lakes exactly the way we see them now?

Intelligent people do not “believe in” the theory of evolution. We don’t pray to it, we don’t worship it, we don’t believe it on blind faith. We UNDERSTAND that it is a fact, because we have seen convincing evidence and heard convincing arguments from those of us (evolutionary biologists) whose jobs are to understand these topics as well as possible. I’m not a biologist, and I don’t claim I understand evolution perfectly. But I understand it enough to see that it’s a fact. You base your non-belief “in” evolution on lies that have been fed to you and you were too gullible to resist them. Please understand that evolution is NOT random chance, that the fossils and the missing links HAVE been found, and that no sane, intelligent person, and no biologist with any respect from his/her peers, doubt that the main tenets of the theory of evolution are correct. This should make you realize that you should come down from your high horses, and start asking questions until you eliminate your confusions. Until you do that, any scientist, and any intelligent human, will dismiss your arguments without saying more than “you’re being ignorant”.

The reason for which atheists haven’t had much success with Muslims is because there is a lot more fundamentalism in the Muslim world than in the rest of the world. This might be related to the fact that Islam is a few hundred years younger than its main competitor–Christianity. Indeed, a few hundred years ago, Christianity was very fundamentalist itself, with crusades and the Inquisition, burning people at the stake, and persecuting scientists. Surely the fact that the government has an official religious affiliation in many Muslim countries, affects the freedom that people have to doubt that religion.

Another factor is that Islam is fundamentally a more violent religion, based on the older and more savage teachings that are apparent in Christianity’s own “Old Testament” (or the Jewish Torah). In short, if you’re stoning people to death in Somalia for having sex–i.e., doing what their creator designed them to do–and women risk to get killed if they go to school, or if they don’t wear full-body ‘armors’, it’s not surprising you guys can’t see the light. As Jim Jones pointed out, if your education is designed with the main focus on propagating the lies from an outdated religious book, how can we expect you to be impartial, and accept the scientific evidence laid before you?

Jimmy.

I wouldn’t point fingers at evolution and scientists if you want to accuse people of dishonesty.

Just go to the discovery institute, or any of their sister sites. Look at any of their arguments and assertions.

Rest assured that every single argument creationists make on their websites are based on either:
-Intentional and dishonest representations,
-Deliberate MISrepresentations and/or quote mining,
-Arguments based on circular or faulty logic,
-Or all of the above.

Let us provide a prime example of creationist ‘honesty’.

A creationist site claimed that an Allosaurus bone had been sent to a lab, with a misleading label on it. The scientist radiometric dated the bone and found the age of the fragment was 10,000 years old. Not millions of years old as was expected.

So the creationist sites rant at how this proves that either Young Earth Theory is correct, or that radiometric dating is flawed. And all the little drones who view the information cheerfully pass it on to other sites.

But the creationists fail to mention an important fact to the sheep in their flock. The scientist, not knowing what the bone was, was instructed to give the bone radio-carbon dating.

The creationists also failed to mention that carbon dating is only accurate for things less then 60,000 years old. Any older fossils will give unusual and incorrect results.

So the question was not “is radiocarbon dating accurate, or is young earth correct?” as the creationist claimed.

Rather the question in this case was “Is the creationist being intentionally dishonest, or just being an imbecile?”

Now this isn’t isolated. Not by a long shot. All creationist arguments follow the same issue:
-Evolution caused the holocaust.
-Evolution is random chance.
-No transitional fossils have ever been found.
-There is still a missing link.
-Complexity is proof of design.

And the pattern? Dishonesty, misquotation, bad logic or all three combined.

Now an educated person would easily be able to pick these things up in creationist arguments and recognise them for what they are and represent. And so an educated person would not be convinced by these arguments, whether they are Christian or not.

Hence, it must be concluded that these arguments are aimed at the uneducated, or those who simply accept what they are told at face value and don’t bother to verify the information they recieve.

It must also be concluded that creationists are willing to engage in deceit and dishonesty in order to fool people into believing evolution is flawed. And feel morally justified in doing so.

That isn’t my bias or an insult. It is simply a conclusion based on the evidence which creationists themselves present.

Also, the story of creation is not meant literally. When God created Adam, it means that Adam was the first “human animal” to realize that he had a mind which gave him superiority over the other animals in the world.

Adam is the first true human being because he is the first human to recognize his mind. God speaks to man by way of the mind. And inspires by way of the heart. The more God manifests in man, the more perfect will be his mind and his creations in the world. Altruism is the highest quality attainable by man in this world. It is the outward behavioral manifestation of the spirit of God in man.

Creation by way of evolution is the process by which man eventually became physically mature enough to recognize the mind within. And now it is time for the mind and heart to mature. The heart must grow in love until that love is pure. Then and only then will the mind follow suit and use it’s abilities of logic and reason to manifest the pure desire contained in the spiritually mature heart of man.

This spiritual evolution results in the creation of a true human being.

Guys just let Jimmy Kahn be, he’s the standard finger-in-the-ear creationist.

No there isn’t one link, as there is no one link with pretty much any animal.

So what even is the evolutionist denier’s beliefs? That man and all these other bipedal/hominid creatures that coincidentally are similar to chimps to humans were all here simultaneously? Or were these creatures created, then man was created?

Did God want to create dinosaurs first even though the Bible is entirely man centered?

Or are those dinosaur skeletons errors in science?

Why has man changed so much since God supposedly created us? Why are we so much taller? Is that not natural selection?

It’s just amazing that those of us who believe in basic science are willing and ready to give specifics on what we think yet creationists only position is to attack ours. They can’t give specifics on anything, nor do they even try to. Why? Because the Bible has zero scientific relevance and can’t give you specifics on anything factual.

The difference between cultures are shocking.

In the Western nations, evolution is the dominant theory for the development of life. The scientific community is united in supporting the theory. The dishonest arguments of creationism and ID have been ridiculed and dismissed by most educated people, scientific communities and the courts.

But in the Islamic nations, people believe that evolution is a lie. They are told in schools that evolution has already been forever discredited by evidence and that the theory has no scientific worth. They are told that darwin’s theories have become nothing more then a mention in the history books. And the people believe it. After all, the immams say it, so it must be true.

The difference? Education levels. When the general population is church educated, if they are educated at all, then they are much easier to fool.

The arguments of the creationist sites are based on lies, half-truths, omissions and blatent dishonesty. Anyone with even a basic understanding of logic or science can easily dismiss their words.

But this is something we take for granted in the western world. Many people are not as fortunate.

Unfortunately, dishonesty is the name of the game for creationists. As far as a creationist is concerned it doesn’t matter whether their argument is honest, accurate or true. All that matters is that the argument is believed. And the uneducated are their victims.

A rule which more or less forms the cornerstone of religion. So it is no wonder creationists would extend this same policy to debate and science, and not even feel a pang of remorse in doing so.

bill in arizona wrote: “What if both theories are wrong? Currently there are only two basic philosophies, either evolution or creationism. But what if there were other possibilities? As a species we are still confined to our own small planet, but yet we think we understand the universe we can only stare at from afar. I wouldn’t get to enamored with either theory. I don’t think we know enough to understand all the possibilities yet.”

Bill… creationism is NOT a ‘theory’. Theories EXPLAIN facts… creationism MAKES UP (false) ‘facts’. You make the point that there are ‘other possibilities’… and science acknowledges that. That is why theories change when new facts are discovered. Creationism DOES NOT change, though. It remains the same… the world/universe was poofed into existence by an invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy, for the express purpose of serving as an environment for a race of beings (us) that it subsequently fabricated from a dust bunny and a rib for the express purpose of having them, their progeny and their descendants spend their lives believing in it, loving it, praising it, and kissing its holy arse. Ultimately, some few of those beings… apparently ‘the most stupid and gullible’… will be rewarded with eternal life. The unfortunate remainder get to spend the rest of eternity in unimaginable torture and torment. Sweet.

Your statement that “Currently there are only two basic philosophies, either evolution or creationism” is bogus… a ‘false dichotomy’ established by professional LFJs™ (Liars For Jesus) and their Islamic counterparts (Liars For Allah?), who would have us believe that wherever science has not succeeded in explaining something… god did it. If there is a mistake in science… then science is wrong, and ‘god did it’. In other words, ‘god did it’ is the default position, when in fact (as you said) there are many other possibilities. For example, if one scientist out of of tens of thousands concocts a fraudulent fossil, then ALL of evolution is false because ALL fossils are fraudulent… which proves that ‘god did it’.