This is the best way I've ever seen to teach someone evolution

Load Previous Comments
  • Richard Healy

    I am severely colour-blind. 

    I think the obviousness of the metaphor might be lost on me and my kind.  ;)  

     

  • robert Oglesby

    Well at first Joseph Wisne sounded smart. then you threw in that tad bit of ignorance. Americans... I think if i'm correct it would be religious(catholic/Christians severely get pissed if you mention evolution) people because i'm american and they definitely say a million times in any grade level including collage that evolution is what drives every creature that is to survive... including humans if you where american... you'd have to be insane to deny evolution.. that's how much it's emphasized.
  • William C. Walker

    All of those people who do not believe in evolution should be required to attend a dog show. Also a brief talk on the FACT that all these breeds are descended from wolves.  OK. I know this isn't going to happen, but the idea is 'a grabber'.
  • Clarissa Price

    Frankly I think it's hilarious when people say that evolution isn't real. And frankly i think they're just ignorant.
  • BoB

    i agree microevelution exists. Finches proved that.

    You forgot something though. In order for this picture to work you had to include every word and every micro colour change. If you can show me every single step of microevolution and put them in a line as such above I will believe your theory.

  • IEatDinosaurMeat

  • Kirsten

    This is a great thing to start showing to kids - the younger the better. The idea of something taking thousands and thousands and millions of years is really, really hard to grasp on a practical level. Especially when most of us are between the years of 10 and 18 when we start getting taught about the precepts of science. We can barely think of being 30 at that point! Our education starts off with the big and works it's way down, and with science that can be an issue. Science is about the small. Especially with evolution. If you can get kids to think of it that way I bet it will make a whole heck of a lot more sense to them. And maybe more science teachers who love both kids AND science. I got lucky. I know lots of kids who didn't.

    Also, for those who say most people CAN'T understand this: that's a total falsehood. Look at all the people just on this site, coming out as atheists or agnostics at 30 or 40. Children are always more susceptible to social pressure and tradition (they're more likely to depend on someone else for food and shelter, less likely to be able to move to get their own space and perspective). It's positive exposure that seems to be the biggest factor in how readily we believe in any given idea.

    In fact, I wonder how many people who believe in evolution really understand it. Knowing WHY you believe in anything is a great thing to think about. Arrogance is the biggest enemy of wisdom. So let's try to not be too arrogant.
  • BoB

    Ieatdinosaurmeat...ya that didn't answer my protest in any way. That video basically gives us the colours of red, maroon, purple and blue. Noticable changes that refute the point of the picture. How do we know that the word 'completely' is directly connected to the word 'reading'? It could just be a totally different colour with similarities to another. Like humans have skin that sunburns. So do pigs. Does that make us part pig?
  • BoB

    Regardless you still didn't show me every step of the evolution
  • Cleetus VonArbuckle

    @Bob The reason that explanations like this exist is because some people are unable to think logically and need very simplified explanations.  I don't think is it meant to be an exact model of biological evolution.  Christians say the beauty of the sky is proof of a magic man in the
    sky.  Biological and geological evidence is expansive, detailed,
    repeatable, and profound. There are vastly different requirements of proof.  What is your exact requirement of proof, and if it were provided, would you accept it?
  • Cleetus VonArbuckle

    That seems way off the topic to make a point.  The rules that define the way Game of Life works are evolution of the fittest through natural selection, not 10 commandments of a man in the sky.  The "parameters" of the program are random chance.  This does not necessitate a creator.  I agree that evolution does not disprove creation but it also does not disprove land sharks.
  • BoB

    @ Cleetus. I already gave my requirement of proof. If you can show me every step of evolution, provide the missing links as it were, then ya, I'd consider it. But as it is another problem occurs. You guys are talking all about survival of the fittest. If this is the case, and we are evolved from fish or pigs or monkeys then why do fish, pigs and monkeys still exist? Wouldn't they disappear as they fitter genes took over? How would they survive?

    Also you are giving multiple scientific reasons for evolution, but forgetting there is proof for biblical occurences. And dating of fossils is innaccurate.

  • BoB

    I say the comment oof inaccurate fossil dating because they have found numerous fossilized trees that are standing straight through 75 feet of layered rock. This would mean it would be standing for millions and millions of years. http://www.kent-hovind.com/evolution/evolution.htm (use ctrl+F)

     

    They have also found a verticle complete fossil of a whale. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

  • Jewelz

    Polystrate is not a standard geological term. It is a creationist term. Regardless, "upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano."

     

    The "whale of a tale" story you linked says it all. "...the skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was lying at an angle 50 to 40 degrees from horizontal. ...although at this angle, the whale skeleton lay parallel to the bedding of strata which at one time was the sea floor on which the dead whale fell after its death. ...It appears the creationists repeating this whale-of-a-tale ...either failed to check their facts or didn't want a good story to be ruined by the facts. ...What they claim to be God's truth is nothing more than an urban folktale used to validate personal religious beliefs."

  • Cleetus VonArbuckle

    @BoB You require a level of proof for evolution that requires a 5 billion
    year long play back of each day and even then you would say that it
    probably wasn't happening on the other side of the planet or satan was playing a trick or the Jews made the movie because of the guilt for killing Jesus.  That is not a level of proof, that is a insolent child refusing to accept a parent's logic.  You are comparing overwhemling evidence for natural selection to one woman's third hand account of an unexplained pregnancy.  The fact that she got every one to believe it was the baby of a man in the sky instead of the more obvious product of illicit copulation is astounding.  Teenage girls the world over tell fascinating tales of their insemination.  You argue about the existence of a single fossil but believe an unwed mother was "inseminated" by a god?  What is god semen like?  Does the lord have chromosomes?  did jesus have half of Marys?  or was he the first clone? Seriously?  Think about it.  Where did Jesus' inherited traits come from?  Did his cells have an entirely different mechanism?  If so, how was he human?  This god leaves no physical evidence.  No supernatural gunk but evolution and natural selection is everywhere.
  • BoB

    @ Jewelz. So you explained away most of the whale story. But you still didn't prove away the trees. the trees, if what you say happened, would have been destroyed, fallen over etc. not fossilized still standing up.

     

    @ Cleetus. First, that isn't a child's refusal. It's logic. Proof you can't provide. You didn't even claim you had that proof. You just said it would take a long time to provide. Admit it. You can't find the proof I ask for.

    Second,  I didn't know we were taking this into the new testament. I'm sorry, my bad. I thought we were talking about creation. Whose going off topic now? But if you must know Jesus was both fully man and fully God. Jesus was placed in Mary's womb, kind of like putting a fertialized egg into a suragate mother. Therefore Jesus may not have Mary's DNA but was also not a clone. Although Jesus would have shared the Jewish traits since he is told to be jewish throughout the bible and other historical accounts. Also it wasn't just Mary that claimed to be impregnated. If you recall Joseph was going to divorse her until he was told she was impregnated by God. He had no motivation to lie and say she didn't cheat on him. In fact he had more motivation to divorse her as her "cheating" would have brought humiliation and rejection for Joseph if he stayed with her. It was also claimed by Mary's cousin. It wasn't just a teenager trying to save her butt.

  • Heather Spoonheim

    @Bob - you do realize that Kent Hovind is in prison now serving time for felony fraud, right?  Also that he never was a doctor of any sort?  Furthermore that he's a pathological liar who's taken Christians for literally hundreds of thousands of dollars?  I'm just wondering if you actually know who you are using as a source there.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

  • Cleetus VonArbuckle

    @ BoB   I apologize.  I actually just reread your comment to me and I did not realize how ignorant you were about biology.  You might want to go to the library and get a book about animal adaptations.  You might try a middle school general science text because it starts pretty basic.  It will explain that there are different habitats, diets, survival strategies, relationships, etc that make all species different.  I think you mistakenly believe there would be only one "best" species.  That sure would have made it easy for Noah, am I right?  See, most animals and plants do "specific" things.  This is what makes them a species.  Pigs, for example, do not compete with wolves.  They eat different things and live in different shelters.  There are different kinds of pigs because some are adapted to living in forests. Perhaps they are smaller allowing them to better survive living in underbrush.  Some have big ears that allow them to live in hot climates.  I hope this makes sense to you. 

    You see, Scientists, and most educated people understand the earth is actually very old. Many changes have occurred in the last 5 billion years.  These changes are what favor certain adaptations in the genes of an organism.  This is very complicated and before I continue, I want you to first read about how the earth is made of very different places called ecosystems.

  • BoB

    @ Heather. No I did not know that. Thank you very much for telling me that. I will no longer use that in my arguments :)
  • Scarlette Blues

    @Bob- If you truly want to learn about evolution, there are plenty of us that will help you along in understanding. I suggest starting your own discussion though. It would be easier for people to help. This is only if you really want to understand evolution and not be a troll. :)
  • Heather Spoonheim

    This is the primary trouble with 'Christian science' Bob - chalk full of lies like the rest of the religion.  You've got the pericope adulterae and a few other verses that are known forgeries, even by Christian theologians, Church father's who thought the truth was secondary to furthering the institution, Catholicism clinging to doctrines of a flat earth/Moses as author of the pentateuch/condoms spreading aids against solid evidence to the contrary.  One might expect that if this god were real and truth was a virtue then it wouldn't take a pack of lies to sell the story down the river.  Given all these forgeries, fallacies, and frauds - how can you for one second expect a rational person to believe there is actually a divine being existing behind all of this?
  • Jewelz

    @BoB As an example of how a tree might petrify in an upright position quickly (since you didn't mention which fossil tree or forest you were referring to), the 1980 Mt St Helens eruption ripped thousands of trees out of the hillside and deposited them in spirit lake. They sank roots down and landed in volcanic ash sediment in the toxic water where they petrify in an upright position creating a future fossil forest.

     

    I second Scarlette's advice. I'd love for you to make a post with all your questions. We would be happy to clear up any misunderstandings you have about evolution if you really are interested in learning.

  • Scarlette Blues

    @Jewelz- Great link! "The bare logs sink upright to the bottom of the lake due to the higher density of the root end, and land on layers of volcanic ash sediment. The high mineral content of the water rapidly petrifies the logs in upright position as transplanted stumps. Spirit Lake is the first location where this process was observed; the process was predicted by scientists shortly before the 1980 eruption."

     

    Science Prediction-1

    Doomsday Prediction-0

    *Science, ftw!* ^_^

  • Cleetus VonArbuckle

    @BoB I am absolutely certain you know more about the 5000 year old translated writings of ancient nomad's oral reports better than me.  All I am saying is if you learned just a little bit about science you might not be so ignorant of the way biology works.  All things in nature work the same.  There are no special routes for Jesuses or other miracles.  Jesus had inherited trait.  Some came from mom and some came from dad (who ever that is) just like you and me and my dog.  In the same way, geology and fossilization work the same way now as they did then.  You do not need to create miracle to explain how things work. 

     

    @Heather Spoonheim The best part about the millionaire and convict, Hovind, is how he and his wife scammed free health care from the Baptist charity because they didnt want to pay for insurance.  No wonder these guys are against single payer health care.  It'll ruin their scam.

  • William C. Walker

    Bob, I have SEEN fossilized ferns which were 40 - 50 feet high when I was a field rep. for a Caterpillar Tractor Co. dealer, standing vertically in a rock formation. So what ? Do you seriously think this supports a biblical earth age of 6-8,000 years for Zeus sake ?
  • William C. Walker

    A very easy way to illustrate evolution is to have the student attend a dog show.  All canines are descended from wolves & the result of selective breeding.
  • BoB

    @Cleetus. I have one thing to say to you. This is a debate, not politics. Mudslinging shows cowardess and ignorance.

     

    @ all. I major in science. Biology at that. You are all also classifying me as "Christian" If you look at my profile you would see I do not clasify myself as Christian so counting me as one and assuming I stand for/follow what past "Christians" have done and believe is unfair.

     

    You also assume I don't believe in adaptation. I believe in adaptation not evolution. And why would we evolve if its to survive better in a new environment? Why wouldn't we just stay in the same spot? Why can humans survive in the areas that our "ancestors" live? Or why do our "ancestors" live where we do? And lastly...why are numerous scientists Christians?

     

    If you must know why I believe in my Father without the bible. What convinced me of his reality and closeness to me was the experiences I went through. Not what the bible, or anyone else for that matter, told me.

  • William C. Walker

    BoB. The term Father implies a son. Is the son / sun also a deity to you ?
  • Heather Spoonheim

    Bob, if you have a major in biology and can't spot the fallacies in one of Kent Hovind's lectures then I need to assume you either bought that degree online or got it from a "Christian Science" program.  Assumed you were Christian from the Kent Hovind link because I've never met anyone with more than a grade 5 education who could fall for anything he says - other than fundamentalist Christians.  Your question about why there are still monkeys, fish, etc really revealed your scientific illiteracy - and I make sandwiches for a living.
  • BoB

    *sigh* One thing I hate hate hate hate about atheists are they're tendancy to assume things about Christians. I said I major in science. I did not say I have a degree in science. Yet.

    You twisted what I was asking about us living where our supposed ancestors live. If we evolved to better survive a climate/habitat then why/how do our supposed ancestors survive where we live? What would be the point of us evolving to humans if we could survive as pigs? I use pigs as an example because that theory came right out of a biology textbook. And if you must know why the theory exists I can explain that too.

     

    If you all actually fully read my posts you wouldn't have missed the one where I admitted I was wrong about my link to Kent Hovind. I didn't look into his background. I admitted being wrong and I no longer use his information in debates about evolution. You seem insistant on bringing this up. Really you just seem more intent on slamming me than actually focusing on the topic.

     

    Now one thing that bugs the heck out of me, Cleetus, is I said Mary was essentially a surrogate mother. You then insist that Jesus inherited her genes. Now since you seem to know everything about biology you should know that a surrogate mother does not infact pass on her genes.

     

    And yes, William I do believe the son (not the sun) is a deity. I mentioned that earlier when I said that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. Trinity, three in one.

     

    kk assume I do accept we evolved from fish or pigs or whatever you want to claim. Then where did it start? What is the ultimate predecessor of all things? How did this come to be? You really believe it just happened? You know the odds of one protein, let alone a whole being, randomly assembling itself in a livable manner? its one in trillions. You have a better chance marking a coin in a room filled with coins and telling a blind man to pick one at random and him picking that coin.

     

    I am well aware of the world fluctuating. I believe in pangaea. Also what you are talking about, gradually adapting, key word 'adapting', to a gradually changing environment. I believe in that. Again, finches proved that. What you are suggesting is that whole new species were created when the ocean turned to desert. I believe in microevolution. Not Macroevolution. I'd like to make sure people eventually get this.

     

    Once someone can connect the animal in the desert to one in the ocean. Then we'll be making headway in evolutionary theory. For now. Microevolution is undeniable. Macro is still debatable.

  • BoB

    I should clarify something before I'm jumped. I believe in a form of Pangaea. Not necessarly the exact theory of it that the continents drifted apart but that at one point there was only one land mass.
  • Scarlette Blues

    Bob- Please start your own discussion. It would be a lot easier to reply to you. Thanks!! ~Scarlette
  • Steve

    Genetic sequencing has established how all organisms are related to each other. It's a great example of a more modern science proving evolution with methods that weren't available 150 years ago. Such genetic variations also appear in relatively short time frames of less than 3000 years - including in humans.

     

    Genetic tree of life:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

     

    That's how we know that whales are descendants of land animals, though one can also proof that with the fossil record and certain anatomical similarities.

  • Steve

    Also the term "missing link" is ridicously overused. There are an infinite number of so-called missing links. If you were presented with one, you'd then demand the link between that and your base. It's like Zeno's Paradox.
  • William C. Walker

    BoB,If you will read a few biographies on the founder of Xianity - Emperor Constantine, & the council HE convened & directed it will give you a better understanding of it. the Jesus of the bible the council compiled was just one of about 2 dozen Saviors / Messiahs that were considered & voted on. Jesus is sort of a composite, not an historical figure. None of the twenty some Roman & Greek historians of the first century noted any of the wondrous events imputed to Jesus. Constantine felt that he needed a new Roman god under which he hoped to unite his sprawling Empire. He directed the council to :" Make it to astonish". They did. They voted on the folklore & mythology from all over the Middle East & India spanning over 5 centuries. Those who could not agree were expelled from the council. Please get to your library & ask for biographies on Constantine. There are many. You'll 'get the idea'  He didn't save his Empire, but he did create one of the worlds biggest well organized religions.
  • Robert Taylor

    Allow me to speak my peace...no politics involved I assure you.  I believe that some form of evolution has indeed occurred.  But, I'm not dogmatic about it.  Science is and should be open-ended.  I also believe transperia may also be involved.  I also believe that homo sapien has been around for millions of years due to the number of artifacts that have been found embedded in matrixes dated millions of years old be they coal mines or gold excavations.

     One of the big problems I have is basic DNA.  This highly, highly complex structure had to have taken millions of years to evolve...not a hundred thousand.

     I believe that the science establishment has a 'filter' mechanism that automatically prejudges many findings because "they just CAN'T fit" into current theories.  I'm definitely not allowing for religion and mythicism.  These theistic scams turn my stomach.  There is no "magic-man-in-the-sky", BUT, knowing that, doesn't keep me from exploring additional possibilities.

  • Heather Spoonheim

    You may want to look into claims of human artifacts being found in coal mines.  I searched two that I heard about and found out that they were hoaxes.  I remember that one was in California and an investigation was launched almost immediately afterward and several miners were interviewed who admitted that they had played a prank on the geologist in question because they didn't like him.

     

    DNA did in fact take millions of years to evolve.  In fact, there was a very long stretch (I think millions of years) over which RNA evolved, long before DNA ever entered the picture.  Secondly, not every aspect of DNA/RNA needed to spontaneously form here on earth since space is full of very complex building blocks that have been incorporated into terrestrial life.

     

    Science does indeed filter information that doesn't fit into the current model - but it doesn't get deleted such as one famous archaeologist likes to claim.  The many who discovered Lucy had to wait over 30 years for his findings to be recognized, and the woman who got all in a huff about skepticism over her findings of pre-clovis ruins in North America has not said a word since pre-clovis ruins have come to be accepted.  Science filters these things to wait for confirmation - you can't have a meaningful knowledge base if you immediately through out tens of thousands of findings to favour one new controversial one, so you have to move slowly to figure out what the controversial finding really means.

  • Stephen Walski

    To limit the evolution of DNA to only 100,000 years im assuming your starting from a point that human being started out as nothing and then evolved all of its parts over that short time of 100,000 years. But that is simply not the case. We know that we share common ancestory with 2 other western great apes and that that ancestor shares dna with other great apes. While its estimated that humans are between 100 and 200k years old as a distinguishable species it doesnt mean that the DNA that was passed down from our ancestory is only that old. We didnt start fresh with new DNA its a process of mutation.
  • Robert Taylor

    If you're referring to PHD geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre...the "huffing and puffing" came from her fellow scientists that rejected her findings out of hand even though she utilized 3 different aging techniques on the matrix involved and they all came to the same conclusion..man had made these artifacts over 200,000 years ago.  Of course, that doesn't "fit in" with science's theory that modern man evolved just 100,000 years ago.  The artifacts beneath Table Mountain in a matrix that was 55 millions years old was never thoroughly investigated...it was dropped.  Same thing goes for discoveries in Indiana, et al.

     Remember, Java man was accepted by the "temple" of science for many years...even exhibited in the Natural Museum of Science in London for many years.  Those scientists were proved wrong later when it was finally admitted that the scalp portion of the cranium was indeed from an ancient ape.

      Filtering...yes...apparently to the point that many fellow scientists have never had the opportunity to hear about such findings, sad...very sad.

     

  • Stephen Walski

    Okay so the timeline is not fully accurate... of which you will find not one scientist ive heard say definitively it is 100 or 200k... but that its believed to be based on the evidence we have around that long...

     

    Even if i give you 55 million how does that change the idea of DNA evolution AT ALL. doesnt it strengthen your previous argument that you dont think it could have been done in 100k years?

  • Heather Spoonheim

    Virginia Steen McIntyre got her PhD on that dig down in Mexico.  She wasn't the lead on the site, she was a graduate student working under several other archaeologists.  Not all 3 dating techniques came to the same age, there was a wide range and she was adamant about going with the oldest one while the lead archaeologists felt the dating needed further review because of the discrepancy.  You should read what her colleagues have to say, the original papers produced by the various teams involved, and stop getting your science from a Charlton Heston documentary.

     

    Java man was wrong, that's true, and Piltdown man was a hoax - both corrected for and both a big part of the reason that many scientists are far more methodical about dealing with new findings these days.  If you want to deal with any one of these claims, like how Steen-McIntyre destroyed her OWN career, pick one and I'll go dig up the sources for you.  I will ask, however, that you provide your sources as well, because it sounds to me like you've been watching too much youtube.

     

    Scientists deal in science, not fairy tales or fantasy findings and that is not sad at all.  Most of these "forbidden archeology" guys are creationists who just like to pull up already debunked non-issues and make out like science is a big conspiracy.

  • Cleetus VonArbuckle

    @Robert Taylor Some can reject the totality of science unless it is some outsider with unaccepted, unsupported, beliefs that contradict every reasonable theory.  Ask yourself, how many times has someone working in their basement come out with a free energy machine?  They never do.  They never will.  The reason scientists treat these people as crackpots, is because they usually are, you just don't know enough of the science yourself to realize this.  Think about a subject you know a lot about, say, NASCAR.  If I claimed that NASCAR was a plot by Arab Sheiks to trick people into driving faster, therefore using more gas, you would wonder what evidence I had.  If I told you I had evidence, but couldnt show you or confirm it you would quickly call BS.  This is the case with the creation stuff.  There are cases when some scientists were wrong about some things but to say that science was not willing to evaluate data on its merits is absurd.  The reason we have the theory of evolution is because of the strength of the science.  It took a generation before that was the accepted biological explanation for speciation.  Humans do hold on to their understandings to long, on occasion, but that is an issue with humans, not science.
  • Robert Taylor

    Whew...did'nt mean to strike such a defensive chord.  Sounds like the same thing I've been discussing about "Don't do this", "Don't do that"..."do it my way see...I'm Rocco". It apparently is a matter of "votes" outweighing what a graduate student is saying.

      So, I guess I shouldn't hear out what a graduate student discovers...that just doesn't sound right.  As far as Charlton Heston and the video...again why so defensive.  I especially appreciated the facts about Glen Rose, the lifting of the strata, to discover more of the same footprints.  I don't accept the Xtians' view of man's beginning 6,000 years ago or what may be prevalent among certain segments of scientists sticking to 100,000 years ago.  Is it just the fact that it's Heston that bothers you? 

     By the way, it was Heston that came up with these discoveries.  It was others scientists that were discussed, some viewed, in the documentary.  Have you seen it? Again, have YOU seen it?

  • Robert Taylor

    "....it was NOT Heston that came up with these discoveries."  They need an edit feature on these comments...or "review", then "edit".
  • Robert Taylor

    Whew, I can see why I see so many frustrated comments here.  People just aren't capable of discerning what is written.  I NEVER advocated creationism...you know that so why try to put words into my words?  I'm an atheist and I view creationism as crackpot.  I don't know, maybe I should type s l o w e r and use small words.  I am NOT advocating anywhere a belief in creationism.  We all need to be open-minded though about we have been taught is true. 

  • Stephen Walski

    Being open minded is indeed a necessity of any rational thinking person.

     

    However making statements like i dont believe scientific proof of DNA evolution does raise some eyebrows...

     

    Im curious are you a molecular biologist or studying it? Was there a reason besides a summary video that you discount one of the factual portions of evolution that is well accepted?

  • Heather Spoonheim

    I'm not calling you a creationist, nor am I suggesting the Heston (a creationist) made up those claims.  Several of the 'scientists' quoted in that video are creationists, however, and some of them are not scientists.  It looks like I've hit the nail on the head as to which documentary you got your information from, however.  I've seen it (because I have a friend who is into such things) and I've investigated the claims made as well as several of the people.  McIntyre took her own path with the results, disregarding certain archaeological protocols, and still got her PhD from what she published.  It was her crusade to have a 60,000 year old pre-clovis civilization declared as canon that destroyed her career, though, and several of her colleagues have written about the issue.  Her publications were never 'buried' as she claims, it's just that no one took her seriously because of all the other information available about the site that actually did follow more conservative protocols.

     

    Research some of the names in the video.  Those human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints have been debunked several times, and the main guy who advocated that interpretation was another creationist.  Just start doing some further research on what is claimed in that video and you'll find out how erroneous it is, if you actually want to broaden your knowledge of those claims.

  • Cleetus VonArbuckle

    I am skeptical of Robert Taylors claim that he is an atheist and, in fact, believe him to be a Christian.  He uses bold text and puts words in ALL CAPS.  I have other evidence if you are willing to hear it but I will probably just be silenced by the pro "Robert Taylor is an Atheist" powers that run this site.
  • Heather Spoonheim

    You don't need to be a creationist to fall for Robert Bauval or Zecharia Sitchin and, in point of fact, their work actually disputes creationism as well.  There are several best selling authors who make a lot of money off the fact that people like exciting conjectures that connect a wide array of observations (even if inaccurately) more than the boring dry reams of observations, math, and theory of scientific fields.  I am one of those people - I love reading about Mayan Mysteries or the Annunaki and Ancient Astronauts along with all sorts of 'forbidden' archaeology.  They make for really entertaining 'learning' and it's really fun to start looking up the credentials of the 'experts', 'scientists' and even 'institutions' that support the wild claims.  Digging through for the large volume of information missing from such write-ups makes me feel like Nancy Drew working on the mystery of the missing facts.

     

    Anyway, all of these sorts of things are actually what I call the creationist propaganda of doubt.  They can't actually sell their story any longer so they do everything they can to undermine the credibility of science.  This is why you find people like Heston narrating lame-ass videos about "forbidden science" and occasionally they find a discredited/shamed scientist like Steen-McIntyre to parade in front of the camera lending credence to claims about scientific conspiracies.

     

    All of that said, most of the people I run into who are into such videos and claims aren't actually creationists.

  • David W Yuhnke

    It's extremely clear that evolution occurs in species. The lifespan of the common fruit fly is so short that it can be shown that characteristics occur randomly which are passed on to subsequent generations.