The origin of species today. (From another Chris thread)

[Pikonic]

Nice shopping there, note how Chris is grabbing Sonichus balls. OT but is this a Chris quote?

 

[exball]

Nice shopping there, note how Chris is grabbing Sonichus balls. OT but is this a Chris quote?

I didn't make this. I wish I could photoshop this well. And yes it's a quote from one of the mailbags.

 

[Watcher]

I'm not sure why people find evolution so hard to accept. It does not conflict with my own religion.

Most people don't understand Evolution, it doesn't help it isn't always properly taught in American schools.

Even religious pundits that go on talkshows very often are pointed out that they don't understand evolution and believe that "a monkey turned into a man one day"

i really enjoy that people on either side of the argument think the other is stupid for their beliefs

Generally speaking most people that actually make money off religion. Like the Catholic Church in Vatican city are extremely intelligent people. Extremely manipulative as well, but bare in mind once upon a time you had to pay taxes to the Church or risk getting excommunicated.

 

[Pikonic]

In college I wrote my thesis on Christine O'Donnel's "Teach the Controversy", where she wanted schools to teach the flaws of evolution along with evolution, so children could make better informed decisions. It'd be ok if she wasn't pushing Intelligent Design as the flawless truth. (which should be considered philosophy over science, but I won't tl:dr you to death)
She also made anti-masturbation videos for teens. Just saying

 

[LordCustos3]

However, religion has their own objectives as well. History records show a Jesus, parts of Noah's ark were discovered, and the Koran was written by a real prophet (no name out of respect) Wether or not you believe these events prove a religion is up to you.

Jesus is not historic. This debate has been going on for hundreds of years and the general consensus was even if he did, he was likely a completely different person than the one described in the Bible. Considering the only "historical evidence" is that he was most likely baptized and ordered to be crucified by Pontius Pilate. With hundreds of years of embellishment and ideas absorbed from other religions at the time (like how Jesus wasn't actually born on Christmas. They adopted that holiday from the Pagans.) Parts of Noah's Ark were not discovered, people claim that they went to mount Sinai and found wood there, it's all ludicrous. Regardless of whether the Koran was written by a real "prophet" it doesn't make what it said true.

The problem I have with things like believing Noah's Ark actually happened was also believing that other things in that story also occurred. Things like Noah living to be 600 years old and being a guy who lived in the Middle East and taking 2 of every species from all over the world, and putting it on a boat. Then there's the issue of how do you get the Australian animals back to Australia if you are a man that didn't even know such a place existed.

Re: the "historicity" of Jesus.
Actually, if you corner a believer, the only (non-biblical) " "historical" "evidence" " (note the extra-sarcastic double quotations) they can point two boils down to two quotes:

1 quote from the Annals of Tacitus.
1 quote from the The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus.​

The problems with both are as follows.
The quote from Tacitus merely acknowledges that Christians existed (a point not in dispute) and that they apparently followed someone called The Chrestus. It doesn't explain who the Chrestus was, not does it corroborate that this Chrestus person/thing was real. The godbotherers also neglect to mention all the times that Tacitus mentioned other non-Christian deities. Using their logic, one could "prove" Mithras was real, because Tacitus mentioned that deity and his cult.

The quote from Flavius Josephus is even more fraudulent.
But to save myself the trouble of retyping the rebuttal .....here is some delicious copypasta.

• 
  Okay...be honest now...have you ever read the Antiquities? I don't mean read just those paragraphs the pastor snipped out, but the entire book itself?
  
  I hate to break this to you, but the Testimonium Flavianum is actually way worse than the Tacitus quote, evidence wise.
  In fact, it's a proven sham, and anyone who has ever read the Antiquities can spot that.
  Here's why:
  
  Here's the Antiquities...
  http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2848
  
  Go ahead an read 3 or 4 pages of the Antiquities for yourself. Doesn't matter which pages. Any 3 or 4 pages will do. Soak in Josephus's writing style.
  I think, if you read enough of it, you'll notice...
  
  *Flavius is a historian, not an theologian.
  *Flavius is (shock!) totally old-skool Jewish and couldn't care less about all those kooky Christians and their silly schismatic heresies.
  *There were oodles of different people named Jesus mentioned in the Antiquities; 'coz, as a name, "Jesus" was as common as crabgrass back then, and 6 or 7 Jesii are mentioned in the Antiquities. (My fave was the priest who got ganked by his own brother.)
  
  Go ahead, read a few more pages. I'll wait.
  
  Okay, are you sure you get his writing style yet?
  Good. Now, go to the page (in my copy its on page 620) where the Testimonum is and read the entire page it is on.
  
  (*record scratch noise*)
  (*car crash noise*)
  (*broken pottery noise*)
  Good lord, the redactional seams are visible from the surface of the moon!
  Yep. That weird pro-Christian tonguebath sounds suddenly unprofessional, out of character and out of context; and the sudden alien-ness of it well understood by any Hebrew scholars, textual criticism boffins and anyone who is paying attention.
  It doesn't sound like same writer at all...because it isn't. Scholars suspect that this was a pseudepigraphic interpolation placed there by the church father Eusebius. The passage is long enough to run word entropy analysis on it, and it matches Eusebius's smarmy style.
  Oh, that and old copies of the Antiquities, that were published before AD 200, don't have the Testimonium in it.
  
  Also, Do you find it kinda fishy how this interpolation is shoved where it is? It's like you can almost hear Eusebius wetting himelf and squealing..."Oooh, oooh, oooh, I found a paragraph then mentions Pontius Pilate! Let's shove in this bit of propaganda here! Let's ignore that the paragraph after is about the temple of Isis and the one before is about Pilate farting around with aqueducts! Pilate! Pilate! Pilate! It's kinda sorta maybe the right timeframe! Stick it in! Stick it in! Stick it in!"

Feel free to use that the next time some William Lane Craig wannabe foists The Testimonium Flavianum as if it were a smoking gun and not the naked and obvious fraud it is.

 

[Watcher]

In college I wrote my thesis on Christine O'Donnel's "Teach the Controversy", where she wanted schools to teach the flaws of evolution along with evolution, so children could make better informed decisions. It'd be ok if she wasn't pushing Intelligent Design as the flawless truth. (which should be considered philosophy over science, but I won't tl:dr you to death)
She also made anti-masturbation videos for teens. Just saying

The problem I have with teaching the controversy implies that learning Intelligent Design is going to help you if you plan to get a science degree.

I remember Aron Ra did this really good video called "Flintstones Archaeology" where he discussed how Creationists believe dinosaurs walked with man, and that the Loch-Ness Monster actually exists. When I first watched this I didn't know that the Bible described dragons and unicorns existing.

[youtube]f5kckGxwJr4[/youtube]

 

[Picklepower]

When I was a kid my school taught that The Bible is 100% accurate in every detail, and that Evil-lution is a lie from Satan.

The hell kinda school did you go to?

Oh wait, Catholic schools are still a thing...

Baptist private school.

Nice shopping there, note how Chris is grabbing Sonichus balls. OT but is this a Chris quote?

I didn't make this. I wish I could photoshop this well. And yes it's a quote from one of the mailbags.

Really??? WOW he is something special.

 

[Watcher]

Really??? WOW he is something special.

But... I would certainly not want to be an atheist, 'cause if I don't have God or Jesus at my- by my side, I would be more lost than I was considerably beforehand! Atheists are the Devil's spawning, as it would seem! ...And I would certainly would not want to be amrong- amongst them when they are run out of town with the pitchforks and the hace and the fire! As a believer... I would either be a peacem- I would more likely be a peacemaker, but I certainly wouldn't mind being one with the pitchfork, following the crowd and pushing the atheist out of town!

I believe in God and Jesus too, but God must hate me to put me in the lifestyle I am forced to be cooped up and bored with.

From the Thorg calling out video and Facebook respectively.

 

[Picklepower]

Even if Jesus was a historical figure, that does not prove Christianity is true, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Siddhartha, and tons of Indian gurus, have also existed. I never really thought the argument of his historicity was important.

 

[Watcher]

Even if Jesus was historical figure, that does not prove Christianity is true, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Siddhartha, and tons of Indian gurus, have also existed. I never really thought the argument of his historicity was important.

It's also funny since a lot of people think Jesus looked like this

These guys did this computer mockup of what a historical Jesus would have actually looked like. Which is this

He would have also been just over 5 foot tall.

 

[exball]

White Jesus is technically the first fan fiction.

 

[Watcher]

White Jesus is technically the first fan fiction.

[youtube]ORIICgi-0GI[/youtube]

 

[exball]

 

[LordCustos3]

The problem I have with teaching the controversy implies that learning Intelligent Design is going to help you if you plan to get a science degree.

The problem I have with "teaching the controversy" is the provably false assertion that there IS a controversy.
If 1,000 respected scientists show proof that the world is spherical, and one denialist flat-earth loonbat disagrees, that DOES NOT constitute a "controversy."

Evolution was deduced as an explanation of why speciation happens; and does so quite elegantly.
Some versions of Creationism don't even acknowledge that speciation happens at all; and thus fails at the starting gate.
(Hence the equivocation about micro- and macro-evolution, as if they weren't just the same thing on two different timescales.)

Also, here's a way to flummox an Intelligent Design advocate. Ask them the following question:
"Can you show me a new technological advance that rises directly from Intelligent Design?"

 

[John Titor]

When I was a kid my school taught that The Bible is 100% accurate in every detail, and that Evil-lution is a lie from Satan.

The hell kinda school did you go to?

Oh wait, Catholic schools are still a thing...

Hm? I'm Catholic and in my experience, Catholics are a little more relaxed around evolution. I'm not sure if that's universal though, because my dad hated the idea that we "descended from monkeys". (I'm aware of what's wrong with that line, bare with me).

Nowadays, I see Creationism as something that's symbolic than something literal.

 

[The Hunter]

When I was a kid my school taught that The Bible is 100% accurate in every detail, and that Evil-lution is a lie from Satan.

The hell kinda school did you go to?

Oh wait, Catholic schools are still a thing...

Hm? I'm Catholic and in my experience, Catholics are a little more relaxed around evolution. I'm not sure if that's universal though, because my dad hated the idea that we "descended from monkeys". (I'm aware of what's wrong with that line, bare with me).

Nowadays, I see Creationism as something that's symbolic than something literal.

I grew up Catholic as well, and we were very liberal about it. Just that a whole school devoted to a single religion doesn't sound like too great of an idea to me. I went to public school and all...

That's really the reason I don't mind it. Because I acknowledge it as something symbolic, not direct fact. I mean, you're talking to someone who for years would mostly just read Native American creation stories. It's a fun read, and it makes you think. Helps a lot of people realize their place in the universe and what not.

 

[Grand Number of Pounds]

Sadly, this explanation is probably a lot more articulate than some people's explanation of origins.

 

[champthom]

If you don't believe in evolution or you're just curious about evolution, I strongly recommend reading "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. He manages to prove evolution is real from like, every possible angle. It's also well written and I'm not a big hard science fan but it managed to keep me interested.

 

[Watcher]

If you don't believe in evolution or you're just curious about evolution, I strongly recommend reading "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. He manages to prove evolution is real from like, every possible angle. It's also well written and I'm not a big hard science fan but it managed to keep me interested.

Champthom doesn't bullshit

Nowadays, I see Creationism as something that's symbolic than something literal.

I remember I took a literature class once upon a time that had us study Genesis as a piece of literature. Like analyse it like we would Beowulf or Gilgamesh. We found that the story was largely allegory and for the most part shared a lot of similarities to other creation myths at the time.

Of course then we learned about things that were cut out of the bible... like Adam's other wives

 

[Surtur]

Or the part where Yahweh has a wife.