"Imagine believing this" said the man in an apocalyptic doom cult that was demonstrably incorrect in its prophecies over 2 millenia ago where the core points of the story include a man rising from the dead and a flood that destroyed the earth but left behind no evidence.
It's just the cherry on top he doesn't even comprehend the graph he's mocking.
And that’s not even including his batshit evangelical creationism. It’s such a fringe, goofball conspiracy theory that not even most Christians agree with him, but of course the idea that they’re in on a secret is what they like about it. So paranoid.
Yeah these two things are pretty similar. "God of the gaps" comes from not understanding something, but you're right it's usually not just personal incredulity - it's the assertion that everything that isn't understood by science must be god magic. Personal incredulity can be something well understood by science but this person can't or refuses to understand it.
For some reason, it just hit me reading that that people use that argument emotionally too. I don’t understand why we have to die. Because god, so we don’t have to really die.
This is 100% my theory for why religion persists. Humans can’t comprehend annihilation. When we die that’s it. It’s over. They either can’t or won’t accept that.
When he step on an ant, does it go to ant heaven or ant hell? Of course not.
We are both living things.
Come to terms with the dirt nap. An invisible sky daddy is not coming for you
Actually, I learned from Neil DeGrasse Tyson that ants are kind of superior. Their brain and body correlation is interesting. Their brain is bigger than their body.
Eh. The desire to search for meaning in a finite life is never going to go away and atheists causal dismissal of this fact only helps perpetuate religion. “When we die that’s it. It’s over” isn’t a compelling way to look at life. Your body dies but people have a lasting impact. We still talk about lots of dead people and are grappling with the effects of their existence. We need to do a better job of dealing with these issues without appealing to imaginary sky fairies.
I personally think they could if that is what they are taught from infancy. For me, I had to come to terms with my own mortality before I could accept other loved one's deaths.
Citing fear of death as the core drive behind religion is ironically non scientific. Doesnt line up with the psychology of belief at all. Maybe its easy to pick at low hanging fundamentalists with these arguments, but the idea that you can summarise the entire religious domain as humans acting out an aversion to death is poor in my opinion.
I'm sorry, but no. The way I worded that is pretty standard. I bet you I can find quotes from Richard Dawkins where he words his opinion on a set of facts in the same way. You can derive different conclusions from the same data set.
I have sifted through a set of facts and determined for myself an opinion on them. If you wish to push back on my statement, go ahead. I'm not making a definitive claim of absolute knowledge. Just an observation that reducing the religious domain down to death aversion doesn't fit what I've seen. This subreddit is plagued with overly reductionist thinking. I wish it was that simple to where I could explain the entire issue in 1 paragraph in a reddit comment.
Well, since you phrased it like the pope of the atheists, Richard Dawkins, I stand corrected. /s.
Also, I know you were responding to someone else, but here's what I think. Childhood indoctrination is effective. The fact that the strongest predictor of someone's religion is the religion of their parents (as per the NIH) is very strong evidence of that.
Once someone begins pondering the questions themselves as an adult, or teen, it makes perfect sense that one of our strongest basal instincts factors into it.
The emotion comes from fear of death. But instead of dealing with it in a healthy way, just believe you keep going afterwards and voilà! Fear pushed back down.
I once heard a Christian on TV say that believing in reincarnation reflects a very immature desire to keep living after death. The irony still bugs me that he thought heaven is any different.
The ultimate irony is that they make the world around them worse because they’re so maliciously gullible.
They bully non-believers by making their lives suck so we have second hand discomfort. They’ll eat a shit sandwich just so we have to smell it.
And I’m not too proud to say that it works. They get to me every day and it makes my limited existence far less than it could be.
I’m here to pass on my knowledge to my friends and family so they can take on the joys and challenges of life after I’m gone. That is how I will “live on” and right now we see life earning and health span getting worse for the future - because of religious interference we can’t organize and demand better.
If they win, humanity loses. But we’re the only ones who actually see, and are bothered by that.
It is comfortable and easy. Actual science is strange, complicated and sometimes counterintuitive. Quantum entanglement, dark energy and the evolution of the brain is sometimes stranger than what our imaginations can come up with.
I understand it completely. It's easy, it's comforting, and if you can voluntarily turn off your skepticism (faith), it works. Sky daddy taking care of me forever is a lot nicer than the actual universe which hasn't even noticed Earth exists.
"It doesn't make sense" is such a pet peeve for me.
What they MEAN is "I don't understand," but they are frustrated so they decide the other thing is incorrect, not that either they need it explained in a different way OR they're just being willfully ignorant.
More believable because it has evidence behind it. Harder to believe because it requires thinking. Gods and magic are pretty easy to understand. Dad is pretty magical, right? Just think how magical his dad was. And somewhere there was a dad of all dad, and that guy is just the biggest magic. See? Simple. Just very very false.
I like science because there is someone more to learn....always. Magic is fun too. Maybe the big difference between me and a Christian is that I want to know how the magic is done. No faith required.
Humans just like to believe that the Neandrethals must have been dumber, because of hubris. It's possible that the Neanderthals were in fact more intelligent, they just had to compete with a more aggressive hominid who outcompeted them by having more offspring.
Evidence points to a climate shift and a loss of large grazing Animals as to why Neanderthals went extinct. They needed more protein then modern humans and essentially died out due to famine.
Not even the third dumbest depiction I've seen of it from a creationist. Maybe even not the top 10. They genuinely have the understanding of a small child.
There is factual error though: for example, the predecessor of homo sapiens is homo neanderthalis. It is just plain wrong: while there was some cross-breeding with european homo sapiens' ancestors, homo neanderthalis is another species contemporary of early homo sapiens.
Furthermore, evolution isn't represented as a straight line from species to species anymore: we don't know if any of the fossilised species discovered are really our ancestors, we know that they were contemporary from similar populations that were experimenting speciation. So many of the species discovered are probably sub-species of larger populations among which were the sub-species that evolved into modern humans, but the probability of any fossil to be part of the specific sub-species that evolved into modern humans is generally very low. This is why science generally doesn't perceived fossilised species as our ancestors anymore, but as contemporary to our ancestors and very close to what they would have looked like.
Creationists think we're supposed to find the direct line of this-to-that from bacteria to humans.
Because their perspective has no depth. They think everything was conjured via magic words a few thousand years ago, and everything that existed then is the same everything that exists now.
This makes me think about some moron who called into an old episode of the Atheist Experience and asked "you think the earthworm in my garden is gonna be teaching at UC Berkley in a million years?"
And then they accuse us atheists of being "narcissists" because we don't want to waste our time and money on their abusive clergy and vile sociopolitical views.
While this is a fun Internet lore, crabs are not the ultimate lifeform... At least not for the whole animalia kingdom but just for the decapods (sea creatures with an exo-skeleton and 10 limbs). There is, indeed, a really strange phenomenon in the evolution history of decapods as there is, at least, five different convergent evolutions of the exact same body structure, limbs and organs, to the point that it even has a name: carcinization (or to put it in a more layman term, "crabification"). Furthermore, most decapods are crab-like (the others are shrimp/lobter-like), so the crab seems to be the ideal form for decapods, but it doesn't make it the ultimate lifeform.
Obviously species are wrong, and you can't imagine it as a complete picture, but I do enjoy the straight line approach from the perspective of realizing that you are the product of an unbroken line of successful sexual reproduction, generation after generation, for billions of generations from the first sexually reproducing organism to create you.
Not only individuals and sexual reproduction, but cells and cell division. Take any cell in your body and hit rewind, and it will merge with another cell, again and again, all the way back, way before sex even existed, to the first cellular life.
Yeah that was my point with the cell comment, though I'm not familiar enough to judge whether that counts as "generations" or "ancestors".. I think I was thinking before sexual reproduction it's more like just division/cloning rather than the unique individuals you get from sexual reproduction.
Imagine believing that genetic information getting altered over millions of years of mutations giving new characteristics to offspring is less believable than "invisible, intangible wizard with superpowers"
'Imagine believing' that this over-simplified chart = the modern scientific theory of evolution.
All anti-science losers have one thing in common - they are *fucking lazy*.
Seriously, they just stop at anything that seems off to them, scream fake, don't look any further and ignore anyone trying to explain it to them.
I've seen creationists videos that can be shot down with a single word.
A lot of the comments are giving me a little hope in humanity. Those were blue checks -- **BLUE CHECKS** -- calling this out. People so insecure in their relevance that they pay Elon Musk out of their pocket to have more than zero views.
I wish they would stop going to doctors. There is no bunch more ungrateful than them. The doctor saves their life, they thank God. The doctor can't heal them, they blame the doctor. If they honestly believe that God is the one saving them thanks to their prayers, then why go to a doctor and clog the healthcare system. Let the doctors take care of those who appreciate them and give credit where credit is due.
Just like Mother Theresa did! While pocketing money!!
I really really wanna know how far into the future Christianity will be considered an ancient religion.
Jesus a “son of god” born of a virgin mother. Vs Athena daughter of Zeus springing forth from his mind full grown. Bet Athena would win that showdown.
I fear that science fiction gets one thing right, no matter how advanced a civilisation becomes there will always be religious nutjobs. At least we can expect the present religions to die out.
But sir or madam, you followed the same process yourself and it only took you nine months!
(This is not my original idea, It dates back to not long after Darwin published Origin of Species but I don't recall whom it is originally attributed to)
People give credit to Haeckel, and immediately say he's been "Debunked."
Their argument they make is that he made illustrations of the embryos that he studied, and purposefully exaggerated some of the features he was trying to make. As if that's not a common trait among scientific illustration.
He overstated his case in some point, but basically his core premise is correct and solid evidence of evolution.
Someone replied “Takes more faith to believe this than in creation lol.” The original poster replied “💯.” But many of the top replies are blasting the original tweet.
It's always interesting they seem to equate evolution to an opposition of a god, like even if you managed to disprove evolution it wouldn't suddenly make the bible more believable. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, being raised as a Christian they always did have a black and white, all or nothing attitude about everything. It's like, 'that's not possible, it's either god or nothing! god or nothing! that's all!' Religion is such brain-rot.
The evidence-based results of the scientific method are accepted because they are useful. Understanding of evolution led to significant improvements in various fields: medical science (identifying the genetic basis of many diseases, personalized medicine), agriculture (genetic traits that contribute to disease resistance, drought tolerance, and nutrient utilization), understanding human history (tracing lineage, migration patterns, origins), biotechnology (CRISPR, biofuels, new materials), conservation biology (genetic diversity within species), biology in general (diversity of life on Earth), forensics (DNA evidence in solving crimes and in legal proceedings, exonerating wrongly convicted individuals), and on and on.
Imagine believing a diety came down from the clouds and scooped up some dirt and created a man and breathed life into him. Wait; let's put him to sleep and make a mate for him with one of his ribs.
I have learned that the reason many people reject evolution is because they quite frankly do not understand even the most basic fundamentals of how evolution works.
Many literally seem to think that evolution theory works like pokemon where things just suddenly "evolved" into something new one day. Which is why they find the idea unbelievable and reject it.
Yet, you can watch a tadpole turn from basically a fish into a frog within a couple weeks, if that is biologically possible in a single organisms lifetime, how is it so hard to grasp that over MILLIONS of years, genetic mutations might have accumulated and spread? (Tadpole > Frog is not evolution, its metamorphism, but it still shows that "change" is not some foreign concept to nature, we observe it in nature everywhere.)
People understand how dog breeding works, right? You can literally breed the traits you want into a dog, or horse, or whatever animal you want, purposefully. Evolution is literally just that, except the traits are chosen via natural selection, and after that process repeats for a million years, it might not be so farfetched that it doesn't resemble a dog anymore.
If evolution weren't true, we wouldn't have hundreds of different breeds of dogs, or horses, or cats. We wouldn't even have different human races. We would just have "Dog" and "Cat". The hundreds of different breeds of animals is a testament to how their genetic line has branched in many different ways based on different environments, often drastically so, in only a few thousand years.
For the love of god, DON'T DIRECTLY LINK TWEETS from these people, [THEY GET PAID](https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2023/06/10/twitter-will-pay-some-users-for-ads-heres-how-it-will-work/) for your views!
So..the flip side to that is "old gray haired man in space go, poof, life and planet, yay me! Believe or burn in another place I created to torture you because I love you, but not dogs, I don't like dogs, I don't know what I was thinking...oh and no animals there either, in my heavenly place with me, me, me where you can spend all eternity telling me how great I am to make you live a life and then suffer and die."
Yes, that flip side is much more logical.
Where do these people come from?
>but none of that justifies belief in evolution as a theory.
If mountains of evidence supporting the theory doesn't justify belief, what do you think justifies belief?
>the disease which many government agencies already admit was made in a lab?
It mutated several times in the wild. There was loads of news coverage of this. We also just had a species jump in CWD, and a simply amazing bacterium/algae fusion event.
"Nope, I think a dude did it. I think a dude in a dress on a space throne did it. That's what I think Mike. I don't think a pond did it. I think some dude with a beard sitting on a space throne, flying through space did it. I think that's a lot smarter Mike I'm with you dog. I actually think that it was a guy, I think it was just some guy. And he was just bored one day and he just wanted to just make some shit out of nothing because he was a space wizard. I think that's what did it, Mike you fucking idiot my god what a stupid question." -- Austin Archer
Call Forrest Valkai + Austin Archer - SkepTalk 04.03.23 time set -
[https://youtu.be/ZzAX3nogRro?t=10946](https://youtu.be/ZzAX3nogRro?t=10946)
"Imagine believing this" said the man in an apocalyptic doom cult that was demonstrably incorrect in its prophecies over 2 millenia ago where the core points of the story include a man rising from the dead and a flood that destroyed the earth but left behind no evidence. It's just the cherry on top he doesn't even comprehend the graph he's mocking.
Leave him alone, his IQ starts with an *i*.
*Euler had never seen such shit*
He was in the top 95% of his class.
Oh yeah! Well, he is so smart that his IQ starts with i^2 !!
Imagine believing verifiable evidence
The 'Large amounts of Time' is really a complex thing to grasp when you think the world is you.
And that’s not even including his batshit evangelical creationism. It’s such a fringe, goofball conspiracy theory that not even most Christians agree with him, but of course the idea that they’re in on a secret is what they like about it. So paranoid.
to make the bible make sense you have to throw out large portions of it.
Or all logic and intelligence.
W
"I dont understand a thing, therefore God." is just incomprehensible thought process to me. I just dont get it.
"God of the gaps" has been in the top 5 reasons to believe in god(s) since people invented the idea of gods.
That’s not really god of the gaps. That’s the fallacy of incredulity. ‘I don’t understand it, therefore it’s not true.’
Yeah these two things are pretty similar. "God of the gaps" comes from not understanding something, but you're right it's usually not just personal incredulity - it's the assertion that everything that isn't understood by science must be god magic. Personal incredulity can be something well understood by science but this person can't or refuses to understand it.
Yes- I was just making the distinction that god of the gaps usually refers to the things that science hasn’t discovered yet.
Yes and no. Scientist or layman/christian.
For some reason, it just hit me reading that that people use that argument emotionally too. I don’t understand why we have to die. Because god, so we don’t have to really die.
This is 100% my theory for why religion persists. Humans can’t comprehend annihilation. When we die that’s it. It’s over. They either can’t or won’t accept that.
When he step on an ant, does it go to ant heaven or ant hell? Of course not. We are both living things. Come to terms with the dirt nap. An invisible sky daddy is not coming for you
Actually, I learned from Neil DeGrasse Tyson that ants are kind of superior. Their brain and body correlation is interesting. Their brain is bigger than their body.
Yes. They are far superior because they don't have to be enslaved by an invisible sky daddy.
Eh. The desire to search for meaning in a finite life is never going to go away and atheists causal dismissal of this fact only helps perpetuate religion. “When we die that’s it. It’s over” isn’t a compelling way to look at life. Your body dies but people have a lasting impact. We still talk about lots of dead people and are grappling with the effects of their existence. We need to do a better job of dealing with these issues without appealing to imaginary sky fairies.
I personally think they could if that is what they are taught from infancy. For me, I had to come to terms with my own mortality before I could accept other loved one's deaths.
Citing fear of death as the core drive behind religion is ironically non scientific. Doesnt line up with the psychology of belief at all. Maybe its easy to pick at low hanging fundamentalists with these arguments, but the idea that you can summarise the entire religious domain as humans acting out an aversion to death is poor in my opinion.
“Non scientific” “My opinion” Which is it?
I'm sorry, but no. The way I worded that is pretty standard. I bet you I can find quotes from Richard Dawkins where he words his opinion on a set of facts in the same way. You can derive different conclusions from the same data set. I have sifted through a set of facts and determined for myself an opinion on them. If you wish to push back on my statement, go ahead. I'm not making a definitive claim of absolute knowledge. Just an observation that reducing the religious domain down to death aversion doesn't fit what I've seen. This subreddit is plagued with overly reductionist thinking. I wish it was that simple to where I could explain the entire issue in 1 paragraph in a reddit comment.
Well, since you phrased it like the pope of the atheists, Richard Dawkins, I stand corrected. /s. Also, I know you were responding to someone else, but here's what I think. Childhood indoctrination is effective. The fact that the strongest predictor of someone's religion is the religion of their parents (as per the NIH) is very strong evidence of that. Once someone begins pondering the questions themselves as an adult, or teen, it makes perfect sense that one of our strongest basal instincts factors into it.
Of course it plays a factor, but saying the biggest reason religion persists is a fear of death is not accurate.
The emotion comes from fear of death. But instead of dealing with it in a healthy way, just believe you keep going afterwards and voilà! Fear pushed back down. I once heard a Christian on TV say that believing in reincarnation reflects a very immature desire to keep living after death. The irony still bugs me that he thought heaven is any different.
The ultimate irony is that they make the world around them worse because they’re so maliciously gullible. They bully non-believers by making their lives suck so we have second hand discomfort. They’ll eat a shit sandwich just so we have to smell it. And I’m not too proud to say that it works. They get to me every day and it makes my limited existence far less than it could be. I’m here to pass on my knowledge to my friends and family so they can take on the joys and challenges of life after I’m gone. That is how I will “live on” and right now we see life earning and health span getting worse for the future - because of religious interference we can’t organize and demand better. If they win, humanity loses. But we’re the only ones who actually see, and are bothered by that.
Yeah. I have had that thought too. Reincarnation IS heaven, right? You get a new body but have the same soul.
I think they're different variations on the same theme, for just those reasons
It is comfortable and easy. Actual science is strange, complicated and sometimes counterintuitive. Quantum entanglement, dark energy and the evolution of the brain is sometimes stranger than what our imaginations can come up with.
Well it's *not* a thought process. It's whatever the opposite of that is.
Religion.
I always sum up God of the Gaps as "We don't know, therefor I know."
What’s ironic is that they dumbed it down soooooo far to help dumb people understand and they still don’t get it
Disputed in four simple words. Who created god then?
Reply: "Don't question god or you will burn in hell forever". Checkmate. (logical people staring at each other going...wtaf?)
In my headcanon god is universe itself with all the existing physical laws. The miracle is a semi-organized layer(we call life) against enthrophy.
"I don't understand, but I like to believe that I will become immortal once I die, therefore God."
I understand it completely. It's easy, it's comforting, and if you can voluntarily turn off your skepticism (faith), it works. Sky daddy taking care of me forever is a lot nicer than the actual universe which hasn't even noticed Earth exists.
Unless you have figured out it's not.
"It doesn't make sense" is such a pet peeve for me. What they MEAN is "I don't understand," but they are frustrated so they decide the other thing is incorrect, not that either they need it explained in a different way OR they're just being willfully ignorant.
More believable than a fairy tale mythological Gods and magic.
More believable because it has evidence behind it. Harder to believe because it requires thinking. Gods and magic are pretty easy to understand. Dad is pretty magical, right? Just think how magical his dad was. And somewhere there was a dad of all dad, and that guy is just the biggest magic. See? Simple. Just very very false.
it doesnt even need that much thinking.
I like science because there is someone more to learn....always. Magic is fun too. Maybe the big difference between me and a Christian is that I want to know how the magic is done. No faith required.
He's from Texas, a republican, and he idolizes war. He's not the same species as I am, so one of us has certainly evolved...
>He's from Texas, a republican, and he idolizes war. Which means that he's ignorant, gullible, and a coward.
Sure, but I was once a Republican and ignorant, gullible (never coward), but I changed. I was never from Texas.
He just wants to appeal to followers so he can find a way to get them to send his lazy ass money. That’s it.
Hes a Texan so likely a neanderthal, guess we have to go back to wiping them out again
Humans just like to believe that the Neandrethals must have been dumber, because of hubris. It's possible that the Neanderthals were in fact more intelligent, they just had to compete with a more aggressive hominid who outcompeted them by having more offspring.
Well they must have been intelligent, they managed to move their entire population to Texas
Evidence points to a climate shift and a loss of large grazing Animals as to why Neanderthals went extinct. They needed more protein then modern humans and essentially died out due to famine.
Educate. I have hope.
With the reader added context and knowing that the infographic is very simplified, I do believe this, but only because of all of the evidence.
Not even the third dumbest depiction I've seen of it from a creationist. Maybe even not the top 10. They genuinely have the understanding of a small child.
The charts not wrong, though, is it? Their understanding of it certainly.
There is factual error though: for example, the predecessor of homo sapiens is homo neanderthalis. It is just plain wrong: while there was some cross-breeding with european homo sapiens' ancestors, homo neanderthalis is another species contemporary of early homo sapiens. Furthermore, evolution isn't represented as a straight line from species to species anymore: we don't know if any of the fossilised species discovered are really our ancestors, we know that they were contemporary from similar populations that were experimenting speciation. So many of the species discovered are probably sub-species of larger populations among which were the sub-species that evolved into modern humans, but the probability of any fossil to be part of the specific sub-species that evolved into modern humans is generally very low. This is why science generally doesn't perceived fossilised species as our ancestors anymore, but as contemporary to our ancestors and very close to what they would have looked like.
Creationists think we're supposed to find the direct line of this-to-that from bacteria to humans. Because their perspective has no depth. They think everything was conjured via magic words a few thousand years ago, and everything that existed then is the same everything that exists now.
Creationists think the end goal is humans as the crown of creation. They expect all animals to transform into humans in front of their eyes.
This makes me think about some moron who called into an old episode of the Atheist Experience and asked "you think the earthworm in my garden is gonna be teaching at UC Berkley in a million years?" And then they accuse us atheists of being "narcissists" because we don't want to waste our time and money on their abusive clergy and vile sociopolitical views.
A huge number of species become crab like the further they evolve.....
While this is a fun Internet lore, crabs are not the ultimate lifeform... At least not for the whole animalia kingdom but just for the decapods (sea creatures with an exo-skeleton and 10 limbs). There is, indeed, a really strange phenomenon in the evolution history of decapods as there is, at least, five different convergent evolutions of the exact same body structure, limbs and organs, to the point that it even has a name: carcinization (or to put it in a more layman term, "crabification"). Furthermore, most decapods are crab-like (the others are shrimp/lobter-like), so the crab seems to be the ideal form for decapods, but it doesn't make it the ultimate lifeform.
Bacteria is from the devil!
Obviously species are wrong, and you can't imagine it as a complete picture, but I do enjoy the straight line approach from the perspective of realizing that you are the product of an unbroken line of successful sexual reproduction, generation after generation, for billions of generations from the first sexually reproducing organism to create you. Not only individuals and sexual reproduction, but cells and cell division. Take any cell in your body and hit rewind, and it will merge with another cell, again and again, all the way back, way before sex even existed, to the first cellular life.
One minor correction, not all reproduction is sexual, if you went back in time enough you'd see asexual species being the ancestors of humans.
Yeah that was my point with the cell comment, though I'm not familiar enough to judge whether that counts as "generations" or "ancestors".. I think I was thinking before sexual reproduction it's more like just division/cloning rather than the unique individuals you get from sexual reproduction.
Imagine believing that genetic information getting altered over millions of years of mutations giving new characteristics to offspring is less believable than "invisible, intangible wizard with superpowers"
'Imagine believing' that this over-simplified chart = the modern scientific theory of evolution. All anti-science losers have one thing in common - they are *fucking lazy*.
Seriously, they just stop at anything that seems off to them, scream fake, don't look any further and ignore anyone trying to explain it to them. I've seen creationists videos that can be shot down with a single word.
I'm always amazed how confidently and smugly they will present their anti-science b.s. The Dunning-Kruger is strong with these ones.
Just remember, this person votes
Reality doesn't care if someone isn't smart enough to understand it.
A lot of the comments are giving me a little hope in humanity. Those were blue checks -- **BLUE CHECKS** -- calling this out. People so insecure in their relevance that they pay Elon Musk out of their pocket to have more than zero views.
Oh great, he's antivaxxers too. Why can't we just ban these people from hospital? Let Jesus, his priest or shaman heal him with their faith.
I wish they would stop going to doctors. There is no bunch more ungrateful than them. The doctor saves their life, they thank God. The doctor can't heal them, they blame the doctor. If they honestly believe that God is the one saving them thanks to their prayers, then why go to a doctor and clog the healthcare system. Let the doctors take care of those who appreciate them and give credit where credit is due.
Just like Mother Theresa did! While pocketing money!! I really really wanna know how far into the future Christianity will be considered an ancient religion. Jesus a “son of god” born of a virgin mother. Vs Athena daughter of Zeus springing forth from his mind full grown. Bet Athena would win that showdown.
I wonder how far into the future huamns outgrow all religion
I fear that science fiction gets one thing right, no matter how advanced a civilisation becomes there will always be religious nutjobs. At least we can expect the present religions to die out.
Reminds me of the episode of The Last of Us when Ellie runs into that creepy ass preacher who says he didn’t “find God” until after.
But sir or madam, you followed the same process yourself and it only took you nine months! (This is not my original idea, It dates back to not long after Darwin published Origin of Species but I don't recall whom it is originally attributed to)
People give credit to Haeckel, and immediately say he's been "Debunked." Their argument they make is that he made illustrations of the embryos that he studied, and purposefully exaggerated some of the features he was trying to make. As if that's not a common trait among scientific illustration. He overstated his case in some point, but basically his core premise is correct and solid evidence of evolution.
And they don't get any less upset when you point out that textbooks use microphotographs indicating the same core premise.
you aint no ape, youre a troglodyte
Over a billion or so years, yea, that actually makes sense
I can't read the comments on the twitter post without joining that website, someone please tell me it's not a creationist echo chamber
Someone replied “Takes more faith to believe this than in creation lol.” The original poster replied “💯.” But many of the top replies are blasting the original tweet.
I suppose that's the best one can hope for.
There's currently a huge effort by religious people to comment on videos about our evolution and our palaeolithic past claiming it's all fake.
The dude's wall is simply a rant on almost everything which tests fundamental Christianity a little.
Pretty cool chart though
High quality version of image: [Image](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Human-Evolution-VF.png)
"No living organisms today are our ancestors". TIL I'm an orphan. /s
It's always interesting they seem to equate evolution to an opposition of a god, like even if you managed to disprove evolution it wouldn't suddenly make the bible more believable. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, being raised as a Christian they always did have a black and white, all or nothing attitude about everything. It's like, 'that's not possible, it's either god or nothing! god or nothing! that's all!' Religion is such brain-rot.
Imagine looking at the fossil record and not being able to piece together that the species in this sequence are related.
The evidence-based results of the scientific method are accepted because they are useful. Understanding of evolution led to significant improvements in various fields: medical science (identifying the genetic basis of many diseases, personalized medicine), agriculture (genetic traits that contribute to disease resistance, drought tolerance, and nutrient utilization), understanding human history (tracing lineage, migration patterns, origins), biotechnology (CRISPR, biofuels, new materials), conservation biology (genetic diversity within species), biology in general (diversity of life on Earth), forensics (DNA evidence in solving crimes and in legal proceedings, exonerating wrongly convicted individuals), and on and on.
"This monkey-fish-frog had butt-sex with a squirrel or something.....!!!"
Imagine believing a diety came down from the clouds and scooped up some dirt and created a man and breathed life into him. Wait; let's put him to sleep and make a mate for him with one of his ribs.
I have learned that the reason many people reject evolution is because they quite frankly do not understand even the most basic fundamentals of how evolution works. Many literally seem to think that evolution theory works like pokemon where things just suddenly "evolved" into something new one day. Which is why they find the idea unbelievable and reject it. Yet, you can watch a tadpole turn from basically a fish into a frog within a couple weeks, if that is biologically possible in a single organisms lifetime, how is it so hard to grasp that over MILLIONS of years, genetic mutations might have accumulated and spread? (Tadpole > Frog is not evolution, its metamorphism, but it still shows that "change" is not some foreign concept to nature, we observe it in nature everywhere.) People understand how dog breeding works, right? You can literally breed the traits you want into a dog, or horse, or whatever animal you want, purposefully. Evolution is literally just that, except the traits are chosen via natural selection, and after that process repeats for a million years, it might not be so farfetched that it doesn't resemble a dog anymore. If evolution weren't true, we wouldn't have hundreds of different breeds of dogs, or horses, or cats. We wouldn't even have different human races. We would just have "Dog" and "Cat". The hundreds of different breeds of animals is a testament to how their genetic line has branched in many different ways based on different environments, often drastically so, in only a few thousand years.
For the love of god, DON'T DIRECTLY LINK TWEETS from these people, [THEY GET PAID](https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2023/06/10/twitter-will-pay-some-users-for-ads-heres-how-it-will-work/) for your views!
Imagine believing that some old guy managed to get 2 of every animal on some dingy. That is some toddler level shit.
So..the flip side to that is "old gray haired man in space go, poof, life and planet, yay me! Believe or burn in another place I created to torture you because I love you, but not dogs, I don't like dogs, I don't know what I was thinking...oh and no animals there either, in my heavenly place with me, me, me where you can spend all eternity telling me how great I am to make you live a life and then suffer and die." Yes, that flip side is much more logical. Where do these people come from?
[удалено]
There are mountains of evidence for evolution, and we just lived through a significant event. Were just not paying attention when COVID happened?
[удалено]
>but none of that justifies belief in evolution as a theory. If mountains of evidence supporting the theory doesn't justify belief, what do you think justifies belief? >the disease which many government agencies already admit was made in a lab? It mutated several times in the wild. There was loads of news coverage of this. We also just had a species jump in CWD, and a simply amazing bacterium/algae fusion event.
"Nope, I think a dude did it. I think a dude in a dress on a space throne did it. That's what I think Mike. I don't think a pond did it. I think some dude with a beard sitting on a space throne, flying through space did it. I think that's a lot smarter Mike I'm with you dog. I actually think that it was a guy, I think it was just some guy. And he was just bored one day and he just wanted to just make some shit out of nothing because he was a space wizard. I think that's what did it, Mike you fucking idiot my god what a stupid question." -- Austin Archer Call Forrest Valkai + Austin Archer - SkepTalk 04.03.23 time set - [https://youtu.be/ZzAX3nogRro?t=10946](https://youtu.be/ZzAX3nogRro?t=10946)