"The Parker's".
That is the worse crime.
Well when you stop going to school after 8th grade...
The Parker's give
What about their give?
I was wondering this. The opinions they are giving belong to the Parkers.
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/punctuation/apostrophe/possessives
It's still incorrect. "The Parkers give answers" would be correct.
Even if it was possessive, the apostrophe would still need to go after their name since there are multiple Parkers e.g. "The Parkers' answer..."
Ahh ok Ty.
Thank you for posting this so I didn't have to.
This book looks familiar. I probably read it in the 90s when I was being taught all this shit. Learning that I was bamboozled about Noah's flood and evolution is what pushed me completely out of Christianity.
Same. Angry atheist phase was all just embarrassment for falling for that shit as a child.
No reason to be embarrassed. A child has to go through some really heavy shit before they can even begin to contemplate the fact that their parents are not the shining beacons of truth we automatically assume them to be.
I enjoyed reading the back cover blurb to my (atheist) daughter this morning, who keeps asking what things are like in Christian schools.
Her reaction went almost exactly this way: "but... fossils... prove evolution..."
That's why, as a Christian, I hate these books. Evangelicalism and other fundamentalist Christian groups are gonna kill Christianity.
I think I love Bill Nye's response about the Grand Canyon during the evolution vs creation debate.
Basically he said if the Grand Canyon was created due to the flood, why aren't there more canyons that have similar depths? If the flood truly occurred at the same time everywhere, surely we'd see evidence of the same water erosion patterns in more places but only one exists.
But it fits white Jesus..... :(
Facts and logic aren't necessary when you're religious so this question will go straight over their heads.
And Ken Ham's entire argument was "were you there?" which he never applied to himself.
I am honestly a little curious about how this is spun?
My guess is: "if evolution was real then why didn't they evolve to survive like everything else? God drowned them all because they were evil"
No it's stupider and more complicated than that.
There's too much proof evolution exists, so they had to pretend that is part of God's plan too, but it doesn't work like science says it does.
The Bible says Noah got 2 of every "kind" of animal. So they made up a new label for the animal Kingdom. Animals fall into different "kinds."
Instead of getting 2 spider monkeys, 2 capuchin monkeys, two marmosets, etc, Noah got two chimpanzees. God killed every other primate species in the world with a flood. Then all the monkeys and apes we see today evolved in the 10,000 years (6,000? I forget) since they got off the ark.
So all the fossils from the flood are the species whose "kinds" were accounted for elsewhere.
Thanks i hate it.
Only somewhat related, but can you imagine what the smell must have been like from the trillions of human and animal corpses after that flood? I've thought about that plot point for years, but no one else seems to.
Biology has shown that the dying during mass extinctions has caused water to become inundated with nutrients which saw sponge populations explode. That global meat and vegetable stew is sitting out for thousands or millions of years and the odor is plastered on every available surface - what if the world still smells like death but we are all used to it?
what if the world still smells like death but we are all used to it?
Woah...
One of the go-to talking points is to try to differentiate "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution." So they can claim to be okay with things like wolves becoming domesticated dog breeds, etc...while still opposing "the lie" of evil-lution.
That's always a fun one. Any observable examples of transitional species is "micro-evolution" and anything they can handwave away is "macro-evolution."
So what animals that are alive today belong to this kind?
Dragons. Duh.
Ever heard of a deer? Try again sweaty π π
Wow, that is some hot bullshit right there.
Looks like it's still for sale in some capacity on Amazon (looked it up by the ISBN). First print was 1979, so it dates itself. The sample pages are... interesting.
They show how fossils contradict evolution
I've heard most creationist talking points before but this one is new.
How do they attempt to argue that the existence of fossils contradicts evolution by natural selection?
How do they attempt to argue that the existence of fossils contradicts evolution by natural selection?
The usual claim is that because fossils don't show every single intermediary step that they can't possibly be showing evolutionary change.
Yes, that arguement is as stupid as it seems.
Yeah it's like arguing that a jigsaw puzzle isn't real, despite seeing it laid out before them completely assembled but missing 6 or 7 of the hundreds of puzzle pieces.
19th century writers did us no favors when they started using 'missing link' to describe gaps in the human fossil record. Creationists ran wild with the idea that there is such a thing. Of course, now we have countless examples of transitional fossils and understand that evolution is not just jumping from one species to another species with well-defined separators between those two species, subverting the whole concept of a 'missing link.'
Every missing link found creates two more missing links, between the new species and the ancestor and the new species and the descendant.
A lot of dinosaurs I grew up learning about never even actually existed; they just came to be because archeology played fast and loose with the bones and was just making shit up.
I could see that being used against it also.
It wasn't that long ago that I learned that brontosaurus wasn't a thing. Also, I guess there's a new ocean and one less planet? π€·π»ββοΈ
I have not read the book myself- someone elsewhere posted the images- but if the snail thing someone else posted is from the same book, and it appears to be, the answer is: terribly.
Ah ok, so what they mean to say isn't so much that fossils contradict evolution but that the existence of fossils can be explained by the biblical account of Noah's Flood.
Not the same thing of course, but then hardly surprising given the apparent level of scientific understanding on display.
They just do. Didn't you read the book?
Young Earth Creationists will go off on all sorts of tangents to explain it. Like how the fossils were put there by satan to spread doubt.
Even when I was a Christian, YECβs were the idiots we made fun of. Itβs an entirely unnecessary contrivance, all because they imagine that the humans who wrote everything were infallible.
π€
Gotta love that they went with a snail, which already has a calcified shell, and whose soft parts are only very rarely preserved as fossils. It's a really bad example.
The buffaloes shot by cowboys 150 years ago never turned into fossils.
Really makes you stop and think, doesn't it?
Should be a butt ton of fossils in southern Brazil soon.
There are buffalo jumps, which have been in use for thousands of years and have countless bones of the animals driven off of them that have never fossilized.
Wow, that's some ruthless efficiency right there. TIL.
Fucktards.
Some large geologic structures can actually form relatively quickly. e.g. The Great Lakes were created from meltwater of retreating glaciers 10-12 kya (although the underlying rift basin could be more like a billion years old).
But the Grand Canyon is not among those.
Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.
Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.
Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.
Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.
~ /c/nostupidquestions
If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!
This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.
Start here...
...proceed here.
As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.