Why idiots reject evolution
This is brilliant and pretty much spot-on. 50 Reasons I reject evolution.
These are just a few:
10.) Because the theory of evolution (which, according to scientists, perfectly explains the richness and diversity of life on Earth) contradicts biblical literalism… ya know, flat Earth with a firmament that keeps out the water, talking snakes, people rising from the dead, bats are birds, flamey talking bushes, virgin births, food appearing out of nowhere, massive bodies of water turning into blood… etc etc.
We know there were no talking snakes, no virgin births, no miracles. if the Bible is wrong about such things, how can it be trusted to give an accurate report of how all living things evolved?
23.) Because the idea that life evolved naturally over billions of years is infinitely less believable than the idea that an 800 year old man crammed two of every species into a giant wooden boat when the entire planet flooded, an event for which there is absolutely no geological evidence whatsoever and also makes no fucking sense at all.
(because Christians prefer nonsensical fairytales instead of evidence, proof, and factual scientific research.)
19.) Because I don’t understand why, if we share common ancestry with chimps, there are still chimps. And when someone with more than three brain cells in their head inevitably replies: “for the same reason Americans share common ancestry with Brits but there are still Brits, I can’t follow the logic. It’s just too big a leap. Who am I, Evil Knievel?
36.) Because I don’t know that “irreducible complexity” has been debunked a frazillion times by a frazillion different people and is no more credible an argument than “NEEN-er NEEN-er NEEN-er, I’m right and you’re wrong.”
Go read the whole list of 50 Reasons I reject evolution. It will probably offend Creationists, but the rest of will see that these are the same ridiculous reasons that have been passed around for years. What makes them hilariously funny is that creationists actually hold some of these positions.
Sadly, many of these are EXACTLY why people reject evolution. The bottom line is that people reject evolution because they are too fucking ignorant and stupid to see why it is the best explanation for how life works. All of it. Every bit of it. Even today, in our human bodies, we have legacy remnants of fish and earlier mammals from which we ourselves evolved. If you don’t believe it, look it up!
“Christians prefer nonsensical fairytales instead of evidence, proof, and factual scientific research.”
That’s a pretty huge generalization there. What about the myriad Christians who accept evolution?
I was just reading your exegesis on the Gethsemane garden passage — I would have left a comment there but you seem to have closed that post to discussion. My comment would be that you don’t seem to have any notion that the modern Western concept of biography (or historiography) didn’t exist in the first century. The gospels were written in particular contexts with particular rhetorical goals. The stories (a) have an omniscient narrator, (b) were compiled from oral tradition, and (c) are not concerned with relaying an ipsissima verba account of Jesus’ life and ministry, but rather follow the form of Graeco-Roman bioi, which have certain conventions. These three factors account for scenarios in which there were allegedly no observers to record the events. Do you really think you’re so clever to have been the first person to notice that the text records nobody present to record Jesus’ private prayers? If so, then you should also be clever enough to know that there are at least two explanations within the narratives of those scriptures themselves to explain how such an event could have ended up in the story. Ignoring textual evidence when you’re disputing a text is either misleading or ignorant.
Also, your implication that Paul invented the divinity of Jesus is hilariously ignorant. By what means to you suppose the Pauline epistles were propagated to the places the gospels were written? Why is there no textual evidence of Paul’s letters being used or even referred to by the gospels? If Paul invented the divinity of Jesus, why are there so many competing christologies within Acts, the epistles, and the pastoral letters?
Your statements are typical of people who have not done their own legwork, but instead have read a few popular-level books based on outdated research and thus consider themselves experts. There’s no problem with not being informed — it’s when you start pretending otherwise that you start being a huge douchebag.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:55 pmuh-huh…. well, thanks for stopping by.
March 8th, 2009 at 8:13 pmThat’s what I thought. Thorough yet concise. Remember your response to substantive criticism when you attempt to dish it out in the future.
March 8th, 2009 at 8:19 pmWell, no. You didn’t offer any substantive criticism, and ended with suggesting I’m a douchebag. Is that how you normally invite dialogue?
isn’t substantive criticism, but superstition already abundantly addressed elsewhere. (a) there is no evidence of an omniscient narrator available to have narrated anything; (b) oral tradition isn’t known for accuracy; (c) there can be no verbatim account that can be validated because the Jesus of the New Testament is a fiction.
If you start from the notion that the Bible is anything but man-made myth and fiction (i.e., that it is somehow divinely inspired or different in essence from all other ancient literature) you won’t have much fun around here. You can believe whatever you wish, but this isn’t the place to present outrageous beliefs without also presenting equally extraordinary proofs and evidence.
I used to be a hard core fundagelical Christian. I realize what an error that was. I’m over it and have no need to argue the point. I post what I post for others who might have similar misgivings about wasting their lives on fruitless superstitions.
I wish you well on your journey, however far it may carry you from here.
March 8th, 2009 at 9:17 pmI was under the impression that “douchebag” was the formalized way of starting a dialog on the internet. Apologies.
There are no extraordinary claims in my previous comment. Omniscient narrator is a literary term that has nothing to do with the Hellenistic concept of omniscience applied to deity. And my starting point for interpreting the gospels is Graeco-Roman biography (bios, as I mentioned in the comment) so it’s hardly fair to say I am treating the Bible as unique. In fact, I’m doing quite to opposite. What I’m saying, in short, is that no serious biblical scholar treats the narratives of the gospels in the way that you are presupposing in your exegesis, so it’s pretty immature to present it as some grand refutation of the Bible as a whole.
Nobody expects a bios to keep a courtroom-level historical account of the locations of every player in the story, or to tell the story in historical order. The point is to capture the essence of the individual subject, regardless of the precise details. It is widely acknowledged even among the most conservative scholars that the sermon on the mount/plain is a compilation of sayings that wasn’t given in a single address. The SotM happens to be the primary ethical guideline of my life, and it doesn’t bother me a bit that it was compiled by an anonymous author 30-50 years after Jesus died, nor does it seem to bother any of the scholars who have helped establish these facts. So why would a petty detail about an angel or the precise content of Jesus’s prayers amount to anything?
Evidence and context must be the guides of scholarship, not pathos. I can appreciate your desire to share your conversion story with people of a similar background, but I assumed from your comment about “other cultural mythic hero tales” that you might actually, you know, have some idea what you were talking about. But a refuting a fundamentalist reading of the gospels — or repeating the old “Paul invented Christianity” claim — is akin to debating Lamarckian evolution in the 21st century.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:20 amhahahahahahahaha
March 9th, 2009 at 9:27 am(*ahem*) sorry for the outburst.
Anyway….
if you find bits and pieces in the Bible that serve you along your way, it’s no skin off my nose. The Bible, as a whole, isn’t all that admirable.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:30 amI’m glad you appreciated my humor; I hope you understood that as my way of saying sorry for being a douchebag myself. I disagree with you about the Bible as a whole, but I understand your viewpoint — and I mean that in a non-demeaning way. Have a good day.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:02 amHere is a peace offering: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvjGIkl2yDY
Something we can both agree on, no doubt: these people are idiots.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:12 pm