this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
166 points (98.3% liked)

Atheism

4041 readers
41 users here now

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable


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!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

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a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Oops. Forgot the front cover.

top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 39 points 6 months ago (3 children)

"The Parker's".

That is the worse crime.

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago

Well when you stop going to school after 8th grade...

[–] Fluffy_Ruffs@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The Parker's give

What about their give?

[–] d00ery@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I was wondering this. The opinions they are giving belong to the Parkers.

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/punctuation/apostrophe/possessives

[–] Fluffy_Ruffs@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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..."

[–] d00ery@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago
[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Thank you for posting this so I didn't have to.

[–] nadiaraven@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Same. Angry atheist phase was all just embarrassment for falling for that shit as a child.

[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

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..."

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

That's why, as a Christian, I hate these books. Evangelicalism and other fundamentalist Christian groups are gonna kill Christianity.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] L3mmyW1nks@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

But it fits white Jesus..... :(

[–] Delusional@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Facts and logic aren't necessary when you're religious so this question will go straight over their heads.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

And Ken Ham's entire argument was "were you there?" which he never applied to himself.

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I am honestly a little curious about how this is spun?

[–] Darkard@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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"

[–] Idreamofcheesy@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] crawancon@lemm.ee 19 points 6 months ago

Thanks i hate it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

what if the world still smells like death but we are all used to it?

Woah...

[–] ivanafterall@kbin.social 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

That's always a fun one. Any observable examples of transitional species is "micro-evolution" and anything they can handwave away is "macro-evolution."

[–] KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

So what animals that are alive today belong to this kind?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Dragons. Duh.

[–] Idreamofcheesy@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Ever heard of a deer? Try again sweaty 💅💅

[–] dharwin@kbin.social 2 points 6 months ago

Wow, that is some hot bullshit right there.

[–] linkinkampf19@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 17 points 6 months ago (4 children)

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?

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 22 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.'

[–] kometes@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Every missing link found creates two more missing links, between the new species and the ancestor and the new species and the descendant.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

They just do. Didn't you read the book?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

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, YEC’s were the idiots we made fun of. It’s an entirely unnecessary contrivance, all because they imagine that the humans who wrote everything were infallible.

[–] Darkard@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Wow, that's some ruthless efficiency right there. TIL.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago
[–] Deconceptualist@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

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.