# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/621 "2010-09-07T21:52:19Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> If the universe is finite (yes in duration into the past), then it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it had a cause. If it had a cause, it had a first cause. > > Nope. It could be a time loop. It could be causeless. It could be caused by an infinite chain of previous universes. It could be a great many other things. One thing it isn’t however is the result of a Bronze Age myth created by people who thought the Earth was flat and pi = 3. > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 3\> Other universes have never been observed, neither is there a single shred of evidence to support their existence. I aguess you consider the possibility of such universes to also be a ‘laughable folly’? > > We have clear evidence that universes are possible since we live in one. That is evidence for at least the possibility of other universes; in fact, I think it a reasonable assumption that there are others since if nature can produce one universe, why would it stop? It didn’t stop with one planet or one star or one galaxy. > i > You God hypothesis however has no evidence that gods are even possible. You can’t point to some other god in order to demonstrate that your God can exist; can point to the universe to show that universes are possible. Despite you trying to equate the two, multiple universes are far, far, far, far more plausible and likely to exist than God. There is NO evidence for time loops, previous universes or other parallel universe. None. This is simply your opinion. Neither do you have any explanation of how ‘nature’ caused the universe we know exists. Every single compoenent of your view is unable to be supported by anything empirical. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/622 "2010-09-07T21:56:34Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Here’s the deal aigonz, we have something that needs to be explained: The universe. > > Can it be explained? I don’t know - I think it can. > > Now, there are many positions on the table. There is the eternal, finite, universe (B theory, eternalism). There is the big bang - big crunch scenario. There is the multiverse. There are a few other theories/models that I haven’t listed. > > Some of these have flaws and others seem to be out of popular contention. > > That said, there is _something_ to each of these. They are all ‘on the table’, so-to-speak (some may be in the ‘discard’ pile). > > God, on the other hand, is not on the table. Just because you - and a whole lot of other people - believe that a magic man can create the universe does not mean it’s on the table of explanations. > > You need to explain, at least in general terms (_PROVIDE_ something, in other words), how God created the universe (or _could_ have created the universe). > > If you can’t, then even the worst of the theories are _better_ then this ‘God’ theory, since they are at least attempts to explain the origin of the universe. > > God is not. There is not a shred of evidence for any alternative to the origin of the universe. The multiverse, previous universes, an eternal concept of time etc etc are all postulations of a finite mind. There is not a grain of empirical data to support any of them. Which leaves us with simply this. The universe exists. It consists of order, design and life. We can either accept that this comes from an intelligent mind that exists outside of our understanding of time and space, or we can assume that everything that exists MUST at some point have a naturalistic explanation. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/623 "2010-09-07T22:07:16Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 2\> You seem to have no understanding of the periods of time over which these hoaxes lasted, or the damage done to the scientific community. > > Out of the millions of fossils that we have which clearly demonstrate how creatures evolved over time, a handful have been exposed as hoaxes. There was the Piltdown skull, the von Zieten thing you mentioned which I had never heard of, and some feathered bone from China. You also mentioned Nebraska Man, but that wasn’t a hoax, it was a mistake which made no difference in our understanding of evolution. And Java Man? What is the hoax here? > > > [@](#): > > > > As of 2000, there were at least 50 biology texts that stilll use Haeckel’s discredited embryo drawings. > > Is there something wrong with that? The Haeckel story is an interesting side note in the history of biology. Students are taught about Lamarckism and how it was wrong, and they should be taught about Haeckel’s discredited idea of “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” That was another idea that was incompatible with Darwinian evolution. There’s nothing wrong with showing his drawings in a textbook and discussing how his idea was mistaken. 1\> The fossil evidence is conclusive on micro evolution, inconclsuive on macro evolution. What are you going to start discussing horses and whales now too? 2\> Java man is an interesting case in point, because it illustrates how deceit has been used to imprint evolution as plausible. Dubois found a skull cap and three teeth in 1891, and a thigh bone in 1892, on the island of Java. The bones were about 50 feet apart. On no other grounds than an obsession ith finding a ‘missing link’, Dubois claimed these fragments came from the same creature. From just these compenents, drawings appeared of an ape-man like creature, and declarations in various newspapers and journals of the discovery of the missing link. What Dubois didn;t reveal for over 30 years was that he had also found two human skulls in the same general location and level in a gravel deposit. There is in fact no proof that the skullcap didn’t belong to a large extinct ape, and the leg bone to an ordinary human. 3\> Heckels idea was not only mistaken, he forged the pictures. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/624 "2010-09-07T22:09:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yeah, that Haeckel claim is very deceptive. It is not taught as true in any textbook. In 2000, it was still shown in over 50 text books in the US. And while we’re on Mr Haeckel…he also claimed that “gill slits” (now called “throat pouches”), a backbone, and a tail in vertebrate embryos are proof that humans and animals descended from a common ancestor. In fact this is still presented in textbooks, despite the fact that the initial stages of development follow very different patterns of cell division and become very different structures in the mature organisms. The differences are ignored, and the similarities, though fleeting and only superficial, are emphasized to support the idea of a common evolutionary history. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/625 "2010-09-07T22:10:38Z")
[quote=“hotflungwok, post:617, topic:551952”] > [@raindog](#): > > Why is it nonsense? He said nothing about proof. In fact he specifically said we don’t know for sure. He argues that an explanation that has some evidence (like the Big Bang) is a better choice than an explanation that has no evidence (like God). So what is nonsense about that? The Big Bang is not a competing theory to that of a God. The Big bang points to a moment of ‘beginnings’. A moment that fits with a creator. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/626 "2010-09-07T22:16:20Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Yeah, that Haeckel claim is very deceptive. It is not taught as true in any textbook. > > In 2000, it was still shown in over 50 text books in the US. > > And while we’re on Mr Haeckel…he also claimed that “gill slits” (now called “throat pouches”), a backbone, and a tail in vertebrate embryos are proof that humans and animals descended from a common ancestor. In fact this is still presented in textbooks, despite the fact that the initial stages of development follow very different patterns of cell division and become very different structures in the mature organisms. The differences are ignored, and the similarities, though fleeting and only superficial, are emphasized to support the idea of a common evolutionary history. You seem to have a serious lack of education and understanding. Not believing in evolution is delusional. The amount of evidence for it is so staggering that it beggars the imagination that you could be an even moderately educated adult and not know this to be true. Do you think that being painfully unaware of common knowledge helps or hinders the perception of your arguments? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/627 "2010-09-07T22:17:35Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> There are various definitions of ideology, but most encompass a set of ideas. We can debate the etent of formalisation of the ideology of atheism, however it would seem self evident that it encompasses a ‘set of ideas’. > > Atheism encompasses exactly one idea: that I have not seen evidence that would cause me to believe in god(s). That’s it. No tenets, no membership card. > By referring to this as an “agent” you’re begging the question. You’re using a term that pre-loads the answer you come up with as something with agency. > > > [@](#): > > > > If this agent is a chemical reaction, then the chemicals must be uncaused. But we have no examples of uncaused anything in the natural universe. > > This has been explained to you over and over earlier in this very thread. Quantum events are uncaused. Continuing to repeat your error doesn’t make it true. 1\> Atheism ceratinly encompasses more thhan just ‘one idea’. I suggest you read the definition of Atheism given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), at [http://www.atheists.org/atheism](http://www.atheists.org/atheism). Atheism has developed a set of tenets, arguments and postions on a number of issues. 2\> You have no evidence that quantum events are uncaused. You continue to repeat this as a mantra, but if you are true to science you will present evidence. An uncaused event must literally appear out of nothing. Quantum events do not appear out of nothing. You only hold to this position because it is convenient. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/628 "2010-09-07T22:19:16Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@CurtC](#): > > > > Atheism encompasses exactly one idea: that I have not seen evidence that would cause me to believe in god(s). That’s it. No tenets, no membership card. > > By referring to this as an “agent” you’re begging the question. You’re using a term that pre-loads the answer you come up with as something with agency. > > > > This has been explained to you over and over earlier in this very thread. Quantum events are uncaused. Continuing to repeat your error doesn’t make it true. > > 1\> Atheism ceratinly encompasses more thhan just ‘one idea’. I suggest you read the definition of Atheism given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), at [http://www.atheists.org/atheism](http://www.atheists.org/atheism). Atheism has developed a set of tenets, arguments and postions on a number of issues. > > 2\> You have no evidence that quantum events are uncaused. You continue to repeat this as a mantra, but if you are true to science you will present evidence. An uncaused event must literally appear out of nothing. Quantum events do not appear out of nothing. You only hold to this position because it is convenient. You should look up virtual particles. But you won’t. Because you don’t care about facts and reality. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/629 "2010-09-07T22:21:08Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > In 2000, it was still shown in over 50 text books in the US. > > > > And while we’re on Mr Haeckel…he also claimed that “gill slits” (now called “throat pouches”), a backbone, and a tail in vertebrate embryos are proof that humans and animals descended from a common ancestor. In fact this is still presented in textbooks, despite the fact that the initial stages of development follow very different patterns of cell division and become very different structures in the mature organisms. The differences are ignored, and the similarities, though fleeting and only superficial, are emphasized to support the idea of a common evolutionary history. > > You seem to have a serious lack of education and understanding. Not believing in evolution is delusional. The amount of evidence for it is so staggering that it beggars the imagination that you could be an even moderately educated adult and not know this to be true. > > Do you think that being painfully unaware of common knowledge helps or hinders the perception of your arguments? Well you are taing great pains to denigrate me, and haven’t contributed a shred of evidence. So here’s a challenge for you. Present the evidence for the transition of one definite species to another completely different species. And I’m not talking about Darwins finches. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/630 "2010-09-07T22:22:11Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> Atheism ceratinly encompasses more thhan just ‘one idea’. I suggest you read the definition of Atheism given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), at [http://www.atheists.org/atheism](http://www.atheists.org/atheism). Atheism has developed a set of tenets, arguments and postions on a number of issues. > > > > 2\> You have no evidence that quantum events are uncaused. You continue to repeat this as a mantra, but if you are true to science you will present evidence. An uncaused event must literally appear out of nothing. Quantum events do not appear out of nothing. You only hold to this position because it is convenient. > > You should look up virtual particles. But you won’t. Because you don’t care about facts and reality. Virtual particles are not ‘uncaused’. Catch up. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/631 "2010-09-07T22:28:54Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > You seem to have a serious lack of education and understanding. Not believing in evolution is delusional. The amount of evidence for it is so staggering that it beggars the imagination that you could be an even moderately educated adult and not know this to be true. > > > > Do you think that being painfully unaware of common knowledge helps or hinders the perception of your arguments? > > Well you are taing great pains to denigrate me, and haven’t contributed a shred of evidence. So here’s a challenge for you. Present the evidence for the transition of one definite species to another completely different species. And I’m not talking about Darwins finches. How about all of biology? The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you think you’re smarter than every single biologist on Earth. None of them are anywhere near as bright as you are. Why would you think that? DNA shows common descent. Fossils show common descent. Taxonomic traits show common descent. Every fucking thing we do in the science of biology show it. Significantly less than 1% of PhDs in the biological sciences question evolution. And the pitiful few that question it are all creationist morons. Read this page: > **[Evidence of common descent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent)** > > Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor. This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and illustrates the processes that created Earth's biodiversity. It supports the modern evolutionary synthesis—the current scientific theory that explains how and why life... It’s not honorable to be willfully ignorant of reality. You aren’t fighting the good fight here, you are wasting the brain you think God gave you. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/632 "2010-09-07T22:31:17Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Well you are taing great pains to denigrate me, and haven’t contributed a shred of evidence. So here’s a challenge for you. Present the evidence for the transition of one definite species to another completely different species. And I’m not talking about Darwins finches. > > How about all of biology? The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you think you’re smarter than every single biologist on Earth. None of them are anywhere near as bright as you are. > > Why would you think that? > > DNA shows common descent. Fossils show common descent. Taxonomic traits show common descent. Every fucking thing we do in the science of biology show it. Significantly less than 1% of PhDs in the biological sciences question evolution. And the pitiful few that question it are all creationist morons. > > Read this page: > [Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent) > > It’s not honorable to be willfully ignorant of reality. You aren’t fighting the good fight here, you are wasting the brain you think God gave you. The evidence you claim for common descent can easily be explained by common DESIGN. Lift the level of your rhetoric to something resembling intelligence and provide the evidence I have requested. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/633 "2010-09-07T22:34:22Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > How about all of biology? The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you think you’re smarter than every single biologist on Earth. None of them are anywhere near as bright as you are. > > > > Why would you think that? > > > > DNA shows common descent. Fossils show common descent. Taxonomic traits show common descent. Every fucking thing we do in the science of biology show it. Significantly less than 1% of PhDs in the biological sciences question evolution. And the pitiful few that question it are all creationist morons. > > > > Read this page: > > [Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent) > > > > It’s not honorable to be willfully ignorant of reality. You aren’t fighting the good fight here, you are wasting the brain you think God gave you. > > The evidence you claim for common descent can easily be explained by common DESIGN. Lift the level of your rhetoric to something resembling intelligence and provide the evidence I have requested. I gave you what you asked for. Evidence of common descent. Wouldn’t someone with integrity admit that instead of ignoring it? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/634 "2010-09-07T22:43:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > The evidence you claim for common descent can easily be explained by common DESIGN. Lift the level of your rhetoric to something resembling intelligence and provide the evidence I have requested. > > I gave you what you asked for. Evidence of common descent. Wouldn’t someone with integrity admit that instead of ignoring it? You don’t understand evidence. The material you have presented is suggestive of common descent. It is also suggestive of common design. Either way it proves nothing. What I have asked for is empirical data showing the links between two distinctly different species. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/635 "2010-09-07T22:46:56Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > I gave you what you asked for. Evidence of common descent. Wouldn’t someone with integrity admit that instead of ignoring it? > > You don’t understand evidence. The material you have presented is suggestive of common descent. It is also suggestive of common design. Either way it proves nothing. > > What I have asked for is empirical data showing the links between two distinctly different species. That’s what evidence of common descent is. What are you picturing your evidence would look like? Are you actually so uneducated that you think a fish will swim up to the shore and feet will pop out? Also, evidence of common descent in no way is evidence of _design_. If creatures had been designed there wouldn’t be transitional forms. It’s amazing you really just refuse to actually engage the lobes here. All I’m asking is for you to actually think about this. Transitional forms = no design. Think about it, it’s simple. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/636 "2010-09-07T22:47:22Z")
It would also do you good to actually read the Wiki reference. The passage on vestigial structures is an interetsing one, given that the conclusion quoted is as follows: “The most reasonable conclusion to draw is that these creatures descended from creatures in which these parts were functional, which in turn indicates that most (or indeed all) creatures descended from common ancenstors.” This is hardly certain, and is not even unequivocal on the idea of a common ancestor (as opposed to ancestors). ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/637 "2010-09-07T22:49:44Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > You don’t understand evidence. The material you have presented is suggestive of common descent. It is also suggestive of common design. Either way it proves nothing. > > > > What I have asked for is empirical data showing the links between two distinctly different species. > > That’s what evidence of common descent is. What are you picturing your evidence would look like? Are you actually so uneducated that you think a fish will swim up to the shore and feet will pop out? > > Also, evidence of common descent in no way is evidence of _design_. If creatures had been designed there wouldn’t be transitional forms. It’s amazing you really just refuse to actually engage the lobes here. All I’m asking is for you to actually think about this. > > Transitional forms = no design. Think about it, it’s simple. 1\> Why would there not be transitional forms? Even in your own wiki refernce it states “It must be noted, however, that vestigial structures may have had their original function replaced with another. For example the halteres in dipterists help balance the insect while in flight and the wings of ostriches are used in mating rituals.” 2\> “Are you actually so uneducated that you think a fish will swim up to the shore and feet will pop out?” No, but you must believe that this happens in trasntions over millions of years, so you will have evidence right? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/638 "2010-09-07T22:50:59Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> The fossil evidence is conclusive on micro evolution, inconclsuive on macro evolution. What are you going to start discussing horses and whales now too? You’re making a fool of yourself here. It would be really hard for fossils to show microevolution. The millions of fossils we have pretty much all show macroevolution - an accumulation of microevolution. Why did you mention horses and whales? Those are good examples - we have a near-complete set of fossils showing a smooth transition from land-dwelling quadrupeds to whales. > [@](#): > > 2\> Java man is an interesting case in point, because it illustrates how deceit has been used to imprint evolution as plausible. Dubois found a skull cap and three teeth in 1891, and a thigh bone in 1892, on the island of Java. The bones were about 50 feet apart. On no other grounds than an obsession ith finding a ‘missing link’, Dubois claimed these fragments came from the same creature. He found _Homo erectus_ fossils - even if you thought that he misidentified those (and I don’t), we still have lots of other _erectus_ specimens. Are you going to deny them all? > [@](#): > > 3\> Heckels idea was not only mistaken, he forged the pictures. For one thing, Haeckels’ drawings were emphasized to make the point that he was wanting them to show. “Forged” is probably too strong a word. But hey, I’ll give that one to you - so what if he did? His basic idea was wrong, and it stood in opposition to Darwinian evolution. If Haeckels had been right, then Darwinian evolution would have been proven wrong. > [@aigonz](#): > > In 2000, it was still shown in over 50 text books in the US. Good! Textbooks should show historical ideas that were disproven. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/639 "2010-09-07T22:57:45Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> Why would there not be transitional forms? Even in your own wiki refernce it states “It must be noted, however, that vestigial structures may have had their original function replaced with another. For example the halteres in dipterists help balance the insect while in flight and the wings of ostriches are used in mating rituals.” If god made animals as they were there wouldn’t be transitional forms. Because they wouldn’t be changing. If we have transitional forms then animals weren’t designed in their current form. Jesus merciful fuck, this is stunning. Stop and read the masthead of the site a few times. I don’t know what you think you’re getting at because of the sentence of vestigial forms. But they support evolution. They certainly don’t support design, because God would be an idiot to put tiny worthless feet on a legless lizard. But than again, I guess God is an idiot. Because it seems like he wants his followers to ignore what’s in front of their eyes. > [@](#): > > 2\> “Are you actually so uneducated that you think a fish will swim up to the shore and feet will pop out?” No, but you must believe that this happens in trasntions over millions of years, so you will have evidence right? Yes. We have evidence. We have transitional forms. And DNA. And taxonomic bits. Read the page again. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/640 "2010-09-07T23:11:28Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> The fossil evidence is conclusive on micro evolution, inconclsuive on macro evolution. What are you going to start discussing horses and whales now too? > > You’re making a fool of yourself here. It would be really hard for fossils to show microevolution. The millions of fossils we have pretty much all show macroevolution - an accumulation of microevolution. Why did you mention horses and whales? Those are good examples - we have a near-complete set of fossils showing a smooth transition from land-dwelling quadrupeds to whales. > > He found _Homo erectus_ fossils - even if you thought that he misidentified those (and I don’t), we still have lots of other _erectus_ specimens. Are you going to deny them all? > > For one thing, Haeckels’ drawings were emphasized to make the point that he was wanting them to show. “Forged” is probably too strong a word. But hey, I’ll give that one to you - so what if he did? His basic idea was wrong, and it stood in opposition to Darwinian evolution. If Haeckels had been right, then Darwinian evolution would have been proven wrong. > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > In 2000, it was still shown in over 50 text books in the US. > > Good! Textbooks should show historical ideas that were disproven. 1\> Macro evolution is NOT an accumulation of micro evolution. You simply don’t get it. 2\> Your claim about fossil evidence for quadrupeds to whales just shows how indoctrinated by this stuff. Each step in this alleged link is based on supposition, not evidence. A very early step in this alleged chain was supposed by nothing more than dental similarities between the mesonychid Dissacus navajovius (which is Dissacus carnifex of Cope) and some archaeocete specimens. However there is now much disagreeemnt about ven this scant evidence. Each and every alleged link is the same. I suggest you look beynd the pretty pictures and do some study. 3\> Haeckles drawings were shown until 2000 as being CORRECT! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=33)