Oops. Forgot the front cover.

  • nadiaraven@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

      • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Darkard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          6 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            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?

        • ivanafterall@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            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.”

    • linkinkampf19@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    6 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      6 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.’

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        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.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

  • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    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.