,,,we birds did,nt come from no reptile were not a dinosoars reletive AND IM GOING TO GET VIOLENT WITH THE EVOLUTION WACKOS IM GOING TO PICK THEIR EYES OUT SQUAWK SQUAWK
,,,we birds did,nt come from no reptile were not a dinosoars reletive AND IM GOING TO GET VIOLENT WITH THE EVOLUTION WACKOS IM GOING TO PICK THEIR EYES OUT SQUAWK SQUAWK
“Without God as the immaterial creator of this material universe, there is no rational reason why something like immaterial logic should even exist, and, if it did exist, why it should ‘work’, or why we should trust it.”
Utter nonsense, of course. You don’t offer any evidence to support such a preposterous opinion. Like a true dogmatist you simply state it, and expect others to accept it as The Truth.
“Furthermore, without God, your brain is undesigned and without purpose”
More foolishness. The concept of self organizing systems is one which is well understood by every educated individual. And purpose is what we make of it. Pretending that “God” is a purpose is pure intellectual cowardice. The God Theory in general seems to be based on an inability, or unwillingness, to think. It’s surrender, pure and simple: “I can’t figure out how this works, therefore God!”.
All doubters can watch Ben Stein’s movie EXPELLED this weekend – if they can find it in a movie house near them.
Would recommend it highly for believers and non-believers.
R of C, you are displaying too much ignorance of theology to even begin discussing back on the space offered by this blog. Either hold on to your bitterness or do some research of your own – I won’t take up more of Kate’s bandwidth.
Jon, dogmatically following Darwin’s writings led Hitler to happily kill off “lesser breeds” of humanity. Stalin was ecstatic when he read Darwin and realized evolution meant there was no moral limit to what the man on top could do. Yes, believers in God have also committed atrocities — the Bible is clear that sin causes grief, even with those who call on God’s name. But ask yourselves — when things start collapsing all around you, where are you going to run? Probably not to the atheistic regimes of this world. You’ll cling to the last vestiges of Christian-based society that you can find.
As for science, Christians and atheists both look at the physical world with different worldviews underlying their assumptions. The conclusions evolutionists come up with are based on as much belief as anything Christians conclude. Again, the space here is too short for all the scientific research and conclusions Christians have come up with; if you’re truly not dogmatic and willing to actually check out other viewpoints, you’ll find it on the internet.
Some day we’ll all be dead. Then we’ll either know, or we won’t be around to care. Enjoy your lives.
Blue pill — red pill?
As though their only problem was…They Didn’t Believe in God.
I wouldn’t want to have to choose between living under a regime based on fanatical commitment to ideology — any ideology, including secularism — and one based on fanatical commitment to some god or another.
Very little difference between them, as far as I can see. Once belief becomes fanaticism, there’s no practical difference between religion and ideology. Either way, you eventually end up being required to Believe, or else.
Thanks Ann your comments are truly “Christian”
These all just your feelings and faith I am sorry you have to put me down to feel better about them.
Yes, ROC, I saw something on the telly about the “scientific” theory explaining the parting of the Red Sea. In a similar vein, I also have a “scientific” theory as to the size of the hamster on the little wheel inside your skull.
Please! I know far more about science than you do about the Bible. As I said before, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Many of Hilter’s generals considered him as a catholic…or am I too stupid to be allowed in this conversation.
Please! I know far more about science than you do about the Bible. As I said before, you’re embarrassing yourself
And this is a fact because……you said so?
ROC: It is an observation based on your postings. Duh.
But, out of respect for Kate’s bandwidth and rules, that’s the end of my flamewar with you. Have a nice day.
bullwinkle – sorry, I don’t accept ‘divine revelation’. And I’m quite aware of Aquinas’s ‘Five Arguments’. See also Averroes and Avicenna. I don’t accept them as logical.
I agree with the reality of both faith and reason (see Benedict’s Argument for this in his excellent Regensburg speech) but I don’t accept faith in a ‘revealed truth’.
bluetech – you are satisfied with your conclusion. I am satisfied with mine! They each differ strongly from the other. I remain an atheist.
By the way, the neodarwinism that many people understand as ‘Darwinism’ is very simple and mechanical; it’s that ‘two-step’ to which I refer, made up of a random mutation which is judged by Natural Selection. I disagree with neodarwinism. The original Darwin was far more complex than this simple mechanical two-step.
ann- you are confusing religion with morality. You don’t need religion, or a belief in god(s) to be also a believer in morality. Therefore, you confining atheism to political systems that are totalitarian is quite incorrect. I’m an atheist; I’m also highly moral, and democratic. So, I’d suggest some caution in your linking atheism to a political ideology.
Well it looks like this has turned into another immature conversation with name calling.
I enjoy this site and sometimes I like to chat but most times I just read.
There are too many members that feel that calling somebody a name helps justify their position.
Perhaps I could have learned something from some of you posters and took your point of view with consideration.
If calling one stupid or ignorant is somebodies way of discussing then perhaps I have chosen the wrong people to learn from.
“But, sorry, there’s still no god.”
But that’s just your opinion, right ET?
And once again, the silly argument pops up that because God doesn’t intervene in all the suffering in the world, proves God doesn’t exist.
It’s called free will. If God intervened and ended all the suffering and evil, what choice would you have?
So Eeyore
I ask a question about slavery and mention about the possible scientific explanation of the parting of the Red Sea and you know that I must know less about science than you know of the Bible.
Well with pure and complete scientific data like that how can I even compete.
ROC: For what it’s worth, I agree with your last posting.
But…you DID expose your ignorance of the Bible, so I don’t believe I was “name calling”.
I hold no ill-will toward you.
“Many of Hilter’s generals considered him as a catholic…or am I too stupid to be allowed in this conversation.”
Here we go with Hitler the Christian, again. You’re new. I’ll give you that. But go check the archives, this topic has been exhausted. BTW, Hitler was anything but.
“Christians, and other who believe in God, have a rational reason for believing in reason, logic, and a brain that can make sense of reality around it.”
Richard:
Being a god of sorts myself, I don’t profess to be an atheist, however I must point out that your statement above presupposes that if God exists, he must be a rational and logical being. What is the basis for this assertion? Is it that the universe appears to be somewhat ordered? That’s only our perception, which, as you point out, is only as good as the brain making it. But even if there is a God, if the mind of God is not orderly, then we cannot be assured that our minds are either. Nothing, then, that they perceive can be trusted, including the supposed order of the cosmos.
Nah…I’m just kidding. It’s all part of the plan, big guy. Not to worry. I’m all over it.
Ann,
The “science” that you speak of cannot be science. I don’t want to explain the scientific method here but its important to be able to change your hypothesis if your observations do not confirm them.
For example, the claim: God exists.
What is your repeatable test which conclusively shows existence? What other factors could affect your interpretation of the results?
I don’t want to be crucified on the altar of science, but young earth science isn’t science at all. You have a presupposed conclusion (the world is getting warmer) and you justify all tests to that assumption rather than justifying your assumption to the tests.
It’s nice to know that I wasn’t the first to Goodwin this thread.
Irwin Daisy
I understand your point of “free will”
it does make sense.
My thoughts are that right now as we speak some child is being thrown into a mud hut and is being beaten and tortured and other acts that are so vile that none of us would wish to read. After a few years of this treatment this child will eventually die a horrible and lonely death.
God is suppossed to love us and yet does nothing.
If God exists I refuse to worship him/her/it ,as that is a God not worthy of my praise.
If somebody can tell me why I should I would be open to hear it.
You are correct Daisy there is a valid arguement that Hitler was or wasn’t a christian.
Individual atheists may do evil things but they dont do evil things in the name of atheism.
Irwin,
Re: Hitler being Christian
How convenient is it for Christians to dismiss any connection with Hitler. Just dismissing something doesn’t make it so.
If Hitler believed in Darwin, he would not have accelerated the process himself as those races weaker than his, would die out anyways (see hippies). You’re thinking of the concept of Social Darwinism, which is nothing more than supremacist thuggery.
Regardless of Hitler’s religion… that a God oversaw the holocaust, the cultural revolution, Darfur, Armenia etc. is proof enough that he does not love us. To echo RoC – If god really loved us why does he not stop the war?
Why can’t Christians just accept that they only “know” god by stretching logic and reason beyond its yield point.
More often than not I defend Christians because of the disproportionate amount of negativity directed towards it. I also avoid discussing the origins of life with Christians (especially Muslims) because a differing opinion to those people is often regarded as an insult or an hurtful comment, but since god folk have come out I will just say this: The fact that life is very complicated isn’t proof that a very complex being must have designed all things. That is a valid hypothesis but it isn’t proof. I understand that it makes you feel better to think you are immortal, it helps alleviate a feeling of irrelevance because everyone knows that the world doesn’t stop for one instant when you are gone(my opinion). I will accept that this belief system typically leads one to a happier life individually and for the family, just the same as telling my wife she doesn’t look fat in those jeans makes my life happier.
ROC: As the old saying goes “If you love something, set if free. If it returns to you, it will always be yours; if it doesn’t, it never was”.
It is my belief that this is akin to God’s attitude toward man. He has set us free…if we return to him, he will receive us…if we don’t, then c’est la vie.
Remember, we must appear as ants in an ant colony to an omnipotent God…he may wish the best for us and love us, but he’s not going to control the lives of each of the ants if they choose not to obey.
Having said that, that is where I have now parted way with God…as an adult, I had accepted Christ as saviour and then circumstances made be feel that I was worse-off than before…so I felt that God had abandoned me (whom he had sworn to protect and cherish). Now, I have questioned his existence and live as an agnostic…apparently no worse the wear.
“He’s just testing me”, will be the rejoinder of the faithful. Harrumph, I say. He didn’t “set me free”, he beat me for no good reason…and I will not return.
So…what does this say about the love of God? Errr…ummmm…say, maybe you’ve got a point, ROC!
irwin daisy – I didn’t refer to ‘suffering’ as a reason to reject the existence of god.
Furthermore, your defining my atheism as ‘just your opinion’ reduces my conclusion to the personal and quite possibly irrational and subjective.
No, my rejection of the existence of god isn’t just an opinion; it’s a reasoned conclusion. I use my reason, my observation, my capacity for logic, my analysis of the various pro and con arguments; what else could I or anyonen else use to either justify the existence of god or justify his non-existence?
Obviously this type of discussion can’t be one that enables or encourages people to change their conclusions. Those who believe in god will continue to do so; those who don’t, will continue to do so. End of debate?
“Christianity is an invention of sick brains,” Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.
“So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death,” Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.
A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History):
We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.
It’s a well documented fact that Hitler was very much informed by the occult, particularly theosophy. However, he was a cunning man and in the early days he would feign acceptance of Christianity if only to manipulate certain Germans towards his cause. Of course, later a lot of Christians rotted away in the camps.
But, then, as I said this topic has been exhausted. Look it up in the archives.
“To echo RoC – If god really loved us why does he not stop the war?” – Jon
As mentioned before, there’s a little problem called free will.
ET,
This is what I said,
“But, sorry, there’s still no god.”
“But that’s just your opinion, right ET?”
The rest of the post was not directed towards you. Sorry for the confusion.
Hi other Jon,
It’s quite eerie to have you talk like that. I usually have to defend the creationist point of view because my urban contemporaries think God is evil should he exist. But on SDA usually I take to defending the opposite point of view to balance.
I like how you’re representing a moderate influence.
I’ve been sorting out a list of things we can agree on in this tread:
1. Hitler was bad.
2. So was Mao
3. You might even call them equally bad.
4. They murdered not for god or no god but power.
5. There is no proof (scientifically) that god exists.
6. The burden of proof lies on the claimant not the defender.
7. It is easier to prove the existence of something (if it exists) than proving that something doesn’t exist.
8. Using a 5th century Saint, to prove scientifically that God exists is pretty weak.
Cheers,
ROC
Take some time to read the scriptures, pay close attention to the sections speaking about those people that chose to make God into their own image, or as you would have it, one that fits your idea of what God should be.
Irwin,
You’re going sideways. How does proving that the Nazi machinery was anti christian prove that evolution is false?
Christians will always reach an wall on evolution until they understand the fundamentals of science and hypothesis testing.
The significance of the finding is that it confirms at the molecular level what had been the strongest hypothesis based on other evidence. The science of evolution keeps improving–the hallmark of a mature science. I have read recent reports of computer directed evolution of various bacteria, as the computer varies selective pressures on the bacterial ecosystem to generate new species variants. It’s gettig nearly impossible to do cuting edge, successful medical science research without invoking evolutionary science. The people who believe evolution and belief in their god(s) is inconsistent should rethink their paradigm.
Foolishly I posted without reading the majority of the posts. I posted under Jon @ 2:02 and I do not want to be confused with the other Jon who is posting(often). I do agree with some of his points, but not with his malice or hatred. I also disagree that what ever Hitler and his friend claimed to be makes them that. Actions speak louder than words and Hitler’s actions were not typical of a Catholic. The anti-seal hunt and gopher derby crowd claim to be “Environmentalist” yet they’re actions are contrary to that of those who are trying to help the environment (over population of these species hurts the environment). I am the Jon that likes Rap, and is a “bigot” to the “historically disadvantaged and discriminated against people of Ontario.” From now on I will post as Play’nWitYoMomma so that Jon can take credit for his work.
Dear Other Jon / Play’nwityomomma,
Re: Malice and Hatred
Please explain…
“I also disagree that what ever Hitler and his friend claimed to be makes them that. Actions speak louder than words and Hitler’s actions were not typical of a Catholic.”
Heh. Ever hear of the “no-true-Scotsman” fallacy? Using your argument, a Muslim could also claim that no true Muslim would ever do what Osama did, therefore Osama isn’t a Muslim. What a handy way to rid yourself of all the bad apples, huh? Simply declare that anyone who does something bad can’t POSSIBLY be a true member of your religion.
It’s a silly argument anyway – all this nonsense about whether Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were religious. Who gives a shit? Their policies weren’t based on their religious beliefs (or a lack thereof) so the whole discussion is meaningless. I just find your hypocrisy amusing.
Jon,
“You’re going sideways. How does proving that the Nazi machinery was anti christian prove that evolution is false?”
What? Where in my comments did I even bring up evolution? Please explain.
However, for the record, I don’t believe in Darwinian evolution. Neither do I believe in a 6000 year old earth. It’s obvious some creatures do adapt to changing environments. And I’ll leave it at that.
Alex,
Apparently you don’t read.
Just as well Hitler never claimed to be a duck, then, eh, Alex? Cause then he’d really have been a duck, right?
Hitler was raised as a Catholic. Left the church in adolescence. Never returned to the faith. Had the same approximately the same vague religious beliefs as Albert Einstein; you know, the guy you get all steamed up over when those damn Christers try falsely to claim him as a Christian?
As a politician he found it expedient to play up his Catholic roots, given that the Centre Party, one of the two largest parties in the Reichstag, was the official party of the Catholic Church. He was careful to attend mass regularly, from the time he first ran for a seat right up to the point where Centre votes put him in power; after which he never wasted another moment in church again.
Obviously a Christian, eh? And I’m a kangaroo.
“Apparently you don’t read.”
Ah, yes. It’s not your room temperature IQ that’s the problem – it’s my inability to read. Sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
“Just as well Hitler never claimed to be a duck, then, eh, Alex? Cause then he’d really have been a duck, right?”
….
Did you take your meds this morning?
Seriously, you’re claiming that someones religious belief are an identifying trait equivalent to their SPECIES??? Holy cow man! Get a grip on yourself.
“As a politician he found it expedient to play up his Catholic roots …. from the time he first ran for a seat right up to the point where Centre votes put him in power;”
So what you’re saying is that the only reason Hitler made it as afar as he did is because he claimed to be Christian?
Gee, that makes your religion look REAL good….
German 1: Hey, what do you think of this guy?
German 2: Well….he wants to dominate the world and kill people based on genetic identity. Seems bad.
German 1: But he’s Christian!
German 2: Oh, well, that’s GREAT! I’m deffinitely voting for him then!
I know that’s not the point you’re trying to make, but that’s an unintended consequence of your argument. If you’re going to argue that Hitler played up to religion in order to get in power, then you’re essentially arguing that Christians were responsible for putting Hitler in power. So you’re all dumb, gullible, and support fascists. Good job 🙂 And thanks for the revelation – it’ll help my own global-domination plans go much more smoothly.
Alex:
If you are calling me a hypocrite because I do not believe in god but will say something to support those who do when they are being blasted unfairly then so be it.
Hitler may have been a Catholic it matters not, some people will claim to be something that they are not for personal gain (wolf in sheep’s clothing) and some will do just as you say ( “no-true-Scotsman” ). There is no singular rule.
Have you considered that: “a Muslim could also claim that no true Muslim would ever do what Osama did, therefore Osama isn’t a Muslim.” actually believes this. Not everyone is always intellectually dishonest, they sometimes just disagree or may even just be wrong.
I find your haughtiness amusing.
Play’nWitYoMomma at April 25, 2008 4:37 PM
*shrug* Actually I assumed that you were one of these Christian zealots who have no problem stating that Hitler “was not a true christian”, but in the same breath will tell you that Osama MUST be a real Muslim, because Islam is inherently violent/sadistic/barbaric/etc. If you’re non religious, than I apologize for making that assumption.
However, I’m not entirely impressed with your fence-sitting either. There are certainly people out there who will “claim to be something that they are not for personal gain”, however, there’s very little reason to believe that either Hitler or Osama fall into that category as far as their religious beliefs go.
And, once again, that whole argument has nothing to do with evolution, which was the original topic of discussion. So I think that’s all I will say on this subject. If anyone has some really interesting point to add, I might be drawn to respond, but otherwise let’s stick to the original topic.
“There is no logic in god. God is just another way for humans to explain a random universe without having to admit that they don’t know.”
(proof please)
“because it’s obvious that too see god you must believe in god, and to evolve (and gain use of your thumbs) you must believe in evolution.”
(condescending)
If you list the priorities side by side of a Christian and an atheist they’re lists will be quite different near the top. For a Christian god is #1 above all else, whereas for an Atheist “the great question” is somewhere in the middle to the bottom of life’s priority list. In my opinion this is why discussions like abortion or god get so heated, on one side these are the paramount issues (the murder of innocents, going to heaven). To an Atheist, it isn’t murder, and their is no heaven so these issues are quite trivial. My point is Atheists are very inconsiderate when discussing these issues because they do not understand how deeply their words cut, and sometimes(more often than not) are condescending because of a complete disrespect for that others belief. My comments may have been a little harsh and judgmental , my bad.
Hitler was vegetarian. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Play’nWitYoMomma, I accept your comments about the insensitivity of atheists. Plainly many of them are baiting, possibly as revenge of some sort, which is hardly magnanimous. (I do think, however, the “great Question” as you call it ranks somewhere much lower. I will not illustrate with a comparable issue, lest I offend.)
On the other hand, theists attacks on the science of evolution are quite disturbing to atheists. For myself (and evolutionary-oritented philosophical thinkers such as diverse as Nietzsche, Oliver wendell Holmes Jr. and even Marx), evolutionary science is a critical element of creating a robust human community for the children or or children. Theist attacks are deeply disturbing and offensive to us. In the meantime, evolutionary science keeps progressing, adding degrees of confirmation with each advance in technology and contributing to the advance of technology and science in other fields (such as medicine, in particular).
Irwin,
It’s just that the conversation got sidetracked from debate on evolution to Hitler youth songs. Thanks for setting me straight.
Other Jon (playin’),
Overcoming challenges to faith strengthens that faith. People who act thin skinned over comments such as this are either politicians or people who play one on the internet. You say that my “there’s no logic in god” argument is hurtful. I think it’s apt, regardless of whose sensitivities I might effect. Remember this is a free speech blog de jure.
I understand the sensitivities of these papists and christians; I’m a reformed former-christian myself. But after the “Lightning in the mud” and “I guess I won’t see you in heaven” earlier in the thread, (as well as the Type-o thumbs rebuttal by Ann) the gloves come off. No one has free reign to publish tripe without criticism or comment. Whether it’s the pseudoscientists of AGW or pseudoscientists of Young Earth, no one gets a free ride because they believe the science is settled.
In both of those previous examples the arguers use the appeal to authority. Gore/God is the authority; therefore no one lesser may argue… That’s crap and you know it.
Also, Murray,
I’m a vegetarian but I don’t mind the connection to Hitler, my convictions on the issue are such that I don’t turtle when it’s brought up.
Jon and others: I was simply stating that I’m not you(jon). I find a lot of your comments parallel my own thoughts and I don’t want to take credit for your musings,on the same note I wouldn’t want you to be roasted for some BS I might say in the future. Walking on egg shells around this topic is my choice, just like before telling a racy joke I like to make sure those whom I joke with will not take it the wrong way. There is nothing wrong with the joke, it is just a choice I make before telling it.
playing – your words on believers vs non-believers in god are not based in reality.
It doesn’t make sense to define someone who doesn’t believe in god, as also, someone who supports abortion. Or who supports communism/socialism. Or who is without integrity, morality, feelings. You can’t make these links
An atheist refers ONLY to someone who doesn’t believe in god(s). Period. That has nothing to do with supporting abortion.
Actually ET, atheists remind me of a bunch of pubescent boys sitting around discussing the ecstasy of sex, something they have never experienced. Oh the emotive expressions of passion and conviction. Oh the assuredness that comes only from one’s own ignorance. It must be so, I read about it in Playboy, and Penthouse also agrees. We must hide this sure knowledge from those who have gone before for they forever remain ignorant of this great and noble urge. Causeless Causation, Imperative less Logic. As close to the real thing as boys using their gym socks for purposes other than keeping feet warm and dry. But it makes such a great story. One you can brag about forever or at least as long as none of your buddies have experienced the real thing.
…when i grow up, i wanna be a tyrannosaurus
It always amazes me how a discussion on the theory of evolution becomes so easily sidetracked into other issues that have nothing to do with scientific examination.
Maybe that’s because, in the 150 years or so of the theory’s existence, there has been not one shred of scientific evidence to support the postulation that one species can evolve into another one.
Looking back on the language of the oriiginal theory and knowing what we know today, it is totally laughable.
The entire concept of gemmules being converted by outside factors through process called pangenisis was proven incorrect as early as 1869.
Subsequent understanding of how DNA works totally invalidated the original theory of species’ abilities to evolve into other species.
Darwin was less a scientist than our modern-day friend David Suzuki.
Darwin never earned a degree in science. At least Suzuki is an accredited biologist.
Curiously, the concepts of gemmules and pangenisis are no longer used in the English language or our taught in our schools.
How is it that the comments section for each good news advance in evolutionary science devolves into a theist versus a-theist debate. Theists have to accept that evolutionary science is a mature productive field that is as essential to modern biological science as math is to physics. Even the Vatican has come to understand that denying evolutionary science is a losing position. Whether or not you believe in supernatural powers is a separate issue–as irrelevant as whether Hitler was vegetarian.
My thoughts are that right now as we speak some child is being thrown into a mud hut and is being beaten and tortured and other acts that are so vile that none of us would wish to read. After a few years of this treatment this child will eventually die a horrible and lonely death.
God is suppossed to love us and yet does nothing.
If God exists I refuse to worship him/her/it ,as that is a God not worthy of my praise.
Ah, you want Him to stop other people’s evil, but not your evil. Do you think your evil is less offensive to Him than others? It isn’t.
The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23
He died on the cross in your stead so that you, and other evil doers, might live. And you say He does nothing. Not to mention a whole army of Christians whose morality goes a long way towards keeping the world as sane as it is. If you want that child in the mud hut to have a better life, do your part and become a Christian. Every Christian makes a difference to the quotient of hope and love in the world. True agape love. Not the mushy phileo love based only on feelings Peter had for Christ. John 21. That doesn’t come through in the English, but that’s what the Greek says.
In his book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Charles Darwin offered this explanation as to how one species changes into another.
The process was called pangenesis. Darwin clearly stated that an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles which he named gemmules.
These particles allegedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells.
Anybody care to debate the scientific merits of those assertions?
Bear in mind what we know about DNA.
Theists have to accept that evolutionary science is a mature productive field that is as essential to modern biological science as math is to physics.
There’s a difference between micro evolution based on existing information in the organism and macro evolution involving the organism mindlessly inventing new information.
And the argument that monkeys and humans are so close disregards the fact that all flesh is made out of the elements of the earth. Some are arranged a bit differently. Doesn’t mean one came from the other.