This is from a recent debate I had with a creationist.
>> One of the things that I firmly believe is that the majority
>> of creationists don't really believe in creationism. Just
>> as this comment demonstrates, many are more than willing to
>> SAY that they have that belief. But they say such things
>> for reasons having nothing to do with with their actual
>> beliefs. A high percentage are influenced by Pascal's
>> Wager. They think that they have nothing to lose by
>> making such comments even if they are being somewhat
>> disingenuous when they do so.
>> Many others are simply ignorant. They believe that
> >evolution literally requires that a monkey gave birth
>> to a fully human baby some time ago. (Those are the
>> same people who ask, "Why don't we see evolution now?")
>> They also consider Biblical creationism to be the only
> Congratulations, Randy, I believe you have reached a
> new low in terms of positively stupid and irrelivent [sic]
> comments. ..And NOBODY believes that a monkey gave birth
> to a fully human baby.
Actually I never said that anyone actually believes that a monkey gave birth to a human. I only said that creationists insist that is a necessary requirement for evolution to be true.
I thought that I would show a few examples to support that claim.Here's an example of sarcasm from:http://www.noble-minded.org/thermodynamics.html
"...Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
At the web sitehttps://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1818&start=0 we see this question from Scott U, a creationist:
"I have a question that is commonly asked by Christian fundamentalists but I do not know the answer to. I have heard it asked in the form of "if humans evolved from monkeys, why aren't monkey's giving birth to humans today?
"Note the phrase "a common question".
Then at http://wastelandofwonders.yuku.com/topic/4113 we read this:
"...there would have to be a singular point in time where a member of a species reproduced something that was not a member of that species. Whereas if you abandon the idea of universals altogether, then you don't have to explain how the monkey gave birth to a human; there is no monkey and there is no human.
"Then athttp://www.religionisbullshit.net/blog/2008/02/evolution-in-five-minutes.php?sho\w_id=268663274745179009 the author says:
"I have actually been called stupid for apparently believing that one day a monkey gave birth to a human."
The Internet is filled with people who believe that evolutionary theory is consistent only with a monkey giving birth to a human baby. Here are even more examples:
[After being told repeatedly there was no "first human"]
"I know better than to waste my time with "scientists." In my opinion, evolution teaches a monkey gave birth to the first human, and if this is how you justify its denial, have a good day."
Here are more creationists misstating the theory of evolution:
"Do darwinists realize how foolish they sound when they go on about darwins monkey-theory as if its a fact? i challenge any darwinist that if they just stopped and thought about what there saying and pushing on our kids - monkey's giving birth to humans and the planet forming by accident?!"
"Why else is evolution impossable [sic]??Let me bring on the example of Mr Rat evolving into Mr Bat...Its impossable [sic] unless there was a sudden evolutionary jump, say... for instance, the rat just decided to give birth to a bat, or maybe a dinasour [sic] gave birth to a sparrow, or a monkey just happened to give birth a man."
"...I am also grateful to Answers in Genesis, the organization that also helped lead me out of the Darwinist lie. The Dawkins-worshipping atheists are foolish enough to believe that apes gave birth to humans, and the Bible explains their stupidity perfectly as 'the fool said in his heart that there is no God'!! I am a smart Christian..."
"Fortunately I became more rational, but I still didn't like science but I around the time I was twelve I gained a fascination for astronomy and spaceflight. It seemed so exciting and awe-inspiring. Finally I came to the conclusion; against all odds I was going to be an astronaut. Instantly everything changed. I started to love science, mathematics, and technology. I got way better at math and science and entered a new age. A wonderful age, the age of reason. Now in my research (not in school being that I was homeschooled) I often heard "this rock is 3.5 billion years old," or "the universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old" I gradually became used to it. I began to unconsciously accept much of modern science. I realized there were magnetic reversals, I realized that there was an Oort cloud, that there were enoughneutrinos to prove the sun was burning by nuclear fusion, and that evolution did not say we came from rocks, then evolved into rats, then to monkeys, then boom a chimp gave birth to a humans. While still a creationist even I began to take only about half of what Kent Hovind said seriously..."