Evolution is real. Its a real thing that really does happen and did happen. Gah!

[chimeracreator]

Saying "the theory of gravity" isn't the best example because gravity is 100% observable and always has been. Yeah, we know a lot more about gravity now than when we were all nomadic tribes, but in a sense, the theory has always existed. I'd say a better way of explaining it to someone would be to talk about something like the heliocentric theory or the theory of plate tectonics, just so they can more easily see how ideas evolve over time to give us a better understanding of the universe.

This comparison is used because the basic principles of natural selection are also 100% observable as well. With gravity all we can observe in our daily lives is that most stuff falls down, but we also see some things that don't fall down or that fall at different rates. As down every place we go has down it makes sense that down is a universal constant so obviously the earth is flat because otherwise it would fall and things would fall off of it.

Except nomadic tribes already knew that some things didn't fall (clouds, the sun and the moon all seem to stay up there to a casual observer) and other things could temporarily avoid falling and travel in the sky like birds. Once we figured out that the earth was round it became obvious that down was not a universal direction so we needed a theory a new theory. So we came up with the idea that everything is attracted to everything else with a force directly proportionate to the product of the two object's masses and inversely proportionate to the square of their distances.

Now this goes against most people's everyday understanding of how the world works. After all if you're 2ft in their air gravity isn't 1/4th what it is when you're 1ft in the air. So does that mean the theory of gravity is wrong? Nope it means that this distance is calculated from an object's center of mass when dealing with Newtonian physics, and the earth's center of mass is over 6,300km down so adding or subtracting a foot makes almost no difference.

So I would say comparing the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity is fair. Both rely on things we observe every day being examined in far greater detail to create a set of laws which provide a far better predictive model than our mere intuition.

 

[Conn1496]

-snip-

You really still don't get it. OK, that's fine. Let's explain it in the easiest way possible. There is no way to explain where humans came from - that's final, but there are theories. Science's explaination is evolution, and Religions answer is creation. That's all there is to it. They're different approaches, and that's it. Because one seems more credible, doesn't mean it's the right one. No matter how evident that may seem.

As for the 2[]2=4 thing, there is far more than +,X and ^ as possibilites. They're just the simplest solutions. For example, substituting x3- into the sum gives us 2x3-2=4. There are lots of possibilities, others are just more complex, and that's why I chose that comparison, because you'll never know. Your view was that there were only 3 possible ways, and I blew that out of the water by explaining that you can put in more than one thing.

You haven't blown anything out of the water, you've just said the equivalent of 'OMG GUYS, if nothing's 100% then 96% and 3% are equal! LOLOL'.

-snip-

You really still don't get it. OK, that's fine. Let's explain it in the easiest way possible. There is no way to explain where humans came from - that's final, but there are theories. Science's explaination is evolution, and Religions answer is creation. That's all there is to it. They're different approaches, and that's it. Because one seems more credible, doesn't mean it's the right one. No matter how evident that may seem.

It's not just more credible, it's the only explanation with any evidence whatsoever, and boy does it have a lot of it.

*sigh*. I give up. You people seriously are way too close minded for me to deal with.

 

[Andrew Bascom]

Hate to do this, but I'm interested in what the reply will be, cause I stumped my Science teacher with it. Science tells us that matter comes from other matter, so what caused the big bang? Where did it come from?

 

[Simonoly]

As a scientist I always love meeting people who choose to deny the existence of evolution and in particular natural selection. There always comes a point where they say something like "How can you believe something you've never personally seen?" or something just as intellectually infuriating. That's always my favourite part of these encounters as I then get to give them a first-hand account of natural selection happening in real time in my lab.

Not that I actually enjoy seeing natural selection at work in my lab. It usually means a few more weeks of bringing up cells and me screaming into the sleeve of my lab coat.

Captcha: agree to disagree - not when evolution is involved.

 

[burningdragoon]

On the topic of this religious debate, I find myself in concurrence with the creator of this comic: <spoiler=snipoiler>

Affording respect to rubbish just begets more rubbish.

You know, my very first post in this thread was saying how people shouldn't be quick to throw out the label of idiot just because of one thing. And here you are, posting a (rather unclever) relgious-bashing comic when you have trouble dealing with a fairly simple mathematics concept:

Okay people, why can't we discuss much less heated things like whether or not 0.9 repeating = 1?

>.>

Because FUCK YOU, that's why.

Actually, this is one that bothers me. It's because decimals, the most precise type of calculation, aren't as precise as fractions, the least precise. Saying something is a third is overly simplistic, but in cases like this with no answer but a paradoxical one, a fraction's the best we've got. To ease my mind about this horrendous, horrendous problem, I like to imagine all the 9s as little ants, carrying an infinitesimally small piece of the 0.00000...1 along with them past a border patrol, and it's so small it doesn't show up on the radar as a real number but actually exists.
SHUT UP, THAT'S EXACTLY HOW MATHS WORKS!

 

[Lexodus]

-snip-

You really still don't get it. OK, that's fine. Let's explain it in the easiest way possible. There is no way to explain where humans came from - that's final, but there are theories. Science's explaination is evolution, and Religions answer is creation. That's all there is to it. They're different approaches, and that's it. Because one seems more credible, doesn't mean it's the right one. No matter how evident that may seem.

As for the 2[]2=4 thing, there is far more than +,X and ^ as possibilites. They're just the simplest solutions. For example, substituting x3- into the sum gives us 2x3-2=4. There are lots of possibilities, others are just more complex, and that's why I chose that comparison, because you'll never know. Your view was that there were only 3 possible ways, and I blew that out of the water by explaining that you can put in more than one thing.

You haven't blown anything out of the water, you've just said the equivalent of 'OMG GUYS, if nothing's 100% then 96% and 3% are equal! LOLOL'.

-snip-

You really still don't get it. OK, that's fine. Let's explain it in the easiest way possible. There is no way to explain where humans came from - that's final, but there are theories. Science's explaination is evolution, and Religions answer is creation. That's all there is to it. They're different approaches, and that's it. Because one seems more credible, doesn't mean it's the right one. No matter how evident that may seem.

It's not just more credible, it's the only explanation with any evidence whatsoever, and boy does it have a lot of it.

*sigh*. I give up. You people seriously are way too close minded for me to deal with.

"If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out."
No. We're not closed-minded. The difference is we know when to give credence to something, and can recognise when something is just too stupid to accept. That's generally how science works- in pursuit of truth, we discard the illogical and baseless, but if something new comes along that utterly disproves the currently-held theory, in a *measured* and *factual* way, we will experiment with that until it breaks.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

But that's the thing. It's a mystery, yes, but there are clues. It's like we have Jim's corpse here. It's got several knife wounds in it. Over here we have a knife. It has Jim's blood on the blade, and Gary's fingerprints on the handle. Over here, we have Gary, covered in Jim's blood.

So which is more likely? Gary stabbed Jim, or God struck Jim down with His holy might and planted evidence to 'test our faith'?

This metaphor is so loaded it made me laugh when I read it. Here's another possiblity: Someone wore gloves and stabbed Jim with the knife Gary last touched then covered Gary in Jims blood to frame him. People who utterly deny the possibity of alterenatives to their views would never realize it was actually Ron.

People have the right to believe whatever they want. I don't see why bitching of this caliber is neccesary.

 

[Altorin]

One of my profs told me that the unfortunate thing about scientific progress is that even when a theory is proven to be true, the only way it ever really gets widespread acceptance is when all the people that believe otherwise die. Sort of like how we still have people angry about Pluto not being a planet.

My question is - why can't I watch a damn scientific video on youtube that doesn't have an evolution vs. creation argument in the comments? I certainly believe in evolution, but I don't really care what creationists think, and nothing I say could change their minds.

you can never really prove a theory true. You can only prove a theory false. Just being a true scientific theory means that it's stood up to the scrutiny of all of the scientists which all want their own nobels and want your theory to fail. All Scientific Theories are ostensibly "true", in that they're the accepted models that scientists in whatever field of science use in their day to day work. It's true, because it works, and it works everytime, and if it doesn't work, then you have something interesting.

When an established theory is proven false, it's usually only expanded upon - because the theory worked, new theories might just adjust it. Newtons Theory of Gravity wasn't replaced by The Theory of General Relativity - all of Newtons Maths still work, and General Relativity just gives scientists another level to work with, allows them to detect things like Dark Matter and theorize about the Dark Energy.

I know that you didn't say anything to the contrary of that, but your professors words were perhaps ill-chosen - theories are true. They wouldn't be theories if they weren't able to produce predictable results, and if they can do that, there must be at least a nugget of truth to them, and science is about refining theories, not proving them right.

 

[Alternative]

I believe in evolution, i mean how else do i turn my charmander into a charmeleon and turn that into a charizard.

While i dont want to force people to believe in evolution i also dont want them trying to force me to learn about their religion. I also believe evolution should be taught in schools as it is a scientific theory.

 

[Lexodus]

On the topic of this religious debate, I find myself in concurrence with the creator of this comic: <spoiler=snipoiler>

Affording respect to rubbish just begets more rubbish.

You know, my very first post in this thread was saying how people shouldn't be quick to throw out the label of idiot just because of one thing. And here you are, posting a (rather unclever) relgious-bashing comic when you have trouble dealing with a fairly simple mathematics concept:

Okay people, why can't we discuss much less heated things like whether or not 0.9 repeating = 1?

>.>

Because FUCK YOU, that's why.

Actually, this is one that bothers me. It's because decimals, the most precise type of calculation, aren't as precise as fractions, the least precise. Saying something is a third is overly simplistic, but in cases like this with no answer but a paradoxical one, a fraction's the best we've got. To ease my mind about this horrendous, horrendous problem, I like to imagine all the 9s as little ants, carrying an infinitesimally small piece of the 0.00000...1 along with them past a border patrol, and it's so small it doesn't show up on the radar as a real number but actually exists.
SHUT UP, THAT'S EXACTLY HOW MATHS WORKS!

In case you couldn't tell from the ranting and ants and illogical bold-type yelling, that was a *joke*, based on the idea of a 'much less heated' topic, like numbers. -.-

 

[Asita]

This is the exact attitude I'm talking about. I believe pretty damn firmly that the theory of evolution is correct. There's nothing to change that view. But there's no reason for people to act like complete dicks if something someone believes in even slighty contradicts what you think. Religious people are likely to believe in the theory of creation and that's something we have to respect. At a time like this, respecting the views of others is pretty damn essential, since tensions are high anyway, and we have people like this who are so close minded that they just can't accept that people believe otherwise. People who believe in creationism are not stupid. People who can't see and accept that people have different views are the stupid ones.

Point of order. There is no 'theory of creation'. Sorry, but that kind of statement is a pet peeve of mine, as making the claim in the first place first requires that one equivocate the scientific use of the word theory with the colloquial usage, the latter of which is closer to the scientific definition of hypothesis than anything else, and often fails to meet even those requirements[footnote]Indeed, whereas the scientific definition of hypothesis could perhaps best be described as an 'educated guess', the colloquial definition of theory often treats the term as 'off the top of my head'/'my wild guess'[/footnote]. In science a theory is a rigorously tested and validated explanation/model for a given set of phenomena which produces reliable results. To qualify as such is the highest accolade an explanation can achieve. This doesn't necessarily mean the model is perfect, but it does mean that it produces accurate results under the circumstances it proscribes. In no sense does creationism meet those criteria[footnote]Indeed, many of its claims have been directly contrary to discoveries in a variety of fields (most famously geology and biology)for centuries now.[/footnote], hence it is disingenuous to refer to it as a theory, as it lacks not only the rigorous vetting of actual theories, but also failing to meet even the basic criteria required to treat it as a scientific concept in the first place (ergo, it also fails to qualify as a hypothesis), as famously noted in the case of McLean v. Arkansas, and other similar rulings resulting from Creationists' repeated attempts to bypass the peer review process and shoehorn creationism directly into school curriculum.

 

[Lexodus]

But that's the thing. It's a mystery, yes, but there are clues. It's like we have Jim's corpse here. It's got several knife wounds in it. Over here we have a knife. It has Jim's blood on the blade, and Gary's fingerprints on the handle. Over here, we have Gary, covered in Jim's blood.

So which is more likely? Gary stabbed Jim, or God struck Jim down with His holy might and planted evidence to 'test our faith'?

This metaphor is so loaded it made me laugh when I read it. Here's another possiblity: Someone wore gloves and stabbed Jim with the knife Gary last touched then covered Gary in Jims blood to frame him. People who utterly deny the possibity of alterenatives to their views would never realize it was actually Ron.

People have the right to believe whatever they want. I don't see why bitching of this caliber is neccesary.

So, now that you've loaded it completely the other way, Gary decided to turn up as Jim was being murdered, sat there and didn't complain when he was being framed or covered in blood, or testify against Ron, or hire a lawyer to dispute the charges, and no forensics teams examined the circumstances or the event itself to see whether there was prior motive and reasonable explanation. Either way, God didn't do it, it was some dick named Ron.


Now to start the church of the Ronnites, and praise his wrath upon Jim's sinful mortal body!

 

[Verkula]

I stop taking people seriously when they talk about being/not being "evolved from monkeys".
Did anyone go to school here? In mine, we had a rule in History class: if you say we evolved from Monkeys, you get an F(as in, Fuckingidiot).
We had the same ancestors, whatever it was, it wasnt a fucking monkey.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

So, now that you've loaded it completely the other way, Gary decided to turn up as Jim was being murdered, sat there and didn't complain when he was being framed or covered in blood, or testify against Ron, or hire a lawyer to dispute the charges, and no forensics teams examined the circumstances or the event itself to see whether there was prior motive and reasonable explanation. Either way, God didn't do it, it was some dick named Ron.


Now to start the church of the Ronnites, and praise his wrath upon Jim's sinful mortal body!

Well loading it the other way was kind of the point. God had no place in the metaphor, God was given no motivation for wanting to kill Jim. Which was turned around to say "he didn't do it, therefore he doesn't exist".

 

[Woodsey]

Hate to do this, but I'm interested in what the reply will be, cause I stumped my Science teacher with it. Science tells us that matter comes from other matter, so what caused the big bang? Where did it come from?

If the answer in your head is "a god did it!", you aren't answering anything. Although this isn't really on-topic.

*sigh*. I give up. You people seriously are way too close minded for me to deal with.

Close-mindedness is not defined by a person who will not lend credence to any baseless assertion.

Prove a religious person wrong and they'll ignore you, prove a scientist wrong and they'll change their mind.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

But that's the thing. It's a mystery, yes, but there are clues. It's like we have Jim's corpse here. It's got several knife wounds in it. Over here we have a knife. It has Jim's blood on the blade, and Gary's fingerprints on the handle. Over here, we have Gary, covered in Jim's blood.

So which is more likely? Gary stabbed Jim, or God struck Jim down with His holy might and planted evidence to 'test our faith'?

This metaphor is so loaded it made me laugh when I read it. Here's another possiblity: Someone wore gloves and stabbed Jim with the knife Gary last touched then covered Gary in Jims blood to frame him. People who utterly deny the possibity of alterenatives to their views would never realize it was actually Ron.

Oh, I don't deny possibilities. There's a possibility that space aliens beamed down from the planet Zod, abducted Gary, created an alien-human hybrid clone of him, brainwashed it into stabbing Jim, disintegrated it with a laser beam after the deed was done, then sent Gary back down and covered him in Jim's blood.

That's why the police just arrest Gary, and not execute him on the spot. There's a process to it. We start with a hypothesis. We present evidence to support the hypothesis. We look for evidence to deny the hypothesis. We take all this evidence we've gathered, and we test it. Maybe we find out that we were wrong. Maybe we find out that we were right.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't arrest Gary as a suspect just because there's always a chance he didn't do it.

Indeed, but you phrased it in a way that made it sound like "if you don't pick the choice that I've laid out as correct, you are stupid".