If You Don't Believe in Evolution, Why?
- Thread starter Snack Cake
- Start date
Yeah or that hes a stalker, or the girl stares at people too much, or that the indian bloke isn't really awkward or that its a totally shit movie by any standards.sneakypenguin said:
Personally I have no idea what religious category I fit into. I can't seem to understand how we could just be gone forever after we die but I don't believe in all the (excuse my choice of words) 'hocus-pocus' parts of the bible. I mean I believe in evolution 100% and the big bang theory is plausible but it always falls back into the whole "Then who/what created that" category. There are so many things that we will never know. Why waste your life trying to solve the unsolvable.
*Edit: Thanks to the below post I guess I fit somewhere into the agnostic category...
*Edit: Thanks to the below post I guess I fit somewhere into the agnostic category...
Actually, an agnostic is usually defined as a person who is unsure as to the existence of god, they are a theological fence sitter - see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnosticCredge said:
Indifference as to the existence of god/gods would be atheism. After all, atheism is the lack of belief, and if you don't actually care one way or the other (not that I actually believe there is anyone in that particular state, though I'm sure there are some who claim they are) then you do not believe.
All atheism requries is that lack of belief, and indifference certainly qualifies. The whole idea of strong/weak atheism is pretty ridiculous, considering that there is only one qualification to be an atheist, the lack of belief in a divine force, and one either holds that belief or does not. In your example, the "strong" atheist is simply an atheist, whereas the "weak" atheist you describe is a blend of atheist and agnostic; since many atheists disbelieve due to a lack of evidence or reasons to believe in god, then if some definitive evidence for god's existence appeared they'd probably change their mind.
OT: Evolution is usually debated against by those who hold their holy scriptures to be the literal truth. If your faith is built entirely around certain things being true, and then some smartass scientist comes along and says "Actually, it was more likely to have happened like this", you aren't going to be happy. When one of your core beliefs is shown to not have actually happened the way you think it did, this allows doubt to creep in and undermine the rest of your beliefs. Hence why so many fundamentalist types believe evolution to be evil; it makes people think, even when they don't believe it, and in the case of people who only follow a faith because they've been told to (rather than because they've thought it through and come to the conclusion that they believe it) anything that contradicts or presents a problem to that faith is anathema.
I don't mind people believing in different things
It's the amount of logical fallacies in defending the theories that irks me.
Here's one example, imagine that Evolution has many topics, from speciation to macro or micro or genetic drift or natural selection.
Now, one of these is proved wrong, does this mean that every single part of a entire field is wrong because it's wrong?
It's like I say "That's a red fire hydrant" and you say "No, it's maroon, therefore, since you are wrong about that, it also isn't a fire hydrant"
There are hundreds more fallacies which would be a waste of my time to discuss.
It's the amount of logical fallacies in defending the theories that irks me.
Here's one example, imagine that Evolution has many topics, from speciation to macro or micro or genetic drift or natural selection.
Now, one of these is proved wrong, does this mean that every single part of a entire field is wrong because it's wrong?
It's like I say "That's a red fire hydrant" and you say "No, it's maroon, therefore, since you are wrong about that, it also isn't a fire hydrant"
There are hundreds more fallacies which would be a waste of my time to discuss.
True.goldenheart323 said:
Theory:goldenheart323 said:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
Theory is truth based on the assumption that the human race is capable of perceiving reality.
Also I love the massive hyperbole there. I hope you understand the reason that a dog will never be bred with tusks is because macro evolution takes a very long time....
I really helps when you google the subject you are discussing before you make up facts.goldenheart323 said:
Claim CB340:
Organs and organ systems would have been useless until all the parts were in place. The coordinated innovation that they require is too improbable for evolution to create in one step.
1. This claim is an instance of the argument from incredulity. In all specific instances of this claim, there are ways for the organs and organ systems to evolve gradually. The idea that they could not evolve usually involves one or more of the following errors in thinking:
1. that organ parts appear suddenly. This seems to be an artifact of creationist thinking. Evolution, however, is not creationism; parts change gradually.
2. that organs less developed than what exists now must be completely useless. This is nonsense. A light-sensitive patch on the skin may not be as useful as the eyes we have now, but it is better than nothing. And just a little bit better is all that is required for the trait to evolve.
3. that parts must evolve separately. Coordinated innovation between parts of an organ or organ system is possible. Indeed, if the parts evolve gradually, it is inconceivable that parts that interact would not coevolve in such a way that changes are coordinated via natural selection.
4. that parts do not change function. Many organs do not start from nothing. Rather, they start as a part that serves a different function and gradually gets co-opted for a new function. For example, tetrapod legs evolved from fins.
2. Sometimes multiple coordinated changes can occur when there is a mutation in a regulatory gene.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity
Common ancestor =/= creator.goldenheart323 said:
Also, looking into physics, the universe has existed for 10 billion year or more. Pre-big bang the state of the universe was irrelevant as when the universe hit singularity, all information was reset, meaning there's no difference between a 10 billion year old universe, and an infinitely long universe. Also physics allows for random energies to occur, and it's entirely possible for a big bang to randomly occur. While unlike, still possible.
Essentially, it's entirely possible for humanity to come into existence from teh universe itself, and given that a universe + and omnipotent being is less likely than a universe by it self, and that they are equally probable, we can use Occam's razor to say that the universe exists without a God, unless contradictory evidence is provided.
I don't believe in evolution 'cos it makes Jesus cry.
...
Joking wth wouldn't I believe in evolution... this thread makes Darwin cry :'(
...
Joking wth wouldn't I believe in evolution... this thread makes Darwin cry :'(
Because you two seem to be pretty happy keeping that information to yourselves.Cakes said:
I find that Christianity (please don't take this as a personal attack, if you want to challenge me on this then go ahead, I'll admit my knowledge is limited) has and will always develop to whatever suits its followers, its advertised and has changed so much in order to become popular or appealing, its become much less strict as time has gone from its creation, so I guess it would be nice to see how you figure science and Christianity go hand in hand without changing what it was.
By the way, I'm in no way against religion since I've always found the ones who follow the moral views (rather then hearsay propaganda, to which religion has no doubt been used for before) are very well adjusted and often allow me to see some bit of light in the mist of crowds that is my cynicism.
Also assuming there is an afterlife, since Atheists will no undoubtedly go to hell, Jew have no hell and it seems a popular belief that you need to kill an infidel to get into heaven for Muslims, Christianity might be logical to cover your basis if you believe in an after life. (Though I don't see myself spending a life time living in mediocrity for the chance at a good afterlife)
Of course I will forever dislike the preaching of blind fools.
Ironic, being that your avatar is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a prominent atheist symbol. You wouldn't be looking to flame by any chance?
People who reject the theory of evolution are just plain idiotic. There's overwhelming evidence that supports the theory (Thousands of transitional fossils; the experiment using Bacteria in which mutations were shown to happen after 30.000 generations). Rejecting it is like saying air does not exist.
From what I've seen only hardcore fundamentalists reject evolution. That's a good thing.
From what I've seen only hardcore fundamentalists reject evolution. That's a good thing.
As always, the evolution supporters in the crowd march out in shiny rows and shoot themselves in the foot.
If you think any existing animal is descended from any other existing animal, you don't understand evolution, and your support is not helpful. If you think that new organs, senses, abilities, etc., just occur all at once and not by fits and starts, you don't understand evolution and your support is not helpful. If you think evolution has stopped, or has a goal in mind, or that some animals are highly evolved while others are less so, you don't understand evolution and your support is not helpful. If you think individual animals evolve...you guessed it, don't help. Please. You just set up straw men for others to knock down.
People spend years trying to understand evolution and others spend years trying to obfuscate it for others. You aren't going to solve it here. Go read some books.
Also, I can't recommend The Greatest Show on Earth enough. It is a good starting point for answering questions like the use of half an eye, whether or not macroevolution has been observed (guess what: it has), and why blind fish "evolved" in caves when sightlessness is NOT an adaptive trait (while obvious in retrospect, this one was new to me).
If you think any existing animal is descended from any other existing animal, you don't understand evolution, and your support is not helpful. If you think that new organs, senses, abilities, etc., just occur all at once and not by fits and starts, you don't understand evolution and your support is not helpful. If you think evolution has stopped, or has a goal in mind, or that some animals are highly evolved while others are less so, you don't understand evolution and your support is not helpful. If you think individual animals evolve...you guessed it, don't help. Please. You just set up straw men for others to knock down.
People spend years trying to understand evolution and others spend years trying to obfuscate it for others. You aren't going to solve it here. Go read some books.
Also, I can't recommend The Greatest Show on Earth enough. It is a good starting point for answering questions like the use of half an eye, whether or not macroevolution has been observed (guess what: it has), and why blind fish "evolved" in caves when sightlessness is NOT an adaptive trait (while obvious in retrospect, this one was new to me).
You'll note that in my original question, I explicitly included the whole of the Abrahamic tradition, not just Christianity. Creationism in the Jewish and Muslim communities is just as strange to me as it is amongst Christians. And frankly, in my experience, the modern atheist movement is much more critical of Islam than any other religion.JWAN said:
You think that's crazy, lungs evolved from sections of the digestive system rather than gills as you might suspect, and swim bladders may actually be an adaptation from primitive lungs, implying that ray-finned fish may all be descended from air-gulpers.Kubanator said:
I realize I don't speak with the rousing certainty of Holy Writ, with its flat, four-cornered world above which a "firmament" separates the waters, but I find this story of descent much more interesting than a list of begats.
If my avatar was a Jesus fish, and I asked "Why do you believe in Evolution?", would that be flaming? To answer my own question: No, it wouldn't. To suggest that anybody who disagrees with you is instantly flaming is either a) pretty close-minded or b) redefining what it means to flame.orangebandguy said:
For the record, you don't believe 'in' evolution. You either believe the theory of evolution is true or you do not. You can believe in the existence of a god, you can believe in the afterlife, you can believe in a person's inner strength, stuff like that. It doesn't go for scientific theories.
That said, the theory of evolution is a real ***** to disprove. Because all the evidence that we've found supporting it - or not - comes from millions of years ago, it can't just be reproduced. And if your theory is not reproducable, it's nearly impossibly to falsify it. Present-day science works through deduction instead of induction, which means that your research data has to be able to falsify your hypothesis.
But as far as science by induction goes, evolution has got very strong ground, even though the theory still has some holes in it. There's no telling what we might discover in the future that causes a paradigm shift, but for now, what we've got will have to do.
That said, the theory of evolution is a real ***** to disprove. Because all the evidence that we've found supporting it - or not - comes from millions of years ago, it can't just be reproduced. And if your theory is not reproducable, it's nearly impossibly to falsify it. Present-day science works through deduction instead of induction, which means that your research data has to be able to falsify your hypothesis.
But as far as science by induction goes, evolution has got very strong ground, even though the theory still has some holes in it. There's no telling what we might discover in the future that causes a paradigm shift, but for now, what we've got will have to do.
As a science-minded person, asking "why?" is a big part of what I do. If this question makes you uncomfortable, you are certainly free to ignore it. Trying to prevent others from learning, on the other hand, seems unnecessarily combative to me.crudus said:
Sorry, it's just that you're new to the forums, and people sometimes start trolling because they don't know any better. I'm sorry for judging you.Snack Cake said:
