If You Don't Believe in Evolution, Why?

[MrDarkling]

Buddy, don't do topics like this. Some people don't believe the same things as you do, and that's fine.

This post.....Is so True, there is really nothing more to say in this thread.

 

[cartzo]

thread seems to be going well so far. thats surprising.

 

[thepj]

Buddy, don't do topics like this. Some people don't believe the same things as you do, and that's fine.

yes but what he's trying to ask here i think is why do they belive this when it is compared to science and why is no other area of science under attack by the religious community (at least not as publicly) as evolution

OT: i think they're not under attack either a: because they get less media coverage

B: there is almost no evidence that could disprove them but with the right findings (that will never happen) evolution could be

C: because evolution called into question the belief that god created everything, one of the core beliefs of all the abrahamic religions

 

[Kubanator]

You need it, faith and hope are the only things making us seperate from the bad guys.

Dragon_of_red, highlighting one of the main points as to why religious people are hated by many. Give the man a biscuit.

You don't need faith. You do need belief. Not belief in god, but belief in concepts of good and evil. Science has nothing to say about morality, ethics, justice, or anything else like that. So yes, if someone relies only on science and logic they are amoral. Not evil or bad, but simply completely without morality. Note: That is DIFFERENT from being an atheist. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, not someone who doesn't believe in morality.

OT: The big thing about evolution vs creation is that, whilst not disproving God, evolution being correct would take away his massive claim to fame (and, if God didn't create the world, who's to say he did all that other stuff? And if he didn't do that, who's to say that there even is a God?). That is why, I think, there is the schism.

Why do you think that evolution contradicts religion? Surely you have the word "allegory" in your vocabulary? That is all one needs to understand that religion and evolution really don't have anything all to do with each other.

Also, what do you mean "create the world"?

What I mean is, the whole story links together God creating the world, and God creating the plants, animals and humans. If you believe the story, it says God did all that, and all in 6 days, yadda yadda yadda. Point is, 'creation' is lumped into one story. However, If God didn't create the plants, animals, and humans, maybe he may not have created the world either (see: big bang theory. If evolution can be accepted, why not the big bang as the next logical step?), which means he may not either a) have the power, and then not be the god that Christians, Jews and Muslims etc. believe in, or b) exist in any way, shape or form.

So you don't know what allegory means? From wiki:-

"Allegory (from Greek: αλλος, allos, "other", and αγορευειν, agoreuein, "to speak in public") is a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than the literal. Allegory communicates its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation. Allegory is generally treated as a figure of rhetoric, but an allegory does not have to be expressed in language: it may be addressed to the eye, and is often found in realistic painting, sculpture or some other form of mimetic, or representative art."

This means that texts such as the Bible are not considered literal truth even by people who "believe" them. They are allegorical, metaphoric, symbolic, not literal. 'Art' rather than 'science'. Mythos, not Logos.

If not evolution, then why not the big bang as the next logical step? Well it could be that there is absolutely no logical connection between the big bang and evolution? This is rather like saying "If someone likes climbing mountains, won't they like raspberry pie as the next logical step?" It is a complete non sequitur.

Also, the Big Bang theory does not disagree with religion. Not at all. In fact the theory was created by a Catholic priest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

So trying to say that religious people don't believe in stuff like the big bang and evolution is as empirically false as creation itself, which is extremely ironic.

If the Bible consists of metaphors, what is God a metaphor for?

 

[Snack Cake]

There is almost no area where the Abrahamic tradition makes a falsifiable claim about the nature of the universe, which isn't directly contradicted by modern science. Germ theory, astrophysics, and geology all differ sharply with holy books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than any of these other topics. However, none of these areas of science are under constant attack by the religious community, the way that evolutionary biology is.

The real question here is why does it bother you so much that other people believe something you don't ?

What people believe doesn't especially bother me one way or the other, so long as those beliefs don't end up affecting other people. Belief in creationism / intelligent design, however, is hardly kept personal. In America, and other highly religious countries around the world, there is a powerful movement to prevent evolution from being taught in schools, or to have it taught side by side with non-scientific alternatives.

 

[KarumaK]

I've no mutant powers is why. If evolution hasn't at least made me glow by now I've no use for it.

SNIP*

SNIP*

SNIP*

I just wanted to mention that snack cakes are good, cakes are better, and cheese is the ultimate in food.

I found this quote block amusing.

 

[Snack Cake]

I would agree...let's all avoid controversial topics like this, it only leads to childish fighting.

I think this thread represents a pretty strong refutation of that statement. While there have been some childish responses by both religious and non-religious folks, both sides have also managed to respond thoughtfully and civilly in the majority of posts.

 

[Del-Toro]

I personally think my faith(christianity) and science intersect pretty well, but arguing that here is like trying to argue with a twilight fan girl that edward is creepy. So why bother eh.

In fact originally, when science started to gain some ground with examples such as Sir Isaac Newton it was often seen as a way of understanding god's works. Newton himself was a pious Christian and that is what drove him to scientific pursuits. That's also where the idea of god as a "watchmaker" came from, but that's another story.

 

[manbearpig91]

I really just dont care. Honestly people should care about the present than things thousands of years ago. how about we stay in the present, and stop worrying about a god that might not even exist?

 

[historybuff]

Oh geez.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Religion is silly. Its the equivalent of if there was a huge group of people, and they all believed that there was a rock in front of them but there wasn't. And while they were all believing that, everyone else isn't allowed to tell them that there just is no rock because it will offend them.

Welcome to the escapist and congratulations on making your first post such a magnificent piece of work! Thousands of years of human theology, endeavour, and philosophy... Centuries of theologians contributing more to scientific understanding than anyone on this forum can possibly realize... all reduced to "a rock in front of them." Well done!

There is almost no area where the Abrahamic tradition makes a falsifiable claim about the nature of the universe, which isn't directly contradicted by modern science. Germ theory, astrophysics, and geology all differ sharply with holy books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than any of these other topics. However, none of these areas of science are under constant attack by the religious community, the way that evolutionary biology is.

The real question here is why does it bother you so much that other people believe something you don't ?

What people believe doesn't especially bother me one way or the other, so long as those beliefs don't end up affecting other people. Belief in creationism / intelligent design, however, is hardly kept personal. In America, and other highly religious countries around the world, there is a powerful movement to prevent evolution from being taught in schools, or to have it taught side by side with non-scientific alternatives.

But what are the alternatives? Creationism, and religion, should be kept out of the science class. I won't just state that I agree with this, I would actually fight against people trying to treat creationism as science, or attempting to claim that evolution is nothing more than opinion.

However, the problem is that some people are attempting to use this as the thin end of the wedge to remove religion altogether. Religion has been a core part of humanity ever since it got started, it is right that it be taught at least in a historical context, with no endorsement of a particular religious belief (i.e. teach kids what Christians believe sure, but teach them what Hindus and Pagans and Buddhists and Taoists and atheist believe too). Attempting to block all forms of religion from being spoke in a public arena (which is ostensibly what certain people are trying to achieve) is not secular and nor is it liberal or reasonable.

NOTE: I am not Christian, in fact I am technically an atheist (although I would call myself religious to be honest, because I do believe in spirit if not in any form of god). I just believe in the freedom of other people to believe whatever they wish, as long as their beliefs bring no harm to others, as long as they do not force their beliefs on others, without suffering from belittlement, derision, scorn, or prejudice.

 

[thepj]

Oh boy. These threads always go well.

are you going to try to contribute to the disscusion? no? then can we please kindly ask you to step into another topic while the rest of us attempt to make a proper dissgussion?

 

[The Big Eye]

What bugs me about the creation-evolution conflict is that it's become perceived as a battle of hard science versus religious dogmatism. Somewhere along the way, people seem to have forgotten that the theory itself does not properly hold together.

1. Starting with the primordial ooze: even in the most ideal conditions, complex molecules do not form spontaneously. Miller's experiments generated a handful of amino acids; even a basic life form would require hundreds of proteins to properly function. Keep in mind that this being would have to be significantly more complex than the typical virus, because viruses only survive by exploiting higher forms of life that already exist. In short, you would need thousands of amino acids automatically assembling into proteins, and hundreds of proteins spontaneously assembling into a working cell. This working cell would then have to survive in an unspeakably hostile environment long enough to multiply, assuming it had replicative DNA at all. To understate it simply, it's a highly unlikely scenario, billions of years or otherwise.

2. According to the fossil record, the transitional forms of the various species on the evolutionary tree do not exist. One would expect them to be in the majority; in fact, given the time frames involved, one would expect it to be highly unlikely to find more than a scant handful of fossil specimens that provably belong to exactly the same species. The paleontological community presents finds such as the Archaeopteryx as the coveted missing links that make the theory hold together. In fact, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. One can only assume either that the fossilization process is somehow selective in that it only fossilizes animals that exist on the Earth today, or that there are no missing links and species simply mutagenically jump from one evolutionary stage to the next - an idea knwon as punctuated equilibrium. Both assumptions have the scientific credibility of space helicopters. (Awesome, but impossible.)

3. The variation of the genders? The development of multicellular organisms? The evolution of the brain? By and large, popular science doesn't even wanna touch those problems.

One has to wonder why a theory so incomplete has achieved such widespread acceptance. Say what you will about the credibility of Creationism, or religion in general, but one has to admit that there are some very good reasons not to believe in evolution as we know it. And don't even get me started on the Big Bang.

 

[thepj]

their is a biology teacher in my school who himself doesnt believe in the evolutionary theory, he has only ever spoken of it once because he is of course abliged to teach it, he doesnt directly believe in god, he is actually an agnostic, he just sees life as something to complicated to originate from that particular theory.

heres a good question, can all the fossil evidence, carbon dating, and lengthy studies accumulate to conclusive proof?

because the way we know evolution is true is because of the way we can predict the oast with it, and by that i mean fossils, if the first fossil amphibians were older than the first fossil fish then that would be a major hit for evolution, as yet though all the evidence points to the fact that evolution is true. at that is why i know, i don't belive i know, that evolution is real

 

[cartzo]

their is a biology teacher in my school who himself doesnt believe in the evolutionary theory, he has only ever spoken of it once because he is of course abliged to teach it, he doesnt directly believe in god, he is actually an agnostic, he just sees life as something to complicated to originate from that particular theory.

heres a good question, can all the fossil evidence, carbon dating, and lengthy studies accumulate to conclusive proof?

because the way we know evolution is true is because of the way we can predict the oast with it, and by that i mean fossils, if the first fossil amphibians were older than the first fossil fish then that would be a major hit for evolution, as yet though all the evidence points to the fact that evolution is true. at that is why i know, i don't belive i know, that evolution is real

i better just clarify that i do think evolution is fact, but do you think that evidence is solid enough to hold up in court for example.

 

[Romblen]

I have two big problems with Evolution.

1. The missing link. Some have claimed that they found the missing link fossilised somewhere. My thinking is that shouldn't we still have half human, half ape animals walking around?

2. Evolution states that life randomly appeared, and billions of years later, here we are. According to scientist's claims however, the chances of random life appearing is 1 in 10^250 (thats a 1 with 250 zeros). You have a better chance of winning the lottery 25 times in a row.

 

[Kubanator]

1. Starting with the primordial ooze: even in the most ideal conditions, complex molecules do not form spontaneously. Miller's experiments generated a handful of amino acids; even a basic life form would require hundreds of proteins to properly function. Keep in mind that this being would have to be significantly more complex than the typical virus, because viruses only survive by exploiting higher forms of life that already exist. In short, you would need thousands of amino acids automatically assembling into proteins, and hundreds of proteins spontaneously assembling into a working cell. This working cell would then have to survive in an unspeakably hostile environment long enough to multiply, assuming it had replicative DNA at all. To understate it simply, it's a highly unlikely scenario, billions of years or otherwise.

Huh, and I was under the impression that evolution was the idea that species changed over time, not how they first began. Also, I'm pretty sure that it was a little more complicated then this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif

2. According to the fossil record, the transitional forms of the various species on the evolutionary tree do not exist. One would expect them to be in the majority; in fact, given the time frames involved, one would expect it to be highly unlikely to find more than a scant handful of fossil specimens that provably belong to exactly the same species. The paleontological community presents finds such as the Archaeopteryx as the coveted missing links that make the theory hold together. In fact, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. One can only assume either that the fossilization process is somehow selective in that it only fossilizes animals that exist on the Earth today, or that there are no missing links and species simply mutagenically jump from one evolutionary stage to the next - an idea known as punctuated equilibrium. Both assumptions have the scientific credibility of space helicopters. (Awesome, but impossible.)

I'm liking how you stated that dinosaurs inhabit the Earth today. Also, I don't think you understand what happens to organic material under pressure. Oil, coal?

3. The variation of the genders? The development of multicellular organisms? The evolution of the brain? By and large, popular science doesn't even wanna touch those problems.

One has to wonder why a theory so incomplete has achieved such widespread acceptance. Say what you will about the credibility of Creationism, or religion in general, but one has to admit that there are some very good reasons not to believe in evolution as we know it. And don't even get me started on the Big Bang.

I don't think you understand the difference between problems you don't understand, and problems science can't understand. A simple google search will clear up the difference.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081120171328.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity

As for your big bang theory problems, under quantum theory, a big bang can randomly occur at any point in time. Granted it takes a very long time to do so, but it can happen. The universe can exist for eternity, and from a rational stand point it could have existed for 10 billion years or more. Just because you can't comprehend a universe of infinite time doesn't mean it can't exist.

I have two big problems with Evolution.

1. The missing link. Some have claimed that they found the missing link fossilised somewhere. My thinking is that shouldn't we still have half human, half ape animals walking around?

2. Evolution states that life randomly appeared, and billions of years later, here we are. According to scientist's claims however, the chances of random life appearing is 1 in 10^250 (thats a 1 with 250 zeros). You have a better chance of winning the lottery 25 times in a row.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

 

[CuddlyCombine]

I don't see why you can't... viruses and bacteria are prime examples of evolution or at least adaption. Bloody drug resistant little buggers...

No, viruses and bacteria are primary examples of mutation (not to mention that they're single-celled organisms). They don't prove much in the way of evolution; at least, you can't convince a sceptic by presenting those facts.

Anyway it gets much worse than Baboons... thanks to the whole common ancestor thing you'd be surprised what we're closely related too.

We share something like 97% of our DNA with dogs, so we're pretty much related to everything.

 

[Kurokami]

I've always been told that you don't have to consciously follow the beliefs to get into Heaven, just be a good person. A problem that many Christians have is that the Old Testament was later superceded* by the whole "love one another, as I have loved you" thing - there's no mention of belief, just being good, so, yeah, Atheists are allowed in, along with eeeeeeeveryone else so long as they haven't been an arsehole. I fail to see how "not being an arsehole" is "spending a life time living in mediocrity".

Clearly that's not what I understood from Christians, I've heard the difficulty curve for getting into heaven is pretty steep, that faith has alot to do with it (would explain why they all try and kill each other, even though I agree that these are just the nutjobs who want to score something off of it you can see how that would fit into my "stop changing your shit" argument towards religion), also apparently its popular belief that if you don't do whats in your power to 'set others on the right path' you'll go to hell, to be honest I've even heard that either heaven or hell run a pretty exclusive club, so after they reach their quota they just redirect you to the other. No shit, I've heard this. And since its all been passed down or come from a 'priest' or whatever you call the guy who I should think has the rule book, I'd expect it to stay constant.

In any case I'd say you have it right, though not much to do with christianity, the base for all religions (most) is a good sense of morals, following that in my opinion is whats important.

*A fact that many Christians miss. Along with many Atheists trying their hardest to slam Christianity to get a few more converts so that their brand of science will get them nicer soil to rot in when they die.

[very much enjoyed that portion of your quote, =]]

I don't think atheists try and slam Christianity to get converts, rather because they're filled with cynics and just want to slam it for being 'wrong'. (excuse the blunt use of the word, but after all that is what atheists believe)