When a friend tells you he "does not agree" with the concept of evolution

[Spartan448]

It IS a legitimate question. If we really did evolve from Apes and Monkies, then why do they still exist? I know that happens with other species, but we are an advanced species, much more so than any species on earth. I see no way that Humans evolved from any species living on Earth. Rather, we were placed here. Seeded, if you will, by an Alien race.

 

[dex-dex]

I have a friend like that.
She and I probably disagree with any type of political belief. but we are still friends. how i am not sure. but she is hilarious!
It does not matter what a person believes, if you still like that person then you can over the fact that they don't believe in evolution.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

It IS a legitimate question. If we really did evolve from Apes and Monkies, then why do they still exist? I know that happens with other species, but we are an advanced species, much more so than any species on earth. I see no way that Humans evolved from any species living on Earth. Rather, we were placed here. Seeded, if you will, by an Alien race.

Right. So where did the aliens come from?




As for apes still existing WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM THEM. They are like our cousins, we both descend from common ancestors. They are NOT our past, they are another divergence, or we are a divergence from their path. In the tree there's a split and they are on one side and we are on the other, they are not at the head of that split.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, I think the issue with Evolution is that while it's a popular theory it's far from perfect. People tend to forget that there are a lot of OTHER theories of various degrees of quality other than ones based off of religion.

An example of one is simply that humans were seeded on the planet by aliens... either transdimensional or interstellar.

See, one problem with the "big questions" is that people who support a theory tend to look at all other theories and accept them as having been debunked by those who agree with them, even when they really haven't been.

You watch some of those ancient mysteries shows and such, and among the things you'll learn is that ancient Americans down in south and central America such as the Aztecs and Mayans didn't actually build a lot of their cities and temples, they found them and moved into them. Little is known about who that pre-civilization was. An interesting point however is that whomever erected those cities, temples, and other monuments strangely remained localized and despite their technology had no real naval prescence, after all these peoples had no contact with the rest of the world, where if they were that good at engineering they would have been building some pretty efficient boats which would have been superior to what else was out there at the time. What's more there is no evidence at all that there was ever any major seafaring going on by any people in the region. The Aztecs and Mayans for all their alleged advancement themselves didn't even have the technology to explore the coastline of their own continent(s), and whomever came before them for some reason chose not to.

There are also points made about the "least effort" principle. That is to say that all of these huge cities, monuments, and other things throughout the world might have been possible with ancient technology, but at the same time there was no real reason to ever build that way given the intended function and the tech level of the people involved. One arguement for example about the statues on Easter Island is that the local natives later "confessed" to building them and demonstrated how it could be done with primitive technology, and many people like to scream "debunked" but at the same time questions like motive come into the entire thing, especially seeing as the people who demonstrated it was possible had the benefit of later education (knowing techniques that could have been used at a previous tech level from education) and the motivation of being able to get international attention. There have been a lot of criticisms about things like that.

Then of course you have issues like Quartz from the other side of the world being found in the Americas having been relocated thousands of years ago without any seafaring civilizations having been involved, and then of course you have the crystal skulls, and everything else.

I'm not saying I personally believe this, I'm just pointing out that a fair number of people do. For all claims about one aspect of this or another having the mystery solved, or debunked, viewed fairly that typically hasn't happened. It might sound crazy but someone can point to the idea of humans being engineered or seeded by aliens, or perhaps having originated elsewhere, point to various pictures and occurances, and make a case for the theory.

... and that's just ONE alternative viewpoint that doesn't involve religion. We still get professors and stuff to go on TV and ramble about stuff like this periodically.

 

[Lupin the Vapour]

I read two pages of ignorant bile and smugness, then stopped.
Evolution is a theory until we can come up with a time machine and go observe it. To be clear to the aforementioned bile slinging crowd, I'm not sold on ANY theories on how the universe began, life came to be, or time started working. That means that I don't buy that random chance threw together the exact right formula to make sentient minds along with everything else alive on earth. Also, I don't buy that an all powerful being spoke and made it be.
Just because someone believes in something spiritual (which has yet to be DISPROVED, by the way) doesn't make them an idiot. Just because you believe in evolution, doesn't make you nominally more intellectual. Calling someone an idiot for believing something that you can't disprove, however, DOES make you a douche. Yes, creationists, that means that calling an evolutionist an idiot for not believing in God makes YOU a douche as well.

 

[habsJD]

Pascall's Wager is actually totally wrong. Here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

The points I feel the need to address in that vid:
1/ An omniscient god would know whether you're only believing as part of a bet. But what if it started as a bet and evolved into something more, you know like in that movie She's All That? Talking about omniscience is a slippery slope on both sides of the coin. It can be used to "justify" and "disprove" the same things. God's omniscience in this case only means that the belief has to be real, of course He'll know the fakes. And fakes aren't really limited to people who decided to believe based on Pascal's Wager. I fail to see how this argument pokes any holes into the general idea I presented which is somewhat more trimmed down and broad than what Pascal presented.
2/ I fail to see how having a personal belief system causes me to lose integrity, critical thoughts, or hours to empty rituals. Integrity: it may be the lack of sleep speaking, but I fail to see how integrity even enters into it. If I'm acting out of character with what I believe, then maybe I am losing integrity, but that has just as much to do with my actions as it does with my beliefs. I'm guessing the issue comes from the contradictions in Pascal's original proposition? I don't really see those contradictions as central to the general idea, however, so I don't think integrity is going to be a problem. Critical thinking: I think critically quite often actually. Evolution isn't the only thing that enters my mind throughout the day. There are many others of which critical thinking is just as applicable. It sounds like I'm being told that since I don't believe in evolution I have lost the ability to think critically. A bit less extreme but still similar to denial being used as proof. I either accept evolution or I obviously can't think critically? Fact is I have thought critically about this very topic before. I have looked at both sides, I have looked at my options and I have chosen faith, and not because of Pascal's Wager. I only used that as an example of why I believe it's a dick move to try to convince someone there is no god(s). Hours of rituals: I consider myself Christian and really don't take part in many rituals at all. Rituals aren't the be all and end all of Christianity. The ones I do take part in don't feel like a waste of time. Even given the guarantee that atheism was correct, I don't know that I'd stop. There's a certain comforting feeling that I like.
3/ Different denominations don't equal different religions. I don't see any one denomination as being superior than others. I think the Phelps kinda have their own cult thing going on there and so I wouldn't really include them. But other than that, for the most part they all share the same basic premise, for lack of a better word.
4/ The only thing in the entire vid that even gave me pause to think was about the infinite number of possibilities out there. And yes there are infinite possibilities. I chose one that there is a basis for here on our planet. And I am quite comfortable with my own personal process of rational thought that I don't believe video game god will begrudge me for choosing to believe in something else. I also don't believe that this possibility invalidates the basic premise of Pascal's Wager. Given the very finite number of possibilities that humans can consciously choose to believe, the concept still stands up. I never said that it is limited to Christianity, I even made a point to mention other religions. And in believing that there may be a video game god that rewards rational thought, doesn't "rational thought" get thrown out the window? I've taken my stance, I chose an established religion, albeit much less formal than your typical established religion. Given that established religions have been here for so long, I believe that there is a greater chance that one of them is correct than a god that has chosen to not have any interaction with us.

Heh, having not slept, I honestly am not even sure how well I answered any of those points, and I likely rambled a great deal more than was necessary, I apologize for that... now onto more rambling

Let me just put this out of the way; 'astronomical odds' are bullshit. Chemistry doesn't work with odds all that much; if you put 2 chemicals together in a certain environment, they'll do the same thing again if you copy everything. Life isn't mathmatical, life is chemical.

As for blood clotting, here's a start. [http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html] And we've learned quite a bit about the evolution of eyes [http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml] as well. Intelligent Design has zero credit in the scientific community no matter what you personally believe, it has nothing actually going for it.

Even in chemistry though, when looking at the grand picture, odds come into play. A planet that happens to have perfect conditions to support life to begin with, then for all the right chemicals to be in the right places at the right times for the life we see around us.

Of course Intelligent Design has nothing going for it in the scientific community. Science by definition requires empirical evidence. I'm not implying that's a bad thing, far from it, the scientific method is largely the reason we are technologically where we are today. The problem comes from complete refusal of either side to work with each other. The church is largely to blame for that, but as it stands now, science has completely shut the door on the possibility of anything unverifiable. Since it's unverifiable it would be pointless to actually look into it, so there's no fault there. Science shouldn't be concerning itself with anything that can't be studied, but completely declaring that it is impossible for anything to exist outside of what we can see is a little extreme, possibly a little arrogant.

I will likely read those articles at some point, but it's just too much reading for right now.

Mind you, of course it's true that the fact of evolution isn't fully explained yet. With science, of course, there's never a 100% knowing, that goes against the principle of it.

As for taking it away from people; because this kind of religion, the kind that meddles with the "how" and tries to just say "magic did it", slows down progress. There's many different kinds of faith, and this is the sort of faith that doesn't coexist with science.

I do know what the actual meaning of the word "theory" means, I wasn't referring to the lack of 100% conclusive evidence proving everything along from point A to point B. And yes evolution does explain a lot, it is a good theory in the truest sense of the term. There are just some issues that need to be cleaned up.

I'm not throwing the "how" out when I have faith. I'm fascinated by new discoveries and progress. I have no desire to slow down progress. I just look at the same findings you do and see a different...driving force I suppose. I look at the diversity and wonder how we could have gotten to where we are purely by chance. How so many beneficial mutations were needed to get us and all the other species on the planet to where we are today. I choose to believe that this happened through design.

I suggest informing yourself on evolution and the theory surrounding it before forming an opinion. I suggest that for everyone, for opponents and proponents alike. Generic Gamer is right; too many people just take people's worth for it. That goes against the principles of science itself.

Of course it's important to inform yourself, and I have informed myself. Admittedly this is the first time I've looked into any of this in several years, so there's likely new things I'm not entirely aware of, but I do know what evolution is. I am aware of the theory. I choose to believe that evolution was guided. I choose to have faith in something that I cannot see or prove.

What's the best afterlife that atheists have to hope for? Nothing.

Who says I want it? It doesn't even make sense; how can an eternity of happiness be happy if you don't know unhappiness? Life is defined by contrast.

I never said you did want it. I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm stating my views on the subject that it just seems like a dick move to try to convince someone to give up their belief system when what you're trying to convince them of is that there is nothing. Even if it is just a crutch, especially if it is just a crutch, trying to take someone's source of hope away (yes I know how extreme that sounds, but for many people that's exactly what it is) is just wrong.

I don't see a problem with contrasting eternal happiness with real life.

 

[GraveeKing]

I've been in a similar situation myself, he was the smartest kid in school, got max grades and goes to the best college around the area. Heck he study's science and plans to be a scientist in future!

I don't understand what's so wrong about it. I mean heck 'science' is all about proof right, I've never seen any CLEAR evidence of evolution - I've seen mutation of the gene pools but never to an extent that you can go from anything to evolve into anything.
People always complain that religious people get offended by anything but if I was them I'd be face-palming every time someone gasps and yells 'YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!?' as though it's the most illogical, offensive thing ever said.
Even some non-religious people agree that evolution in theory has it's flaws.

 

[Player 2]

Law of gravity: Fg = GMm/r2
Theory of gravity: (Einsteinian) Mass bends space itself, causing things to fall towards each other.

Except when light or dark matter is involved... Or anything else that may break its rules... So... Is it really a law?

Sort of, I was really just using it as a simple example of law+theory, it's not a totally comprehensive one though and you're right, there are times when it doesn't apply. Every law has its limits though; Newtons second law of thermodynamics only applies inside a closed system, but it doesn't make it any less of a law.

 

[bombadilillo]

It IS a legitimate question. If we really did evolve from Apes and Monkies, then why do they still exist? I know that happens with other species, but we are an advanced species, much more so than any species on earth. I see no way that Humans evolved from any species living on Earth. Rather, we were placed here. Seeded, if you will, by an Alien race.

Sure, it is a legitimate question. However, you're expecting us to spoon-feed it to you. Type it into google, and the second result is exactly what you're asking, answered. Try doing a little of your own research (protip: from places OTHER than AiG and Creation.com) before asking questions that any high-schooler could easily answer.

LOL AiG! where every "argument" ends in NOW THE WORLD WILL TELL YOU THIS< BUT THAT'S JUST LIES FROM SATAN.

 

[SsilverR]

I don't believe in gravity. I mean, its just a theory, and the bible doesn't mention gravity once, so i reckon its just a load of BS.

It doesn't even really make sense, magical energy is holding us all on the planet? and you say i'm the dumb one for believing in God. If gravity is holding us down what's holding down gravity? More so, they say everything has its own gravity, so why can't I walk on walls using their gravity?

You're just stupid if you believe in that crap.


--

Only things with huge mass have their own gravitational pull

 

[thom_cat_]

It IS a legitimate question. If we really did evolve from Apes and Monkies, then why do they still exist? I know that happens with other species, but we are an advanced species, much more so than any species on earth. I see no way that Humans evolved from any species living on Earth. Rather, we were placed here. Seeded, if you will, by an Alien race.

Because it's not as if the entire species just dies when a few manage genetic differences, especially when in different environments.
Also, we all came from bacteria, why does bacteria still exist?
I kinda like seeing it as a vague tree because you can see why you can still have a continuation of both branches after a split, but it's still a bad analogy.

 

[Sharpiez]

Sort of, I was really just using it as a simple example of law+theory, it's not a totally comprehensive one though and you're right, there are times when it doesn't apply. Every law has its limits though; Newtons second law of thermodynamics only applies inside a closed system, but it doesn't make it any less of a law.

Right but the generally accepted way of viewing a law is as a universal truth. I've heard it brought up a lot as something which has become "known" in our universe and that's just false. I get what you're saying, I just felt like the way it was originally put is misleading.

Edit: and by "known" I mean applicable everywhere, to be clear.

 

[somonels]

Doesn't matter. We can't prove any of it.

Umm, yes, we can.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

"there are some things that humans are meant to understand." probably means that he doesn't know the true answer and doesn't think we will ever know the true answer.

Besides, even if he doesn't believe in evolution, who the hell cares?

 

[Player 2]

Sort of, I was really just using it as a simple example of law+theory, it's not a totally comprehensive one though and you're right, there are times when it doesn't apply. Every law has its limits though; Newtons second law of thermodynamics only applies inside a closed system, but it doesn't make it any less of a law.

Right but the generally accepted way of viewing a law is as a universal truth. I've heard it brought up a lot as something which has become "known" in our universe and that's just false. I get what you're saying, I just felt like the way it was originally put is misleading.

Edit: and by "known" I mean applicable everywhere, to be clear.

That's fair enough, I can see where your coming from, I might change it later to clarify a bit.

 

[DYin01]

Faith and science do NOT go hand in hand. Looking at history you'll find that at some point or another, anyone who's involved with rational thought AND is also religious will come to a conflict at one point. Pascal is a typical example.

 

[trophykiller]

Me and one of my collage friends were having a discussion that came to be about evolution at some point. what you need to understand before replying is that this guy is probably one of the smartest people out there, the guy is a certified genius.
He practices Judaism up to a certain degree (separates meat a dairy and other stuff) but calling him religious will be a vast exaggeration.

So when this guy, who is probably the smartest guy I ever met told me he didn't believe that humans are apart of evolution it blew me away. To make things worse he said "there are some things that humans are meant to understand. and we are both Comp-Sci majors so rational thought is a given.

So..... WTF?!?!

I agree with him. People say some ludicrous things about evolution, acting like if you have the slightest flaw then Darwin will devour you like ice cream, but also they ignore all the flaws we DO have.

So yes, while I think evolution is real, there is a degree to which I am willing to belive it. Oh, and before you ask, I do believe in god. In fact, I'm a Mormon, actually. Putting up flame shield!