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

[Sentox6]

Tell me, have you taken any form of antibiotic medicine in the last few years?

No.

How about a vaccine?

No.

Ever had any trouble with the flu, or HPV, or HIV?

No.

Enjoyed genetically modified food?

No.

Hell, eaten any domesticated animal?

While most of the meat I consume was raised on my own property, I'll give you this one.

By all means, amaze me and utilise your undoubtedly ingenious lead-in to inspire me with an epiphany.

 

[Mathak]

Eyes are also rather complicated to have been just chance.

Fun fact: Do you know who came up with the eyeball argument? Charles Darwin, in On the Origin of Species. He also provided the counter-arguments there.

So, y'know..you might want to keep your arguments a bit more up-to-date.

 

[Sentox6]

That may just be the most awesome sentence I have ever read on this site.

Hah, a fellow New Zealander. Wassup mate?

 

[Buizel91]

Homo Erectus

*Dies of laughter*

Seriously...who comes up with these names :')

OT: Mehh, it's his belief, not everyone believes in Evolution.

Personally, i do, it seems the only plausible theory to me. Loook at us, then look at something like a Chimpanzee or another ape, we have so much in common it's unreal...plus there is the fact we share the same DNA...or most of it.

 

[Buizel91]

Homo Erectus

*Dies of laughter*

Seriously...who comes up with these names :')

OT: Mehh, it's his belief, not everyone believes in Evolution.

Personally, i do, it seems the only plausible theory to me. Loook at us, then look at something like a Chimpanzee or another ape, we have so much in common it's unreal...plus there is the fact we share the same DNA...or most of it.

Not everyone believes that the earth isn't flat either. People who don't believe in facts deserve to be openly ridiculed about it.

They deserve to be ridiculed for something they personally believe? Urm...no they do not.

If someone believes that god created the world, then that is their belief and they should not be made fun of because of it.

 

[CarlMin]

I disagree. Disagreeing with the theory of evolution on non-evidence based grounds (that is, saying it's wrong for no good reason) IS unethical because it goes against the scientific method. That is, it actively goes against the single largest force for positive societal advancement in the history of mankind. At the very least it is unethical to attempt to persuade others to this point of view... But I find even holding it ethically irresponsible.

Yeah I kinda sorta have to disagree with your disagreement here. You completely misunderstood my point. Science and objectivity are good aspirations, yes, but what is defined as science changes over time. As does the theories. What you think is true and unquestionable today will be frowned upon in just few generations.

To quote another users reply to the OP this thread, one who managed to summarize it better than I can:

What a moron. I'm glad no one else in history ever dared disagree with or challenge the scientific consensus of his/her contemporaries. Otherwise they might have been laughed at in a social forum.

*rolls eyes*

As you see, no sensible person wants to live in a society where we ?stamp? on the opinions of those who we think are wrong. History has taught us that this is, as I said before, dangerous.

You're missing the point. The point I'm trying to get at is that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that doing it is a good idea. And having a skewed view of reality IS a horrible idea.

Yeah, but the definition of reality is too complex to be narrowed down to right and wrong. When understanding the world, science is not enough. We most also take philosophy into account.

Take solipsism for example. Technically, you can?t even be sure that I exist. Nor that the moon exists or that anything exists. This theory cannot be proven wrong, and is really just as logical as the scientific facts you speak of.

And it?s one way to view the world. Are the rest of us in position to say that this is wrong? No, of course not.

Except the former contains the latter. I think this is what you don't get. Society itself is nothing but a pinnacle to scientific achievement; it's the reason why we no longer live in caves and live past age 60 on average in the developed world. Acting against science or the scientific mindset/method IS harmful to society as a whole, and religion falls cleanly into that camp.

That?s not true. Science can?t change society until the scientific progress becomes socially acceptable. Really, when you think about it, modern society is just as much a philosophical perspective as is religion. And religion used to be science, a way to explain the world in a time when we knew very little.

Anyway, science alone can?t bring society forward. However, philosophy can. Cultural change cannot be brought forward simply by presenting scientific evidence. That?s why its important to always value what really brings our society forward ? cultural change towards tolerance and acceptance. Scientific advances is the result of this.

Results, eh? Science has brought you modern medicine, antibiotics, clean water, clean food, safety protocols, evacuation proceedings and warnings for natural disasters... Hell, you think that you'd even be able to read this message without science?

Medicine and the technical advantages our species as seen is all good and well, no question about it. But we are not speaking of technological advantages here. Nor can it justify your opinion.

I am intolerant to those who go against science. But this isn't a big deal. Why? Because science kind of separates itself from ethics. It deals exclusively with the physical, while ethics is metaphysical.

I find it ironic that you defend ?science? with such a religious ambition. Your definition is science seems to be the same as truth. And obviously, there is one truth and one truth only, what you refer to as science (a kind wide and unsuitable term if you ask me), and you are ready to defend this truth against anyone who dares to question it, because obviously, they are idiots who destroy the human progress ? and they are simply wrong.

Yeah, that sounds very religious to me.

Look, imagine if someone said, "I don't believe in gravity" or "I believe the earth is flat". Would you say that I'm hindering progress by putting someone who is blatantly wrong on that issue in their place? No? Then why evolution, eh?

You simply don?t understand?

Truth is exchangeable and dynamic. It will change eventually. That?s why we shouldn?t be so fast to judge other people of being wrong. Today, it?s a question of evolution. Tomorrow, it might be a question of something else, but the important thing is that society doesn?t frown upon an opinion simply because it?s represented by a minority.

However, that's NOT what's happening here. It's a combination of "I don't believe it because I doubt it for no good reason" and "I don't believe it because my religion says otherwise". Telling those people to kindly shove it up their asses is NOT hindering progress. It's telling idiots to shut up and learn something.

I cannot believe you are so absolutely locked in your way of thinking. I?ve been telling you over and over again, it?s not a question of right and wrong. It?s not a question of what can be proved or not. Because what is considered scientifically correct have changed through history and will always change and will never be an absolute truth. A thousand years ago, it was ?proved? that the earth was flat. Today it?s proved that the earth is round. A few generations from now, it will be proved that the earth exists in several different dimensions in several different stages of time. But it will never matter, because what really matters is and always has been tolerance. Tolerance is necessary for change to take place to begin with. You do not display tolerance.

So to foster progress, we must allow all opinions. That doesn?t include telling people to shove it up their ass because you think they are wrong, because that?s wrong will only be wrong today and in the future, something else will be wrong and something else will be right.

 

[Sentox6]

...Okay, so you're a relatively bad example. The fact is, quite a lot of biology is based around the results of this theory, from the obvious stuff (genetics, artificial selection) to the less obvious stuff (germ research, vaccines). To quote one of the founders of modern biology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution

The problem, as I see it, is that "evolution" is a rather overly-broad term. When evolution is discussed in a context as general as the topic here, more often than not the question could be expounded as "do you believe we developed from single-celled organisms over millions of years, with primates our nearest living ancestors?"

When the 'average' person says they don't believe in evolution, they're not usually disputing biological science. They're disputing the unobservable history of the universe. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can hold any view they choose on this topic.

 

[DracoSuave]

my stance on Evolution.. is no, it doesn't exist. it's a theory, plain and simple.

Natural Selection is something that I can get behind, as a Christian. The bigger lion with claws was able to mate more because he was bigger and could fight better, the smaller ones weren't able to.

I know people love to flame. But I don't think humans evolved. I think we were just the strongest and best of what was in the past. Cro-Magnun, killed off, Cro-something else, killed off. Humans are one of the very few 'animals' that can adapt to changing conditions. It gets to hot, we change clothes, it gets to cold we change clothes. We walk from a desert to a tundra, we make sure we're well stocked and prepared for the best/worst.

Evolution is a theory, nothing more.

Natural Selection is something still going on now.

EDIT:
To paraphrase Stephen Colbert. If beauty is an evolutionay advantage, why are there so many ugly people in the world?

I just want to point out that by stating that you believe that more fit species are more likely to survive and that is how fit species are more likely to become fitter over time...

How is it you can say evolution doesn't exist while describing what you believe exists, and lo and behold, you are describing the process of evolution!?!

You actually do believe in evolution, you just think evolution means some other thing.

 

[orangeapples]

We're on page 7 of this and no one is going to convince anyone else here against whatever they came in here with...

Assumption on your part. I would be, if empirical evidence would be provided. You on the other hand seem not to fancy logical debate. A shame really. Ah well, cognitive dissonance triumphs again.

okay, you get 1 more out of me, but after this, no more.

We've all had out share of internet 'debates' on this subject. There have only ever been 2 ways the subject ends.
1. the forum has a post limit and that limit is reached.
2. everyone just gives up and leaves eventually.

I'm just stepping out earlier than everyone else wants to. There is another reason aside from the above as to why I am leaving. I'm certain that people who have read my posts might have realized it as well. I am not qualified to make any influence on this debate. You're looking for evidence that I do not know if it exists.

debates are so logical, based on evidence, recordable trends and cause/effect. Religion is so illogical, ultimately based on faith despite evidence. Ultimately I am trying to argue faith as logical and I cannot do that because I do not see faith as logical. Faith does not make sense, but it works. It is really hard to describe.

Have you seen a person of faith who was really happy to just be faithful? They have got the goofiest smile on their face and yet their eyes look really sad or really relieved. It is a mental and physical experience that I don't know if it can be put into words. Because it is such a strong experience, when others from the outside tell believers that everything they believe is wrong they react so emotionally. It is frustrating.

emotion and faith and belief are unquantifiable pieces of data. I cannot give that data to you as evidence. I'm sorry.

However, next time you are in a debate about this subject I hope you keep this information in mind and be a little understanding of where the other person is coming from.

 

[Player 2]

my stance on Evolution.. is no, it doesn't exist. it's a theory, plain and simple.

Natural Selection is something that I can get behind, as a Christian. The bigger lion with claws was able to mate more because he was bigger and could fight better, the smaller ones weren't able to.

I know people love to flame. But I don't think humans evolved. I think we were just the strongest and best of what was in the past.

Evolution is a theory, nothing more.

Natural Selection is something still going on now.

EDIT:
To paraphrase Stephen Colbert. If beauty is an evolutionay advantage, why are there so many ugly people in the world?

This is a very strange post, you seem to be trying to both accept and deny evolution at the same time.

Firstly, Stephen Colbert's show is a satire, please tell me you don't take it seriously.

Secondly, you say you don't think humans evolved, but if humans have lived through the entire history of the Earth then where were the humans 100 million years ago? Why don't we find any Homo Sapiens skeletons older than 1 million years old?

Thirdly, you say you accept Natural Selection, but in order for Natural Selection to work there needs to be differences between members of the species. These differences are caused by mutations, and if they weren't there Natural selection wouldn't happen. If you accept Natural selection you are accepting the theory of Evolution, unless of course you have a better explanation for why these things happen.

Lastly, you are confused about what "Theory" means in scientific terms. In scientific terms a Theory is an explanation of how or why a thing happens, a Law is a description of something that happens. For example;

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

Law of evolution: The further back you go in the fossil record, the simpler the most complex organisms get.
Theory of evolution: (Darwinian) Organisms with more favourable genetic make up pass their genes down to the next generation, eventually altering the genetic makeup of entire populations/specie and resulting in a trend of growing complexity.

So no, Evolution isn't "just a theory".

 

[Rafael Dera]

Okay, so he doesn't believe in evolution. What's the big deal?
Just because people have opinions different from yours doesn't make them wrong.
If that's what thinks, then that's what he thinks. So let him think it. Trying to force your beliefs onto others just makes you seem like a dick.

Sometimes it does. If you are of the opinion the earth is flat, you are wrong. If you are of the opinion evolution does not exist, you are equally wrong. Simply because you (or anyone else) are (is) devoted to an idea, doesn't give it inherent value or verisimilitude.

OT: The precise ideas of this gentleman are not currently known so their fabricated status cannot (yet) be asserted.

Forcing the truth onto people, however, doesn't make one any less of a dick I suppose =D

 

[Imsety]

They deserve to be ridiculed for something they personally believe? Urm...no they do not.

If someone believes that god created the world, then that is their belief and they should not be made fun of because of it.

What if someone told you they believe that the earth was created twelve days ago by a blue pineapple? Would you say "fine, that's your belief" and be content with that, or would you giggle and question their sanity?

Just because a certain belief is more popular doesn't mean it's less ridiculous.

As for the topic at hand, don't think I can add anything that hasn't already been said. A shame to see the familiar "but evolution is just a theory" and "why are there still monkeys?". The ignorance would be amusing, if it wasn't so sad.

 

[Turing '88]

snip - sorry don't want a wall of text and don't know how to do spoiler box

The mistake you're making is thinking we pro-science people are opposed to people saying evolution is wrong. You can say evolution is wrong, you just need evidence to back up your claim. The second I see evidence against evolution I'll reconsider my stance on it.

When people have a legitimate argument it is considered by the scientific community, that's how we progress. Should we listen to all the nut jobs who are conviced they can create a perpetual motion machine despite it violating known laws? Or should we dismiss them and wait until they actually have proof? I know which will result in the most progress.

When quantum mechanics was first postulated it wasn't because "that's what I think and if you don't belive me you're just ignorant". It was because it fit the evidence no matter how crazy it sounds. Seriously if science can accept quantum mechanics you can't say scientists aren't open to new ideas.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

I view this as important as currently only around a quarter or a third of American's accept evolution

Oh nooooo. How terrible. That means... really nothing very important at all.

What effect would it have on our world if suddenly everyone subscribed to evolution? Perhaps a slight rise in depression rates, but I suspect essentially nothing would change.

People's perspectives on economic policy matter. People's perspective on social justice and moral obligation matter. Hell, people's perspectives on the metric versus imperial system matter. I could go on forever.

I can't think of one good reason why an individual declining to accept that evolution correctly describes the history of the world we live in matters one damn bit.

The fact that you, like many native English speakers, cannot identify the correct context for the use of the apostrophe concerns me an awful lot more than what you think of evolution.

A rise in depression rates? I'd love to know what your source for that gem is.

Not accepting evolution shows an ignorance of science which could be an indication that a person is anti-science. Science has constantly been the way forward for humanity and will continue to be the way forward. If politicians that subscribe to ignorant ideas like ID or Creationism get into power then they might try implement legislation to have it taught in schools like they have a bit of a history doing. These ignorant adults help to make ignorant children, which will then result in fewer scientists, which leads to slower advancements.

Oh and if you're going to try be a grammar nazi it helps if you don't make mistakes

"People's perspective on social justice and moral obligation matter"

People have perspectives not a single perspective.

http://www.google.com/recaptcha/api/image?c=03AHJ_Vuvcnk0ZkyVFo_NeDUMtA868I4ohdyNHkCOGuWiOnaIHLqqEbY1o9VLGyBsN6TW-5nP1VgqP8AjUURzvpvuRNe-AzO7-LdK2c3JKf19zQHgI8vG2T52FhVcYDLIWKhnNtyDloGG0PvHS0w7gWd7Wx1ILV0WbwA

oh please, give me a challenge.

 

[DracoSuave]

I cannot believe you are so absolutely locked in your way of thinking. I?ve been telling you over and over again, it?s not a question of right and wrong. It?s not a question of what can be proved or not. Because what is considered scientifically correct have changed through history and will always change and will never be an absolute truth. A thousand years ago, it was ?proved? that the earth was flat. Today it?s proved that the earth is round. A few generations from now, it will be proved that the earth exists in several different dimensions in several different stages of time. But it will never matter, because what really matters is and always has been tolerance. Tolerance is necessary for change to take place to begin with. You do not display tolerance.

Your logic is flawed. The process of replacing understanding with greater understanding is a process of science. Simply stating we must accept all views because our current views might be wrong isn't scientific nor progress. In order to accept a conflicting view, science requires some evidence and observation and a reasonable explanation to cover those cases. Simply accepting a viewpoint just because of tolerance doesn't further science. Science REQUIRES testing, and examination.

For science to continue, ideas must be held under scrutiny. Without that scrutiny, you do not have science.

Scrutiny and critical analysis further progress. Tolerance simply to be tolerant never well.

So to foster progress, we must allow all opinions. That doesn?t include telling people to shove it up their ass because you think they are wrong, because that?s wrong will only be wrong today and in the future, something else will be wrong and something else will be right.

Again, demanding evidence, proof, and observation is how knowledge advances. We must only allow valid or cogent opinions. We are under no obligation to permit or examine opinions that are invalid, are not based upon observations, or are in direct contravention of the evidence.

Knowledge advances by rejecting old knowledge that does not fit. Intellegent design has yet to show its observations, evidence, or its tests. Evolution has. That is why Intellegent Design is considered non-scientific. It ignores the scientific method. And that is why it is irrational for those in science to deem it as part of scientific knowledge.

 

[Jegsimmons]

hey, its his belief/opinion. i'm religious and think we evolved.....though i like to believe we evolved from something cool like raptors. not stupid butt scratching apes.