Why do people reject evolution?

[Caffeine_Bombed]

Dumb, faux intelligent comments like that always make me proud to be agnostic.

Why? I have nothing to do with my less tolerant fellow "atheists" at all anymore than you have anything to do with being an agnostic. Dont you develop a superiority complex on me Thats sliiiiiightly ironic no? "Im so glad im not all superior like those atheists, that makes me PROUD and feel SUPERIOR!" which is a thought that makes me chuckle.

I liked your post. Its important not to hate creationism "Just cus". In fact its stupid to hate it at all. The best thing about science is that your emotions dont play a role at all. How i feel about any theory is meaningless. Its important to remind people that the difference between evolution and creationism in the minds of those who believe them is that evolution should have NO emotional attatchment to you. At all. Its a tool. A LOVELY tool, ill give you that, but its just a tool to examine and explore reality. If it was proved wrong empirically tomorrow we wouldnt shed a tear. While creationism is based a LOT on emotion and holds emotional value to those who believe in it. We need to stay objective. That makes good science.

Look it wasn't a case of "I'm better than you", it was just a light-hearted jab at the Richard Dawkins' of this forum who feel the need to thrust their giant science brain-dicks in my eye sockets. You know, I more or less posted "Each to their own, so long as we're not bothering each other" and SOME atheists take that as a verbal assault on Science herself and must 'educate' me.
I'm not siding with anyone, I'm just saying get off your fucking high horse. The original topic is some guy saying "these people don't believe in what I consider fact: WTF!?!?".
Maybe 'proud' wasn't the right word... 'Glad' would have been more appropriate. I'm GLAD to be agnostic because I, personally, enjoy being able to sit on the fence and say "Hey, you're just as bad as each other."
And not send friggin' essays to their inbox... ¬_¬

(Honestly, I couldn't tell if your reply was sarcastic so I'll just apologise in advance for the rant and assure you that I come in peace.)

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

(Honestly, I couldn't tell if your reply was sarcastic so I'll just apologise in advance for the rant and assure you that I come in peace.)

It was good sir, methinks i could have conveyed that better Nice Scott Pilgrim avatar :3

Naw everyone needs some humility. Its an important quality.

Also while i totally understand what you mean your metaphor was poorly chosen ;p "Sit on a FENCE" implying we are OFF the fence which is indeed above us. Perhaps not the best imagery to go with that of horses of a high nature. I think we should admit we are all equally bad about some things, especially dealing with things of a metaphysical nature. Its also possible for atheists and religious people to be agnostic too I am most certainly agnostic. You find most atheists are. Although the big "us vs them" tends to make them forget that.

Ill also follow up with this:

Im happy if people understand evolution and accept it makes some sense and still decide they want a religious outlook. That doesnt make them stupid. Just with different priorities. People who reject evolution for reasons that directly relate to not understanding evolution make me sad because i think its sad when people make decisions with limited or purposefully falsified information (IE being taught something silly like fish with legs is evolution).

If you reject evolution for a reason stemming from ignorance of what it is ill call that ignorance out if you bring it up in discussion. If you reject it based entirely on your faith but understand it fully i wont have any issue at all. Thats your choice. Theres being ignorant of a topic and having a different view. One makes me a little sad someone was denied the proper facts to make an informed decision and the other is purely subjective.

 

[Dinwatr]

The difference from traditional creationist arguments that claim that humans were merely created is that ID arguments do not necessarily claim that evolution did not occur, but that the original beginning of life was supernaturally inspired, rather than the common scientific alternative, which is: extreme coincidence (which, personally, seems likely considering the size of the universe).

I'm sorry, but the standpoint that Creationism and ID are different is historically ignorant. It was demonstrated in the Dover trial that ID was nothing more than a dishonest attempt to re-name Creationism to get around the fact that teaching religion in public school science classes is illegal.

Just a quick shout-out to all the fans who took my took my previous (and fairly neutral) comment out of context and filled my inbox with angry quotes that pretty much proved my initial point. Dumb, faux intelligent comments like that always make me proud to be agnostic.

The point of my post was that your comment is NOT neutral. The idea that "live and let live" is neutral in conditions where one side is quite literally trying to destroy the other is a perversion of the idea of neutrality. Secondly, neutrality on this issue is an example of that false equivalency I mentioned. Either you're too ignorant about the subject to hold an informed opinion--in which case you should bow out until you educate yourself, or at least not mock those who are better informed when they correct you--or you're dishonest--because no honest examination of the evidence can lead to neutrality on this issue. Neutrality simply isn't an option anymore.

You know, I more or less posted "Each to their own, so long as we're not bothering each other" and SOME atheists take that as a verbal assault on Science herself and must 'educate' me.

Again, I feel it necessary to point out that you're ignoring the fact that CREATIONISTS ARE BOTHERING US SCIENTISTS. Scientists are merely defending themselves, and you're complaining--in extremely crude terms--that we're being obnoxious. Try having someone accuse YOU of fraud repeatedly over the course of a decade and see how you feel when someone says that you're wrong to defend yourself.

 

[Monster_user]

Speaking as a non Christian I don?t get why it?s that much of issue to work evolution into the bible.

What?s one day to a god? To him one day could simply be 100000 years really the only contradicting part is the story of Adam and eve personally I hate that story but if you have to include it creating mankind can easily mean he slowly evolved apes to create humans.

There is a problem with the 100,000 estimate.

It is written in the Bible that a day to God is 1,000 man years. Genesis tells that the Earth was created in six days, and on the seventh he rested. 6 * 1,000 = 6,000 years, which means that the Universe was created in 6,000 man years. Depending on which of the two accounts you focus on, and how you interpret the creation of the Earth itself, the Earth may or may not have been 6,000 years old before the fall of man. Also, humans, creatures, and the Earth itself were immortal until Adam and Eve sinned.

According to the Bible, humans lived ten times as long prior to the flood. After the flood humanities life span was roughly in line with what has been for the last thousand years. The exact cause, or date of this change is not written, but some time between the creation, and the flood man's life was reduced to 120 years max.

Christians who believe that Genesis is a literal account of creation, have tallied up the numbers, and estimated that the Earth is no more than 20,000 years old, most estimate that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

According to the geneology of the Isrealites/Jews, in the Bible (and presumably the Torah), they can trace their heritage back to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are only given any back story in Genesis, in the creation story. Later they are referenced, or just the first names in a long family tree. It is therefore believed by large number of Christians that Adam and Eve were the first humans as Genesis reports. With Adam and Eve being the first humans, 20,000 years does not leave room for evolution to occur, it is thus incompatible with a literalist interpretation of scripture. With the Bible having been dictated by God to human scribes, it is without error, perfect in every way. Therefore if the Bible is perfect, and evolution contradicts the Bible, then evolution must clearly be in error.

There are many Christians who believe that the books of Genesis and Job are fictional accounts, or mostly fictional accounts. Because of this they can believe in evolution, and the Bible.

 

[Caffeine_Bombed]

(Honestly, I couldn't tell if your reply was sarcastic so I'll just apologise in advance for the rant and assure you that I come in peace.)

It was good sir, methinks i could have conveyed that better Nice Scott Pilgrim avatar :3

Naw everyone needs some humility. Its an important quality.

Also while i totally understand what you mean your metaphor was poorly chosen ;p "Sit on a FENCE" implying we are OFF the fence which is indeed above us. Perhaps not the best imagery to go with that of horses of a high nature. I think we should admit we are all equally bad about some things, especially dealing with things of a metaphysical nature. Its also possible for atheists and religious people to be agnostic too I am most certainly agnostic. You find most atheists are. Although the big "us vs them" tends to make them forget that.

Ill also follow up with this:

Im happy if people understand evolution and accept it makes some sense and still decide they want a religious outlook. That doesnt make them stupid. Just with different priorities. People who reject evolution for reasons that directly relate to not understanding evolution make me sad because i think its sad when people make decisions with limited or purposefully falsified information (IE being taught something silly like fish with legs is evolution).

If you reject evolution for a reason stemming from ignorance of what it is ill call that ignorance out if you bring it up in discussion. If you reject it based entirely on your faith but understand it fully i wont have any issue at all. Thats your choice. Theres being ignorant of a topic and having a different view. One makes me a little sad someone was denied the proper facts to make an informed decision and the other is purely subjective.

Agreed. Let's just leave this awful place, Mr. Frodo.
Seriously, look below your post, this shit is still going on...

 

[Dinwatr]

Seriously, look below your post, this shit is still going on...

Yes, that tends to happen when you refuse to even pretend to address the issues people raise.

Yes. Well. Congratulations on knowing everything m'lord.

There is no possible way you could read my post and get that out of it without you reading things into it that aren't there. I obviously know more than you on a number of points--for example, what the Creationists are doing and what the evidence is. This is far from surprising, as I'm actually involved in a relevant field.

As an aside, it's improper to call me m'lord. My family gave up their lands and titles during the Potato Famine.

Perhaps I do need educating but I think I'll take that up with someone who doesn't come across as an arrogant tool.

I find it remarkable how often projection occurs. I list facts, and you attack me personally, accusing me of the precise issue you're guilty of.

It's NOT arrogant to point out simple and easily-verifiable facts (I supplied ample information to educate yourself--no need to rely on me). It IS arrogant to dismiss them without consideration, particularly on the basis of something entirely unrelated (my personality). It's NOT arrogant to point out to someone that their statements are false when they are ("live and let live" isn't neutral when one side is on the offensive, and that side ISN'T science). It IS arrogant to ignore what that person says and hide behind Argument by Implication. It's NOT arrogant to point out the realities of a situation. It IS arrogant to ignore those realities and demand with the petulant tone of a spoiled child that we--the people who would be most impacted by this situation--take you seriously.

The facts that you are willfully and militantly ignoring are that 1) this is not a matter of mere opinion, but rather a scientific question; and 2) Creationists are forcing scientists to take action. As I have said numerous times, and as you continue to refuse to hear (er, read), we WANT to be left alone. This crap is BORING. But if we took your advice within five years Creationism would be the dominant theory taught in schools. Tops. Within a generation, our science education would be equal to that of the worst Islamofacist state. That's the plan--and I mean that quite literally, that's the written intention.

You want to leave the conversation? Fine, go. But unless you educate yourself on the situation as it stands, please do not tell those of us who have and who's livelihoods depend on it how to behave.

 

[Dinwatr]

I had a thought: Caffeine_Bombed, you're looking at this from a sociological standpoint. You're not interested in the facts, you're interested in Creationism as a social movement.

That is why I say neutrality is impossible here. The act of viewing this as a social issue is a victory for the Creationists. The thing is, they've spent a great deal of time and energy attempting to create just such a shift in the paradigm of this discussion. I--and everyone who approaches this discussion rationally--view it as a purely scientific issue. The theory of evolution has as much cause to bow to social pressure as number theory or color theory. That's the proper way to view it; this is a question of data. And Creationists know this. That's why they've been attempting to force their way into schools and public discourse. They KNOW they'll get their back-sides handed to them if it comes down to the evidence. We can quite literally bury them in evidence. So they've attempted to side-step the entire protocol of scientific debate, and convince people that this is somehow a political or sociological issue.

Imagine someone told you that you're being dogmatic and arrogant and pushy by insisting that 2+2=4. After all, number theory is only a theory! Or imagine how you'd view someone saying "We should agree to live and let live--you think that germs cause many diseases, and I think that it's humors." Imagine the outcry that would arise if someone tried to convince politicians to force teachers to teach the Aristotelian elements alongside atomic theory. The very notion that these subjects should be treated in anything but a scientific (or mathematical) forum would be ridiculous to you. Yet you expect us to accept that evolution--which is every bit as scientific and mathematical (Hardy-Weinburg Equilibrium) as anything above--should be dealt with as a social issue, outside of the proper channels of scientific discourse and open to any opinion, regardless of whether evidence supports it or not.

Evolution is SCIENCE. It must be addressed in a scientific forum. Treating it as a social issue is not merely wrong, it is a perversion of logic and reason. The Creationists are, in attempting to side-step proper scientific protocols, attempting to undermine the way science functions, and you, by accepting this asinine notion, are abetting them.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

That 3 hour one yes

I agree with you almost entirely and have had the same origins in faith. However I don't think there are things/truths that cannot be known through logic and critical thinking(like Leibniz and the atom).I don't believe that there is a god,but I think there might be a source of all activity that is independent of all causes and effects.That is to say,things do not go on forever backwards. I do not claim and old man,snake or anything to be the source-just that there is a source.No belief.

As for my friend,I got him the books on Satanism because he was interested from a philosophical point of view.He has since become a far better person than he was before.I read the books I bought him and found only logic that I could agree or disagree with(however cynical). It wasn't rebellion for the sake of it. Where you confusing it with deistic-Satanism?
Also Satan is a bogeyman symbol because he was reinvented as such.My friend uses it to talk about our inhibitions that we try to partition from ourselves and demonize.Just curious,have you read other religious texts to extract their arguments?

No I haven't. To be honest, my knowledge of the Bible is cursory at best. What I know of it was taught in school primarily, with other knowledge coming from 3rd parties, usually detractors trying to point out the contradictions and vileness within those texts. I do have a bible handy, so I can always do a fact check to make sure someone shouting garbage out of the bible is being honest or not. I may trash it myself, but disingenuous shits making stuff up helps no side they are on. Essentially, I'm against ignorance and try promote critical thinking.

I did some research on Islam for a project, but it was very shallow as I got disinterested pretty quickly. I just don't have the patience to actively research these documents, even if they were of use to me when debating with Theologians and fundamentalists. I've always wanted to study the bible in order to better understand my adversaries opinions, but frankly I'm not sure such an exercise is worth the time. My life is invested elsewhere and I could spend it all trying to reason with devotees, but it seems fruitless to me... a shallow victory. I know I said earlier that we shouldn't walkover these people, but I can't practice what I preach... I have no interested in stalling my own development to try and carry these laggards out of their bronze age educations.

By inhibitions, do you mean sex, revelry and violence? If so, I agree, we have some pretty messed up standards in society today like sex being filtered more so then violence in media and communally damaging cigarettes/socially crippling alcohol being endorsed and legal over the somewhat less harmful yet illegal alternatives.

Yeah, we have some arse backwards standards we need to correct. A combination of scientifically backed education, and open minded discourse, can solve this... though I think we are far away from such conditions at this time.

 

[dslatch]

The reason some people don't believe in it is because simply they choose not to. or they accepted another theory that they prefer or that makes more sense to them. it does not effect any of you people calling them brainless idiots and the like. Some people don't like Metallica, does that make them wrong no. That does not mean i can't respectfully disagree and move on without insulting.

on a side note why do people start these threads they ALWAYS end in flame wars...

 

[Dinwatr]

it does not effect any of you people calling them brainless idiots and the like.

When they start trying to convince people YOUR profession is nothing but a pack of liars, and brain-washing children into rejecting the foundational theories to YOUR field of study, come talk to me. Until then, I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. At least one person here is directly impacted by the Creationism/evolution debate.

This isn't some abstract debate here, people. For some of us, it's self defense. And I'm sorry, but it's simply wrong to scream at people defending themselves for having the audacity to fight back. You want us to live and let live? Tell the Creationists to stop. Us scientists are going to do what we've always done: follow the data. And if you think that's wrong, that's your problem, not ours.

Some people don't like Metallica, does that make them wrong no. That does not mean i can't respectfully disagree and move on without insulting.

There is a huge difference, one that I've pointed out over and over again. Liking music is a matter of individual taste. There is no right or wrong answer. Evolution, on the other hand, is science, and there IS a right answer. There are also rules for the discussion. Creationists, and people who agree with them (which you are currently doing, in your agreement that this is a social issue, not a scientific one), are attempting to convince people that both of those points are wrong.

It's perfectly fine to have whatever opinion you want on Metallica. It's not okay to spout out nonsense about scientific theories and expect those of us who understand them to take you seriously. It's even less okay to force your nonsense on children.

 

[FriedRicer]

That 3 hour one yes

I agree with you almost entirely and have had the same origins in faith. However I don't think there are things/truths that cannot be known through logic and critical thinking(like Leibniz and the atom).I don't believe that there is a god,but I think there might be a source of all activity that is independent of all causes and effects.That is to say,things do not go on forever backwards. I do not claim and old man,snake or anything to be the source-just that there is a source.No belief.

As for my friend,I got him the books on Satanism because he was interested from a philosophical point of view.He has since become a far better person than he was before.I read the books I bought him and found only logic that I could agree or disagree with(however cynical). It wasn't rebellion for the sake of it. Where you confusing it with deistic-Satanism?
Also Satan is a bogeyman symbol because he was reinvented as such.My friend uses it to talk about our inhibitions that we try to partition from ourselves and demonize.Just curious,have you read other religious texts to extract their arguments?

No I haven't. To be honest, my knowledge of the Bible is cursory at best. What I know of it was taught in school primarily, with other knowledge coming from 3rd parties, usually detractors trying to point out the contradictions and vileness within those texts. I do have a bible handy, so I can always do a fact check to make sure someone shouting garbage out of the bible is being honest or not. I may trash it myself, but disingenuous shits making stuff up helps no side they are on. Essentially, I'm against ignorance and try promote critical thinking.

I did some research on Islam for a project, but it was very shallow as I got disinterested pretty quickly. I just don't have the patience to actively research these documents, even if they were of use to me when debating with Theologians and fundamentalists. I've always wanted to study the bible in order to better understand my adversaries opinions, but frankly I'm not sure such an exercise is worth the time. My life is invested elsewhere and I could spend it all trying to reason with devotees, but it seems fruitless to me... a shallow victory. I know I said earlier that we shouldn't walkover these people, but I can't practice what I preach... I have no interested in stalling my own development to try and carry these laggards out of their bronze age educations.

By inhibitions, do you mean sex, revelry and violence? If so, I agree, we have some pretty messed up standards in society today like sex being filtered more so then violence in media and communally damaging cigarettes/socially crippling alcohol being endorsed and legal over the somewhat less harmful yet illegal alternatives.

Yeah, we have some arse backwards standards we need to correct. A combination of scientifically backed education, and open minded discourse, can solve this... though I think we are far away from such conditions at this time.

By inhibitions,he means restrictions we place on ourselves to seem pure/moral.As long as an individual is not harmed it is okay.
If you don't want to stall yourself but you would like to help out others-try the socratic method!All you do is ask questions based on the answers from previous questions. I tried it with my sister and so far,she cant tell me why a god would create sin.

It really is worth the time if you expect to be in groups that will act based on these beliefs,or be effected by the choices of those groups.

So it's worth it.

 

[Vigormortis]

I was not talking about your video at all.I agree with you.Btw-Extreme examples are still examples. This is the video that is nonsense:

{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaDOkMEK4uk}
Did emded it right?

An athiest has a lack of belief/faith in gods.
That does not exclude someone from making an argument as to why they could think their is a god or what the definition of one might actually be.

Yeah, someone pointed out the bits of the prior conversation that showed you were talking about a different video. I had only seen your last post, and the video embeded within, so I was under the impression you were calling that video nonsense.

The post had confused me. My mistake; apologies.

However, an atheist is defined as - "one who believes that there is no deity". When you said, "...I think there is a god-like-thing.", it sort of precludes the possibility of you being an atheist. It's probably more appropriate to say you're a theist.

Unless you meant Agnostic or something similar.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

On a side note, after watching the intended video, all I can say is:

Holy hell was that a collection of bullshit on top of bullshit. I've listened to conspiracy nuts; the kind that believe aliens built the pyramids and that there's a race of reptilian-mole-men living under our cities; whose rants made more sense than that video.

From minute one it was nothing but meta-physics, pseudo-"science", misleading allegories, and out-right lies.

I couldn't sit through much more than a half an hour. If I missed something "profound" after that 30-minute mark, or the random spots I skipped to, then so be it. I will NOT be watching that drivel again.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

One final thing, and then I promise I'll shut up. This is the embed code for the Escapist Forum (for youtube) -

[+youtube=********]

Just remove the plus sign and replace the asterisks with the URL code for the video you want to embed. So, in the case of your video, it would be IaDOkMEK4uk.

It's usually the string of random numbers and letters just after the watch?v= in the URL bar.

 

[Quaxar]

According to the geneology of the Isrealites/Jews, in the Bible (and presumably the Torah), they can trace their heritage back to Adam and Eve.

But that's just silly. If Adam and Eve were the first and only two people of whom humanity descends then EVERYBODY must logically be able to trace their heritage back to them. Even more so if you consider the mathematics behind genealogy where even going back to the 13th century everybody must statistically be related to Charlemagne.
<youtube=e3sTzLXtojo>

And I won't even go into why the whole notion of "biblical evidence" is dishonest and unscientific.

on a side note why do people start these threads they ALWAYS end in flame wars...

This isn't /b/, we do have moderational supervision. I also find posts tend to go more towards the flame side when a) people don't even read the thread or try to argue anything but simply see the topic and think they are original for posting anti-religious one liners on the tenth page or b) discussion value goes down for a lack of opposing viewpoints.

 

[Eekaida]

My ancestors weren't monkeys ok, is that what you want to teach your kids? Bring your child to the zoo and bring them to the chimps and points to them then say' Look its your gradparents wave hello and give them a kiss."? No! That is not right we come from the bible like God says Adam and Eve not Davey and Steve and there was a snake.
So I say to you look in your heart and see that God made you and he made you very special and you are not made from monkeys.

This, unless you were being ironic. Or a troll.

I believe in what I believe. But I believe it's fucking stupid to think that we just "evolved" to get to where we are from some species that was similar to us. Talk about down right depressing. This means, that we all don't matter, not one soul in the world matters. We are nothing. Fuck that.

I understand how evolution works. But I don't deny the presence of a higher power. Apparently it's impossible to understand or believe both.

And the countdown to Quotes that say "You're stupid for believing in religion, blah blah blah!" come up......

I accept what you believe, and I won't call you stupid (who's shocked?), but I will post you this question - why the need to 'matter'? Why the need to be 'special' or 'important'? And is this really the sole preserve of religion? When you think of the mathematical probability of you existing at all - the number of your mothers eggs, fathers sperm, that they exist at all, that there is life on this planet, out of the thousands of planets in the universe etc etc. Isn't that chance amazing enough? Is it really rendered less amazing for lack of some eternal author pulling the strings?

OT: Never personally met anyone who denies evolution. It seems odd to me.

 

[Something Amyss]

According to google "Fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow"

Yes, now do you understand it?

If there were 100 couples, 1 with a mutation that isn't beneficial yet, but may be in the future.
If each couple gave birth to 3 offspring we now have 297 entities without the mutation and 3 with. With each new generation the number without the mutation grows faster than those with the mutation. Sure it's still there but it's prominence within the species diminishes with each new generation.

Again, using single instances (unlikely) and assuming both complete lack of beneficial status and a static "mutation."

So what you're saying is, if you incredibly contrive an unlikely circumstance and assume linear math where it does not apply, things look bad.

You're asking me to defend why natural selection and evolution "fail to explain" something that doesn't happen in nature as you describe it happening in nature as you describe it. Doesn't this seem a little dishonest to you? If not, would it not benefit you to do some research on genetics and heredity before calling it a wash?

It seemed obvious to me, I'll endeavour to be more specific in the future.

Or you could be more sincere, which would have the greater effect.

 

[wulf3n]

You're asking me to defend why natural selection and evolution "fail to explain" something that doesn't happen in nature as you describe it happening in nature as you describe it.

Now how's putting words in peoples mouths. I never said evolution "failed to explain" this, It was just something I didn't understand about evolution.

And yet, as soon as someone questions said theory or asks for evidence, you just say they're wrong

Doesn't this seem a little dishonest to you?

You're assuming my intention is to somehow debunk evolution, rather than me simply having a question regarding evolution.

If not, would it not benefit you to do some research on genetics and heredity before calling it a wash?

A saying about glass houses keeps coming to mind right now. You just spent several posts telling me not to claim you've said something you haven't then go right into claiming I've said things I haven't.

When did I ever say evolution is wash? or anything of that ilk?

If you've read some of my posts not pertaining to our conversation you'd see that I accept evolution as the best explanation we have, my "questions" simply stem from me not knowing everything about evolution, and the principle that all theories get proven wrong eventually by stronger theories.

And now we get back to the initial argument all those pages ago. Once again i've simply asked a question, and instead of answering it, you've just said I'm doing it wrong, and implied some devious scheme to undermine evolution.

Thankfully others have answered the question.

 

[kgpspyguy]

Because its a ridiculous theory, The idea that even one symbiotic relationship could come about from pure chance is absurd much less a planet that's made of them, as well as the fact that its own creator didn't believe in it by the time that he died.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

As well as the fact that its own creator didn't believe in it by the time that he died.

This is just plain untrue. Its fine to not want to accept evolution but dont say things that are totally untrue please :3 Darwin never abandoned his own theory before death. Even answers in Genesis admits that the "doubtful darwin" argument is totally hollow and fallacious.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/14/darwin-and-the-eye

Aside from that the point of natural selection is that symbiotic relationships are not down to chance. They are naturally selected for! Nature favors them ergo when one arises it usually out competes those that have not become symbiotic. Its not like the entire planet all happened to evolve symbiosis at the same time, every single species separately because that IS abusrd Life traces back to a single instance of symbiosis that then branched out to become every multi-cellular species today.

If you have any more questions about the theory or why you think its ridiculous ill be happy to answer them for you :3 This applies to new posters too.

Your friendly neighborhood biologist :3 Chris

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Much like all the people who don't see video games as art, people who don't believe in (or as I like to say "understand") evolution are old and will die and we will live in a world where we won't have threads like this