Why do people reject evolution?

[FriedRicer]

You know you have two hands.You know so empirically.You can make a deductive argument and arrive to the conclusion of two hands.Unless we are doing the "everything is a belief" thing you don't believe you have to hands,you think so.Know so.I think there is a god based on an argument of logic.In my previous post,where did you see what would amount to a belief?The concept of god need not be supernatural.In fact the only attributes that are consistent in a definition of god(mostly) is creation and/or an independence from the influences of this universe.

If everything has a cause and an effect.
What caused the first effect(s)?
The substance(whatever it is) is what I say a true god is.This is because its defining trait would be pure creation.
This is not a belief based on some book or dream.
It is based on how we know the way this world works.
This cannot go in reverse forever (can it?):
Cause>Effect>Repeat>Repeat>Forever/End(?)


It can be argued by its points based on itself.
Just because an argument cannot prove its subjects immediately,doesn't mean it is a belief or that the person who makes the argument is in a state of belief.This is why I brought up Leibniz.From what my Prof told me, he used logic to make a case that the atom was destruct-able.The technology to show so was after his time.Did he have beliefs?

Not to say you can't have a belief in a higher power or anything like that, but that logic is flawed. If everything has a cause, that too must hold true for whatever is attributed as god. If god does not have a cause, then the logic collapses as if that god does not require a cause, then it logically follows that not everything needs a cause, thereby invalidating the argument. And if you have one exception, the door is open for more to exist. To claim otherwise invokes the special pleading fallacy to work, saying that for reasons not part of the initial logic one chosen concept is exempt from it. Put a different way, it's the same dillema as the Chicken and the Egg. If you need an egg to make a chicken and a chicken to make an egg, you end up with a paradox where the argument's own definitions render the question of 'which came first' unanswerable.

Again, not to say you can't have your beliefs, just that that is not a great supporting argument.

Thank you for taking your time to talk to me!Escapist forums is really amazing compared to elsewhere TBH.On to business.

I don't believe in a "higher power".

I understand your points.There CAN be more then one exception.There can (potentially) be many objects with that attribute.My logic would be flawed if I said there existed only one exception for no apparent reason(special-pleading/just wanting a god).I thought it was implied that the "god-thing" being exempt from the rule was one of its defining traits.But that was why some form of creation was added to the definition(those 2 traits being consistent with "god").Semantics really is your issue ,not logic.

So my definition is a chicken from no egg in lay-mans terms.
One that is independent from the rules of cause and effect that we observe on earth.

It actually is a good supporting argument(in meta).
{http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html}

 

[FriedRicer]

This is why I brought up Leibniz.From what my Prof told me, he used logic to make a case that the atom was destruct-able.The technology to show so was after his time.Did he have beliefs?

You misunderstand what Leibniz means by atom. In those days, atom did not mean positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons. It comes from the Greek meaning "Not cut" and refers to an indivisible object. Leibniz believed that any object could be subdivided further and further. He is wrong, in this case, according to modern science. You cannot split an electron, or an up quark. You can't even get an up quark on its own, if you try it spontaneously forms new quarks to hang out with.

Leibniz also rejected the idea of the existence of vacuums and action-at-a-distance. Given that both of these are possible, his logic is clearly faulty.

It was what my prof told me but if true, then I did misunderstand the information about Leibniz.
Thank-you for clearing up the matter.

Now if you were also reading that with the rest of my "nonsense"(that-is,unrelated to the thread 'p)

But faulty logic is not a belief.Is it?
Faulty logic in one area does not necessarily mean all areas are faulty.
The atom is divisible and I was trying to show that a person can make a valid argument that can be proven to be sound/unsound in the future.

Example argument from {www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html} (atheist website)

Here's an example of an argument which is valid, and which may or may not be sound:

Premise: Every event has a cause
Premise: The universe has a beginning
Premise: All beginnings involve an event
Inference: This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event
Inference: Therefore the beginning of the universe had a cause
Conclusion: The universe had a cause
The proposition in line 4 is inferred from lines 2 and 3. Line 1 is then used, with the proposition derived in line 4, to infer a new proposition in line 5. The result of the inference in line 5 is then restated (in slightly simplified form) as the conclusion.

 

[TopQuark]

You misunderstand what Leibniz means by atom. In those days, atom did not mean positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons. It comes from the Greek meaning "Not cut" and refers to an indivisible object. Leibniz believed that any object could be subdivided further and further. He is wrong, in this case, according to modern science. You cannot split an electron, or an up quark. You can't even get an up quark on its own, if you try it spontaneously forms new quarks to hang out with.

A little correction not related to the main argument. It's not true that electrons or quarks are indivisible. Standard model assumes they are elementary. We may never reach energies high enough to divide one or their nature may turn up to be indivisible. There is even a possibility that there may be forces aside from the four we know that are holding currently indivisible particles together. Then there are theories beyond standard model. All I am saying is we don't yet know...Googling for confirmation led me to very recent news http://www.psi.ch/media/physicists-observe-the-splitting-of-an-electron-inside-a-solid

 

[Lieju]

To be an thiest I would have to believe.
Based on no thought/evidence for the most part.
I THINK god exists(not a sentient one) based on arguments made through logic.
They are not proofs but thoughts based on empirical observations on cause and effect.
Cause and effect can potentially progress forever but not REGRESS forever.
The original source is what I think a true god is.
But I arrived at those conclusions without a belief.Not thiest
And I think you can know or not know if a god exists.Not agnostic
What am I?

The problem is that your concept of 'God' is different from what most christians, for example, understand with 'god', if you say it's not sentient. What you're basically saying you believe there must be some point where everything began, and decide to call it god.
Which is fair, you have that concept of 'god'.
Just like, if someone believes Kim Jong-un is 'god', he'd be right that his concept of god exists.
But when having discussions about it, you'd have to define what you mean by that word, to avoid confusion.
(Which is a good idea anyway, given that the word 'god' can mean totally different things to different people)

By the way, why would it be impossible for something to have no beginning, if it doesn't need to have an end?

 

[Olrod]

This is extremely wrong. Creationism was a scientific theory in the 1700, and scientific Creationists lasted until after the invention of the light bulb. MODERN Creationism may have sprung up at that point, but that's NOT the start of the theory. Look up Catastraphism sometime.

Creationism was NEVER a "scientific" theory.

Pseudoscientific, perhaps, but they obviously never even once applied the scientific method to their "theory".

 

[Redingold]

You misunderstand what Leibniz means by atom. In those days, atom did not mean positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons. It comes from the Greek meaning "Not cut" and refers to an indivisible object. Leibniz believed that any object could be subdivided further and further. He is wrong, in this case, according to modern science. You cannot split an electron, or an up quark. You can't even get an up quark on its own, if you try it spontaneously forms new quarks to hang out with.

A little correction not related to the main argument. It's not true that electrons or quarks are indivisible. Standard model assumes they are elementary. We may never reach energies high enough to divide one or their nature may turn up to be indivisible. There is even a possibility that there may be forces aside from the four we know that are holding currently indivisible particles together. Then there are theories beyond standard model. All I am saying is we don't yet know...Googling for confirmation led me to very recent news http://www.psi.ch/media/physicists-observe-the-splitting-of-an-electron-inside-a-solid

Hence why I said "according to modern science". I wasn't claiming to know for certain, but I know that the current stance is that they are indivisible.

Incidentally, spinons and orbitons aren't real. They're quasiparticles, which aren't actually real, but are a result of multiple complex interactions between real particles that cause the appearance of an illusory quasiparticle.

For instance, holes in valence bands in superconductors aren't actually particles, the absence of an electron is not a particle, but the holes behave like particles, they can essentially be treated as positively charged particles, but they aren't particles.

Another example is the Cooper pair, which moves through superconductors. It isn't actually a real particle, it's a quasiparticle made out of two bound electrons, but it behaves in a simple particulate manner.

 

[BrassButtons]

This is extremely wrong. Creationism was a scientific theory in the 1700, and scientific Creationists lasted until after the invention of the light bulb. MODERN Creationism may have sprung up at that point, but that's NOT the start of the theory. Look up Catastraphism sometime.

Creationism was NEVER a "scientific" theory.

Pseudoscientific, perhaps, but they obviously never even once applied the scientific method to their "theory".

How is it "obvious" that they never applied the scientific method?

 

[Quaxar]

This is extremely wrong. Creationism was a scientific theory in the 1700, and scientific Creationists lasted until after the invention of the light bulb. MODERN Creationism may have sprung up at that point, but that's NOT the start of the theory. Look up Catastraphism sometime.

Creationism was NEVER a "scientific" theory.

Pseudoscientific, perhaps, but they obviously never even once applied the scientific method to their "theory".

It was a mainstream theory accepted by pretty much the whole scientific community, as such it was "scientific". Obviously they couldn't apply a scientific method to it that was only popularized about 200 years later.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Traditionally the majority of people have rejected any attempt to overthrow status quo. It's what they do.

 

[Dinwatr]

This is extremely wrong. Creationism was a scientific theory in the 1700, and scientific Creationists lasted until after the invention of the light bulb. MODERN Creationism may have sprung up at that point, but that's NOT the start of the theory. Look up Catastraphism sometime.

Creationism was NEVER a "scientific" theory.

Pseudoscientific, perhaps, but they obviously never even once applied the scientific method to their "theory".

I'm sorry, but this is historically inaccurate. Again, look up Catastraphism if you doubt me. It was a widely held theory in geology until the time Uniformitarianism become the dominant theory, and it was an explicit example of a Creatoinist theory in science. There were also Creationists looking for evidence, just like any other scientists--and they found some (Trigonia is one example). The obvious mass extinctions were another (the other theories at the time, including Uniformitraianism, simply couldn't handle them--it wasn't until the Alvarez Hypothesis that THAT issue was put to rest). Further study found that they weren't actually correct, but the original theory was scientific and, given the original data (which was every bit as good as any other scientific data of the time), the Creationist interpretation was not inherently unreasonable.

For further evidence, I strongly recommend Gould's essay "A Tale of Three Pictures" (actually, the entire book Eight Little Piggies should be required reading for people attempting to discuss the history of Creationism and evolution, but that one is sufficient to prove my point). It illustrates the transition from a scientific brand of Creationism to an evolutionary worldview. And this is Gould, so his essays are incredibly well-referenced.

It does us no favors to ignore our past. The simple fact of the matter is that Creationism was once a widely-held scientific theory supported by a fair bit of evidence. It was only by demonstrating that that evidence--which any one of us would have accepted at the time--was wrong that the theory was relegated to the dustbin of history and crackpot movements. How that happened is a vital part of understanding the history of evolutionary thought, which in turn is critical to understanding our current paradigm. You're arguing for logic and science; that means you shouldn't allow yourself to ignore facts, no matter how uncomfortable. And it gives us a certain amount of leverage your stance wouldn't provide. Creationism has been given a fair chance. It simply isn't right. That's far more damning in science than a petulant scream of "It's never been scientific!!!" It also allows you to demonstrate HOW it was proven wrong, which is a powerful tool when arguing with Creationists.

 

[HalfTangible]

Several reasons.

1) The false assumption this can be observed over a short period of time. (hint: it generally can't)

But... it can. Multiple people (including me) have provided several sources of observed evolution, even including drastic changes generally categorized as "macroevolution". Only problem is that only counts for species with rapid reproduction cycles because nobody wants to bother with a 20-years generation rate so the often asked-for "monkey to human" or "fish to human" experiments are kinda tricky.

[/quote]I said 'generally', meaning the average layman could spot it over a short period of time. ('Short' in this case means a few weeks to a few years, and many people are under the impression large changes can occur within a generation.) Scientists can because they set out to CREATE those scenarios and - as you said - it only works for generational periods that occur rapidly.

2) The false assumption that it contradicts any form of diety (hint: it doesn't) from atheists and theists alike. This one REALLY bugs the heck out of me just because of how hostile and senseless it is.

No, it doesn't indeed. But I reckon it's not the contradiction but more the fact that there's no need for any deity that creeps them out.

[/quote]Eh, I'm not sure that's it. The theory of evolution steers completely clear of god, instead opting to say 'this is a thing that happens'. It doesn't say how or why it would come into being, and doesn't talk about the creation of the universe either.

5) The word 'theory' (Evolution IS a theory - don't deny it) has a false representation in public consciousness. Generally people think it means something that makes sense but has little to no proof, even though scientifically it means something that can be supported and proven but not reproduced (i think)

That's why we need a scientific law of evolution.
Darwin's law of change over time to fit the current environment has a certain ring. And most importantly the word "law" in it.

[/quote]Except that scientifically speaking, it's still a theory =p

I'm kinda glad it still is. Shows scientists consider ethics more important than a religious debate.

Even if the Torah/Bible is literally true, our first common relative should be NOAH and his wife, since ever other human was slaughtered by the flood. Finding Adam's and Eve's unique genes should be impossible when you have that much of a genetic bottle neck. Also, if evolution doesn't happen (thus, NO mutation of genes) shouldn't we all have same 92 genomes that Adam and Eve had, no a single difference, and thus have a much similar genetic code that humanity actually has?

Human genetics are accurate to each other within... i think 2%? Correct me if I'm wrong (not a geneticist) but that's close enough to be explained as differences between Adam and Eve/Noah and Noah's wife themselves, right?

 

[HalfTangible]

Several reasons.

1) The false assumption this can be observed over a short period of time. (hint: it generally can't)

5) The word 'theory' (Evolution IS a theory - don't deny it) has a false representation in public consciousness. Generally people think it means something that makes sense but has little to no proof, even though scientifically it means something that can be supported and proven but not reproduced (i think)

1) As others have said, Evolution can be observed over a short period of time (e.g. Bacteria etc.)

5) Again, this is not true. A scientific theory is an explanation for a given phenomena, which is supported by evidence (and by extension has some 'predictive' or retro-active predictive ability). If it is not reproducable, then it is not likely to make it to the 'theory' stage (because it'd be pretty hard to find evidence for it).

1) See above.

5) An explanation for a given phenomenon that has evidence that can be observed, fits with current phenomena, and is reproducible is a LAW of science. A THEORY fulfills the first two criteria but not the first.

 

[BrassButtons]

5) An explanation for a given phenomenon that has evidence that can be observed, fits with current phenomena, and is reproducible is a LAW of science. A THEORY fulfills the first two criteria but not the first.

No, what you're describing here is a theory. Laws do not offer explanations for the phenomena they describe (and I'm not sure that "fits with current phenomena" is a requirement for laws either, since they're purely based on observation--theories must take other phenomena into account because theories are an attempt to explain things, and an explanation that doesn't fit all the data is a bad explanation).

 

[Wyes]

1) See above.

5) An explanation for a given phenomenon that has evidence that can be observed, fits with current phenomena, and is reproducible is a LAW of science. A THEORY fulfills the first two criteria but not the first.

1) See above? Your statement that evolution cannot be observed over a short period of time? I believe bacteria was a good counter-example. Depending on how short of a timescale we're talking about, there's also things such as dogs, or the peppered moth. Evolution being observable on short periods of time is not as rare as your statement implies.

5) As others have pointed out, you are describing a theory, not a law. A law simply describes an observed phenomena, and offers no explanation as to that behaviour. The usual example of this is Newton's Law of Gravitation; it is simply an equation that describes how mass attracts mass. It could not account for certain things (usual cited example is perturbations in the orbit of, I believe, Mercury), but thankfully Einstein developed the Theory of General Relativity along with its accompanying laws to rectify this.

 

[Olrod]

This is extremely wrong. Creationism was a scientific theory in the 1700, and scientific Creationists lasted until after the invention of the light bulb. MODERN Creationism may have sprung up at that point, but that's NOT the start of the theory. Look up Catastraphism sometime.

Creationism was NEVER a "scientific" theory.

Pseudoscientific, perhaps, but they obviously never even once applied the scientific method to their "theory".

I'm sorry, but this is historically inaccurate. Again, look up Catastraphism if you doubt me. It was a widely held theory in geology until the time Uniformitarianism become the dominant theory, and it was an explicit example of a Creatoinist theory in science. There were also Creationists looking for evidence, just like any other scientists--and they found some (Trigonia is one example). The obvious mass extinctions were another (the other theories at the time, including Uniformitraianism, simply couldn't handle them--it wasn't until the Alvarez Hypothesis that THAT issue was put to rest). Further study found that they weren't actually correct, but the original theory was scientific and, given the original data (which was every bit as good as any other scientific data of the time), the Creationist interpretation was not inherently unreasonable.

For further evidence, I strongly recommend Gould's essay "A Tale of Three Pictures" (actually, the entire book Eight Little Piggies should be required reading for people attempting to discuss the history of Creationism and evolution, but that one is sufficient to prove my point). It illustrates the transition from a scientific brand of Creationism to an evolutionary worldview. And this is Gould, so his essays are incredibly well-referenced.

It does us no favors to ignore our past. The simple fact of the matter is that Creationism was once a widely-held scientific theory supported by a fair bit of evidence. It was only by demonstrating that that evidence--which any one of us would have accepted at the time--was wrong that the theory was relegated to the dustbin of history and crackpot movements. How that happened is a vital part of understanding the history of evolutionary thought, which in turn is critical to understanding our current paradigm. You're arguing for logic and science; that means you shouldn't allow yourself to ignore facts, no matter how uncomfortable. And it gives us a certain amount of leverage your stance wouldn't provide. Creationism has been given a fair chance. It simply isn't right. That's far more damning in science than a petulant scream of "It's never been scientific!!!" It also allows you to demonstrate HOW it was proven wrong, which is a powerful tool when arguing with Creationists.

Pulling ideas out of your ass =/= the scientific method.

It was merely God of the Gaps ignorance, nothing more.

 

[Vault101]

An evolutionist or creationist should not force their opinion on the other. If you think that the other is wrong just remember that it isn't your problem move on.

WRONG

in a sicentific context like a classroom creationism has no place. I don't give a fuck about hurting people feeling on the matter IT HAS NO PLACE because it is not science.We don't teach scriptures in math class do we? its up to the parents to fill children with "faith" not schools

[quote/]This is a topic that means so little in life that it almost never comes up IRL so everybody got a chance to vent. Mostly it was dignified and respectful and didn't ex or implode like thought it would.
[/quote]
you act like its all so harmless

its not

ignorance and misinformation is not harmless...creating an enviroment where saying you don;t belive in god will make peopel hate you is not harmless

again..faith is for home...not schools

 

[FriedRicer]

To be an thiest I would have to believe.
Based on no thought/evidence for the most part.
I THINK god exists(not a sentient one) based on arguments made through logic.
They are not proofs but thoughts based on empirical observations on cause and effect.
Cause and effect can potentially progress forever but not REGRESS forever.
The original source is what I think a true god is.
But I arrived at those conclusions without a belief.Not thiest
And I think you can know or not know if a god exists.Not agnostic
What am I?

The problem is that your concept of 'God' is different from what most christians, for example, understand with 'god', if you say it's not sentient. What you're basically saying you believe there must be some point where everything began, and decide to call it god.
Which is fair, you have that concept of 'god'.
Just like, if someone believes Kim Jong-un is 'god', he'd be right that his concept of god exists.
But when having discussions about it, you'd have to define what you mean by that word, to avoid confusion.
(Which is a good idea anyway, given that the word 'god' can mean totally different things to different people)

By the way, why would it be impossible for something to have no beginning, if it doesn't need to have an end?

It is not that things don't need to have an end,it is that we have not seen the end of our universe.One can't assume if it would end or actually go on forever.As for a beginning,some say things just existed(which doesn't effect my definition).Things can probably have no beginning.We just haven't observed a thing like that.

Now for the concept thing,christians have a different concept than many other religions.A subjective opinion on the matter would be incorrect from any particular religion.
Some one would have to explain their concept of Kim Jong-un being a god.What you have there is an opinion,not a concept.
The word god can mean many things to many people-but that is the problem.It stops becoming a definition-a truth of the thing.Christians,muslims,hindus,pagans,and etc are not important here.

A consistent,specific definition of a god would be something that:
A.Creates,
B.Was never created.

At no point does this god have to be sentient.
What I am saying is that the "truth" in most descriptions of a god are in the bullets above.
Everything else most people relate to a god is personification.
The word has been given far too much ground and is otherwise meaning-less.

 

[Lieju]

It is not that things don't need to have an end,it is that we have not seen the end of our universe.One can't assume if it would end or actually go on forever.As for a beginning,some say things just existed(which doesn't effect my definition).Things can probably have no beginning.We just haven't observed a thing like that.

We haven't observed something just ceasing to exist either.

Now for the concept thing,christians have a different concept than many other religions.A subjective opinion on the matter would be incorrect from any particular religion.
Some one would have to explain their concept of Kim Jong-un being a god.What you have there is an opinion,not a concept.
The word god can mean many things to many people-but that is the problem.It stops becoming a definition-a truth of the thing.Christians,muslims,hindus,pagans,and etc are not important here.

And that's the problem; there is no definite definition, it's not a scientific concept. But for most people, their definition of 'god' includes sentience. otherwise it's just some force. I don't understand how gravitation works, and it seems very mysterious to me. But I don't call it a god. (If it had sentience, I might, although I wouldn't worship it)

A consistent,specific definition of a god would be something that:
A.Creates,
B.Was never created.

So, something like Athena wouldn't be a god(dess) according to your definition. Or most gods worshipped over the human history, as being a creator is not something all gods, especially in polytheistic religions, do, and most of them were born or made by other gods or creatures.

At no point does this god have to be sentient.
What I am saying is that the "truth" in most descriptions of a god are in the bullets above.
Everything else most people relate to a god is personification.
The word has been given far too much ground and is otherwise meaning-less.

What yu are doing is just deciding what the word means based on your own personal opinions. It's pretty arrogant to claim you have the 'truth' like that, and that you know how a word is used.
Words do not have any magical 'true' meanings. They are simply sounds we have agreed have some kind of definition, and they can and will change over time, depending on your context, and where you live.