Why do people reject evolution?

[disgruntledgamer]

Microevolution is observable and is essentially a scientific fact; no creationists or IDers worth their salt will tell you that animals don't adapt and change to their environment. What they will tell you is that we have never observed conditions in the wild that would cause new, never-before-seen genetic information to appear in population. There are reasons one might lose genetic information, but not gain it. This IMO makes the macroevolution side of the theory of evolution tentative at best, and certainly not on the level of the theory of gravity. I can let go of an apple in front of me and observe it drop. No one has actually observed a change like fish turning into reptiles or reptiles turning into birds and mammals.

Wrong we have observed both Micro evolution and Macro Evolution in laboratories. Macro Evolution in essence is just the accumulation of Micro evolution. I've already given examples and sources of this such as ring species. What makes you think there are conditions that would make something lose genetic information, but not gain? I assume you never heard of addition mutations or frame-shift mutations, which was the cause of nylon eating bacteria.

What are your sources because I think they're wrong or you're misreading them.

In a colloquial sense, though, the "theory of evolution" refers to the entire idea that the earth is billions of years old, life developed from some sort of primordial amino acid soup, and then slowly over the course of millions of years evolved into the life we know now. This is not a scientific theory that can be observed, tested, or repeated (and thus isn't even comparable to the theory of gravity); this is a suggested history of the world.

Actually it is, radioactive decay is observable, testable and repeatable. But lets not just stop with Geochronology (Radiometric Dating Methods), there's Electron Spin Resonance, Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating, Flourine Dating, Patination Dating, Oxidizable Carbon Ratio Dating, Coral dating, Cation Ratio, Pollen Analysis, Ice Core dating, Fission-track Dating,Amino Acid Racemization, Carbon dating etc.

All these dating methods from just about every branch of science support an old earth, even dendrochronology (tree ring dating) Says the world is at least 11,000 years old, a far bit older than the 6,500 years the YEC would have you believe. It's not a suggested history, it's a proven one that has evidence and consistency backing it.

Scientists start with the assumption that there has been no supernatural involvement in the development of the world, but they know life had to develop somehow. The proposed idea that life evolved slowly over time is the explanation for how life got to be how it is. The thing is, I reject that premise from the beginning. I don't think that there was no supernatural involvement in the development of the world. Without that premise, I simply have no reason to believe in an evolutionary history of the world over the history recorded in the Bible.

Of course science doesn't start with the assumption that a supernatural is responsible, if it did it wouldn't be science and rainbows would still be considered an act of god. Your religious view have obviously sealed you off with a biased view and no amount of evidence or proof is going to change that.

 

[texanarob]

I personally believe in Creation over evolution, and would willingly debate my point if I believed I could change anybody's mind. The problem is, people have made up their minds before clicking this link, and definitely before reading this far.

If the creation vs evolution debate was simple enough to fit into a few posts and videos on a thread, it wouldn't still be a debate. I'm therefore going to avoid the flame war, leaving you with a few questions:

1. Isn't it handy when you can take select quotes out of context to portray your opposition as ignorant?
2. Isn't it equally handy when animated pictures of genealogies constitute evidence?
3. Isn't it strange that, when forming an origins theory, the best man can do is say stuff changed into other stuff (an oversimplification, but accurate enough).

EDIT:
Having read above my post, I'm irritated by a few things.
Evolutionary theory and the theories of the Big Bang and Old Earth may not be synonymous, but are linked enough that the belief in one implies belief in the others. To any theistic evolutionists reading this, read Genesis instead.

Secondly, a species gaining an ability and gaining genetic code are entirely different. I don't eat sushi, many Japanese people (don't want to be racist, but it's a reasonable cultural stereotype) do. They are not a separate species to me. True macro-evolution would describe the origins of the digestive system, or the optical system, whereby irreducible complexity prevents a combination of micro-evolutionary steps causing significant change.

And I am aware that we have found 'old' creatures with basic light sensors. This is akin to saying a bicycle evolved into a motorbike, into a car and finally into an aeroplane. (shut up spell-check aeroplane is right).

And I leave you with this to ponder: Why do you get so irritated with this topic? Only Micro-evolution is usable in lab research or applied use, so it isn't for scientific reasons. The only logical reason for such over defensive behaviour is determination that you are not answerable to a higher being.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

If the creation vs evolution debate was simple enough to fit into a few posts and videos on a thread, it wouldn't still be a debate. I'm therefore going to avoid the flame war, leaving you with a few questions:

Well technically there is no debate, at least not in the scientific community. There is a reason why the intelligent design people don't publish anything for peer review or why a right wing religious judge tossed out the idea of teaching it in schools.

One side uses evidence and facts while the other uses ancient text and faith. There is absolutely no evidence to support creationism.

 

[Asita]

Let me make a distinction first:

The "theory of evolution" as in the hypothesis that animals do adapt (not did, but do) to their surroundings through generations by survival of the fittest is one thing. With regards to that, creationists/IDers like to use the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution are adaptations that bring traits in a population that already existed (a longer or shorter beak, for example) and simply make it more common or accentuated. This uses genetic information that already exists. Macroevolution are adaptations that create traits in a population that didn't exist at all before (a reptile suddenly developing feathers, for example). Macroevolution is the result of genetic information appearing that was not present at all in the population beforehand.

Microevolution is observable and is essentially a scientific fact; no creationists or IDers worth their salt will tell you that animals don't adapt and change to their environment. What they will tell you is that we have never observed conditions in the wild that would cause new, never-before-seen genetic information to appear in population. There are reasons one might lose genetic information, but not gain it. This IMO makes the macroevolution side of the theory of evolution tentative at best, and certainly not on the level of the theory of gravity. I can let go of an apple in front of me and observe it drop. No one has actually observed a change like fish turning into reptiles or reptiles turning into birds and mammals.

In a colloquial sense, though, the "theory of evolution" refers to the entire idea that the earth is billions of years old, life developed from some sort of primordial amino acid soup, and then slowly over the course of millions of years evolved into the life we know now. This is not a scientific theory that can be observed, tested, or repeated (and thus isn't even comparable to the theory of gravity); this is a suggested history of the world. Scientists start with the assumption that there has been no supernatural involvement in the development of the world, but they know life had to develop somehow. The proposed idea that life evolved slowly over time is the explanation for how life got to be how it is. The thing is, I reject that premise from the beginning. I don't think that there was no supernatural involvement in the development of the world. Without that premise, I simply have no reason to believe in an evolutionary history of the world over the history recorded in the Bible.

The definitions you point to are not the actual definitions used. Responding to the last part first, the colloquial sense of the 'theory of evolution' extends it far beyond its reach. Evolutionary theory refers exclusively to the change in organisms over generations. The origin of life itself is a separate matter known as "Abiogenesis", and planetary formation itself is a matter for many fields (geology, astrophysics, chemistry, etc) but Biology is not among them.

Additionally, the claim of our inability to test/observe evolution is wildly overstated largely due to a misconception that testing must be conducted in a lab or in-real-time. Truth be told, while such testing is very useful, it is far from required. At its core testability only requires that you be able to predict results with a reasonable level of accuracy. Mind you, a prediction does not have to be of a future event, but can take the form of piecing together the past, much as is the case with the Forensic Sciences we employ to catch criminals. And Evolution certainly isn't lacking for predictions like that.

As per the 'no supernatural' bit...that's a foundational rule of logic in general. One cannot assume that your observations are due to a force that by definition exists outside our means of comprehension. At the risk of seeming snide, invoking the supernatural is quite literally to suggest that we stop searching for answers because one (or more) people suggest that we can't understand it. Cultural bias aside, there is no qualitative difference between "Jimmy is sick because he's possessed by a demon", "Jimmy is sick because God is angry at him", "Jimmy is sick because Ms. Frizzle cast an evil spell on him", and "Jimmy is sick because he's allergic to his best friend Harvey, the 6'3.5" invisible rabbit". The very reason that we've succeeded as well as we have in the world is because we do NOT go around insisting that things fall because some intelligent undetectible force wills them towards the ground, that there's a physical reason for the combustion that powers our engines, and that chemistry is not some mystical magical study, but has predictable results based on how various elements interact with one another. This is not to say that a man cannot be religious, mind you, but that the assumption of the supernatural as the solution to a problem is exceptionally rare and in practice is usually reviled even among the religious due to its equally exceptionally poor track record (see faith healing as a primary form of medicine as a case in point).


Moving back to the earlier point though about macro/microevolution, I actually had a post earlier in the thread about that which might help to clarify a few things. Let me just go ahead and quote it:

I say that Macroevolution is "theoreitcally" possible in regards to huge change which could happen without the need for long periods of time and many minute mutations... it's just highly unlikely. This is coming from the original comments line about frogs growing 7 legs as result of exposure to a toxic environment. While in that case the frogs are liable to die off, it is very much possible, though highly improbable, that such a significant change in a short space of time could be ultimately beneficial. Heck, plants have been used to observe speciation in a single generation, which means that Macroevolution can happen, though I haven't found records of how successful these knew species are over their parent species which makes it difficult to class as an evolutionary leap... just a drastic mutation.

...Hate to break it to you, but that characterization of 'macroevolution' is hardly what the term means. Quite literally, by scientific standards macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over many generations. Personally, I think the old paintbucket analogy works very well for this, but I think this image works just as well.

To reinterate what the image said, every minute change in color could be considered a microevolutionary change, whereas the process of changing from red to purple and then purple to blue (or red to blue, if you prefer) is best equated to macroevolution.

What you refer to is closer to 'punctuated equilibrium' than macroevolution, but even then the timescale seems...well, hollywood-esque for most intents and purposes.

 

[clippen05]

Well, some people (not me) seem to believe that evolution can't be true because there's still unevolved monkeys around. A pretty laughable excuse for not believing in it, but then again, I don't have 100% certainty in it.

 

[Overusedname]

To some extent I can understand the skepticism, but as long as you are fully educated on the real details of the theory, in my personal experience, most people agree that at the very least it makes sense.

I don't know people hardcore religious enough that they believe in creationism. All the Christians I know simply feel they have a personal connection with God and/or Jesus, and don't follow every word of an angry old 'saint' that had little to do with Jesus of Nazareth. All the christians I know are actually major science or tech buffs, so there's that.

 

[Ljs1121]

As I go to a Christian school, I daily get to be treated to teachers, students, and other staff painting evolution as a falsity believed only by heretics. The arguments I've heard are mainly backed by any combination of the following three points.

A.) Evolution's status as a theory rather than a law

B.) The Bible saying that the earth and all its life was created in seven days

C.) The supposed impossibility of some vital organs (e.g. the heart) to change at all without killing the host body

The first is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that the definition of a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment". A lot of people tend to place theories on the same ground as hypotheses and claim that they're just wild guesses backed up by no sort of proof whatsoever. Consequently, I die a little inside every time I hear someone utter the phrase "it's just a theory".

The second argument cannot be rebutted in my experience. Any attempt of saying that the Bible is not accurate, regardless of the importance of the issue being questioned, is immediately met by a resounding chorus of "but it's inspired by God and is thus absolute truth in everything and if you don't understand that it's because you don't have God's Spirit inside you".

And I'm not so sure I understand the final argument. I've never claimed to completely understand evolution, but I'm pretty sure the main point is that it takes place in extremely small changes over incredibly long periods of time, and these changes are mostly suited to benefit the creature in their dealings with the environment. I can't see any merit in the idea that an organ evolving, even a bit, would kill the creature it was located inside.

In the end, though, most people who reject evolution believe in creation by some sort of omnipotent deity. As a result, it is nigh impossible to argue against their beliefs because they are backed by something which transcends human thought and reasoning.

 

[texanarob]

If the creation vs evolution debate was simple enough to fit into a few posts and videos on a thread, it wouldn't still be a debate. I'm therefore going to avoid the flame war, leaving you with a few questions:

Well technically there is no debate, at least not in the scientific community. There is a reason why the intelligent design people don't publish anything for peer review or why a right wing religious judge tossed out the idea of teaching it in schools.

One side uses evidence and facts while the other uses ancient text and faith. There is absolutely no evidence to support creationism.

There is no debate within the scientific community? The head of genetics in my university believes in creation. Is he not a scientist? My head of flight mechanics believes in creation, is he not a scientist?

If you limit the scientific community to only include those in agreement with yourself, then you will obviously end up with a single minded community.

There are thousands of articles published for peer review, and sufficient material that coverage in schools would be feasible. Then again, schools have always taught one thing, only to later be told it was an oversimplification or outright lie once further study is undertaken.

And I would propose the thought that both sides have evidence, only one can have facts. Both sides also require huge amounts of faith, wither in God or man's current, ever changing opinions. Which brings me to the ancient texts, which have made many outrageous claims, whether scientific, historical or prophetic, and have yet to be disproved on any topic.

As I initially said, this argument has went on for 12 pages because it is a debate between two incompatible theories based on incompatible outlooks on life and incompatible starting points. No agreement or solution will be found, and I am therefore leaving the thread.

(Admittedly, I'll probably be tempted to check for replies to this post, and likely annoyed enough by them to respond, but I know it's futile)

 

[kalakashi]

Science also isn't improved by close-minded people such as yourself.

Slow down and establish the closed-mindedness of the person you're quoting before going on your little tirade there, tiger. Otherwise, it is quite vapid. Define closed-mindedness first, too.

Edit: And by the way, after the probably close to tenth time being told about the challenges to evolution not holding up, you may want to either acknowledge it or deny and present counterpoints to it instead of deflecting. Deflecting makes you look bad.

It doesn't make me look as bad as someone who says something close minded and stupid.

"Science wasn't improved by idiotic challenges pulled out of people's asses because they're brainwashed" - Dijkstra

And then someone else drops that part to make it look like I said something out of context. I realize that people generally don't read "up", but that's pretty weak.

I'm also not "challenging" the theory of evolution per se. In my life i've experienced things that support both sides of the argument. I'm simply pointing out that all of the evidence and facts that support evolution are simply text written by a person, a fallible person. The same goes for the bible. That's all i'm pointing out here and yet all the evolutionists are getting so damned defensive about it and, in that defensiveness, their minds are closed.

So by this logic of "one shouldn't assert or believe strongly in anything that they haven't proven themselves personally", you hold no strong opinion on how many planets there are in our solar system? Do you believe the nation of Croatia exists?
In fact, what facts about the natural world do you know? I find it hard to believe it would be possible to lead anything like a normal life if you were to hold this level of uncertainty over things people tell us, especially scientists.

Also, an enormous difference between priests and scientists is that if a scientist has a hypothesis, he must test it numerous times to make sure it holds true for EVERY experiment. If he is wrong ONCE, he must try to change his hypothesis (idea) to fit with the evidence given to him by the universe. If his hypothesis stands up to each and every one of his experiments, other scientists might take interest, and run a set of similar experiments, all of which are designed to look for holes and flaws in the hypothesis. If the hypothesis manages to make it past EACH and EVERY one of these tests, then it MIGHT stand a chance of being taught in a school sometime in the next decade.

If an idea manages to become scientific theory, it means it has been tested over, and over, and over again by a multitude of people attempting to prove it wrong, and that they have been unable to do so. Not just anyone can write an article for Newscientist or the Royal Science Society. That is what makes it so incredibly different at an extremely base level.

 

[Quaxar]

I personally believe in Creation over evolution, and would willingly debate my point if I believed I could change anybody's mind. The problem is, people have made up their minds before clicking this link, and definitely before reading this far.

If the creation vs evolution debate was simple enough to fit into a few posts and videos on a thread, it wouldn't still be a debate. I'm therefore going to avoid the flame war, leaving you with a few questions:

1. Isn't it handy when you can take select quotes out of context to portray your opposition as ignorant?
2. Isn't it equally handy when animated pictures of genealogies constitute evidence?
3. Isn't it strange that, when forming an origins theory, the best man can do is say stuff changed into other stuff (an oversimplification, but accurate enough).

First things first, are you old-earth or young-earth then? This is a pretty important thing for obvious reasons of chosing to ignore one scientific theory or a myriad of theories from multiple areas. Actually, more out of interest on your stance. See edit why I crossed that sentence out.

Regarding your questions:
1. Which is exactly what "creation scientists" do when they for example quote Darwin's alleged statement about the irreducably complex eye (I think it was the eye anyway).
2 . I don't even... you have the bible for frack's sake, by that logic either both or none are evidence. Though I have to confess I might not even fully understand this point...
3. Isn't it funny that the best religion can do is constitute it all to a being even MORE complex than the whole of nature that is the only thing that DOES NOT have to have any reason behind it?

Having read above my post, I'm irritated by a few things.
Evolutionary theory and the theories of the Big Bang and Old Earth may not be synonymous, but are linked enough that the belief in one implies belief in the others. To any theistic evolutionists reading this, read Genesis instead.

Are you telling me that you believe that Genesis is a literal account?
If so, please tell me then why you think that THIS is the true books and not the <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas>Hindu Vedas, the <url=http://www.desy.de/gna/interpedia/greek_myth/creation.html>Ancient Greeks or Scientology for that matter. Two of which are even much older than the old testament.

Secondly, a species gaining an ability and gaining genetic code are entirely different. I don't eat sushi, many Japanese people (don't want to be racist, but it's a reasonable cultural stereotype) do. They are not a separate species to me. True macro-evolution would describe the origins of the digestive system, or the optical system, whereby irreducible complexity prevents a combination of micro-evolutionary steps causing significant change.

The argument of irreducable complexity? You're shitting me, there is a video explaining the evolution of the exe literally on the last page.
I could also give you a detailed explanation of the evolution of any organ you want including examples from several modern animals.

And I am aware that we have found 'old' creatures with basic light sensors. This is akin to saying a bicycle evolved into a motorbike, into a car and finally into an aeroplane. (shut up spell-check aeroplane is right).

Comparing non-living things that can't reproduce by themselves and biology. I'm sorry but this is a nonsense argument.

And I leave you with this to ponder: Why do you get so irritated with this topic? Only Micro-evolution is usable in lab research or applied use, so it isn't for scientific reasons. The only logical reason for such over defensive behaviour is determination that you are not answerable to a higher being.

And there we go for the fourth time with a link about observed macroevolution that has been explained extensively a few posts above.
Another logical reason for the defensiveness is the fact that people assert things about evolution and make up their own facts simply to discredit it.

EDIT: I'm sorry, just realized that post might come off a bit harsh. I'm simply tired right now, don't be put off.

 

[texanarob]

As I go to a Christian school, I daily get to be treated to teachers, students, and other staff painting evolution as a falsity believed only by heretics. The arguments I've heard are mainly backed by any combination of the following three points.

A.) Evolution's status as a theory rather than a law

B.) The Bible saying that the earth and all its life was created in seven days

C.) The supposed impossibility of some vital organs (e.g. the heart) to change at all without killing the host body

The first is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that the definition of a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment". A lot of people tend to place theories on the same ground as hypotheses and claim that they're just wild guesses backed up by no sort of proof whatsoever. Consequently, I die a little inside every time I hear someone utter the phrase "it's just a theory".

The second argument cannot be rebutted in my experience. Any attempt of saying that the Bible is not accurate, regardless of the importance of the issue being questioned, is immediately met by a resounding chorus of "but it's inspired by God and is thus absolute truth in everything and if you don't understand that it's because you don't have God's Spirit inside you".

And I'm not so sure I understand the final argument. I've never claimed to completely understand evolution, but I'm pretty sure the main point is that it takes place in extremely small changes over incredibly long periods of time, and these changes are mostly suited to benefit the creature in their dealings with the environment. I can't see any merit in the idea that an organ evolving, even a bit, would kill the creature it was located inside.

In the end, though, most people who reject evolution believe in creation by some sort of omnipotent deity. As a result, it is nigh impossible to argue against their beliefs because they are backed by something which transcends human thought and reasoning.

A) Just to clarify, the 'just a theory' argument makes me cringe almost as much as the 'we still have monkeys' argument. The only thing worse than a repeated uneducated argument from your opposition is one from your own side.

B) It was
By the definitions of scientific theory presented above, this idea has stood the test of time (how much time is debatable, but I'd obviously say 6-10 thousand years.) Though many have tried, nobody has managed to make the evidence work against biblical creation in any indisputable way. And this has worked out miraculously without the text being changed at all. You call it my beliefs transcending human thought and reasoning. I call it a scientific theory, backed by human thought and reasoning.

C) The final argument is a take on irreducible complexity. This has been misunderstood to imply that the heart will continue to change, thus killing us all. The timeframe is backwards. What is meant is that there can be no evolutionary path to generate such an organ, as no previous version would be effective. This is a case of function vs non-function, rather than an increase in effectiveness or efficiency.

In the end though, most people who reject creation believe in evolution by some sort of unexplained process. As a result, it is nigh impossible to argue against their beliefs because they are backed by something which transcends human thought and reasoning.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

EDIT:
Having read above my post, I'm irritated by a few things.
Evolutionary theory and the theories of the Big Bang and Old Earth may not be synonymous, but are linked enough that the belief in one implies belief in the others. To any theistic evolutionists reading this, read Genesis instead.

No this is ridiculously irreverent under this rationality if you believe in creation you also don't believe in thermodynamics or the speed of light.

Secondly, a species gaining an ability and gaining genetic code are entirely different. I don't eat sushi, many Japanese people (don't want to be racist, but it's a reasonable cultural stereotype) do. They are not a separate species to me. True macro-evolution would describe the origins of the digestive system, or the optical system, whereby irreducible complexity prevents a combination of micro-evolutionary steps causing significant change. And I am aware that we have found 'old' creatures with basic light sensors. This is akin to saying a bicycle evolved into a motorbike, into a car and finally into an aeroplane. (shut up spell-check aeroplane is right).

What do you mean by gaining an ability and gaining genetic code? We all have the ability to digest sushi regardless if we eat it or not. You're not making any sense.

Um no the evolution of the eye and digestion system is well understood and does not prevent micro-evolutionary steps from irreducible complexity. Where were you getting this information from please provide a source.

And I leave you with this to ponder: Why do you get so irritated with this topic? Only Micro-evolution is usable in lab research or applied use, so it isn't for scientific reasons. The only logical reason for such over defensive behaviour is determination that you are not answerable to a higher being.

Well for starters you're wrong macro-evolution is useable in the lab as well, and has been seen in ring species. Science is pursuit of the truth and understanding of how thing work. Your premise that we only do it because we are determined to not be answerable to a higher being is a defensive position and an obvious flawed one, so I have to ask why are you so irritated with this topic.

 

[Faux Furry]

Maybe it is because Evolution doesn't have a cataclysmic final boss encounter built into the narrative unlike religions tend to have? Maybe if there were a such thing as Evolutionary Levels [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvolutionaryLevels] with a final intended outcome or a goal set by our own species in reality,then it would be more enticing to romantics?

It might explain why so many people are glomming onto Trans-Humanism.
Just get a good listen to Ray Kurzweil. That guy could have been a prophet most profitable. If it catches on better,he may not have missed his calling,after all.

 

[kalakashi]

B) It was
By the definitions of scientific theory presented above, this idea has stood the test of time (how much time is debatable, but I'd obviously say 6-10 thousand years.) Though many have tried, nobody has managed to make the evidence work against biblical creation in any indisputable way. And this has worked out miraculously without the text being changed at all. You call it my beliefs transcending human thought and reasoning. I call it a scientific theory, backed by human thought and reasoning.

So what's the actual scientific data that verifies this? Can you point me to a website that might change my mind? Because I now believe some nuts things due to good science (the big bang, evolution, empty space weighs something etc. All fucking ridiculous ideas, all true). So if the evidence is compelling, I shall be compelled.

 

[wulf3n]

You said we shouldn't treat the theory of evolution as fact, I merely responded that in the setting of clearing up misconceptions or deliberate distortions/deceptions it is more than adequate to treat a theory as factual.

I say we shouldn't treat any theory as fact, as theories are there to be proven wrong by stronger theories. I agree that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the transition from single celled organisms to incredibly complex organisms.

I feel that by treating a theory as fact is detrimental, as it hinders its exploration as people are less likely to question that which they believe to be true (from my observation).

Which all goes back to my initial argument in which a theory can never be truly proven correct(in the lack of omniscience), and can only be proven wrong, so it's more efficient to try and prove a theory wrong, over trying to prove a theory right.

Yes, and I'm correcting you insofar as that natural selection IS evolution. And I grant you your definition of natural selection leaves room to be interpreted right but there is also other ways to read it.
But you are plain wrong when you say that natural selection only works with existing genes. If a spontaneous mutation occurred in one individual it will still be selected for according to its usefulness. Also, the thing you referred to as "evolution" is actually mutation. Evolution is simply change, however that may happen.

Ok, I was wrong with my definition of Natural Selection, however in my defence I wasn't trying to define either term, and didn't put in the time required to clarify myself properly.

I should also clarify that when I talk of Evolution I'm not necessarily referring to the change in a species through mutation, which like you pointed out has already been observed, I'm referring more to the idea of that observation being enough to account for the transition between single celled organisms to humans (for example).

I'm not saying it's wrong, just that by not challenging it if there's parts that don't make sense to us, we may not move forward.

 

[Quaxar]

B) It was
By the definitions of scientific theory presented above, this idea has stood the test of time (how much time is debatable, but I'd obviously say 6-10 thousand years.) Though many have tried, nobody has managed to make the evidence work against biblical creation in any indisputable way. And this has worked out miraculously without the text being changed at all. You call it my beliefs transcending human thought and reasoning. I call it a scientific theory, backed by human thought and reasoning.

It doesn't matter what you call it, I call my right hand Scarlett Johansson, that doesn't mean I'm getting laid.note: comedic hyperbole
There is so many evidence that even Helen Keller must have known it. What would you like? Genetics, geology, astronomy, fossil records, various chemical and physical dating methods?
And yes, they can be used wrong to give false dates but I've heard hardcore pseudo-scientist Kent Hovind say that using method X a 3 million year old fossil is actually only 200.000 years old... completely ignoring the fact that this is still faaaar above his own claims of a 6000 year old earth.

I know that YECs like to believe that "there is no evidence against" but either 90% of science acquired and tested over the last 150 years or more is simply wrong or maybe it's just one book. And once again, where is your evidence that this one book is true compared to other and older religious texts with different and possibly even less contradictory creation stories?

C) The final argument is a take on irreducible complexity. This has been misunderstood to imply that the heart will continue to change, thus killing us all. The timeframe is backwards. What is meant is that there can be no evolutionary path to generate such an organ, as no previous version would be effective. This is a case of function vs non-function, rather than an increase in effectiveness or efficiency.

In the end though, most people who reject creation believe in evolution by some sort of unexplained process. As a result, it is nigh impossible to argue against their beliefs because they are backed by something which transcends human thought and reasoning.

Unexplained process? I can go to Amazon right now and order 50 books about various evolutionary topics and have all the explanation I can want.
For the age-old irreducable complexity argument I suggest watching that video for a start:
<youtube=W96AJ0ChboU>

 

[Something Amyss]

Sure. While i'm on that, why don't you make something evolve? A Komodo Dragon into a flying Komodo dragon would be cool. I'll even give you seven days. Whoever is the first to do their respective challanges wins, otherwise it'll have to be a draw.

I can replicate the evolution of single-celled organisms in my bedroom in my spare time. Aside form glib diversions, do you have anything that you can do to demonstrate the equivalence between the two you have made.

It really comes down to people saying "because I can read it, that makes it true".

That's not what science is.

Neither side of this argument is willing to challenge what they've been taught, especially when those teachings are being questioned by "heretics".

I see you fail to understand the concept of "challenge" as well as the concept of "theory." Science is routinely challenged. The reason that evolution is a theory is that it meets robust challenges.

Look, this sounds like the usual red state argument that liberals don't understand their values. It's a conflation of the concepts of "undertsanding" and "agreeing." Or, in this case, between "not challenging" and...I don't know, not conceding?

Evolution has been rigorously tested, and continues to be. Unless you're going to suggest a giant conspiracy theory, you pretty much have no grounds to argue there. What more do you need to count as "challenging?"

I'm not sure if this false equity is due to ignorance or malice, but it's false either way.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

There is no debate within the scientific community? The head of genetics in my university believes in creation. Is he not a scientist? My head of flight mechanics believes in creation, is he not a scientist?

No Creation is a religious view, Evolution is a scientific view. I'd would also like to ask what University and whats the name of your professor.

If you limit the scientific community to only include those in agreement with yourself, then you will obviously end up with a single minded community.

99% of the scientific community accept evolution and reject creation (look it up) That's not limiting yourself.

There are thousands of articles published for peer review, and sufficient material that coverage in schools would be feasible.

Find me one.

And I would propose the thought that both sides have evidence, only one can have facts. Both sides also require huge amounts of faith, wither in God or man's current, ever changing opinions. Which brings me to the ancient texts, which have made many outrageous claims, whether scientific, historical or prophetic, and have yet to be disproved on any topic.

1. No you just can't propose something and expect people to believe it's true. Every single fact and so called evidence that creationists have put forward has been refuted and/or debunked. Science does not require faith or use opinions. If a scientist tried to pass off an opinion as a fact or theory based off of faith he would be laughed at. This is not how science works.

2. No once again Science has falsified many biblical claims for instance.

As I initially said, this argument has went on for 12 pages because it is a debate between two incompatible theories based on incompatible outlooks on life and incompatible starting points. No agreement or solution will be found, and I am therefore leaving the thread.

No. Creationism isn't a theory, it can't even be considered a hypothesis. If you think creationism is a scientific theory you don't know what a theory is. This topic has gone of for 12 pages because people either don't have a firm grasp of evolution and don't understand it, or they don't want to because it contradicts their ancient book. A lot of times creationist will either distort evidence or simply lie to try and defend their position.

Listen you seem like a nice guy so I'm going give you some advice, the next time your YEC proffers tell you about some study that proves creation ask for the source and read it yourself, because you'll find that more often than not they either don't say what what the person was claiming, or it says the exact opposite.

 

[tmande2nd]

Because someone decided to believe or not believe it?

There are people who believe the earth is flat.
There choice to make.

I personally believe a wizard named Bob did it.

 

[texanarob]

Sorry for the double post, this was posted whilst I was typing my last one, and cba working out how to add a quote to an edit.

I personally believe in Creation over evolution, and would willingly debate my point if I believed I could change anybody's mind. The problem is, people have made up their minds before clicking this link, and definitely before reading this far.

If the creation vs evolution debate was simple enough to fit into a few posts and videos on a thread, it wouldn't still be a debate. I'm therefore going to avoid the flame war, leaving you with a few questions:

1. Isn't it handy when you can take select quotes out of context to portray your opposition as ignorant?
2. Isn't it equally handy when animated pictures of genealogies constitute evidence?
3. Isn't it strange that, when forming an origins theory, the best man can do is say stuff changed into other stuff (an oversimplification, but accurate enough).
First things first, are you old-earth or young-earth then? This is a pretty important thing for obvious reasons of chosing to ignore one scientific theory or a myriad of theories from multiple areas.

Regarding your questions:
1. Which is exactly what "creation scientists" do when they for example quote Darwin's alleged statement about the irreducably complex eye (I think it was the eye anyway).
2 . I don't even... you have the bible for frack's sake, by that logic either both or none are evidence. Though I have to confess I might not even fully understand this point...
3. Isn't it funny that the best religion can do is constitute it all to a being even MORE complex than the whole of nature that is the only thing that DOES NOT have to have any reason behind it?

I believe the entire bible literally. That makes me a young earth creationist pre-millennialist born again Christian. Dunno how many more labels you want. And I don't ignore scientific theories, if anything I focus on the ones I disagree with more than the others. And whilst I would never use the 'just a theory' argument, it is not impossible for a theory to be proven wrong or to change significantly, so I don't feel I am dismissing facts. That's badly worded, and I know will be used against me, but meh.

1. I don't care about Darwin. Evolutionary theory was about before him and has changed so drastically since him that he is essentially irrelevant to this discussion, unless we are dealing with any Darwinists, who essentially worship the man. If he has been misquoted then I apologise on behalf of my fellow believers. That still doesn't make the quotes about the crocaduck an accurate representation of what was being said.
2. This point refers to the evolutionary trees shown in the initial video. Amazing how things can look complete and alike when simplified to animation.
3. You didn't really address my point, but I'll address yours. Basic logic tells us that simple things come from simple forces, complex things are designed by intelligent forces.

Having read above my post, I'm irritated by a few things.
Evolutionary theory and the theories of the Big Bang and Old Earth may not be synonymous, but are linked enough that the belief in one implies belief in the others. To any theistic evolutionists reading this, read Genesis instead.
Are you telling me that you believe that Genesis is a literal account?
If so, please tell me then why you think that THIS is the true books and not the <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas>Hindu Vedas, the <url=http://www.desy.de/gna/interpedia/greek_myth/creation.html>Ancient Greeks or Scientology for that matter. Two of which are even much older than even the old testament.

Genesis, Revelation, yeah. I believe the whole book.
Older than the book of beginnings? That could take some explaining. I would add, though, that Genesis seems the only theory that matches scientific discovery, hence my belief.

Secondly, a species gaining an ability and gaining genetic code are entirely different. I don't eat sushi, many Japanese people (don't want to be racist, but it's a reasonable cultural stereotype) do. They are not a separate species to me. True macro-evolution would describe the origins of the digestive system, or the optical system, whereby irreducible complexity prevents a combination of micro-evolutionary steps causing significant change.
The argument of irreducable complexity? You're shitting me, there is a video explaining the evolution of the exe literally on the last page.
I could also give you a detailed explanation of the evolution of any organ you want including examples from several modern animals.

For those looking the video in question, it's actually on page 10.

And I am aware that we have found 'old' creatures with basic light sensors. This is akin to saying a bicycle evolved into a motorbike, into a car and finally into an aeroplane. (shut up spell-check aeroplane is right).
Comparing non-living things that can't reproduce by themselves and biology. I'm sorry but this is a nonsense argument.

My point was I could make a similar video about how one object could turn into another, as they have similar parts. However, that doesn't make it so. The video referenced involves concepts such as sensors, curvature, lens formation and pinholes as though these were simple ideas that could easily mutate. However, we all know that these parts must be balanced carefully to be beneficial, and would also require the relevant nervous system and brain recognition to develop alongside them. The odds are starting to look less plausible.

And I leave you with this to ponder: Why do you get so irritated with this topic? Only Micro-evolution is usable in lab research or applied use, so it isn't for scientific reasons. The only logical reason for such over defensive behaviour is determination that you are not answerable to a higher being.

And there we go for the fourth time with a link about observed macroevolution that has been explained extensively a few posts above.
Another logical reason for the defensiveness is the fact that people assert things about evolution and make up their own facts simply to discredit it.

EDIT: I'm sorry, just realized that post might come off a bit harsh. I'm simply tired right now, don't be put off.

To clarify, my other posts deal with differing views on what constitutes macro evolution. That wasn't my point. My point was simply that macro evolution is so far beyond the scope of anything we are trying to achieve for practical application that it shouldn't provoke this reaction from people unless there was something more behind it. Admittedly, far too many people make up their facts to discredit evolution, but both sides have ignorant opinionated fools, otherwise I wouldn't hear people saying there was no evidence for creation and that there is no debate.

As far as coming off harsh goes, I've had a lot worse responses from a lot angrier people. I only hope I come across as trying to explain my opinion, rather than as the argumentative git I often seem to when I reread these posts later. If that is the case, I'll borrow your excuse and blame the fact that it's 2.23am.