I don't post on these forums. I use escapist for my gaming needs and came to the topic out of an itch. Just felt that I need to congragulate intelligent people posting accumulated knowledge here with patience. I hope you keep this attitude up. This discussion is unlikely to weed out in our lifetimes, but I can see number of informed&information gatherer people is climbing up since internet came about which gives me hope for further generations.
Why do people reject evolution?
- Thread starter disgruntledgamer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No once again this is just another Creationist Kent Hovind lie, we've tested and verified C-14 dating in blind test and verified the results or we wouldn't be using it. These so called inconsistencies are not inconsistencies and people have answers these critiques, you obviously didn't look very hard and just assumed they hadn't been addressed.AMMO Kid said:
Yep, this topic has seen a good amount of namecalling and personal attacks on both sides. Still time and again many people kept bringing in information which enabled me to follow the lead and read more about it. I am capable of filtering out the friction between people which I'm not interested in.Ryotknife said:
There is nothing wrong with competing ideas, in fact I always encourage new ideas in science as long as they have been derived by the scientific method. If you don't know what the scientific method is look back a few pages and watch the short video that explains it.spartan231490 said:
The truth of the matter is scientist don't have time to examine all the wack job ideas out there and it's not their responsibility. Ideas like aliens building the pyramids, an expanding earth or Scientology and Creationism in general. You just can't dream up some idea and expect the scientific community to believe and take your word at face value. Creationist are held to the same standards as everyone else, if you think some creationist idea is wrongfully shot down than do an experiment and show the results proving your hypothesis. If you think Creationist should get a by on this method/procedure, that everyone even scientists are held to just because of their religion and their assumed conclusion, well too %^$%ing bad.
I'm glad you brought up Galileo, because this is a prime example of how religion attempts to dumb down the masses and opposes science. You see Galileo just didn't have some wacky idea with nothing to back it, he actually had something called evidence.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html
I didn't say you should accept creationism at face value. I said you should just say: "The evidence doesn't support your idea, but it's your right to believe it if you choose." It's not that hard, just live and let live.disgruntledgamer said:
I don't remember the Bible saying that evolution was false. In fact, maybe that's how God "made" humans. But who am I to say anything. I don't have a fancy degree for playing around with numbers, or a fancy degree in philosophy nor am I some stuck up priest who fondles little people. I'm just an ape who is strategically shaved, can barely use a few tools, doesn't know crap about the Universe and how it all works down to its core and I believe there's something or someone out there that is better than me in everything (excluding humans who happened to be more apt). I don't like religious nutcases, I don't like atheists who don't think for themselves nor do I like people who look at religious texts and read them to suit their theories on whether God does or does not exist, because honestly if people do that no one will ever reach a concensus due to the fact that they will always read what they want the books to say and not what is actually written. I like to read the Bible without attaching myself too much to a certain creed, be it religious zealots or stuck up atheists who think they know better because they're angry with what they see in the news. I like to keep an open mind when I'm reading a text, especially one like the Bible (or any religious text), I like the concept of there being things out there that are superior to me, because if humans are the pinnacle of evolution in this not so small Universe, well, it might as well not even exist.
Besides if one can't prove a god's existence why do people even debate? Imagine there is a god or gods out there? If that/those being(s) didn't wish for his/her/their existence to be proven and if they only wanted people to trust in the fact that he/she/they exist(s) then how would less advanced humans like us be able to prove that existence? We wouldn't. People trying to prove either will never get an answer, they will only get more theories. Or hey, maybe someday we'll prove it. I don't know. I don't care. I just don't want to see religious people and non-religious people constantly getting at each others throats while politicians sit on their fat asses and count the money they're stealing from everyone while you're too busy polishing your egos to notice anything.
Sorry for the rant, mr. person who stumbled upon my writings. Not having the best of days here. Sorry if I offended anyone. Again, having a crap day makes us humans act a little on impulse so sorry about anything. If you're a politician and you're wasting time on this forum instead of doing some actual work then disregard this last bit.
Besides if one can't prove a god's existence why do people even debate? Imagine there is a god or gods out there? If that/those being(s) didn't wish for his/her/their existence to be proven and if they only wanted people to trust in the fact that he/she/they exist(s) then how would less advanced humans like us be able to prove that existence? We wouldn't. People trying to prove either will never get an answer, they will only get more theories. Or hey, maybe someday we'll prove it. I don't know. I don't care. I just don't want to see religious people and non-religious people constantly getting at each others throats while politicians sit on their fat asses and count the money they're stealing from everyone while you're too busy polishing your egos to notice anything.
Sorry for the rant, mr. person who stumbled upon my writings. Not having the best of days here. Sorry if I offended anyone. Again, having a crap day makes us humans act a little on impulse so sorry about anything. If you're a politician and you're wasting time on this forum instead of doing some actual work then disregard this last bit.
For the same reason (as you pointed out) that Galileo insisted that the earth rotated around the sun, that Christopher Columbus insisted the world was round and that cracking peoples heads open to let out the bad spirits is a bad idea. Listen your welcome to believe any crazy thing you want in your own home or church. I really don't care if you think the moon is made out of cheese, but don't come up to me and tell me your crazy ideas with no evidence are just as valid as established scientific theories and deserve looking into, than get upset you get laughed at.spartan231490 said:
Actually, no. I discussed two TYPES of dating, only one of which utilizes radiometric isotopes. Then there are things like varve deposits, growth rings on various organisms, and the like that allow for extremely precise dating and ignore radiometric dating entirely. Dating rocks is a complicated and extremely technical process, and I certainly didn't cover everything here. I'll be the first to admit that I don't KNOW everything--I've got a background in stratigraphy, but it's a consequence of some ideas I have about how paleontology should be done, rather than a focus of mine.Monster_user said:
This is wrong to the point of being fraudulent. The sponges are not made from 100% silicon. They have spicules, which are sort of like bones, that are made of silicon. Diatoms and a few other organisms also use SiO2 as their main skeleton mineral. To say they're made of 100% silica is akin to saying that humans are made of 100% phosphate.random video said:
http://stoneplus.cst.cmich.edu/zoogems/venus.html
Here's a fun website on siliceous sponges, for anyone interested.
Except that that's not what's happening. The Wedge Document pretty clearly outlines a coherent plan that starts with forcing Creationism into schools and ends with theocracy. Also, you can hold any opinion you want--but as soon as you start trying to call it science, you have to follow rules. Modern Creatoinism violates those rules, and cannot be honestly held to be true by scientists in the relevant fields. As a scientist in a relevant field I am obligated to point out the errors, lies, and frauds of modern Creationism. Secondly, it's not the evolutionary biologists or paleontologists who refuse to live and let live. Honestly, we ALL have better things to do than to beat basic scientific knowledge into the heads of people who simply don't want to know (there are two types of Creationists: the frauds who know better, and the dupes who have been conned and who haven't taken the time to learn the facts). The errors Creationists commit are BASIC. Geology 101 stuff, most often. It's BORING. But we need to do it, because if we don't my job, and the jobs of my friends and family, will be put at risk.spartan231490: said:
Oh, and the last time an industrialized nation abandoned evolution there was a remarkably high body count. We can debate to what degree abandoning evolution contributed to that, but it certainly contributed something. So it's also a matter of life and death, in a very real sense. Not exactly a "live and let live" situation.
Finally, the evidence DOES support evolution. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've studied reefs that cross the K/Pg boundary. I've studied the migration of the Pleistocene megafauna. I've seen changes in plant populations as glaciers advance and retreat. I've seen literally tonnes of evidence for evolution in the form of brachiopods and mollusks and decapod crustaceans. I've even found transitional forms. Whoever told you that the evidence doesn't support evolution WAS LYING TO YOU.
I don't particularly wish to undermine an argument I'm agreeing to but Columbus might not be the best example in this since he didn't actually try to propagate the idea that the world was round but was trying to prove his false believe that it was much smaller than estimated and thus just a short hop west to India.disgruntledgamer said:
And because the last pages have been seriously lacking our atheist-messiahcreationist quote Carl Sagan:
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
I'm curious, what nation are you talking about? Not that I doubt you, I just seem completely unable to think of one right now...Dinwatr said:
Well, after 18 pages I'm sure there's nothing else significant I can add to this conversation. Evolution theory is well-established and cannot be seriously argued against by anyone who understands it.
As so many of you have said before me, people reject evolution because they misrepresent it, largely because their favourite flavour of priest told them to.
As so many of you have said before me, people reject evolution because they misrepresent it, largely because their favourite flavour of priest told them to.
Ah. See, I did not know that so I wouldn't even have guessed. I'd agree with them that Lamarckism is a nicer idea because you get to have a personal say in hereditary traits. Do I work out so my kids will be stronger or should I rather practice my stamina?Dinwatr said:
It's such a shame it is nonsense.
Honestly, I think the problem here is people as this thread shows. As children in general we believe what we are told one way or another. This can lead to concrete belief when we get older.. dad said it was so then it must be.
Seriously, if you are religious, and I speak of nearly all religions - the teachings will most often, when boiled down and not fanatically taken, teach a golden rule policy.. do on to others as you would have them done on to you.
As for people who do not believe in god, why are you worried about those that do. If they believe something different from you, it does not harm you unless you are unfortunate to be in certain countries.
To sum up a badly written piece, I would like if both ideas were taught in schools equally so students could make their own minds up to satisfy themselves and I would like people stop looking down on people who don't think share the same ideas as them.
Honestly lads and lassies, people are people. In the long run people will always believe in religion, science and both together. Each to their own and the world moves on.
Seriously, if you are religious, and I speak of nearly all religions - the teachings will most often, when boiled down and not fanatically taken, teach a golden rule policy.. do on to others as you would have them done on to you.
As for people who do not believe in god, why are you worried about those that do. If they believe something different from you, it does not harm you unless you are unfortunate to be in certain countries.
To sum up a badly written piece, I would like if both ideas were taught in schools equally so students could make their own minds up to satisfy themselves and I would like people stop looking down on people who don't think share the same ideas as them.
Honestly lads and lassies, people are people. In the long run people will always believe in religion, science and both together. Each to their own and the world moves on.
I will say this, you have a lot of courage to post that. I don't mean in a condescending way, I just mean that you've probably gotten some anti-theist stuff thrown your way.Aglynugga said:
NOTE: In the following few paragraphs, being desirable could also mean survivability.
That being said, I have to disagree with you. The idea of evolution is that a species slowly changed over time due to mutations. The vast majority of mutations are harmless and the occasional one affects the individual. Usually, these are harmful and the individual is killed, either by a predator or natural causes stemming from said mutation. On the off chance that the mutation is helpful, it first has to make the individual a desirable mate and if it makes a difference, the gene is passed on. The offspring of that individual now also have that mutation and spread it around throughout dozens or hundreds of generations making others without said mutation less desirable.
To see this in action, you could take a bacterial culture and introduce a harmful element. Most of the bacteria would be killed but the few remaining either were not close enough to it to be affected or have a mutation that protects against that. All the surviving bacteria now reproduce through mitosis and many more bacteria have the mutation (mitosis results in 2 genetically identical copies). As the generations pass, the mutation continues to be passed on and eventually the entire bacterial culture is immune to the harmful agent; they evolved to gain an immunity.
We can see evolution in action. It's impossible in mammals because we don't live long enough to see it happen but it's there. That being said, a grandfather or even a great * 10[sup]10[/sup] grandfathers would not have remotely resembled apes in any way. When you go back hundreds of thousands of years, there is a little more resemblance.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death for your right to say it."
- Voltaire
Oh look, someone with a brain! How nice to see you! *waves*___________________ said:
I agree with you completely. I may be an atheist but I hate extremists or fundamentalists of any kind when it comes to religious debates. I just tend to agree with the atheists but that's just semantics. For example, did you know there's an atheist channel on YouTube? They do a podcast about how all religions are dumb. When I first encountered it after watching some videos of Stephen Fry debating, I couldn't help but laugh. It's as ridiculous as people decrying gay marriage. Let people believe what they want to believe and if they don't agree with you, who cares? How is what they believe interfering with your everyday life (unless it's about changing the school system)?
The reason both ideas aren't taught equally is that they aren't equal. One is science; the other is not. One is supported by evidence; the other is not. Teaching both side-by-side creates a false equivalency that harms students' ability to actually learn. It would be like teaching the Flat Earth concept alongside teaching that the earth is round, or teaching alchemy next to chemistry.Eoghan Kelly said:
And how would you determine which ideas to teach in this situation? There's more than one form of Creationism, after all. If we're going to offer Young Earth Creationism as an alternative to evolution, then surely we need to offer Theistic Evolution as an alternative to YEC. And then we'll need to offer Aliens Did It as an alternative to all of THOSE. What criteria can you use to determine which un-supported views should be treated as equivalent to a scientific theory?
This isn't a matter of mere opinion, Eoghan Kelly, and one side--Creationism--violates the rules of the game. You want to teach Creationism in a religion class or a history class, fine. Have fun. In science? The ONLY way I'd accept it is as a defunct theory that was disproven long ago. Any attempt to portray these two as equally likely is intellectually dishonest and fraudulent. The theory of Creationism was disproven, and it was disproven, despite what Creatoinists will tell you, long before evolution was proposed. It's WRONG. Simple as that. Teaching it as a theory with the same validity as evolution is precisely as justifiable as teaching the Geocentric theory or the biology of dragons.Eoghan Kelly said:
And students CAN'T make up their own minds, frankly. They don't have the data. You're asking uneducated people, given horribly mangled data (there's no other way to establish the equivalency you demand), to evaluate one of the most complex suites of theories in science. The problem should be obvious--but it gets even worse. The data are overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, but the problem is getting the data to the students. You need to understand genetics, geology, physics, chemistry, and deep time to really get a grasp of the data, and since evolution is the foundational principle of biology it's interwoven throughout the entire enterprise of showing the data. The very act of showing the data to the students violates the equivalency you're trying to establish. Why do you think Creationists don't look at the fossil record?
Finally, what about people like me? If the Creationists win--and make no mistake, teaching these theories as equal IS a Creationist win--my job, my livelyhood, is on the line. This is personal. They are calling ME a liar and a fraud, which is just about the worst attack on my professional credibility they can launch, without the common courtesy of providing evidence--to provide one example. I've called a number of them out on it (they prefer to leave it general, so they don't have to defend it; once you pin them down, their arguments vanish).
Again, I'm all for "Live and let live". When they leave me alone and stop attacking me, my friends, and my family (I've got relatives that have done work in relevant fields as well), I'll stop defending myself and them. Until then, sorry, it just doesn't work that way. You don't get to punch me in the nose then scream that I'm not allowed to fight back.
I'm interested in what this "atheist channel" is because from that description it could be more than one. And even more if I assume you are ignorant about the actual purpose of the channel. Not saying you are but if you were the possibilities of what channel you talk about would rise.mitchell271 said:
There's a lot of dumb channels on youtube. 9/11 conspiracies, spirit pseudo-science, ghosthunters, Ray Comfort, ... I'm always curious about finding new ones to watch.
Sounds like a narrower version to me.wulf3n said:
Yet is was a specific response to a specific quoted portion. Please don't do that then say it wasn't your intent to address me.
If you are looking for evidence in the same way you have with me, I have trouble seeing why you're surprised. Your later question about how non-detrimental traits is inane and I'm having a little trouble taking your objections to evolution as an honest, face value statement.
Then stop making accusations about me with no foundation.
Apparently you not only have a personal definition of "evolution," but also "glib."
If they're not detrimental, why wouldn't they? Hell, only certain detriments impact the chance of propagating, so even they don't open a question here.
Seriously, I'm confused by this question. How does heredity not answer this by default?
Then perhaps you can avoid quoting me in certain contexts where they look like accusations specific to me, rather than the more generic form of "you."