Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[Thundercrack85]

Yes, but you would assume attending, and having a fairly balanced education would result in your accepting basic scientific facts.

On the other hand, I also assumed that being able to read and write would imply intelligence. And even though 99% can read (depending where you live), the majority of humanity is still stupid.

 

[larryfilmmaker]

In order to become an official "Theory" (or "Law") by scientific standards, a theory must pass intense amounts of study, testing, and retesting.

The Theory of Relativity. The Law of Gravity. The Theory of Evolution. Germ Theory.

These are not things that the uneducated person should feel comfortable challenging. They have been challenged thousands of times and the results have been consistent. They have been put to the test and they have passed. There is a tiny chance they could be wrong, but the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of them being right.

Most people who do not accept something like evolution are going by what their religion tells them. In that case, they also believe a body can raise from the dead (it happens often in the bible), they also believe the Earth is only 6 or 7,000 years old (and not 4.5 billion as science has determined), and they also believe that a group of humans gathered 2 of every species on the planet and put them aboard a ship, where they kept them alive (by feeding them what?) long enough for the waters to go back down.

I've yet to see anybody but a religious person or a pseudo-scientist with an agenda challenge evolution. When somebody makes up their mind about something and then tries like hell to find evidence to support their claim, that is called "having an agenda". Real science doesn't do that. Real science looks at the evidence FIRST, and THEN determines a theory. Trust the ones who are open to the idea that they might be wrong. They are the honest ones. They are the ones who know there isn't a shred of a reason to think evolution isn't real.

 

[Shemtov]

Depends on what you mean by "Evolution". I accept Microevolution. Macroevolution is a different story.

 

[larryfilmmaker]

Depends on what you mean by "Evolution". I accept Microevolution. Macroevolution is a different story.

No, it isn't. That's just something some pseudo-scientists (and religious "scientists") made up in order to muddy the waters and buy themselves some time before everybody in the world KNOWS evolution is real. The difference between macro and micro is almost entirely non-existent.

 

[DBryan]

Depends on what you mean by "Evolution". I accept Microevolution. Macroevolution is a different story.

Macroevolution is just microevolution + time!

 

[larryfilmmaker]

Yeah. Micro and Macro are the same thing. Leave it to human beings to make up pretend sciences in order to combat the real one when they don't like it.

 

[JAK®]

Depends on what you mean by "Evolution". I accept Microevolution. Macroevolution is a different story.

Can you explain what the distinction is between them that makes one more believable than the other?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Probably because you can't see macroevolution easily.

Too bad we don't have some freaky animal that dramatically evolves every year.

Though I am curious as to what creationists like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron would say if you showed them a mudskipper (a species of amphibious fish).

 

[DBryan]

When those dudes use the ridiculous "there's never been a crocoduck" argument, what WOULD they say in response to the Mudskipper? A fish that can walk on land.

Even setting that aside, there are so many examples of fossil evidence. The progression from fish to mammal, reptile to bird, etc, is laid out in fossils.

It would be so simple to falsify evolution. Just find some fossils that are dated back at a time they'd have no business being in according to evolution.

 

[Kent]

When those dudes use the ridiculous "there's never been a crocoduck" argument, what WOULD they say in response to the Mudskipper? A fish that can walk on land.

Even setting that aside, there are so many examples of fossil evidence. The progression from fish to mammal, reptile to bird, etc, is laid out in fossils.

It would be so simple to falsify evolution. Just find some fossils that are dated back at a time they'd have no business being in according to evolution.

The interesting thing about this progression you can see in fossils is that it isn't random either.

When paleontologists arelooking for a specific transtional they are looking at the places they are (stratigraphic depth location, as well as geographic location) because that's where you would find these specific fossils if species did indeed evolve through descent with modification.


So it's not just the fact that we find these fossils that makes evidence for evolution, it's the fact that we find them where where we predict they would be if evolution was true[/I] (in a specific stratigraphic layer and georgraphical location depending on the species).

And of course, "fossil rabbits in the precambrian" would be quite an interesting challenge to the current understanding of evolution, but no one seems to have found any yet.

 

[chaseter]

When those dudes use the ridiculous "there's never been a crocoduck" argument, what WOULD they say in response to the Mudskipper? A fish that can walk on land.

Even setting that aside, there are so many examples of fossil evidence. The progression from fish to mammal, reptile to bird, etc, is laid out in fossils.

It would be so simple to falsify evolution. Just find some fossils that are dated back at a time they'd have no business being in according to evolution.

It's called the Jesus Fish because it is a fish that can walk on land. Get outta here with that nonsense.

 

[larryfilmmaker]

It would be so simple to falsify evolution. Just find some fossils that are dated back at a time they'd have no business being in according to evolution.

Well said.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, you won't find a rabbit in the Precambrian as the say.

But a lot of these creationists are simply not rational people. You can't convince them. Nothing will change their mind. You could film a line of animals evolving, and they would call it bunk.

 

[Shemtov]

But a lot of these creationists are simply not rational people. You can't convince them. Nothing will change their mind. You could film a line of animals evolving, and they would call it bunk.

It has nothing to do with creationism, or being rational people. it's part of human nature that if your opinion is discredited, you still hold on to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Persistence_of_discredited_beliefs
http://www.cracked.com/article_1946...at-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think_p2.html (read entry #1)
I bet that if you, as an atheist was irresistibly drawn to the nearest body of water, which split, and had fire proceeding thru the dry part and not being extinguised, and there was a voice saying "Hey, I'm god, I created the world." You'd scratch it up to your going crazy.

 

[DBryan]

Why would you NOT scratch that up to a moment of delusion/craziness?

If you cannot demonstrate it to anyone other than yourself, that's good reason to doubt it.

That's the difference between science, and religious claims of personal experience. Observations, empirical evidence, tests, can be repeated, and demonstrated. The latter cannot.

If a claim is not demonstrable or falsifiable, if the claim cannot be measured or quantified, if it can't be differentiated from a claim that someone can talk to the dead ghost of elvis (for example) then that is good reason to doubt the claim.

The mind is very susceptible to delusion and it is important to know how to tell the difference between what is real and what isn't. Anyone who has ever had a lucid dream, or has had hallucinatory drugs, should know that.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I bet that if you, as an atheist was irresistibly drawn to the nearest body of water, which split, and had fire proceeding thru the dry part and not being extinguised, and there was a voice saying "Hey, I'm god, I created the world." You'd scratch it up to your going crazy.

And what if the selfsame scenario happened but the voice claimed to be Zeus/Thor/Krishna, or some other god(s) that you don't believe in, and it/they claimed to be the "true" god(s) of the universe. Would you then consider the scenario you presented as evidence that the voice you heard was telling the truth?

 

[Thundercrack85]

The problem with that argument is that it's a false equivalency. If God existed, it would, or at least should be readily apparent. But it isn't, because he doesn't exist.

If God continued to show up, regularly talked to me, and showed me miracles and I still denied his existence, then I would be the delusional person.

But most religious people don't even claim that. At best they might claim to have had some personal experience that made them accept God. It's usually something very vague.

Only a handful of people claim to have actual visions from God.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

It has nothing to do with creationism, or being rational people. it's part of human nature that if your opinion is discredited, you still hold on to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Persistence_of_discredited_beliefs
http://www.cracked.com/article_1946...at-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think_p2.html (read entry #1)
I bet that if you, as an atheist was irresistibly drawn to the nearest body of water, which split, and had fire proceeding thru the dry part and not being extinguised, and there was a voice saying "Hey, I'm god, I created the world." You'd scratch it up to your going crazy.

Sure, that'd make me believe in God! Just like....

I bet if aliens came to abduct me in my bed tonight, I'd believe in aliens.

I bet if I saw an 8 foot hairy creature walking on two legs through the American wilderness, I'd believe in Big Foot.

I bet if a monkey flew out of my butt, I would believe monkeys can fly out of butts

Ooooh this is a fun game! Let's talk about other impossible things I'd believe if they happened!!

 

[DBryan]

I've thought about what it would take to believe in god, and part of the problem is it depends on what the specific god claim is.

The 'hypotheticals' in the science fiction novel Spin, would in effect be gods, because their control over us would be so great. And yet they've come to be as powerful as they are through a very slow and naturalistic process. I can conceive of and believe something like that before I could believe in something divine and eternal. And the proof of the existence of 'hypotheticals' in that novel isn't reliant on personal experience. There is evidence for their existence, and they can be learned about.

A personal, immaterial god?

Anyone ever watch Battlestar Galactica? In the character arc of Gaius Baltar, he basically goes from hard atheist to theist, because of all the things he experiences - being able to see beings no one else can see and ruling out scientific explanations for their presence, confirmation of prophecies, etc.

I've thought about, if I experienced something like that, as consistently as Gaius did, would I believe in god? And even then, I don't think that would be enough. There are still other possibilities. One possibility would be that I'm completely and utterly mad, or that the beings I see are real and do have genuine insight into the future and are genuine when they say god exists, but they could just be mistaken about that. They could be incredibly advanced aliens, but nevertheless delusional.

 

[Shemtov]

Why would you NOT scratch that up to a moment of delusion/craziness?

If you cannot demonstrate it to anyone other than yourself, that's good reason to doubt it.

That's the difference between science, and religious claims of personal experience. Observations, empirical evidence, tests, can be repeated, and demonstrated. The latter cannot.

If a claim is not demonstrable or falsifiable, if the claim cannot be measured or quantified, if it can't be differentiated from a claim that someone can talk to the dead ghost of elvis (for example) then that is good reason to doubt the claim.

The mind is very susceptible to delusion and it is important to know how to tell the difference between what is real and what isn't. Anyone who has ever had a lucid dream, or has had hallucinatory drugs, should know that.

And what if the selfsame scenario happened but the voice claimed to be Zeus/Thor/Krishna, or some other god(s) that you don't believe in, and it/they claimed to be the "true" god(s) of the universe. Would you then consider the scenario you presented as evidence that the voice you heard was telling the truth?

The problem with that argument is that it's a false equivalency. If God existed, it would, or at least should be readily apparent. But it isn't, because he doesn't exist.

If God continued to show up, regularly talked to me, and showed me miracles and I still denied his existence, then I would be the delusional person.

But most religious people don't even claim that. At best they might claim to have had some personal experience that made them accept God. It's usually something very vague.

Only a handful of people claim to have actual visions from God.

Why would you NOT scratch that up to a moment of delusion/craziness?

If you cannot demonstrate it to anyone other than yourself, that's good reason to doubt it.

That's the difference between science, and religious claims of personal experience. Observations, empirical evidence, tests, can be repeated, and demonstrated. The latter cannot.

If a claim is not demonstrable or falsifiable, if the claim cannot be measured or quantified, if it can't be differentiated from a claim that someone can talk to the dead ghost of elvis (for example) then that is good reason to doubt the claim.

The mind is very susceptible to delusion and it is important to know how to tell the difference between what is real and what isn't. Anyone who has ever had a lucid dream, or has had hallucinatory drugs, should know that.

And what if the selfsame scenario happened but the voice claimed to be Zeus/Thor/Krishna, or some other god(s) that you don't believe in, and it/they claimed to be the "true" god(s) of the universe. Would you then consider the scenario you presented as evidence that the voice you heard was telling the truth?

But everything you just said ignores my main point:
Saying that Creationists "are simply not rational people" because "thing will change their mind" is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with creationism, or being rational people. it's part of human nature that if your opinion is discredited, you still hold on to it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

No. Holding on to an opinion after it is shown to be wrong is being delusional. Of course, you'll notice that most creationists, including many leaders of the intelligent design movement do not actually understand basic science, much less evolution.

So, the majority are more ignorant than delusional.

Calling them not rational would be an understatement.

 

[8wid]

I used to be foolish and believe in the pseudo science that American Christians used to provide "evidence" against evolution and used to argue for it. Now I've changed totally my mind.

The point of Christianity is to blame all of mankind for causing it's own problems starting with the creation story and needing to be lifelong and obedient to a bunch of vaguely mentioned and contradictory rules if they don't want to be punished for all eternity in an underground furnace just for expressing feeling that they were born with. Don't forget you're either Jesus' or Satan's slave and will be punished accordingly.

 

[DBryan]

Updated the first post with this.

 

[Shemtov]

Exactly. It's a work of fiction as far as i'm concerned. And there is no way to prove otherwise.

Before I start I just want to say that 'm not trying to convert anybody; I just want to point out that Ii's not true that there's no way to prove the Bible is true.
First Of all I would like offer evidence that the Pentateuch was written all at once c. 1200 BCE, instead of the whole Jewish Bible being written around 500 BCE.
Imagine for a second you're a Jew living in Babylon/Persia around 500 BCE. Somebody comes out with a new book called the Bible.; It claims to have been written in parts for the past 700 years. A part of it claims to have been written around 1200 BCE. (This is directly in the Bible "Moses finished writing the words of this Pentateuch in a scroll to the very end" Deut 31:24)
Would you accept it?
And if he claimed it was lost, wouldn't the fact that the book was lost and rediscovered have been written in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which is the story of the period of Jewish History around 500 BCE?
Now Imagine you're an Israelite living around 1200 BCE. A guy named Moses brings this book that he claims is from God. The Book states that your people were in Egypt, and oppressed. Your Opressesors were punished by God in a plague that only effected the Firstborn, after a pretty public prediction of this plague by this Moses fellow. Then it states that your people crossed a sea which split. Then you saw God revealed in fire and smoke on Mt. Sinai. Now, if that never happened who would accept the book?
Nobody.
And furthermore, who in an agrarian society would accept a book that required you to rest the land for a year, once every seven years, and for two years in a row every 50 years if they weren't sure it was from God. Such customs could have really never have developed among the Israelites unless the were told to do it by God.
That's my proof. Even if you don't accept it you can't say we didn't try to prove it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Religions have taken off with far less "evidence". I'd name names, but I don't want to seem prejudiced against any individual religion.

This isn't a religious thread, but the only reason there is a controversy about evolution is because of religion. I have yet to see a secular argument against evolution.