goldenheart323:
The debates on Evolution vs. Creationism have 2 inherent flaws:

1)People mistakenly think evolution explains the origin of life and pull that into the debate. Evolution makes absolutely no claim as to how life started.

True.

goldenheart323:

2)There are 2 kinds of evolution, and people debate both as if they're talking about the same thing. That leads to exchanges like "(Macro)evolution is still just an unproven theory. " That would be followed by "(Micro)Evolution is a proven fact. Anyone who can't get that through their skull is retarded." Both people are right. Dogs have evolved different traits over hundreds of years of breeding. They can be bred for short hair, long hair, size, even temperment, but it's still a dog. You can't breed(or randomly mutate) a dog such that you end up with a dog with tusks or wings. That's microevolution. Macroevolution is still a theory. That's what says a monkeys can eventually mutate into a human.

Theory:

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

Theory is truth based on the assumption that the human race is capable of perceiving reality.

Also I love the massive hyperbole there. I hope you understand the reason that a dog will never be bred with tusks is because macro evolution takes a very long time....

goldenheart323:

Why do people have a trouble believing in macroevolution? If you look into cellular biology, and the nitty-gritty details,
a single celled organism randomly mutating to work together with other cells in a colony;
an organism mutating such that it gets a new sense, like sight or hearing;
a caterpillar randomly mutates so much it spins a cocoon and every organ in its body changes completely and a butterfly comes out;
Those are all DRASTIC changes with huge jumps in complexity, and all the changes have to be done happen at once just right or the organism dies. There's no middle ground there. It's either one or the other, especially that butterfly. There are all kinds of irreducibly complex things in nature. They're too complex to happen by chance, and they can't be simplified into a more primitive form. That means they couldn't have slowly gotten more complex over time. That's a big thorn in the side of the "Things just got more & more complex over millions of years" way of thinking. Those are the kinds of things, (along with religion,) that prevent some people from embracing macroevolution whole heartedly.

I really helps when you google the subject you are discussing before you make up facts.

Claim CB340:
Organs and organ systems would have been useless until all the parts were in place. The coordinated innovation that they require is too improbable for evolution to create in one step.

1. This claim is an instance of the argument from incredulity. In all specific instances of this claim, there are ways for the organs and organ systems to evolve gradually. The idea that they could not evolve usually involves one or more of the following errors in thinking:

1. that organ parts appear suddenly. This seems to be an artifact of creationist thinking. Evolution, however, is not creationism; parts change gradually.
2. that organs less developed than what exists now must be completely useless. This is nonsense. A light-sensitive patch on the skin may not be as useful as the eyes we have now, but it is better than nothing. And just a little bit better is all that is required for the trait to evolve.
3. that parts must evolve separately. Coordinated innovation between parts of an organ or organ system is possible. Indeed, if the parts evolve gradually, it is inconceivable that parts that interact would not coevolve in such a way that changes are coordinated via natural selection.
4. that parts do not change function. Many organs do not start from nothing. Rather, they start as a part that serves a different function and gradually gets co-opted for a new function. For example, tetrapod legs evolved from fins.

2. Sometimes multiple coordinated changes can occur when there is a mutation in a regulatory gene.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity

goldenheart323:

Also, Creationists believe God created all things. The fact we share DNA with other things on this planet doesn't disprove God at all. It's just more evidence we all had a common creator.

Common ancestor =/= creator.

Also, looking into physics, the universe has existed for 10 billion year or more. Pre-big bang the state of the universe was irrelevant as when the universe hit singularity, all information was reset, meaning there's no difference between a 10 billion year old universe, and an infinitely long universe. Also physics allows for random energies to occur, and it's entirely possible for a big bang to randomly occur. While unlike, still possible.

Essentially, it's entirely possible for humanity to come into existence from teh universe itself, and given that a universe + and omnipotent being is less likely than a universe by it self, and that they are equally probable, we can use Occam's razor to say that the universe exists without a God, unless contradictory evidence is provided.

I don't believe in evolution 'cos it makes Jesus cry.
...

Joking wth wouldn't I believe in evolution... this thread makes Darwin cry :'(

Cakes:

sneakypenguin:
I personally think my faith(christianity) and science intersect pretty well

Agreed. Why there is a conflict is beyond me.

Because you two seem to be pretty happy keeping that information to yourselves.

I find that Christianity (please don't take this as a personal attack, if you want to challenge me on this then go ahead, I'll admit my knowledge is limited) has and will always develop to whatever suits its followers, its advertised and has changed so much in order to become popular or appealing, its become much less strict as time has gone from its creation, so I guess it would be nice to see how you figure science and Christianity go hand in hand without changing what it was.

By the way, I'm in no way against religion since I've always found the ones who follow the moral views (rather then hearsay propaganda, to which religion has no doubt been used for before) are very well adjusted and often allow me to see some bit of light in the mist of crowds that is my cynicism.

Also assuming there is an afterlife, since Atheists will no undoubtedly go to hell, Jew have no hell and it seems a popular belief that you need to kill an infidel to get into heaven for Muslims, Christianity might be logical to cover your basis if you believe in an after life. (Though I don't see myself spending a life time living in mediocrity for the chance at a good afterlife)

Of course I will forever dislike the preaching of blind fools.

Ironic, being that your avatar is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a prominent atheist symbol. You wouldn't be looking to flame by any chance?

People who reject the theory of evolution are just plain idiotic. There's overwhelming evidence that supports the theory (Thousands of transitional fossils; the experiment using Bacteria in which mutations were shown to happen after 30.000 generations). Rejecting it is like saying air does not exist.

From what I've seen only hardcore fundamentalists reject evolution. That's a good thing.

As always, the evolution supporters in the crowd march out in shiny rows and shoot themselves in the foot.

If you think any existing animal is descended from any other existing animal, you don't understand evolution, and your support is not helpful. If you think that new organs, senses, abilities, etc., just occur all at once and not by fits and starts, you don't understand evolution and your support is not helpful. If you think evolution has stopped, or has a goal in mind, or that some animals are highly evolved while others are less so, you don't understand evolution and your support is not helpful. If you think individual animals evolve...you guessed it, don't help. Please. You just set up straw men for others to knock down.

People spend years trying to understand evolution and others spend years trying to obfuscate it for others. You aren't going to solve it here. Go read some books.

Also, I can't recommend The Greatest Show on Earth enough. It is a good starting point for answering questions like the use of half an eye, whether or not macroevolution has been observed (guess what: it has), and why blind fish "evolved" in caves when sightlessness is NOT an adaptive trait (while obvious in retrospect, this one was new to me).

JWAN:

The people who harass Christians for their beliefs don't have the strength of their convictions to question other faiths like Islam.

You'll note that in my original question, I explicitly included the whole of the Abrahamic tradition, not just Christianity. Creationism in the Jewish and Muslim communities is just as strange to me as it is amongst Christians. And frankly, in my experience, the modern atheist movement is much more critical of Islam than any other religion.

Kubanator:

4. that parts do not change function. Many organs do not start from nothing. Rather, they start as a part that serves a different function and gradually gets co-opted for a new function. For example, tetrapod legs evolved from fins.

You think that's crazy, lungs evolved from sections of the digestive system rather than gills as you might suspect, and swim bladders may actually be an adaptation from primitive lungs, implying that ray-finned fish may all be descended from air-gulpers.

I realize I don't speak with the rousing certainty of Holy Writ, with its flat, four-cornered world above which a "firmament" separates the waters, but I find this story of descent much more interesting than a list of begats.

To quote Bill Hicks.

" "I believe God created me in one day!" Looks like he rushed it"

orangebandguy:
Ironic, being that your avatar is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a prominent atheist symbol. You wouldn't be looking to flame by any chance?

If my avatar was a Jesus fish, and I asked "Why do you believe in Evolution?", would that be flaming? To answer my own question: No, it wouldn't. To suggest that anybody who disagrees with you is instantly flaming is either a) pretty close-minded or b) redefining what it means to flame.

For the record, you don't believe 'in' evolution. You either believe the theory of evolution is true or you do not. You can believe in the existence of a god, you can believe in the afterlife, you can believe in a person's inner strength, stuff like that. It doesn't go for scientific theories.

That said, the theory of evolution is a real bitch to disprove. Because all the evidence that we've found supporting it - or not - comes from millions of years ago, it can't just be reproduced. And if your theory is not reproducable, it's nearly impossibly to falsify it. Present-day science works through deduction instead of induction, which means that your research data has to be able to falsify your hypothesis.

But as far as science by induction goes, evolution has got very strong ground, even though the theory still has some holes in it. There's no telling what we might discover in the future that causes a paradigm shift, but for now, what we've got will have to do.

crudus:

Snack Cake:

Why?

Because it doesn't fit their world view. They are happier to not believe it. That is all you need to know.

As a science-minded person, asking "why?" is a big part of what I do. If this question makes you uncomfortable, you are certainly free to ignore it. Trying to prevent others from learning, on the other hand, seems unnecessarily combative to me.

Snack Cake:

orangebandguy:
Ironic, being that your avatar is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a prominent atheist symbol. You wouldn't be looking to flame by any chance?

If my avatar was a Jesus fish, and I asked "Why do you believe in Evolution?", would that be flaming? To answer my own question: No, it wouldn't. To suggest that anybody who disagrees with you is instantly flaming is either a) pretty close-minded or b) redefining what it means to flame.

Sorry, it's just that you're new to the forums, and people sometimes start trolling because they don't know any better. I'm sorry for judging you. :)

sneakypenguin:
I personally think my faith(christianity) and science intersect pretty well, but arguing that here is like trying to argue with a twilight fan girl that edward is creepy. So why bother eh.

Ha ha ha great twilight quote, backed up by this image:

http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/song-chart-memes-girls-sleep.jpg " alt="image"/>

orangebandguy:

Sorry, it's just that you're new to the forums, and people sometimes start trolling because they don't know any better. I'm sorry for judging you. :)

Fair enough. I've been reading the Escapist quite a while, but tend to be more of a lurker than a commenter. If I wanted to start flaming, I'd probably bring up L4D 2 or MW 2.

wouldyoukindly99:
Because it directly threatens the concept of how religions think the world was created and it offers the idea that maybe we aren't as special as we think we are. I also hear people say that they can't believe they came from apes. Just look at a Chihuahua, they are descended from wolves and they barely resemble them.

I don't get this. Seriously, I don't.

Most modern day religions were founded hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago as an attempt by primitive society to come to terms with their place in the universe and to explain why things were the way they were. The earth revolves around the sun. We know this now, but they didn't know it then and that is why it was so highly contested when it was first introduced. Do you think the christians of 100 BC could have figured out on their own what made the world tick? No, they couldn't have, because they didn't have access to the knowledge that took us 1900 years to accumulate. Their solution to this? Make stories explaining their existence with what limited knowledge they had.

I might actually believe that Jesus himself knew what things would be like today. How are you gonna say that he didn't know? You weren't there 2000 years ago, were you?

I don't "believe" in evolution because the masses of empirical evidence mean that I don't have to take it on trust.

I don't believe in evolution, I KNOW that evolution exists. The only people who don't believe in evolution are old people who believe god and don't know that evolution has nothing to do with god.

Snack Cake:
There is almost no area where the Abrahamic tradition makes a falsifiable claim about the nature of the universe, which isn't directly contradicted by modern science. Germ theory, astrophysics, and geology all differ sharply with holy books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than any of these other topics. However, none of these areas of science are under constant attack by the religious community, the way that evolutionary biology is.

Why?

Some religious people interpret the Bible literally, and they interpret the proven fact that evolution takes place as an attack on their religious peoples (which it isn't, it is simply that Biblical literalism is a mistake). The mechanisms and some of the principles of evolution are still misunderstood, and there are some severe discrepancies in conventional theories of evolution that need exploring. But the overall premise (life changes over time depending on it's environment and that life changes and grows rather than "creates") is really proven beyond doubt.

There are parallels to this in other cultures. You know when you prove to the fundamentalist atheists the historical fact that Hitler was an atheist? Then they get all bent out of shape and start quoting things from antitheist sites? It is exactly the same as that. For some people, their own religious or anti-religious belief system is something that is reliable (to them) than history, fact, or science.

SonicWaffle:

All atheism requries is that lack of belief, and indifference certainly qualifies. The whole idea of strong/weak atheism is pretty ridiculous, considering that there is only one qualification to be an atheist, the lack of belief in a divine force, and one either holds that belief or does not. In your example, the "strong" atheist is simply an atheist, whereas the "weak" atheist you describe is a blend of atheist and agnostic; since many atheists disbelieve due to a lack of evidence or reasons to believe in god, then if some definitive evidence for god's existence appeared they'd probably change their mind.

I prefer the terms "reasonable atheism" and "fanatical atheism". Reasonable atheists simply don't believe in god, and that is enough. They all accept that belief systems are not irrational (morality and ethics are merely beliefs after all). Fanatical atheists distort reality as much as any creationist, demonize anyone and anything that doesn't agree with their world view, and are utterly obsessed by religion to the point that they are basically religious themselves.

Every one always says not to make religious threads.

And yet, they always get so many responses.

Well most mainstream religions have no problem whatsoever with evolution. It's only fringe groups and nutjobs spread across all the religions that constantly attack it.

According to the Vatican Information Service in a news release on October 23, 1996, Pope John Paul II was reported as saying that evolution is "more than just a theory." This seems to mean, despite the tenuous wording, that he now considers evolution a scientific fact. His written message to his science advisers, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, speaks of "a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge" which have convinced him to make this bold statement supporting evolution and suggesting that his millions of followers do the same.

pimppeter2:
According to the Vatican Information Service in a news release on October 23, 1996, Pope John Paul II was reported as saying that evolution is "more than just a theory." This seems to mean, despite the tenuous wording, that he now considers evolution a scientific fact. His written message to his science advisers, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, speaks of "a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge" which have convinced him to make this bold statement supporting evolution and suggesting that his millions of followers do the same.

Yeah I know. But some dude who hasn't taken a bath since 1972 and thinks that the moon is evil, living in a converted pill-box in the Nevada desert said he doesn't believe in evolution. Therefore the entire religious population including religious scientists and biologists who study evolution must also not believe it, for some reason. That's science that is.

I have to say, we have never had a Christian, Muslim, Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist or any other religious peron on this forum proclaiming their beliefs to be the correct one and that all others are retarded and need to change. We get two or three atheists doing this every single day.

It is tragically ironic.

Kurokami:
Also assuming there is an afterlife, since Atheists will no undoubtedly go to hell, Jew have no hell and it seems a popular belief that you need to kill an infidel to get into heaven for Muslims, Christianity might be logical to cover your basis if you believe in an after life. (Though I don't see myself spending a life time living in mediocrity for the chance at a good afterlife)

Of course I will forever dislike the preaching of blind fools.

I've always been told that you don't have to consciously follow the beliefs to get into Heaven, just be a good person. A problem that many Christians have is that the Old Testament was later superceded* by the whole "love one another, as I have loved you" thing - there's no mention of belief, just being good, so, yeah, Atheists are allowed in, along with eeeeeeeveryone else so long as they haven't been an arsehole. I fail to see how "not being an arsehole" is "spending a life time living in mediocrity".

I find it extra delicious that this means that people like the Westboro nutjobs won't.

OT - I genuinely believe that science and religion can work together, and the best way to do this is to ignore the crazy fundamentalists on both sides. Interesting way to find out if someone is a crazy fundie! If they go on about how much they know God does/doesn't exist... They're a fundie! :D

*A fact that many Christians miss. Along with many Atheists trying their hardest to slam Christianity to get a few more converts so that their brand of science will get them nicer soil to rot in when they die.

Cry HAVOC, and let slip the Trolls of Flame!

I just think fanaticism on either side is a bad idea. I don't care what either side believes in. I have my belief that all humans must die, and other have the belief that I'm a deranged psychotic and I'm fine with that, too.

I do believe in evolution, although I do see how even some rational-minded people might question it. For example: how did eyes evolve? Eyes are an incredibly complex organ, I fail to see how an eyeless creature could either:

1) Be suddenly be born with eyes complex enough to give it an advantage at survival,
or
2) Evolve two useless organs on its face that, over many generations, would eventually gain the ability to pick up light.

Now like I said, I still believe in evolution, and I'm totally open to the fact that science might one day explain this. And those people who reject evolution purely on the fact that it contradicts with the "6 days" story, are idiots. Especially considering that Darwin himself believed in God.

There's too much at stake politically for creationists to accept evolution as anything but flights of fancy. It's as simple as that. Evolution isn't rocking the foundations of anyone's faith. It's the idea that if you're wrong about the ancestry of man what else might you be wrong about? This is purely an American issue that hasn't quite made it's way out of the puritanism which brought it to popularity originally. I hate directing the conversation this way but I've yet to see evidence to show me otherwise. I've never personally met anyone who is adamantly against the theory of evolution and yet is pro gay marriage, pro choice, etc.

It goes hand in hand. I've yet to see otherwise. A rock is a rock unless your version of reality depends on it being a tea leaf.

I'm not against Faith. In a way the progression of science could not exist without it. It's rigid fundamentalism that is holding us back.

sgtshock:
I do believe in evolution, although I do see how even some rational-minded people might question it. For example: how did eyes evolve? Eyes are an incredibly complex organ, I fail to see how an eyeless creature could either:

1) Be suddenly be born with eyes complex enough to give it an advantage at survival,
or
2) Evolve two useless organs on its face that, over many generations, would eventually gain the ability to pick up light.

Now like I said, I still believe in evolution, and I'm totally open to the fact that science might one day explain this. And those people who reject evolution purely on the fact that it contradicts with the "6 days" story, are idiots. Especially considering that Darwin himself believed in God.

If you read some of the earlier posts you'll get your answer

I don't believe in evolution because I don't believe in anything.

And... so the flame war begins. hehe

I believe in Evolution fully, but not in religion.

Whereas my girlfriend believes in both, so I see no reason why they cannot co exist.

dragon_of_red:
Well, beacuse we have faith my son, faith.

You need it, faith and hope are the only things making us seperate from the bad guys.

So Im a bad guy now? :<
Unless you mean faith and hope in general, and not only in god?
But then.. Who is evil? Is there even such thing as evil, or is it just separate opinions?
I dont believe in evil, but there is probaly alotta people out there, who regard me as evil.
Im white (racism), im male(femminists) im danish (the few danish hating muslims), im young(youth-hating elders), im anti-religious and I have satanist, gay, and freemason friends.

And looking at a historic perspective, a lot of historys "bad guys", were in fact very religious people.

So back to my initial question. Am I a bad guy?

sgtshock:
I do believe in evolution, although I do see how even some rational-minded people might question it. For example: how did eyes evolve? Eyes are an incredibly complex organ, I fail to see how an eyeless creature could either:

1) Be suddenly be born with eyes complex enough to give it an advantage at survival,
or
2) Evolve two useless organs on its face that, over many generations, would eventually gain the ability to pick up light.

Thats because non of theese two are the correct answer.
The early eye, was no more than a bunch of light-sensitive cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Especially considering that Darwin himself believed in God.

Darwin lived 1809-1882. Just about everyone was religious back then.

sgtshock:
I do believe in evolution, although I do see how even some rational-minded people might question it. For example: how did eyes evolve? Eyes are an incredibly complex organ, I fail to see how an eyeless creature could either:

1) Be suddenly be born with eyes complex enough to give it an advantage at survival,
or
2) Evolve two useless organs on its face that, over many generations, would eventually gain the ability to pick up light.

Now like I said, I still believe in evolution, and I'm totally open to the fact that science might one day explain this. And those people who reject evolution purely on the fact that it contradicts with the "6 days" story, are idiots. Especially considering that Darwin himself believed in God.

The answer to your question is out there. It is not even hard to find. Most people who have a problem with evolution or questions about it tend to do nothing about it other than doubt.

A simple google/youtube search will answer your specific question. Check out CDK007's channel as I know that he has a video answering that specific question.

I believe in logic, reason, and the scientific process. I believe that the laws of the universe are fixed and through observation, testing, and rational thought, we are able to eventualy understand them (one at a time). It bothers me that so many people don't "believe" in evolution when they don't even understand the basics of what it is. They use and trust all the advances in technology that the scientific process has given us yet chose to not to believe in evolution. They believe in gravity and would laugh at anybody who chose to not believe in gravity. They don't even realise that there is more evidence supporting the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity.

sgtshock:
I do believe in evolution, although I do see how even some rational-minded people might question it. For example: how did eyes evolve? Eyes are an incredibly complex organ, I fail to see how an eyeless creature could either:

1) Be suddenly be born with eyes complex enough to give it an advantage at survival,
or
2) Evolve two useless organs on its face that, over many generations, would eventually gain the ability to pick up light.

Now like I said, I still believe in evolution, and I'm totally open to the fact that science might one day explain this.

Science already has, to a great extent anyway, explained this.

The human eye we know and love didn't pop out of nowhere, it began millions of years ago with nothing but a photoreceptor cell that told organisms when it was light and when it was dark, it probably wouldn't of let them recognize the world around them; it could easily of given species huge advantages though. Following the Cambrian period out fossil records regarding the eye give us a better picture of how it paned out through history, there's been a lot of study in this area actually, partly due to peoples frequent claims that something so complex couldn't of pooped out of nowhere in fact. I recommend you read up a bit about it, this is the best explanation I can find online, but there's a whole wealth of information on this topic, covering both sides of the question of weather or not the eye evolved by the Darwinian mechanic if you just bothered to google it, or maybe looked it up on youtube, you'd get a pretty decent answer.