[mixin visuals]

just wondering for those of you that don't believe in evolution (or why someone you know who doesn't believe in it).

what arguement could honestly exist that could cause people to not believe it?

[ManOfSteal]

[CharlesS]

Heavy indoctrination at an early age can make people believe anything.

[nredman]

because i don't...so there.

[Superchicken]

I took a theistic evolutionary view before I took biology in high school. Theistic evolution is the view that God used evolution to create humanity. This has come about as a result of many people's blind trust of whatever the "education" system pushes at them. After however taking biology I realize that it does not make any sense. I'm not someone who thinks creationism should be taught along side evolution. That said, I think evolution should be taught for what it is, a theory. One that one's understanding of the world should NOT be heavily based on. It's an interesting theory but terribly improbable.

For me, after the initial stages I could possibly believe evolution. Once we are up to something past worms. Perhaps even worms. But on the cellular level it makes no sense to me. Where did the energy come from to bond all the proteins, lipids etc to form a cell? Where did the energy come from to maintain it? Just to many questions, in nature I can't think of any places that would support a cell while it grew and became self sufficient.

[BlueSky]

Obviously, we evolved from dogs.

[d4nth3m4n]

i think it is rooted in ignorance and a persistence to learn everything using your own personal experiences.

a lot of science is just as unbelievable as religion if you don't have any personal hands on learning with the methods.

i'm not saying it is less objective than religion, in fact i believe it is more, just for the uneducated folks out there, it's the same matter of taking someone's word for something that is beyond your own personal comprehension.

and that is how you can possibly not believe in evolution.

[amsalpemkcus]

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Where did the energy come from to bond all the proteins, lipids etc to form a cell? Where did the energy come from to maintain it?

From the sun.

[CreepingDeth]

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Where did the energy come from to bond all the proteins, lipids etc to form a cell? Where did the energy come from to maintain it? Just to many questions, in nature I can't think of any places that would support a cell while it grew and became self sufficient.

That's not evolution. Don't confuse the process of evolution with theories of how life started. Evolution doesn't cover the beginning of life, just how it has evolved over time.

[amsalpemkcus]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
I can't think of any places that would support a cell while it grew and became self sufficient.

You are damn righ!! Nothing is self suffcient, life processes at molacular level and at the level of organsms is possible only only due to interdependencies. Think about it.

[CreepingDeth]

[This has to be the 5th evolution thread in 2 weeks.]

[Aiglos]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
I took a theistic evolutionary view before I took biology in high school. Theistic evolution is the view that God used evolution to create humanity. This has come about as a result of many people's blind trust of whatever the "education" system pushes at them. After however taking biology I realize that it does not make any sense. I'm not someone who thinks creationism should be taught along side evolution. That said, I think evolution should be taught for what it is, a theory. One that one's understanding of the world should NOT be heavily based on. It's an interesting theory but terribly improbable.

For me, after the initial stages I could possibly believe evolution. Once we are up to something past worms. Perhaps even worms. But on the cellular level it makes no sense to me. Where did the energy come from to bond all the proteins, lipids etc to form a cell? Where did the energy come from to maintain it? Just to many questions, in nature I can't think of any places that would support a cell while it grew and became self sufficient.

People like to play the "it's a theory" card whenever someone mentions evolution. But when it comes to Einstein's theory of relativity or the valence bond theory (which in my opinion is harder to understand than evloution, ironic cause i'm a chemist...) no one disputes them. So for those people who dismiss it as a "theory", you guys pretty much dismiss everything else that has been established in the scientific community for over a century.

In terms of cellular formation. One working "theory" i've been taught by a crazy professor is the aggregation of fatty acids to produce micelles. It's hydrophobic tail/hydrophilic head aligns with each other and voila, a proto cell. These things can be easily done in a lab to form unique polymers.

[MilkmanDan]

Gravity is only a 'theory.' Yet if you ask most people, they tend to believe in it.

[CharlesS]

And relativity, quantum dynamics...

Hell, atoms are a theory. So are their components, such as protons and electrons. The electricity that powers your Mac is theory. Yet I don't see anyone trying to claim that electricity doesn't really exist and the reason your Mac works is because God imbues it with life (and the reason Windows PCs only kinda work is because Satan inbues them with life... ).

[Jaey]

Originally posted by MilkmanDan:
Gravity is only a 'theory.' Yet if you ask most people, they tend to believe in it.

Well, it is pretty clear that we aren't flying around in a weightless environment.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by MilkmanDan:
Gravity is only a 'theory.' Yet if you ask most people, they tend to believe in it.

Actually, gravity is a law, but even so, it still doesn't always work the way we think it should.

[FinalFrontier99]

Evolution is a lie. I haven't evolved in a billion years of being a simian. My friend is typing for me. These are his thoughts about me.

Gravity doesn't exist. Look at meeeeeeeeeeeee, a flying monkey!!!!!!

[Amorya]

Originally posted by Aiglos:
People like to play the "it's a theory" card whenever someone mentions evolution. But when it comes to Einstein's theory of relativity or the valence bond theory (which in my opinion is harder to understand than evloution, ironic cause i'm a chemist...) no one disputes them.

People often take 'theory' to mean 'something without a jot of supporting evidence', instead of 'something with lots of supporting evidence and little evidence against it, but can't be explicitly proven with maths or something'.

I study psychology. I play with such theories all the time - ever tried to prove that memories decay over time? It seems obvious. We have lots of studies that support it. No studies (as far as I know) suggest otherwise. But it's still only theory, because you can't prove something just by many examples.

I'm not sure if Darwin got everything right. But I'm damn sure that evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment for how we got here. Those who just say "God made us" are dodging the question. The question is how, not why. (To which they respond "It is impossible to comprehend what God does". Again, dodging. So what if it's impossible - you can at least give it your best shot!)

I'm a Christian, so I believe God did create people. I just don't think saying that is enough -- if "God did it!" was an acceptable answer for everything, scientific progress would halt. Much better to say "God did it, but let's try and find out as much as we can about it anyway".

In fact, in this situation, the "God did it" bit isn't really relevant (to the issue in discussion). It has been done -- we're here, so therefore we got here somehow. I don't find religion that relevant to trying to scientifically learn about the process. Religion's much better at answering questions about "Why" rather than "How". Science still isn't very good at the why's - it doesn't usually concern itself with them. Philosophy has a shot, as does theology. They're the disciplines that creationism should be argued about in - not in biology or psychology.


Amorya

[FinalFrontier99]

sudo rm amorya

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Amorya:
I'm a Christian, so I believe God did create people. I just don't think saying that is enough -- if "God did it!" was an acceptable answer for everything, scientific progress would halt. Much better to say "God did it, but let's try and find out as much as we can about it anyway".

In fact, in this situation, the "God did it" bit isn't really relevant (to the issue in discussion). It has been done -- we're here, so therefore we got here somehow. I don't find religion that relevant to trying to scientifically learn about the process. Religion's much better at answering questions about "Why" rather than "How". Science still isn't very good at the why's - it doesn't usually concern itself with them. Philosophy has a shot, as does theology. They're the disciplines that creationism should be argued about in - not in biology or psychology.

[FinalFrontier99]

sudo rm charless

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by FinalFrontier99:
sudo rm charless

Your debating abilities astound me. This "sudo rm" thing is so clever.

Oh well, welcome to my ignore list. Or should I say:

echo FinalFrontier99 >> /dev/null

[FinalFrontier99]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Your debating abilities astound me. This "sudo rm" thing is so clever.

Oh well, welcome to my ignore list. Or should I say:

FinalFrontier99 >> /dev/null

~

god mode [return]

Hit escape to return to game.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Your debating abilities astound me. This "sudo rm" thing is so clever.

Oh well, welcome to my ignore list. Or should I say:

FinalFrontier99 >> /dev/null

Ignore lists are for children.

[Superchicken]

I should have mentioned, as we understand Micro evolution to work, IE how black people became white people, we see that changes take place over LONG periods of time. And we see that there would be many examples of these changes. If we have this evidence why is that we can not actually see a true gradient that should be there in the bones available? There should be far more remains around that show how humanity progressed. I don't disbeliever evolution because I think it takes away from scripture. I don't believe evolution because it always starts out with a single cell, and then jumps to organisms that are multi cellular. That would be one heck of a mutation that just happened to be workable, and in an environment where that large of a mutation is likely, then how would it sustain itself?
Evolution doesn't offend my beliefs, it offends my intelligence.
Spontaneous cell generation does not happen. Thus you need SOMEONE, and if you agree in that someone, then you have less motive to attack the Genesis accounts so vigourously. And then if you have that, they why not simply say, we don't know.
I'm not arguing for a literal 7 days, what I'm arguing for is plain and simple humility. Where we say, this is the way it looks, not this is the way it is.

While some of you may claim that it takes to much faith to believe in God, and that I should respect you despite your suspension of belief, I find it ironic that people in similar circumstances do not receive the same respect from you.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
If we have this evidence why is that we can not actually see a true gradient that should be there in the bones available?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...a.html#primate

[amsalpemkcus]

Originally posted by Superchicken:

Evolution doesn't offend my beliefs, it offends my intelligence.

Wait a minute!! You are taking your intelligence too seriously!!

[FinalFrontier99]

Originally posted by Superchicken:

Evolution doesn't offend my beliefs, it offends my intelligence.

Superchicken Intelligence Agency. At the forefront of defending the world from terrorist scientists.

[i_rooster]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
I should have mentioned, as we understand Micro evolution to work, IE how black people became white people,

HUH???

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by deej5871:
Actually, gravity is a law, but even so, it still doesn't always work the way we think it should.

It's also a theory, when you get into anything that tries to explain why gravity occurs (see Einstein and others).

[FinalFrontier99]

Originally posted by i_rooster:
HUH???

He's talking about Michael Jackson dude.

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by i_rooster:
HUH???

the current belief(or one of them) on where the first modern human came from is asia...

btw that micheal jackson comment is very funny.

[Cipher13]

Ah, Superchicken. I tried to write a decent reply to you... I really did. Each time I do so, however, I find my thoughts saturated with monosyllabic profanity.

So instead, I'm gonna stoop to a level I really shouldn't, and just say this:

Get a ****ing education before you open your mouth.

[FinalFrontier99]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Ah, Superchicken. I tried to write a decent reply to you... I really did. Each time I do so, however, I find my thoughts saturated with monosyllabic profanity.

Your frustration has made Safari crash. Please report your problem to Apple iShrink by clicking OK now. Or you may click Cancel to carry on as you were.

[kmkkid]

Originally posted by FinalFrontier99:
Your frustration has made Safari crash. Please report your problem to Apple iShrink by clicking OK now. Or you may click Cancel to carry on as you were.

fsck.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Evolution doesn't offend my beliefs, it offends my intelligence

[nate_02]

Originally posted by deej5871:
Actually, gravity is a law, but even so, it still doesn't always work the way we think it should.

OBEY GRAVITY
It's the Law!

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Thus you need SOMEONE, and if you agree in that someone, then you have less motive to attack the Genesis accounts so vigourously.

how does this follow? that's exactly the problem i have with "creationism" and all its different variations.

btw, "evolution theory" is not merely about how life came about, but about how it works (i.e. the mechanism behind it.)

it's funny to see though, what the religios right is really after when they constantly try to discredit evolution as scientific fact. too bad that if you throw out every "measuring stick", all of a sudden all infinite possibilities become true.

a real good class on creationism would take decades (not that i find any of these accounts irrelevant or boring. quite fascinating stuff indeed.)

so in essence the universe and life as we know it could have been created in 6 day by the almighty g-d (as "reported" in the christian tradition), but it could also be that dream time has always been, or that the forefathers climbed out of the earth, fell from the sky etc. there literally are millions of these ethnocentric accounts.

i wonder which one of these we should teach alongside "evolution" in biology classes...hmmmmmmmm...

[Zimmerman]

A lot of the bizzareness surrounding creationism is the question of how Christians are to reconcile Theism with how the Earth and everything came into existence. Because the Bible describes creation in a certain way, Christian tradition has always held it to be a rather straightforward process of spontaneity (literal Biblical translation).

Personally, I believe God created the Everything. How? I'm not sure. Microevolution is easily demonstrated and doesn't conflict with Christian beliefs. OTOH, I don't find very much really convincing arguments in nature to support an athistic macroevolutionary model as long as there are some SERIOUS hiccups to sort out, like the protein issues SuperChicken mentions. Now the saltational evolutionary model does have merit but lacks ANY sort of support. I do recognize that there is pretty solid evidence the Earth is a lot older than the conventionary young Earth Creationsit model.

So what we have is a situation where Christians default to the traditional model in the absence of a way to reconcile conventional evolutionary models with a very concrete belief system in God, preferring to stick with a model that gives God all the credit for everything He created.

Even if you think it's still messed up, I hope this sheds a little bit of light.

[JLFanboy]

I just want to add my two cents here, not that it'll do much good.

What really chaps my ass about creationists is the fact that they refer to people like me as "evolutionists what believe in evolution."

Bull-plop.

I don't believe in evolution. I have never believed in any scientific theory. To understand and accept the conceits of thousands of combined years of scientific research has a name you should all aquaint yourselves with:

Knowledge.

I know that we have evolved, and will evolve. I know that not because it was just "shoved down my throat by some teacher in elementary school." I know it because it is a theory, a piece of information so irrefutable it has been accepted by the world wide scientific community, a group I hold more stock in than the entire of the theistic world put together. Why? Because unlike those who blindly believe what's written in an ancient book (written by a bunch of men by the way, not gods of any kind) those who treasure the scientific method know that our views may change.

Evolution may be wrong. The mountain of evidence supporting it surely towers over the molehill of evidence refuting it, but yes, it may be wrong. But it sure doesn't look like it to me. But that's the beauty of science. Knowledge can change. The entire point of science is to understand the world as best we can with what we have. Science led us to know that the Earth revolved around the Sun. It doesn't require faith.

Sorry, if I didn't make my point clearly. I'm tired.

Of Superchicken.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Jaey:
Well, it is pretty clear that we aren't flying around in a weightless environment.

It's equally clear to anyone who's surveyed the evidence that homo sapiens hasn't been around for much longer than three million years.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
I should have mentioned, as we understand Micro evolution to work, IE how black people became white people, we see that changes take place over LONG periods of time.

Like Cipher, I really really tried to come up with a reply that best took the appropriate counter-stance on everything you said. But before my hands could type the reply, my brain said "DO IT, AND THOSE HANDS WILL NEVER TYPE AGAIN." As such, this link best sums up...everything.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
... As such, this link best sums up...everything.

[Lancer409]

of course evolution exist ... see my sig!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
That said, I think evolution should be taught for what it is, a theory. One that one's understanding of the world should NOT be heavily based on. It's an interesting theory but terribly improbable.

First off, I'm a biologist and a christian.

Second, you don't understand the word 'theory' in this context. Scientists use the word 'theory' like people would use the word 'law' (e.g. law of gravity). Today it would be called, rightly 'the theory of gravity'. Same goes for the theory of relativity. It is as much unsubstantiated as the law of thermodynamics. Only the old scientific fundamentals are called 'law' but that kind of nomenclature is no longer used and hasn't been for the last 150+ years. The politics and development of modern science called for the discontinuation of the word 'law' in science.

You are thinking of the theory of evolution as the hypothesis of evolution. But it is no hypothesis.

If it had been formulated and proven (as it has today) more than 200 years ago the theory of evolution would be the law of evolution. For all intents and purposes a scientific theory is simply a fact.

From the dictionary:

Theory:

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

also means:

"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

but that definition NEVER applies in scientific context.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Evolution doesn't offend my beliefs, it offends my intelligence.

Then you have not learned enough evolutionary biology.

[mrtew]

Originally posted by JLFanboy:
I know that we have evolved, and will evolve. I know that not because it was just "shoved down my throat by some teacher in elementary school." I know it because it is a theory, a piece of information so irrefutable it has been accepted by the world wide scientific community, a group I hold more stock in than the entire of the theistic world put together. Why? Because unlike those who blindly believe what's written in an ancient book (written by a bunch of men by the way, not gods of any kind) those who treasure the scientific method know that our views may change.

Evolution may be wrong. The mountain of evidence supporting it surely towers over the molehill of evidence refuting it, but yes, it may be wrong. But it sure doesn't look like it to me. But that's the beauty of science. Knowledge can change. The entire point of science is to understand the world as best we can with what we have. Science led us to know that the Earth revolved around the Sun. It doesn't require faith.

I totally agree with you but comparing the first sentences in the above quoted paragraphs gives me some understanding of how religious people looking for reassurance in a scary confusing world would look elsewhere for 'answers'.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Ah, Superchicken. I tried to write a decent reply to you... I really did. Each time I do so, however, I find my thoughts saturated with monosyllabic profanity.

So instead, I'm gonna stoop to a level I really shouldn't, and just say this:

Get a ****ing education before you open your mouth.

Europe seconds Oceania's motion.