Evolution is real. Its a real thing that really does happen and did happen. Gah!

[gwilym101]

Why are people so fucking stupid?! I don't get it!

In the last two days, I've actually come across several people in my daily life that legit think evolution is a conspiracy, a farce, *insert derogatory name here* etc.

Evolution is a measurable thing that we can WATCH HAPPEN! STOP THE STUPIDITY!!!

End rant. Someone please tell me these people are not the norm. Someone! Anyone!

Share your stories about interactions with people who say its not real.

AND THERE ACTUALLY IS MEASUREABLE, OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE FOR CREATION! GAH! WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS SEE IT!

/initiate flame shield.

hahah, no but seriously. Evolution isn't AS measurable as you're making it out to be, and much of this supposed measurability is within things such as micro organisms. It's also important to note that Creationists universally agree with the concept of micro-evolution (the concept that an organism, over time, can adapt and develop within the confines that its DNA allows) verses macro-evolution (the concept that one species can develop into another species by a process of genetic change over time). You're right. There is ample evidence for micro-evolution. There is 0 observable evidence for macro. Fossils don't entirely count for a lot of different reasons, primarily faulty science (hmmmm.......... this guy has a posture like a chicken... MUST BE RELATED TO A CHICKEN!) #oversimplification.

The reality is that there IS a worthwhile discussion to be had about Creationism AND evolution. It's quite comical when people argue about it. Because no one listens to eachother. I see them both as valid, both as flawed, and think the verdict is still to be decided on which one is "more true". As it stands, evolution is winning, hands down. Still, there are some MAJOR problems that scoff in evolutions face, and some serious evidence FOR Creationism that can't be ignored (to put it simply, there are far more accurate ways to measure the age of the earth taht indicates its thousands of years old..... not millions. You. just. can't. argue. against. it. YOU JUST FUCKING CAN'T. I can't anyways. For more information on that, see hte video "Dragons or Dinosaurs?" It should be on Youtube and Netflix if you have it.)

But I"m not here to argue. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, SAY IT TO ME IN A MANNER AS SOMEONE WHO WILL PROBABLY AGREE WITH YOU ANYWAYS, BE IT FOR OR AGAINST EVOLUTION!!!

First) There is evidence for macro evolution although there isn't actually a difference between the micro and macro evolution except time scale. Evidence for macro evolution has been observed in short-lived species of rodents, fish and insects. Most famously the peppered moth, which in a few years the species largely changed colour from white to black, due to evolutionary pressure to do so. The industrial revolution has caused local trees to be stained black with soot, so they were easily spotted by birds. A few mutant moths were black and blended in better and thus weren't caught, they produced offspring with the mutation and over the course of time the species general colour changed from white to black.

Second) Fossils are a good source of evolutionary evidence, as they are not looking at posture they are looking at bone shape and structure. This is how we found out birds evolved from dinosuars when we discovered Archeopteryx. It has Structures associated with bipedal reptiles such as clawed fingers and a long tail, but also had feathers.

Third) The earth is millions of years old, there are not any accurate measurements that say thousands. Every single one that claims the earth is thousands of years old has been shown to be a lie or a mistake.

Fourth) There aren't any scientific arguements for creationism. A paper advocating creationism has never made it into a peer-reviewed scientific journal and there are not any major flaws in The Theory of Evolution. If there were flaws it wouldn't the "Theory" of evolution, it would be a failed hypothesis.

 

[Bloodstain]

OT: I wouldn't call evolution a fact. But I will agree that it's the most plausible system we have now, so we can act like it was a proven fact (before anyone says it's already been proven: You can't prove anything, you can't even prove that magnets attract each other. You can only falsify, never verify, that's how our science works: Things are regarded as 'probably right' until they are proven wrong.)

Actually, evolution IS a fact. And a theory. Fact: we have witnessed countless speciation events, minor changes to populations, and similar in the last 100 years. Theory: <insert full overarching theory of evolution, which is made up of all these facts>. I mean, evolution is a fact in the same way gravity is a fact.

I advise you to read about David Hume's problem of induction. Empirism is scepticism. We cannot know anything about this world except for pure logical, mathematical truths. Or, as Einstein later said: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Gravity is not a fact. Evolution is not a fact.
How can we know that a glass bottle, once released from the hand, will fall down and burst into small pieces? Because all glass bottles before that one behaved in that way? There is no proof for causality, only habit. We expect similar behaviour from objects with similar sensory features. There is no way to 'prove' gravity.

Before you say "Oh, that's just philosophical bullshit" -- David Hume essentially destroyed science with this result. Only thanks to Karl R. Popper, there is a solution: There is no way to 'prove' gravity, but it hasn't been falsified yet -- read: We don't know of any case in which gravity didn't work -- so we regard it as true for now. Instead of regarding science as a mere collectivisation of facts, science became revolutionary: Things are temporarily right until proven wrong. Just like physics were different before Einstein's theory of relativity.

So no, I'm afraid there are no 'empiric facts'. Evolution is a scientific theory ('scientific theory' doesn't mean 'absolutely true', as many think, it means 'right for now'), not a fact. But it's the most plausible theory, the one that matches with all observations we have made thus far (as you rightfully said). As soon as we make an observation that falsifies evolution, the theory is proven wrong -- and that can always happen. I'm not saying it will, but it definitely can. Therefore, evolution is not a fact.

 

[azukar]

Nah.
Doesn't do any harm either.
Don't you agree?

I wonder if it does cause harm, though. In terms of explanatory power, once you reach the point where you accept godly interference, people tend to stop looking any further. I for one don't want my biochemists to stop researching something because they reach a point that "looks like god did it" and don't feel the need to keep exploring. And if you never plan to reach that point, then what's the point of even considering the intervention of a deity?

 

[Andrew Bascom]

Andrew Bascom:
Hate to do this, but I'm interested in what the reply will be, cause I stumped my Science teacher with it. Science tells us that matter comes from other matter, so what caused the big bang? Where did it come from?

Beats me. Do you know? Excuse me for being slightly presumptuous here, but I'm going to assume that the follow-up to this typical gotcha question is "well, I know - it was god!" At which point, two obvious follow-ups come up:
1. "Well, how do you know that?" and
2. "Okay, where did god come from?"

See, we don't know everything about the universe and its past. But I will tell you this - you can't go from "I don't know X" to "Therefore god". Doesn't work. At all.

You're excused I wasn't necessarily planning to make that assumption. As for the follow-ups just for devil advocate's sake.

1. the Bible and it's also kind of hard to believe all the complexity in the world was made by a total random occasion, with practically random results.

2. I don't know that is a good question, would be an amusing topic of discussion. However unknowns like this I think are the precise reason we call creationism a belief not a theory.

And actually if you wish to believe something then you can go from " I don't know X" to "Well since there isn't a better theory I'll go with God, or gods, or the pizza monster" very easily.

 

[Lexodus]

ITT: Creationism (and other forms of bullshit pseudo-science) is destroyed.
Today is a good day.

And THIS: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118126-Gay-Oreo-Inspires-Internet-Outrage
would be why I can't stand the religious. It's a biscuit. A fucking BISCUIT.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Why are people so fucking stupid?! I don't get it!

I don't know, why to people think its ok for them to call people stupid because a few dont believe in a theory that cant be tested unless we observe for thousands of years when they're other hypothesis that also have merit, but it doesnt matter in the grand scheme of thing whether you believe it or not because we're already here so fuck it.

In the last two days, I've actually come across several people in my daily life that legit think evolution is a conspiracy, a farce, *insert derogatory name here* etc.

And tons of people believe the 9/11 conspiracies whats your point?

Evolution is a measurable thing that we can WATCH HAPPEN! STOP THE STUPIDITY!!!

no we cant because we cant live for more than 100 years at best, and evolution only became a 'thing' back in the 1800s while evolution is a process that happens over thousands upon thousands of years.

End rant. Someone please tell me these people are not the norm. Someone! Anyone!

Share your stories about interactions with people who say its not real.

1. you are just as single minded as they are.
2. people have different beliefs on the creation of the earth and the human race.
3. evolution is not 'fact' or scientific law. it is a theory and still has room for improvement or even the possibility of being disprove altogether.
Hell the big bang is becoming less and less popular as more evidence is shown.
4. If you actually got your head out of your ass and stopped with the "Stop believing in what i don't believe" mentality You'd find that there is evidence for alot of other creation theories.
Plus, evolution from monkeys is disappointing, monkeys suck, now raptors ....that shit would be awesome.....or a land shark species.

 

[Jegsimmons]

ITT: Creationism (and other forms of bullshit pseudo-science) is destroyed.
Today is a good day.

And THIS: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118126-Gay-Oreo-Inspires-Internet-Outrage
would be why I can't stand the religious. It's a biscuit. A fucking BISCUIT.

yes, because all religious hate gays and science..../sarcasm

this is why i cant stand a particular small group of secularist. Just as intolerant and insulting as the nutty religious.

*snarky grin*

 

[Lexodus]

ITT: Creationism (and other forms of bullshit pseudo-science) is destroyed.
Today is a good day.

And THIS: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118126-Gay-Oreo-Inspires-Internet-Outrage
would be why I can't stand the religious. It's a biscuit. A fucking BISCUIT.

yes, because all religious hate gays and science..../sarcasm

this is why i cant stand a particular small group of secularist. Just as intolerant and insulting as the nutty religious.

*snarky grin*

True; I dislike the rest of 'em because they believe in a magical sky man and a book that preaches some of the worst values and completely contradicts not just itself but also every development or progression the human race has made over the last few thousand years. Wilful ignorance is one of the worst things to happen to people, not just in a religious capacity, but in all walks of life. I also dislike people who can't adapt to technology and don't even try. I'm not saying you need to get every new model of computer as they come out, but I AM saying that they've been around for DECADES. They're not going away any time soon; so live with one or find yourself a station which absolutely will never require one ever again. I'm okay with showing you how to use it, but if you *refuse* to learn, I will not help you, and I will scorn you. And this is not an agist thing either; my 82 year old grandfather is completely computer literate. If he can do it, why the hell can't you?

 

[texanarob]

You know, although the majority of the scientific community accepts it to be true, I'd like to see the people that claim it to be true actually know something about it. The amount of people that just "take their word for it" and not actually bother learning about why and how it is true is quite annoying, it's an interesting thing and you shouldn't argue it's true and sit back and say "science says so" as your proof, it's just as bad to appeal to the authority of scientists as it is to accept that evolution didn't happen due to a book saying so. Maybe if you looked into it you'd disagree with it, not that I do, but people should start learning about the things they like to argue about.

This is why I don't really get involved in Evolution arguments, because I don't know enough about it to persuade anybody that it's true as I can only take biologist's word for it (which I currently do), I'll probably look into it over the summer actually because I have quite a bit of spare time before I head off to uni.

This is the first mature response I have ever seen to a thread of this type. I personally believe evolution to be outside of science, and false. However, I gave up trying to win people over by starting with that premise, because people care more about the importance of their own opinions (on both sides) than about considering facts and evidence.

If anyone wants to debate details, PM me on facebook. Adam Robinson, Belfast. I generally don't debate well in group discussion, because people get angry.

As far as still having monkeys goes, I know some people use this argument. I have also heard people saying evolution must be true because
1) It's a proven irrefutable fact.
2) Pokemon can't be wrong.
3) The documentaries on TV say so.

Showing a weak argument from select fools on one side doesn't further anyone's point. It just sinks you to their level.

 

[Altorin]

The "Fact vs Theory" argument is just so.. well


It's like the war of nomenclature. Ironically, it's kind of like Ring Species. Theory and Fact, as words, started in one place, and normal society took them one way, and science took them in another way, and when those two highly evolved forms of the words meet, THEY CAN NOT WORK TOGETHER.

Non-scientists: When you say Evolution is a Theory, you're using your own definition of Theory. In a non-scientific sense, a Theory is an idea. Just a thought that a person has. In a scientific sense, that is called a Hypothesis. A Hypothesis doesn't need to be directly backed up by anything, it's the starting point for figuring out something. A theory is a wholly different beast. A theory is a well tested (usually by fire) idea that routinely and consistently produces predictable data.

Non-scientists: When you ask for Facts, like you're asking for a solid nugget of truth, you are expecting something that science just isn't designed to deliver. Think of a fact, well, like a rock. You ask science for the biggest rock, Proving that evolution is true. What you're expecting is a big, giant rock, perhaps oddly shaped, very rock like. What science gives you are tiny polished orbs. Hundreds of them, a mountains worth, in a sack, and they call it a Theory. That is their mountain of truth. You expect an actual mountain, science is set up to deliver one spectacular sack of rocks

To a scientist, individual facts tend to be small, and polished. They are little bits of truth that are VERY difficult to break. Science doesn't allow for self-evident, but facts are so strongly tested that they're facts. They don't make grand resolute statements of truth because they've seen what that's like. Resolute Truth is for the non-scientist. The scientist prefers a nuanced truth, higher resolution, with more an emphasis on why it's the truth.

It really feels like you ask for a house sized boulder, that can possibly compare in size and scope to the hill you choose to live in. And then scientists deliver a pile of rocks the size of the grand canyon, made of small rocks, and you completely dismiss it. It's still massive. It's still composed of truth. You slowly sift through this giant pile of rocks looking for rocks that don't fit, seemingly unaware that the ENTIRE POINT OF SCIENCE is to sift through the giant pile of rocks looking for rocks that don't fit, but the scientists know every single rock. You know nothing about the pile of rocks.

 

[texanarob]

ITT: Creationism (and other forms of **** pseudo-science) is destroyed.
Today is a good day.

And THIS: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118126-Gay-Oreo-Inspires-Internet-Outrage
would be why I can't stand the religious. It's a biscuit. A **** BISCUIT.

Right. This is one thing that bugs the hell out of me. Why is it that people can pretend to support homosexuality under the guise of equality and avoidance of discrimination, then turn around to one of the most productive, socially aware segments of society and pour outrage upon them for sticking to a set of moral guidelines?

Honestly, I think homosexuality is a life choice, just like Christianity. Homosexuality is defined clearly as a sin in Christianity. You can hate us for believing that, but you can't claim it's for equal rights and non-discrimination, because you are discriminating against us.

Oh, and just because I believe homosexuality to be a sin, doesn't mean I hate gays. I also believe lying, theft, sex outside of marriage etc to be sinful, yet have many friends that have done those things.

As far as the original subject, Creationism hasn't been destroyed. Many weak willed individuals have succumbed to the pressure and stopped teaching it in their churches, but the science is inconclusive either way. You have many holes in your theory that are constantly being patched up. Mine has stood the test of time without any contradicting evidence.

Oh, and bacteria don't take part in macroevolution. Microevolution - the adaptation of a creature to it's surroundings through loss/corruption of genetic information is proven. It has limits though.

As I said above, I am willing to debate with people, provided swearing, name calling and discrimination are kept limited. I couldn't be bothered debating with bigots (you know they are out there, again on both sides)

 

[Lexodus]

ITT: Creationism (and other forms of **** pseudo-science) is destroyed.
Today is a good day.

And THIS: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118126-Gay-Oreo-Inspires-Internet-Outrage
would be why I can't stand the religious. It's a biscuit. A **** BISCUIT.

Right. This is one thing that bugs the hell out of me. Why is it that people can pretend to support homosexuality under the guise of equality and avoidance of discrimination, then turn around to one of the most productive, socially aware segments of society and pour outrage upon them for sticking to a set of moral guidelines?

Honestly, I think homosexuality is a life choice, just like Christianity. Homosexuality is defined clearly as a sin in Christianity. You can hate us for believing that, but you can't claim it's for equal rights and non-discrimination, because you are discriminating against us.

Oh, and just because I believe homosexuality to be a sin, doesn't mean I hate gays. I also believe lying, theft, sex outside of marriage etc to be sinful, yet have many friends that have done those things.

As far as the original subject, Creationism hasn't been destroyed. Many weak willed individuals have succumbed to the pressure and stopped teaching it in their churches, but the science is inconclusive either way. You have many holes in your theory that are constantly being patched up. Mine has stood the test of time without any contradicting evidence.

Oh, and bacteria don't take part in macroevolution. Microevolution - the adaptation of a creature to it's surroundings through loss/corruption of genetic information is proven. It has limits though.

As I said above, I am willing to debate with people, provided swearing, name calling and discrimination are kept limited. I couldn't be bothered debating with bigots (you know they are out there, again on both sides)

I sincerely hope you're joking.
Otherwise, you absolutely are not worth talking to; that was the most crap I've seen in one place in this thread.

 

[Altorin]

Mine has stood the test of time without any contradicting evidence.

zero times anything is zero

 

[texanarob]

The "Fact vs Theory" argument is just so.. well


It's like the war of nomenclature. Ironically, it's kind of like Ring Species. Theory and Fact, as words, started in one place, and normal society took them one way, and science took them in another way, and when those two highly evolved forms of the words meet, THEY CAN NOT WORK TOGETHER.

Non-scientists: When you say Evolution is a Theory, you're using your own definition of Theory. In a non-scientific sense, a Theory is an idea. Just a thought that a person has. In a scientific sense, that is called a Hypothesis. A Hypothesis doesn't need to be directly backed up by anything, it's the starting point for figuring out something. A theory is a wholly different beast. A theory is a well tested (usually by fire) idea that routinely and consistently produces predictable data.

Non-scientists: When you ask for Facts, like you're asking for a solid nugget of truth, you are expecting something that science just isn't designed to deliver. Think of a fact, well, like a rock. You ask science for the biggest rock, Proving that evolution is true. What you're expecting is a big, giant rock, perhaps oddly shaped, very rock like. What science gives you are tiny polished orbs. Hundreds of them, a mountains worth, in a sack, and they call it a Theory. That is their mountain of truth. You expect an actual mountain, science is set up to deliver one spectacular sack of rocks

To a scientist, individual facts tend to be small, and polished. They are little bits of truth that are VERY difficult to break. Science doesn't allow for self-evident, but facts are so strongly tested that they're facts. They don't make grand resolute statements of truth because they've seen what that's like. Resolute Truth is for the non-scientist. The scientist prefers a nuanced truth, higher resolution, with more an emphasis on why it's the truth.

It really feels like you ask for a house sized boulder, that can possibly compare in size and scope to the hill you choose to live in. And then scientists deliver a pile of rocks the size of the grand canyon, made of small rocks, and you completely dismiss it. It's still massive. It's still composed of truth. You slowly sift through this giant pile of rocks looking for rocks that don't fit, seemingly unaware that the ENTIRE POINT OF SCIENCE is to sift through the giant pile of rocks looking for rocks that don't fit, but the scientists know every single rock. You know nothing about the pile of rocks.

Nice breakdown of definitions. Many libraries worth of posting online could be saved if everyone defined their terms before beginning.

As far as 'the scientists know every single rock. You know nothing about the pile of rocks' point goes, I have to agree with you. The problem is that every single person has their own bias, and develops a theory to suit that bias. Evolution begins with the assumption that the miraculous is impossible, Creation begins with the assumption that the Bible is infallible. Neither assumption has been 'factually' proven to be incorrect, and both are starting blocks off of which entire theories can fit every stone.

Except that in evolution's case, the theory must continue to, ironically, evolve, as new rocks are discovered and don't fit.

I wouldn't claim to be a scientist, but I do have a scientific mind. To claim I know nothing about the pile of rocks is exaggeration. I know about the rocks that don't fit the popular theory. True scientists who work in the field collectively know all the rocks, but don't all share the same theory.

 

[texanarob]

ITT: Creationism (and other forms of **** pseudo-science) is destroyed.
Today is a good day.

And THIS: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118126-Gay-Oreo-Inspires-Internet-Outrage
would be why I can't stand the religious. It's a biscuit. A **** BISCUIT.

Right. This is one thing that bugs the hell out of me. Why is it that people can pretend to support homosexuality under the guise of equality and avoidance of discrimination, then turn around to one of the most productive, socially aware segments of society and pour outrage upon them for sticking to a set of moral guidelines?

Honestly, I think homosexuality is a life choice, just like Christianity. Homosexuality is defined clearly as a sin in Christianity. You can hate us for believing that, but you can't claim it's for equal rights and non-discrimination, because you are discriminating against us.

Oh, and just because I believe homosexuality to be a sin, doesn't mean I hate gays. I also believe lying, theft, sex outside of marriage etc to be sinful, yet have many friends that have done those things.

As far as the original subject, Creationism hasn't been destroyed. Many weak willed individuals have succumbed to the pressure and stopped teaching it in their churches, but the science is inconclusive either way. You have many holes in your theory that are constantly being patched up. Mine has stood the test of time without any contradicting evidence.

Oh, and bacteria don't take part in macroevolution. Microevolution - the adaptation of a creature to it's surroundings through loss/corruption of genetic information is proven. It has limits though.

As I said above, I am willing to debate with people, provided swearing, name calling and discrimination are kept limited. I couldn't be bothered debating with bigots (you know they are out there, again on both sides)

I sincerely hope you're joking.
Otherwise, you absolutely are not worth talking to; that was the most crap I've seen in one place in this thread.

Dismissive, yet without reason, explanation or logic. As I say, how can I defend my stance if you won't explain your issues?

Mine has stood the test of time without any contradicting evidence.

zero times anything is zero

Yes indeed. Are you implying that the Bible offers zero contradict-able pieces of information? I have not claimed that the inability to disprove creationism proves it, merely that it hasn't been changed to fit new facts, because it doesn't need to be.

 

[evilneko]

As far as the original subject, Creationism hasn't been destroyed. Many weak willed individuals have succumbed to the pressure and stopped teaching it in their churches, but the science is inconclusive either way. You have many holes in your theory that are constantly being patched up. Mine has stood the test of time without any contradicting evidence.

I'm not quite sure how you can call the entirety of biology and other studies including phylogeny "inconclusive" nor is it "either way" since there is absolutely no evidence for any alternative nor is the alternative that you're likely pushing scientific in any way.

Oh, and bacteria don't take part in macroevolution. Microevolution - the adaptation of a creature to it's surroundings through loss/corruption of genetic information is proven. It has limits though.

There is no macro/micro evolution. There is evolution, full stop. Asserting that there is some sort of difference requires you to show proof of a mechanism to stop micro from becoming macro and is like saying we could never reach the moon because the Wright brothers didn't get there.

 

[Filiecs]

People are going to believe what they want to believe, they don't need a reason. You have just as little a right to tell them what to believe as they do.
As long as they are not physically holding you back they have done nothing wrong.

Also, it's it's kind of funny how a lot off Christians hate the Theory of Evolution. Darwin actually proposed the theory as evidence FOR God, stating that:

"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."

Even though Darwin did not believe in the Orthodox God because of how tyrannical it was.

 

[texanarob]

As far as the original subject, Creationism hasn't been destroyed. Many weak willed individuals have succumbed to the pressure and stopped teaching it in their churches, but the science is inconclusive either way. You have many holes in your theory that are constantly being patched up. Mine has stood the test of time without any contradicting evidence.

I'm not quite sure how you can call the entirety of biology and other studies including phylogeny "inconclusive" nor is it "either way" since there is absolutely no evidence for any alternative nor is the alternative that you're likely pushing scientific in any way.

Oh, and bacteria don't take part in macroevolution. Microevolution - the adaptation of a creature to it's surroundings through loss/corruption of genetic information is proven. It has limits though.

There is no macro/micro evolution. There is evolution, full stop. Asserting that there is some sort of difference requires you to show proof of a mechanism to stop micro from becoming macro and is like saying we could never reach the moon because the Wright brothers didn't get there.

Read the above posts. There are thousands of pieces of evidence we can use to reach a conclusion of our origins. However, these pieces can fit together in multiple ways, one of which is atheistic evolution. Another theory is theistic evolution, which doesn't match up biblically, which I presume holds little sway in your opinion. My personal theory of choice is described perfectly in Genesis, and all evidence supports the genesis account of the early days of the planet and of man.

There is a huge difference in macro and micro evolution. Micro evolution tells me I can make a better bicycle by changing a few design parameters. Macro evolution implies that if I change enough basic design parameters, without adding any new information, I can make the bicycle into a motorbike, into a car, into a jet engine.