Poll: Do you support evolution?

[BrassButtons]

I really want to know about these so called 'properly researched' papers from the side of non-evolution theory......

There are some excellent Creationist papers, but you have to go back a hundred years or so to find them. Early Creationists were perfectly respectable scientists. Of course, being respectable scientists, they stopped supporting Creationism once the data showed they were wrong...

 

[SinisterDeath]

Theistic Evolutionism: because there are practical issues with atheism (you can either delude yourself into thinking life has meaning and thus there's a point to scientific inquiry, or be a nihilist and spend the rest of your life contemplating suicide), time is relative, and why would God have removed any doubt of His existence by spoiling hundreds of years of research anyway? Giving Moses a simplified version of events makes a great test of faith, too.

Before I get replies from butthurt, "hail science" militant atheist types, think about why Nietzsche and Sartre were opposed to German anti-semitism, or why Richard Dawkins wrote his own Ten Commandments, all while preaching that morality, good and evil, don't exist and that people shouldn't act like they do.

Short version: it's impossible to live happily and consistently as an atheist, but evolution is fact. Therefore, theistic evolutionism is the best way to reconcile fact with truth.

So...
Me, being an Atheist, who believes in Humanism, and follows the "Golden Rule", as well as 6 of the 10 commandments. (Pretty easy to figure out which ones those are)
Is somehow worse, Than someone who needs to fear god, in order to not be a mindless savage killing and raping machine?

 

[Phrostbit3n]

I'm a bit saddened that this is really a contest. The evidence is clearly in favour of evolution. I say this as a Christian.

So yes, Chalk me up as one for team science I guess.

It's sad there's not more people like us. Intelligent Evolution is what I like to call it, because it sounds badass. The thought that there's no higher power, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible. But the same goes for thinking that Satan made fossils just to fuck with it.

I'm sorry. It's too hard not to rage while a picket-fence is in my ass. (Insinuating I'm "On the fence". Get it? No? Sorry.).

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

It's sad there's not more people like us.

The majority of people are like you. In the UK we are 50% religious and 50% atheist but a very tiny minority deny evolution. Half the damn people in our country are like you XD At least in europe. Also its called "Theistic evolution" but i think thats a stupid name since its exactly the same as atheistic evolution (also a stupid name) but a god is present while it happens. You dont have theistic gravity. Or theistic rain. Or theistic eating. Its not a more intelligent idea than regular evolution its just the same thing with a god watching it happen. Its not intelligent evolution anymore than if youre religious youre intelligently pouring a glass of milk or intelligently watching tv just because a god is watching it happen. I might as well call it "Grandma gravity" when something falls in front of my gran.

Sorry im gonna keep listing examples because i find this idea REALLY funny "Damn when the theistic sphere fell due to theistic gravity we didnt account for the theistic friction!"

Its just regular evolution mate, its regular gravity and regular friction Youre just religious at the same time. It doesnt need a name XD

Anyway my point is in my nation there are 29 million people who hold the same view you do. Youre hardly a minority.

Im guessing you're American because outside your country the majority of the western world holds your view.

EDIT 1: Also someone is totally gonna call you out about being a tad snooty toward atheists. I know it rustled my jimmies but i CBA to start a silly argument.

EDIT 2: Called it XD

 

[Kathinka]

The thought that there's no higher power, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

that statement is extremely pretentious and scientifically rather unsustainable, no?

 

[Bruce]

The thought that there's no higher power, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

The thought that there is no yeti, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

The thought that there is no Loch Ness monster, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

The thought that there is no unicorn, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

When you can point out why any of those statements is ridiculous and not sensible, then you can maybe talk about what is ridiculous and not sensible.

This concept of a 'higher power' is so ill defined that even religious apologists like Karen Armstrong argue that it cannot be said to even exist. The thought that it doesn't exist isn't in fact ridiculous and not sensible, it is a pretty logical response to the fact that throughout human history people have been looking for one and yet nobody seems to have found any evidence for one.

 

[ISearchForTraps]

I say this without malice or bigotry in my heart, but purely as a Scientist. Anyone who denies that Evolution is real is either ignorant, or willingly in serious denial. Those who got its teaching banned in schools should be ashamed.

 

[Phrostbit3n]

The thought that there's no higher power, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

The thought that there is no yeti, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

The thought that there is no Loch Ness monster, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

The thought that there is no unicorn, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

When you can point out why any of those statements is ridiculous and not sensible, then you can maybe talk about what is ridiculous and not sensible.

This concept of a 'higher power' is so ill defined that even religious apologists like Karen Armstrong argue that it cannot be said to even exist. The thought that it doesn't exist isn't in fact ridiculous and not sensible, it is a pretty logical response to the fact that throughout human history people have been looking for one and yet nobody seems to have found any evidence for one.

This is why I try to keep my science away from my religion. I had a long paragraph arguing with you, but honestly, my reasons are wrong. So...

Cthulu.

 

[Kristian Fischer]

"Support" evolution? There's nothing to support. Evolution is a fact that doesn't need something so inconsequential as human "support".

It'd be like "supporting" gravity. It's there whether we like or not.

 

[DANEgerous]

Yes I accept facts. I have gone through 2 faiths and then as of now to none and have accept the fact of evolution through all three.

It is a proven and undeniable fact that it is (and yes note that, is not was) a force of nature that happens every second of every passing day and while by no means fully understood no force is fully understood. Gravity is often compared to evolution because the layman believes gravity is a theory we have full and complete knowledge of while the fact is that when you say "electrons orbit the nucleus" you are in turn admitting that they and thus all matter on an atomic scale is defying gravity. How? We have no real answer for that.

 

[Dinwatr]

What I see is properly researched scientific papers popping up on both sides, and whilst I might not have the qualifications to determine the validity of each, those that do have a vested interest on both sides to only promote those articles that fit their world view and disparage those that do not. So either I've got to dig through all the literature before I can accurately weigh up all the options, or I'm going to have to rely on reading both types of literature surveys or what have you and hope they give me a balanced look on things which they obviously will not do.

So no, it's not like your example. There is sensible scientific discussion going on on both sides, but the communication breaks down completely in the middle.

Ah, the perennial "Scientists are frauds!!!!" argument.

discrider, I'm a paleontologist. Published in peer reviewed journals, given talks at international conferences, and am currently employed in salvage paleontology work. I am one of those whom you say are only interested in citing works that support my world-view.

Unfortunately for you, I don't do that.

I'm a Neocatastraphist. I believe that low-amplitude, high-frequency events dominate deposition, while high-amplitude, low-frequency events re-work the sediment and dominate the rock record. There are also issues with the K/Pg impact and other things, but we can leave those aside for now; suffice to say that I have a particular world-view. I've based this off of extensive research on two continents and multiple depositional environments.

Others that I work with are Uniformitarianists. They believe that low-amplitude, high-frequency events dominate the rock record, and that high-amplitude, low-frequency events are rare in the rock record, just as they are rare today. They have a very different world-view than mine (both groups support evolution, but we have different views of them).

Oddly enough, I have never hesitated to quote the Uniformitarianists I've worked with. Often I do so to disagree with them, but more frequently it's to discuss the data they collected. It's good data, I just have a different interpretation. In fact, some of hte most fun conversations I've ever had involved looking at some datum and trying to determine which idea it best supported. Really good way to learn the weaknesses of one's epistemology.

As for Creationist publications, I don't believe there's a valid one in the past 50 years. If you have one, please present it. I'll gladly agree that in the past Creationism produced some very interesting papers and talks--but in the past 75 years or so, they've simply gone insane and abandoned all pretense at presenting a scientific argument. I'm rare among paleontologists; I actually enjoy reading Creationist literature of the past (the past is the key to the future, and I like to know how ideas were proven wrong); I'm honestly willing to read a valid Creationist paper. I don't think you can present one. By the way, by "valid" I mean free from gross scientific errors--as in, if you want to talk about thermodynamics you have to show the chemical equations, that sort of thing.

I look forward to you defending your position that the literature is split down the middle. After over ten years of studying geology (6 in school, 5 as a professional) its been my experience that 99.999%+ of the papers, talks, etc. are not written by Creationists, and the ones that are do not actually address any issues Creationists wish to address (the one I saw was on downstream sedimentation after dam removal).

 

[DANEgerous]

Hey, look, 11 people are wrong! Don't let anyone fool you, there is NO argument against evolution. You are just wrong.

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity.

11 people are not wrong. 11 people simply have beliefs counter to your own.

-

This as why threads like this go to R&P.

Lol, yeah, might as well go up to the professor after you get an answer wrong on an exam and declare "I'm not wrong, I just have beliefs counter to your own!" It'd make as much sense.

One day you will be out of school, and what a teacher or professor thinks will seem less important. People can be wrong about things and get through life just fine. Look at you, you are wrong about needing to be right all of the time.

Did I just cause your world to crumble before you? Sorry about that...

Sorry but that is a cop out. I mean here is an example of what a conversation would be like for the student and professor.

Student: I do not believe the world is round I believe it to be a flat disk.
Professor: Shenanigans here are satellite images
Student:I believe those to be fake.
Professor: Oh do you? Because when test they are accurate to a fault. May I see your map of Earth so we may test it.
Student: No, lets just accept we believe different things.
Professor: Okay, but I will accept the proven you accept the absurd.
Student: Yet my view is not absurd nor yours proven!
Professor: Again, your map of Earth please. Here is mine it is proven to work.

Evolution is not a being, it has no sentience when we say it is wrong we mean it does not exist and rather it is those who accept it are wrong. Yet if you say Evolution does not exist and yet we can show you it does exist (and we can) anyone who believes otherwise is wrong regardless of if they or those they argue against even know what they are arguing about.

This is the thing, wen you say evolution (micro or macro as the are one in the same) is not real you are not longer debating a person not even a theory it is debating on par a force of nature like standing in a storm with running a round saying "RAIN S NOT REAL! WHERE ARE THE SPRINKLERS! I WILL FIND THEM DAMN IT" Until the storm stops and you claim victory as you know you go so close to the sprinkler they turned it off to hide the conspiracy before you could unravel the horrific plot that is rain. You are arguing with observed posses, not just scientists or peer reviewed papers but actual forces of nature.

 

[Dinwatr]

One day you will be out of school, and what a teacher or professor thinks will seem less important.

This is true. However, if you go into any field that actually deals with geology, biology, medicine, paleontology, or any related field, the facts that you're trying to dismiss become rather significant. There's a reason that oil companies and government agencies hire geologists and paleontologists rather than Creationists--we produce real results, in the real world.

Make up your own mind, sure. But if you base it off of objective facts in their proper context, you'll find that evolution is true. The facts overwhelmingly support it.

 

[shootthebandit]

Evolution is bullshit. I created you humans then you ate my fruit after i told you not to (ironically nowadays none of you fuckers will eat fruit). I then tried flooding you fuckers and starting again but noah fucked that for me fortunately he saved all my animals though. I then sent my son to teach you lot a bit of decency and it was all going well until you killed him.

Now you undermine my work by saying that you all EVOLVED from apes like some sort of moderately powerful pokemon

I dont even know why i created you fuckwits

 

[Quaxar]

discrider, I'm a paleontologist. Published in peer reviewed journals, given talks at international conferences, and am currently employed in salvage paleontology work.

Read that as "savage".
It's very funny to picture you and your team as the monkey-men from Kubrick's 2001.
<youtube=ML1OZCHixR0>

... and probably very offensive. But damnit, if that's not the epitome of savage paleontology work I don't know what is!

 

[BrassButtons]

Snip

That video is a highly inaccurate portrayal of paleontologists. I didn't see those monkeys drink a single beer.

 

[Dinwatr]

discrider, I'm a paleontologist. Published in peer reviewed journals, given talks at international conferences, and am currently employed in salvage paleontology work.

Read that as "savage".
It's very funny to picture you and your team as the monkey-men from Kubrick's 2001.
<youtube=ML1OZCHixR0>

... and probably very offensive. But damnit, if that's not the epitome of savage paleontology work I don't know what is!

You know, after a few days in the field, yeah, that's about right!

Though as BrassButtons said, ONE beer? I've heard rumors of bars that were able to stay open all year based on the cash they make off of geology field trips during the summer! As I told my mother back in college, "I'm not drinking heavily. I'm doing career development!"

 

[Edl01]

You can't support Evolution. It's a fact. Deny it all you want but you're wrong.

I believe an old quote from Yahtzee's mailbag showdown sums up my opinion here:
"When it turns out you didn't pick the winner the best thing is to go into denial until the fabric of reality spontaneously changes because god knows that's more likely to happen than you admitting fault"

 

[Quaxar]

Snip

That video is a highly inaccurate portrayal of paleontologists. I didn't see those monkeys drink a single beer.

Well they're savage. Domestication of wild paleontologists only happened a few centuries ago as a result of the development of modern pubs, which allowed them to gather in bigger groups and exchange digging techniques much more efficiently. Discoveries in remains from several roughly 300 year-old digging sites indicate a general blood alcohol level of no more than a third of the current average in a European paleontology population.