Poll: Do you support evolution?
- Thread starter Matthew Jabour
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Dagnabbit OP, Evolution isn't a "belief", it's a FACT. Religion is a personal truth, science is a regular truth.
Given that you can, with your own eyes, observe evolution happening in real time, right now, I would say that it's time to drop the "Theory" and just go with "Evolution" as fact. Because, you know, it is.
Read, now;
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2009/10/22/short-n-curlies-16-by-si-spurrier/
Evolution of the Tube Mosquito.
Read, now;
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2009/10/22/short-n-curlies-16-by-si-spurrier/
Evolution of the Tube Mosquito.
What the heck is "Go Team Dis Gon Be Gud!" and why is choosing this option necessarily somewhere in between. Let's say someone believes in a being that created the big bang. That being would necessarily be "God" or the Creator without necessarily precluding evolution. Both may be fully believed even in the context of most faiths.
A common Christian/Jewish example is that in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. The Earth, according to the Hebrew/Christian text is already there before the 7 days of creation, it is just void (the term can mean desolate) like say, Mars. It even has the spirit of God hovering over the surface of the water (Gen 1:2) before the traditional 7 days began and this leaves a significant amount of room for billions of years and the Big Bang's occurence. The absolutely allows for not only the entirety of the planet forming over millions of years during the unspecified time between the creation of heavens/earth and the 7 days. One could even say this doesn't preclude a possibility that creatures were living on the earth prior to a cataclysmic event just before God arrived on the scene.
And that's all taking a literal interpretation of things when a basic understanding of Hebrew Poetry that is litered throughout the Hebrew Bible basically demands that metaphors or exaggerations be considered a legitmate possibility. From what I've seen of other texts, this is likewise a possibility. But this one example is how a Christian may easily believe in both fully.
In any event, while I believe that going to any particular religion over another does require an actual step of faith and not logic, I do believe that overall deism may be arrived at intellectually as a possible theory of the universe. Any being of technology advanced enough to create the universe would naturally be a God to us. However, any being that actually exists is not supernatural, but merely natural albeit alien to the universe itself and so perhaps not "natural" where our universe is concerned. Considering how readily humans are making minature virtual universes (video games) all the time that are only getting more and more complex, I'd think it only a matter of time before we start creating environments in which a.i. virtual organic life can begin to take shape. In such a scenario, the developer would rightfully be called god by that life. If we can do it, the question must be posed why there's not a creator above us who maybe didn't create us a virtual environment but something else we can't understand because to understand would require us to think outside our natural universe in a way we're not aware of. Or heck, maybe we are a virtual environment. Some people do believe that, actually. Not many ways to disprove it. You should hear how they tie it into the observer effect on the double slit experiment being caused by forcing our environmnet to allot more processing to the process by measuring it...
In any event, I'd like to see people stop being afraid of science overturning their religion. Any verifiable proof one way or the other would likely be centuries away from us presently even at our current rate of advancement. The question that has to be answered is not if the Big bang happened, it did or something very like it, but where the matter/energy of which the big bang was comprised of came from. It either appeared (magic/supernatural/something from literally nothing) or was created by something that could exist before and outside of our universe (God/god/gods/spaghetti monster). If it was a creator, then is that creator still active or are we forgotten?
A common Christian/Jewish example is that in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. The Earth, according to the Hebrew/Christian text is already there before the 7 days of creation, it is just void (the term can mean desolate) like say, Mars. It even has the spirit of God hovering over the surface of the water (Gen 1:2) before the traditional 7 days began and this leaves a significant amount of room for billions of years and the Big Bang's occurence. The absolutely allows for not only the entirety of the planet forming over millions of years during the unspecified time between the creation of heavens/earth and the 7 days. One could even say this doesn't preclude a possibility that creatures were living on the earth prior to a cataclysmic event just before God arrived on the scene.
And that's all taking a literal interpretation of things when a basic understanding of Hebrew Poetry that is litered throughout the Hebrew Bible basically demands that metaphors or exaggerations be considered a legitmate possibility. From what I've seen of other texts, this is likewise a possibility. But this one example is how a Christian may easily believe in both fully.
In any event, while I believe that going to any particular religion over another does require an actual step of faith and not logic, I do believe that overall deism may be arrived at intellectually as a possible theory of the universe. Any being of technology advanced enough to create the universe would naturally be a God to us. However, any being that actually exists is not supernatural, but merely natural albeit alien to the universe itself and so perhaps not "natural" where our universe is concerned. Considering how readily humans are making minature virtual universes (video games) all the time that are only getting more and more complex, I'd think it only a matter of time before we start creating environments in which a.i. virtual organic life can begin to take shape. In such a scenario, the developer would rightfully be called god by that life. If we can do it, the question must be posed why there's not a creator above us who maybe didn't create us a virtual environment but something else we can't understand because to understand would require us to think outside our natural universe in a way we're not aware of. Or heck, maybe we are a virtual environment. Some people do believe that, actually. Not many ways to disprove it. You should hear how they tie it into the observer effect on the double slit experiment being caused by forcing our environmnet to allot more processing to the process by measuring it...
In any event, I'd like to see people stop being afraid of science overturning their religion. Any verifiable proof one way or the other would likely be centuries away from us presently even at our current rate of advancement. The question that has to be answered is not if the Big bang happened, it did or something very like it, but where the matter/energy of which the big bang was comprised of came from. It either appeared (magic/supernatural/something from literally nothing) or was created by something that could exist before and outside of our universe (God/god/gods/spaghetti monster). If it was a creator, then is that creator still active or are we forgotten?
I believe evolution is the current best-fit model for how life develops, and I believe any further model refinement will be similar enough to keep the evolution moniker (as it has in the past leading to our current understanding). That's as close to true scientific fact we can get.
I hate it when science is considered a 'belief'. I mean what. Debating with pro-religion people can result in really daft statements about belief.
What I really don't get is why we can't just roll with both. Why can't god be so awesome to have planned us all along through evolution or something? Should be no sweat for an omnipotent omniscient being. But nope, gotta be anal about those old books written that many years ago.
What I really don't get is why we can't just roll with both. Why can't god be so awesome to have planned us all along through evolution or something? Should be no sweat for an omnipotent omniscient being. But nope, gotta be anal about those old books written that many years ago.
there is plenty of evidence for evolution, so why not believe it. heck we humans are evolving too: on average, the size of the pinky is becoming smaller with every new generation, so one day we might become like the simpsons
"Support" would have been better...Matthew Jabour said:
While it satisfies my curiosity, the question of belief in this kind of topic is irrelevant. You might as well ask how many of us "believe" in gravity!
For those who couldn't be bothered to spend the five whole minutes necessary to read the link in my last post, a quick summary;
- A particular breed of mosquito moved into the London Underground at the time the tunnels were dug.
- Since that time, the underground mosquitoes have been found to have become genetically distinct from their above-ground cousins, to the point where they can now no longer inter-breed.
- Not only that, but they have become distinct from each other according to which service line they live on.
- In a further twist, similar but still entirely distinct variations have started to be found in other similar rail systems, in Europe, Asia and Australia.
- Essentially, wherever a population of the species Culex pipiens moves into a below-ground tunnel, it will begin to spontaneously mutate into a completely different subspecies sharing similar traits with its' forebears.
- The first tunnels of the London Underground were dug in 1863. The new variations of this mosquito were observed less than one hundred years later when the tunnels were being used as air-raid shelters during the Second World War. So even if you, personally, live for less than one hundred years yourself, you could still observe evolution taking place before your very eyes, and all it would take is putting the time in to actually look.
Seriously, research it. It's fascinating.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2009/10/22/short-n-curlies-16-by-si-spurrier/
- A particular breed of mosquito moved into the London Underground at the time the tunnels were dug.
- Since that time, the underground mosquitoes have been found to have become genetically distinct from their above-ground cousins, to the point where they can now no longer inter-breed.
- Not only that, but they have become distinct from each other according to which service line they live on.
- In a further twist, similar but still entirely distinct variations have started to be found in other similar rail systems, in Europe, Asia and Australia.
- Essentially, wherever a population of the species Culex pipiens moves into a below-ground tunnel, it will begin to spontaneously mutate into a completely different subspecies sharing similar traits with its' forebears.
- The first tunnels of the London Underground were dug in 1863. The new variations of this mosquito were observed less than one hundred years later when the tunnels were being used as air-raid shelters during the Second World War. So even if you, personally, live for less than one hundred years yourself, you could still observe evolution taking place before your very eyes, and all it would take is putting the time in to actually look.
Seriously, research it. It's fascinating.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2009/10/22/short-n-curlies-16-by-si-spurrier/
Urge to instigate a flame war..... rising... gah! I think I have it under control.
Seriously though, everyone's being pretty reasonable; surprisingly so over what used to be a topic almost guaranteed to bring out the bigots. I read somewhere that a worryingly large proportion of Americans don't believe in evolution; I don't know how many Americans we've got on here, but I figured that we'd have a few more deniers. Is the statistic outdated, or are nerds like us just more likely to believe it?
As for me, yes. Why? I'm sure everyone else can fill you in.
Seriously though, everyone's being pretty reasonable; surprisingly so over what used to be a topic almost guaranteed to bring out the bigots. I read somewhere that a worryingly large proportion of Americans don't believe in evolution; I don't know how many Americans we've got on here, but I figured that we'd have a few more deniers. Is the statistic outdated, or are nerds like us just more likely to believe it?
As for me, yes. Why? I'm sure everyone else can fill you in.
Pretty much this. It's like saying "I believe the wind blows in many directions" or "I believe we orbit the sun" or "I believe that stone is a thing". It's a damn fact and you can't dispute it. You just can't. There's SUBSTANTIAL overwhelming evidence to support it, which can be tested and proven time and time again to be true.Kaulen Fuhs said:
Creationism is a meaningless antiquated fallacy. The idea that we were simply created as we are is demonstrably false. Intelligent Design also fails because it isn't a theory. It makes no predictions and is untestable and is therefore utterly pointless as a topic of scientific discussion. A world in which we just spontaneously came into existence and evolution guided our development and one in which god made us spontaneously spring into existence and used evolution to guide our development are functionally indistinguishable from one another, and therefore, whether it was god or it just happened doesn't really matter at the moment until we can, perhaps, one day understand how and why the Universe came into existence.gamernerdtg2 said:
But the problem with lending any credence to ideas which are untestable, and have no evidence is that you lend them more power in the realm of scientific thought than they deserve. It confuses people into believing that they deserve equal merit in scientific discourse when they absolutely do not. Questions surrounding intelligent design belong in Sunday school and church sermons, not in science classrooms. Nor should they be presented as viable alternatives to the theory of evolution. They do little more than muddy the scientific waters for the layperson so that some can desperately cling to their faith rather than have to readjust their beliefs to fit with established facts.
While I agree that calling belief in something that is observable is obsurd, I'm just pointing out that not believing in evolution is different than not believing in science. A creationist may call you monkey spawn in some kind of reductio adsurdem while simultaneously placing quite a bit of faith in say, medical or chemical sciences. It is somewhat comical that evolution is considered a theory still. It's a bit like calling gravity a theory. But science is too broad a term for most any non-insane-philospher to systematically reject. Science is more of a concept of observation and application of those observation than some easily recognizeable thing. Thus, to reject a theory or even fact is not to reject the process itself.Wings012 said:
It being a major component of science is besides the point. I, for example, reject the necessity that the speed of light is some noble constant despite it being prominently used as such in relativity calculations. I've seen a number of things, such as gravity impact, impede and even bend light in such a way that I'd call C (of E=MC^2 fame) a local (such as solar system local or galaxy local) constant/approximation at best. I'm not even quite sure that gravity can't pull it faster and reject the notion that the speed of light is somehow tied to time travel aside from appearing to travel through time in relation to others. What has this rejection of an accepted value have to do with rejecting "SCIENCE"?
Two points to keep in mind:gamernerdtg2 said:
1) Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. Abiogenesis is the theory of life popping out of nothing, the Big Bang is the theory behind the universe's creation. Evolution is merely the theory of how 'simple' life can change, evolve and adapt over time to become more suited to their environment.
2) You want the wonder and mystery, but the problem there is that Creationism claims to know it all. It claims all the answers can be found in the bible. Science assumes it barely knows anything and builds from there! If anything, science has more wonder and mystery, despite having definitive proofs for various aspects of itself.
i like what the priest in Religiousless said to this whole debate, basically, since he was speaking Italian since he's a Vatican priest/scientist it amounted to: "The Genesis was written when? the 1300s... Evolution was discovered when? early 1900s... *waves his hands in the empty void between them that nothing else was stated* they shouldn't be compared at all..."
its funny hearing it from a priest, but yes, even him and all the other scientific priests were basically giggling at the stupidity of Americans... which i'll agree, only in American do we have this idiocy that science and religion apparently get in each other's ways still... i mean the rest of the world had that junk hundreds of years ago and science won, sorta, but people still have faith... course they probably look at it like i do, 'its a 'good' story with 'good' morals...' not that one should believe everything written by sheepherders 4000~yrs ago anyway... especially when half/most of its a rip off of Gilgamesh, but that's another topic entirely... i mean no one honestly believes there's a Big Bad Wolf in the woods right?
though i suppose for the sake of argument, as i love these 'conversations', why do we 'believe' in science? because its funky tech-magic we can do ourselves? but Evolution IS hard to prove as we can't live long enough to observe it, and still technically a theory... don't get me wrong i love the idea of Evolution, Parasite Eve and X-men wouldn't exist without and love both, but that's still a 'fact', Evolution isn't a 'law' its an observation and a theory... s i never understood why people get all up on people that don't 'believe' it, i mean certain ones its completely understandable as they're typically dicks with low IQs and do whatever some religious dude in a slick suit will tell them... and creationism is rather silly... not to mention an affront that its trying to 'BE' science when its not let alone replace Evolution as the origin theory... *shutters* only in bloody America...
to be honest i have no problem with the idea of some greater being/WILL in the universe tampering with us because its 'fun', look at what anyone playing the SIMS does, so that part i don't mind so much, for all we know all our gods are Aliens and the creators of Stargate were right, good for you... or about a million other things... what i can't stand is the BS humans riding dinosaurs thing... THIS IS NOT DINOTOPIA!! as cool as that would be, its NOT!
so by the virtue of Charles Darwin being one of my personal heroes and PE being an all-time personal favorite game, i'm going to have to stick with Evolution... though i will state if ANYONE was fucking with our DNA to make a perfectly good willing travel meatbag... its EVE!!
its funny hearing it from a priest, but yes, even him and all the other scientific priests were basically giggling at the stupidity of Americans... which i'll agree, only in American do we have this idiocy that science and religion apparently get in each other's ways still... i mean the rest of the world had that junk hundreds of years ago and science won, sorta, but people still have faith... course they probably look at it like i do, 'its a 'good' story with 'good' morals...' not that one should believe everything written by sheepherders 4000~yrs ago anyway... especially when half/most of its a rip off of Gilgamesh, but that's another topic entirely... i mean no one honestly believes there's a Big Bad Wolf in the woods right?
though i suppose for the sake of argument, as i love these 'conversations', why do we 'believe' in science? because its funky tech-magic we can do ourselves? but Evolution IS hard to prove as we can't live long enough to observe it, and still technically a theory... don't get me wrong i love the idea of Evolution, Parasite Eve and X-men wouldn't exist without and love both, but that's still a 'fact', Evolution isn't a 'law' its an observation and a theory... s i never understood why people get all up on people that don't 'believe' it, i mean certain ones its completely understandable as they're typically dicks with low IQs and do whatever some religious dude in a slick suit will tell them... and creationism is rather silly... not to mention an affront that its trying to 'BE' science when its not let alone replace Evolution as the origin theory... *shutters* only in bloody America...
to be honest i have no problem with the idea of some greater being/WILL in the universe tampering with us because its 'fun', look at what anyone playing the SIMS does, so that part i don't mind so much, for all we know all our gods are Aliens and the creators of Stargate were right, good for you... or about a million other things... what i can't stand is the BS humans riding dinosaurs thing... THIS IS NOT DINOTOPIA!! as cool as that would be, its NOT!
so by the virtue of Charles Darwin being one of my personal heroes and PE being an all-time personal favorite game, i'm going to have to stick with Evolution... though i will state if ANYONE was fucking with our DNA to make a perfectly good willing travel meatbag... its EVE!!
I don't get this go team Science and "belief in evolution" stuff.. It's not a freaking "belief" competition, evolution is a scientific fact.
Also, don't like whatever explanation science has to offer? Get a degree in cosmology and advanced physics and do it better. Any argument against the origin of life and universe, whether it is philosophical or theological in nature, simply can't stand against the hard facts and science.
Also, don't like whatever explanation science has to offer? Get a degree in cosmology and advanced physics and do it better. Any argument against the origin of life and universe, whether it is philosophical or theological in nature, simply can't stand against the hard facts and science.
I hate the term, believe, when it comes to scientific theories.
You can either accept them or reject them, not believe in them.
Regardless I do accept the theory as it is the most complete and logical explanation we have.
You can either accept them or reject them, not believe in them.
Regardless I do accept the theory as it is the most complete and logical explanation we have.