Poll: Do you support evolution?

[The White Hunter]

Oh and every time I see a lunatic argue that bananas are shaped for our hands by god or whatever I crack up.

Evolution is a thing, maybe some deity set the universe in motion, but nothing was created as it is now.

So you're honestly trying to tell me that bananas, objects clearly intended to be used by early humans as dildos, are the product of a natural process? I don't think so. It would take a God who's aware of the sensuous joys of getting on down for some penetrative fun to come up with such a sexy, sexy design.

Bananas=dildos=proof of God's existence.

Our God is a sex fiend, can you relate?

...

Not sure if legitimate response...

Bananas are terrible didlos anyway, they have the habit of bursting.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

So I vote for Creationism b/c I really don't want to know everything that there is to know. I want to be kept informed, I want to continue learning, but I also want to be blown away when I learn something new. I don't want to be like Darwin who said quote: "A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone".

I can not get down with that. It's called lying to yourself. What are we doing when we take our affections out of the equation entirely?

That quote is only emphasizing the the idea of logic when perceiving reality.

Do you accept the facts with evidence? Or do you cling to beliefs because you love them?
Do you agree with the scientist because he has proper evidence? Or because you like him more?

So rather, it's not lying to yourself. It's just being open and unbias and not being affected by emotion when you're put with an emotionless situation. If your answers are influenced by emotion, then they aren't scientific.

 

[The White Hunter]

Spoiler: Spoilered for length

Yes, I believe in animals.

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.

You're a christian? Huh.

OT: I don't "believe" in evolution so much as I've read and viewed the evidence and it seems to make sense and be backed up by a lot of... well, evidence.

We can map out a lot of evolutionary paths for animals, we can find evolutionary dead ends too.

I'd really recommended people to watch some stuff like this:

Spoiler

And the follow up:

Spoiler

Oh and every time I see a lunatic argue that bananas are shaped for our hands by god or whatever I crack up.

Evolution is a thing, maybe some deity set the universe in motion, but nothing was created as it is now.

David Attenborough does subscribe to that theory about aquatic humans though and that isn't supported by any evidence. Indeed, the background to that theory is not dissimilar to the whole bannana hand thing.

Wait, was that the point? I'm on break so can't watch videos.[/spoiler

Spoiler: Spoilered for length

Um no the point of those videos is not that at all, they're just a documentary on where life began and a rough outline of how it is thought to have advanced. It's very interesting actually.

There's an actual theory about fish people?...

 

[Vegosiux]

I do not "believe in" evolution. But from the available data and information, I conclude that it's the overwhelmingly most likely way things actually work.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

I can not get down with that. It's called lying to yourself. What are we doing when we take our affections out of the equation entirely?

Being pragmatic?

Which means taking everything within context, not allowing emotions to change how we view something.

When interacting with other living creatures of COURSE emotions should be taken into consideration, but acting on emotion has far more often than not resulted in some pretty shitty outcomes. In fact I would say a majority of issues facing us today is tackling problems from an emotional perspective rather than a rational and pragmatic one.

Very true about people being emotional. In and outside of science, both in the religious community and the scientific community, people make this mistake. A lot of the atheists are the way they are b/c of some erroneous statement from a religious person.

The problem with faith and science is that faith asks you to believe in something that you can't rationally explain.

 

[Queen Michael]

I accept that scientific fact, sure. I see no reason not to.

 

[Quaxar]

It is somewhat comical that evolution is considered a theory still. It's a bit like calling gravity a theory.

And cue the explanations of what a scientific theory is.

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"?

Uh, that's what we have Special Relativity for? But who am I to argue against you, with that name...

Oh and every time I see a lunatic argue that bananas are shaped for our hands by god or whatever I crack up.

Evolution is a thing, maybe some deity set the universe in motion, but nothing was created as it is now.

So you're honestly trying to tell me that bananas, objects clearly intended to be used by early humans as dildos, are the product of a natural process? I don't think so. It would take a God who's aware of the sensuous joys of getting on down for some penetrative fun to come up with such a sexy, sexy design.

Bananas=dildos=proof of God's existence.

Our God is a sex fiend, can you relate?

...

Not sure if legitimate response...

Bananas are terrible didlos anyway, they have the habit of bursting.

Yeah. Stone Age man didn't invent the stone dildo for nothing!

 

[gamernerdtg2]

I believe that the things we create can evolve. Art, technology and so on can evolve. But it's a shame how scientists who believe in intelligent design are being taken out of the picture. I couldn't believe that Bill the science guy and Lavar Burton (who I grew up watching reading rainbow with) passed off creationism as meaningless, antiquated fallacy.

I find that modern science is boring. The museum of Natural History is without wonder now because we can somehow explain everything. I don't want to know everything, and I certainly don't want to be able to explain everything. I want to socialize with people who have studied things that I haven't studied, and see where our knowledge connects.

I blame the extreme conservative people. They have no idea who they are representing - they represent themselves and call that God. It's ridiculous. So many people have been turned off by this extreme stance that we now have the opposite extreme - angry atheists who are just as bad.

This jaded desire to explain everything has crept into art and also video game design. Everyone wants things to be explained down to the minute detail, otherwise it's drivel. I'm not into it.

So I vote for Creationism b/c I really don't want to know everything that there is to know. I want to be kept informed, I want to continue learning, but I also want to be blown away when I learn something new. I don't want to be like Darwin who said quote: "A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone".



I can not get down with that. It's called lying to yourself. What are we doing when we take our affections out of the equation entirely?

To be honest, anything without any empirical basis has no place in science, which certainly does include intelligent design. Though that's certainly not to say you are in any way obliged to find the scientific explanations interesting or correct. Also, though I disagree with your dislike of the scientific community's attempts to explain and understand as much as they can, I will say the universe is enormous, we probably hardly understand the even smallest fraction of it at this point, I really don't think there is any danger of science taking the mystery out of it quite yet.

I am more about the atheist undercurrent within science.
I totally agree that there is a very thick, black line between faith and empirical evidence. We can't ask the scientific community to "believe", nor can we ask the religious community to neglect faith and be empirical in all things.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Put me down for Team Science, and I don't agree that we're sucking all the wonder and awesomeness out of the universe. If anything, the little boom in terms of Modern Fantasy and/or Supernatural books and TV shows tells me that for all of the answers we get, we still like to stuff the dark little corners of the Earth with all sorts of unknowable creepy whatsits. I don't need to toss Science aside to think the world is mysterious and even scary. I can believe in Darwinism and gravity and, well, pretty much every single major scientific discovery made in the last few centuries, and still think that there's room somewhere for ghosts and ghoulies and vampires and whatnot.

And that room, that space? It's what we make of it. It's ours to control. Cultivating a rational outlook on things doesn't mean you have to stop playing Pretend if you don't want to.

Fuck, I'm thirty and I still scare myself shitless around my darkened house, at night.

 

[DutchAssassin8]

I believe it was Neil Degrasse Tyson who said: "The beauty about science is that it is true wether you believe in it or not"

I think this speaks for itself

 

[Lightknight]

It is somewhat comical that evolution is considered a theory still. It's a bit like calling gravity a theory.

And cue the explanations of what a scientific theory is.

Well, there are principles, there are forces, there are processes and then there are theories that make up those things. I'd say evolution is every bit as much an observable process as gravity is an observable force. Example, I am being pulled into my seat by a force known as gravity and I, despite being a man, have two nipples exactly where women do despite mine not having any particular purpose thanks to the trait not being maladaptive enough to have evolved away.

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"?

Uh, that's what we have Special Relativity for? But who am I to argue against you, with that name...

Hah, hadn't considered my moniker in this discussion. I made up the name years ago when first venturing out into the dank dark interwebs to play chess online.

But yes, that's exactly my point. The equation assumes a constant speed of light and yet we have math to account for variances of the "constant". I was using what I felt to be a more than adequate example.

 

[Shadowstar38]

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.

 

[Amir Kondori]

"Believe in" seems a weird phrasing. Do I accept that the evidence points in favor of the theory of evolution? Yes. Do I "believe in evolution" to the exclusion of any new evidence that may come out that does not support the theory of evolution? No.

 

[Snotnarok]

Believe it or not, it's basically proven with the exception of being able to show something evolve in real time. Hence why it's a theory ...like gravity, and the earth orbiting the sun, yes, they are theories. For some reason many seem to think a theory means a hypothesis, it's not.

 

[Shadowstar38]

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.

Funny story relating to that(funny or sad. You pick). When I was in Middle school, we had to learn basic evolution shit in science class. Though a Christian student made such a fuss, everyone was given the option to opt out for those weeks.

 

[Amir Kondori]

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.

Well some number of people are definitely wrong. Whether it is 11 or 788 or both groups of people I don't know for sure. But either the organisms of earth have come to be the way they are as described by the theory of evolution or in some similar way, or a divine creator made them as is, or something else entirely. All of these things can't be true. We don't know for sure which is describing what actually happened but we do have some evidence to support at least one of them.

This whole idea that all beliefs are equal is just not true. There is such a thing as truth.