When a friend tells you he "does not agree" with the concept of evolution

[HalfTangible]

Sometimes when people say they don't believe in evolution, they're referring to the explanation that we all came from spores or fish or similar. Is that what he meant?

Personally I don't see why Evolution is separate from religion - religion states how things /began/, evolution states how things /change/. The two are not mutually exclusive by any means...

 

[LaughingAtlas]

I don't believe in anything at all. (including that statement, that viewpoint might be considered belief for all I know) Far as I can tell, belief is a flawed premise, going by "irrefutable facts" until someone finds (or makes) a hole in them, points them out to everyone else, and new "irrefutable facts" until more holes are found, like the ones in that arguement. (I'm pretty sure someone will take issue with the notion that knowledge is a joke or just misconstrue this post so badly I might as well be typing in wing-dings)

Spoiler: Jesus tap-dancing Christ, this went longer than I planned...

In Dogma, it was said that it's better to have ideas than beliefs.
"You can change an idea, a belief's trickier."
When people believe things, whatever it is, some get a tad illogical about it, like some posters in this very thread. My idea is that it doesn't make much sense to say "facts" are always right when it was a "fact" that the big glowing orb going across the sky each day (in most of the world) was definitely going around the earth.
"Oh," Some might say, "but now we've got advanced technology to observe the universe, telescopes* and carbon dating*, that's much better than faith or speculation!"
(*-massive oversimplification, probably)
That's the thing, I think, looking through a telescope seems a lot like looking through another kind of eyeball. It doesn't matter what the equipment tells us, all we're getting is different data than using our own unaltered senses. (which vary from person to person) Can you honestly say
"I can see a planet through this tube, that proves it's real!"
Maybe you have greater confidence in our future-space gear than I do, a certainty that it works fine as it is no matter what anyone else says, faith, if you will.

To the person that believes in evolution, gravity, the sun, whatever, how do you know? Did you yourself go out and gather the data to put together these theories? (The sense that I'm using the wrong words is tingling again...) Did you personally see the supposed galaxies apart from our own? Did you go out into space and look back in the direction from whence you came to see a great sphere? Did you personally identify/compare/carbon date(?) the fossils?
If not, who did? Someone you've never met, a scientist? Do you believe him/her? Why?
Like it or not, you're listening to an "expert" and taking what they say on faith. (at least I think that's what's going on) At the end of the day, are you not doing the same as those you claim are wrong, forming your beliefs on faith, whatever it is you have faith in?

Some might say "I'm right because what I percieve is not some hysterical hallucenation of the Almighty in my breakfast, but what is real, what can be observed and studied by others, what can be proven to exist.
I'm told (and while I don't believe it) that new species of living things are discovered all the time. Did they exist before we knew about them? Did every plant and animal pop into existance before human eyes? Unlikely, I think. Odds are probably good they were around for quite some time, just not discovered yet. Would it be accurate to say these flora and fauna didn't exist simply because humans didn't widely know about them? Why is it rational to say God can't exist, but irrational to say it does? Both seem equally likely and unlikely, I think.

Then there's sanity. "You don't believe our facts? You say you percieve the world differently than our infallible instruments? To the wind with tolerance, you're crazy!"
What do you call a man who, every day on the way to work, falls down a hole in a bridge, swims to shore, and goes on with his life, ridiculing those who fall down holes? A fool? A hypocrite? A madman? I call it an athiest. They say people are crazy/stupid for believing in a magic man in the clouds because there is no decent evidence, (an understandable viewpoint, I think) yet apparently see no flaw in believeing this being can't exist in spite of there being no decent evidence that it can't. God (in christianity) is generally depicted as all powerful, (or at least likes telling mortals that) do you really think that if it wanted, it couldn't conceal itself from us?
It's madness, I think, "DURRHURR GOD IS REAL CUZ I SAY SO" is seen as not equal, but inferior to "DURRHURR GOD ISN'T REAL CUZ I SAY SO"

Is it so hard to say "maybe"? Maybe it's black and maybe it's white, maybe it's fucking purple, but I see grey. Am I insane for acknowledging what appears to me as a broken system as broken? METAPHOR: Is it more insane to repeatedly rebuild a boat that keeps sinking, patching it up here and there only to end up in the life rafts again over and over or to say "since no ship is unsinkable, I will walk on water with the possibility that I will sink and never emerge everpresent."?

That's pretty much what my view on reality is like, walking on the water of a terrifying sea, waves shifting and turning all the time, sinking and coming back up, horrible nightmare beasts popping up to say Hi only to vanish an instant later. (I'd have said swimming, but that's not as good a metaphor)

All in all, I think we're really just picking our poison, an honest, if scary world, or a solid, unchanging one that sometimes changes but-NO DON'T LOOK AT IT!

(Hats off if you read that mess, doubly so if you understood any of it. That's the clearest I know how to make it without writing a book)
Shorter and hopefully easier to understand explanation: "Nothing is true, everything is allowed." Not words to be believed, but considered, I'd say.
I hope to make it clear I'm not disbelieving anything either, that is, believeing things "CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE", for all I know we could very well have come from monkeys, elephants, mushrooms, omnipotent cretins, or the frosty sherbert people of planet brainfreeze, but acting as though we have the solution just doesn't work from where I stand.

 

[bruunwald]

I think evolution is obvious. I think its evidence is overwhelming, constantly all around us, and is obvious in any honest, simple look at the design of animals, their relatives, and their environments. I think the doubt for it survives in the fact that it is not immediately demonstrable in a laboratory setting. At least it cannot be immediately scientifically demonstrated the same way one can demonstrate the combining of two chemicals to get a reaction.

It is easy for the fearful and the ignorant to use this fact to relegate evolution to the position of theory or concept. (And in "fearful" I include people who are afraid that some other previous conception or belief will be ruined or lost if they choose to accept the evidence of evolution.)

However, if simple evidence where not presentable as fact, then no trial by jury could ever reach a verdict. That's a double standard that should be pointed out to anybody who is denying the evidence of evolution.

 

[zefiewings]

I don't think just because he is "smart" it means he has to agree with you. I don't believe in evolution and I consider myself to be well above average intelligence. If that is not enough fr you, my sister is a certified genius (in a test, it was calculated that she is smarted than 99% of the population, which is the highest possible result) ans she doesn't agree with it either.

I assume you are talking about the from monkeys thing. All the people above me that are saying "its not a theory, because we know it happened" are wrong. You saw, before your very eyes, a monkey turn into a human? i think not. That theory of evolution if pure speculation.

Wow. Just wow. For stroking your ego so much with how smart you are you are incredibly ignorant. I honestly cant tell if your post is a joke or you are just that dense, having no idea what you are talking about.

P1: Evolution says people came from monkeys
P2: It has not been observed when "a monkey turn into a human"
C: Evolution is false.

Brilliant argument. Simple, idiotic, and just the kind of argument creationist actually use.

Okay, I was obviously being a bit sarcastic about the "before your very eyes" thing. By no means did I think that was possible. That doesn't change the over all point though. It is still a theory, and while there is "proof" in it's favor, you are the ignorant one if you honestly think there is no proof not in it's favor. Thus, with there being two possible options, the matter comes down to opinion. I find it sad that most people are so high on themselves that they figure that only their opinion is possible and anyone thinking otherwise is wrong. Yes I am a creationist. But my point was not what my onion is, but the fact that merely having one doesn't make you right. So many posts here are saying "well, he can't be smart, he doesn't agree with me!" The most egotistical was of thinking possible. That said, I truly hope your comment about the ego stroking in the middle of a post stating how right you are and how wrong anyone who disagrees with you is, was meant to be ironic.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

-snip-

Then you are ignorant and need to study up on the matter before denouncing it as false. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't understand relativity"; there is however something wrong with saying "I reject relativity and don't understand it either way".

Well, I've seen evidence to suggest it as a possible theory. but nothing decisive. If you'd please care to provide an explanation of total evidence rather than say 'you're stupid and don't understand' when already 2 people have been mentioned in this thread that were clearly very smart but still didn't believe in evolution.
Trust me, I'd love to hear of any evidence you can provide - I'm interested. Because I'll tell you I understand plenty from my friend telling me a lot about it in the past as well, mainly things that he showed could just be part of coincidence.

For example - if evolution is correct and takes anything over a 1000years to create a new species. The food chain would be broken, if say the first mammal evolved to land and grew legs - that's only a herbivore - and nothing to eat said animal, hence it'd grow over-populated and eventually starve to death. Then if/when carnivores evolved, they'd have nothing to eat.
The idea of evolution is then surely based on the idea that the entire food chain all evolved AT ONCE, otherwise you'd simply have starving animals in the end.

Of course you've also got to consider other things, e.g. if a single fish in 1 billion evolved and grew legs upon birth - who's there to breed with it to create more? (except of course they're an animal which don't need 2 separate genders to give birth and self-fertilize but that's pretty rare) and IF there are (again by sheer luck that they all evolved at once) then how would they know HOW to breed, this animal has never experienced land in the past, it's a completely different environment, quite simply - what would it know to eat? How would it know how to breed?
UNLESS natural evolution made them know everything by instinct about an environment they never experienced before - explain that please.


Of course I respect all views on the subject and welcome discussions from both sides, but things like this leave it down to chance. I respect genetics giving advantages over time like camouflage or improvements but doesn't explain the creation of the original species.[/quote]
Holy idiocy batman.
It's not like suddenly something gets legs, you'd have 'proto' legs, stumps is the most obvious (though the evolution of mobility is so incredibly complex that saying stumps feels like an insult).

I mean, OK, you don't know about evolution, that's fine and pretty obvious, so how about educating yourself? There are FANTASTIC works out there that cover this in incredible detail. I don't want to waste hours of my time imparting my collected knowledge on the theory of evolution to you when there are books out there which do just that.
I think a great place to start is the Selfish Gene by Dawkins. hell I'll recommend all of his biologically themed books, Climbing Mount Improbable certainly.

Seriously, I would be amazed if anyone was willing to teach you, you're genuinely ignorant of the subject and that's fine, I don't expect someone to waltz into life knowing all the facts but before you make ANY claims, before you try out ANY arguments, educate yourself. Learn the facts, learn about evolution from credible sources and from incredible ones.
Then you can ask questions to understand things you missed or don't get.

I didn't know about evolution until I researched into it, as such when I didn't know I said "I don't know". It's not rocket science.




By the by, zefiewings, you're wrong about smarter than 99% being the best you can be, unsurprisingly. Take me, I'm in the top .01 percentile in terms of IQ. Whether or not IQ has any merit beyond very basic guidelining is up for discussion but lying is bad for your health, try not to do it.

 

[qeinar]

Me and one of my collage friends were having a discussion that came to be about evolution at some point. what you need to understand before replying is that this guy is probably one of the smartest people out there, the guy is a certified genius.
He practices Judaism up to a certain degree (separates meat a dairy and other stuff) but calling him religious will be a vast exaggeration.

So when this guy, who is probably the smartest guy I ever met told me he didn't believe that humans are apart of evolution it blew me away. To make things worse he said "there are some things that humans are meant NOT to understand. and we are both Comp-Sci majors so rational thought is a given.

So..... WTF?!?!

well have he done research to back up his claim? seems wierd for someone "smart" to just deny a theory we have loads of archeological finds to back up with.

Also if one of my friends said something like that i'd just assume they were joking. : p

 

[bakan]

snip

Okay, I was obviously being a bit sarcastic about the "before your very eyes" thing. By no means did I think that was possible. That doesn't change the over all point though. It is still a theory, and while there is "proof" in it's favor, you are the ignorant one if you honestly think there is no proof not in it's favor. Thus, with there being two possible options, the matter comes down to opinion. I find it sad that most people are so high on themselves that they figure that only their opinion is possible and anyone thinking otherwise is wrong. Yes I am a creationist. But my point was not what my onion is, but the fact that merely having one doesn't make you right. So many posts here are saying "well, he can't be smart, he doesn't agree with me!" The most egotistical was of thinking possible. That said, I truly hope your comment about the ego stroking in the middle of a post stating how right you are and how wrong anyone who disagrees with you is, was meant to be ironic.

Well, you obviously tried to make sure everyone thinks that you are pretty intelligent and your sister is even a genius (geniuses seem to grow on trees in this thread) and then you follow it up by some wish-wash.
You should actually come down from your high horse and at least try to understand some basics and then bring up evidence against it (if you happen to find solid evidence)...

 

[Turing '88]

you are the ignorant one if you honestly think there is no proof not in it's favour.

Ah, brilliant. Can we have this proof then please? Or will you at least give us an estimate for when and in which scientific journal you will be posting the results of your experiments?
/sarcasm

If you have proof, we will debate it to the best of our abilities and can have a nice discussion. So far all 'proof' against evolution has been fundamentally flawed.

Just a few of the most common problems with peoples objections:
1. People not understanding evolution ("how are there still monkeys?")
2. People not able to understand the small changes we are talking about ("a creature can't just grow some legs")
3. People not understanding the huge time-scales involved.("show me macro evolution of a mammal in my lifetime")
4. People not knowing an answer so presuming nobody else does ("the eye is too complex to form through evolution")
5. People thinking both sides are legitimate despite one side having all the evidence
("nobody can be 100% sure there isn't a goblin living in my garden, therefore it's perfectly fine/arrogant to believe either possibility")
....etc

EDIT:
Shit, can't believe I forgot the 500 hundred classic uses of...
6. People not understanding science ("It's only a theory, it's not a Law like gravity")

 

[KeyMaster45]

Story of my life right there. Hello fellow sometimes-Catholic/sometimes-not-Catholic.

I don't know whether I missed it somewhere in your post, but you do know that the Catholic church accepted the theory of evolution quite some time ago, right?

I wasn't too sure if they had or not, it's not exactly a subject that comes up regularly in the Sunday sermon. I assumed though that if the church was willing to come out and say they were cool with the idea of aliens that somewhere along the way they had to have accepted evolution.

People tend to think that Baptists are a bit on the extreme side and are just ignorant people with little to no respect for people who are not like them. Example: Westboro Baptist Church.

Bah, everyone knows the WBC is just a bunch of trolls with bibles. They make everyone of the christian faith look bad.

Maybe it's because my extended family is spread across the full gambit of denominations that it's never bothered me. I know in my life I've attended church under at least five or six different denominations with various relatives.(hell I've even been to a non-denominational church and got to argue with the pastor over how being non-denominational was itself a denomination) The only differences I've found is length of mass, whether or not they believe the communion is symbolic or actual, and how enthusiastic things can get. At the end of the day though everyone agrees on most things and to me at least the differences are negligible.

 

[BanthaFodder]

to quote Cole Phelps, "there's two things friends who wanna stay friends don't sicuss; politics, and religion."
live and let live. so long as they don't try and force it on me, I couldn't care less about someone's beliefs or opinions, no one should.
don't let it bother you, it's not worth it.

 

[bombadilillo]

I don't think just because he is "smart" it means he has to agree with you. I don't believe in evolution and I consider myself to be well above average intelligence. If that is not enough fr you, my sister is a certified genius (in a test, it was calculated that she is smarted than 99% of the population, which is the highest possible result) ans she doesn't agree with it either.

I assume you are talking about the from monkeys thing. All the people above me that are saying "its not a theory, because we know it happened" are wrong. You saw, before your very eyes, a monkey turn into a human? i think not. That theory of evolution if pure speculation.

Wow. Just wow. For stroking your ego so much with how smart you are you are incredibly ignorant. I honestly cant tell if your post is a joke or you are just that dense, having no idea what you are talking about.

P1: Evolution says people came from monkeys
P2: It has not been observed when "a monkey turn into a human"
C: Evolution is false.

Brilliant argument. Simple, idiotic, and just the kind of argument creationist actually use.

Okay, I was obviously being a bit sarcastic about the "before your very eyes" thing. By no means did I think that was possible. That doesn't change the over all point though. It is still a theory, and while there is "proof" in it's favor, you are the ignorant one if you honestly think there is no proof not in it's favor. Thus, with there being two possible options, the matter comes down to opinion. I find it sad that most people are so high on themselves that they figure that only their opinion is possible and anyone thinking otherwise is wrong. Yes I am a creationist. But my point was not what my onion is, but the fact that merely having one doesn't make you right. So many posts here are saying "well, he can't be smart, he doesn't agree with me!" The most egotistical was of thinking possible. That said, I truly hope your comment about the ego stroking in the middle of a post stating how right you are and how wrong anyone who disagrees with you is, was meant to be ironic.

At what point did I say anyone who disagreed with me was wrong? I was specificly attacking your stupid arguement. Its funny that you counter that with a strawman misrepresentation of what I said. So good for you and failing again. Where is this mysterious "proof" against evolution. Since it is a theory built around observable facts so the proof actually supports it. Thanks again for generalizing about my post when I said nothing of the kind. Shows the power of your stance.

 

[boag]

Me and one of my collage friends were having a discussion that came to be about evolution at some point. what you need to understand before replying is that this guy is probably one of the smartest people out there, the guy is a certified genius.
He practices Judaism up to a certain degree (separates meat a dairy and other stuff) but calling him religious will be a vast exaggeration.

So when this guy, who is probably the smartest guy I ever met told me he didn't believe that humans are apart of evolution it blew me away. To make things worse he said "there are some things that humans are meant NOT to understand. and we are both Comp-Sci majors so rational thought is a given.

So..... WTF?!?!

Thats his pre-rogative, if you cant respect that he has a different viewpoint from you and you feel the need to post about it on an internet forum just to get justification and self worth, then you probably arent a very good friend to begin with.

Does it really matter to you how he believes sentient life came to be?
Does it really matter if he likes mushrooms on his pizza instead of pepperoni?


Tolerance is a 2 way street.

 

[BanthaFodder]

to quote Cole Phelps, "there's two things friends who wanna stay friends don't sicuss; politics, and religion."
live and let live. so long as they don't try and force it on me, I couldn't care less about someone's beliefs or opinions, no one should.
don't let it bother you, it's not worth it.

...But this is neither. This is science. This is the basic understanding of reality. >.>

so you would end a good friendship because someone has different opinions than you?

 

[Therumancer]

no other theory whether based on things like aliens or religion is giving equal weight by the scientific community.

Just want to point out this bit. Why do you think that is? Is it that scientists want aliens kept a secret(maybe the government paid all of them off, should only cost a few trillion)? Probably not. Maybe they're ignored because the evidence for these theories is terrible and/or non-existent in every case. Nobody wants alien influence to be real more than the kind of people I met on my physics course, but evidence is the part where they all fall down.

Again, I neither believe in the idea, or am trying to sell it. The entire point is simply that such theories exist and have nothing to do with religion. If someone says they disagree with Evolution that doesn't nessicarly mean that they are argueing in favor of a supernatural or religious origin for humanity.

However, for the sake of arguement the general point being made about the lack of evidence is that there is plenty of evidence, but due to the competitive nature of academic circles the popular theories with a lot of supporters and people who make a living off of them through teaching or whatever wind up seeing things dismissed far more easily than they should be.

You are however correct that the level of conspiricy involved in most "cover up" theories would be impossible to maintain. Especially seeing as the goverment wouldn't just mess with the people involved to get them to remain silent, they would probably just have them killed. Not to mention the entire issue of why they would bother to cover it up to begin with, the general "it would cause hysteria" excuse doesn't hold much weight overall.