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

[DracoSuave]

And yet, the Missing Link remains just that. Missing.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is not a valid rebuttal to Evolution, unless you provide some other explanation that is replicatable and fits the facts.

You take it on faith that because something happens to the simplest life forms that it also happened to us.

The reason it happens to smaller lifeforms is because of this thing called 'Deoxyribonucleic Acid.' This chemical has properties that is observed in multiple settings, including in insect experimentation above. it is not limited to insects, however. Q.V. Human Genome Project.

The properties that it has in insects that allow for evolution do not stop in human beings. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that human beings will show similiar abilities to change over multiple generations.

Oh, by the way... that is observable.

You might call on Lucy and other skeletal fragments from Africa, but I've never seen an ape change into a human. Your faith against mine. Let's call it even.

I've never seen an intelligent creator come down from the sky and create species out of nothingness, or females out of the ribcages of males in any primate. 'Let's call it even' isn't a rebuttal against evolution, it doesn't address the evidence for evolution. It only shows a complete lack of understanding of how science works.

Science, junior, is the act of using observation to answer questions about the world around us. You asking 'Where is the missing link?' is not a debunking of evolution. It is merely a challenge to science to use observation to find the answers.

Also, that chemical I mentioned earlier? Let's call it 'DNA' for short. It indicates a relationship between humans and chimpanzees.

In fact, the very fact you claim that the lack of transmogrification from an ape into a human being simply shows a complete ignorance about what evolution is. It's not a valid rebuttal any more than claiming pancakes and syrup can't be made from flour, water, eggs, and maple sap just because you've never observed a chicken collide with a maple tree and explode into Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast.

You shouldn't be going into arguments against Evolution when you clearly don't understand the concept of it... or if you do, are only willing to argue with rhetoric and disingenuous 'Well, the empirical evidence hasn't shown this' when, in fact, empirical evidence is easily available for anyone to read, and experiments are continuing to run on it today.

So, where's the body of work for intellegent design? What experients and observations and such has that field of "science" created?

For the record, I'm a proponent of Intelligent Design. I'm pretty much exactly where the OP's friend is in terms of that philosophy.

Philosophies are not sciences. In a scientific discussion, a philosophy has no epistomological merit. You need evidence and observations that contradict a theory in order to debunk it, or a theory that contains the evidence but also better explains other phenomenon.

I don't see religion and evolution as mutually exclusive, I just think that humanity is...different.

And yet, evolution can still be observed in humans, and evolution can satisfactorially explain human behavior.

And as you type your rebuttal, think about what you do. Have whales invented language,

Yes.

or birds computers,

Some birds are tool users, which is the evolutionary advantage of humans. Just because they haven't evolved to the point of using tools to make tools, that only indicates that humans are a unique species in tool-use. Other species also have unique traits or dominance in a specific advantage. Does that make them not evolved either?

or cats rhetorical techniques?

Cat communication is not something that has been entirely studied or cracked yet. Cats have shown signs of tool use, problem solving, and have actually developed skills in emotional manipulation.

'That which is not human is not human, therefore humans cannot have evolved' is an invalid argument as a counter to a theory that includes within it the idea of divergent speciation.

I understand your idea, but I put forth to you a challenge. Create a medical discipline based on intellegent design, and test its effectiveness against a medical discipline based on evolution.

Intelligent design is not a science. It is a philosophy born of human hubris, and a fear of science. It seeks to undermine scientific principles by attacking the very core of scientific development. It seeks to establish itself in the minds of politicians, and not the scientific community who sees it as the farce it is. It is as valid a science as Homeopathy.

Now, if you believe in it so fervently as a scientific discipline, then I suggest you create experiments that can create evidence to support it. It should not be difficult to create an experiment where if evolution is true things will happen one way, and if intelligent design is true, things will go the opposite way.

It's not difficult at all, and yet... this experiment has yet to occur? Could it be because intelligent design cannot be supported by scientific method?

 

[Hugga_Bear]

I'm glad I made that really long post addressing the common fallacious arguments against evolution like missing fossils, apes still being around and why people should research something before they argue against it.

Graveeking, yes I do expect you to read the books, why on earth wouldn't you? You've apparently made your mind up before looking at the evidence, that's fine but it's a little ridiculous. I'm not saying that to be honest, it genuinely is.
I read the Bible before I made my mind up, like I read the Koran before I made my mind up and so on.

I definitely expect you to read the material with the evidence before making your conclusion, that's logical. Otherwise everything you read is tainted by your preconceptions. In the same way I would read any forthcoming evidence against evolution without initially dismissing it. Odds are I've seen it before mind you but I'll always give it a good turn.
And yes, I have read creationist books, not that I'd ever buy them, that's what the library is for

 

[Griff Morivan]

Ask him to get back to you the next time he needs antibiotics

Quoted for fucking truth.

Honestly, I have a very hard time respecting people who don't accept evolution, but are otherwise quite intelligent. There isn't an excuse for it. And when I heard a friend of my own say that evolution is merely a 'theory', I nearly lost my shit. But, biting my tongue, I explained that a theory doesn't mean the same thing in science that it does in law, or in colloquialism. Theory means it's damned near irrefutable. That means scientists have found overwhelming evidence that supports the theory, often with little to no evidence that goes against it. Some things that can be posed to go against evolution actually make perfect sense.

Primary example I can think of is that same friend referring to the whole creationist thing of 'kinds'. And I really wish I could brag that I'd converted him, or made him understand, but... Well, I brought up ring species. Wound up having to use a YouTube video to explain my point, and he just said that it was scientists reaching.

Punch'em in the taint and move on with your life, OP.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

The concept of evolution is based on what is considered "empirical evidence", but the rules of empiricism literally do not apply to it. We have never experienced evolution for ourselves. We can make hypotheses, but that it literally the fullest extent of our understanding. Therefore, hardcore evolutionists have to ignore the defined rules of empiricism in order to forward their "empirical evidence" and claim evolution as truth. It is not true empiricism. They need to make a leap in logic. They might not consider it a leap; holding out hope for the "Missing Link" to be discovered and vindicate their beleifs.

This, in other words, is faith. Faith in experiments, and faith in Darwin.

Evolution has become a religion in itself.

Therefore, evolutionists, do not look down on religious people who question it. You are playing by their rules in your understanding.

Except, of course, where it has been observed, and tested, and how anyone with a microscope and a handful of short-lived insects can cause it to happen. Whereas alternate hypotheses have yet to do this?

That's fine tho, you can ignore evolution. Enjoy taking antibodies for every malady and then wondering why it stops working.

And yet, the Missing Link remains just that. Missing. You take it on faith that because something happens to the simplest life forms that it also happened to us. You might call on Lucy and other skeletal fragments from Africa, but I've never seen an ape change into a human. Your faith against mine. Let's call it even.

For the record, I'm a proponent of Intelligent Design. I'm pretty much exactly where the OP's friend is in terms of that philosophy. I don't see religion and evolution as mutually exclusive, I just think that humanity is...different. And as you type your rebuttal, think about what you do. Have whales invented language, or birds computers, or cats rhetorical techniques?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

This may be useful for you to watch, good sir.

Also.. apes did not evolve into humans as we know them today. We and apes alike have a common ancestor in which we branched off from on the evolutionary tree and eventually split off far enough that through natural selection and speciation, we became two different species of organisms with trace biological similarities that still exist within us from that common ancestor. So please, the argument of "I've never seen an ape change into a human" is just downright retarded of any evolutionary truth.

 

[ElectroJosh]

Do you actually believe what you are writing Dash-X, or do you just write it for the sake of winding up an idiotic discussion - ignoring a lot of benefits and just belittling them, not perceiving the change they bring and probably will bring if we don't end up killing each other before it happens?

Yes. I do believe what I am writing - else I probably wouldn't have written it.

To illustrate why, let me tell you what I know of someone I admire - Ernesto Che Guevarra. If memory serves, he was a doctor, but next to no one remembers that first thing when they hear the name. Him and Fidel and about 70 other dudes went to Cuba to challenge the way things were there. They actually won. They went in to fight a superior force, and they won. THAT'S an accomplishment. Shortly thereafter, while setting the groundwork for the new Cuba, he tried to change the WHY of work. It failed, but at least he tried. The man even worked the field on what little spare time he had. He saw humanity, and where others saw nature or conditioning, he saw that people could be better. He sought to bring that out, and he started with himself.

While I don't care much for his politics on a superficial level I admire what he was able to accomplish. I can only hope to do something that measures up to a fraction of that before I keel over.

So, when it seems that I'm belittling scientific accomplishment, it's just that science isn't trying to change anything that really matters to me. The change science brings merely provides more efficiency for the same old same to continue. When science puts a stop to injustice; when science puts a stop to racism; when science puts a stop to hatred, then I will acknowledge science's achievements as great. Until that day, I will maintain my stance.

Considering you chose "Che" as a model I would say science has already done more to end racism and hatred - by showing that racial differences are genetically superficial, that there are no hierarchy of human races (something believed by europeans in the pre-scientific era when they were conquering parts of the globe). It showed that homosexuality wasn't an aberation (something your beloved "Che" didn't believe - he was all for rounding up and executing gay people). Seriously science stopped people believing that everytime crops failed it was because a witch did it (and killing an inoccent old woman was a standard response).

I think you need to learn a bit more about human history and the suffering superstitions have caused and still cause in the world today (research albinos in african countries so see just one example). Consider how many places still treat women as slaves because their culture and superstitions allow them to.

Science is very new and already has made massive changes to the world. Anyone can make a claim but science is a way to test it and determine if it is actually true.

 

[Sentox6]

Now you're laying into people that aren't me. That is not very nice.

What in the world makes you so special? I'll discuss whatever I want with whomever I want, especially if they initiate the discussion.

1. Why did you think there is a connection between understanding evolution and depression?

No connection in the understanding thereof. The acceptance that it is the mechanism responsible for our universe as we know it, however, means you and I have no higher reason for existing except to try and suck up resources in order to stay alive. I'd call that pretty depressing. If you dare to imply that I'm stating this as a clinical hypothesis, well... all I can do is facepalm considerably, I guess.

2. Name me those credible scientists that have issues with evolution and have proposed an alternative.

I wouldn't find many in the sense that you're talking about. I'm not disagreeing with micro-evolution, I'm saying that there's nothing wrong with choosing to believe that macro-evolution was not responsible for our world. Doing so does not hold the human race back in any way, as you seem so desperate to believe. As I said before: it doesn't matter. You can embrace the current understanding of biology from a scientific perspective and still believe the universe was created.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

3. I said you shouldn't make mistakes, orthography and grammar are both parts of the English language.

Then you're an idiot, because no one is perfect. Clearly, however, there is a difference between a missed letter (especially when the current form was used twice in immediate locality) and the active insertion of an apostrophe where one did not belong.

 

[Hijax]

The people in this thread, i will break up into a few distinct categories. Any person may fit into more than one category:

First, the people saying "Why is his beliefs a big deal?" Now, i agree with you guys, that if the OP and this guy are close friends, it wouldn't be worth it getting into a huge argument over. However, the reason it matters, is because parts of Evolution is a fact, same a gravity(but more on that later), and it matters that someone does not believe in something that can be conclusively proven.

Second, the people saying "Oh snap, someone disagrees with the scientific consensus, BURN THE WITCH" in an ironic fashion. Now, what i gather is the opinion of these people, is that, since the scientific consensus has changed over time, treating any commonly accepted scientific explanation, as set in stone, is stupid, and reminiscent of the Dark Ages. Now, the thing is, this person is partially disbelieving in a scientific theory (Natural Selection), that, while well-supported by evidence, is not set in stone. He is, however, also disagreeing with an observable fact, namely that species evolve and change over time. This would be like someone disagreeing with us staying on the earth, everyone logically calling him out on it, and his counterargument being that just because we think we know something now, doesn't mean we're right. The scientific explanation for the observable facts may and do change over time, the actual facts do not.

Third, the people using the "It's just a theory" argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
To summarize, the theory, called Natural Selection, provides an explanation for the observable facts, namely that species are changing over time(more precisely, why the random genetic mutations which we know exist are not getting erased over time by dilution by other genes)
The explanation is the theory, and may be false or true. The observable facts are invariably true.

Fouth, the people using the "Holes in the fossil track" argument:
Clearly, you have no idea how fossils work. Fair enough. Only a teeny tiny fraction of all dead animals are preserved. The vast majority of species are not preserved in any form, and usually the actual skeletons are assembled from many different bones, giving scientists incredibly big holes in the data

Fifth, the few guys i've seen complaining about atheist forcing their beliefs on others, and complaining when religious folks try to do the same.
While i personally respect religious people's right to hold their beliefs, as long as they do not force them on others, the important difference is that atheists most often have more to document their beliefs than the contents of an old book.

Sixth, the one or so guy i've seen who actually made a reasoned argument about how atheists often treated evolution(including the theory) like some sort of universal fact: Thank you. I have no idea if you meant just the theory, in which case i agree, or the observable facts, too, in which case i disagree, but in either case you've given the other side of the argument just a tiny shred of credibility, that i appreciate even though i disagree with it.

Seventh, the people agreeing with me on this. Thanks.

There are probably a few patters that i forgot about, and i didn't cover all the fallacious counterarguments to evolution that has been used(because others have already done this).

 

[KeyMaster45]

...You're joking, right? You do realize Wikipedia can be edited by just about anyone with a computer and a connection to the internet? Heck, I remember one time the Oakland Raiders page for several days had them labeled as something like "professional butt pirates" or something, and all other kinds of insults all over their page and to the players and coaches. What makes Wikipedia that much more reliable than the school system?

It's also heavily moderated, especially on articles such as the one on evolution. Certain articles don't allow just anyone to edit them either and the evolution one is one of them. You also have to back up what you add or take away from any article by providing concrete sources, at the moment the evolution article cites 282 different sources. Vandalism happens on Wikipedia but it's typically corrected quickly, especially on topics prone to it like the Evolution one. Just because it's reputation is that anyone can edit it doesn't mean you can just slap bullshit on it and expect it to stick. Most of the articles are accurate thanks to the checks and balances imposed to make sure things remain factual. If it were as inaccurate as you say it is then it wouldn't have been nearly as successful as it has become. You might want to take some time and get familiar with the systems in place meant to keep it accurate before you make claims of inaccuracy based on the misconception that anyone can edit it without question or moderation.

I'm not suggesting it's a replacement for the school system but when you need to quickly and efficiently explain a topic to someone that's usually a good place to start. No, I'm not going to argue with you on this, I've no desire to get dragged into whatever petty flame war has erupted from the OP of this thread.

 

[DracoSuave]

I never like to concern myself with what everyone else believes in because you don't have to believe in evolution or be an atheist to cure diseases or advance humanity.

Being an atheist is irrelevant to the topic of science.

Believing in evolution is one of the most important elements of the body of work in biology, and is of particular importance in the realm of medicine. Without evolution, you do not have microbiology or genetics, and you absolutely 100% need those to cure diseases, or you will kill patients through your ignorance

Again, superbugs. Antibiotic over-use. This is not rocket surgery.

 

[AlexNora]

Of course evolution happens gradually, what are you talking about?

Oh, you discovered all the holes in the fossil record?

Sweet.

That question doesn't make any sense - the whole theory doesn't hinge on a complete fossil record - even a few transitional forms, such as oh, say, ALL OF THEM would lend supporting evidence, but as it so happens, we have an extensive fossil record, and we can use it to trace lineage back through hundreds of millions of years in many species. It's actually quite fascinating if you take the time to examine it - seeing where dogs branched off from cats and reptiles from mammals etc. Not to mention the extreme degree of knowledge we can find out from modern fossils - we've gone from being fooled by simple hoaxed 'mermaids' to being able to identify the colour of feathers on a velociraptor. Hell yes.

In any case, the reason it doesn't hinge on a complete fossil record, other than the fact it's easily reproducible in a lab with bacteria and stuff, is that it's easy enough to spot progression even with gaps of several thousand years, if only because changes are more obvious between forms. And the other cool part is those gaps let us make predictions, with great accuracy as to not only what transitional forms between what we have would look like, but where we should find them geographically and how deep they're probably buried. And it works. That's the measure of a strong theory - it makes testable predictions that work, allowing us to strengthen it.

Besides, you don't even know what a complete fossil record is - do you mean a single fossil for every single generation in a particular line of descent? a fossil representing each 'major' set of changes? ignoring the fact there's no definition of 'major' and hence no level of detail you'll be satisfied with. Do you mean one complete enough to establish the theory of evolution as the superior explanation for the facts of artificial and natural selection as well as the diversity and indeed origin of different species? And by origin I don't mean 'origin of life', I mean 'origin of diversity within life'. That's another thing people almost universally misunderstand when deciding to dismiss perfectly good science.

Science that is more proven, understood and complete than the laws of quantum physics that allow you to run your computer, I might add.

actualy no fossil counts as evidence for evolution if you find some bones in the dirt all you know is that the animal died you cannot prove it had any kids. you definitely cannot prove it had different kids (as in a bird giving birth to a none bird). and why would you assume a dead animal can do something animals today cant do? (breed animals outside of there own kind)(or magically transform into other animals)

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Now you're laying into people that aren't me. That is not very nice.

What in the world makes you so special? I'll discuss whatever I want with whomever I want, especially if they initiate the discussion.

1. Why did you think there is a connection between understanding evolution and depression?

No connection in the understanding thereof. The acceptance that it is the mechanism responsible for our universe as we know it, however, means you and I have no higher reason for existing except to try and suck up resources in order to stay alive. I'd call that pretty depressing. If you dare to imply that I'm stating this as a clinical hypothesis, well... all I can do is facepalm considerably, I guess.

2. Name me those credible scientists that have issues with evolution and have proposed an alternative.

I wouldn't find many in the sense that you're talking about. I'm not disagreeing with micro-evolution, I'm saying that there's nothing wrong with choosing to believe that macro-evolution was not responsible for our world. Doing so does not hold the human race back in any way, as you seem so desperate to believe. As I said before: it doesn't matter. You can embrace the current understanding of biology from a scientific perspective and still believe the universe was created.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

3. I said you shouldn't make mistakes, orthography and grammar are both parts of the English language.

Then you're an idiot, because no one is perfect. Clearly, however, there is a difference between a missed letter (especially when the current form was used twice in immediate locality) and the active insertion of an apostrophe where one did not belong.

What's the difference between macro evolution and micro evolution?
Answer is time. Here's a pretty cool example:

Why is it depressing? I'd wager it's more depressing that everything we do is completely meaningless. I mean it, with an eternal afterlife this entire life becomes pointless, everytime you suffer it's pointless, everytime you experience joy, it's pointless. If everything pales with another experience then it's useless to us. According to religions one day soon we will all be burning for eternity or in ecstasy for eternity (the morality of that can come around another day). What that means is this, this is nothing. I prefer life, thanks. This is real, I know it's real, I know I feel and I have an impact on the world around me. I'll take reality over the faint possibility of another life.

eta: AlexNora, read up on Lenski's experiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

This gives a brief understanding of how things change over time and how animals can make things...oh dear lord please learn about evolution before you try and argue against it.

 

[northeast rower]

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?!?!

I agree with him. Think before you disagree with one's opinion when you have nothing to back it up with but yours alone.

 

[ShakyFt Slasher]

It means that he is smart and his opinion should be considered.

 

[Dexiro]

Well evolution has always been a theory, one that still isn't universally accepted (despite a hell of a lot of proof) so you can't really do much other than accept that's what he believes. You never know, if he is that smart he might have figured out what really happened and is just keeping the answer from us, in which case he is a massive bag with which one douches.

But how does a well informed theory stand up against blind faith?

When something isn't labelled FACT it seems to throw people off a bit. Sure evolution isn't 100% proven fact but it's still by far the best guess so to speak, it's the best answer we have so far and there's actually no reason to oppose it.

Theories can only be opposed if the alternative theory has equal or greater evidence.

 

[Sentox6]

What's the difference between macro evolution and micro evolution?

That's not a cool example, it's a visually obnoxious example.

Why does everyone seem to miss the point? As I've said a hundred times by now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with believing macro-evolution wasn't the force responsible for the world as we know it.

Why is it depressing? I'd wager it's more depressing that everything we do is completely meaningless. I mean it, with an eternal afterlife this entire life becomes pointless, everytime you suffer it's pointless, everytime you experience joy, it's pointless. If everything pales with another experience then it's useless to us. According to religions one day soon we will all be burning for eternity or in ecstasy for eternity (the morality of that can come around another day). What that means is this, this is nothing. I prefer life, thanks. This is real, I know it's real, I know I feel and I have an impact on the world around me. I'll take reality over the faint possibility of another life.

I find it hilarious that people want to convince others they're the idiots because they don't believe macro-evolution got us here, then produce some of the most poorly reasoned theology I've ever heard in my life.

 

[Atheist.]

Well evolution has always been a theory, one that still isn't universally accepted (despite a hell of a lot of proof) so you can't really do much other than accept that's what he believes. You never know, if he is that smart he might have figured out what really happened and is just keeping the answer from us, in which case he is a massive bag with which one douches.

I recommended reading this : http://www.notjustatheory.com/
Scientific use of theory and regular every day use are completely different. A theory can never be a law. But it has gained a popular acceptance among the scientific community.

 

[DracoSuave]

actualy no fossil counts as evidence for evolution if you find some bones in the dirt all you know is that the animal died you cannot prove it had any kids. you definitely cannot prove it had different kids (as in a bird giving birth to a none bird). and why would you assume a dead animal can do something animals today cant do? (breed animals outside of there own kind)

Actually, biologists do NOT assume animals back then do different things than they do now. They look at bone structures, match them to existing animals, find they do not match, and reason that they must be different animals.

Either that, or we haven't found dinosaurs, archeopterex, or trilobites yet, and they must be around somewhere.

In fact, by your statement that animals must do then what they do now, you must accept that animals do now, in fact, have mutations and offspring that show characteristics different from their parents. Animals have different variations of traits within the species (height, weight, color) and in some environments, animals with one trait may be killed off while another is not killed off. As well, mate selection often takes into account factors necessary for optimal survival, which explains why modern society tends to find thinner, physically fit, humans attractive, because it is thought they will live longer with lesser complications. This is a change from two centuries ago, when colonials would be attracted to fatter, wider mates, because they would have a greater ability to survive cold climates and live off fat stores for survival.

If you subscribe to the idea that what animals do doesn't change, then you can logically apply observations on living animals and apply it to dead ones.

Of course, that completely ignores all the body of evidence and work done through fossil records, and simply applies logical synthesis based on living animals and extrapolates to fossil records...

Fact is, you are not aware of the body of work done on this, so your statements cannot be taken as valid, particularily where they contradict established fact.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well evolution has always been a theory

And, like everything else in science, always will be.

Okay, I have to know if you're using the scientific definition of theory in your little "...everything else in science..." or the layman's "theory is like guessing" because I think you just broke my brain. Please clarify before is leaks out of my head.

Just to clear up a little vocab here, when you apply the word "Theory" to a scientific concept, that means that there is measurable and replicable data that forms a model of reality.

If you believe in science, then you believe that if a better theory comes along, it can replace a previous theory... physics in the past century exhibits that.

However, as scientific theories go... there isn't a lot of evidence that indicates something else. The body of work is overwhelming, and Evolution is not likely to be replaced by another theory any time soon... certainly not Intelligent Design which has NO body of work at all.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

What's the difference between macro evolution and micro evolution?

That's not a cool example, it's a visually obnoxious example.

Why does everyone seem to miss the point? As I've said a hundred times by now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with believing macro-evolution wasn't the force responsible for the world as we know it.

Why is it depressing? I'd wager it's more depressing that everything we do is completely meaningless. I mean it, with an eternal afterlife this entire life becomes pointless, everytime you suffer it's pointless, everytime you experience joy, it's pointless. If everything pales with another experience then it's useless to us. According to religions one day soon we will all be burning for eternity or in ecstasy for eternity (the morality of that can come around another day). What that means is this, this is nothing. I prefer life, thanks. This is real, I know it's real, I know I feel and I have an impact on the world around me. I'll take reality over the faint possibility of another life.

I find it hilarious that people want to convince others they're the idiots because they don't believe macro-evolution got us here, then produce some of the most poorly reasoned theology I've ever heard in my life.

I find it funny you're trying to insult me without adding anything. Cool story.

So is it wrong to believe micro-evolution is wrong? What's your angle here, it seems to be nonsensical. Stop saying macro-evolution, it's nonsensical there's no such thing, it's not a distinct factor of the theory. Everything in the ToE is gradual, it's all micro-evolution which taken over time makes large changes.

Did I call you an idiot? No. Stop putting words in my mouth thank you, I'll insult you in due course if you really want to play the martyr card.

How is the graphic bad? It succinctly demonstrates how large changes occur with small changes, something which people may not grasp, something you clearly do not.
It's not bad theology either. An omnipotent God and an afterlife demeans this world. If everything here is pointless then why the fuck is that good? It's not. According to that we live like puppets, acting out a cutesy little play while we suffer and love and it's all in vain because at the end of the day what happens is we get shoved into one of two camps and either burn for eternity or feel great for eternity.

Like I said, I prefer life thanks.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

You're question can't be "What the fuck?", so I'll pretend you asked "What do I do to convince him otherwise?", to which I respond, present him with the evidence that compels you to be convinced of evolution applying to humanity. If you have non, I suggest you question why you believe it too, then go out and look for some.

Of course you can say "because everything else evolves, so does humanity" but maybe you're friend thinks that's only true to a degree, or not true at all. An example of this would be being insufficently convinced we would develop such an organ as the human brain through natural selection. An organ which we even now don't know the boundaries of now, and far exceeds it's initial usefulness when the first mutant homo-(species) developed theirs.

We certainly have compelling evidence that humanity has evolved, and we are more than 98% genetically identical to chimpanzees, so to suggest we've never evolved would be ignorant. However, I see how he could come to the idea that God made a species that was very similar to one already on the planet, if he subscribes to evolution for the rest of the species, but with the aforementioned incredibly enlarged cerebral cortex.

If so your job is to either present the evidence that our earlier ancestors were definitely related to "Pan", or you can only point out that what he is doing is introducing God in a scientific process, that by his own admission, was evolving towards us already (especially with the evidence that chimps used tools and stood upright).

Evolution is considered "beyond reasonable doubt", however there is still "unreasonable doubt" or to be more balanced "extremely unlikely alternatives". He may believe one of these.

It's certainly difficult to live by the Torah but also not dispute scientific theory.