Why do people reject evolution?

[Quaxar]

My friend,a satanist,tells me to just ignore uneducated people and take advantage of them.

<youtube=IaDOkMEK4uk>

I don't know how to imbed. Skip to 3 hours in.

"<youtube=", then the numbers and letter part that follows the "v=" but not including anything with "&" in the Youtube url.
Quoting any post with an embed will also show you the relevant code.

What are you trying to say with this video?
I watched a few minutes into your 3h mark and so far it's the assertion that the legend of atlantis is true despite being called a story by the author himself, that the mayan calendar somehow is "the most advanced calendar ever" and 3 minutes in we're suddenly at the secret illuminati society.
Is there a specific point you are trying to make that I missed? Because firstly I can't really see any connection to the topic at hand and secondly I'm pretty sure I could disprove the whole thing point-per-point if it weren't so long I can't be bothered to watch all four hours.

For example: ~3:11:30
"Science found in the 50s that silicon shows the same principles of life as carbon. [...] Sponges deep in the ocean made from a hundret percent silicon were also discovered, which shows that silicon life doesn't just work in theory but they actually exist right here on this planet."
To say that sponges are made from silicon is like saying that humans are made from calcium. Sponges may USE silicon as a building material for their skeleton, that doesn't mean that that on a cellular level every C is replaced with Si. Silicon does have similar properties but as far as I know carbon is still far better at spontaneously forming organic compounds.

 

[Monster_user]

Allow me to clarify, then. Rocks were originally dated via fossils, by the principle of Faunal Succession. Basically it's a fancy name for the fact that certain organisms show up in certain packets of rock.

After the discovery of radioactive isotopes, it was discovered that you can use the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes to determine how old something is. ..., this works for rocks as well. This allowed us to get the absolute date of rocks--that is, how old they are compared to the present.

...Anyway, certain species occur over a wide geographic range, but a relatively short temporal range, making them ideal markers for relative dating.

You mostly focused on the dating of rocks in your post, first the Faunal Succession, then radioactive isotope dating. Later you mention lava flows, which are presumably dated using radioactive isotopes. As far as I can tell for your post, scientists are using a single method of dating, radioactive isotopes, on two different types of objects, a rock and a fossil.

So ultimately, it is neither rocks being dated by fossils, nor fossils dating rocks, as those are just shortcuts. Both the rocks and the fossils are dated by radioactive isotopes.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

It doesn't break down.

*You can't see oxygen, but you CAN verify its presence. You can't see evolution happening, but you can observe its results. You can't see gravity but you can pretty accurately and reliably predict its affects.

You can't see god and you CAN'T verify his presence either. He has no verifiable properties, nor means of measurement.

They are fundamentally different things, faith and science, as is Creationism and Evolution.

See and if I WAS a creationist (and i'm not) you left yourself wide open with that;

You can't SEE god but you can walk on the earth he created, eat the fruits of his labours etc. If the earth exists because god created it, then there is your measurement right there. You're either floating in a featureless void or god exists. So you can verify his existence by breathing the air he created, eating the animals he put there for you and walking on the ground he made.

So the evidence for both sides is equally flimsy is what you've proven there. Which is the point I was trying to make at the beginning before the evolutionists got all embarrassed and had to prove how closed-minded they could be. And you know what? Success.

I give up. "You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think." I have failed completely in that endeavor so hat's off to you all.

That's not proof of god. That's circular logic.

"Prove that god exists."
"You are standing within his creation *gestures to the world around*"
"Prove that god created the world"
"The Bible says so."
"How does the bible saying so make it true?"
"Because God himself arbitrated it."

Rinse and repeat.

Heck, let's take that even further:

"Prove that god exists."
"You are standing within his creation *gestures to the world around*"
"Prove that god created the world"
"How else other then a intelligent design, could such complexity be created"
"By immeasurable scales and forces of time, energy and movement, how does complexity prove gods handiwork?"
...

Yeah I don't know where to take this reasoning. Eventually every argument directed at Faith boils down to God is unknowable and all powerful, therefore he did it. The only physically quantifiable source of his existence are Religious Texts and, besides the internal contradictions observable within those texts, virtually every major event that counts as "proof of god" can be disproved by scientific evidence and testing.

The Irony of your final remark is not lost on anyone debating with you I'm sure.

Look. Here is an analogy so you can visualise how I, and others, see this topic:

Spoiler: Long Analogy

The universe is a puzzle. For ease of visualisation, let's call it a jigsaw. This jigsaw is not like other jigsaws in that we can't truly know what the final image is until the last piece is in place. What's more, the jigsaw does not get easier the further you progress, it actually gets harder.

Religion saw this puzzle first. They used the power of observation to put the simplest and most basic pieces together, giving them a really rough outline of this immense puzzle. They then, in all their excitement, guessed as to what the final image was. From this point on they started directing their solution towards this suspected finished image. Eventually their guess started to show signs of fallibility. This resulted in schisms among the problem solvers, creating a variety of alternative outcomes as to what the final image was. The problem still being that they are still guessing based off of very little.

Eventually things got so muddled and confused that they started to jam pieces in spots they didn't fit in and even threw away pieces that appeared to not fit anywhere. Long before they even finished a fraction of the puzzle, they started joining their "established" sections together and then decided to paint their vision of the finished image over the gaps. Then proceeded to frame the image and claim it was finished and that no one should touch it... or look too closely... or pretty much inquire about anything related to it other then to talk about the finished image and how amazing it is.

Of course you had multiple finished images all saying they were the "true" finished image and shit just got confusing and nasty as a result.

Then some young buck named science looked at this finished image a bit closer then religion would have wanted and saw all the flaws. The pieces that don't fit, the pieces that were missing (discarded) and the fact that a big gaping hole in the puzzle was just painted over.

Science though thatt was odd and decided to reconstruct the identifiable pieces in his own time. He was methodical, only taking small leaps of guess work to help focus his efforts, sometimes getting the run of himself and trying to solve pieces beyond his current comprehension, but always corrected himself when pieces stopped fitting. Eventually he had surpassed religion with a more complete image, though still far from being truly complete. From this point on his guesswork was more clever and calculated, basing his next actions off of observable patterns in the image. Even large gaps between chunks of finished segments were starting to show form trough these patterns. His guesswork started to become more detailed and defined, capable of predicting where the next piece would sit with frightening accuracy.

This is where science is now. The puzzle is far from complete and progress is slow... but it is certain. He acknowledges that the puzzle is not complete and that his guess work might not be accurate, so is willing to go back on segments he once though were correct if the patterns start to fall apart. But fortunately due to his methodical nature, this mistakes are few and when they do appear the damage is only minute, only requiring the reshuffling of minor pieces.

People are now interested in this Science guys attempt at the puzzle, not just because the image is coming out differently from all the past assumed outcomes, but that he willingly allows people to look at the image, question his reasoning and even help out if they want to. Science involves the admirers... he doesn't expect anything of them other then to respect the process of solving the puzzle and not to get too excited about the outcome as that can lead to misdirection.

Finally, Science also doesn't punish people for prodding at his logic, since to Science it's a win-win. Either he's right and the true image keeps taking shape over time, or he's wrong, changes his approach and the true image takes shape over time. At this point he knows enough to see what is working, the patterns all add up and fit nicely, the only pieces that he questions are the newest placed pieces, since they are still placed on hunches and assumptions based off of patterns, but he is not afraid to dismantle segments who's patterns are just falling apart.

Religion gave up on the goal of solving the puzzle, discarded the pieces that didn't fit his assumptions, jammed others into places they didn't fit and then painted the final image of what they envisioned long ago. They then framed it and put it up on the wall and said, "This is the answer to the puzzle!".

Science, young and ambitious, disagreed and started from scratch, this time without fooling himself into imagining what it would be, but rather let it organically show itself as he pieced it together. He developed processes and studied patterns all in the aim of finishing the puzzle, not achieving a desired result.

Religion started it but was too arrogant to see past his own vision. Science is now taking the helm and is determined to see the true finished puzzle. That is his only goal and he does it slowly and methodically.

You sir(and many others)have made it impossible to post without feeling redundant!That analogy is so condescending-I am ashamed to not have thought of it myself!Do you find it ironic that some people will only understand science when you explain it using a completely made-up story that has some real parts to it?
My friend,a satanist,tells me to just ignore uneducated people and take advantage of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaDOkMEK4uk

I don't know how to imbed. Skip to 3 hours in.

Thanks for the recognition. I was afraid that analogy would fade away unnoticed /vanity

To be honest, my goal isn't to look down on their viewpoints, but considering how fundamentalist Faith based viewpoints stem from indoctrination and pressure from childhood (I recommend watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eam-z1bwrk) means you are trying to target logic and reasoning's that stemmed from those early impressionable days. The only way to approach these topics is to drastically simplify it (which has a catch, since simplifying the complex leads to logical gaps, which causes a retort to turn around and become fuel to the fire).

Also to embed you type youtube=*insert the garbled code after watch?v=* within the square bracket parenthesis

So for example, the video I linked would be youtube=8Eam-z1bwrk then close the whole thing within the "[]" parenthesis. So you get this:


Finally... I wouldn't agree with your friends opinion, nor his life choice (or at least, how he identifies himself).

What was the video meant to illustrate?

 

[Palademon]

TL;DR. Sorry for seeming arrogant to your reply, but seriously, if you wanted to explain something to me then try using shorter sentences and making sense, or otherwise I think your hiding something in that big wall of text.

Evolution can be explain in a very dynamic way, not a detail account of what you think.

When religion and evolution mixes it makes me... uncomfortable. Because it goes against everything I believe, and makes the Bible seem like a big fairytail. Evolution has no real proof of conception. At least the Bible carried words for over 4,000 years to bring good morals to our society, and evolution carried nothing more than fossils and bones. If you find me arrogant in what I think, then your arrogant in my freedom to think for myself.

"I didn't read your answer ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GgflscOmW8 ) but I know it's wrong. The fact you had so many critiques means you're probably hiding something, even though all critiques were one offs to each issue rather than building to one point. You didn't make sense, and I should know, I didn't read it, and I'll make no effort in telling you why it made no sense. If you think this is arrogant, NO U. My point of view is correct because it includes what I feel is the only source of morals which is totally relevant when talking about facts of the world. And has done for 4000 years, twice as long as my faith has existed."

 

[Madara XIII]

Evolution is nothing but created by stubborn atheist who try to disprove anything they think is not real. It's always about them, never about others. It just ignorant people who twist the world to THEIR desire. As a Christian, I find offensive to twist people's mind to think like yourself and never give them the freedom to think upon themselves.

This is why people respond badly to not following evolution. I understand that both sides are a kneejerk reaction of "I'M RIGHT".

But
"This disgarees with what I think. Must be a trick by someone to confuse people of my lifestyle."
is not carefully assessing the issue. But I guess you don't feel liek being the " bigger man", rather than an equal man.

I understand some of your points but they seem to be based purely on lack of knowledge. I know this is a go to point, but holes can easily be, and have been filled by this thread. I see you are doing well to ask questions.

Also, that paragraph I quoted seems very hypocritical. Forgive me if I merely use this oppurtunity for what could be a horrible strawman, but what you just said was "Only ignorant people would push something like this as knowledge because they want to bring people to their own way of thinking. I find it offensive that they don't allow free thinking, i.e. that I am right because I'm not "ignorant".". I'm not sure how pushing something as fact automatically makes someone igorant. I'm sorry that my only response is "This is a matter of science, a method of trying to learn about the world, through evidence and tests, and what we learn is used to better ourselves and our understanding.
If it is wrong (through evidence from collected testable data) we will change it. The reason why people don't consider your view is both because they had already considered it ages ago, since your view hasn't changed since it started, and that it is not imcompatible with them." It will affect neither your faith or your way of life to accept evolution, but of course that's a stupid way to encourage if you actually believe there's some holes in it.

I would like more non-believers to have something against evolution ebcause it would make it seem less like a battle of opinion, and the lacks of facts or evidence you claim. In this situation I'm fairly sure people would respond with something along the lines of "Why does evidence and devleopment of knowledge mean anything you, and undermine this position, when your view is held by one uncheckable source, that apparently doesn't rely on testing to be correct".

I can find belieivng in a God a logical thing to do, but I often ask myself why after that revelation, people pick a specific religion, because it seems like putting your hand in a hat for a slip of paper and choosing, or just picking your favourite book, thus making it true. Otherwise true only because it says so. Maybe you or others thoguht the morals were good, but why does that make every story in it true?

As an atheist, it would reassure me that you really want people to have free thought if you told me you'd raisd hypothetical kids without telling them your stance is the right one. Are you going to do that? It would add much more weight to what you say. When religion is asked about will you say "these people believe this", instead of "there once was a guy called Jesus"? Will you wait until your children are mature enough to decide for themselves, or will you take them to church every sunday?

Now, you're probably thinking I was raised atheist. Not really. I wasn't raised to believe anything, despite living across the road from a chapel. No one told me what was real and what wasn't. When I got to the question I merely gave my own answer. I'm not saying you didn't find your religion yourself, I just hope your stance on freedom of thought extends to what you want to teach your kids, when so many religious people merely go "I'll teach them to believe what I believe, because it's right"

We can and do witness evolution in labs. I understand on a larger scale this is harder to grasp, and if you honestly read through the examples and analogies of this whole thread then I have nothing to tell you.

And the whole thing about being really lucky is, unless you exist unlike all the things that don't, you cannot comment on the unlikliness of your existence.The only reason you can is because you exist. If there's only some random percent chance, let's say 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that what exists does and only that exists, it still isn't great cause for "purpose" since ONLY that which exists can observe that. By existing, you are defaulty that small percentage.
Think of all the sperm that didn't make it to life. They can't comment on them not receiving life because they have no sentience in which to do so.
It's not like the lottery where it's just hard to win ,it'd be like if the lottery only existed because you won it.

I looked further and notice you put

2. Darwinism is a word, not a term. Go look it up.

I would say word and term are synonyms, but okay, here's a look up:

"Darwinism originally included broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology.Though it usually refers strictly to biological evolution, the term has been misused by creationists to refer to the origin of life and has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution which have no connection to Darwin's work."

And the reason people think you're torlling them is you seem to respond with evidence with "That's not right" without giving a why. "We are unique in our own nature". I don't know whether to respond with yes or no, since that is a vague statement. My response is somewhere on the lines of "So?"

We are unique in nature thus we aren't similar?
We are unique in nature thus we are unloike anything else?
Does other things having a head, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, a mouth, two arms, and two legs make us less unique?

This isn't a quantifiable thing unless you be more specific. You just shurgging off data since you didn't test it yourself, then excusing that lack of wanting to udnerstand with vague...I don't even know the word. I wouldn't even call it observation...

You don't disprove evidence you merely ignore it. Staitng there is none solves nothing. Say what's wrong with it.

No evidence for evolution?
We mutate cells, we breed dogs.

Evolutionn can at a simple level be explained as random utaiton that leads to big change over time. I don't see it as having a stimulus, since it is not a sentient force. It might be described as a checmical or biological reaciton, but I don't know why mutations take place. I'm not a biologist, and I don't have to be to tell you they take place. We ourselves have simple mutations over our observed existence. I, for example, have ginger hair. Other people have blue eyes. And apart form that, we have races of people.

I know you are biased because you think atheists are evil. What attmept would you want to make to understand their position? You seem to put evolution under more scepticism than your own faith. Why is it that "You didn't witness it" it a problem for evolution and not your faith? I really wish this wasn't a versus thing, but your problem seems to be your faith is in the way, when it's even compatible with religion. You say you claim the facts are wrong, yet you claim that it's atheists trying to deceive you and I bet not in that order. Why turn it into such a thing like that? Even though absolutely NOTHING about takes away from your religion. Going again it for those reasons when they're arne't problems on such a tested theory only makes yourself look like you are afraid of other explanations. Sure, evolution could turn out to be wrong ( and this is giving you rope to try to be respectful to you, evne thgough you'll probably only choke me with it) that is the nature of science, trial and error til answer, but considering all that falls in line, it would take a MASSIVE discovery, signalling some horrendous fluke of a ridiculous ammount of already acquired scientific data to call it into question.

TL;DR. Sorry for seeming arrogant to your reply, but seriously, if you wanted to explain something to me then try using shorter sentences and making sense, or otherwise I think your hiding something in that big wall of text.

Evolution can be explain in a very dynamic way, not a detail account of what you think.

When religion and evolution mixes it makes me... uncomfortable. Because it goes against everything I believe, and makes the Bible seem like a big fairytail. Evolution has no real proof of conception. At least the Bible carried words for over 4,000 years to bring good morals to our society, and evolution carried nothing more than fossils and bones. If you find me arrogant in what I think, then your arrogant in my freedom to think for myself.

The BIBLE you say!? Being brought into a topic requiring facts and research outside of religious bias?

The Book of Genesis:

<youtube=5GgflscOmW8>

 

[TopQuark]

I don't post on these forums. I use escapist for my gaming needs and came to the topic out of an itch. Just felt that I need to congragulate intelligent people posting accumulated knowledge here with patience. I hope you keep this attitude up. This discussion is unlikely to weed out in our lifetimes, but I can see number of informed&information gatherer people is climbing up since internet came about which gives me hope for further generations.

 

[Ryotknife]

I don't post on these forums. I use escapist for my gaming needs and came to the topic out of an itch. Just felt that I need to congragulate intelligent people posting accumulated knowledge here with patience. I hope you keep this attitude up. This discussion is unlikely to weed out in our lifetimes, but I can see number of informed&information gatherer people is climbing up since internet came about which gives me hope for further generations.

patience?

even though im pro-evolution, many of the evolution posters in this thread are rude, inconsiderate, and just as fanatical in their hatred as the creationists they despise.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

The C-14 and radioisotope dating methods have come under serious fire in the past decade, and there has been no serious attempt to study or answer these arguments. The arguments themselves don't even stem from a "look this proves a young earth" angle, just a "look there are inconsistencies in the dating methods" angle. So why hasn't anyone tried to answer these critiques?

No once again this is just another Creationist Kent Hovind lie, we've tested and verified C-14 dating in blind test and verified the results or we wouldn't be using it. These so called inconsistencies are not inconsistencies and people have answers these critiques, you obviously didn't look very hard and just assumed they hadn't been addressed.

 

[TopQuark]

I don't post on these forums. I use escapist for my gaming needs and came to the topic out of an itch. Just felt that I need to congragulate intelligent people posting accumulated knowledge here with patience. I hope you keep this attitude up. This discussion is unlikely to weed out in our lifetimes, but I can see number of informed&information gatherer people is climbing up since internet came about which gives me hope for further generations.

patience?

even though im pro-evolution, many of the evolution posters in this thread are rude, inconsiderate, and just as fanatical in their hatred as the creationists they despise.

Yep, this topic has seen a good amount of namecalling and personal attacks on both sides. Still time and again many people kept bringing in information which enabled me to follow the lead and read more about it. I am capable of filtering out the friction between people which I'm not interested in.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

3) This concept of shouting down competing ideas as wrong, idiotic, ect, is the exact same type of thing that resulted in the banishment of Galileo. Never shame opposing ideas, no matter how unlikely, because that discourages people from researching the unlikely, and unlikely research is always the most groundbreaking.

There is nothing wrong with competing ideas, in fact I always encourage new ideas in science as long as they have been derived by the scientific method. If you don't know what the scientific method is look back a few pages and watch the short video that explains it.

The truth of the matter is scientist don't have time to examine all the wack job ideas out there and it's not their responsibility. Ideas like aliens building the pyramids, an expanding earth or Scientology and Creationism in general. You just can't dream up some idea and expect the scientific community to believe and take your word at face value. Creationist are held to the same standards as everyone else, if you think some creationist idea is wrongfully shot down than do an experiment and show the results proving your hypothesis. If you think Creationist should get a by on this method/procedure, that everyone even scientists are held to just because of their religion and their assumed conclusion, well too %^$%ing bad.

I'm glad you brought up Galileo, because this is a prime example of how religion attempts to dumb down the masses and opposes science. You see Galileo just didn't have some wacky idea with nothing to back it, he actually had something called evidence.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html

 

[spartan231490]

3) This concept of shouting down competing ideas as wrong, idiotic, ect, is the exact same type of thing that resulted in the banishment of Galileo. Never shame opposing ideas, no matter how unlikely, because that discourages people from researching the unlikely, and unlikely research is always the most groundbreaking.

There is nothing wrong with competing ideas, in fact I always encourage new ideas in science as long as they have been derived by the scientific method. If you don't know what the scientific method is look back a few pages and watch the short video that explains it.

The truth of the matter is scientist don't have time to examine all the wack job ideas out there and it's not their responsibility. Ideas like aliens building the pyramids, an expanding earth or Scientology and Creationism in general. You just can't dream up some idea and expect the scientific community to believe and take your word at face value. Creationist are held to the same standards as everyone else, if you think some creationist idea is wrongfully shot down than do an experiment and show the results proving your hypothesis. If you think Creationist should get a by on this method/procedure, that everyone even scientists are held to just because of their religion and there assumed conclusion, well too %^$%ing bad.

I'm glad you brought up Galileo, because this is a prime example of how religion attempts to dumb down the masses and opposes science. You see Galileo just didn't have some wacky idea with nothing to back it, he actually had something called evidence.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html

I didn't say you should accept creationism at face value. I said you should just say: "The evidence doesn't support your idea, but it's your right to believe it if you choose." It's not that hard, just live and let live.

 

[___________________]

I don't remember the Bible saying that evolution was false. In fact, maybe that's how God "made" humans. But who am I to say anything. I don't have a fancy degree for playing around with numbers, or a fancy degree in philosophy nor am I some stuck up priest who fondles little people. I'm just an ape who is strategically shaved, can barely use a few tools, doesn't know crap about the Universe and how it all works down to its core and I believe there's something or someone out there that is better than me in everything (excluding humans who happened to be more apt). I don't like religious nutcases, I don't like atheists who don't think for themselves nor do I like people who look at religious texts and read them to suit their theories on whether God does or does not exist, because honestly if people do that no one will ever reach a concensus due to the fact that they will always read what they want the books to say and not what is actually written. I like to read the Bible without attaching myself too much to a certain creed, be it religious zealots or stuck up atheists who think they know better because they're angry with what they see in the news. I like to keep an open mind when I'm reading a text, especially one like the Bible (or any religious text), I like the concept of there being things out there that are superior to me, because if humans are the pinnacle of evolution in this not so small Universe, well, it might as well not even exist.

Besides if one can't prove a god's existence why do people even debate? Imagine there is a god or gods out there? If that/those being(s) didn't wish for his/her/their existence to be proven and if they only wanted people to trust in the fact that he/she/they exist(s) then how would less advanced humans like us be able to prove that existence? We wouldn't. People trying to prove either will never get an answer, they will only get more theories. Or hey, maybe someday we'll prove it. I don't know. I don't care. I just don't want to see religious people and non-religious people constantly getting at each others throats while politicians sit on their fat asses and count the money they're stealing from everyone while you're too busy polishing your egos to notice anything.

Sorry for the rant, mr. person who stumbled upon my writings. Not having the best of days here. Sorry if I offended anyone. Again, having a crap day makes us humans act a little on impulse so sorry about anything. If you're a politician and you're wasting time on this forum instead of doing some actual work then disregard this last bit.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

I didn't say you should accept creationism at face value. I said you should just say: "The evidence doesn't support your idea, but it's your right to believe it if you choose." It's not that hard, just live and let live.

For the same reason (as you pointed out) that Galileo insisted that the earth rotated around the sun, that Christopher Columbus insisted the world was round and that cracking peoples heads open to let out the bad spirits is a bad idea. Listen your welcome to believe any crazy thing you want in your own home or church. I really don't care if you think the moon is made out of cheese, but don't come up to me and tell me your crazy ideas with no evidence are just as valid as established scientific theories and deserve looking into, than get upset you get laughed at.

 

[Dinwatr]

You mostly focused on the dating of rocks in your post, first the Faunal Succession, then radioactive isotope dating. Later you mention lava flows, which are presumably dated using radioactive isotopes. As far as I can tell for your post, scientists are using a single method of dating, radioactive isotopes, on two different types of objects, a rock and a fossil.

So ultimately, it is neither rocks being dated by fossils, nor fossils dating rocks, as those are just shortcuts. Both the rocks and the fossils are dated by radioactive isotopes.

Actually, no. I discussed two TYPES of dating, only one of which utilizes radiometric isotopes. Then there are things like varve deposits, growth rings on various organisms, and the like that allow for extremely precise dating and ignore radiometric dating entirely. Dating rocks is a complicated and extremely technical process, and I certainly didn't cover everything here. I'll be the first to admit that I don't KNOW everything--I've got a background in stratigraphy, but it's a consequence of some ideas I have about how paleontology should be done, rather than a focus of mine.

Sponges deep in the ocean made from a hundret percent silicon were also discovered, which shows that silicon life doesn't just work in theory but they actually exist right here on this planet."

This is wrong to the point of being fraudulent. The sponges are not made from 100% silicon. They have spicules, which are sort of like bones, that are made of silicon. Diatoms and a few other organisms also use SiO2 as their main skeleton mineral. To say they're made of 100% silica is akin to saying that humans are made of 100% phosphate.

http://stoneplus.cst.cmich.edu/zoogems/venus.html

Here's a fun website on siliceous sponges, for anyone interested.

I didn't say you should accept creationism at face value. I said you should just say: "The evidence doesn't support your idea, but it's your right to believe it if you choose." It's not that hard, just live and let live.

Except that that's not what's happening. The Wedge Document pretty clearly outlines a coherent plan that starts with forcing Creationism into schools and ends with theocracy. Also, you can hold any opinion you want--but as soon as you start trying to call it science, you have to follow rules. Modern Creatoinism violates those rules, and cannot be honestly held to be true by scientists in the relevant fields. As a scientist in a relevant field I am obligated to point out the errors, lies, and frauds of modern Creationism. Secondly, it's not the evolutionary biologists or paleontologists who refuse to live and let live. Honestly, we ALL have better things to do than to beat basic scientific knowledge into the heads of people who simply don't want to know (there are two types of Creationists: the frauds who know better, and the dupes who have been conned and who haven't taken the time to learn the facts). The errors Creationists commit are BASIC. Geology 101 stuff, most often. It's BORING. But we need to do it, because if we don't my job, and the jobs of my friends and family, will be put at risk.

Oh, and the last time an industrialized nation abandoned evolution there was a remarkably high body count. We can debate to what degree abandoning evolution contributed to that, but it certainly contributed something. So it's also a matter of life and death, in a very real sense. Not exactly a "live and let live" situation.

Finally, the evidence DOES support evolution. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've studied reefs that cross the K/Pg boundary. I've studied the migration of the Pleistocene megafauna. I've seen changes in plant populations as glaciers advance and retreat. I've seen literally tonnes of evidence for evolution in the form of brachiopods and mollusks and decapod crustaceans. I've even found transitional forms. Whoever told you that the evidence doesn't support evolution WAS LYING TO YOU.

 

[Quaxar]

I didn't say you should accept creationism at face value. I said you should just say: "The evidence doesn't support your idea, but it's your right to believe it if you choose." It's not that hard, just live and let live.

For the same reason (as you pointed out) that Galileo insisted that the earth rotated around the sun, that Christopher Columbus insisted the world was round and that cracking peoples heads open to let out the bad spirits is a bad idea. Listen your welcome to believe any crazy thing you want in your own home or church. I really don't care if you think the moon is made out of cheese, but don't come up to me and tell me your crazy ideas with no evidence are just as valid as established scientific theories and deserve looking into, than get upset you get laughed at.

I don't particularly wish to undermine an argument I'm agreeing to but Columbus might not be the best example in this since he didn't actually try to propagate the idea that the world was round but was trying to prove his false believe that it was much smaller than estimated and thus just a short hop west to India.

And because the last pages have been seriously lacking our atheist-messiahcreationist quote Carl Sagan:
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Oh, and the last time an industrialized nation abandoned evolution there was a remarkably high body count. We can debate to what degree abandoning evolution contributed to that, but it certainly contributed something. So it's also a matter of life and death, in a very real sense. Not exactly a "live and let live" situation.

I'm curious, what nation are you talking about? Not that I doubt you, I just seem completely unable to think of one right now...

 

[azukar]

Well, after 18 pages I'm sure there's nothing else significant I can add to this conversation. Evolution theory is well-established and cannot be seriously argued against by anyone who understands it.

As so many of you have said before me, people reject evolution because they misrepresent it, largely because their favourite flavour of priest told them to.

 

[Dinwatr]

I'm curious, what nation are you talking about? Not that I doubt you, I just seem completely unable to think of one right now...

The USSR. They abandoned evolution in favor of a modified Lamarkianism, and their agricultural production dropped like a rock.

 

[Quaxar]

I'm curious, what nation are you talking about? Not that I doubt you, I just seem completely unable to think of one right now...

The USSR. They abandoned evolution in favor of a modified Lamarkianism, and their agricultural production dropped like a rock.

Ah. See, I did not know that so I wouldn't even have guessed. I'd agree with them that Lamarckism is a nicer idea because you get to have a personal say in hereditary traits. Do I work out so my kids will be stronger or should I rather practice my stamina?
It's such a shame it is nonsense.

 

[Shifty]

Honestly, I think the problem here is people as this thread shows. As children in general we believe what we are told one way or another. This can lead to concrete belief when we get older.. dad said it was so then it must be.

Seriously, if you are religious, and I speak of nearly all religions - the teachings will most often, when boiled down and not fanatically taken, teach a golden rule policy.. do on to others as you would have them done on to you.

As for people who do not believe in god, why are you worried about those that do. If they believe something different from you, it does not harm you unless you are unfortunate to be in certain countries.

To sum up a badly written piece, I would like if both ideas were taught in schools equally so students could make their own minds up to satisfy themselves and I would like people stop looking down on people who don't think share the same ideas as them.

Honestly lads and lassies, people are people. In the long run people will always believe in religion, science and both together. Each to their own and the world moves on.