-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
So who here doesn't believe in evolution?
- Thread starter Mandark
- Start date
- Status
Link648099
Banned
To be honest, im very surprised at all the responses going on here! Most seem to be fairly moderate in their stance, or more leaning towards special creation! Personally, ive found the moderate position to be the most powerful one to hold too. Total naturalistic evolution is almost impossible considering what we currently know about biological mechanisms. And total extreme creation 6,000 years ago is also probably impossible, based on what we currently know about the world. I have no problem with microevolution, obviously, but im still studying macro to see what scientific evidence supports it.
National Geographic Magazine recently had an article about it, and I bought it hoping to hear a good defense of evolution, but I was actually pretty dissappointed. It contained nothing earth shattering to me, nothing I didnt already know, and in fact, the best that article did was make a few appeals to microevolution to support it's claims. Not what I expected from a magazine such as that.
So Im taking an Evolutionary Bio course next semester with hopes of going a bit deeper into it all. But, like I said, currently, the strongest position is a moderate one. A good way to describe this position is one that holds to either special creation by God millions/billions years ago at specific times with limited, microevolutionary changes taking place, or theistic evolution, which is current neo-darwinian evolution with God guiding the process.
God simply has to be somewhere in the whole process, as to get from single celled "simple" organisms to us right now, is virtually impossible by itself. And then you have the whole problem of how life actually started, abiogenesis, which is still causing headaches to some of the greater scientific minds. It's one thing for mutations and natural selection to modify an existing genetic code, and sometihng entirelly different in creating a new one, from scratch, randomly, and in a manner that it can survive to reproduce itself on it's own. For natural selection and mutations to work, you first need a genetic code to be mutated and selected from!!
I must say though, as a Christian, I applaud the faith of those who actually hold to pure, naturalistic means by which we got here, because it's a faith greater then any I have ever encountered!
National Geographic Magazine recently had an article about it, and I bought it hoping to hear a good defense of evolution, but I was actually pretty dissappointed. It contained nothing earth shattering to me, nothing I didnt already know, and in fact, the best that article did was make a few appeals to microevolution to support it's claims. Not what I expected from a magazine such as that.
So Im taking an Evolutionary Bio course next semester with hopes of going a bit deeper into it all. But, like I said, currently, the strongest position is a moderate one. A good way to describe this position is one that holds to either special creation by God millions/billions years ago at specific times with limited, microevolutionary changes taking place, or theistic evolution, which is current neo-darwinian evolution with God guiding the process.
God simply has to be somewhere in the whole process, as to get from single celled "simple" organisms to us right now, is virtually impossible by itself. And then you have the whole problem of how life actually started, abiogenesis, which is still causing headaches to some of the greater scientific minds. It's one thing for mutations and natural selection to modify an existing genetic code, and sometihng entirelly different in creating a new one, from scratch, randomly, and in a manner that it can survive to reproduce itself on it's own. For natural selection and mutations to work, you first need a genetic code to be mutated and selected from!!
I must say though, as a Christian, I applaud the faith of those who actually hold to pure, naturalistic means by which we got here, because it's a faith greater then any I have ever encountered!
Link648099
Banned
Hey, anyone watching the little ads by Google at the bottom here? :lol
You seem to be confusing historical interest and personal agendas with the process of showing a theory to be likely or incorrect.Phoenix said:
Let's suppose that I develop a brand-new theory which indicates that all of our current understanding of gravity is wrong and proposes a new explanation. Let's also suppose that I have a vengeful desire to gloat and show that all scientists are complete morons for believing in gravity, and would like to make a shitload of money from the book/TV deals and get laid by hot women who would be impressed by my fame and intelligence.
Does any of that background about my motivations affect the assessment of my theory? Hell no. The scientific process would need to evaluate my theory based on the EVIDENCE, not any judgment of my person. I mean, Newton was an angry, arrogant man, and quite possibly a plagarist...but that doesn't mean that his contributions to science were any less correct or useful. Likewise, although it may be interesting to note the opinions of those who developed the concept of evolution through natural selection, it is irrelevant with respect to evaluating the theory.
The Shadow
Member
Link648099:
What exactly do you find so disagreeable with early evolution? Admittingly, there's no firm picture of how the first lifeforms developed but that doesn't necessarily mean that there had to be a creator, one making a "moderate" viewpoint the more truthful one.
My point of view is that evolution doesn't need a divine creator. You can include one if you'd like but in the end, the theory is complete without it. Things like self-replicating RNA seems to give pretty good clues as to how life came about without a spark from a divine intelligence.
:lol
What exactly do you find so disagreeable with early evolution? Admittingly, there's no firm picture of how the first lifeforms developed but that doesn't necessarily mean that there had to be a creator, one making a "moderate" viewpoint the more truthful one.
My point of view is that evolution doesn't need a divine creator. You can include one if you'd like but in the end, the theory is complete without it. Things like self-replicating RNA seems to give pretty good clues as to how life came about without a spark from a divine intelligence.
levious said:
:lol
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Phoenix is indulging in a classic ad hominen argument. Not interesting.
More interesting-- Link's comment. I believe in naturalistic evolution, but I don't think the modern theories offer enough to really understand it. There's something more. But my personal belief is that if there is a god, he doesn't interfere or intervene. I'm an anti-mystic if anything, although my beliefs are somewhat varied from time of day, and also somewhat self-contradictory. But I do believe that there's no mystic hand mucking with things.
More interesting-- Link's comment. I believe in naturalistic evolution, but I don't think the modern theories offer enough to really understand it. There's something more. But my personal belief is that if there is a god, he doesn't interfere or intervene. I'm an anti-mystic if anything, although my beliefs are somewhat varied from time of day, and also somewhat self-contradictory. But I do believe that there's no mystic hand mucking with things.
soundwave05
Member
I still don't believe the Earth isn't flat.
I mean how accurate are those space shots ... really?
Dinosaurs are really no more than 5000 or 6000 years old.
You do know people in the Church wanted Galileo killed for suggesting that the Earth orbits around the Sun and not the other way around.
I mean how accurate are those space shots ... really?
Dinosaurs are really no more than 5000 or 6000 years old.
You do know people in the Church wanted Galileo killed for suggesting that the Earth orbits around the Sun and not the other way around.
Phoenix
Member
-jinx- said:
But we aren't in this thread trying to prove a theory likely to be correct or incorrect. The thread (according to what I'd read and its title) deals with what people believe. Belief is based on people and as such the question 'why' becomes relevant. As the author asked, I replied that neither is particularly compelling alone and that a debate on one form of creationism based on CHristianity is flawed as there are other creationists out there who believe different things.
Later we got into a debate over this "In my eyes both evolution and creationism are flawed because they are rooted NOT in finding 'answers' but in trying to prove the other incorrect." Now I'm not sure that you've read the entire thread and all of its responses, but for the last page or so we've been debating whether or not this is accurate. This too has absolutely nothing to do with the theory being likely to be correct or incorrect.
The rest of your post was read, but because it follow from the premise that I've responded to, it is not included in my response as it is for your own premise (which in context is actually the one that is irrelevant) which I am not debating... at this time
I'm sorry, but I don't agree.Link648099 said:
We can observe evolution now, so disputing it as an actual mechanism makes no sense. It is also perfectly reasonable to call attention to the fact that an ASSUMPTION of science is that processes which exist today also existed in the past in the same way. I think you NEED that kind of assumption -- otherwise, how could you make any sense of the world? -- but clearly it makes more sense as applied to physics, rather than a specific biosphere. I think there is ample evidence that many events have taken place in the past which were "out of the norm" and interrupted the normal, slow evolutionary processes.
Where we disagree is saying that "God had to intervene to make some of those sudden steps possible." Ascribing sudden, influential steps to the work of a creator is EXACTLY the same underpinnings as the argument from design -- namely, inappropriate awe and a deep underestimation of the creative capabilities of natural forces and random variation.
Do I believe in evolution? I guess I do with regard to some aspects of it, but since it's still a theory, I guess anything is possible (like a mix of creation and evolution) and there are still alot of questions I have concerning it.
For example, all of these findings were made by scientists, questioning aspects of evolution (not necessarily proving creation):
http://www.creationposter.com/sdm.asp?pg=evidence&specific=os
But hey, it's the best scientific explannation we have right now. No one's saying it's perfect and definitive, otherwise it wouldn't be a theory. I don't see the big deal in not believing in it 100%. That's how discoveries and breakthroughs are made--by asking questions and finding the answers.
For example, all of these findings were made by scientists, questioning aspects of evolution (not necessarily proving creation):
http://www.creationposter.com/sdm.asp?pg=evidence&specific=os
But hey, it's the best scientific explannation we have right now. No one's saying it's perfect and definitive, otherwise it wouldn't be a theory. I don't see the big deal in not believing in it 100%. That's how discoveries and breakthroughs are made--by asking questions and finding the answers.
soundwave05
Member
I think the evidence that the Earth and the universe is more than 6000 years old is pretty overwhelming though (knock carbon dating all you want).
I don't believe any literal interpretation of the Bible holds up. I'm not saying people are wrong to believe in God, but just in a strict, literal sense, I think much of the Bible is allegorical and stated in a way that would be understandable to people of its time. The Bible is absolutely man-made.
Ditto for Judaism, Islam, Buddhisim, etc.
I think it's the literal believers who will have the toughest time in the next 50-100 years. It's quite possible that the defining event of our generation will be the discovery that life does exist or has existed outside of the planet Earth, just like the moon landing was the big event for our parents' generation.
I don't believe any literal interpretation of the Bible holds up. I'm not saying people are wrong to believe in God, but just in a strict, literal sense, I think much of the Bible is allegorical and stated in a way that would be understandable to people of its time. The Bible is absolutely man-made.
Ditto for Judaism, Islam, Buddhisim, etc.
I think it's the literal believers who will have the toughest time in the next 50-100 years. It's quite possible that the defining event of our generation will be the discovery that life does exist or has existed outside of the planet Earth, just like the moon landing was the big event for our parents' generation.
The Shadow
Member
What. The. Fuck.
SpoonyBard
Banned
Link648099 said:
What mechanism is there to prevent series of micro evolutionary steps from forming macro evolution? Does god just step in when he notices that it's starting to go bit too far?
videogamer
Banned
Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. These two tend to be clumped together by people who don't know better. For goodness sake, aliens could have created the Milky Way galaxy and that would not affect evolution (of course unless the aliens interfere).
The Shadow
Member
Hammy said:
No it doesn't. It's just another idea based on science that creationists' look at as a threat, just like evolution.
soundwave05
Member
Socreges said:
This doesn't hold up with what's in the Bible according to even many hard core believers. Even Billy Graham says if we discover other "sentient" alien life forms the Bible is basically kaput.
That's the problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible text though.
First of all, there are some SLOPPY semantics in this thread. The theory of evolution through natural selection can be observed NOW, and I fail to see how anyone can not "believe" in it, unless they are completely oblivious to science and logic. What is really being contrasted is "the origination of the human species as a consequence of evolutionary processes" versus "the origination of the human species due to the direct action of a supernatural creator."Phoenix said:But we aren't in this thread trying to prove a theory likely to be correct or incorrect. The thread (according to what I'd read and its title) deals with what people believe. Belief is based on people and as such the question 'why' becomes relevant. As the author asked, I replied that neither is particularly compelling alone and that a debate on one form of creationism based on CHristianity is flawed as there are other creationists out there who believe different things.
Later we got into a debate over this "In my eyes both evolution and creationism are flawed because they are rooted NOT in finding 'answers' but in trying to prove the other incorrect." Now I'm not sure that you've read the entire thread and all of its responses, but for the last page or so we've been debating whether or not this is accurate. This too has absolutely nothing to do with the theory being likely to be correct or incorrect.
The rest of your post was read, but because it follow from the premise that I've responded to, it is not included in my response as it is for your own premise (which in context is actually the one that is irrelevant) which I am not debating... at this time
As far as I can tell, the original question from Mandark was aimed at evidence, not psychology. (Obviously he will have to explain his motivations...that's just my read.) I don't think it's a very interesting (or long) discussion if you want to investigate why people believe in divine creation, or God, and any sort of supernatural force intervening on behalf of human beings. I have my own opinions on that, but I'll spare you and everyone else the "trolling."
I disagree with your premise somewhat -- namely, that "evolution" and creationism are trying to "prove each other wrong," rather than focus on evidence. It is a consequence of logic that only one of the two can be true -- either "God" made the human species through direct action, or he/she/it didn't. Science is trying to pursue the truth (read as: what is possible, what is plausible, what is demonstrable), and every piece of evidence which supports the theory is by definition another piece to the argument against creationism. It has nothing to do with "agenda."
McLesterolBeast
Member
Clearly the most powerful position is the moderate one! Some say it's flat, some say it's round. Oval it is.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
But isn't that what a god would be? Except even more complicated?Link648099 said:
Arwen, some of those things you quoted seem... bizarre.
There's no point of reference given. Why shouldn't the Earth have slowed down to this point, or the moon not have been closer earlier? Is there some contradiction that says far enough back, the Earth would be spinning faster than possible, and a young Earth is the only logical possibility?
Buh? Wouldn't that only be true if the universe was expanding at faster than the speed of light?
Shogmaster
Member
This whole thread has me laughing, crying, banging my head on the desk, and speachless. All I need is some desire to fap and this thead will be the thread to end all threads!
Phoenix
Member
-jinx- said:
Oblivious to science and logic I'm not so sure about. While I do think that evolution brings much to the table I do believe that the theory of evolution (as it is commonly defined) is incomplete on its own. I'm sure there are people who could reason that they don't believe in evolution for a variety of reasons, but I accept evolution as it is. The one thing common amongst all 'creationists' is a belief that a creator created the universe. In that there is some possible leway as I see it. I don't necessarily believe that God had a particular interest in creating mankind - that's all too convenient and based on the 'human centric' view of the universe that I think is fundamentally flawed, yet so prevalent (especially in certain areas of science).
Theologists would argue that they too are trying to pursue the truth - just from a different direction and perspective. Honestly I don't think that many of these 'opposing' theories are incompatible with each other - just that their extremes are. Both sides have some fairly interesting holes in them just as the big bang theory has very interesting holes in it (i.e. new galaxies being formed amidst galaxies millions of years old). I personally believe that there is something 'missing' in the theory of evolution that is only explained by 'well millions of years is a long time'. Even within mankind (which is extremely new to the planet in comparison) there are some discontinuities - http://www.alternativescience.com/origin_of_man.htm. While the conclusions that people draw from conflicting evidence is humorous (oh no its aliens), the fact that conflicting evidence even from archaeologists gets ridiculed (something that also happens in the scientific community) is disturbing. While its nice to say that science seeks the truth and put scientists into a nice package of scholars all working to the same aim and taking conflicting evidence and trying to explain it - it is often not that cut and dry. There are 'agendas' even within the scientific community and its interesting to see so many people here refer to the community as if it were just one grand debate with evidence ruling the day. Another interesting one (and I won't get into quantum physics because there are so many theories and 'banished' people here its not even funny) is simply the method by which the earth formed. Some believe that the earth and moon formed from separete masses of cooling gas, some believe that the earth and moon formed when an early earth was hit by another like sized object, yet others believe that it was formed from the rotation of a large mass that attracted other 'debris' and heated (very early in the solar systems life) to form the planet.
Not everything is as cut and dry as we want it to be. There is plenty that we don't know and quite simply can't know at this point. There are behaviors which clearly we can cause to be replicated, but we don't know why happened in the first place. For every answer there are still questions and many many conflicts. So while I believe evolution 'makes sense' to a certain point, I think it and many theories are incomplete on their own. To assume that we have the answers about our own creation/existence as young as we are as a species and as little we know about ourselves let alone our planet is the height of human arrogance and ignorance.
Seems just about right to me, no balancing on turtles here. We call it 'gravity'.
That doesn't even imply 'flat'. Therefore any church that claimed the Bible supported their incorrect notions about the nature of our planet is clearly misrepresenting it.
Nontheless, evolution doesn't get a free pass even if the Bible could be discredited. It has to stand on it's own feet.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Going on a tangent... I've just been reading back through some of these. Being written self-assuringly and from a completely different perspective of my own I'm not exactly the target audience, but this one caught me off guard.FoneBone said:
Buh?
Or here's a good one.
The 'after eden' cartoon is amusing.
However, I can't resist the urge to comment on the misunderstanding that motivated it.
Genesis 1 [Darby Translation]:
1st 'day'
4th 'day'
The original language words are bracketed and they were different. However many english translations render them both LIGHT(s). The sense of ohr is 'diffused light' whereas ma ohr is a 'source of light'. Remember the account is given from the perspective of an observer ON earth. So light was able to diffuse through to the surface of the earth after the first 'day' but you couldn't actually see the sun or the moon until the 4th day. That's why another translation (Young's Literal Translation) renders the same passages:
1st 'day'
4th 'day'
That makes the distinction much clearer.
Anyway, even though evolution topics inevitably get around to creation, disproof of creation is not proof of evolution (and the converse is of course true).
However, I can't resist the urge to comment on the misunderstanding that motivated it.
Genesis 1 [Darby Translation]:
1st 'day'
4th 'day'
The original language words are bracketed and they were different. However many english translations render them both LIGHT(s). The sense of ohr is 'diffused light' whereas ma ohr is a 'source of light'. Remember the account is given from the perspective of an observer ON earth. So light was able to diffuse through to the surface of the earth after the first 'day' but you couldn't actually see the sun or the moon until the 4th day. That's why another translation (Young's Literal Translation) renders the same passages:
1st 'day'
4th 'day'
That makes the distinction much clearer.
Anyway, even though evolution topics inevitably get around to creation, disproof of creation is not proof of evolution (and the converse is of course true).
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Believing in evolution I guess I realize it in the back of my mind, but rarely do I think "my direct ancestors were something very not human." Did so tonight, though, and it seems pretty cool. You say your dad can beat up my dad? Maybe. But my grandpa was Mr. Limpett.Phoenix said:
I refer you here:JoshuaJSlone said:Going on a tangent... I've just been reading back through some of these. Being written self-assuringly and from a completely different perspective of my own I'm not exactly the target audience, but this one caught me off guard.
Buh?
Or here's a good one.
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1357206
Link648099 said:
Frankly, the "god" part of the last sentence is superfluous - it simply doesn't add anything to the theory. And really, if you're going to complain about the supposed lack of evidence for evolution, then I'd have to wonder what sort of evidence you have that this "God" character created much of anything - and keep in mind, old books aren't evidence, and you're going to have to describe this God fellow, and how exactly he intervened. For what it's worth, I've discovered that the vast majority of christians can't even get past the "describe God" part of the program.
Link648099 said:
As an atheist, I'm actually not faithful to it at all, I simply find it impossible to believe in [term not defined].
I have no real problem with people who believe that "God" was somehow involved in the universe, so long as they keep their beliefs in the appropriate places (eg. not the science classroom). Young Earth Creationism, however, deserves nothing but derisive laughter. A mishmash of half-assed logic, mangled scientific theory, and vague feel-good gibberish, it's only use in the classroom is to point out the difference between science and speudo-science. You want to believe in that rubbish? Fine, go ahead. You want to tell me about it? I'm going to have to laugh at you.
What?
Have you not heard of organic molecules, even slightly complex ones, being generated by means not involving biological organisms? Have you not heard of life-like behavior in nonbiological events in this world? Have you not heard that rna is ever proving more capable? Rna based motors(natural ones in organisms, not nanotech.), ribozymes. Biological machinery, viruses, that could very well qualify as living. All of these things...
living virus
Where do you draw the line, eh? You've seen what selective breeding has achieved in a few thousand years. Have you not?
Yes there is something missing, group theories of evolution have got to be somewhat right... given the existence of "death genes" in some organisms has been seen.
I must say this Creationsit v Evolution thing seems particularly restricted to the US.
I went to Catholic schools and we were taught evolution as a matter of course. None of the priests, bishops, nuns and brothers i've ever met ever once tried to teach us or believed in total creationism. They viewed good chunks of the bible, esp the old testament, as a series of stories that were not actually factually accurate but as guides to how to and how not to act.
I don't see any of this discussion in Australia on a wide spread basis. Probably because o good chunk, around 30% i gather went to catholic schools and none of them teach creationism.
I went to Catholic schools and we were taught evolution as a matter of course. None of the priests, bishops, nuns and brothers i've ever met ever once tried to teach us or believed in total creationism. They viewed good chunks of the bible, esp the old testament, as a series of stories that were not actually factually accurate but as guides to how to and how not to act.
I don't see any of this discussion in Australia on a wide spread basis. Probably because o good chunk, around 30% i gather went to catholic schools and none of them teach creationism.
I *so* want to jump into this debate - I'm taking a course on the History of Science and there are so many points I want to make regarding science, God, and philosophy.
But I won't. Because it would be rather pointless.
If someone believes in evolution and/or creationism, they're not going to change their mind because of what yahoos like me have to say.
But I won't. Because it would be rather pointless.
If someone believes in evolution and/or creationism, they're not going to change their mind because of what yahoos like me have to say.
explodet said:I *so* want to jump into this debate - I'm taking a course on the History of Science and there are so many points I want to make regarding science, God, and philosophy.
But I won't. Because it would be rather pointless.
If someone believes in evolution and/or creationism, they're not going to change their mind because of what yahoos like me have to say.
Chicken.
- Status