How can anyone not believe in evolution?

[zitothebrave]

"Poofing" creatures as you put it is posited by all in some form or fashion, no?

Also, isn't your 3 centuries time frame too small of a sample size for either "poofing" or "transpeciation"?

No. Evolution explains things pretty clearly in regards to your explanation aside from mutations.

It is a pretty small sample. But considering people who wouldn't believe in evolution would think it happens all of the time. For example eventually humans won't have a little toe because of shoes. That's evolution baby.

 

[BedellBrave]

No. Evolution explains things pretty clearly in regards to your explanation aside from mutations.

It is a pretty small sample. But considering people who wouldn't believe in evolution would think it happens all of the time. For example eventually humans won't have a little toe because of shoes. That's evolution baby.

No, you still believe in "poofing" - there has to be some organism that is a first living organism, right? One moment before - not a living organism and then poof, the next, living.

 

[zitothebrave]

Because it was created by a God who desired that there be common traits - that's an alternative. Commonality doesn't prove or disprove common descendent any more than it proves or disproves a common Creator. It's a inference you draw based on your presuppositions.

Well how do you explain homo habilis, africanis, etc. then. Mistakes between Adam and Eve? You could argue a million ways. But one is using observation the other is fighting observation .

 

[BedellBrave]

Well how do you explain homo habilis, africanis, etc. then. Mistakes between Adam and Eve? You could argue a million ways. But one is using observation the other is fighting observation .

You could explain it similarly. My point is that commonality doesn't demand what you say it does.

 

[zitothebrave]

No, you still believe in "poofing" - there has to be some organism that is a first living organism, right?

Yes of course there was a first organism. But as far as poofing that I don't believe in. Matter is neither created or destroyed. First living being may have been created by god. I don't care about that. I really don't. My contention is that we know that the creation story is a myth. THe earth isn't 6000 years old. WE know it wasn't made in 6 days. We know these things which is what creationists would believe. They would have you believe that we just magically appeared with the billions of life forms on earth which simply isn't what happened. WE have records of that.

 

[BedellBrave]

But you do believe in poof "there was life" - a point that non-living material was then living. That's my point. So, I don't really see the value in ridiculing "poofing."

I've already addressed the other stuff.

 

[zitothebrave]

But you do believe in poof "there was life" - a point that non-living material was then living. That's my point. So, I don't really see the value in ridiculing "poofing."

I've already addressed the other stuff.

Well we know that molecules act in certain ways around each other. For example when sodium meets chlorine it makes salt. I don't think it's out of the scope of reality that ove ra billion years or so that the right combination to make organic material was achieved then replicated. Again you can go further back and say how were molecules were created and blah blah blah. I'ts easy to be contrarian. I could conversely sit arond and force you to prove your point and you'd be in the opposite argument because there is very little known that's truly certain that's proven beyond 100% true if you fight it from a certain angle.

 

[weso1]

I think a better question is who cares if someone doesn't believe in evolution? Honestly, what does it really matter? Seems pretty harmless.

 

[weso1]

By the way I've found that most folks who claim to know something as fact due to science don't actually know anything about the actual science. They just put their faith in what they think scientists are telling them. Sound familiar doesn't it?

And I personally believe the bible and especially the old testament is mainly a metaphor and not a true story of creation. I mean there are a lot of metaphors within the overall metaphor in and of itself. So why shouldn't we believe the main events in the bible aren't metaphors?

 

[Gary82]

By the way I've found that most folks who claim to know something as fact due to science don't actually know anything about the actual science. They just put their faith in what they think scientists are telling them. Sound familiar doesn't it?

you should not have faith in science, faith leads to religion. faith requires no evidence.

conversely, science is based on evidence and observations. You can defer to scientists, but if you don't agree with them you can do your own homework.

 

[Gary82]

I think a better question is who cares if someone doesn't believe in evolution? Honestly, what does it really matter? Seems pretty harmless.

If they're deciding how children are educated, it matters. Otherwise, I don't give two ****s.

 

[weso1]

you should not have faith in science, faith leads to religion. faith requires no evidence.

conversely, science is based on evidence and observations. You can defer to scientists, but if you don't agree with them you can do your own homework.

But if you defer to a scientist without knowing the science then you are in fact putting faith in that scientist. I'm not saying folks shouldn't do that, but maybe some should consider that fact before they belittle those who also put faith in something or someone else.

The internet though is kind of a petri dish of haughtiness... well... and naughtiness now that I think about it.

 

[Gary82]

But if you defer to a scientist without knowing the science then you are in fact putting faith in that scientist. I'm not saying folks shouldn't do that, but maybe some should consider that fact before they belittle those who also put faith in something or someone else.

The internet though is kind of a petri dish of haughtiness... well... and naughtiness now that I think about it.

faith in science and faith in religion are not the same thing. in fact, it's not faith in science. it's reasonable expectations based upon real world observations and data that has been scrutinized.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be respectful of each other, no matter what the person believes in, but do not equate the two.

 

[AerchAngel]

I believe both are entwined. You have to have both to fulfill what we have today.

Big Bang is incapable of bringing forth living "breathing" matter, it just can't. How can anything living come from a gas? a molecule and have a conscience? A higher power had to allow this and steer it in that direction.

 

[Gary82]

I believe both are entwined. You have to have both to fulfill what we have today.

Big Bang is incapable of bringing forth living "breathing" matter, it just can't. How can anything living come from a gas? a molecule and have a conscience? A higher power had to allow this and steer it in that direction.

Just because your mind can't understand how something can be living, let alone having self awareness, doesn't mean there is a creator, nor is it evidence that there is/was a creator. I can't understand it either, but I think in time we will figure it out.

We're all star dust, man. Like whoa.

 

[AerchAngel]

Just because your mind can't understand how something can be living, let alone having self awareness, doesn't mean there is a creator, nor is it evidence that there is/was a creator. I can't understand it either, but I think in time we will figure it out.

We're all star dust, man. Like whoa.

That is how I see it as well.......the evolution part of it.

 

[weso1]

faith in science and faith in religion are not the same thing. in fact, it's not faith in science. it's reasonable expectations based upon real world observations and data that has been scrutinized.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be respectful of each other, no matter what the person believes in, but do not equate the two.

I'm not saying it's a faith in science. It's a faith in scientists. Faith and science don't mix. Sure you could rationalize the reasoning in which you accept your faith in scientists, but you could do the same in regards to religion. If you don't understand the science or especially if you don't care to understand the science then it's faith in which you are placing your beliefs.

 

[Tapate50]

By the way I've found that most folks who claim to know something as fact due to science don't actually know anything about the actual science. They just put their faith in what they think scientists are telling them. Sound familiar doesn't it?

And I personally believe the bible and especially the old testament is mainly a metaphor and not a true story of creation. I mean there are a lot of metaphors within the overall metaphor in and of itself. So why shouldn't we believe the main events in the bible aren't metaphors?

I've seen that episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia too.

 

[BedellBrave]

faith in science and faith in religion are not the same thing. in fact, it's not faith in science. it's reasonable expectations based upon real world observations and data that has been scrutinized.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be respectful of each other, no matter what the person believes in, but do not equate the two.

Gary, I think it goes further though with the "faith in science" thing. Unfortunately, too many - not all but too many, go beyond what is reasonable to posit via the scientific method and really promote ideas that go beyond that, intertwining philosophical and even religious views all the while cloaked in the garb of "science." And usually without realizing it.

 

[BedellBrave]

Well we know that molecules act in certain ways around each other. For example when sodium meets chlorine it makes salt. I don't think it's out of the scope of reality that ove ra billion years or so that the right combination to make organic material was achieved then replicated. Again you can go further back and say how were molecules were created and blah blah blah. I'ts easy to be contrarian. I could conversely sit arond and force you to prove your point and you'd be in the opposite argument because there is very little known that's truly certain that's proven beyond 100% true if you fight it from a certain angle.

Does salt breathe?

An infinite regress isn't going to solve your problem. That's like saying that if I go back far enough I'll come up with some sort of inanimate object that all of a sudden animates itself.

In other words Z, "poof" - And that's okay!