|
On January 02 2012 12:26 ]343[ wrote:
I agree that some mutations are beneficial, and members of a species with such mutations have improved chances of survival. When I say "my timeframe," I mean that according to my beliefs, the timeframe for existence of life on Earth is insufficient to allow for the "millions of generations" it would take for even a genetically-"close" evolution from rat to bat to occur.
close? Rats and bats aren't even in the same superorder.
|
On January 02 2012 12:26 ]343[ wrote:
Edit: oops, I forgot to add: Yes, there is plenty of "evidence" for evolution. But unless we can time-travel and empirically observe any of this happening, there's insufficient evidence to conclusively prove that evolution is how intelligent life came along. So although one may think he's likely to be right, one can't completely discount the other viewpoint all the time!
You realize that you just dealt creationism a mortal blow, right? Being directly unobservable, creationism is deader than a dodo, whereas evolution still has modern experiments that you can see happening.
Also, define intelligent life. The central nervous system and many parts of the brain are shared by a huge proportion of animals and some animals even share all the major brain areas with us, the only differences are size and most probably structure. The systems are of course not identical, there are differences, but there are many highly conserved parts of the CNS through the animal kingdom.
The ratio of evidence on each side is: heck of a lot vs zip, nada, zero, null. So explain why it's not proper to toss out the creationist explanation until they find themselves some actual evidence that departs from the evolutionary explanation?
Edited for accuracy.
|
Alright this creationism vs evolution debate isn't gonna do this forum any more good.
Mods, if you see this feel free to lock my blog, the issue at hand is over anyways.
|
Just let it be.
As long as it doesn't interfere with any important decision of your lives, why not let it as it is?
|
On December 28 2011 16:56 blankspace wrote:
don't try it, it's futile.
also note, beliefs that have been reinforced over a long period of time only change because of
1) a dramatic event that shifts one's world view
2) another time period where different experiences/environment and reflection gradually transform one's viewpoints
it's unlikely that starting a debate with her will be effective in any way beyond getting a sense of how deep-seated her views are
Probably the post I felt most accurate/relevant to the OPs question.
On December 30 2011 06:02 YoureFired wrote:
So I talked with her about it and she said that she just wanted me to give her a good argument.
I told her my deist beliefs, how God was less watcher and more clockmaker, who first created the laws and logic of the world and then allowed it to flourish and become beautiful.
Her most recent text: "I guess that's a more valid argument. You win!"
:D
The fact that she is seeking good arguments is a very positive thing IMO. Does she still believe the world is a few thousand years old?
Reading this thread I was put in mind of this specific part of a documentary:
This documentary as a whole had an impact on me a few years ago, it played a central role in my rethinking of the world, a process that took me a few years. If you can stand old, posh Englishmen doing a lot of talking to camera then it's pretty interesting. If you watch more you might see Theoden King spitting it old school.
|
|
|
On January 02 2012 13:49 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 12:26 ]343[ wrote:
Edit: oops, I forgot to add: Yes, there is plenty of "evidence" for evolution. But unless we can time-travel and empirically observe any of this happening, there's insufficient evidence to conclusively prove that evolution is how intelligent life came along. So although one may think he's likely to be right, one can't completely discount the other viewpoint all the time! You realize that you just dealt creationism a mortal blow, right? Being directly unobservable, creationism is deader than a dodo, whereas evolution still has modern experiments that you can see happening. Also, define intelligent life. The central nervous system and many parts of the brain are shared by a huge proportion of animals and some animals even share all the major brain areas with us, the only differences are size and most probably structure. The systems are of course not identical, there are differences, but there are many highly conserved parts of the CNS through the animal kingdom. The ratio of evidence on each side is: heck of a lot vs zip, nada, zero, null. So explain why it's not proper to toss out the creationist explanation until they find themselves some actual evidence that departs from the evolutionary explanation? Edited for accuracy.
Hit the nail on the head. Creationism is just an argument from ignorance which leads the pursuit of knowledge nowhere. Sure evolution isn't perfect, but its a fucking good explanation as to how we came about that has had many benefits to society as a whole.
Also if you think radiometric dating methods are wrong, then our whole understanding of the weak nuclear force, which is governed by quantum theory (which is an explanation for the strong and weak nuclear force as well as electromagnetism), is outright wrong.
|
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote:
I mean that according to my beliefs, the timeframe for existence of life on Earth is insufficient to allow for the "millions of generations" it would take for even a genetically-"close" evolution from rat to bat to occur.
So how big is that timeframe? (and do you have more evidence for the length of that timeframe than some writings that are more than 2000 years old?)
And ofc there was no evolution from rat to bat.
|
I could never date a creationist, so I'd convince her or end it. But that's just me, I'm pretty big into science/rationality/skepticism.
|
Well I really don't see how a person can be a creationist unless they specifically choose to ignore the total lack of evidence for creationism. There are only two present theories, creationism and evolution, and thus in this case the false dilemma is fairly plausible. I believe in evolution because there is scientific, credible evidence of evolution, and I don't believe in creationism because there is no scientific, credible evidence of evolution. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
|
lol, love the poll options. Not like you are going to marry her, so no harm in staying together if that's the biggest issue you two have.
|
On December 28 2011 16:08 YoureFired wrote:So earlier today I had watched an interesting TED lecture about dangerous memes by Dan Dennett (if you have a chance, watch it; it's mind blowing). I was going to discuss this with my girlfriend on the car ride home from hanging out at my house when she all of a sudden said "but evolution is a bunch of crap..." This was a bit of a shocker for me. I knew she had very very religious parents, but she had always said that she got annoyed by their proselytizing and rarely went to church. She's definitely not stupid either, she's a good student at school too. I tried to explain to her the evidence behind evolution and how the entire scientific community plus a majority of the educated world accepts the truths behind evolution. However, I stopped myself because I realized that this was one of those things that I might not be able to change, because she said that she'd been taught since she could barely talk that God created the Earth 6000 years ago, and that organisms don't change over time.Now here's the question: should I forget it and leave it be (I'm leaning towards this now because, just like arguing religion, I doubt I'll be able to change her mind) or try to show her evidence and persuade her, but risk getting into a fight (please provide some good websites for evidence if you choose this) Poll: What should I do?Let it be; keep getting head (109) 56% Persuade her, c'mon she'll listen to you! (86) 44% 195 total votes Your vote: What should I do? (Vote): Let it be; keep getting head
(Vote): Persuade her, c'mon she'll listen to you!
I can overlook it but it still bothers me that someone who I love just refuses to accept something that has been accepted as truth by the scientific community.
I find this amusing.
It's like you're implying that you can't be a "Creationist" and not get annoyed at other ignorant and flamboyant "Creationist", do well in school, etc. There are going to be ignorant people following bandwagons in every organization or group of people.
Also news flash: The world is not dominanated by evolutionists. I saw a commercial recently that read "We are 1.2 billion strong. We are the catholic church." And that's not counting other "Christian denominations" and non-Christian denominations like Muslims, etc.
If you're going to try and convince her about evolution, I don't think it makes much sense to say "Well most of the world, especially smart people, believe it."
|
thats a touch situation
what would you tell your kids?
|
On January 14 2012 14:18 jacosajh wrote:
Also news flash: The world is not dominanated by evolutionists. I saw a commercial recently that read "We are 1.2 billion strong. We are the catholic church." And that's not counting other "Christian denominations" and non-Christian denominations like Muslims, etc.
Here's another news flash: the catholic church accepts evolution
|
Creationism is a mind plague like every other superstitious belief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
