|
On December 28 2011 18:34 FractalsOnFire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 18:03 Lightwip wrote:On December 28 2011 18:00 Stratos wrote:
I'd break up with her. Hell I'm going to be a scientist, wouldn't want to live with a moron that neglects everything I do my whole life because of a ridiculous book and childhood brainwashing. It would be like living with a girl that believes everything in the Harry Potter series is true and wears a hat and a wand and searches for her lost mates.
I have no problem with religious people in general, one of the girl I love believes in some sort of God but she believes in evolution also. If only people weren't blinded by their beliefs and could still use their own brains. I thought the same thing for a while, but I realized that no one is perfect. Of all the problems in the world, being close to people with a stupid belief here or there isn't that bad. Preaching, however, is a different story. The problem that i have is that if i decide to have children with that sort of woman, what kind of religion she'll be proselytizing to my child. Whether she'll force feed her own dogma or allow the child to grow up without the indoctrination and then allow them to choose later in life. If i didn't want to have children i guess that would be an issue i couldn't care less about, but not accepting evolution is a deal breaker for me as an engineer and an atheist. Funny though that they compartmentalize the theory of evolution while ignoring all the other theories that they accept which also enhance their lives (in the form of technology). Also to the people debating the creationist, i salute you. I really cannot be bothered trying to argue with that kind of person. No amount of evidence will ever convince them. Nothing will ever be good enough for them to be convinced. Yet the hypocrisy that they have when they believe in god and their own religious text is truly hypocrisy at its finest.
If they preach, it's certainly a problem.
But as a personal belief, I could live with it.
|
Depends if it's a deal-breaker.
Personally, I couldn't respect someone who believes creationism, it's astonishing to me. Also, I could foresee problems with a marriage if your relationship even progressed to that point. Creationists tend to be strict, and is that the type of thing you want to deal with and have your children deal with?
My fiance was somewhat religious when I met her, she believed in God but was pretty liberal. She's an atheist now, just not very strong in her belief in it, whereas I love debating people on religious. I would maybe try to convince her that creationism is wrong, just do it respectfully. Have a frank conversation and see where it goes, if she can't handle some criticism of her beliefs than she's probably not worth keeping anyway.
|
This is what I think you should say.
In the beginning God made all things and in being perfect, everything he does is perfect.
So God makes the Earth and the animals etc, and makes the seasons and weather patterns as well. God knows that these will change and affect the life on Earth, so he has made the living things on Earth adaptable. So. God created evolution.
God didn't create life on Earth just to have it die out after a billion years or three.
|
On December 28 2011 18:34 FractalsOnFire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 18:03 Lightwip wrote:On December 28 2011 18:00 Stratos wrote:
I'd break up with her. Hell I'm going to be a scientist, wouldn't want to live with a moron that neglects everything I do my whole life because of a ridiculous book and childhood brainwashing. It would be like living with a girl that believes everything in the Harry Potter series is true and wears a hat and a wand and searches for her lost mates.
I have no problem with religious people in general, one of the girl I love believes in some sort of God but she believes in evolution also. If only people weren't blinded by their beliefs and could still use their own brains. I thought the same thing for a while, but I realized that no one is perfect. Of all the problems in the world, being close to people with a stupid belief here or there isn't that bad. Preaching, however, is a different story. The problem that i have is that if i decide to have children with that sort of woman, what kind of religion she'll be proselytizing to my child. Whether she'll force feed her own dogma or allow the child to grow up without the indoctrination and then allow them to choose later in life. If i didn't want to have children i guess that would be an issue i couldn't care less about, but not accepting evolution is a deal breaker for me as an engineer and an atheist. Funny though that they compartmentalize the theory of evolution while ignoring all the other theories that they accept which also enhance their lives (in the form of technology).
Good point. If I were to get any serious with this girl I would ask her about this in advance.
|
Having a personal illogical belief isn't awful. Pretty sure everyone has one, even if they're not always going to admit it.
A problem only arises when you wish to share said belief with others.
|
On December 28 2011 16:08 YoureFired wrote:
when she all of a sudden said "but evolution is a bunch of crap..."
Instant boot out the door. I could not be with someone who disregards physical reality for methaphysical nonsense. I do enjoy fiction in writing and movies, but I can also distinguish it from reality. I am really glad my GF can too.
|
Anyways, the OP wanted to ask what he should do - tbh, if she doesn't believe in evolution and is strong about this, there is nothing the OP will be able to do about it and it will definitely be an issue in the future.
Also, if the OP is interested, there are alot of old-earth creationists out there. Old-earth creationists believe the Genesis account is poetic and that God used evolution is a tool in order to create mankind. There may have been some kind of divine intervention (e.g. the creation of the first cell or the creation of Adam and Eve). Like people who believe in evolution, old-earth creationists believe the earth is very old (i.e. 4 billion years).
In contrast, new-earth creationists believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and subscribe to the literal account in Genesis. As for dinosaurs, new-earth creationists believe that they co-existed with mankind but was hunted-down and killed. You will probably find more new-earth creationists in the USA compared to old-earth.
As an aside, some of the challenges for new-earth creationists is explaining things on the cosmological level (i.e. how big is the universe and how far away stars are, etc). There are quite alot of interesting material on this and you'll need a rudimentary understanding of relativistic physics.
In the theory of evolution, the first living cell was created on earth as a result of random chemical reactions. The cell divided and the cells also divided. Later more cells grouped together to form more tangible beings (e.g. plants and fish) and evolved into land dwelling being.
After being the accepted theory for a long time, alot of biologists (both secular and religious) have been questioning the theory of evolution. In my opinion, neither evolution or creation should be thought in schools because none can be conclusively proven. If pressed for any answer, maybe the best option is "I don't know".
Of course, I have my own beliefs but it certainly can be a thorny issue when arguing against someone who has very concrete ones.
|
On December 28 2011 19:07 Azzur wrote:
After being the accepted theory for a long time, alot of biologists (both secular and religious) have been questioning the theory of evolution.
First I've heard of this. Links please, the secular ones moreso than religious.
|
On December 28 2011 19:07 Azzur wrote:
After being the accepted theory for a long time, alot of biologists (both secular and religious) have been questioning the theory of evolution.
You are either confused about the scientific method or just wrong. EVERY scientific theory is in question. It's their very essence that they can be, and are most certainly wrong. The point is that they are still more right than statements about reality in religious scripture. Please look up the scientific method before putting it's methods out of context.
On December 28 2011 19:07 Azzur wrote:
In my opinion, neither evolution or creation should be thought in schools because none can be conclusively proven. If pressed for any answer, maybe the best option is "I don't know".
Well than it's a rather good thing that the curriculum isn't decided by you. Also you theoretically could prove creationism, since you only need to show the existence of the creator. If that can not be done, then it's not a valid hypothesis in scientific terms. Well ... educated people will already know where this leads.
On December 28 2011 19:12 Shaetan wrote:
First I've heard of this. Links please, the secular ones moreso than religious.
It's perfectly normal to question scientific theories. Progress and such ... you might have heard of it.
|
On December 28 2011 19:12 Shaetan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 19:07 Azzur wrote:
After being the accepted theory for a long time, alot of biologists (both secular and religious) have been questioning the theory of evolution. First I've heard of this. Links please, the secular ones moreso than religious.
It's true, but at the same time not....
Example: A vital part of the current model of evolution, or any other scientific model being used is that it can always become better, this is what the scientific process means; Nothing can ever be totally 100% proven as truth. In the case of evolution they are looking after fine-tuning the current model so it can measure things between macro evolution and micro evolution better. As it is now the macro evolution, measuring changes between species, and micro evolution, to track and predict change within the same species is solid and they have managed to predict outcomes which ha come true later on, but within respectively model only. Problem is that they want to link micro and macro evolution together. So they are questioning the current model in order to replace it with a new that will easier link macro and micro evolution together. Reason for this is that they believe that the connection between micro and macro evolution actually has some bearing on how an organism evolves as a whole. And the current model doesn't really take that into consideration.
Then are many other questions about evolution as well, however they do not question if Evolution is valid or not, it's just suggestions on how to make the model more reliable etc.
On December 28 2011 19:07 Azzur wrote:
In my opinion, neither evolution or creation should be thought in schools because none can be conclusively proven. If pressed for any answer, maybe the best option is "I don't know".
Then would be no schools since nothing can be proven 100% 
|
The issue here is many people in this thread flatly promote something as "fact" and "correct" even though nothing has been conclusively proven. Also, thinly veiled insults are thrown to people who don't ascribe to their beliefs as "uneducated".
One of the greatest minds ever existed (Albert Einstein) is not an atheist. On the other hand, he also does not believe in a Christian God either and he is an agnostic (i.e. "doesn't know"). He rejects atheism and claims that the universe is not subject to random chance. I can dig up more famous scientists but he is the most well known one.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_religious_views
I didn't read this in the source I quoted, so this is just a guess, but Einsten's most likely stance on creation/evolution is that he is a theistic evolutionist, i.e. someone who believes in evolution but a god to guide the process. I can also find many famous scientists who believe in this.
|
^^It's rather moot to bring that up. I'm sure most people here, if asked, would say that they are referring to agnostic atheism. It's the same thing that Einstein believed in, but he just didn't want to be associated with the people saying that a god certainly does not exist. I agree. Show me scientific evidence that there is a god and I will believe it. I'm an atheist, but I'm definitely not unwilling to believe in the proven existence of a deity.
Yup, my girlfriend too believed in christianity and all that when we started dating. It honestly bothered the crap out of me. After half a year or so of explaining and wearing down her built up defenses -- the ones protecting her from logic and scientific evidence -- she caved and has now more or less abandoned her beliefs in christianity.
You seem to be like me in that it'll actually bother you if she maintains her beliefs in religion. She said it herself: she has been brainwashed since she was a little kid to believe in stuff which was probably written by people high off their asses thousands of years ago. Honestly, it's not something that's going to go away overnight. That's just what happens when people are taught something from birth. If she is actually smart like you say... there is a good chance that she will eventually see reason. Shit, doesn't it boggle your mind that people can believe in stuff like god? It boggles mine. Do yourself (and her) a favor and convince her that atheism is the logical choice. It's a favor to me too :3, and I'm sure other atheists will appreciate it too if you can get her to drop religion.
|
On December 28 2011 19:22 jacen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 19:12 Shaetan wrote:
First I've heard of this. Links please, the secular ones moreso than religious. It's perfectly normal to question scientific theories. Progress and such ... you might have heard of it.
On December 28 2011 19:23 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 19:12 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 19:07 Azzur wrote:
After being the accepted theory for a long time, alot of biologists (both secular and religious) have been questioning the theory of evolution. First I've heard of this. Links please, the secular ones moreso than religious. It's true, but at the same time not.... Example: A vital part of the current model of evolution, or any other scientific model being used is that it can always become better, this is what the scientific process means; Nothing can ever be totally 100% proven as truth. In the case of evolution they are looking after fine-tuning the current model so it can measure things between macro evolution and micro evolution better. As it is now the macro evolution, measuring changes between species, and micro evolution, to track and predict change within the same species is solid and they have managed to predict outcomes which ha come true later on, but within respectively model only. Problem is that they want to link micro and macro evolution together. So they are questioning the current model in order to replace it with a new that will easier link macro and micro evolution together. Reason for this is that they believe that the connection between micro and macro evolution actually has some bearing on how an organism evolves as a whole. And the current model doesn't really take that into consideration. Then are many other questions about evolution as well, however they do not question if Evolution is valid or not, it's just suggestions on how to make the model more reliable etc. Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 19:07 Azzur wrote:
In my opinion, neither evolution or creation should be thought in schools because none can be conclusively proven. If pressed for any answer, maybe the best option is "I don't know". Then would be no schools since nothing can be proven 100%
Did not realize that the latter quote was what was being referenced. I thought he meant prominent scientists had been doubting in the concept of evolution as a whole.
|
Honestly, if you stay with her just for sex you're a douche imo. I couldn't imagine being in a relationship and not being able to talk to her about anything, it would feel like a waste of time to me.
|
Well it's called theory because you can come up with scenarios in which it can be falsified. It's very easy to answer the question "so what evidence will disprove evolution?" For eg: the infamous precambrian chicken.
Thats one of the foundations of science falsifiability.
However if i were to ask "what will disprove creationism?" The theist would not be able to give me a sinsible answer.
@Azzur Fact is things evolve. The theory of evolution attempts to describe the fact.
|
Well, any sensible scientist would not label evolution as "truth" though, but rather a reasonable theory that seems quite well supported. Should people start talking about "truths" or "we know this" they stray from true (!) science.
Edit: My post is just in response to the OP, not anyone else. 
|
On December 28 2011 19:39 Shaetan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 19:22 jacen wrote:On December 28 2011 19:12 Shaetan wrote:
First I've heard of this. Links please, the secular ones moreso than religious. It's perfectly normal to question scientific theories. Progress and such ... you might have heard of it. Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 19:23 Integra wrote:On December 28 2011 19:12 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 19:07 Azzur wrote:
After being the accepted theory for a long time, alot of biologists (both secular and religious) have been questioning the theory of evolution. First I've heard of this. Links please, the secular ones moreso than religious. It's true, but at the same time not.... Example: A vital part of the current model of evolution, or any other scientific model being used is that it can always become better, this is what the scientific process means; Nothing can ever be totally 100% proven as truth. In the case of evolution they are looking after fine-tuning the current model so it can measure things between macro evolution and micro evolution better. As it is now the macro evolution, measuring changes between species, and micro evolution, to track and predict change within the same species is solid and they have managed to predict outcomes which ha come true later on, but within respectively model only. Problem is that they want to link micro and macro evolution together. So they are questioning the current model in order to replace it with a new that will easier link macro and micro evolution together. Reason for this is that they believe that the connection between micro and macro evolution actually has some bearing on how an organism evolves as a whole. And the current model doesn't really take that into consideration. Then are many other questions about evolution as well, however they do not question if Evolution is valid or not, it's just suggestions on how to make the model more reliable etc. On December 28 2011 19:07 Azzur wrote:
In my opinion, neither evolution or creation should be thought in schools because none can be conclusively proven. If pressed for any answer, maybe the best option is "I don't know". Then would be no schools since nothing can be proven 100% Did not realize that the latter quote was what was being referenced. I thought he meant prominent scientists had been doubting in the concept of evolution as a whole.
Oh no, he probably meant it as some experts within the field had found god and saw that Evolution was a big conspiracy. Problem is that very often people who are not used to science tend to take things to general, as in if something about something is in question is has to do with everything, when it in reality is about minor details.
|
straycat well there are truths =P. Things fall to the ground, truth yes? Theory of gravity? Just a theory XD.
|
On December 28 2011 19:45 ShadeR wrote:
straycat well there are truths =P. Things fall to the ground, truth yes? Theory of gravity? Just a theory XD.
Maybe we just perceive them to fall to the ground
Oh snap
|
Only thing you can tell yourself is that there are even more fucked up beliefs than creationism.
But I'd dump her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
