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.
Just leave it alone. You have different views and a really dumb thing to get in a fight about imo. Unless it for some reason bothers you that much that she doesn't believe the same things you do xD.
But you are just like her in the since that what you say is "fact been proven etc" so look at it from her point of view as to what you are doing. You are acting the same exact way.
On December 28 2011 16:10 blade55555 wrote: Just leave it alone. You have different views and a really dumb thing to get in a fight about imo. Unless it for some reason bothers you that much that she doesn't believe the same things you do xD.
But you are just like her in the since that what you say is "fact been proven etc" so look at it from her point of view as to what you are doing. You are acting the same exact way.
That's exactly what went through my head. I can prove evolution with a million examples but she can just pull out the Bible and say that I'm wrong. Then I get into religion arguments and those can prove fatal...
maybe you should talk to her if that's what you really worry about in a long run. . But try to deliver your message slowly and stop if you notice something dangerous is going to happen to avoid a fight ofc.
On December 28 2011 16:19 Dubzex wrote: Introduce her to reddit and see how it goes from there.
I'm tempted just to link her to sites that support it. But honestly, it won't bother me nearly enough to warrant dumping her or anything. I've dated religious girls before and I know I have to tread lightly, it's just that I thought she wasn't religious at all. So I'm not sure if I could dislodge it because she only believes it because that's what was engrained in her, not because she's inherently religious.
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
People interpret the Bible (or other creationist religions) in MANY different ways. That is why there are so many things like "catholic", "evangelical", etc. etc. etc. They have different values and such.
Many people today say that the Bible (and there are some verses that address this) states that god created each being, you know, uniquely, etc. etc. So from that they say, oh, then it means that evolution has to be wrong, since things can't be unique if they change from fish to blah to blah to humans.
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
There's a lot of other stuff too. I'll just briefly note them here. I'm still open minded of course but I believe that God didn't just create the microscopic lifeforms in the water, and then just stop there and let them evolve. He created different animals, like is said in Genesis. However by our carbon dating and whatnot, it seems to be millions and billions or whatnot years between these kinds of events. I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
Just wanna point out some possibilities. Maybe you can convince her to something like what I said. There's other opinions out there too.
Also I would like to advise you to be patient, if she does quote the Bible. Be sure to listen to her arguments as well, if you want to treat her well and all that. I know of many atheists who will attack the Bible without even understanding what a certain part is SUPPOSED to mean (disagreeing with something and not understanding something are two different things). It becomes really frustrating as a creationist to defend your views because of simple arrogance from atheists. It's like, you know, arguing about a book you've never actually even read, ya know?
If that doesn't work (or if it already failed) maybe you can mention the kind of idea that I did, that things do change over time and evolve, but that doesn't mean god didn't create life uniquely. They were created uniquely, and changed over time. Whatever form those beings may have taken on during that time might have been very similar to other beings that are seen today, but that doesn't mean they're the same.
Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail?
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding.
Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume)
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail?
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding.
Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume)
Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol.
Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff?
I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD
I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things.
so what you're saying is you support intelligent design? or a form of creationism that doesn't even have a name(under the assumption that mainstream creationism is what you said was incorrect in your first post? i'm leaning towards the latter
btw your use of the word or for atheists or evolutionists is somewhat odd, by default being an atheist means accepting evolution because it is the only science based theory that exists regarding organisms, indeed you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution,
btw from my understand the only thing that seperates you from say intelligent design, is that you say that god makes each individual creature, where as intelligent design says that god gave the DNA code for creatures to exist, or something like that, which could be interpreted as the same thing in a broad sense
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
On December 28 2011 16:44 Coramoor wrote: so what you're saying is you support intelligent design? or a form of creationism that doesn't even have a name(under the assumption that mainstream creationism is what you said was incorrect in your first post? i'm leaning towards the latter
btw your use of the word or for atheists or evolutionists is somewhat odd, by default being an atheist means accepting evolution because it is the only science based theory that exists regarding organisms, indeed you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution,
btw from my understand the only thing that seperates you from say intelligent design, is that you say that god makes each individual creature, where as intelligent design says that god gave the DNA code for creatures to exist, or something like that, which could be interpreted as the same thing in a broad sense
Meh. I suppose you could (hypothetically) disagree with the explanation of evolution because you think there are flaws, and posit your own scientific (non-religious) explanation for the origin of species and diversity of life. Being an atheist doesn't mean automatically accepting all scientific explanations.
Although that being said, I personally don't know of any atheists who disagree with evolution.
I hope you have more love for her than wanting to be right. I wouldn't make it, I'm a magnificent bastard.
On December 28 2011 16:10 blade55555 wrote: But you are just like her in the since that what you say is "fact been proven etc" so look at it from her point of view as to what you are doing. You are acting the same exact way.
No, he's not acting the same way at all:
His beliefs are (hopefully) based on scientific evidence which hints at the evolution of organisms. Evolution IS a theory, but at the moment it is the strongest scientific theory about the origins of life. Her beliefs are based on a religion in which a supernatural being created the Earth as described in a Holey Book.
I'm a little worried that you didn't spot this chasm of differences a little quicker.
On December 28 2011 16:44 Coramoor wrote: so what you're saying is you support intelligent design? or a form of creationism that doesn't even have a name(under the assumption that mainstream creationism is what you said was incorrect in your first post? i'm leaning towards the latter
btw your use of the word or for atheists or evolutionists is somewhat odd, by default being an atheist means accepting evolution because it is the only science based theory that exists regarding organisms, indeed you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution,
btw from my understand the only thing that seperates you from say intelligent design, is that you say that god makes each individual creature, where as intelligent design says that god gave the DNA code for creatures to exist, or something like that, which could be interpreted as the same thing in a broad sense
Meh. I suppose you could (hypothetically) disagree with the explanation of evolution because you think there are flaws, and posit your own scientific (non-religious) explanation for the origin of species and diversity of life.
Although that being said, I personally don't know of any atheists who disagree with evolution.
you certainly could, but at this point, 2011, i think with all the research that has been done, if there was any serious doubts about the science, then an alternate theory would've been put forward, with all the research we currently have and all the technology that exists i think you'd be hard pressed to find a biologist who has an alternate theory at the base level,
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
On December 28 2011 16:44 Coramoor wrote: so what you're saying is you support intelligent design? or a form of creationism that doesn't even have a name(under the assumption that mainstream creationism is what you said was incorrect in your first post? i'm leaning towards the latter
btw your use of the word or for atheists or evolutionists is somewhat odd, by default being an atheist means accepting evolution because it is the only science based theory that exists regarding organisms, indeed you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution,
btw from my understand the only thing that seperates you from say intelligent design, is that you say that god makes each individual creature, where as intelligent design says that god gave the DNA code for creatures to exist, or something like that, which could be interpreted as the same thing in a broad sense
Maybe... I'm not trying to spearhead my belief and say it is definite nor that I am definite about it, maybe there are other arguments out there that I will be persuaded by, and my belief will change. If it is mainstream (seems like a lot of people think that, at least) then yes I guess I do disagree with it.
If being an aethesist, as part of the definition, means being an evolutionist (and I am not calling evolution a religion here), then I apologize since I was not aware. But there has to be people out there who don't believe in any kind of creationism nor god(s) and also don't believe evolution is occurring. Maybe they believe in magic or such, lol.
I think i have heard of intelligent design before, maybe it is the same thing (or same line of thinking) as mine. I'll check it out, thanks xD.
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
Explain it to her, but don't be a dick about it. Be respectful and understanding. If anything, you'll learn more about her as a person. If she comes around, congrats, you enlightened someone about one of the greatest marvels of science, and you both gain a mutual interest.
If she sticks to bible-thumping, while then you have to ask yourself if you really want to date someone who is so close-minded towards science. For the sake of your relationship, I hope she's really hot ^^
On December 28 2011 16:52 Battleaxe wrote: I'm adding a new abbreviation to my pre game ladder chat. "gl hf kgh" Keep getting head > explaining evolution
Seriously though I'd leave it alone unless it becomes a real problem in your relationship.
It's not a dealbreaker I love her to death regardless. I think I'll just hf kgh
Can we please not have an evolution debate on my blog o.o for the sake of my problem, just let it be.
first i think it's great that you guys are together in the first place. I always brushed off an issue like this because i thought to myself that I probably wouldn't get along well with someone who had drastically different world views anyways. You've shown me that's not always true though.
all i can say is that if it was me, i would probably either try to persuade her end the relationship. Not being close-minded, but thats something that would cause huge problems down the road. Will her parents accept you if you don't accept creationism? Are you really going to teach your kids (assuming we get even that far...) that creationism is true? I guess if you know that it's casual then it won't cause any big problems, but just make sure you don't waste your time
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly,
nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc
you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail?
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding.
Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume)
Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol.
Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff?
I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD
I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things.
I hope that helped...? xD
First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you.
@Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf.
At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up.
I remember this girl I used to know who tried to convince me that the Earth is 6000 years old, even though she was studying Civil Engineering and was being taught about how it takes rocks millions of years to develop. It is a tricky situation because you can't really reason with them using scientific evidence. I totally agree with DarkPlasmaBall. You don't "believe" in evolution, you either accept it or don't.
@Yoshi, Scientific theory is different from what we would consider a 'theory'. The normal use of the word 'theory' it refers to guessing, conjecture, an opinion or speculation about something. The scientific equivalent to what we would call a theory is actually a hypothesis. A scientific theory is something that is already well-supported by empirical evidence. A hypothesis is an idea/proposal that is still unproven.
Just found a great quote by H.J. Muller
There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.
Try showing her Nature Documentries like "Planet Earth" just to get her more interested in the subject. Normally, once someone is legitimately interested in nature, they find the facts out for themselves.
yo OP, start by agreeing with her that evolution is false, this will ward off cheese and lend you opponent unable to finish the game quickly, before you can carry out your long term game plan. transition into agreeing that evolution is just a theory. From there, expand into the safe "Nothing really has a thorough explanation" midgame composition, defending from harass with a few "this is the evidence i have," while being wary of word bending.
Whether you choose to have a Pasta, InvisiBrony, or Russel Teapot based army is your choice. But you must use one of those. The Agnostic vs Creationist matchup relies heavily upon those, but don't overmake them and transition out quickly or your whole game will be hardcountered and you'll throw away a won game.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
It's important to note that the only things that can actually be "proven" with absolute certainty are in mathematics and logic, because you can write formal, abstract proofs. Science doesn't work in this manner, but evolution is as well-proven as science can possibly offer.
In the same way that scientists "believe" in gravitational theory and the atomic theory, yes, the word "belief" exists. But this level of belief is not the same level as belief in Creationism, because (as I said before), they are not on par with one another. Evolution (and other scientific theories) are indeed well-established with empirical evidence (as you pointed out), but Creation stories are based on supernatural claims and religious faith.
I only want to be very careful when we talk about "belief", as it's very easy to equivocate and misconstrue between "believing" in science (for rational, empirical reasons) and "believing" in religious, faith-based claims. They are not the same, so I prefer to use two different words altogether ("accepting" science vs. "believing" religion, as explained beforehand).
On December 28 2011 16:44 Coramoor wrote: so what you're saying is you support intelligent design? or a form of creationism that doesn't even have a name(under the assumption that mainstream creationism is what you said was incorrect in your first post? i'm leaning towards the latter
btw your use of the word or for atheists or evolutionists is somewhat odd, by default being an atheist means accepting evolution because it is the only science based theory that exists regarding organisms, indeed you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution,
btw from my understand the only thing that seperates you from say intelligent design, is that you say that god makes each individual creature, where as intelligent design says that god gave the DNA code for creatures to exist, or something like that, which could be interpreted as the same thing in a broad sense
Meh. I suppose you could (hypothetically) disagree with the explanation of evolution because you think there are flaws, and posit your own scientific (non-religious) explanation for the origin of species and diversity of life.
Although that being said, I personally don't know of any atheists who disagree with evolution.
you certainly could, but at this point, 2011, i think with all the research that has been done, if there was any serious doubts about the science, then an alternate theory would've been put forward, with all the research we currently have and all the technology that exists i think you'd be hard pressed to find a biologist who has an alternate theory at the base level,
I agree with you, and considering how successful and spot-on evolutionary theory has been, I don't see any other hypothesis coming around anytime soon ^^
On December 28 2011 17:03 Fishgle wrote: yo OP, start by agreeing with her that evolution is false, this will ward off cheese and lend you opponent unable to finish the game quickly, before you can carry out your long term game plan. transition into agreeing that evolution is just a theory. From there, expand into the safe "Nothing really has a thorough explanation" midgame composition, defending from harass with a few "this is the evidence i have," while being wary of word bending.
Whether you choose to have a Pasta, InvisiBrony, or Russel Teapot based army is your choice. But you must use one of those. The Agnostic vs Creationist matchup relies heavily upon those, but don't overmake them and transition out quickly or your whole game will be hardcountered and you'll throw away a won game.
Lategame is very dependent upon your opponents composition. Sometimes, as with checkers, tic ta toe, and my mother, the only possible way to win is by forcing a tie.
gl hf gg
LOL epic post. i think this is the best course of action for the OP
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly,
nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc
you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says
Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different.
Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently.
You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact.
Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt?
Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail?
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding.
Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume)
Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol.
Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff?
I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD
I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things.
I hope that helped...? xD
First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you.
@Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf.
At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
It's important to note that the only things that can actually be "proven" with absolute certainty are in mathematics and logic, because you can write formal, abstract proofs. Science doesn't work in this manner, but evolution is as well-proven as science can possibly offer.
In the same way that scientists "believe" in gravitational theory and the atomic theory, yes, the word "belief" exists. But this level of belief is not the same level as belief in Creationism, because (as I said before), they are not on par with one another. Evolution (and other scientific theories) are indeed well-established with empirical evidence (as you pointed out), but Creation stories are based on supernatural claims and religious faith.
I only want to be very careful when we talk about "belief", as it's very easy to equivocate and misconstrue between "believing" in science (for rational, empirical reasons) and "believing" in religious, faith-based claims. They are not the same, so I prefer to use two different words altogether ("accepting" science vs. "believing" religion, as explained beforehand).
On December 28 2011 16:44 Coramoor wrote: so what you're saying is you support intelligent design? or a form of creationism that doesn't even have a name(under the assumption that mainstream creationism is what you said was incorrect in your first post? i'm leaning towards the latter
btw your use of the word or for atheists or evolutionists is somewhat odd, by default being an atheist means accepting evolution because it is the only science based theory that exists regarding organisms, indeed you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution,
btw from my understand the only thing that seperates you from say intelligent design, is that you say that god makes each individual creature, where as intelligent design says that god gave the DNA code for creatures to exist, or something like that, which could be interpreted as the same thing in a broad sense
Meh. I suppose you could (hypothetically) disagree with the explanation of evolution because you think there are flaws, and posit your own scientific (non-religious) explanation for the origin of species and diversity of life.
Although that being said, I personally don't know of any atheists who disagree with evolution.
you certainly could, but at this point, 2011, i think with all the research that has been done, if there was any serious doubts about the science, then an alternate theory would've been put forward, with all the research we currently have and all the technology that exists i think you'd be hard pressed to find a biologist who has an alternate theory at the base level,
I agree with you, and considering how successful and spot-on evolutionary theory has been, I don't see any other hypothesis coming around anytime soon ^^
Oops, I may have made a mistake. I was saying that in science, evolution cannot be called proven, but I mixed it up. It can be scientifically proven, but it cannot be proven as in the... you know.
However, I still don't understand why I cannot call it "believing in evolution". Well, like you've said, you simply would like to use different terminology to show the different ways that you "accept" or "believe" in something, but I would like to use the term "belief" my own way -- accepting something that is not proven (not the scientifically proven kind of definition) as a fact or to be true.
On December 28 2011 17:03 Fishgle wrote: yo OP, start by agreeing with her that evolution is false, this will ward off cheese and lend you opponent unable to finish the game quickly, before you can carry out your long term game plan. transition into agreeing that evolution is just a theory. From there, expand into the safe "Nothing really has a thorough explanation" midgame composition, defending from harass with a few "this is the evidence i have," while being wary of word bending.
Whether you choose to have a Pasta, InvisiBrony, or Russel Teapot based army is your choice. But you must use one of those. The Agnostic vs Creationist matchup relies heavily upon those, but don't overmake them and transition out quickly or your whole game will be hardcountered and you'll throw away a won game.
Lategame is very dependent upon your opponents composition. Sometimes, as with checkers, tic ta toe, and my mother, the only possible way to win is by forcing a tie.
gl hf gg
5 stars. Solid advice right here. Also, be careful of "first mover" timing pushes mid-game, you'll have to counter with "who moved the first mover" harass to creating openings for your Pasta, Invisibrony or teapot army.
If it bothers you too much, you can suggest that believing in God does not have to mean that evolution and the age of the universe is not a fact. Science does not have to interfere with religious belief, if everyone just chills out. God is described as being omniscient, so God would have known everything that would happen, from the very first moment he had set up the universe, its properties and physical laws, which lead to humans evolving on this planet. You can just present that as an alternative to the creationist stories and not argue.
If you follow that train of thought and want to argue, the people trying to pretend the world is only 6000 years old can actually be seen as being blasphemous, as they do not want to acknowledge and love the actual world created by God.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly,
nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc
you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says
Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different.
Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently.
You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact.
Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt?
Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail?
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding.
Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume)
Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol.
Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff?
I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD
I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things.
I hope that helped...? xD
First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you.
@Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf.
At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly,
nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc
you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says
Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different.
Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently.
You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact.
Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt?
Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail?
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding.
Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume)
Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol.
Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff?
I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD
I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things.
I hope that helped...? xD
First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you.
@Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf.
At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up.
Hm im not sure what you mean about the 2nd point
The god made human ancestors and ape ancestors that are unique but not the same. No evidence for that.
In pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by scientific organizations a definition such as the following may be promulgated.
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[10]
According to this definition, a theory must be well supported by evidence. Furthermore, the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models. Consumers of science may find the above definition useful when evaluating the validity and/or efficacy of a theory.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly,
nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc
you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says
Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different.
Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently.
You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact.
Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt?
Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally.
On December 28 2011 17:00 Shaetan wrote:
On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail?
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding.
Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume)
Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol.
Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff?
I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD
I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things.
I hope that helped...? xD
First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you.
@Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf.
At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up.
Hm im not sure what you mean about the 2nd point
The god made human ancestors and ape ancestors that are unique but not the same. No evidence for that.
I meant I do not know what you mean by the 2nd point, as in which is the 2nd point?
I might not understand what you mean. But I think I do, and I think you're not understand what I was saying. The ancestors of humans, monkeys, etc. other species were the SAME species. Which is right according to evolution, since species branch off into other species. So if I'm right, you misunderstood me.
On December 28 2011 17:19 Coramoor wrote: thanks to fishgle and shaetan for concisely stating what i was struggling to
If you are referring to what you were saying to me, then it seems that I was saying the same thing? That evolution is a theory, because it has a huge amount of evidence, can be used to predict other things in nature, blah blah blah, and is unlikely to change or be proven wrong.
And I really hate that this is turning into a huge debate. All I wanted to point out to the OP is that, if he did not realize or was unaware, that many creationists (or even christians) share different views, and he may use that to his advantage to explain why evolution is real/true/a-fact/proven to her.
To op: Religion and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. I hope yourself and your gf are aware of this.
If you accept the idea of God's existence, a lot of possibilities open up that don't contradict the theory of evolution. I'm not a theologist, but I don't think it's far fetched to think God could create the Earth starting at age 3,000,000 as he did Adam starting as an adult. That's just one of many simple assumptions you can make.
That's a compromise you can propose to your gf, because if she's going to do any kind of scientific research in college and beyond (ESPECIALLY in Biology), you have to accept organisms change and adapt over generations.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly,
nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc
you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says
Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different.
Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently.
You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact.
Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt?
Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail?
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding.
Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume)
Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol.
Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff?
I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD
I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things.
I hope that helped...? xD
First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you.
@Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf.
At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up.
Hm im not sure what you mean about the 2nd point
Yoshi:
You misunderstand the scientific use of the word "theory". Science is built on the reality-model system.
Scientists take the WHAT, they start measuring, getting facts about reality.
Then comes the WHY, the model, they try to explain the reasons of the gathered facts. These are called theories. If a theory goes against reality, it gets thrown away and new theories come. If a theory is getting proven again and again, and is the latest, most modern view in science, it will still be called theory, like in the case of evolution.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly,
nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc
you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says
Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different.
Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently.
You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact.
Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt?
Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail?
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding.
Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume)
Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol.
Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff?
I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD
I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things.
I hope that helped...? xD
First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you.
@Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf.
At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
It's important to note that the only things that can actually be "proven" with absolute certainty are in mathematics and logic, because you can write formal, abstract proofs. Science doesn't work in this manner, but evolution is as well-proven as science can possibly offer.
In the same way that scientists "believe" in gravitational theory and the atomic theory, yes, the word "belief" exists. But this level of belief is not the same level as belief in Creationism, because (as I said before), they are not on par with one another. Evolution (and other scientific theories) are indeed well-established with empirical evidence (as you pointed out), but Creation stories are based on supernatural claims and religious faith.
I only want to be very careful when we talk about "belief", as it's very easy to equivocate and misconstrue between "believing" in science (for rational, empirical reasons) and "believing" in religious, faith-based claims. They are not the same, so I prefer to use two different words altogether ("accepting" science vs. "believing" religion, as explained beforehand).
On December 28 2011 16:50 Coramoor wrote:
On December 28 2011 16:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On December 28 2011 16:44 Coramoor wrote: so what you're saying is you support intelligent design? or a form of creationism that doesn't even have a name(under the assumption that mainstream creationism is what you said was incorrect in your first post? i'm leaning towards the latter
btw your use of the word or for atheists or evolutionists is somewhat odd, by default being an atheist means accepting evolution because it is the only science based theory that exists regarding organisms, indeed you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution,
btw from my understand the only thing that seperates you from say intelligent design, is that you say that god makes each individual creature, where as intelligent design says that god gave the DNA code for creatures to exist, or something like that, which could be interpreted as the same thing in a broad sense
Meh. I suppose you could (hypothetically) disagree with the explanation of evolution because you think there are flaws, and posit your own scientific (non-religious) explanation for the origin of species and diversity of life.
Although that being said, I personally don't know of any atheists who disagree with evolution.
you certainly could, but at this point, 2011, i think with all the research that has been done, if there was any serious doubts about the science, then an alternate theory would've been put forward, with all the research we currently have and all the technology that exists i think you'd be hard pressed to find a biologist who has an alternate theory at the base level,
I agree with you, and considering how successful and spot-on evolutionary theory has been, I don't see any other hypothesis coming around anytime soon ^^
Oops, I may have made a mistake. I was saying that in science, evolution cannot be called proven, but I mixed it up. It can be scientifically proven, but it cannot be proven as in the... you know.
However, I still don't understand why I cannot call it "believing in evolution". Well, like you've said, you simply would like to use different terminology to show the different ways that you "accept" or "believe" in something, but I would like to use the term "belief" my own way -- accepting something that is not proven (not the scientifically proven kind of definition) as a fact or to be true.
You are technically correct, the theory of evolution is only the best approximation known to man to explain the development of the world. There's always the possibility of some tweaks to the theory or adjustments to account for (as of yet unknown) outliers. And yes, people believe in evolution just like they believed the sun revolved around the earth and the world was flat - which science (in time) corrected/improved upon. It is perfectly reasonable for the majority of people to believe in what we know as the best approximation to reality - hell thats all physics is!
But yeah, I'll continue to believe the best known approximation until someone comes along and proves to me that there is a better approximation.
On December 28 2011 17:25 shindigs wrote: To op: Religion and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. I hope yourself and your gf are aware of this.
If you accept the idea of God's existence, a lot of possibilities open up that don't contradict the theory of evolution. I'm not a theologist, but I don't think it's far fetched to think God could create the Earth starting at age 3,000,000 as he did Adam starting as an adult. That's just one of many simple assumptions you can make.
That's a compromise you can propose to your gf, because if she's going to do any kind of scientific research in college and beyond (ESPECIALLY in Biology), you have to accept organisms change and adapt over generations.
That's the strange thing, she's a little bit leery about religion but she says she just doesn't accept evolution. I don't think her teacher properly taught it, so maybe if I explained it better she might believe it. I'm discussing it with her right now and it's not devolving at all, she acknowledges that she's biased because of her religious upbringing so she wants me to show her proof.
On December 28 2011 17:25 shindigs wrote: To op: Religion and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. I hope yourself and your gf are aware of this.
If you accept the idea of God's existence, a lot of possibilities open up that don't contradict the theory of evolution. I'm not a theologist, but I don't think it's far fetched to think God could create the Earth starting at age 3,000,000 as he did Adam starting as an adult. That's just one of many simple assumptions you can make.
That's a compromise you can propose to your gf, because if she's going to do any kind of scientific research in college and beyond (ESPECIALLY in Biology), you have to accept organisms change and adapt over generations.
exactly. if you realize that "life" and "evolution" aren't one time things, but an ongoing process, that existence depends on continuity, you can come to such marvelous conclusions, especially with regards to beliefs about god (who, if it exists, exists outside of time and space) and all that meta-philosophical stuff. :D
As long as she doesn't try and force it on you, you shouldn't worry about it. My family are devout christians and whilst they try and get me to talk about it here and there, for the most part they respect my own beliefs and leave me be. It doesn't have to be a problem as long as you both respect each other's freedom and free will to believe in whatever you wish.
evolution exists 100%. you can not deny it, as it is observable in a laboratory with any fast reproducing organism.
whereas, did humans evolve from monkeys...well that is, as plexa said, the best approximation known to man to explain how we got here. there is strong evidence that it is the case, however we dont know for sure.
i strongly dislike the term "belief in evolution" like it was santa claus or something. that being said i think you have to let her go, unless you really really like her or shes smokin'. denying evolution man...thats just a symptom of more problems down the road.
On December 28 2011 17:25 shindigs wrote: To op: Religion and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. I hope yourself and your gf are aware of this.
If you accept the idea of God's existence, a lot of possibilities open up that don't contradict the theory of evolution. I'm not a theologist, but I don't think it's far fetched to think God could create the Earth starting at age 3,000,000 as he did Adam starting as an adult. That's just one of many simple assumptions you can make.
That's a compromise you can propose to your gf, because if she's going to do any kind of scientific research in college and beyond (ESPECIALLY in Biology), you have to accept organisms change and adapt over generations.
That's the strange thing, she's a little bit leery about religion but she says she just doesn't accept evolution. I don't think her teacher properly taught it, so maybe if I explained it better she might believe it. I'm discussing it with her right now and it's not devolving at all, she acknowledges that she's biased because of her religious upbringing so she wants me to show her proof.
Small changes over small periods of time(which we know for sure exist) = massive changes over a deuce of a lot of time.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
Yes, evolution is a theory and you can't "prove" it in the sense that you can prove the pythagorean theorem given the axioms of euclidean geometry. And it is certainly possible that in the future, a more developed theory of how life came to be may look quite different than evolution right now (physics is a good example).
Put concisely, why can events of the past be used to support predictions of the future, and why can "statistical" or "probabilistic" arguments be used? In fact, this is quite a difficult question especially if you take care not to be circular in your reasoning. However, it's essentially accepted by most rational humans and the theories of science rely on it (for example, for physics to make any predictions it must presume that the basic laws of physics wont change suddenly from one moment to the next).
As shown by experience, following this principle leads to better results. If you burn your hand when you put it in fire the first ten times, it's probably not a good idea to put your hand in fire again. Even though you can't prove that your hand wont miraculously be fine the eleventh time. You wouldn't place 50/50 odds that your hand won't get burnt.
Following this principle, when we choose between two beliefs we should weigh the evidence. By what other standard can a rational human judge? I think we can agree that evolution has an enormous body of supporting evidence. Moreover, I think we can also agree that in terms of the scientific or experimental method, religion does not have a good track record (relying mostly on word of miracles, internal/psychological accounts or transformations, ancient texts).
People don't believe in the Egyptian gods anymore, or the Native American myths,or any number of these things. The Greek myths were no longer fashionable once their civilization collapsed, you wont find anyone that seriously believes in Zeus or Apollos or whatever. However, their mathematical and scientific tradition have proven more enduring (examples include euclid, archimedes).
History shows that religious dogma either fades, morphs significantly (the types of Christianity in the US are much different than those practiced several hundred years ago), or can only be sustained by the force of powerful organizations. Time doesn't seem to erode mathematical or scientific truths in the same way, in a sense they are less dependent on culture and context (euclid's investigations of the prime numbers comes to mind).
Of course there are questions of morality, metaphysics, and other things that have concerned humans for a long time. Philosophy has a long tradition of great minds that have struggled with these topics and written extensively on them. More recently, studies in psychology and neuroscience may pave new roads to understanding.
There is a great tradition of human thought and reasoning and a huge amount of knowledge built up by the most brilliant minds over at least two thousand years. All it takes is some intellectual humility to look beyond one's local dogmas (including and going beyond religious beliefs) and see the big picture.
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly,
nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc
you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says
Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different.
Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently.
You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact.
Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt?
Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally.
On December 28 2011 17:00 Shaetan wrote:
On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail?
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding.
Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume)
Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol.
Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff?
I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD
I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things.
I hope that helped...? xD
First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you.
@Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf.
At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up.
Hm im not sure what you mean about the 2nd point
The god made human ancestors and ape ancestors that are unique but not the same. No evidence for that.
I meant I do not know what you mean by the 2nd point, as in which is the 2nd point?
I might not understand what you mean. But I think I do, and I think you're not understand what I was saying. The ancestors of humans, monkeys, etc. other species were the SAME species. Which is right according to evolution, since species branch off into other species. So if I'm right, you misunderstood me.
But that ignores the evidence to the contrary, e.g. that chimps were human ancestors (to put it simplistically). Like you can't arbitrarily create an explanation that ignores evidence.
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
Well...what do you believe in? Calling it anything more than hypothesis would be far-fetched.
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.
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.
On December 28 2011 18:04 Piste wrote: oh my.. man I really can't understand how there are so many people believing in god.
There are plenty of scary things in the world. Sometimes, it's easier to live a lie than face a sad truth.
This.
oh yeah, and to the people misusing the term theory
theory noun, plural the·o·ries. 1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
When speaking about evolution, I find it funny that creationists etc. like to use the 2nd meaning instead of the first, when the first is more proper.
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.
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.
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.
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 18:00 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On December 28 2011 19:39 Fontong wrote: ^^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.
I disagree with the bolded text. You are an agnostic but there are alot of people (especially in TL) who believe in the non-existence of god (i.e. an atheist). The most famous example of an atheist is Richard Dawkins. Even though many people lump atheism and agnostic together, in reality, they are different.
On December 28 2011 19:39 Fontong wrote: ^^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.
I disagree with the bolded text. You are an agnostic but there are alot of people (especially in TL) who believe in the non-existence of god (i.e. an atheist). The most famous example of an atheist is Richard Dawkins. Even though many people lump atheism and agnostic together, in reality, they are different.
Dawkins argues that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other".
Sounds like the definition of an agnostic atheist to me.
Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.
-He does not believe in the existence of any deity and -he claims that the existence of a deity is currently unknowable in fact.
You should tell her that she can't really pick and choose her facts yknow. Like if she believes in anything supported by science she can't disagree with one particular thing overwhelmingly supported by science regardless of what it is. It's perfectly fine to not like facts holistically but you can't accept all these other facts then reject one because you have some distorted view. Like all this technology we have all this medicine blah blah blah all stems from the same process that supports this thing so it's pretty flawed to accept that stuff and reject another.
But I mean if you want to believe that paleontology, paleoanthropology, archeology, geology, radiometric dating comparative anatomy, physiology, psychology, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry ,astronomy, astrophysics etc works the way science says it does but still think the earth is flat because you cant see a round globe from where you're standing then I guess that's okay...
should probably check out this dope ernst mayr quote because my hair stands on end when people say 'evolution is just a theory'
“Is evolution a fact? Evolution is not merely an idea, a theory, or a concept, but is the name of a process in nature, the occurrence of which can be documented by mountains of evidence that nobody has been able to refute … It is now actually misleading to refer to evolution as a theory, considering the massive evidence that has been discovered over the last 140 years … Evolution is no longer a theory, it is simply a fact.” (What Evolution Is, 2001)
so we accept this as fact because to disprove it would actually be ludicrous, if you were to prove this fact wrong you'd be the most famous scientist in the history of the world, even bigger than Einstein!
I actually hate threads that argue about shit like this cause no one's ever gonna change anyone's mind, but I love evolutionary theory, and the premise of your thread is great, despite the garbage that might spiral out of it from the 99% ignorant populace.
Yes atheism and agnosticism are different. But you wont find any agnostics saying well i don't know if Jesus was born of a virgin on december 25th like Horus and mithra. But rather their reluctance to take a position is on whether or not there was supernatural prime mover of some sort. It is my turn to tell you Deism and theism are not the same. As such Atheist and agnostic might as well be the same group as god is irrelevant to both.
On December 28 2011 19:39 Fontong wrote: ^^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.
I disagree with the bolded text. You are an agnostic but there are alot of people (especially in TL) who believe in the non-existence of god (i.e. an atheist). The most famous example of an atheist is Richard Dawkins. Even though many people lump atheism and agnostic together, in reality, they are different.
Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.
-He does not believe in the existence of any deity and -he claims that the existence of a deity is currently unknowable in fact.
I don't know why you disagree.
Cools thanks - I was unaware of such a philosophical position - I knew there were "atheists" and "agnostics" but not "atheistic agnostics".
Personally I would be ok with dating a religious person. But when someones believes in creationism, my alarm bells go off with extremism. It just shouts that they might believe in other things like anti-gay rights, anti abortion and a lot of things I'm very against.
But even without all that I would find it difficult having to spend the rest of my life with someone who believes the world is 6000 years old. It would be tough trying not to be condescending in every argument ever after I learned that about them. :S
On December 28 2011 19:39 Fontong wrote: ^^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.
I disagree with the bolded text. You are an agnostic but there are alot of people (especially in TL) who believe in the non-existence of god (i.e. an atheist). The most famous example of an atheist is Richard Dawkins. Even though many people lump atheism and agnostic together, in reality, they are different.
Dawkins argues that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other".
Sounds like the definition of an agnostic atheist to me.
Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.
-He does not believe in the existence of any deity and -he claims that the existence of a deity is currently unknowable in fact.
I don't know why you disagree.
Cools thanks - I was unaware of such a philosophical position - I knew there were "atheists" and "agnostics" but not "atheistic agnostics".
There's the whole range in that gambit
you can have
-irreligion: one who doesnt care or actively think about religious issues -implicit atheist: absence of belief in deity, but no conscious rejection of belief in deity (really close to irreligious) -agnostic atheist, as mentioned -true agnostic, believes no one knows if deity exists, and doesnt know themselves -agnostic theist, no one knows if doeity exists, but they believe it does -explicit atheist: deity dont exist yo
Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff?
Carbon-dating loses its accuracy for things older than roughly 50.000 to 60.000 years. Alternatives are for example Potassium–argon dating.
I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things.
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%
School could be 100 % Math. I would have been pretty happy with a school like that.
On December 28 2011 17:01 fuzzy_panda wrote: You don't "believe" in evolution, you either accept it or don't.
Observational science refutes the theory of evolution. We as humans have not physically seen the process of evolution taking place. The incredibly brief time that we have been alive and begun records has not been anywhere near enough to actually see the manifestations of evolution. Because we have not seen it, we have to place our trust (faith, belief, whatever you want to call it) in the instruments we use and the knowledge we possess.
Now you are thinking, "But we know for a FACT that evolution is irrefutable." You may think so, but only because you believe, 100%, that the tools you used to acquire this knowledge were right. The same way Creationists believe, 100%, that the scripture they read is right.
On December 28 2011 18:04 Piste wrote: oh my.. man I really can't understand how there are so many people believing in god.
I'm a have-a-philosophical-debate-over-coffee-type and whenever I haven't seen a night sky scattered with stars for a while (happens too often, living in a big city and having a busy life does prevent this) I always get caught out with wonder. The stars I see represent the power of creation. The peace I feel when I'm praising Him is something unexplainable. Feeling physically lighter as if a burden has been lifted can't be explained with science.
I think science is great thing. Scientists are indeed noble people. I also think that science vs religion shouldn't always be the case. But the fact that you are breathing the air you are and reading this with eyes and understanding it with the most incredibly designed computation device ever known to man while hearing background noises and feeling the mouse under your hand, storing memories of years past all on an insignificant speck of rock in a unassuming pocket of our galaxy, one of billions upon billions in the colossal universe makes me think that random chance had no chance. No chance at all.
Believing in God is the best thing that ever happened to me. Being able to say that I have been truly happy, and I mean truly happy, beyond expression and still feel so day-to-day is something many, if not most people cannot. Having a purpose in life and not feeling empty or wanting more or craving the next thing or having a feeling of emptiness is a great way to live as well. If believing in God makes me feel completed, a good person, a model citizen and respectful of all other people, is that such a bad thing? Do you understand why I do?
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
Personally I would continue dating her but not try to bum rush her with reason. Like when I tried to talk about that that I didnt belive jesus existed with some witnesses at my door. Apparently not the right time to do that, I had to ask for the watchtower when they left. Just think macro game, bring it up once a month or so at most and keep it low key.
On December 28 2011 17:01 fuzzy_panda wrote: You don't "believe" in evolution, you either accept it or don't.
Observational science refutes the theory of evolution. We as humans have not physically seen the process of evolution taking place. The incredibly brief time that we have been alive and begun records has not been anywhere near enough to actually see the manifestations of evolution. Because we have not seen it, we have to place our trust (faith, belief, whatever you want to call it) in the instruments we use and the knowledge we possess.
We have observed microevolution in a lab. E. coli grown on substrates that do not normally allow growth gain mutations that allow them to use that substrate for survival.
I believe very recently there was some article about macroevolution being observed somewhere but a brief google search failed me
So we have seen the process of evolution occur in some sense.
On December 28 2011 20:29 BookTwo wrote:
Now you are thinking, "But we know for a FACT that evolution is irrefutable." You may think so, but only because you believe, 100%, that the tools you used to acquire this knowledge were right. The same way Creationists believe, 100%, that the scripture they read is right.
This statement just doesn't make sense to me. We don't just accept that the tools we use are right, they are checked/rechecked/validated etc. before they are used. Even after they are used, if something new arises disproving a previously held belief, then the scientific view adapts to this newfound knowledge.
Scripture does not change. It is true simply because it is stated to be true no matter how many discrepancies are found.
On December 28 2011 18:04 Piste wrote: oh my.. man I really can't understand how there are so many people believing in god.
I'm a have-a-philosophical-debate-over-coffee-type and whenever I haven't seen a night sky scattered with stars for a while (happens too often, living in a big city and having a busy life does prevent this) I always get caught out with wonder. The stars I see represent the power of creation. The peace I feel when I'm praising Him is something unexplainable. Feeling physically lighter as if a burden has been lifted can't be explained with science.
I think science is great thing. Scientists are indeed noble people. I also think that science vs religion shouldn't always be the case. But the fact that you are breathing the air you are and reading this with eyes and understanding it with the most incredibly designed computation device ever known to man while hearing background noises and feeling the mouse under your hand, storing memories of years past all on an insignificant speck of rock in a unassuming pocket of our galaxy, one of billions upon billions in the colossal universe makes me think that random chance had no chance. No chance at all.
Believing in God is the best thing that ever happened to me. Being able to say that I have been truly happy, and I mean truly happy, beyond expression and still feel so day-to-day is something many, if not most people cannot. Having a purpose in life and not feeling empty or wanting more or craving the next thing or having a feeling of emptiness is a great way to live as well. If believing in God makes me feel completed, a good person, a model citizen and respectful of all other people, is that such a bad thing? Do you understand why I do?
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
this is so wrong
Why?
I have no problem with you being religious because it makes you feel better about life. Carry on and be happy. I do have a problem with beliefs lacking evidence being peddled as fact.
On December 28 2011 17:01 fuzzy_panda wrote: You don't "believe" in evolution, you either accept it or don't.
Observational science refutes the theory of evolution. We as humans have not physically seen the process of evolution taking place. The incredibly brief time that we have been alive and begun records has not been anywhere near enough to actually see the manifestations of evolution. Because we have not seen it, we have to place our trust (faith, belief, whatever you want to call it) in the instruments we use and the knowledge we possess.
Just because we haven't seen a fish grow wings and fly doesn't not at all mean evolution has been refuted.
We can even now observe not only the evidence that evolution has occurred on a major scale, but also the several mechanisms by which evolution takes place -- natural selection included. As the above poster mentioned, we can even observe actual evolution taking place in microorganisms. In fact, your statement is completely incorrect. Evolution is supported by both observational (where controlled experiments cannot be conducted) and non-observational science.
Unless you're some sort of academic or she starts to become some kind of activist and her beliefs would affect your life in some way then it really doesn't matter one bit what her religious views are.
She may change her views over time but don't try and push an agenda, people are people, we believe different things for different reasons and as an atheist I don't believe in some kind of cosmic bitch slap if your beliefs aren't the 'correct' ones.
If you like her as a person, and you get on well then that's all you need.
if you can let this slide youre a better man than me. this is a deal breaker. or at least it would turn out to be one since i could never stop myself from making jokes about it even if i somehow was able to overlook it at first (ie she is really hot).
On December 28 2011 20:44 adwodon wrote: Unless you're some sort of academic or she starts to become some kind of activist and her beliefs would affect your life in some way then it really doesn't matter one bit what her religious views are.
She may change her views over time but don't try and push an agenda, people are people, we believe different things for different reasons and as an atheist I don't believe in some kind of cosmic bitch slap if your beliefs aren't the 'correct' ones.
If you like her as a person, and you get on well then that's all you need.
On December 28 2011 20:44 adwodon wrote: Unless you're some sort of academic or she starts to become some kind of activist and her beliefs would affect your life in some way then it really doesn't matter one bit what her religious views are.
She may change her views over time but don't try and push an agenda, people are people, we believe different things for different reasons and as an atheist I don't believe in some kind of cosmic bitch slap if your beliefs aren't the 'correct' ones.
If you like her as a person, and you get on well then that's all you need.
This. Why are people here so extreme -.-
Like someone above posted, i could not let this slide without making the occasional joke about it and that alone could form a rift between you and your girlfriend
On December 28 2011 17:01 fuzzy_panda wrote: You don't "believe" in evolution, you either accept it or don't.
Observational science refutes the theory of evolution. We as humans have not physically seen the process of evolution taking place. The incredibly brief time that we have been alive and begun records has not been anywhere near enough to actually see the manifestations of evolution. Because we have not seen it, we have to place our trust (faith, belief, whatever you want to call it) in the instruments we use and the knowledge we possess.
Now you are thinking, "But we know for a FACT that evolution is irrefutable." You may think so, but only because you believe, 100%, that the tools you used to acquire this knowledge were right. The same way Creationists believe, 100%, that the scripture they read is right.
On December 28 2011 18:04 Piste wrote: oh my.. man I really can't understand how there are so many people believing in god.
I'm a have-a-philosophical-debate-over-coffee-type and whenever I haven't seen a night sky scattered with stars for a while (happens too often, living in a big city and having a busy life does prevent this) I always get caught out with wonder. The stars I see represent the power of creation. The peace I feel when I'm praising Him is something unexplainable. Feeling physically lighter as if a burden has been lifted can't be explained with science.
I think science is great thing. Scientists are indeed noble people. I also think that science vs religion shouldn't always be the case. But the fact that you are breathing the air you are and reading this with eyes and understanding it with the most incredibly designed computation device ever known to man while hearing background noises and feeling the mouse under your hand, storing memories of years past all on an insignificant speck of rock in a unassuming pocket of our galaxy, one of billions upon billions in the colossal universe makes me think that random chance had no chance. No chance at all.
Believing in God is the best thing that ever happened to me. Being able to say that I have been truly happy, and I mean truly happy, beyond expression and still feel so day-to-day is something many, if not most people cannot. Having a purpose in life and not feeling empty or wanting more or craving the next thing or having a feeling of emptiness is a great way to live as well. If believing in God makes me feel completed, a good person, a model citizen and respectful of all other people, is that such a bad thing? Do you understand why I do?
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
this is so wrong
Why?
For me, the situation is pretty much exactly reversed. At the moment, if I try to answer honestly, my gut feeling is telling me there is no God, and yet I am pretty content living.
I am in my thirties, and in my past I also had a time where I believed God is real and exists. For me, this did not mean that I was happy with living. In fact, I had years of problems with depression. I cannot honestly say if believing in God was helpful or detrimental to me. Completely "winning" against depression happened years after I had already lost faith that there is a god. So I know I had suffered from depression with and without believing in God.
I am convinced I can be truly happy without believing in God and an afterlife.
On December 28 2011 20:43 Fontong wrote: Just because we haven't seen a fish grow wings and fly doesn't not at all mean evolution has been refuted.
In strict terms, it does mean exactly that. If your model can not be tested (at least theoretical), the theory is not scientific. Luckily, in this case, genetics plus the example of the e.coli bacteria someone gave above.
On December 28 2011 20:44 adwodon wrote: Unless you're some sort of academic or she starts to become some kind of activist and her beliefs would affect your life in some way then it really doesn't matter one bit what her religious views are.
She may change her views over time but don't try and push an agenda, people are people, we believe different things for different reasons and as an atheist I don't believe in some kind of cosmic bitch slap if your beliefs aren't the 'correct' ones.
If you like her as a person, and you get on well then that's all you need.
Because there's an issue of respect and it's difficult, if not impossible, to be in a relationship with someone who you don't respect. Holding such an elementary view, I would have difficulty respecting someone like that. This is one of the most extreme cases of faith against logic, where faith refutes what has been logically observed and proven, unlike other issues where there is simply a lack of evidence. It's just being obstinate and foolish.
On December 28 2011 17:01 fuzzy_panda wrote: You don't "believe" in evolution, you either accept it or don't.
Observational science refutes the theory of evolution. We as humans have not physically seen the process of evolution taking place. The incredibly brief time that we have been alive and begun records has not been anywhere near enough to actually see the manifestations of evolution. Because we have not seen it, we have to place our trust (faith, belief, whatever you want to call it) in the instruments we use and the knowledge we possess.
We have observed microevolution in a lab. E. coli grown on substrates that do not normally allow growth gain mutations that allow them to use that substrate for survival.
I believe very recently there was some article about macroevolution being observed somewhere but a brief google search failed me
So we have seen the process of evolution occur in some sense.
On December 28 2011 20:29 BookTwo wrote:
Now you are thinking, "But we know for a FACT that evolution is irrefutable." You may think so, but only because you believe, 100%, that the tools you used to acquire this knowledge were right. The same way Creationists believe, 100%, that the scripture they read is right.
This statement just doesn't make sense to me. We don't just accept that the tools we use are right, they are checked/rechecked/validated etc. before they are used. Even after they are used, if something new arises disproving a previously held belief, then the scientific view adapts to this newfound knowledge.
Scripture does not change. It is true simply because it is stated to be true no matter how many discrepancies are found.
On December 28 2011 18:04 Piste wrote: oh my.. man I really can't understand how there are so many people believing in god.
I'm a have-a-philosophical-debate-over-coffee-type and whenever I haven't seen a night sky scattered with stars for a while (happens too often, living in a big city and having a busy life does prevent this) I always get caught out with wonder. The stars I see represent the power of creation. The peace I feel when I'm praising Him is something unexplainable. Feeling physically lighter as if a burden has been lifted can't be explained with science.
I think science is great thing. Scientists are indeed noble people. I also think that science vs religion shouldn't always be the case. But the fact that you are breathing the air you are and reading this with eyes and understanding it with the most incredibly designed computation device ever known to man while hearing background noises and feeling the mouse under your hand, storing memories of years past all on an insignificant speck of rock in a unassuming pocket of our galaxy, one of billions upon billions in the colossal universe makes me think that random chance had no chance. No chance at all.
Believing in God is the best thing that ever happened to me. Being able to say that I have been truly happy, and I mean truly happy, beyond expression and still feel so day-to-day is something many, if not most people cannot. Having a purpose in life and not feeling empty or wanting more or craving the next thing or having a feeling of emptiness is a great way to live as well. If believing in God makes me feel completed, a good person, a model citizen and respectful of all other people, is that such a bad thing? Do you understand why I do?
On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities.
Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.)
If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you.
Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones.
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly.
And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory.
I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists.
Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him.
Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case.
Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.)
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
this is so wrong
Why?
I have no problem with you being religious because it makes you feel better about life. Carry on and be happy. I do have a problem with beliefs lacking evidence being peddled as fact.
Exactly, one of the major problems of religion is the fact they need to proselytize everyone else around them and spread the word (as mentioned in the bible in the christian faith). This leads to stuff like condoms in Africa, homosexual discrimination, child indoctrination, religious wars etc. If they actually just kept it to themselves without force feeding it on everyone the world would be a better place.
On December 28 2011 18:04 Piste wrote: oh my.. man I really can't understand how there are so many people believing in god.
I'm a have-a-philosophical-debate-over-coffee-type and whenever I haven't seen a night sky scattered with stars for a while (happens too often, living in a big city and having a busy life does prevent this) I always get caught out with wonder. The stars I see represent the power of creation. The peace I feel when I'm praising Him is something unexplainable. Feeling physically lighter as if a burden has been lifted can't be explained with science.
I think science is great thing. Scientists are indeed noble people. I also think that science vs religion shouldn't always be the case. But the fact that you are breathing the air you are and reading this with eyes and understanding it with the most incredibly designed computation device ever known to man while hearing background noises and feeling the mouse under your hand, storing memories of years past all on an insignificant speck of rock in a unassuming pocket of our galaxy, one of billions upon billions in the colossal universe makes me think that random chance had no chance. No chance at all.
Believing in God is the best thing that ever happened to me. Being able to say that I have been truly happy, and I mean truly happy, beyond expression and still feel so day-to-day is something many, if not most people cannot. Having a purpose in life and not feeling empty or wanting more or craving the next thing or having a feeling of emptiness is a great way to live as well. If believing in God makes me feel completed, a good person, a model citizen and respectful of all other people, is that such a bad thing? Do you understand why I do?
Actually with billions and billions of stars, statistical improbabilities start becoming more plausible. 1 in a billion isn't that low a probability with 9 x 10^21 stars in the observable universe.
Sure you gain some purpose and that fulfillment of the emptiness, which i empathise with, but a god would not do it for me. I would feel too intellectually, emotionally and mentally conflicted. I thought about it, once, but i know it will never fulfill me the way it does for you. No its not a bad thing, but like i said above in my other reply, proselytizing and forcing arbitrary rules and laws on nonbelievers as well as believers is not right.
People saying "its not that important, so just ignore the topic" forget one big thing: Even if its not important to the OP , it could be the most important thing to the girl (in case she is serious in her faith). These are the possibilities in my opinion: - You want a serious realationship: You NEED to talk about it! Sooner or later it will come up. - You dont want a serious relationship: Stop being an egoistic douche.
Allthough if she is sleeping with you I cant imagine her being dedicated to her faith.. In that case ignore my post.
On December 28 2011 19:35 Azzur wrote: 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.
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.
There's an enormous difference between believing in some type of passive God, and believing in an active, intervening God whose actions defy evidence. The former deals with a lack of evidence, the latter is simply ignoring information.
Kenneth Miller is a Catholic molecular biologist who is one of the strongest proponents of evolution and has argued against Creationism in court. His faith doesn't prevent him from conducting proper science, he simply believes there is a force that set things in motion.
You can't disprove someone's faith in God, but you sure can disprove Creationism.
(this is coming from someone who has a very strong stance on this topic) If it doesn't look to be affecting your relationship in any real way, and you enjoy being with her, then great! Don't let it get in your way. I suppose if you start loathing her at some point you could consider it another reason to break up.
I can't believe ppl are linking to theists to an atheist site, thinking they would be influenced by them. A religious person is exactly like a Hawks fan. That is the end of my post, no more explanation will be required.
On December 28 2011 20:44 adwodon wrote: Unless you're some sort of academic or she starts to become some kind of activist and her beliefs would affect your life in some way then it really doesn't matter one bit what her religious views are.
She may change her views over time but don't try and push an agenda, people are people, we believe different things for different reasons and as an atheist I don't believe in some kind of cosmic bitch slap if your beliefs aren't the 'correct' ones.
If you like her as a person, and you get on well then that's all you need.
Because there's an issue of respect and it's difficult, if not impossible, to be in a relationship with someone who you don't respect. Holding such an elementary view, I would have difficulty respecting someone like that. This is one of the most extreme cases of faith against logic, where faith refutes what has been logically observed and proven, unlike other issues where there is simply a lack of evidence. It's just being obstinate and foolish.
Ahh beat me too it. How can i learn to love someone i don't respect?
On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize.
People interpret the Bible (or other creationist religions) in MANY different ways. That is why there are so many things like "catholic", "evangelical", etc. etc. etc. They have different values and such.
Many people today say that the Bible (and there are some verses that address this) states that god created each being, you know, uniquely, etc. etc. So from that they say, oh, then it means that evolution has to be wrong, since things can't be unique if they change from fish to blah to blah to humans.
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
There's a lot of other stuff too. I'll just briefly note them here. I'm still open minded of course but I believe that God didn't just create the microscopic lifeforms in the water, and then just stop there and let them evolve. He created different animals, like is said in Genesis. However by our carbon dating and whatnot, it seems to be millions and billions or whatnot years between these kinds of events. I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
Just wanna point out some possibilities. Maybe you can convince her to something like what I said. There's other opinions out there too.
Also I would like to advise you to be patient, if she does quote the Bible. Be sure to listen to her arguments as well, if you want to treat her well and all that. I know of many atheists who will attack the Bible without even understanding what a certain part is SUPPOSED to mean (disagreeing with something and not understanding something are two different things). It becomes really frustrating as a creationist to defend your views because of simple arrogance from atheists. It's like, you know, arguing about a book you've never actually even read, ya know?
If that doesn't work (or if it already failed) maybe you can mention the kind of idea that I did, that things do change over time and evolve, but that doesn't mean god didn't create life uniquely. They were created uniquely, and changed over time. Whatever form those beings may have taken on during that time might have been very similar to other beings that are seen today, but that doesn't mean they're the same.
correct me if im wrong but I think you are going through a phase of questioning certain things about your faith. I had a similar experience during high school/collage. You should try to keep an open (and logical!) mind and really try to understand the concept of genetics and how it could explain evolution as a theory. Many concepts are still new to you i think. That bit about the great flood messing with radioactive nuclei has no basis whatsoever and you came up with it in your own mind to try to bridge two conflicting ideas.
I was brought up a christian, but I never really accepted things in the bible as literal truths. Even as a young kid without much knowledge, many things just seemed implausible and were basically stories (ie parables) to get the point across. I think I came to understand fairly early that these were just metaphorical explanations for things that were yet to be understood scientifically. I still kept my faith though. It was a tough to reject what I grew up with, so I made compromises. At one point, I had enough education to see that evolution explained so many things that I just took for granted or just accepted. I tried my hardest to cope with two conflicting viewpoints and came up with the idea that God created the big bang and set the physical and natural laws and let it go from there. That was "creation."
Naturally, if you follow the logic through, you would come to the conclusion that God simply doesn't need to be in this picture to make this work. It is a slippery slope once you start to see the bible as one big metaphorical book of philosophy, religious teachings, ideas, and morals which has since been edited and changed numerous times to fit the political and social background. I started to get fed up with all these christians that are nothing more than hypocrits and use the church as a social playground. I began to look back at my personal relationship with God. All those times at revivals where I would cry and repent my sins and feel like i belonged. It was just a sociological phenominon. There was no holy spirit that entered me and brought me closer to God. I felt closer to God because of the setting in which it took place. I guess the final straw for me was the idea of jesus dying for your sins. This is one of the most ridiculous notion and should have been the first thing people question. This notion that is the cornerstone of the Christian faith, something that should jump out at any educated Christian, yet everyone just accepts because its been hammered into their minds for so long, simply was impossible.
There are a couple paths one can take once they start questioning. Follow through with logic, make compromises and keep the faith because its whats comfortable for you, or just outright reject science and accept the literal bible.
On December 28 2011 19:41 ShadeR wrote: Well it's called theory because you can come up with scenarios in which it can befalsified. 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.
Thanks! This is the key word when people try to make science out of religion. No model of the reality can be proven 100%, but a good model can be falsified.
What will happen when I let go of this apple? Newton gravity model: it will accelerate 9.8m/s^2. Anything else, and my model is in trouble. religious fanatic: it will fall with the speed that god chose. I know not the mind of god, so whatever happens, it is the will of god, and I will stick to my perception.
What will happen to the white beetles when the beech trees get darker by polution? evolution: The darker beetles will survive better and after a while the beetles will be black rather than white. Anything else, and my model is in trouble. religious fanatic: God will chose the fate of the beetles. Whatever happens, it is the will of god. I want to carry an electric current to a different place, what material should I use? quantum mechanics: Use a metal. the occupations of the energy levels allow the electrons to flow easily. Anything else and my model is in trouble. religious fanatic: use the material of god, and god will conduct the current for you if god so chooses. Whatever happens, it is the will of god.
Well, you get the point. Religion is pretty useless in empirical science. A common expression here is "not even wrong". A good model can be proven wrong (falsifiable), and most good models get proven wrong eventually. Many great things have come out from models that turned out to be horribly wrong after measurements.
A model like "god will chose what happens at any point and it is impossible to read the mind of god" can never be proven wrong, which makes it a horrible model. Thus the expression that this kind of religious models in science should be labeled "not even wrong" or "not falsifiable".
I am perfectly fine with ppl believing in various religions. hf with that. But if you want to make a model of scientific empirical observations, and claim that your model is on the same footing as existing models, you better be sure that your model is falsifiable.
ON TOPIC Best is probably to talk to her and say that you got a bit upset by her stance in this subject, but that it is not a big deal. Then discuss with her how to handle it. Ask her if she is up for a discussion about evolution, but tell her that you don't want this to get in between you or damage your relationship. Just be honest about what you feel about this entire situation, and it can't go very wrong. Good luck. (and feel free to use "falsifiable" and "not even wrong" if you do take the discussion. )
Not "believing" in evolution is the same as not "believing" gravity exists. The theories are both not fully proven but all the evidence points in a singular direction. Just because evolution contradicts a lot of religious stories does not make it a religion.
Actually getting someone to question their beliefs and the stories they grew up with (be they islam/bible/w.e.) is not something you can force. If she is open to it you can start using a variety of questions and statements, starting with the very foundation of evolution & dating techniques, to disprove creationism/prove evolution. However, due to the nature of the god postulation, you cannot disprove the existence of a god/multiple gods/a flying spaghetti monster. You can disprove that the universe -needs- a god though.
On December 28 2011 16:10 blade55555 wrote: Just leave it alone. You have different views and a really dumb thing to get in a fight about imo. Unless it for some reason bothers you that much that she doesn't believe the same things you do xD.
But you are just like her in the since that what you say is "fact been proven etc" so look at it from her point of view as to what you are doing. You are acting the same exact way.
That's exactly what went through my head. I can prove evolution with a million examples but she can just pull out the Bible and say that I'm wrong. Then I get into religion arguments and those can prove fatal...
Yep, if you can accept her views then I think you should just leave it alone. Arguing about it won't accomplish anything other than provoke fights because she won't accept the evidence you show her as she has her own facts.
My solution would be try not to convince her but enable her to make an educated judgement. She, I reckon?, knows the bible and christian teachings quite well, how about giving her a book on evolutionism to balance it out. I suggest The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins which, for me, was a very understandable, easy and pleasant read, even though I'm not a biologist/geologist. Just ask her to read it and if she wants to discuss it later then that's fine. A lot of people are just very ignorant about Darwin's theorems and helping that might make her see how evolution isn't just nonsense.
On December 28 2011 22:42 Pholon wrote: My solution would be try not to convince her but enable her to make an educated judgement. She, I reckon?, knows the bible and christian teachings quite well, how about giving her a book on evolutionism to balance it out. I suggest The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins which, for me, was a very understandable, easy and pleasant read, even though I'm not a biologist/geologist. Just ask her to read it and if she wants to discuss it later then that's fine. A lot of people are just very ignorant about Darwin's theorems and helping that might make her see how evolution isn't just nonsense.
At that point the OP has to be prepared to read the bible (or similar book) though, because she can reverse the argument. If you are prepared to do that, then you can make a fun exchange thing about it where you learn more about each others mindsets. Very romantic.
I feel for you man. Personally would never catch me with a creationist woman, I'd much rather chop my balls off. If I was in that situation, I would try to persuade her.
On December 28 2011 22:19 Schwopzi wrote: Not "believing" in evolution is the same as not "believing" gravity exists. The theories are both not fully proven but all the evidence points in a singular direction. Just because evolution contradicts a lot of religious stories does not make it a religion.
Actually getting someone to question their beliefs and the stories they grew up with (be they islam/bible/w.e.) is not something you can force. If she is open to it you can start using a variety of questions and statements, starting with the very foundation of evolution & dating techniques, to disprove creationism/prove evolution. However, due to the nature of the god postulation, you cannot disprove the existence of a god/multiple gods/a flying spaghetti monster. You can disprove that the universe -needs- a god though.
Actually it does. It does indeed. The Holy Bible is supposed to be the word of God, the ONLY BOOK EVER CREATED (for some religions lol) in which is Holy, and can you please tell me how "holy" the bible is if a bunch of shit is actually WRONG?
depends on what you're dating her for. If its just for short term companionship and sex, don't do anything to sabotage a decent relationship. If you're looking to marry her, then thats a different problem, because now you've got to work on time-bomb diffusal, and finding out if she's really crazy or not right now can save you a lot of time later.
On December 28 2011 22:42 Pholon wrote: My solution would be try not to convince her but enable her to make an educated judgement. She, I reckon?, knows the bible and christian teachings quite well, how about giving her a book on evolutionism to balance it out. I suggest The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins which, for me, was a very understandable, easy and pleasant read, even though I'm not a biologist/geologist. Just ask her to read it and if she wants to discuss it later then that's fine. A lot of people are just very ignorant about Darwin's theorems and helping that might make her see how evolution isn't just nonsense.
At that point the OP has to be prepared to read the bible (or similar book) though, because she can reverse the argument. If you are prepared to do that, then you can make a fun exchange thing about it where you learn more about each others mindsets. Very romantic.
Well yeah. Or some book that outlines her "interpretation" of it.
She's been brainwashed from such an early age, it would take alot to change her mindset on it. Dunno, if I was in your position, I would stay as long as she is putting out. As soon as she brings up marriage though, I would bail.
Does it really matter to either of you? Are you one of those people that are constantly annoyed by people being "wrong" and refusing to change? Is she someone that will try and cram it down your throat later? If the answer to any of those is "yes", then you should try and persuade her. If not, who really gives a crap.
My girlfriend could literally believe in the flying spaghetti monster, and I wouldn't really give a crap, as long as it doesn't end up affecting me personally. If it's not hurting her, and it's not hurting me, why give a crap?
On December 28 2011 23:20 Sm3agol wrote: Here's the way I look at it.
Does it really matter to either of you? Are you one of those people that are constantly annoyed by people being "wrong" and refusing to change? Is she someone that will try and cram it down your throat later? If the answer to any of those is "yes", then you should try and persuade her. If not, who really gives a crap.
My girlfriend could literally believe in the flying spaghetti monster, and I wouldn't really give a crap, as long as it doesn't end up affecting me personally. If it's not hurting her, and it's not hurting me, why give a crap?
It's only hurting the entire progress of the modern world. I could not stand to be in a relationship with someone so stupid who is unable to believe facts. If someone is dumb enough to believe in a god, what other insane things could they do in the future to ruin your relationship?
On December 28 2011 23:20 Sm3agol wrote: Here's the way I look at it.
Does it really matter to either of you? Are you one of those people that are constantly annoyed by people being "wrong" and refusing to change? Is she someone that will try and cram it down your throat later? If the answer to any of those is "yes", then you should try and persuade her. If not, who really gives a crap.
My girlfriend could literally believe in the flying spaghetti monster, and I wouldn't really give a crap, as long as it doesn't end up affecting me personally. If it's not hurting her, and it's not hurting me, why give a crap?
It's only hurting the entire progress of the modern world. I could not stand to be in a relationship with someone so stupid who is unable to believe facts. If someone is dumb enough to believe in a god, what other insane things could they do in the future to ruin your relationship?
You are taking it too far. Believing in religion isn't necessarily bad or stupid (this coming from an atheist), it's just some people feel it's necessary for them. The education one receives as a child also has a huge impact. Creationism on the other hand is just taking things too far. Science and religion have NOTHING to do with each other, and they never should.
On topic, i think it would bother me a lot. I could definitely not have a very serious story with her, but that's personal. If it's not too serious for both of you and it doesn't bother you that much, i say go ahead with it, but if either one of you looks for a more long-term relationship it could be troublesome.
On December 28 2011 23:20 Sm3agol wrote: Here's the way I look at it.
Does it really matter to either of you? Are you one of those people that are constantly annoyed by people being "wrong" and refusing to change? Is she someone that will try and cram it down your throat later? If the answer to any of those is "yes", then you should try and persuade her. If not, who really gives a crap.
My girlfriend could literally believe in the flying spaghetti monster, and I wouldn't really give a crap, as long as it doesn't end up affecting me personally. If it's not hurting her, and it's not hurting me, why give a crap?
It's only hurting the entire progress of the modern world. I could not stand to be in a relationship with someone so stupid who is unable to believe facts. If someone is dumb enough to believe in a god, what other insane things could they do in the future to ruin your relationship?
Using religion as a metric of the intelligence is as dumb as believing in creationism in the first place. Saying they believe in God therefore are more likely to do something dumb just shows your own ignorant bias. People do stupid and horrible things regardless of religious beliefs, especially in relationships.
On December 28 2011 20:44 adwodon wrote: Unless you're some sort of academic or she starts to become some kind of activist and her beliefs would affect your life in some way then it really doesn't matter one bit what her religious views are.
She may change her views over time but don't try and push an agenda, people are people, we believe different things for different reasons and as an atheist I don't believe in some kind of cosmic bitch slap if your beliefs aren't the 'correct' ones.
If you like her as a person, and you get on well then that's all you need.
Because there's an issue of respect and it's difficult, if not impossible, to be in a relationship with someone who you don't respect. Holding such an elementary view, I would have difficulty respecting someone like that. This is one of the most extreme cases of faith against logic, where faith refutes what has been logically observed and proven, unlike other issues where there is simply a lack of evidence. It's just being obstinate and foolish.
I disagree, as a physicist I am a 'logical' person and I know lots of logical people. One of the smartest can't cook, he can make bacon sandwiches and that's about it. Now to me, that makes no sense, we eat every day, we enjoy it, cooking is a social thing, its relaxing and you feel accomplished, I think not learning to cook is obstinate and foolish (I don't really but for the sake of argument...). Does that undermine everything else my friend does? Is he suddenly now not worthy of respect?
Of course the answer is no, the reason being, there is only so much we can do or care about. I imagine for this girl, she grew up in a religious community, was taught what she thinks, doesn't care much about it and isn't a scientific person (they do exist, in fact most people really don't care about science) so didn't bother questioning it because she had other things on her mind and had other priorities. I'm sure if she moved into an environment where it was suddenly imperative that she explore these things more she would change her mind, but someones opinion on science doesn't matter, as I said, shes no activist, that would be very different and I would have trouble respecting someone who was passionate about an ill informed opinion.
I learned a long time ago that we all have our own standards, and one of the things that pains me most about peoples problems with each other is they almost always stem from conflicting standards.
I would say to you, that you need to learn to respect people with different standards, as right now you aren't as open minded as you might believe, as presumably an atheist you surely don't believe in any kind of fundamental reason for your being here, so why does it matter that this girl thinks what she does on this one subject? I think its too easy to pick faults in people, remember you have just as many, I'm sure I could find many in you, and you many in me, but I think its important to focus more on the positives in people, and that is where I learn to respect people, from what they are passionate about, from what they focus on, not what I am passionate about or what I focus on, because otherwise, I would barely respect anyone and that would be too lonely an existence for me to what to contemplate.
On December 28 2011 20:44 adwodon wrote: Unless you're some sort of academic or she starts to become some kind of activist and her beliefs would affect your life in some way then it really doesn't matter one bit what her religious views are.
She may change her views over time but don't try and push an agenda, people are people, we believe different things for different reasons and as an atheist I don't believe in some kind of cosmic bitch slap if your beliefs aren't the 'correct' ones.
If you like her as a person, and you get on well then that's all you need.
Because there's an issue of respect and it's difficult, if not impossible, to be in a relationship with someone who you don't respect. Holding such an elementary view, I would have difficulty respecting someone like that. This is one of the most extreme cases of faith against logic, where faith refutes what has been logically observed and proven, unlike other issues where there is simply a lack of evidence. It's just being obstinate and foolish.
I disagree, as a physicist I am a 'logical' person and I know lots of logical people. One of the smartest can't cook, he can make bacon sandwiches and that's about it. Now to me, that makes no sense, we eat every day, we enjoy it, cooking is a social thing, its relaxing and you feel accomplished, I think not learning to cook is obstinate and foolish (I don't really but for the sake of argument...). Does that undermine everything else my friend does? Is he suddenly now not worthy of respect?
Of course the answer is no, the reason being, there is only so much we can do or care about. I imagine for this girl, she grew up in a religious community, was taught what she thinks, doesn't care much about it and isn't a scientific person (they do exist, in fact most people really don't care about science) so didn't bother questioning it because she had other things on her mind and had other priorities. I'm sure if she moved into an environment where it was suddenly imperative that she explore these things more she would change her mind, but someones opinion on science doesn't matter, as I said, shes no activist, that would be very different and I would have trouble respecting someone who was passionate about an ill informed opinion.
I learned a long time ago that we all have our own standards, and one of the things that pains me most about peoples problems with each other is they almost always stem from conflicting standards.
I would say to you, that you need to learn to respect people with different standards, as right now you aren't as open minded as you might believe, as presumably an atheist you surely don't believe in any kind of fundamental reason for your being here, so why does it matter that this girl thinks what she does on this one subject? I think its too easy to pick faults in people, remember you have just as many, I'm sure I could find many in you, and you many in me, but I think its important to focus more on the positives in people, and that is where I learn to respect people, from what they are passionate about, from what they focus on, not what I am passionate about or what I focus on, because otherwise, I would barely respect anyone and that would be too lonely an existence for me to what to contemplate.
There's a big difference in not respecting someone for being generally religious, which I don't believe Jibba said, and not respecting them for believing in something specific that has a large amount of evidence against it. It'd be like me saying 'The Moon is made of cheese' and expecting everyone to not think I'm a loon.
If she's just a girlfriend and you don't really plan much for the future, then screw it. Enjoy the time you have with her, and don't screw it up with silly phisolophical discussions. It'll end naturally soon enough anyhow.
If you do have deep feelings for this girl and want to make something serious out of it, then look at it this way - does her views of the world, through her religious view, go against yours, or contradict important parts of yours? Would this be a source of conflict, tension or stress? Would you want your children brought up with her belief or yours?
If it's an issue for you that her religious (and with it probably, her political view and general worldview) conflicts with your interpretation of reality, and you want to convince her, try asking her about the basis of her belief. If she's a logical person, she might come to realise that the basis of her worldview is not reason, and she might change in time. Chances are she will not, though.
If her worldview is important to you and she doesn't seem to want change, don't push for it - just leave her.
This propose probably sounds crazy and is not very doable. Still: Study maths and physics together. The etique of science (physics) and strict approach in maths should force a person to think differently at least. I think that a lot of disrespect toward scientific theories come from being ignorant of them.
I was going to help you but then I saw your poll and now I think that it's nothing serious either way so what the fuck just do whatever you feel like you want to do.
You have to present the facts to her and point out why you think that evolution is true. While it may seem like a small problem now, the fact is that these are the small things that can actually be a huge problem if you do not clarify things
I was in a relationship with an individual who also didn't "believe in evolution" and even though that is specifically my area of study and work I thought, "Meh, I guess I can get over it." But it really ended up being at the center of a larger problem for me because we both seemed to have just wildly different ideas about the world in general. Didn't last very long because we really just saw things way too differently to come to really any compromises.
On December 28 2011 23:20 Sm3agol wrote: Here's the way I look at it.
Does it really matter to either of you? Are you one of those people that are constantly annoyed by people being "wrong" and refusing to change? Is she someone that will try and cram it down your throat later? If the answer to any of those is "yes", then you should try and persuade her. If not, who really gives a crap.
My girlfriend could literally believe in the flying spaghetti monster, and I wouldn't really give a crap, as long as it doesn't end up affecting me personally. If it's not hurting her, and it's not hurting me, why give a crap?
It's only hurting the entire progress of the modern world. I could not stand to be in a relationship with someone so stupid who is unable to believe facts. If someone is dumb enough to believe in a god, what other insane things could they do in the future to ruin your relationship?
Really? You certainly sound like an individual I would want to be around. Believing in God = does insane things now? I'm sure all the geniuses in history that were firm believers in god were just borderline insane, stupid, and dumb?
OP, I'm glad I'm not in your position. Dating someone that believes in creationism is just as bad as dating someone that believes in gnomes and fairies and stuff.
Please never have children with her so her creationist beliefs don't spread further.
If your girlfriend was a holocaust denier [insert other extreme examples here], would you maintain the relationship? I would lose her fast but maybe I'm picky. I think personality trumps looks and in my opinion being a creationist is a pretty deep personality flaw in modern society. Hell I wouldn't want a creationist raising my kids, let alone teaching or being near them.
I find it funny how threads like these give self-assured atheists/agnostics the forum with which to tout their extreme hatred towards those of practically any sort of religious inclination. Creationism is hardly a logically defensible concept, but belief in God is an entirely different topic, and to make the assertion that those with faith are insane is to indict the history of scientific progress and rationalism as we know it. If believing in imaginary things means that I avoid becoming a venomous hater of all things unknown or unexplainable, well that choice is easy.
The chances of you convincing her to see your point of view are... zero to none.
You just need to decide if that's a problem for you.
Personally, I would NEVER date a girl who doesn't believe in evolution/is religious.
I prefer to live my life based on as much fact/science as humanly possible.. and I don't hold people who feel otherwise in high regard. I wouldn't be able to have a real relationship with a girl I think is an idiot.. basically.
On December 28 2011 17:03 Fishgle wrote: yo OP, start by agreeing with her that evolution is false, this will ward off cheese and lend you opponent unable to finish the game quickly, before you can carry out your long term game plan. transition into agreeing that evolution is just a theory. From there, expand into the safe "Nothing really has a thorough explanation" midgame composition, defending from harass with a few "this is the evidence i have," while being wary of word bending.
Whether you choose to have a Pasta, InvisiBrony, or Russel Teapot based army is your choice. But you must use one of those. The Agnostic vs Creationist matchup relies heavily upon those, but don't overmake them and transition out quickly or your whole game will be hardcountered and you'll throw away a won game.
The only time it would matter is if you guys plan on getting married and having kids, at which point you need to ask yourself the question: Can I be with someone who is going to tell my children that their batshit insane religious views are true.
Until then, who cares if she believes in God or Scientology or whatever.
If it bothers you, accept that you will either a) convert or more likely b) break up with her over something similar.
I mean, you can let this one slide, that's the smart thing to do, and just enjoy your time with her, and make sure she just understands you have different views and you guys don't need to argue about it. But if she's got these religious memes burned into her psyche forever, it will come up again and again throughout your life regarding all sorts of different things, so be ready. Don't get her pregnant.
Sure, link her to sites that support evolution, and link her to sites that refute evolution. There are a lot of scientists that are very pro evolution and a lot of scientists that don't accept it. If you want to persuade someone properly you have to know the arguments of the other side to properly "shoot them down." Otherwise it ends up coming out like "I'm right and your wrong, just because!"
Something interesting to note is that Evolution doesn't go against Creationism.
Evolution simply states that organisms choose what are the best traits to survive in their particular conditions. That does not work backward into "everything was the same type of organism". Creation simply states that everything was created by God, with no specific statement that he created X, Y, or Z. In a religiously sound scientific theory (lolz) on evolution, God created the arch beings and evolution created the rest. (So, wrong but simple explanation, god creates monkeys and several different kinds like guerillas, chimpanzees, and neaderthals evolve from the archtype.)
On a different track, when you have to tell your girlfriend that not everything in the bible is 100% real and true, quote Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Two accounts of creation, one of the heavens, earth, water, etc. over six days +1 for rest and one of the Garden of Eden. These two are mutually exclusive and because mainstream bible accepts them the bible is not 100% fact. Old testament were prehistory stories handed down and skewed by various tellers of the tale, Jesus actions teach different messages than on first glance, etc. etc. (Note: This isn't an argument against religion, it is an argument against why the bible should not be taken literally or out of context.)
Should you want to make peace with her Creationism you may want to explain how it is compatible with science. That is one of the most misunderstood things about religion in general, unfortunately.
On December 28 2011 20:44 adwodon wrote: Unless you're some sort of academic or she starts to become some kind of activist and her beliefs would affect your life in some way then it really doesn't matter one bit what her religious views are.
She may change her views over time but don't try and push an agenda, people are people, we believe different things for different reasons and as an atheist I don't believe in some kind of cosmic bitch slap if your beliefs aren't the 'correct' ones.
If you like her as a person, and you get on well then that's all you need.
Because there's an issue of respect and it's difficult, if not impossible, to be in a relationship with someone who you don't respect. Holding such an elementary view, I would have difficulty respecting someone like that. This is one of the most extreme cases of faith against logic, where faith refutes what has been logically observed and proven, unlike other issues where there is simply a lack of evidence. It's just being obstinate and foolish.
I disagree, as a physicist I am a 'logical' person and I know lots of logical people. One of the smartest can't cook, he can make bacon sandwiches and that's about it. Now to me, that makes no sense, we eat every day, we enjoy it, cooking is a social thing, its relaxing and you feel accomplished, I think not learning to cook is obstinate and foolish (I don't really but for the sake of argument...). Does that undermine everything else my friend does? Is he suddenly now not worthy of respect?
Of course the answer is no, the reason being, there is only so much we can do or care about. I imagine for this girl, she grew up in a religious community, was taught what she thinks, doesn't care much about it and isn't a scientific person (they do exist, in fact most people really don't care about science) so didn't bother questioning it because she had other things on her mind and had other priorities. I'm sure if she moved into an environment where it was suddenly imperative that she explore these things more she would change her mind, but someones opinion on science doesn't matter, as I said, shes no activist, that would be very different and I would have trouble respecting someone who was passionate about an ill informed opinion.
I learned a long time ago that we all have our own standards, and one of the things that pains me most about peoples problems with each other is they almost always stem from conflicting standards.
I would say to you, that you need to learn to respect people with different standards, as right now you aren't as open minded as you might believe, as presumably an atheist you surely don't believe in any kind of fundamental reason for your being here, so why does it matter that this girl thinks what she does on this one subject? I think its too easy to pick faults in people, remember you have just as many, I'm sure I could find many in you, and you many in me, but I think its important to focus more on the positives in people, and that is where I learn to respect people, from what they are passionate about, from what they focus on, not what I am passionate about or what I focus on, because otherwise, I would barely respect anyone and that would be too lonely an existence for me to what to contemplate.
While much of that is true, the issue is not simply believing in God. I have very close friends who believe in God and we've discussed it many times, as well as religion (which is not to be confused with faith.) We're quite similar, with the primary difference being the issue of faith. I don't have it, and they do. It's a personal connection and feeling that's impossible to expose to other people, and is equally impossible to disprove.
This issue with the girlfriend is not an issue of pure faith. You don't have faith in Creationism, the same way you can have faith that God exists, or even the way you have faith that God created the universe. You choose to believe Young Earth Creationism by rejecting scientific evidence. It's not only unreasonable but it's also on the verge of paranoia, because of the fear that mankind could not possibly be directly related to other lesser animals.
It would be like a Silver level player saying that mass thor is broken and unfair. I would have no respect for their SC2 knowledge nor should anyone, and if they were absolutely, arrogantly convinced that mass thor is broken, without acknowledging contrary evidence, then I would probably consider them an overall idiot as well.
Now this girl is indeed a product of a very isolated environment, but it sounds like she's moved beyond that if she's at least uncomfortable with her parents' religiosity. In some ways, I think it's worse that she has moved on without challenging or re-examining those core beliefs. To me, being born again is actually more "noble" than continuing to parrot others, even if I disagree with their stance. (This part is my largest assumption about the girl and quite frankly, I'm likely completely wrong in estimating how introspective she is.)
Faith, and even religion, should be tolerated. I don't think young earth creationism is tolerable, though.
Beyond all that, I don't think trying to teach a significant other is a particularly successful tactic. It's just something that they have to find out on their own. Most people are somewhat resistant to hearing "advice" from their partner, and it can be taken as a sign of disguised disrespect. At least in this case, I'm open about the disrespect.
On December 29 2011 02:57 TG Manny wrote: Something interesting to note is that Evolution doesn't go against Creationism.
Evolution simply states that organisms choose what are the best traits to survive in their particular conditions. That does not work backward into "everything was the same type of organism". Creation simply states that everything was created by God, with no specific statement that he created X, Y, or Z. In a religiously sound scientific theory (lolz) on evolution, God created the arch beings and evolution created the rest. (So, wrong but simple explanation, god creates monkeys and several different kinds like guerillas, chimpanzees, and neaderthals evolve from the archtype.)
On a different track, when you have to tell your girlfriend that not everything in the bible is 100% real and true, quote Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Two accounts of creation, one of the heavens, earth, water, etc. over six days +1 for rest and one of the Garden of Eden. These two are mutually exclusive and because mainstream bible accepts them the bible is not 100% fact. Old testament were prehistory stories handed down and skewed by various tellers of the tale, Jesus actions teach different messages than on first glance, etc. etc. (Note: This isn't an argument against religion, it is an argument against why the bible should not be taken literally or out of context.)
Should you want to make peace with her Creationism you may want to explain how it is compatible with science. That is one of the most misunderstood things about religion in general, unfortunately.
If they wanted to believe God actively created and changes everything, they could still accept the theory of evolution. Young Earth Creationism is a completely different beast all together and it's more about human self worth, than what God has or hasn't done. In the contemporary world, it's an extreme answer to the general insecurities humankind has always had, and further changes in the world might even fuel its reactionary nature.
Ok as a general comment, I think most people (even new age creationists) would believe in microevolution.
Macroevolution takes place at a higher level (between species) and over a much longer time scale, so you can't observe it in the same way. HOWEVER, the fundamental principles of both theories are the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
So you see, it's not an unreasonable step to take an observable fact (microevolution) and use the same principles to explain the bigger picture.
Physics is a good example. Based on phenomenon that can be observed on a human time scale, physicists came up with theories that have great predictive power (just like microevolution). Then, ideas like Einstein's general relativity, verified by observations in his time, were applied to cosmology and coming up with ideas such as the big bang. And we definitely cannot observe a big bang or the expansion of the universe in real time, although these ideas are now accepted (although constantly refined by new observations).
Theoretically evolution could be verified or rejected by having some immortal observer watch the whole process. Obviously there was no such observer so instead, scientists try to build a picture of the past by examining various snapshots (fossils). And there's a lot of fossil evidence.
On December 29 2011 02:57 TG Manny wrote: Something interesting to note is that Evolution doesn't go against Creationism.
Evolution simply states that organisms choose what are the best traits to survive in their particular conditions. That does not work backward into "everything was the same type of organism". Creation simply states that everything was created by God, with no specific statement that he created X, Y, or Z. In a religiously sound scientific theory (lolz) on evolution, God created the arch beings and evolution created the rest. (So, wrong but simple explanation, god creates monkeys and several different kinds like guerillas, chimpanzees, and neaderthals evolve from the archtype.)
On a different track, when you have to tell your girlfriend that not everything in the bible is 100% real and true, quote Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Two accounts of creation, one of the heavens, earth, water, etc. over six days +1 for rest and one of the Garden of Eden. These two are mutually exclusive and because mainstream bible accepts them the bible is not 100% fact. Old testament were prehistory stories handed down and skewed by various tellers of the tale, Jesus actions teach different messages than on first glance, etc. etc. (Note: This isn't an argument against religion, it is an argument against why the bible should not be taken literally or out of context.)
Should you want to make peace with her Creationism you may want to explain how it is compatible with science. That is one of the most misunderstood things about religion in general, unfortunately.
If they wanted to believe God actively created and changes everything, they could still accept the theory of evolution. Young Earth Creationism is a completely different beast all together and it's more about human self worth, than what God has or hasn't done. In the contemporary world, it's an extreme answer to the general insecurities humankind has always had, and further changes in the world might even fuel its reactionary nature.
This ought to be required reading for anyone who feels the need to jump from a critique of creationism to a critique of faith in general. In reality, the two are incredibly different and are in many cases at odds with each other. Take, for instance, the idea of irreducible complexity. To see that such a concept is nonsense does not require that one forego their own belief in God. In fact, to put to use the tools of logic and reasoning can be considered an act of faith, but I digress.
I don`t know how serious your relationship is right now, but this issue might cause big troubles in the future. Imagine you guys become parents and your kids reach the age where they can understand the concept of religion and why it became so popular. If one parent is a believer, it will teach the child that it is ok to NOT ask for reason or proof when certain people tell them to not do so. The other parent will do the exact opposite and educate the child to search for the truth, which does always include reason and proof. crash incoming. I don`t say it is impossible to raise a child under these circumstances, but it will be very difficult and the chances are high, that when you get older stuff like this becomes more important to you. Personally I could never raise a child and allow it to be misguided by his mother or anyone else.
On December 28 2011 23:20 Sm3agol wrote: Here's the way I look at it.
Does it really matter to either of you? Are you one of those people that are constantly annoyed by people being "wrong" and refusing to change? Is she someone that will try and cram it down your throat later? If the answer to any of those is "yes", then you should try and persuade her. If not, who really gives a crap.
My girlfriend could literally believe in the flying spaghetti monster, and I wouldn't really give a crap, as long as it doesn't end up affecting me personally. If it's not hurting her, and it's not hurting me, why give a crap?
It's only hurting the entire progress of the modern world. I could not stand to be in a relationship with someone so stupid who is unable to believe facts. If someone is dumb enough to believe in a god, what other insane things could they do in the future to ruin your relationship?
You are taking it too far. Believing in religion isn't necessarily bad or stupid (this coming from an atheist), it's just some people feel it's necessary for them. The education one receives as a child also has a huge impact. Creationism on the other hand is just taking things too far. Science and religion have NOTHING to do with each other, and they never should.
On topic, i think it would bother me a lot. I could definitely not have a very serious story with her, but that's personal. If it's not too serious for both of you and it doesn't bother you that much, i say go ahead with it, but if either one of you looks for a more long-term relationship it could be troublesome.
Believing in religion IS a hindrance of the human race. They won't fund many scientific things because "it goes against our religion" or because "it doesn't seem like it will help us right now" and they would rather keep on making more tax-free churches where all the pastors are multimillionaires.
Here is a video that might change your mind about who the real "terrorists" are
My girlfriend used to believe in creationism. Believing in God can be rationally justifiable. I'm ok with her faith. But Young Earth Creationism will bug you because its craziness.
Explain evolution to her calmly and without being an asshole. It's very hard to believe in Young Earth Creation if (1) you've been showed why its stupid and (2) you're not completely stupid yourself.
If she is completely stupid, proceed getting head but know that it probably won't work in the long run.
Believing in God can be rationally justifiable. I'm ok with her faith.
Cognitive dissonance? Believing in God is absolutely not rational, that's why it's called faith. If you can't prove something, invent a word that somehow justifies an unjustified belief. Not saying it's bad (although I do think so), but more to the topic, I'd never date a young earth creationist at all at this point. That's just filthy.
However, my gf was a creationist when I met her though (we were around 14). She had lived in a small town in TX all her life - she was never really exposed to the actual theory of evolution, she had only seen some creationist spoofs which make out evolution to be this ridiculous thing. Her parents, especially her mother, are deeply, deeply religious too. However, she's a smart girl - and I consider that any smart person would completely let go of creationism if they were properly exposed to the mountains of evidence for evolution.
Now, she realizes that evolution is basically how shit works and completely let go of creationism. She's 21, and although she hasn't entirely let go of all the notions around religion, but she's not really into the insane BS now. (She still likes the idea of an afterlife, may it be a conscious existence or not. However, it's not really a belief of hers). We can call her an agnostic maybe? I don't know. Either way, much better.
On December 29 2011 02:49 metbull wrote: Sure, link her to sites that support evolution, and link her to sites that refute evolution. There are a lot of scientists that are very pro evolution and a lot of scientists that don't accept it. If you want to persuade someone properly you have to know the arguments of the other side to properly "shoot them down." Otherwise it ends up coming out like "I'm right and your wrong, just because!"
Sorry but this part is wrong. No true scientist will be against evolution. If you ever see someone calling themselves a scientist and denying evolution, either this person is a genious spousing a brilliant and thorough revolution in biology (not likely) or he's not a real scientist at all (very likely). There is some academic debate about how precisely evolution works, but no one nowadays questions that evolution is a scientificly verified fact. A fact that was observed, tested and experimented many, many times since Darwin.
Let me just place evolutionism in the context of other scientific discoveries pretty quickly: Evolutionism not only is the cornerstone that founds all of biology (every biological theory is dependent on evolution directly or inderectly) it was also an extremely important discovery for fields like psichology, anthropology, medicine and even (I shit you not) computer sciences. It's not an stretch to say that Darwin's discovery is the most important scientific discovery in the last 200 years (yes, even more important than both Einstein's relativities or Heisenberg's quantum mechanics).
On December 29 2011 06:07 JohnBall wrote: Sorry but this part is wrong. No true scientist will be against evolution. If you ever see someone calling themselves a scientist and denying evolution, either this person is a genious spousing a brilliant and thorough revolution in biology (not likely) or he's not a real scientist at all (very likely). There is some academic debate about how precisely evolution works, but no one nowadays questions that evolution is a scientificly verified fact. A fact that was observed, tested and experimented many, many times since Darwin.
A few scientists somehow find ways to deny evolution because of how strong they were indoctrinated into their faith. Those people, however, certainly aren't biologists. Perhaps astrophysicists and whatnot - but I would assume very few of them. And not the most reputable scientists at that.
Anyway, you will sometimes hear about legitimate scientists who make claims regarding parts of evolution which may not be accurate. What I'm saying is, no scientists who know what they're talking about will actually say "evolution as a whole is wrong". They might say, however, that part of the theory is flawed - but it means that our understanding of the entire thing is imperfect and incomplete, not entirely wrong.
On December 29 2011 06:17 Lightwip wrote: 4x as many historians believe the Holocaust never happened as biologists that believe evolution never happened.
What's that, 12 to 3 and none of them have accredited phds? =P
This is one of those choices every human being has to make. Do I seek a partner who I can take advantage of because that partner is incredibly stupid, or do I seek a partner who is intelligent but I may actually have to respect.
Personally I find the latter more attractive, but a lifetime of socialization leads many men to thinking they should be more intelligent than their woman, or that intelligence isn't that important of a quality. Evolution doesn't necessarily explain everything, but to deny it outright indicates a lack of thought.
Unless you are studying theology and want to be a church pastor (or the complete opposite thereof), I do not see the point in arguing about such things with your significant other; anyone can choose to believe in anything they wish. You can, however, share your thoughts on the subject, but try not to turn it into a religious debate (even at the cost of having to pretend that it is not a big deal to you).
If she's not stupid as you say, just let it slide I suppose. Especially because trying to convince her would be like walking into a minefield of potential arguments.
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!"
On December 30 2011 06:02 YoureFired wrote: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!"
Oh dear, when did explanations of a belief become arguments...
On December 30 2011 06:02 YoureFired wrote: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!"
Oh dear, when did explanations of a belief become arguments...
Creationism vs Evolution debates are easy when the person on the other side of the table is just a random. It's a lot easier to just accept victory on any terms when they're your girlfriend :3
On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
this is so wrong
Believe it or not everything he said is correct. The most annoying thing about these kinds of debates is people who "believe" in evolution but don't actually know anything about the epistemology behind science.
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
Glad to hear that.
If I were in the same situation, it would depend. I wouldn't want to have kids with someone who would teach them lies and to distrust science. If my partner would keep religion to herself (which is how it should be), then I would be fine with it.
On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
this is so wrong
Believe it or not everything he said is correct. The most annoying thing about these kinds of debates is people who "believe" in evolution but don't actually know anything about the epistemology behind science.
The sad thing is that if evolution is just a theory then creationism is just a hypothesis. So calling evolution out for being "just a theory" is pointless. Of course, that doesn't really matter because most arguments for Creationism are so full of logical fallacies and plain nonsense that pointing this out doesn't help.
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
You found one of the good ones brother, fuck her brains out.
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.
Oh the misconceptions people have, "It's okay if she makes with the head!"
A blow job is oral sex yet many are unaware of this. Sex education meet religion.
I've known many Catholic school girls and religious nuts who share this belief. The ones I've known loved giving head and didn't know any better. Completely oblivious to the fact that giving head is sex. "I did no wrong!" Sure you didn't. As it isn't part of your beliefs!
Anyway, from experience it's never really worked out and its best to avoid discussion about religion. If you've been with her long enough the parents and relatives will most likely pull the card on you.
Never worked out for me and I avoid those debates like white on rice because no one wins.
Faith and religion is a touchy subject here and everywhere else. If they are diehards well let's just say you have your back up against the wall right from the beginning. In many cases its one of the most important things to them.
It is what it is.
Like I said earlier, if your dick is receiving the treatment. It's still sex and she like many others are totally oblivious to it. Now that would be a funny conversation with her.
Glad it worked out for you thus far. You stuck to your beliefs and it's what makes you you. If she or anyone else cannot accept it then they don't fit into your equation.
On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
this is so wrong
Believe it or not everything he said is correct. The most annoying thing about these kinds of debates is people who "believe" in evolution but don't actually know anything about the epistemology behind science.
The sad thing is that if evolution is just a theory then creationism is just a hypothesis. So calling evolution out for being "just a theory" is pointless. Of course, that doesn't really matter because most arguments for Creationism are so full of logical fallacies and plain nonsense that pointing this out doesn't help.
there's nothing demeaning about calling evolution a theory
Why don't you do some research on the subject of creationism yourself. I'm sure you're no expert and it sounds like you're blindly siding with "science" much like you assume she blindly sides with her teachings she heard since she was 8.
I grew up in a really religious family too, though I'm Agnostic. Don't be so quick to judge and trusting in what other people say. Go experience and figure things out for yourself with an open mind, and then make your own conclusions.
I think you should be respectful of her beliefs, but if the two of you don't mesh well on a fundamental level then sometimes you have to move on to someone with a belief system that is less radically opposed to your own. Personally I don't see how anyone can thin evolution is crap, but if you try and change her religious beliefs chances are it won't end well.
Also... how long have you known this girl if you're only finding out now that she's such a firm creationist? Seems to me you either don't know her very well, or you haven't been dating for very long so why not get out before you develop any stronger emotional attachment? Sorry if that sounded too logical, but that's how I think about this sort of thing.
I'm not you, but I think that a person isn't just a creationist. Rejection of evolution is also rejection of the though process behind it, and I'm not sure I could date a person who didn't agree with philosophy or the scientific method. Either they've thought about it a lot, and they're dumb, or they haven't thought about it a lot, which means they share different values than me. Either way, we're incompatible.
I'll end this post like I started it. I'm not you, so if you care less about science or logic or any of that shit, then stay with her. If it's important to you to be dating a girl who thinks seriously about life then persuade her or break up with her. Just my 2 cents.
On January 01 2012 08:48 Oreo7 wrote: I'm not you, but I think that a person isn't just a creationist. Rejection of evolution is also rejection of the though process behind it, and I'm not sure I could date a person who didn't agree with philosophy or the scientific method. Either they've thought about it a lot, and they're dumb, or they haven't thought about it a lot, which means they share different values than me. Either way, we're incompatible.
I'll end this post like I started it. I'm not you, so if you care less about science or logic or any of that shit, then stay with her. If it's important to you to be dating a girl who thinks seriously about life then persuade her or break up with her. Just my 2 cents.
I completely agree, there is no way I myself would want a long-term relationship who truly beliefs in creatonism. If she has a scientific background let her read ''The God Delusion'' by Richard Dawkins maybe you should read it yourself to get some better ideas of what being a creatonist means.
Just get rid of her. That will be a lot easier than trying to make something of the relationship. Ultimately she must have a pretty twisted and warped mind to believe in that, and those thoughts will be bleed into everything else.
i had a girlfriend that was really christian and over the course of two and a half years our disagreements slowly tore apart the relationship in the worst ways. It ended really badly. I can never date a christian again.
lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
On January 01 2012 04:37 CecilSunkure wrote: Why don't you do some research on the subject of creationism yourself. I'm sure you're no expert and it sounds like you're blindly siding with "science" much like you assume she blindly sides with her teachings she heard since she was 8.
I grew up in a really religious family too, though I'm Agnostic. Don't be so quick to judge and trusting in what other people say. Go experience and figure things out for yourself with an open mind, and then make your own conclusions.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
Ah, but immune systems have been observed. Macroscopic evolution, well, hasn't ("missing links" are found every so often, but how many of these are actually credible?). Evolution as a theory has survived because small-scale natural selection has been observed, and without intelligent design, there's no other way to explain the existence of life. It's an extrapolation that people are willing to make because they're compelled to.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
Ah, but immune systems have been observed. Macroscopic evolution, well, hasn't ("missing links" are found every so often, but how many of these are actually credible?). Evolution as a theory has survived because small-scale natural selection has been observed, and without intelligent design, there's no other way to explain the existence of life. It's an extrapolation that people are willing to make because they're compelled to.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the existence of life.
On January 01 2012 04:37 CecilSunkure wrote: Why don't you do some research on the subject of creationism yourself. I'm sure you're no expert and it sounds like you're blindly siding with "science" much like you assume she blindly sides with her teachings she heard since she was 8.
I grew up in a really religious family too, though I'm Agnostic. Don't be so quick to judge and trusting in what other people say. Go experience and figure things out for yourself with an open mind, and then make your own conclusions.
Edit: typo
No don't waste your time researching fairy tales.
I was talking about both sides, I could just as easily call whatever side you're on a fair tale.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
Ah, but immune systems have been observed. Macroscopic evolution, well, hasn't ("missing links" are found every so often, but how many of these are actually credible?). Evolution as a theory has survived because small-scale natural selection has been observed, and without intelligent design, there's no other way to explain the existence of life. It's an extrapolation that people are willing to make because they're compelled to.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the existence of life.
Sorry if I was inaccurate; perhaps I really meant "the existence of intelligent life"?
If instead you are defining the "theory of evolution" as "natural selection," I don't see how it even conflicts with creationism, to be honest. And most people here seem to be rejecting creationism, so...
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
Ah, but immune systems have been observed. Macroscopic evolution, well, hasn't ("missing links" are found every so often, but how many of these are actually credible?). Evolution as a theory has survived because small-scale natural selection has been observed, and without intelligent design, there's no other way to explain the existence of life. It's an extrapolation that people are willing to make because they're compelled to.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the existence of life.
Sorry if I was inaccurate; perhaps I really meant "the existence of intelligent life"?
If instead you are defining the "theory of evolution" as "natural selection," I don't see how it even conflicts with creationism, to be honest. And most people here seem to be rejecting creationism, so...
I think most people here are rejecting the type of creationism that says everything was created 6,000 years ago.
edit. Actually, scratch that. People here are rejecting the type of thinking that leads someone to believe that evolution doesn't occur.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
i agree that the time frame of a human life span is vastly insignificant on the grand scale of evolution.
You're misunderstanding the concept of evolution. Its not there's always a sequence of beneficial mutations, there's a plethora of mutations, period. For better or for worse they're present in the population of question. Now over time, you'd expect those who received a slightly beneficial mutation to have an advantage. Then by survival of the fittest where fitness is defined as the ability to reproduce, those who have a slight edge in competition are more likely to remain. Repeat this for hundreds of thousands of generations and you'll get a couple changes. repeat it for millions, and who knows what might happen.
A more fair example in your statement might be the transformation of a common ancestral mouse into the jumping mouse where given the environmental pressures, migrational competition, those who were able to jump further to catch bugs had a better chance of securing a food source. Over the course of millions of generations, it raised the standard leg strength/ratio to promote that kind of travel
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
Ah, but immune systems have been observed. Macroscopic evolution, well, hasn't ("missing links" are found every so often, but how many of these are actually credible?). Evolution as a theory has survived because small-scale natural selection has been observed, and without intelligent design, there's no other way to explain the existence of life. It's an extrapolation that people are willing to make because they're compelled to.
The concept of microscopic and macroscopic evolution is incorrect. The distinction itself is meaningless, because a species is defined horizontally in a particular time period by the ability for gene flow (don't jump on me, I know this is simple but not precise) through the population. A chimpanzee is a separate species from a human because we're reproductively isolated, genes from chimpanzee do not enter the human population.
But the same distinction becomes absurd when you try to use this concepts across time. There is no point that you can point out and say species A evolved into species B because by definition, there must have been gene flow from a population of species A into species B. What you call macroevolution is the process of speciation and there have been examples that we've observed happening, and even more, we have evidence for speciation that occurred relatively recently. We know this because these species are adapted specifically for an environment that is verifiably young, as young as 150 years.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
Ah, but immune systems have been observed. Macroscopic evolution, well, hasn't ("missing links" are found every so often, but how many of these are actually credible?). Evolution as a theory has survived because small-scale natural selection has been observed, and without intelligent design, there's no other way to explain the existence of life. It's an extrapolation that people are willing to make because they're compelled to.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the existence of life.
Sorry if I was inaccurate; perhaps I really meant "the existence of intelligent life"?
If instead you are defining the "theory of evolution" as "natural selection," I don't see how it even conflicts with creationism, to be honest. And most people here seem to be rejecting creationism, so...
Well i believe the conflict is where people try to put creation myths in the same standing as scientific theory's evolution, special relativity gravity etc. Also you seem to be unaware of the the plethora of evidence supporting evolution. Do you know about vestigial organs?
Fossil record of other hominid species? How do any of the three great monotheisms account for homo erectus? Homo floresiensis which was around as close as 12000 years ago.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
i agree that the time frame of a human life span is vastly insignificant on the grand scale of evolution.
You're misunderstanding the concept of evolution. Its not there's always a sequence of beneficial mutations, there's a plethora of mutations, period. For better or for worse they're present in the population of question. Now over time, you'd expect those who received a slightly beneficial mutation to have an advantage. Then by survival of the fittest where fitness is defined as the ability to reproduce, those who have a slight edge in competition are more likely to remain. Repeat this for hundreds of thousands of generations and you'll get a couple changes. repeat it for millions, and who knows what might happen.
A more fair example in your statement might be the transformation of a common ancestral mouse into the jumping mouse where given the environmental pressures, migrational competition, those who were able to jump further to catch bugs had a better chance of securing a food source. Over the course of millions of generations, it raised the standard leg strength/ratio to promote that kind of travel
Hmm, guess I misplaced my modifier there: the sequence of mutations you described there all contribute to the increased survival of the mouse (hence, beneficial). I didn't claim that "all mutations are beneficial."
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.
Of course, some may point to radioactive dating methods (i.e. measuring the ratio of U-238 to U-235 in rock samples) as showing the Earth's age to be greater, but there are some underlying assumptions for such dating that I don't necessarily buy (initial distribution of radioactive elements, origin of such elements, etc.) But again, I guess such assumptions are as good as what we've got, so it's quite reasonable to believe them. (Similarly, we hold various assumptions when studying astrophysics: that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous with respect to the laws of physics, etc. Unfortunately, we don't really have any way of empirically proving that just yet.)
Feel free to point out any gross (or subtle) errors I might've made ^^ But basically, too many people (especially we gullible Americans...) blindly trust "science" without understanding what's really going on (I'm guilty of this too), sometimes to the point where one's devotion to "scientific truth" becomes... dare I say, religious?
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!
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
i agree that the time frame of a human life span is vastly insignificant on the grand scale of evolution.
You're misunderstanding the concept of evolution. Its not there's always a sequence of beneficial mutations, there's a plethora of mutations, period. For better or for worse they're present in the population of question. Now over time, you'd expect those who received a slightly beneficial mutation to have an advantage. Then by survival of the fittest where fitness is defined as the ability to reproduce, those who have a slight edge in competition are more likely to remain. Repeat this for hundreds of thousands of generations and you'll get a couple changes. repeat it for millions, and who knows what might happen.
A more fair example in your statement might be the transformation of a common ancestral mouse into the jumping mouse where given the environmental pressures, migrational competition, those who were able to jump further to catch bugs had a better chance of securing a food source. Over the course of millions of generations, it raised the standard leg strength/ratio to promote that kind of travel
Hmm, guess I misplaced my modifier there: the sequence of mutations you described there all contribute to the increased survival of the mouse (hence, beneficial). I didn't claim that "all mutations are beneficial."
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.
Of course, some may point to radioactive dating methods (i.e. measuring the ratio of U-238 to U-235 in rock samples) as showing the Earth's age to be greater, but there are some underlying assumptions for such dating that I don't necessarily buy (initial distribution of radioactive elements, origin of such elements, etc.) But again, I guess such assumptions are as good as what we've got, so it's quite reasonable to believe them. (Similarly, we hold various assumptions when studying astrophysics: that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous with respect to the laws of physics, etc. Unfortunately, we don't really have any way of empirically proving that just yet.)
Feel free to point out any gross (or subtle) errors I might've made ^^ But basically, too many people (especially we gullible Americans...) blindly trust "science" without understanding what's really going on (I'm guilty of this too), sometimes to the point where one's devotion to "scientific truth" becomes... dare I say, religious?
Scientific understanding has advanced to the point that unlike the natural philosophy of the Greeks, it's impossible to personally know and understand in depth more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge. You blindly trust electricians and structural engineers and hundreds and hundreds of professions every day without even realizing it, and they're all derived directly from improving our understanding of the world. Unless you wish to claim that everyone in modern society trusts electrical engineers religiously, you have to concede that personal expertise in most areas of your life is simply nonexistant.
You hold your young-earth view in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, and the best evidence you have is a single book which asserts that without a shred of evidence? Evolution didn't happen because there wasn't enough time for it to happen, never mind the fact that the evidence for an old earth and evolution is staggeringly huge compared to the nothing that the opposing camp has? One only has to look at the nature of inquiry on each side to know that one side is clearly playing with words and has little of substance to contribute, no falsifiable predictions, no testable mechanisms, nothing.
By the way, rats didn't evolved into bats. They share common ancestry, like all other pairs of organisms that you care to mention. The distinction is critically important.
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?
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 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?)
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.
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."
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
EPT
I love her to death regardless. I think I'll just hf kgh
