|
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...
|
will it bother you down the road? if yes then say something, if not then leave it be
|
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.
|
Introduce her to reddit and see how it goes from there.
|
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.
|
On December 28 2011 16:19 Dubzex wrote:
Introduce her to reddit and see how it goes from there.
Yeah really, on r/atheism there are 3 posts a day of "THANKS r/atheism! You showed me reason!" They must do something right.
Only push it if you think it will affect you in the future. But if you are a fan of Dennett, then I'm going to wager it will bother you lol.
|
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.
|
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)
|
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. Show nested quote +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:Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +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
|
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 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +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.)
|
lol if you turn this into an argument you've already failed.
|
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.
|
It's always hard to go wrong with a wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 16:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +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'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.
|
On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
