How could anyone "believe in evolution"?

Jul 2014
15,482
9,572
massachusetts
Yawn, more circular reasoning, and arguments from authority - you're merely referring to evidence via Francis Bacon's scientific method, so this isn't you having tested or gathered the evidence, or invented the theories of physics yourself, just appealing to the authority of the scientific method. Even during the era in which it originated, Bacon's method (or empericism) wasn't the only school of knowledge, and was opposed by other "secular" theories.

So honestly, I'm getting tired of people being patently ignorant on the history of their own culture. By the same definitions of "evidence" used by Bacon's method, then Charles Darwin doesn't exist - since his existence isn't repeatable or testible in any way, so in practice, no one honestly uses Bacon's method to approximate every type of knowledge in existence - it's apparent that they demand one definition of evidence for God, but not for other things which people believe in on faith, or take for granted - which wouldn't "exist" either within the scope of Bacon's method.

Physical theories are just constructs built from mathematics, so in that regard, they're arguably no different than any other type of constructed theory, to begin with (such as theories of law, government, business, or... music).
Look, you're an ooga-booga guy, you worship an imaginary construct, who was designed to move money from peasants to clerics.
You have demonstrated a near complete lack of scientific education, and too much time in bible school, you don't have a working filter that can separate truth from nonsense. You are the guy who is patently ignorant of the history of your culture.
Do you ever wonder why God never answered your prayers? Not even once?
 
Feb 2019
2,036
535
here and there
So what? Of course there are edges to our present state of knowledge and always will be. You can be a scientist (or science enthusiast) and be a skeptic about any particular theory of life's origins (or all of them). 'I don't know' is totally allowed.

Though I always suspect that people who make this particular argument are fairly unaware of the progress made in creating synthetic bacteria. Though this is not being done as origins of life research, but for industrial and environmental purposes (I.e. they'd 3D print them if they could even though that doesn't mirror abiogenesis through natural mechanisms). This distinction gives the creationists wiggle room to remain unimpressed, but there doesn't seem to be any magic required to take organic molecules and assemble them into organisms that metabolize and reproduce.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
There are dark edges? That is an understatement.

I realize that atheists tend to worship at the feet of knowledge and at the same time condescendingly look down on those who are not that knowledgeable, especially when it comes to science.

In fact, if you ask those same atheists what is wrong with the world, odds are they will say something like religion is what is wrong with the world or stupid people are what is wrong with the world. Problem is, the obstacles humanity faces today that push them to the brink of extinction are not these stupid people you mock, rather, it is intellectually gifted folks like Oppenheimer. Chimps in the forest hurt virtually no one.
 
Dec 2018
45
23
USA
There are dark edges? That is an understatement.

I realize that atheists tend to worship at the feet of knowledge and at the same time condescendingly look down on those who are not that knowledgeable, especially when it comes to science.

In fact, if you ask those same atheists what is wrong with the world, odds are they will say something like religion is what is wrong with the world or stupid people are what is wrong with the world. Problem is, the obstacles humanity faces today that push them to the brink of extinction are not these stupid people you mock, rather, it is intellectually gifted folks like Oppenheimer. Chimps in the forest hurt virtually no one.
Understatement or not, I think you made a false equivalency (or a gross overstatement) in simply saying that both science and religion have some unverifiable ideas because 1) as far as I can tell no religion has ever verified any supernatural idea and (of course we can debate what verification means) most people would agree that science has verified some of its ideas.

2) even the far out stuff like abiogenesis is in principle verifiable, where many religions focus on apologetics designed to make their naked assertions unfalsifiable and thus unverifiable.

And 3) scientists try to be open to better predictive models and more precise data which doesn't lead to anything like the dogmatism found in many religions.

I don't look down on people who aren't interested in science. We all get to decide what we want to spend our limited time on. I do get a little frustrated with posers who want to argue about science but don't want to learn about it first. I am not saying that is you. I hardly know you.

I think unrestrained breeding is the biggest problem we face and that is far more prevalent in less educated communities and in certain religious communities that demonize birth control and access to good information about reproduction. As a counterpoint to the idea that the 'chimps' do no harm. Y'all aren't chimps. ;)

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 
Oct 2019
519
39
USA
Look, you're an ooga-booga guy, you worship an imaginary construct,
The theory of evolution is an "imaginary construct", right, what's your point. You can't see scientific theories with your ideas, they're "imaginary" theories constructed out of mathematics. You can't see Charles Darwin - he's imaginary. You don't understand what "imagination" is, or whether or not imaginary concepts correspond to something.

I'm going to venture you believe it or other theories because you were taught it, not because you were a Darwin, an Einstein, a Newton, or otherwise and invented or discovered the theories yourself, given that most K-12 education is marketed to the masses.

So if you or others had been born in a different era, such as the Middle Ages, you'd be believing that geocentrism was true, just because it was the science of your day and age.

who was designed to move money from peasants to clerics.
Conspiracy theory.

You think that scientific marketing in mass media is backed by some perfectly altrusitic notion? Most of it isn't scientifically accurate and just invokes the name "science" to sell you stuff, like Iphones, Macbooks, cars, and so forth, written at at 6th grade level. You think that the use of scientific information in marketing is perfectly "altruistic" or honest? That's incredibly naive.

You have demonstrated a near complete lack of scientific education and too much time in bible school,
I'm not sure what "Bible school is, I've never been." I'm not arguing in favor of Biblical literalism or fundamentalism (e.x. earth being 6,000 years old), just pointing out the ignorance of popular views on what evolution is, and how they're as silly as religious fundamentalism.

For example, some people say evolution means "racist social Darwinism", but in practice, racism or "race war" is the hallmark of impoverished 3rd world countries or gangs, not 1st world nations - culturally most would consider this backward and "de-volution", not "evolution", so it shows that many people with little to know education's views on evolution come more from the TV, Hollywood, or trashy pop culture (e.x. Hunger Games) than the actual science to begin with.

Evolution, or the idea of ancestry from animals, on some level has been shown to just be simple, folk belief which existed in many other cultures or theories long before Darwin, dating as far back as ancient Greece anyway. (People who want to believe that life is meaningless will believe that because they're worthless, and merely use or twist evolution to confirm what they would have believed all along regardless).

Evolution, more often than not, just becomes an ugly belief for ugly people, and nothing else.

you don't have a working filter that can separate truth from nonsense. You are the guy who is patently ignorant of the history of your culture.
I'm on a higher level than that - I'm aware of what the history is, you aren't - what you're calling science or the scientific method is Sir Francis Bacon's method - empiricism it isn't and wasn't the only method of learning or knowledge even during the era in which it originated.

If you believe, for example, that "racism" is wrong, that's a faith-based belief or a philosophical belief, not provable or testable via Bacon's scientific method. As are other beliefs that people take for granted. People demand different standards of evidence for God than for other types of beliefs they go by in day to day life.

Do you ever wonder why God never answered your prayers? Not even once?
God's not a "genie in a bottle" who answers prayers like that.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2013
1,416
385
El Paso, TX
I don't understand how anyone could be naive enough to "believe in evolution".
Evolution supports the Old Testament and conflicts with modern beliefs.

 
Apr 2015
2,119
2,391
Stockport, Cheshire. UK
Ever heard of Biblical Archeology?

The Bible has verifiable information in it

In fact, it is the only religious book I know of that has a scientific discipline created for it.
The problem with Biblical Archeology is that the people involved in it are often trying to find facts to fit rather than having an open mind.
 
Jul 2014
15,482
9,572
massachusetts
Ever heard of Biblical Archeology?

The Bible has verifiable information in it

In fact, it is the only religious book I know of that has a scientific discipline created for it.

And no, these Biblical Archeologists don't all believe that everything in the Bible is correct, rather, they just recognize the value it has because it is used to find digs.
Ever hear of Israel Finkelstein, the head of the Archaeology Department at the University of Tel Aviv?

He hasn't found anything in the bible before maybe 600 BC that really happened, no flood, no Exodus, Solomon's Temple was a mud hut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RNG
Jul 2014
15,482
9,572
massachusetts
The theory of evolution is an "imaginary construct", right, what's your point. You can't see scientific theories with your ideas, they're "imaginary" theories constructed out of mathematics. You can't see Charles Darwin - he's imaginary. You don't understand what "imagination" is, or whether or not imaginary concepts correspond to something.

I'm going to venture you believe it or other theories because you were taught it, not because you were a Darwin, an Einstein, a Newton, or otherwise and invented or discovered the theories yourself, given that most K-12 education is marketed to the masses.

So if you or others had been born in a different era, such as the Middle Ages, you'd be believing that geocentrism was true, just because it was the science of your day and age.


Conspiracy theory.

You think that scientific marketing in mass media is backed by some perfectly altrusitic notion? Most of it isn't scientifically accurate and just invokes the name "science" to sell you stuff, like Iphones, Macbooks, cars, and so forth, written at at 6th grade level. You think that the use of scientific information in marketing is perfectly "altruistic" or honest? That's incredibly naive.


I'm not sure what "Bible school is, I've never been." I'm not arguing in favor of Biblical literalism or fundamentalism (e.x. earth being 6,000 years old), just pointing out the ignorance of popular views on what evolution is, and how they're as silly as religious fundamentalism.

For example, some people say evolution means "racist social Darwinism", but in practice, racism or "race war" is the hallmark of impoverished 3rd world countries or gangs, not 1st world nations - culturally most would consider this backward and "de-volution", not "evolution", so it shows that many people with little to know education's views on evolution come more from the TV, Hollywood, or trashy pop culture (e.x. Hunger Games) than the actual science to begin with.

Evolution, or the idea of ancestry from animals, on some level has been shown to just be simple, folk belief which existed in many other cultures or theories long before Darwin, dating as far back as ancient Greece anyway. (People who want to believe that life is meaningless will believe that because they're worthless, and merely use or twist evolution to confirm what they would have believed all along regardless).

Evolution, more often than not, just becomes an ugly belief for ugly people, and nothing else.


I'm on a higher level than that - I'm aware of what the history is, you aren't - what you're calling science or the scientific method is Sir Francis Bacon's method - empiricism it isn't and wasn't the only method of learning or knowledge even during the era in which it originated.

If you believe, for example, that "racism" is wrong, that's a faith-based belief or a philosophical belief, not provable or testable via Bacon's scientific method. As are other beliefs that people take for granted. People demand different standards of evidence for God than for other types of beliefs they go by in day to day life.


God's not a "genie in a bottle" who answers prayers like that.
The Theory of Evolution is one of the great triumphs of Science.
Darwin hypothesized about natural selection, before genetic theory, before the discovery of DNA, which support the theory of natural selection perfectly.
There is the fossil record, there are phenomena like drug resistance in bacteria, that are in perfect accord with the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution has been observed.
Evolution is as real as it gets.
If you understood science you'd get that, but don't understand science, so you blather on about your deeply held superstitions, like they are somehow real.
And here's a big clue, God doesn't answer your prayers, because God doesn't answer any prayers, because God doesn't exist.
 
Feb 2019
2,036
535
here and there
Understatement or not, I think you made a false equivalency (or a gross overstatement) in simply saying that both science and religion have some unverifiable ideas because 1) as far as I can tell no religion has ever verified any supernatural idea and (of course we can debate what verification means) most people would agree that science has verified some of its ideas.

2) even the far out stuff like abiogenesis is in principle verifiable, where many religions focus on apologetics designed to make their naked assertions unfalsifiable and thus unverifiable.

And 3) scientists try to be open to better predictive models and more precise data which doesn't lead to anything like the dogmatism found in many religions.

I don't look down on people who aren't interested in science. We all get to decide what we want to spend our limited time on. I do get a little frustrated with posers who want to argue about science but don't want to learn about it first. I am not saying that is you. I hardly know you.

I think unrestrained breeding is the biggest problem we face and that is far more prevalent in less educated communities and in certain religious communities that demonize birth control and access to good information about reproduction. As a counterpoint to the idea that the 'chimps' do no harm. Y'all aren't chimps. ;)

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
There is very little we can prove in this life, outside of a math class. What we have are what we think are facts/evidence, and then simply employ a belief system of some sort to try and make sense of those facts. I am not hear to convince you that faith is not required to believe in God, because scripture says it is required. What I do dispute is the notion that such faith is blind and based upon a book that is devoid of veracity and mythological only. For a book that has sprouted all viable major religions of the modern era, except perhaps Hinduism, people should learn to have more respect for it than they do. But as the biased chimps that we are, we tend to scoff at things we have little knowledge or interest in. This causes those in science like Dawkins to write books on theology that theologians laugh at as being child like, and we have those of faith creating places like the Creation Museum where the Earth is proclaimed to be only 6,000 years old as scientists openly scoff at them as well.

I would also encourage you to see that theories such as abiogenesis devoid of supernatural intervention requires a certain degree of faith as well, but I'm sure you would disagree. Just know that the Bible also mentions man was made from the dust of the earth, just like you believe it was. And if you read Genesis you will notice that God speaks to the waters to bring forth life, as if creating from what was already there to bring forth something a little different, but such similarities I think are missed or ignored intentionally because of their own personal bias for reasons I have stated. As for the earth being only 6,000 years old, you will find in Genesis 2:4 that the Bible inexplicably states that "generations" had already passed after the supposed 6 days of creation.

I guess what I'm saying is, there is a mystery to creation/evolution no matter your perspective, a mystery that will largely remain so. I think knowing this should give everyone a certain degree of humility regarding the matter instead of openly mocking the other side or attacking them as being a source of untruth because you believe them to be so.