I don't buy the scientific explanations about why planes fly (those funny drawings of side of a wing with big arrows flowing over wing, smaller arrows flowing under wing and lots of little arrows pointing upwards under it all.... bullshine!) or how/why clouds form (water suddenly deciding to cling to a bit of dust.... half a story!) so I'm hardly going to believe tosh about millions of years ago. Sometimes I wish they'd just go we dunno; we're speculating.
I find it amusing how both sides (ie religious bods and scientists) get in a tizz if THEIR view is questioned.... must come from some weird and uptight personality that can't bide the thought of a having a relaxed "well it just is" attitude and want to control/explain everything.
Re whether evolution is a theory, I find it strange that people say it isn't. I don't know of any other part of science where there's such a reluctance to call theories "theories". Dawkins tied himself in such knots about this at one point that he invented the work "theorum" to try to escape.
I think it's interesting that so far no one in this thread has said what one has to sign up to in order to count as believing in the reality of evolution (though ThatGuy11200 did list some things Darwin said -- and btw was happy to call them "theories").
For instance, is it enough to have a Stephen J Gould sort of view, or do you have to agree with people like Dennett and Dawkins who attacked Gould instead?
One way to think of a theory, in the scientific sense, is that it is a collection of hypotheses on the same subject, each with evidence to back them up, and none of which have yet been refuted. Rather than a single hypothesis. That also means that if one hypothesis is wrong, then it can be replaced with something more accurate without scrapping the parts that work.
Of course, Darwin's Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection is outdated. It doesn't take into account genetics, for example. But even with knowledge of genetics it's still pretty solid.
As for Gould, he proposed Punctuated Equilibrium, which is that, rather than evolution occurring due to small changes over time (Gradualism, as proposed by Darwin), it occurs in large leaps. The problem is that it may just come down to the resolution of the fossil record. If a lineage of organisms is only rarely fossilised (say every few million years), then it might seem that there are large leaps in evolution, even though the changes in fact occurred gradually. Or it might be that a small population of that organism, living elsewhere, evolved gradually and then expanded into the range of the more 'primitive' version of the organism. So there's still debate to be had on the details, but evolution is definitely happening and the wider theory is sound.
To name perhaps the two most prominent popular explanations in science: one explains the many different species that have walked (or flown or swam) on Earth and the other explains the history of the Universe.
Both are backed up with incontrovertible scientific evidence but do you know anyone personally who doesn't believe in one or both?
Yes me. It's theory not fact. You are extremely gullible.
It may well have happened that way, but you try proving it.
Do you know anyone who doesn't believe in the reality of evolution or the Big Bang?
Its not the sort of question I find myself asking people, to be honest. I wonder how many posters do.
I accept evolution as that has been scientifically proven and observed.
The Big Bang Theory is just that a theory. It may be right and it may be proven but it still won't answer the question of how existence came into being.
Yes. There are a lot Free Presbyterians around here. They believe the earth was created by god 6000 odd years ago. They came to my kids' school and told them so. They don't entertain anything other than creationism.
I know a lot of them but we've never had any conversations about their beliefs and I wouldn't want to question them on the whys and wherefores. I'd prefer it if they didn't fill my children's heads full of it though.
Actually, evolution is only a theory and it's a pretty wobbly one at that. You don't have to believe that the world was created in seven days to have doubts about it. Science changes its mind as understandings develop and old theories are discredited.
As for the so-called 'big bang', I find it far more believable that our creator, Almighty God, created the world by whatever means than to believe 'something went bang' and everything 'evolved' from there, without further explanation.
Science is quite good at 'how' (though it changes its mind frequently), but it's not so good at 'why'. For that, you need faith and belief in something far greater than yourself.
Do not allow yourself to be like the fish that doesn't believe in anything beyond its tank or the group ants that believe the world ends under the rock in which they spend their whole lives.
As, it seems, does the church. It tends to be with a lot more kicking and screaming though.
The only person I know of who rejects evolution is a member of one of those more eccentric cult religions - either the latter day saints or seventh day adventists - I'm not sure which. He used to be quite normal but then suddenly went weird after several deaths in the family and started spouting out all kinds of odd stuff.
I think that deep down he knows that his religion flies in the face of the scientific facts about the age of the earth and the process of evolution, but he keeps emphasising that they are only theories and seems to feel that believing in something perverse is actually a marker of his faith. You can't reason with him at all, as he merely repeats certain stock phrases that are obviously the result of some kind of brainwashing.
It's depressing that so many don't understand the meaning of the term theory in science.
They seem to think it just means opinion and can't even be arsed to educate themselves about it.
Anyone who does not believe in evolution is a walking miracle - just how do they function with only three neurons buried in a sea of shit inside their head?
As for the Big bang there are a few difficulties to be ironed out in Cosmology but we are slowly getting there.
Anyone who does not believe in evolution is a walking miracle - just how do they function with only three neurons buried in a sea of shit inside their head?
Anyone who does not believe in evolution is a walking miracle - just how do they function with only three neurons buried in a sea of shit inside their head?
As for the Big bang there are a few difficulties to be ironed out in Cosmology but we are slowly getting there.
Actually, evolution is only a theory and it's a pretty wobbly one at that. You don't have to believe that the world was created in seven days to have doubts about it.
Science changes its mind as understandings develop and old theories are discredited.
As for the so-called 'big bang', I find it far more believable that our creator, Almighty God, created the world by whatever means than to believe 'something went bang' and everything 'evolved' from there, without further explanation.
Science is quite good at 'how' (though it changes its mind frequently), but it's not so good at 'why'. For that, you need faith and belief in something far greater than yourself.
Do not allow yourself to be like the fish that doesn't believe in anything beyond its tank or the group ants that believe the world ends under the rock in which they spend their whole lives.
I love this comment. I don't follow any particular religion or anything but I do question things and think to myself about the 'why?' and not just the 'how' because when you do think about it properly, it does seem as though life was planned out in a way. The fact we have emotions and feel such love or hate for a start and the fact we conviently had all the materials and the people with the exact brain to create the things we have, like technology etc. Just lots of little thoughts make me think life on earth was not just a random occurrence. Admittedly, I haven't thoroughly studied evolution though and perhaps there may actually be scientific answers to some questions I have.
That's arse about face. The existence of emotions etc isn't evidence of a controlled journey to where we are now they just happen to be traits that have developed and survived as they had some sort of advantage. We also happened to have developed sufficient intelligence to understand our own existence.
So do I - but that does not stop me from seeing an incontestable fact backed by vast mountains of scientific evidence when it is staring me in the face.
To even think about rejecting evolution requires the utter joys of religion.
So do I - but that does not stop me from seeing an incontestable fact backed by vast mountains of scientific evidence when it is staring me in the face.
I meant interests excluding things like evolution. It isn't staring everyone in the face as they are not looking in that direction.
To even think about rejecting evolution requires the utter joys of religion.
No thanks.
You do know the difference between "not believing" and "rejecting" don't you? To be so dismissive of people who do not believe something as you were means you are being dismissive of people who are not interested enough to trail through the scientific evidence to a sufficient degree to result in belief.
I meant interests excluding things like evolution. It isn't staring everyone in the face as they are not looking in that direction.
You do know the difference between "not believing" and "rejecting" don't you? To be so dismissive of people who do not believe something as you were means you are being dismissive of people who are not interested enough to trail through the scientific evidence to a sufficient degree to result in belief.
That's arse about face. The existence of emotions etc isn't evidence of a controlled journey to where we are now they just happen to be traits that have developed and survived as they had some sort of advantage. We also happened to have developed sufficient intelligence to understand our own existence.
I didn't say it was evidence, just a feeling and thoughts I have. I don't really fully reject or fully believe anything in this area as of yet, as I haven't studied enough to come to a proper conclusion and I don't go stating things as fact, unless I'm certain I do know enough about it.
Prefer absence of belief as disbelief is often used in the rejecting sense.
Apart from that yes why not. Not everyone is interested in everything. I am not that interested myself. I have just nudged into the belief in evolution in an "Ok I can buy that" sort of way but I am not that interested.
Prefer absence of belief as disbelief is often used in the rejecting sense.
Apart from that yes why not. Not everyone is interested in everything. I am not that interested myself. I have just nudged into the belief in evolution in an "Ok I can buy that" sort of way but I am not that interested.
Didn't you know... That to not have the same interests or to not have thoroughly studied a subject somebody else has, automatically makes you stupid and them intelligent?
Comments
I find it amusing how both sides (ie religious bods and scientists) get in a tizz if THEIR view is questioned.... must come from some weird and uptight personality that can't bide the thought of a having a relaxed "well it just is" attitude and want to control/explain everything.
One way to think of a theory, in the scientific sense, is that it is a collection of hypotheses on the same subject, each with evidence to back them up, and none of which have yet been refuted. Rather than a single hypothesis. That also means that if one hypothesis is wrong, then it can be replaced with something more accurate without scrapping the parts that work.
Of course, Darwin's Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection is outdated. It doesn't take into account genetics, for example. But even with knowledge of genetics it's still pretty solid.
As for Gould, he proposed Punctuated Equilibrium, which is that, rather than evolution occurring due to small changes over time (Gradualism, as proposed by Darwin), it occurs in large leaps. The problem is that it may just come down to the resolution of the fossil record. If a lineage of organisms is only rarely fossilised (say every few million years), then it might seem that there are large leaps in evolution, even though the changes in fact occurred gradually. Or it might be that a small population of that organism, living elsewhere, evolved gradually and then expanded into the range of the more 'primitive' version of the organism. So there's still debate to be had on the details, but evolution is definitely happening and the wider theory is sound.
It may well have happened that way, but you try proving it.
So does everybody else posting on this thread, typical superiority and arrogance from those who believe everything scientists tell them.
<sigh>
Scientific method works by inviting anyone to disprove a theory; until someone does so, the theory is effectively factual.
Its not the sort of question I find myself asking people, to be honest. I wonder how many posters do.
What do you believe in then? How do you explain how life developed?
The Big Bang Theory is just that a theory. It may be right and it may be proven but it still won't answer the question of how existence came into being.
....and it went downhill after Season Three.
bazinga!
I know a lot of them but we've never had any conversations about their beliefs and I wouldn't want to question them on the whys and wherefores. I'd prefer it if they didn't fill my children's heads full of it though.
As, it seems, does the church. It tends to be with a lot more kicking and screaming though.
"Gravity"? You mean Intelligent Falling?
I think that deep down he knows that his religion flies in the face of the scientific facts about the age of the earth and the process of evolution, but he keeps emphasising that they are only theories and seems to feel that believing in something perverse is actually a marker of his faith. You can't reason with him at all, as he merely repeats certain stock phrases that are obviously the result of some kind of brainwashing.
They seem to think it just means opinion and can't even be arsed to educate themselves about it.
As for the Big bang there are a few difficulties to be ironed out in Cosmology but we are slowly getting there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMAezEgYFeE
Fitting I think.
I love this comment. I don't follow any particular religion or anything but I do question things and think to myself about the 'why?' and not just the 'how' because when you do think about it properly, it does seem as though life was planned out in a way. The fact we have emotions and feel such love or hate for a start and the fact we conviently had all the materials and the people with the exact brain to create the things we have, like technology etc. Just lots of little thoughts make me think life on earth was not just a random occurrence. Admittedly, I haven't thoroughly studied evolution though and perhaps there may actually be scientific answers to some questions I have.
So do I - but that does not stop me from seeing an incontestable fact backed by vast mountains of scientific evidence when it is staring me in the face.
To even think about rejecting evolution requires the utter joys of religion.
No thanks.
That sounds like disbelief through ignorance.
I didn't say it was evidence, just a feeling and thoughts I have. I don't really fully reject or fully believe anything in this area as of yet, as I haven't studied enough to come to a proper conclusion and I don't go stating things as fact, unless I'm certain I do know enough about it.
Prefer absence of belief as disbelief is often used in the rejecting sense.
Apart from that yes why not. Not everyone is interested in everything. I am not that interested myself. I have just nudged into the belief in evolution in an "Ok I can buy that" sort of way but I am not that interested.
Didn't you know... That to not have the same interests or to not have thoroughly studied a subject somebody else has, automatically makes you stupid and them intelligent?