Do you believe in evolution?
Why or why not?
I'm sure there are plenty of sound arguments for both sides, but it bothers me that evolution has become a politically correct belief that you're not allowed to question. As a Muslim I feel this infringes on my constitutional freedom.
Other urls found in this thread:
All arguments against evolution are religious. It's embarrassing. I've spent hours and hours looking for credible anti-evolution stuff and it all sucks. Just have to accept the fact that it's true for the time being.
What about the fact that many "human ancestor" fossils have been debunked?
Such as the Piltdown Man being proven to be a mishmash of like three different species?
Or another primitive "man" I forget the name of, whose whole entire skeleton was artistically reconstructed from a single tooth, that later turned out to be the tooth of a modern pig and not even a primate?
There are only so many times scientists can be caught in a lie, before it becomes difficult to believe them.
>be muslim
>muh freedoms
I hope you get beheaded.
I strongly believe in evolution, but I'm not completely closed to the concept of a higher power. Evolution does not cancel-out religion, or even creationism for that matter. Just b/c things are created doesn't mean they can't change over the generations. Digs on ancient paleolithic humans show that our homo-sapien ancestors had stronger bones and teeth than we do. Today, we don't have such strong bones or teeth b/c our lifestyles have been so comfy for the last couple thousand years, and people with with genes that gave them weaker bones were just as likely to mate as people with stronger ones. That's evolution. You don't need to except everything about evolution scientists say about the origin of species, but you really should admit that at least part of it makes sense.
>not allowed to question
How are you not allowed to question the theory of evolution? Did you get into a debate with your biology teacher?
Those debunked fossils all pretty much happened early on, before archeology was good at obtaining fossils and biology got more advanced in understanding.
There are countless fossils now that prove human evolution, you can't keep spamming the piltdown meme just because it was a hoax. It was literally in the era where "Missing link" was unironically an idea, an idea long since rejected by modern science.
>creationism
>sound arguments
>baaww i don't like evolution because i'm not god's special snowflake anymore!
>There are only so many times scientists can be caught in a lie, before it becomes difficult to believe them.
Being proven wrong / interpret evidence or data in a way that at the time seemed plausible does not automatically mean someone lied.
No scientist with any self-respect would claim that evolution is a fact that cannot be disproved, ever (which applies to any scientific finding, really). All that they are saying is that given the gathered data and observed evidence, everything points to evolution being a thing.
It is baffling me time and time again how people - mostly believers in a faith of some kind - can not understand this.
False dichotomy
In my mind God created and has used evolution to create life.
It makes sense. If God is all-powerful, he could manipulate causalities to control evolution.
>Do you believe in evolution?
No
>Why or why not?
Not in the bible
if evaluation was real we'd know about it but when we look to the bibble there's noothing there according to elevation we all used to be monkies in the jungle then how come there still loads of monkies in the jungle and they dont keep turning into people? face it, everlution is just a liberal trick concocted by jews to corrupt our soft vunerable children in order to get them to turn away from good god almighty
so much this
>look to the bibble
Please link related fossils. Are you aware that evolution is still a theory and not a law because it isn't proven? Adaptation is observable, have you got an observed evolution experiment? Do you believe in burst evolution? Which theory of evolution is the current most popular one? Why do we no longer think that dinosaurs were reptilian, but avian? What is the current method of carbon dating, and why did we stop hearing about it nearly a decade ago?
If Darwin's postulation on natural selection was to be taken as law, how the FUCK do you exist? Anyone touting evolution as bulletproof simply hasn't done the research. It's a great theory, but just like the molecular makeup of the sun, it's a guess. Use your common sense glands.
You wouldnt even need to
Be determining the laws of physics and the amount of matter created nothing would be left to chance
Over time species can be modified. I guess you can go from one "species" to another in that sense, but that depends really on your definition of species. However, there is a limitation on this; the potential for transformation is not infinite, e.g. you might get a new species of ant, but an ant colony will never evolve into a population of whales, not in a trillion trillion years. Take a block of marble, you can get a statue out of it, but you can't get a washing machine out of it, because there isn't the potential there. Similarly each species' genome is like a block of marble that can be sculpted in some ways but not in others. The idea that the origin of species is a process of gradual transformations from single-celled organisms is preposterous.
>Do you believe in evolution?
You'd be retarded not to.
I'm not even Christian, but the beauty of the mechanisms of evolution is sometimes overwhelming. It just fits, and everything works. And we are an inexorable part of these same processes. To me, that's divinity.
There is a bacteria that can literally only eat nylon, unless god made a nylon tree that went extinct I don't know how this would happen without evolution
>Evolution does not cancel-out religion
Seeing as evolution is originally a religious idea (Hinduism), you're right.
I have believe since I was a child the uncertainty principle exists solely to prevent mankind from getting into gods domain, where he can make matter appear out of nowhere or teleport it across lightyears in seconds. The lack of the uncertainty principle is what makes God a god.
Therefore, quantumn mechanics is the study of God's tools, while relativity is the study of man's limitations.
I believe in De-Evolution.
Just an idea. I don't actually believe in god.
I've thought of what you said before. It's actually kind of depressing since it shows that "free will" is a joke.
How does Hinduism imply evolution?
Evolution is defined as:
The change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
This undeniably happens on both the micro- and macro-scale, therefore evolution is real.
Natural selection is one mechanism that drives it, but there's also migration, genetic drift, artificial breeding (wolfs -> dogs), etc.
That crab looks like that white guy wearing black face image that always gets posted when you look between its claws.
>I'm sure there are plenty of sound arguments for both sides
Which ones OP? The YEC are retards who have none. If you're talking about whether or not the universe has a creator that's been a philosophical topic since Ancient Greece.
Most Christians don't dispute these kinds of modifications. They dispute the idea that the ORIGIN of species is the result of these modifications.
For example, a painting can be modified by chance processes (wearing out the paint, whatever), but the original painting is from the intention of a mind to form the structure of the painting which can then be modified (by chance processes, or whatever). Similarly, you might get a new species of bacteria that only eats x or a new species of fish that only eats y, but you can't bacteria or fish in the first place without the intention of a mind to form the very structure of bacteria or fish that is to be modified.
>sound arguments for both sides
Actually one side has none, but you're free to humour me anytime.
>As Muslim
you have no place in civilized society
autism speaks
Hinduism is where the idea of evolution originally came from. They passed it down to the Greek philosophers.
The modern (18th century) philosophers got the idea from the Hindus/Greeks, men like Erasmus Darwin (Charles's grandfather).
The original Hindu cosmology is that creation begins with a cosmic egg with a serpent wrapped around it, this hatches or explodes or whatever, then the universe gradually evolves from a lower state to a higher state, from unconscious matter to animals to humans to the ascetic Hindu brahmin or experiences Brahma, then the universe devolves back to its original state and the process begins all over again, in an endless cycle. It's something like that.
just not human evolution
aliens and sheeet
Evolution isn't a scientific law, a lot of shit in science isn't a law. Scientific theory isn't a "theory" as in "a hunch" it's a concept backed by enough evidence to accept as fact. It's like in a court of law, you have enough evidence to prove some guy raped a girl through DNA testings, fingerprints, eye witness account. but all that evidence doesn't add up to an absolution. Witness stories could be wrong, the DNA has all sorts of unlikely ways of ending up. An entire complex array of events that happened in actuality could have resulted in the fact that the accused never raped a girl. But the weight of that complexity is so unlikely that one would be irrational to consider it.
You see it's like an asymptote, it gets closer and closer to zero but never touches the zero, which in this metaphor objective truth.
Science makes no claims of absolute truth, absolute is a fallacy (an unfortunate fallacy mankind needs to function with decision making, but that's another conversation). It accepts what provides the most evidence and changes accordingly when new evidence emerges. Through this method science gets closer to truth and shit starts to fit together, predictions start to become more accurate and thus through the power of the scientific method we have come to the modern era of technology, medicine, ect.
I don't get the point of all your questions, they lack direction. If you want to see fossil evidence go google all the ancient hominids, starting with Australopithecus afarensis. I don't understand your radiocarbon question, radiocarbon dating is taught in highschool level chemistry classes. Reptile is a non-scientific category since the animals placed in it are of more diverse lineages compared to mammals. For example, turtles and alligators share a closer common ancestry with birds than lizards and snakes.
>I'm sure there are plenty of sound arguments for both sides
>Mexican intellectuals
>but it bothers me that evolution has become a politically correct belief that you're not allowed to question
Scientifically correct*
Fixed that for you. And you CAN question it, that's the whole idea with science. You just need do actual research and provide evidence to support your hypothesis rather than just saying "well whatever bullshit I claim COULD be right, I mean anything could be the case, gotta be fair to all sides :^) you can't prove that I DON'T have an invisible dragon!"