What is the Reason People Debate the theory of Evolution Really?

@pooty:

Naturalistically / materialisticly speaking the earth could not sit on the event horizon of a white hole. I imagine it would be as hot as the Big Bang is imagined to be.

But since we are being bible scholars of course God could protect the earth and provide it with the right light.

This is far from the truth, Africa, Asia you people actually believe this is a common view over there?

....I'm going to leave before this headache gets worse.

@spareheadone: Now i see what you're saying. Nevertheless that theory of Biblical Creation does contradict evolution.

@johnnyz256: I'm not completely on board with evolution either. But the theory of an Eternal, All powerful being who has no beginning nor ending. And man being created from dirt is equally as impossible and far fetched as evolution?

@pooty:

Sure does

@pooty:

Are you aware of what the laws of thermodynamics mean for our universe?

@spareheadone: Not a clue. Can you explain it in "baby terms"?

Contrary to popular belief, I'd say the majority of Christians believe in evolution. Half of Christianity is Catholic and they believe in evolution and it's improbable that all of the remaining denomination are against evolution.

Not sure if that help the "why" question, but I'd just like to put that out there.

@pooty:

Law 1 - the total amount of matter/energy in the universe is constant. Therefore there is only a finite amount of matter/ energy.

Law 2 - in an isolated thermodynamic system (our universe) the amount of USABLE energy decreases. Therefore our universe is winding down to a stand still.

If the universe only has a finite amount of usable energy then there must have been a point in history when this energy began to be used and before that point the universe must have been at a stand still just as it will be in the future.

So what gets the universe going again when it stops?

@spareheadone: Can you dumb it down just a little more? Just playing. I actually understood that. I'll forget tomorrow but good job. Theist say a Creator. Atheist say another big bang. What do you think?

@pooty:

We can deduce some of the attributes of the universe starter.

1. It must transcend this universal thermodynamic system otherwise it would wind down to a standstill with the universe.

2. Ultimately it must be perpetually eternal. If the universe is not eternal then something other than the universe must be.

3. It must at least have it's own innate rhythm or else nothing would happen.

I said to myself " what spareheadone one said makes sense". Then I said "scientist must know this but they still believe in Big Bang. There must be something that explains why scientist still don't believe in God." I found websites that explains it but i'll never understand it. Maybe you 'nerds' can figure it out and explain it to me

http://ncse.com/cej/2/2/creationist-misunderstanding-misrepresentation-misuse-second

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/secondlaw.html

I've said before that anyone can find data or INTERPRET data in a way that proves their point of view correct. Part of reason I gave up caring.

@pooty: I've done the same searches. I will bet that you have found an article about how evolution does work because we have energy from the sun. This will have nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Now I will check.....

I was wrong. The second article is good.

What is this... I don't even... how can people possibly deny evolution or believe in creationism still? Even the Catholic Church has admitted that the two are not mutually exclusive as of late, IIRC.

Anyways, I'm not going to waste too much of my time explaining the theory, if you haven't put the effort in to understand it well enough by now to accept its infallability you never will and I won't change your mind.

We all agree you get traits from your parents. These traits can for instance make you stronger, taller, better looking, or just generally more likely to survive or pass on genes than someone else. Agreed?

Natural selection means the stronger genes in nature are more likely to survive to pass on their genetic traits.

Put 2 and 2 together.

I'm not getting in a scientific evolutionary debate, because quite frankly, I can't be bothered.

But out of curiosity, by the bolded bit, are you saying you need to see, say, a fish birth a creature that can walk on land? I.e a creature birth another, entirely separate species? Because that isn't how evolution works.

@pooty said:

Not really, if you think about it. There has to be a first cause, or, rather, a First Cause, of the universe. An infinite chain of events is impossible to reconcile. That First Cause must be outside of time and space. It is God. Being outside of time and space means that God would necessarily be eternal.

There is nothing illogical about a Being that is eternal. It is impossible for us humans, whose lives are shaped so dramatically by time, to envision a Creator who has always existed. That boggles the mind. I used to consider this when I was younger, and still do. How is it possible that God has ALWAYS existed? That just seems impossible! And it is impossible, totally impossible, to our extremely limited minds.

But because God is outside of time and space, He needs no creator. There is no past or future for God. He never ages. He's in an eternal now, or eternal present.

Now the next question that may be asked is, "Why is God outside of time and space?"

If God were originally in time and space, He wouldn't be God, because He'd simply be a part of the universe. And since the universe hasn't always existed, this would mean that God would come into being with the universe. Obviously, this concept of God is unseemly.

God just is---He has what theologians call aseity (self-existence). God has within Himself the means to exist perpetually. He existed outside of time and space sans the universe, and at some point, He created the universe.

This is much more reasonable than to believe that the universe either created itself from nothing (self-creation), or that it has always existed. Both of these options are unscientific and therefore undesirable.

See here: http://creation.com/who-created-god

http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god

As for your second point, much of the Bible is parabolic (the history is still true, of course). Just as Christ was not literally a lamb, so God did not necessarily create Adam out of literal dust.

But perhaps He did.

@pooty:

Read the second part of your second article.

It's not going to give you a headache

@cable_extreme @mrhamwallet @superadamcan you guys post a link explaining how The Big bang is possible without a creator or explain it?

@pooty:

The article doesn't deny the puzzle I posed

Nor does it deny my logic

Nor does it deny my science

It just says that inserting a creator into a gap in our knowledge is unwarranted. It also says Hawking invented an oscillating universe that denies the laws of physics.

I'm starting to like you. It was not hard to understand at all

The Intelligent Design Argument

The second form of the argument involves the whole universe. If the universe consist of everything and all the energy there is, then it must be considered a close system. If this is the case, then the universe must have a constantly increasing entropy. Like an old mechanical clock, it is slowly winding down. Extrapolating backwards, there must be a time when the universe had the lowest possible entropy. The question then is: who wound up the universe? The answer, the theist says, is God. Thus God is defined in the second form of the entropy argument as the “Great Winder Upper”. [5]

This argument while is more sophisticated than the first form is also, ultimately, unconvincing. Here we are at the cutting edge of modern cosmology. Physicists are still trying to figure out what actually happened at the origin of the universe. The answer may be near, but at the moment we still do not know. This represent an actual gap in human knowledge. It is no accident that the modern theist postulate his god as the one who “wound up” the universe. This had always been a well known modus operandi of the theist: namely, whenever you find a gap in human knowledge, that’s where you hide your god! Thus, when our knowledge of life’s origins was lacking, the theistic postulate their god as the creator of life. That gap has been filled by the discovery of the process of organic evolution: the true explanation for the multifarious life forms on earth. When it was not known what caused the sun to shine; the theist say it is kept in such a state by God. The discovery of quantum mechanics in the twentieth century has shown that stars, our sun included, burn due to nuclear fusion in their cores. One more gap has been closed. As George H. Smith observed:

However, there are by no means any lack of suggestions and hypotheses as to the actual origin of the universe; none of which need the assumption of the existence of a great “entropy reducer”. One such hypothesis is that suggested by the Cambridge physicist, Stephen Hawking. He combined the General Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics to suggest what is basically an oscillating kind of universe, where upon reaching its maximum limit of expansion, the universe begins to contract. This contraction would cause entropy to actually decrease. Thus when the universe is completely collapsed -the “Big Crunch” - entropy is once again at its lowest point. [7] The universe then re-expands into the next cycle. In this model there is no beginning and no end, just an endless and infinite cycles of oscillations between the Big Bang and the Big Crunch. Thus, even here the gaps for the theist’s god is closing fast.

In summary, the second form of the entropy argument is simply a postulation of an unknown entity that could somehow put the universe in a low entropy state. This is completely unfounded by any evidence and definitely not the only hypothesis available for the entropy problem.

@pooty:

And I went to all the trouble of surmising for you too.

@pooty: To me it doesn't so much matter if it is or not, until we are able to find out either way it's just what you prefer to believe.

The God has always existed argument is just a cop out to me tbh though, as the religious cannot explain they always default to a cop out argument, one that cannot be proved or disproved.

What you must understand about my beliefs is that although I believe evolution to be true and I am much closer to atheist than I am religious, I do believe in the possibility of "God" or some form of creator if you will. What I do not believe is any of the bullshit in religious scripture, which to me could not be more obviously created by man.

Energy is never created nor destroyed, only transfered, there could be a perfectly reasonable scientific answer for our creation that we may one day gain knowledge of or that we will never learn that does not require a creator.

Alternatively there may be some form of creator, possibly one that is not any kind of being we could ever comprehend, perhaps even one that is not sentient but a force at work that has influenced everything that ever has been in some way.

The claims of the religious is what separates them from any sort of reason or logic. Scientists aim to disprove theories to prove or disprove there validity, the religious make baseless claims with no proof. I believe Jesus existed, but I do not believe he was God/Son of God who performed miracles. Too much has Christianity had to change its "truths" over the years due to Scientific evidence to have any credibility for me.

However, the notion that any insignificant animal on this planet can say that they know this creator, they know his laws and they know him/his son in his human form is completely laughable.

@mrhamwallet:

Why don't you do a scientific experiment...

For forty days alternate between getting up an hour early to seek God in prayer and meditation and skipping dinner and seeking God in prayer and meditation.

If after forty days your views are the same, then you have a right to say that people's beliefs are completely laughable.

@spareheadone: "Why don't you do a scientific experiment...

For forty days alternate between getting up an hour early to seek God in prayer and meditation and skipping dinner and seeking God in prayer and meditation.

If after forty days your views are the same, then you have a right to say that people's beliefs are completely laughable."

And which God will this lead me too?

Actually I live in a secular country with freedom of speech, so I already have the right to say certain beliefs are completely laughable.

Why do we experiment on mice? Because they are small, easy to store and feed...and because their DNA is 94% similar to humans.

If you introduce a foreign species into an ecosystem then the results may be disasterous. Asian bugs kill millions of American trees and an American fish species may kill have the species in an African lake? Why? Because the native animals don't have enough time to adapt and EVOLVE to deal with the foreign species - something which before global travel happened so slow.

If you don't believe in evolution you are part of the reason the species of Earth are going extinct. Like how there are still people doubting global warming.

Family trees have been build based on fossils and proven by genetics. 250 million fossils of more than 250 000 species. That's a lot of evidence.

People who don't know better can't accept nature and natural causes so they have to create supernatural causes that break all known rules. "I don't know anything about quantum mechanics, it makes no sense...a wizard must have done it."

@mrhamwallet:

Give it a try and find out for yourself.

Why debate it? Because otherwise some fool will manage to sneak in his superstitious beliefs into schoolbooks on the matter and the only way to stop them is to debate them down till they stop trying.

very idiotic/ignorant OP post, but I'll bite because I don't think you actually understand evolution

evolution may be defined as changes in the characteristics of living thigngs over time. this is an observed phenomenon. for example, earlier than about an billion years ago, all life consisted of single celled organisms. subsequently current and past multicellular species we are familiar with have arisen and some have gone extinct. knowing about genetics, evolution can be defined as CHANGES IN THE FREQUENCY OF DIFFERENT GENE VARIATIONS OVER TIME

The Theory of Evolution is based on two almost obvious ideas

a)the process of reproduction happens with variation, i that offspring are not identical to their parents

b)offspring with some characteristics will be able to make a living in their environs and therefore living long enough to pass these characteristics onto the next generation

creationism and intelligent design interpretations of biology are not science because they do not operate the way science does. they are not parsimonious, ie they do not have a theory that explains many observations with a small set of ideas; particularly, each supposed intervention requires a separate explanation. also they assert that it is impossible to explain certain phenomena in biology when in fact hypotheses that are consistent with evolution can readily be made

@spareheadone: Well it won't lead me to any of the man made ones that's for sure, if something that simple and inane could lead one to the creator of the universe I think there'd be one more definitive religion, rather than many ridiculous ones.

So if it's all the same to you I'll give it a miss and continue to label beliefs like "Muhammed flew to the heavens on a horse" and "A 600 year old man named Noah built an Arc smaller than the Titanic but somehow got 2 of every species on board" as hilariously stupid thanks.

Sorry for partially derailing the thread, when I was tagged I assumed it was the religious thread.

The reasons people debate evolution is because they either don't fully understand it or it interferes with their religious beliefs. Almost all religious people were brought up in religious households, so from a young age they are indoctrinated by their parents and their church to believe a certain thing. At a young age that can have a big impact on the mind, so coming to terms with scientific facts which dispute your beliefs results in denial.

Also I hear a lot of people say stuff like "I did not come from/am not related to a Monkey" which is an incredibly foolish way to look at it and shows a severe lack of understanding the subject. We share a common ancestor with Apes, we were once more like Apes, we have evidence to prove this and it disproves Creationism. This caused the Christian faith to split and some denominations now believe evolution but believe it's God's plan, which is just a cop out argument because they cannot go against their faith.

@mrhamwallet:

I watched a documentary about a group of secular people who went to a spiritualised Muslim retreat. One of them was an atheist. All of the beliefs and rituals were nothing to him. But when the week of prayer and fasting came around which he put all his effort into a voice spoke to him saying. "Just Believe". At the end of the retreat he said that he wouldn't become a Muslim but he does now believe in God, his God.

Yep it's all the same to me.

@spareheadone: "I watched a documentary about a group of secular people who went to a spiritualised Muslim retreat. One of them was an atheist. All of the beliefs and rituals were nothing to him. But when the week of prayer and fasting came around which he put all his effort into a voice spoke to him saying. "Just Believe". At the end of the retreat he said that he wouldn't become a Muslim but he does now believe in God, his God."

Cool story, unfortunately the human mind is a complex thing and we all have a voice in our head...especially in an impressionable situation like that. Humans have a nature to want to believe, an afterlife where you'll one day see everyone you ever loved and lost again and spend an eternity is a hard thing to not want, a more intelligent being with a greater plan sounds pretty good too.

I'm not sure what your point is anyway, you seem to want me to be open to the possibility of a God...which i made abundantly clear I am, just not any of the man made God's for whom there is no evidence. Perhaps you want me to believe in the possibility of your God?

Regardless this is a bit off topic, if you'd like to continue there is a more appropriate thread to do so.

@mrhamwallet:

Isn't evolution great.

I didn't even know creationism was that big a thing until a bout a year ago.

@thedandyman: By a big thing do you mean that it has a fairly substantial following especially considering it's extraordinary claims? I didn't either till a few years ago, but I think it's largely in the U.S.

@spareheadone: Well considering I wouldn't be here if it weren't for Evolution I can't slate it.

@mrhamwallet: Yeah, I didn't know that, what, at least 40% of the US believed in this when you've got 97% of scientists believing we evolved over time. In the UK, where I am, apparently 1/5 of the population are creationists but I don't think their view has that much of an effect here, it's something that I only learnt about in my religious studies class rather than in a science class.

@thedandyman: "In the UK, where I am, apparently 1/5 of the population are creationists "

Hi there my fellow Brit, which part?

Also...is that number correct? I wouldn't have put it anywhere close to that.

@mrhamwallet: I'm from down south, in between London and Brighton. What about you? And I was pretty surprised by that number too, it's difficult to get a good idea of the amount of people who accept evolution so I've just had to go with this poll although there might be some statistics which contrast this.

Because no one was there to record what happened.

@thedandyman: I'm from South West London, so not too far from you.

Yea that's the link I found after but tbf it's only a survey of 2060 people and 6 years ago so I'm not sure how accurate that is to our population ofor 64 million. I'd hope if we were to survey the whole country it'd be considerably less but you never know.

1)Evolution doesn't cover the begining of life, just its evolution.

2)Metaphor.

3)Metaphor.

4)What the hell does evolution have to do with individual death and its causes?

@mrhamwallet: It's not a great poll and I'd agree that it seems to be over representing creationists.

And for the idea that "no one was there", I think this video explains why it's not a legitimate reason for rejecting evolution quite comically:

And it's not as anti-theist as it looks from the thumbnail.

i always deliver

@nickras:

1) evolution covers the origin of modern man

2) no where in religious books does it say or imply this is metaphorically speaking.

3) see number 2

4) I did say evolution. Should have said science explains death and it has nothing to do with sin

bible vs origin of species

I like how the environment triggers genetic switches in plants and animals.

I think it's called pleitropy.

Like when the large tree trunks were burnt in a brushfire in my area. It switched their gene expression so that they started shooting from the base of the trunk.

Or when fish get the mutation that makes them lose their eyes, other genes switch on like larger mouths or genes that increase teeth size.

Or mothers that don't eat enough carbs when pregnant often end up with chubby kids.

1)A "plan" has nothing to do with empirically observable events. The theory of evolution doesn't contradict the stance that life does change through evolution, but this evolution is part of a God's plan.

2,3)Americans are probably the only ones that take everything in the Bible literally. This stance is otherwise considered quite ridiculous.

4)Then why are you even mentioning this in a debate about evolution? Again, this American stance of religion=anti science... Funny to say the least. There is probably some context behind "death is the result of sin", but either way, the same thing as in 1) aplies here.