Here's Some Helpful Tips When Questioning Evolution

[Kahalachan]

If any of you others who accept evolution have some good tips, by all means post


1. Take it in moderation:

I agree it is rather mind-blowing to think of a single cell in a vast ocean, reproducing and eventually leading up everything we have today. But evolution is a gradual and time consuming process.

First, see how two similar species could've come from the same ancestor. Maybe Siberian Tigers and Bengal Tigers. Then maybe, lions and tigers having a common ancestor. Understand as much as you can, then research or ask questions.


2. Look At How Humans Selectively Breed Animals

We have bred a wide variety of dogs, horses, and many other domesticated animals. We can choose certain offspring and create many different breeds.

Of course, we could think "But they are still dogs and horses" but remember the first tip. Moderation! We haven't been breeding animals for millions of years.

If humans can selectively breed animals, nature can do this as well. A specific environment will have an effect on the success of offspring.


3. Humans make mistakes and we are learning

One mistake, problem, or issue within the field of evolution does not discredit the whole study. There are unsolved mysteries in all the sciences and it's wonderful. It always gives us goals and new things to learn.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

4. Don't use conspiracy theories.
No, really.

 

[BVZ]

Another tip: If someone who knows a lot about evolution tells you something, it might be a good idea to listen to him.

Lets assume you know nothing about jet engines. Will you argue with an engineer who designs jet engines about jet engines? Then why do you argue with people who work with evolution every day?

 

[gluadys]

Take time to learn the basic scientific terminology.

Non-scientific sources often use words like "theory" "macro-evolution" "information" etc. in a popular rather than a scientific sense. This is source of confusion when we find that different people are using the same word but with different meanings.

 

[Kahalachan]

Take time to learn the basic scientific terminology.

Non-scientific sources often use words like "theory" "macro-evolution" "information" etc. in a popular rather than a scientific sense. This is source of confusion when we find that different people are using the same word but with different meanings.

I've heard Macro used from a scientific source. When the species are too different to reproduce with one another. The book said that macro was no different from micro as far as its processes though.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Don't mix up scientific theories, Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang (cosmology/physics) and non-life to life (abiogenesis/chemistry). Evolution refers to the process described and explained in the theory of evolution and is strictly biological.

 

[mark kennedy]

Discern the difference between evolution as natural science and science as natural history. You can accept that alleles change in populations over time without accepting the single common ancestor myth unconditionally.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Discern the difference between evolution as natural science and science as natural history. You can accept that alleles change in populations over time without accepting the single common ancestor myth unconditionally.

You can listen to the goblin on your head without knowing you're delusional, too.

 

[mark kennedy]

You can listen to the goblin on your head without knowing you're delusional, too.

Was that supposed to be funny, smart or just general rudeness because it makes no sense at all.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Was that supposed to be funny, smart or just general rudeness because it makes no sense at all.

I didn't mean to say you're delusional.

 

[mark kennedy]

I didn't mean to say you're delusional.

At least if you were the sentence would make some sense, which talking to goblins on your head isn't even funny.

 

[gluadys]

I've heard Macro used from a scientific source. When the species are too different to reproduce with one another. The book said that macro was no different from micro as far as its processes though.

Yes, that is the correct use. Unfortunately, many creationists mean something quite different by the term. When asked to describe macro-evolution, they present scenarios that are not an evolutionary possibility.

 

[notto]

Discern the difference between evolution as natural science and science as natural history. You can accept that alleles change in populations over time without accepting the single common ancestor myth unconditionally.

Of course it is good to keep in mind that 99% of all scientists in related fields worldwide accept common ancestry regardless of their religious background, nationality, age, or political affililiation. It is only a few 'scientists', often with no background in the field that don't accept common ancestry based on the independent lines of evidence. Often, this small number of doubters coincidently enough, have religious beliefs that contradict the scientific conclusions. Funny that.

Remember, a small percentage of 'historians' reject the holocaust. Often, this small number of doubters coincidently enough, have political beliefs and biases that would cause them to not want the holocaust to be real. Funny that.

One has to ask in fairness, who has more credibility - Evolution deniers, holocaust deniers, or moon landing hoax proponents. They are all based on the same thing. Irrational avoidence of the evidence.

 

[XTE]

Discern the difference between evolution as natural science and science as natural history.

"Evolution as Natural Science", sure, that's what it is, a branch of the "Natural Sciences."

"Science as Natural History." Science isn't History, History is History! History is studying what we've recorded IN THE PAST. Science is looking at the here and now, which the fossils from the past are HERE AND NOW.

I realize you worship a History Book. Calling Science "Natural History" really plays into your game well. I think people should recognize bias for what it is. Innate and hard to defeat. We have Science to negate that bias. We have religion to indoctrinate and inforce a bias(from a very early age.)

You can accept that alleles change in populations over time without accepting the single common ancestor myth unconditionally.

So you can call a man on the carpet for saying "someone" could be delusional without knowing it(which they can.) But you can directly call Common Ancestory a "myth"(demonization) without a hiccup. Did you not realize this? Then YOU should be the one learning about innate bias. If you did, then don't call that man out and play the double standard.

If you call it a myth(demonization) then be prepared to be demonized back. DON'T call him on it though because it shows us that you don't even see your own demonizing bias and, that being the case, are probably delusional to an extent.

 

[Kahalachan]

This is supposed to just be a happy help people understand evolution topic.

The Bible is right at least in saying Romans 20:18 "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."

If I had questions or troubles with evolution, I would certainly be more willing to understand it if someone kindly teaches it to me.

 

[XTE]

This is supposed to just be a happy help people understand evolution topic.

The Bible is right at least in saying Romans 20:18 "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."

If I had questions or troubles with evolution, I would certainly be more willing to understand it if someone kindly teaches it to me.

I suppose I didn't write the happiest of posts. I didn't realize you wanted to keep it happy though, if it's in the OP then I forgot and don't even remember now.

I wanted to point out bias. I did it, came to find that a gentleman before had done so also. It's very important.

Let's look at those that oppose Evolution and how they might react to your OP:

"So what?! This is what I think!"

They read what you have to say and pass it through a filter of what they know already. If it doesn't hit the bottom, it doesn't stand. Start forming arguments against what the filter caught. If there is no argument, destabilize it at all means. Do this, without ever realizing it.

It's ok for me and you to live in a world where there are consistent influential rules. The people you are trying to impress don't live in that world. They live in a world with "supernatural" forces matter more than you anyday. It's THEIR life on the line.

Yeah, I wish this was a happy board and we could sing and hold hands but this is obviously a battleground where they can't imagine your line of thinking and you can't imagine their line of belief.

I was a Christian up until a month ago roughly. When I took the glasses off MYSELF, I began to be amazed at what their is to know out there. The hair on my arms is standing up half the day everyday.

I can't hold to a standard of happiness when there are frost covered glasses about.

 

[nvxplorer]

test

(my apologies...having trouble since the software update)

 

[XTE]

Furthermore...

The argument isn't brought up enough that Evolution is in contrast with a literal stance on the Bible. What happens when you take the Creation Story metaphorically? You start to wonder what else in the Bible I should take metaphorically. You start to wonder if the Creation account is wrong and, with God being infallible and man fallible and the Creation story flaud, then "was the Bible written by man?" These are conflicts that are in the mind. It's a conflict that has to do with eternal survival, us being survival machines, we tend to rationalize things within OUR framework of what we know. Back to bias.

It's only been a short time and I can see that the whole Creation/Evolution debate is about fruitless.

If I told you that you were wrong about Evolution what is the first thing you do? Is it DEFEND? Is offering up proof NOT DEFENSE?

What if I said that this whole thread is presumptuous in thinking it'll change minds? Wanna defend it?

OK, what would I do? What I did as a Christian a month ago:

Embrace my ignorance while negating bias. Be an "open vessel" like a tanker with no oil in it. Not just open to Christianity like the Bible makes it out. Not just open to any one thing. I have a finite of amount of time which still seems more than enough to arrive at some truths here and there and when I don't get it them then I DON'T KNOW.

On this board, there is too much battle picking and when you get called on it, plausible deniability. If their house isn't built on sand, THEN MAKE IT SAND!

This is my plea to Christians: What do you know for certain? Genuinely answer the question. If God's logic is above yours then you don't know a whole lot of what you presume to.

My plea to Evolutionist: Find out why survival(even eternal) plays such an intergral part in our lives and maybe you can see the other side of things. Isn't understanding the foundation of science?

I've had a good and bad month. I lost something that I held dear for so many years, too many. I could say that now I'm an open vessel that yearns to hear all sides and make an informed decision. I feel like I can see things more clearly and that ultimately one side of a multi-sided argument will prevail. At least I have given myself permission to see those sides. At the same time, I couldn't escape what was going on in my head:

WHAT IF?

It's still going on.....

 

[Chalnoth]

The argument isn't brought up enough that Evolution is in contrast with a literal stance on the Bible. What happens when you take the Creation Story metaphorically? You start to wonder what else in the Bible I should take metaphorically. You start to wonder if the Creation account is wrong and, with God being infallible and man fallible and the Creation story flaud, then "was the Bible written by man?" These are conflicts that are in the mind. It's a conflict that has to do with eternal survival, us being survival machines, we tend to rationalize things within OUR framework of what we know.

Yup, my story of how I rejected Christianity is basically the same. Though I did it through the much simpler evidence in astronomy, where once I understood the distance ladder that we use, it became absurdly obvious to me that the Earth had to be much, much older than the creationists would have you believe.

 

[Yehren]

Yup, my story of how I rejected Christianity is basically the same. Though I did it through the much simpler evidence in astronomy, where once I understood the distance ladder that we use, it became absurdly obvious to me that the Earth had to be much, much older than the creationists would have you believe.

So you confused Creationism with Christianity, and rejected Christianity?

Now that is depressing.