Why do people believe in evolution?

[pitabread]

As long as it's just an accusation it's not too meaningful.

When you consider the broader consequences of anti science attitudes,there are real world implications. The pandemic has been a perfect example. A lot of Covid-19 deniers on this forum are also creationists. Coincidence?

 

[pitabread]

I can't fathom the concept. My brain is too small.

Doesn't that bother you?

 

[QvQ]

Science may look that way to the uneducated. I can see how it is hard to understand. But one thing that even amateurs can recognize that it produces results. Religion . . . not so much. Your participation in this forum is dependent upon the science that you do not understand and willingly make false claims about. This is obviously due to ignorance. The one thing nice about ignorance is that it can be cured by education. Sadly I have a feeling that you will not avail yourself of a readily obtained education.

So you believe the reason I don't believe mercury cured syphilis is because I am uneducated or ignorant or a science denier?
The only difference between making that claim now and then is that your claim would have been a real winner in 1800 but it looks uneducated an ignorant now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you believe the reason I don't believe mercury cured syphilis is because I am uneducated or ignorant or a science denier?
The only difference between making that claim now and then is that your claim would have been a real winner in 1800 but it looks uneducated an ignorant now.

No, your denial of clear science is what makes you a science denier. Nice attempt at a strawman though. It is clear that you do not understand the science that you oppose. If you don't like it when people can see that you are ignorant in this area there is a cure. You could try to learn. Coming up with poor arguments only makes you look "uneducated an ignorant now".

 

[QvQ]

No, your denial of clear science is what makes you a science denier. Nice attempt at a strawman though. It is clear that you do not understand the science that you oppose. If you don't like it when people can see that you are ignorant in this area there is a cure. You could try to learn. Coming up with poor arguments only makes you look "uneducated an ignorant now".

Evolution is not "clear science." I do not deny physics which I studied in college and follow closely yet I am aware that our physics are as flawed and incomplete as flat earth. Most of what we know, scientifically, is guess and speculation.
I do not object to evolution on religious grounds. I object to it based on the many flaws in the theory which are too numerous to list here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is not "clear science." I do not deny physics which I studied in college and follow closely yet I am aware that our physics are as flawed and incomplete as flat earth. Most of what we know, scientifically, is guess and speculation.
I do not object to evolution on religious grounds. I object to it based on the many flaws in the theory which are too numerous to list here.

Maybe it is unclear to you, but then that only confirms our claims. The facts are that all of the scientific evidence supports evolution and none supports creationism. If you even took the time to understand the concept of evidence you would see this, but I have as yet to see a creationist that will even try to understand the concept.

And I seriously doubt if you can find a single "flaw" in the theory of evolution.

 

[QvQ]

Maybe it is unclear to you, but then that only confirms our claims. The facts are that all of the scientific evidence supports evolution and none supports creationism. If you even took the time to understand the concept of evidence you would see this, but I have as yet to see a creationist that will even try to understand the concept.

And I seriously doubt if you can find a single "flaw" in the theory of evolution.

The major flaw in the evolution is that most of the evidence is contrived and shoehorned into a theory that is so perfectly flawless to the true believers that to question it is Heresy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ironically those on the evolution side are more than willing to help others to learn. From the basics of science to how we understand specific claims. When offered assistance creationists almost never take others up on the offer and yet get very irate when their ignorance of the science is pointed out to them. It is more than a bit hypocritical to resent being labeled as being ignorant and then doing nothing to amend that situation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The major flaw in the evolution is that most of the evidence is contrived and shoehorned into a theory that is so perfectly flawless to the true believers that to question it is Heresy.

That sounds like a false accusation. There is no shoe horning needed. There is no contriving. This seriously sounds like a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. And no, questioning a theory is perfectly alright. As long as one has a rational reason to question a theory.

Again, don't make wild and unsupported claims. Please provide actual evidence supported by reliable sources.

There is a cure. You could start to learn. Since it is rather obvious that you do not know what is and what is not evidence, your recent claim tells us that, would you be willing to discuss the concept of evidence?

 

[pitabread]

The major flaw in the evolution is that most of the evidence is contrived and shoehorned into a theory that is so perfectly flawless to the true believers that to question it is Heresy.

This is something that a lot of creationists need to tell themselves, because the alternative (that the theory of evolution is legitimate science) is anathema to the creationist position.

At any rate, what you're posting is flat out not true. But I suspect that doesn't really matter to you.

 

[QvQ]

This is something that a lot of creationists need to tell themselves, because the alternative (that the theory of evolution is legitimate science) is anathema to the creationist position.

At any rate, what you're posting is flat out not true. But I suspect that doesn't really matter to you.

That sounds like a false accusation. There is no shoe horning needed. There is no contriving. This seriously sounds like a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. And no, questioning a theory is perfectly alright. As long as one has a rational reason to question a theory.

Again, don't make wild and unsupported claims. Please provide actual evidence supported by reliable sources.

There is a cure. You could start to learn. Since it is rather obvious that you do not know what is and what is not evidence, your recent claim tells us that, would you be willing to discuss the concept of evidence?

And exactly what evidence do you have that I am a creationist? That is what I mean, evolutionists, the true believers, become enraged if anyone questions their beliefs.
Rules of Evidence: The Smoking Gun
A man is holding a smoking gun, standing over a person who has been shot dead.

 

[Speedwell]

And exactly what evidence do you have that I am a creationist? That is what I mean, evolutionists, the true believers, become enraged if anyone questions their beliefs.
Rules of Evidence: The Smoking Gun
A man is holding a smoking gun, standing over a person who has been shot dead.

We make the assumption because you denounce evolution but offer no scientific theory to replace it. Instead, you slander the character of evolutionary biologists and those who agree with them. If it quacks like a duck...

 

[Subduction Zone]

And exactly what evidence do you have that I am a creationist? That is what I mean, evolutionists, the true believers, become enraged if anyone questions their beliefs.
Rules of Evidence: The Smoking Gun
A man is holding a smoking gun, standing over a person who has been shot dead.

Your arguments tell us that you are a creationist. Your unwillingness to have a rational conversation confirms it.

Since you do not understand the concept of evidence why don't we start there?

 

[pitabread]

And exactly what evidence do you have that I am a creationist?

Everything you are posting is straight out of the creationist playbook. If you're not a creationist, you're doing an awfully good impersonation of one.

 

[QvQ]

Your arguments tell us that you are a creationist. Your unwillingness to have a rational conversation confirms it.

Since you do not understand the concept of evidence why don't we start there?

Go ahead, evidence is not proof of theory. Who is holding the gun is not necessarily who shot the person dead.
In so small a evidential and theoretical theatre, how hard it is to prove a theory.
And evidence can be contrived and shoehorned. For example, the man holding the gun may have picked it up after his dearly beloved shot the person dead. The man took the gun and sent his girl away. Seeking to protect her, he confesses to the crime.
Or gun holder claims it was a thief who ran away and left the gun. The man picked up the gun and even though discovered holding the gun, being perfectly innocent.
With a evidential and theoretical theatre as large as the origin and creation of life, how the errors and mystery do compound.
How about, I don't know but I am willing to consider all arguments. I have considered evolution and it is flawed, perhaps fatally.

 

[pitabread]

I have considered evolution and it is flawed, perhaps fatally.

What do you mean you've "considered evolution"?

 

[Speedwell]

Go ahead, evidence is not proof of theory. Who is holding the gun is not necessarily who shot the person dead.

There is your first mistake. Evidence does not "prove" a theory, it merely confirms it provisionally until further evidence is uncovered.

 

[QvQ]

There is your first mistake. Evidence does not "prove" a theory, it merely confirms it provisionally until further evidence is uncovered.

Or it suggests a different theory or even disproves the theory.
Or as in the case of the "false confession, it proves a theory based on false evidence. I have followed this subject carefully being one of the few people I know who have actually read all of Darwin's books and I don't believe it.
I am what evolutionist and creationist refuse to admit exists..the person who reviews the theory, the evidence and rejects the theory.

As for shoehorned evidence, the Pittdown man.
And Neanderthals are never objectively presented or studied
History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud

 

[pitabread]

I have followed this subject carefully being one of the few people I know who have actually read all of Darwin's books and I don't believe it.

All of his books? Even everything he published on botany?

And have you read anything on evolution published since 1881? The theory of evolution has come a long way since Darwin's time.

I am what evolutionist and creationist refuse to admit exists..the person who reviews the theory, the evidence and rejects the theory.

To what extent have you studied the subject though? Everything you're posting just suggests you're relying primarily on creationist sources. For example, nobody really cares about Piltdown Man anymore except for creationists.

 

[QvQ]

What do you mean you've "considered evolution"?

The same as I have considered "cowboys had bowed legs in the 18th century because they rode horses." Bowed legs are also a symptom of rickets which was very common in Western America at that time. Ladies kept their "limbs" covered so we don't have sufficient information concerning the state of their appendages.
Darwin observed naked people who he believed were adapted to the cold in Tierra Del Fuego. He describes a scene of what in any culture is abject misery yet he concludes that they were adapted.
Now we know that they used fire and oiled their skin to keep warm. Also, was this actually the condition of the people before the clash of cultures? Were the naked folks merely very poor, displaced people who were clinging to the skirts of the empire, displaced, diseased and begging. What were the facts? What are the facts? Now the people there are no longer naked, enjoying the comforts of warm clothes and heating but supposedly that is because of long contact with Europeans.
So a person who has evolved to be comfortable in zero degree weather is perfectly comfortable in a big warm coat? That is saying that you, who are comfortable at 72, would snuggle up to a blast furnace and be comfortable at 120.
Or is evolution so amazingly fast that those people evolved into people who enjoy a normal temperature range in the space of 200 years?
Darwin saw naked people and created a theory. Most people would see naked people and give them a cloak for warmth.
Darwin's facts are subject to entirely different interpretations