Why do people believe in evolution?

[QvQ]

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.



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.

I am primarily interested in DNA studies at this time.

 

[pitabread]

nm.

 

[pitabread]

I am primarily interested in DNA studies at this time.

Such as...?

Again, what resources are you using for your study of evolution that you are claiming to have undertaken?

(I find it curious that any time I ask a creationist what they've studied when it comes to evolution, they always get cagey when replying. This isn't a trick question. Anyone who has really studied the subject should find it easy to list the resources they've used.)

 

[BobRyan]

I have considered the suggestion that water, dust, gas rocks and sunlight will produce a rabbit given billions of years of time and a lot of just-so stories. I don't find those stories to be compelling or supported by science.

 

[pitabread]

I have considered the suggestion that water, dust, gas rocks and sunlight will produce a rabbit given billions of years of time and a lot of just-so stories. I don't find those stories to be compelling or supported by science.

How much of the science have you actually studied though?

 

[eleos1954]

More people believe in evolution as time goes by. Is it because they have studied it and understand it, or is it because so many others believe it so they might as well too?

Evolutionists have had near total dominance in the education system for many decades therefore the tendency is to believe what one is taught at a young age.

Before that .... the bible was taught in school and it was dominant.

Young minds are very impressionable and not many really delve into deep self study one way or the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot. Now we know that you are scientifically illiterate too. We never said that the theory of evolution was "proven". Gravity is not proven. At least not in the sciences. Prove is a term reserved for mathematics. Of course there are different definitions and usages of the word "prove". If you mean prove in the legal sense, which is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then you are clearly wrong. Using that definition the evidence proves evolution.

And again with the breaking of the Ninth Commandment. Contrived or shoehorned evidence is not allowed in the sciences. There is a very clear definition of what is and what is not evidence. You continue to demonstrate that you do not even understand the legal concept of evidence by your poor examples.

Why run away from a reasonable offer? Is it because you know that you are wrong?

And you have not been able to name one so called flaw in evolution as of yet. Don't worry, I am very patient.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists have had near total dominance in the education system for many decades therefore the tendency is to believe what one is taught at a young age.

Before that .... the bible was taught in school and it was dominant.

Young minds are very impressionable and not many really delve into deep self study one way or the other.

Not quite correct. In the sciences scientists have had near total domination of the education system. As a result only evidence supported concepts are taught. You should be asking yourself why there is no scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[pitabread]

Evolutionists have had near total dominance in the education system for many decades therefore the tendency is to believe what one is taught at a young age.

Maybe not that dominant (at least in the U.S.) given polls on the subject re: creationists inserting creationist material into schools. Though this has reportedly diminished somewhat in the past decade.

And it's true that one generally believes what one is educated on. Though a proper science education should include the a study of science itself and that conclusions are in science are provisional.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Oh my! Darwin was wrong (or worse yet imagined to be wrong) about minor issues. Therefore the theory of evolution is wrong

Darwin is not a god of evolution. He was merely the first that came up with a well formulated explanation. He was a man that was wrong on many minor points. All that rates is a 'So what?' If you have to try to refute the theory with Darwin's pretended faults you will only fail since we have over 150 years of advance since Darwin. You should be trying to learn how we know the stories of the Bible to be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have considered the suggestion that water, dust, gas rocks and sunlight will produce a rabbit given billions of years of time and a lot of just-so stories. I don't find those stories to be compelling or supported by science.

Projection. You are the one that believes "just so stories". Those are not allowed in the sciences. Science works on testable models. How would you test and refute your beliefs in creationism? To claim to have any evidence for your beliefs the test has to be based on the merits of creationism, not on a strawman of evolution.

 

[Astrophile]

Evolutionist have the fervor of ardent true believers in the absolute irrefutable truth of the their ontology, without question, without arguments. Not science at all because science is always skeptical and alternative, not absolutely convinced and certain of the having the Ultimate Truth.

Very good. Would you now like to apply your scepticism to explaining in detail why the theory of evolution does not explain the observed facts of biology (e.g. anatomy, taxonomy, genetics, biogeography and palaeontology), and offer an alternative theory that provides a better explanation of these facts?

 

[Astrophile]

The father of modern science is Galileo. He lived in the 1550s. What you are talking about are humors, and that's pre-science superstition.

Galileo was born in 1564 and died in 1642.

 

[driewerf]

I have considered the suggestion that water, dust, gas rocks and sunlight will produce a rabbit given billions of years of time and a lot of just-so stories. I don't find those stories to be compelling or supported by science.

Oh, but it doesn't take billions of years. It just takes a rabbit's life time to produce a rabbit with "water, dust, gas rocks and sunlight".

 

[Astrophile]

Christianity has not changed in 2000 years.

That does not necessarily mean that it is true.

Science has a new theory every 100 years
Science has to be corrected constantly for errors.

Yes. That is why it has kept up to date and in touch with increases in our knowledge.

I was taught that real science does not Know anything as absolute and irrefutable truth. Real science is an exploration, questioning skeptical and curious, an ongoing investigation without any final answers.
Gospel is Gospel, Science is an imprecise and usually incorrect understanding of nature.
Science, historically is usually wrong, almost always...

Why do you think that a gospel or a religion that has not changed in 2000 years is more relevant to the present day or gives a better explanation of observed phenomena than an ongoing investigation that is constantly being corrected for errors as new facts become available?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Christianity has not changed in 2000 years.

Hundreds if not Thousands of Denominations agree 100% with that statement.

 

[QvQ]

SigurdReginson: "What you are talking about are humors, and that's pre-science superstition."

In the mid-19th century, medical opinion believed yellow fever among other diseases like malaria and cholera were caused by an invisible but smelly contagion called “miasma”

If "humors" were pre-science superstition, then Darwin, being in the same time frame, has the same definition.

(I did a direct quote of SigurdReginson because I could not locate the post sorting back through the thread. I hope that is acceptable practice."

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Very well, then. Which of Darwin's books contains a description of a tektite?

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Of course the people of Tierra del Fuego used fire. How do you think the island got its name?

 

[QvQ]

Of course the people of Tierra del Fuego used fire. How do you think the island got its name?

Also, actual drawings made by a person on the Beagle shows the natives clothed in animal skins.
I spent two years hiking around the Southwest, camping out with nothing more than I could carry on my back. I was going to town for supplies. I crossed the Gila River at dawn, wading across, dressed in shorts and t shirt. A rancher stopped, rolled down his truck window. His heater was full blast and he was bundled up in a coat.
He said, "It is 17 degrees. Can't you feel the cold?"
I was adapted ...not evolved.