Why does evolution not make sense to you?

[Chris Blanks]

Problem. Your statement of faith is this: that science can study the universe around us and those results line up with reality.

Now, I don't want to create a strawman, but as I've been thinking about this topic, that is the core belief. That science is real. How can we use science to determine if our mind is connected to reality, when we use our mind to use science???? It becomes circular reasoning.

I think that is safe assume that we are in reality, at least some form of reality, maybe a dream, but dreams are apart of reality. I also think that there could be different realities. Do You?

I agree with you on that, I just dislike it when people(of any religion) seem to think their basic view is right. Everything is said with a hint of faith(even that statement, possibly).

I would say that almost everything is said with a hint of uncertainty rather than faith.

I can agree with that. This conversation brings a great quote to mind,

"What is real Neo? If real is what you can see and taste and touch then real is norhing more than electrical signals in your brain."
-Morphius, The Matrix

Matrix FTW.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I think that is safe assume that we are in reality, at least some form of reality, maybe a dream, but dreams are apart of reality. I also think that there could be different realities. Do You?

The more I studied science and Christianity, the more I realized that God was real. The tipping point was the personal experiences I have had from God, but I cannot use those to convince you. All I can say is that if you do try to be a Christian and take it seriously, He will eventually show Himself to you. It may take time, but it will happen.

[Not trying to convert you or anything... ]

 

[Chris Blanks]

The more I studied science and Christianity, the more I realized that God was real. The tipping point was the personal experiences I have had from God, but I cannot use those to convince you. All I can say is that if you do try to be a Christian and take it seriously, He will eventually show Himself to you. It may take time, but it will happen.

[Not trying to convert you or anything... ]

I am always trying to gain a better understanding of religion, but to practice that would be absolutely ludicrous, why would I practice something that has no merits for me to do so. I have gone to various churches, some for extended periods of time and nothing has changed.

 

[HalupkiMonster]

I agree completely with evolution, and the big bang. I see no reason not to believe in Theistic Evolution!

 

[NateDaGrimes]

how can they prove that its real? it goes to science where it means that its only science if it can be reproduced and provened. compared to the bible all the truth is in their and all the evidents that was found in bible was also found in this earth. lets see how evo can compete with that

 

[Chris Blanks]

how can they prove that its real? it goes to science where it means that its only science if it can be reproduced and provened. compared to the bible all the truth is in their and all the evidents that was found in bible was also found in this earth. lets see how evo can compete with that

How can they prove the bible is truthful, I have never seen any evidence that would lead to that conclusion. But if you would like to try and show me some, it would greatly appreciated.
As for how to prove evolution is real, just do some research into our genealogy and how it compares to other primates and even monkeys and their ancestors it becomes extremely obvious that we are related to them in some way and evolution explains why. Heck, even look at our gorilla or chimpanzee cousins, they have a skeletal structure that is very similar to us and they even resemble us to a degree, that is because we both evolved from a single common ancestor.

 

[dryykon]

1. "The tomb of the Chinese general Chow Chu (A.D. 265-316) presents a mystery. When analyzed by the spectroscope, a metal girdle showed 10 percent copper, 5 percent manganese, and 85 percent aluminum. But according to the history of science aluminum was obtained for the first time by Oersted in 1825 by a chemical method."

2. "The Antikythera Mechanism. Derek Price, a British historian, theorized that the mechanism was used for astronomy to make calculations. According to Antikytheramechanism.0rg, the “complexity of the gears found within the Antikythera Mechanism baffled scientists, since this type of ‘technology’ was not though to have been in existence until around 1575”. Scientists have determined that the ancient device was built around 87 B.C. Many scientists have built on Price’s work, agreeing that the Antikythera Mechanism was a kind of early computing device. It proves that ancient people knew that the Earth orbited around the Sun."

Evolution requires evolution. People were clearly incredibly smart back then, as we are today. Given evolution, shouldn't we be significantly smarter now? You may reply with "we have things like laptops and smart phones, ancient people didn't have those." However that argument doesn't hold water.

Do you know how to build a Antikythera Mechanism? Of course not. Could you learn? Perhaps after many years of study of astronomy and mechanics. We see that the ancient 'lesser evolved' humans are perhaps more intelligent than humans today.

 

[Chris Blanks]

Could ancient humans build nuclear reactors? Or send people into space? No. There is no possible way that humans from 2000 years ago were even remotely as intelligent as the people of today.
You want to hear what stunted the evolution of human intelligence? Religion did.
Even today some religions look down upon what we call science, not to the extent of people in the dark ages, but still atrocious enough that it is pathetic. Shouldn't we support the advancement of human knowledge instead of looking down upon it.

 

[dryykon]

Could you design a nuclear reactor or rocket ship? Of course not. Could you build a handheld device that didn't run on electricity to track the position of stars and the sun? I sure couldn't. Ancient people, at least some of them, are clearly smarter than either of us.

Scientists (primarily atheist, I assume) rebuilt the Antikythera Mechanism, and to their expectations, it worked. The fact is, is that ancient people were in fact very intelligent.

If you still don't believe in intelligent ancient people...

How do you explain things such as Stonehenge? Or even harder to build places such as Baalbek? Nine 300 ton slabs were built into a wall at Baalbek, on another side of Baalbek, three 800 ton rock slabs were built into the side of the wall.

Doing some physics/trig....

800 tons = 725748kg. Static friction of stone on wood (assuming they laid wood down to slide the stones on) is .2 to .6 so I will choose .4.
(725748)x(9.81) = 7119587.88
(.4)=Force/7119587.88
Force=2847835.152

So you would have to apply a force of 2847835.152 Newtons to move this stone across a wooden platform. Assuming the average man could exert a generous force of 1470 newtons... It would take (2847835.125)/1470=1937.303 men to pull that along a flat level.

Roughly 1937 men to pull that slab along the ground. How would they transport it from the ten mile walk from the nearby quarry? And how would they ever pull it us the required slope to elevate it to the level the slabs are at? Ancient people clearly must of had some sort of machine to help move and position this slab. But not only one, they had three 800 ton slabs.

Even if you still don't think... ask an atheist!

Ever heard of the show 'Ancient Aliens' on the History Channel? (It may be on H2, but I am unsure.) In effectively each episode, athiest scientists push for the notion that ancient people did in fact have advanced tech. Of course they explain it through the use of ET's, however it is also logical that the people back then, would simply be smart!

Disagree if you choose to think you can:

1. Figure out how to design a handheld device to measure the precise measurements of the solar system and stars beyond using your evolved intellect.

2. Get 1937 cave men to somehow pull a 800 ton slab up from a quarry to build into a huge structure with incredibly precise measurements. Measurements that you (quote from Michel Alouf) "[cannot] insert a needle between two of the... stones".

3. (This one should be easy, since they are crazy enough to believe in aliens) Prove the Ancient Aliens atheist scientists to be false in their findings of ancient tech.

 

[Chris Blanks]

Could you design a nuclear reactor or rocket ship? Of course not. Could you build a handheld device that didn't run on electricity to track the position of stars and the sun? I sure couldn't. Ancient people, at least some of them, are clearly smarter than either of us.

Scientists (primarily atheist, I assume) rebuilt the Antikythera Mechanism, and to their expectations, it worked. The fact is, is that ancient people were in fact very intelligent.

If you still don't believe in intelligent ancient people...

How do you explain things such as Stonehenge? Or even harder to build places such as Baalbek? Nine 300 ton slabs were built into a wall at Baalbek, on another side of Baalbek, three 800 ton rock slabs were built into the side of the wall.

Doing some physics/trig....

800 tons = 725748kg. Static friction of stone on wood (assuming they laid wood down to slide the stones on) is .2 to .6 so I will choose .4.
(725748)x(9.81) = 7119587.88
(.4)=Force/7119587.88
Force=2847835.152

So you would have to apply a force of 2847835.152 Newtons to move this stone across a wooden platform. Assuming the average man could exert a generous force of 1470 newtons... It would take (2847835.125)/1470=1937.303 men to pull that along a flat level.

Roughly 1937 men to pull that slab along the ground. How would they transport it from the ten mile walk from the nearby quarry? And how would they ever pull it us the required slope to elevate it to the level the slabs are at? Ancient people clearly must of had some sort of machine to help move and position this slab. But not only one, they had three 800 ton slabs.

Even if you still don't think... ask an atheist!

Ever heard of the show 'Ancient Aliens' on the History Channel? (It may be on H2, but I am unsure.) In effectively each episode, athiest scientists push for the notion that ancient people did in fact have advanced tech. Of course they explain it through the use of ET's, however it is also logical that the people back then, would simply be smart!

Disagree if you choose to think you can:

1. Figure out how to design a handheld device to measure the precise measurements of the solar system and stars beyond using your evolved intellect.

2. Get 1937 cave men to somehow pull a 800 ton slab up from a quarry to build into a huge structure with incredibly precise measurements. Measurements that you (quote from Michel Alouf) "[cannot] insert a needle between two of the... stones".

3. (This one should be easy, since they are crazy enough to believe in aliens) Prove the Ancient Aliens atheist scientists to be false in their findings of ancient tech.

I believe that if I truly wanted to I could manage to build a nuclear reactor, it would require years of schooling, but with time I could probably manage it. Some people build them before they turn 20, so it is not out of the realm of possibility for someone like myself to dedicate their a good portion of their life to build a nuclear reacton.
Well to my knowledge, the quarries at Baalbek were less than a mile away, so as to how they moved it, I would imagine that it was very similar to how the Egyptians managed to build the Pyramids, using a complex system of pullies(but not remotely as complex as building a nuclear reactor) and using wooden sleds or possibly metal sleds.

1. I wholeheartedly believe that if I and 50 other random people on earth( that spoke the same language) were challenged to complete this task that we could pull it off in a couple of years.

2. Considering that it only took only 400 men to move the Thunder Stone(1500 tons) 4 miles, It is hard to believe that it would take 1937 men to move a 800 ton block 10 miles. And I would tend to believe that the stone was probably a bit bigger and was sculpted into its final shape and being moved. Then it was moved into position.

3. Why would it be crazy to believe in aliens? It is crazy to not believe in them.
"Life doesn't exist anywhere but earth?
That's like taking a cup of ocean water, then pointing at the cup and saying that there are no whales in the ocean."- Random Guy on the internet



I do believe that people in the old days were intelligent in their own way, but they cannot compare to the intelligence of the people of today. Take the smartest person in the world from 3000 thousand years ago, and bring them to the current world, they could not replicate the results we get, they couldn't build a car, smart phone, or nuclear reactor with all the time they had left. Take the smartest person from the current world and place they 3000 years in the past, and they could design and build everything from the ancient world with moderate troubles.

 

[dryykon]

1. I wholeheartedly believe that if I and 50 other random people on earth( that spoke the same language) were challenged to complete this task that we could pull it off in a couple of years.

2. Considering that it only took only 400 men to move the Thunder Stone(1500 tons) 4 miles, It is hard to believe that it would take 1937 men to move a 800 ton block 10 miles. And I would tend to believe that the stone was probably a bit bigger and was sculpted into its final shape and being moved. Then it was moved into position.

3. Why would it be crazy to believe in aliens? It is crazy to not believe in them.
"Life doesn't exist anywhere but earth?
That's like taking a cup of ocean water, then pointing at the cup and saying that there are no whales in the ocean."- Random Guy on the internet

1. I meant by yourself. Although assuming you had access to all resources and materials required.

2. I'm not too sure where you got that data.

400 men? 400 * 1470 = 588000 newtons of weight they can pull. A hefty amount to be sure. However, the static coefficients say that the least friction would be a wooden sled on wet wood. Which is .2.

The weight of the thunder stone = 1500 tons or 1360777kg
1360777kg * 9.81 (Gravity) = 13349222.37 Newtons downward. So naturally the earth pushes back up with the same amount. The normal force. Since the coefficient of static friction equals the static force divided by the normal force you get...

.2 = (Static Force Required to Move)/13349222.37
Static Force = 2669844.474

Clearly 588000 < 2669844. So if the best of everything was given to the 400, they would still fall 2081844 Newtons of force short. I sense a flaw.

3. My side point was just a jab at aliens. That would be like saying, well since the island of Tristan da Cunha exists on earth, there must be another one like it. The universe is finite, and so is the earth. Just because the earth is like a Tristan da Cunha to the universe, does not mean there is another earth, similarly, there is not another Tristan da Cunha on earth.

But back to the main point: Why would atheist scientists think ancient populations had advanced technology?

 

[Chris Blanks]

1. I meant by yourself. Although assuming you had access to all resources and materials required.

2. I'm not too sure where you got that data.

400 men? 400 * 1470 = 588000 newtons of weight they can pull. A hefty amount to be sure. However, the static coefficients say that the least friction would be a wooden sled on wet wood. Which is .2.

The weight of the thunder stone = 1500 tons or 1360777kg
1360777kg * 9.81 (Gravity) = 13349222.37 Newtons downward. So naturally the earth pushes back up with the same amount. The normal force. Since the coefficient of static friction equals the static force divided by the normal force you get...

.2 = (Static Force Required to Move)/13349222.37
Static Force = 2669844.474

Clearly 588000 < 2669844. So if the best of everything was given to the 400, they would still fall 2081844 Newtons of force short. I sense a flaw.

3. My side point was just a jab at aliens. That would be like saying, well since the island of Tristan da Cunha exists on earth, there must be another one like it. The universe is finite, and so is the earth. Just because the earth is like a Tristan da Cunha to the universe, does not mean there is another earth, similarly, there is not another Tristan da Cunha on earth.

But back to the main point: Why would atheist scientists think ancient populations had advanced technology?

1. I am not sure if I could completely replicate the original machine, but I am sure I could come close.

2. I guess I should have mention that they formed bronze into balls and used then to slowly roll the stone to it's destination.

3. I would not say that the universe is finite, we simply don't know. In fact the universe could be so big that there is an exact copy of everything on earth with it.

I think that these scientists simply made observations about what they saw as scientists do. Other scientists might call these people crazy, based on their observations, but we probably won't know who is right for a hefty amount of time.

 

[Gath]

Evolution requires evolution. People were clearly incredibly smart back then, as we are today. Given evolution, shouldn't we be significantly smarter now? You may reply with "we have things like laptops and smart phones, ancient people didn't have those." However that argument doesn't hold water.

Do you know how to build a Antikythera Mechanism? Of course not. Could you learn? Perhaps after many years of study of astronomy and mechanics. We see that the ancient 'lesser evolved' humans are perhaps more intelligent than humans today.

Considering the time scale required for evolution to take place, it is unlikely that a significant amount of human evolution has occurred in the last 2000 years. Thus, humans today are generally about as smart as the humans of 2000 years ago.

 

[Chris Blanks]

1. So you admit that people back then could have been on the same level as intellect as you?

2. That's fine. I like doing physics. I think since we really can't know how they did it, that this probably isn't the best thing to argue about. They could have made it a circle, or they could have used pulleys, or they could have used some ancient technology that is relatively advanced.

3. Did you know that if you shuffled a deck of cards, that that pattern of cards will likely exist nowhere else? And as soon as you un-shuffle it, it will likely never exist again? Did you know that it is practically impossible to guess on the SAT and get all of the answers right? Some odds, like the odds of life coming from a block of nothing, are illogical from a statistical perspective.

Imagine you dig up in your back yard a object made of steel that looks and functions (despite some corrosion) exactly like a lock, next to it you find a key. Who placed it there? Did a human? Of course not! That lock and key (the key opens the lock) are actually not a lock and key, although they function like it.

See, the lock was in a sandstorm, and got eroded away into the rough shape of a lock. Then a lightning bolt struck the lock shaped piece of metal in the bottom, and carved a keyhole. After thousands of years of erosion, a working mechanism was formed inside. A lightning bolt blasted a hole in the top of the lock, and somehow magically it now able to function like a lock. Assuming you had the key. The key rolled down a hill, and was eroded into the shape of a key. It then was stuck in a hurricane and quickly eroded farther into the general shape of a key. A lightning bolt struck the key and punched a hole in the top of it, leaving a perfect circle. It fell down a waterfall and into a river, where slowly water caused it to have 'teeth.' When you pick up the lock looking piece of metal, and the key that was actually formed in nature, the key opens the lock.

Of course, when you find a lock and a key lying next to each other in the ground, you say: man made this. Not; nature formed this.

1. No. An entire society of people manged to created that, probably over a generation or two. I would be ONE man making that device.

2. Okay

3. That stack of cars will exist elsewhere, all you have to do is go far enough. In quantum physics there is only some many ways to arrange particles in a given meter(70 to the power of ten to the power of ten meters), If I were to go that distance away form the person holding the deck of cards(the universe is enormous) I would find an exact copy of that person with an exact copy of that set of cards. Quantums physics would also suggest that the pattern will repeat itself eventually. Statistical odds and quantum physical odds are very different.
You should also watch Lawrence Krauss: A Universe from Nothing to show you why is easily possible for something to come from nothing

 

[DMMullinax]

Could ancient humans build nuclear reactors? Or send people into space? No. There is no possible way that humans from 2000 years ago were even remotely as intelligent as the people of today.
You want to hear what stunted the evolution of human intelligence? Religion did.
Even today some religions look down upon what we call science, not to the extent of people in the dark ages, but still atrocious enough that it is pathetic. Shouldn't we support the advancement of human knowledge instead of looking down upon it.

Why would people of 2000 years ago be considered to have inferior intellect to us? The only difference between us and them is that we stand on the their shoulders, their progress.

I could see that some faiths look down on the progress of human knowledge, but how influential are they?. Which ones are you referring to? Certainly not Christianity. The Bible makes no claim like that anywhere.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Can't help myself...

 

[A Shade Named Shane Plew]

Why would people of 2000 years ago be considered to have inferior intellect to us? The only difference between us and them is that we stand on the their shoulders, their progress.

I could see that some faiths look down on the progress of human knowledge, but how influential are they?. Which ones are you referring to? Certainly not Christianity. The Bible makes no claim like that anywhere.

I would say that we have developed a lot in the realm of logic and reasoning, but what do I know.

 

[Chris Blanks]

Why would people of 2000 years ago be considered to have inferior intellect to us? The only difference between us and them is that we stand on the their shoulders, their progress.

I could see that some faiths look down on the progress of human knowledge, but how influential are they?. Which ones are you referring to? Certainly not Christianity. The Bible makes no claim like that anywhere.

Have you not heard of the dark ages?

 

[DMMullinax]

Have you not heard of the dark ages?

I'm not talking about the "christianity" that the Catholic church had going on during the Dark Ages. I don't condone their actions at all. Nor would God. There is no Biblical basis for a lot of what they did. I'm talking about what's represented in the Bible alone. A very different story.

It's just not truthful to pin faith as the enemy to knowledge. That cliche is getting old when we have the Bible itself showing no sign of encouraging ignorance or hating knowledge.

 

[MyLordMySavior]

Evolution. The crowning achievement in human history. I would like to know why most people here do not believe in this amazing discovery even with all of the proof and evidence that makes this "theory"(In some people thinking) basically a fact. So please explain to me why you don't believe in evolution and why it does not make sense to you. If you could I would also like you to explain what you believe and why it makes more sense than evolution, if it makes sense at all.
Extreme detail would be nice.

Hello there! I am 16 years old and have a very firm belief that Evolution is not true.
Evolution, blind chance, variations in alleles over time, just does not seem reasonable to me. Some of what I am about to say probably will not seem relevant , but to me it is very relevant and hopefully will seem relevant to you as well.


This is why Evolution to me does not seem reasonable--> photosynthesis, cellular respiration, protein synthesis, DNA replication. Those are my main reasons probably. If you know these processes to it's deepest darkest depths it should be very clear that it could not have happened over blind chance. It is so complex, each one on it's own level of beautiful complexity, it calls for an Intelligent Designer. If you want me to go into more detail, my friend, just holla!