I'm pretty sure my mom doesn't believe in evolution.
And she's the second smartest woman I've ever met.
(I don't mean to degrade women in any way, my mother is genuinely a very intelligent person. The message here is that religion's blinding power is something everyone can potentially suffer from)
And she's the second smartest woman I've ever met.
(I don't mean to degrade women in any way, my mother is genuinely a very intelligent person. The message here is that religion's blinding power is something everyone can potentially suffer from)
Comments
-
How would not believing in evolution make her any more stupider than believing in a godly being making things? 🤔
personally a godly being making the universe is a more logical explanation because something had to come from something. -
-
-
You're implying that you believe in evolution. I respectfully ask why that is. -
Highschool biology. Though if you want a more detailed explanation, you can read my comments on MrMeems' repost of this post.
-
-
Because there is no real evidence to support it. And even besides that, I will never be convinced that even one cell could naturally form on its own given how ridiculously complex they are. Let alone a whole organizm, made up of trillions of them all working in unison.
Back in Darwin's day, it was believed that cells were just simple gelatinous blobs. And back then, the idea that a one could form over the course of millions of years wasn't all that unbelievable.
Evolution is only a theory, and an outdated one at that. -
I don't want to start a war or anything but I am curiously interested about your side of the table... like what's your opinion about the origins of life? -
What do you mean there's no evidence? Look at the animals around you and notice how they all share physionomical structures between themselves and you. Look at islands and see the wacky animals that only exist there. Not even with just animals: Plants actually have really similar reproductive systems to most other organisms! I must ask: Have you taken a class on evolution? All of this evidence is shown there.
Oh, not even just physical aspects, but also similarities in DNA. We share 99% of our genetics with chimpanzees, which honestly checks out, we are very much alike. We still share over 50% of our DNA with bananas, and there's still similarities to be found between us! You know, for good measure. -
they said no "real evidence" this means there are but they consider them as "outdated"
well that's my interpretation -
True, but new evidence is being found to date, and it hasn't been disproven, so it's all definitely not outdated. That's why I decided to disregard that claim. -
ok here's a compromise that finally come out of my head
the middle point of both -
That's not proof, that is just observing things that exist.
I would also like to introduce you to my friend, the false equivolance fallacy. It's when you take two things, and say that because they share a similar property, they must be related.
Take the platypus for instance. I can guarantee with certainty, that if they were extinct, scientists would say that they are related to ducks or beavers or something or that they were some "missing link" in the fossil record. Now, you and I know that ducks did not come from platypuses, or that they were the ancestors of beavers, because we are fortunate enough to live in a reality where they are still alive and well. But what would stop them from saying otherwise? Other than taking note of some biological similarities, they don't really have any other way to "definitively" say that they are related. Not on the same continent? Simple! Continental drift. This really goes for any animal, but pointing out similarities is not proof of anything. False equivolance.
Before anyone brings up carbon dating, scientists already had the belief that the world was millions of years old before that became a thing. So that is the standard they used to measure carbon dating in the first place. Like using a ruler to measure a board of wood to be 3 and a half feet, and then using that board to do your measuring. Our debate is weather or not that original ruler was accurate or not.
And finally, no, I have not taken a class on evolution. But I have read several books on the subject (from the evolutionary perspective) if that makes you happy. It's a useless argument anyway, because I could just as easily say: "Have you taken an apologetics class? Or a theology class?" And it wouldn't really discredit anything you said anyway. -
But I'm not actually claiming that just based on sharing characteristics. Zoologists are aware of this fallacy, which is why they use DNA tracing to determine the closeness of species (because convergent evolution is a very real deceiver is you base yourself in only physionomy). It's like a 99.9999999999999999999999% reliability rate just because of the way DNA mutations work.
The platypus example is absolutely not true and just proves you know nothing about paleontology and zoology but you think you do. What I described in the first paragraph is what would stop them from making this mistake
And no, carbon dating is not based on that belief. It's based on the fact that there's a specific isotope of carbon which is unstable and slowly turns into something else at a very, very specific rate. Basing yourself on simple isotope rarity proportions you can know exactly how much of it has decomposed, and since its half life is so consistent and well documented, you can use this tool to determine how long has it been since the organism died.
I would like to ask which of these books you've read because there's a good chance some may be outdated. After all, Darwin's theory wasn't perfect and has been having things added to it over the years, which is to be expected since it's over a century and a half old. Finally, I wasn't really making an argument of you not having taken this subject. It's just that you don't comprehend the basics of this topic, so I was genuinely wondering. -
You use DNA to "prove" that evolution did in fact happen, but I will still never understand how someone could look at how DNA is specifically coded and how impossibly complex it is, and still believe that it happened by chance. That is just not how the universe works. It isn't something that can be observed, or tested. You can't experiment on ancient animals to see if they actually evolve. Humanity has not documented the procedural changes in species for the past age, nor does the fossil record reflect that change.
And even besides all of that, there being no god has a lot of moral implications that I don't think anyone wants to get into. -
Not did; is and has been happening. I've given multiple examples of evolution ocurring in the present day, which you very graciously decided to ignore. Fossil records are actually the best indicators of these changes.
Also you are underestimating how big the universe is. There are ~250 billion solar systems in the Milky Way alone, which isn't even the biggest type of galaxy out there. And there are even MORE galaxies all over the universe. Something as rare as life is entirely possible, and actually even basically guaranteed to occur with that big a sample.
And I am willing to discuss all the implications of there being no god. I've already done that.
-
Also you are assuming that existing isn't the natural state of the universe which is just something nobody can be sure about.
Basically evolution wouldn't exist because all animals would be created in the state they are in now