So I was sitting with some of my friends at lunch the other day and the conversation really bothered me. I mean, these are people that I love and respect, they're definitely intelligent and funny and nice and all that. But they were saying some stuff on religious basis that was kind of upsetting to me. As in, they don't believe in evolution, and they don't think it should be emphasized as correct in school? these are very intelligent people, and I kind of thought evolution was less of a theory and more of a fact. Obviously, it wasn't just that, if it were, I would just raise and euebrow and not really care all that much, but there were a lot of things that they were saying that really caused me to do a double take. for the purposes of not creating a debate, I won't go into the subjects and all that but it just really kind of bothered me to hear such close-minded, not-so-very intelligent and even at times cruel things from people I respect so much. and I do like the fact that while I tihnk some of their views are close-minded, they were willing to hear other points of view (they wanted me to speak up, but I can get worked up about some of the stuff and I knew I wan't going to change anyone's thought process, particularly if it was rooted in religious beliefs, and even if I had the power I wouldn't want to change other people's religious beliefs).

Please understand me, I respect other people's beliefs very highly, but being religious doesn't always have to mean being close-minded and unwilling to look at facts and reason, and i hate it that in thier case, it did mean exactly that (obviously, only in some respects). Don't get me wrong, I still love and respect these people, but it was kind of bothering me. especially when the person that I'm the closest to started making comments on what I believe (I don't tihnk intentionally meant to be derogatory, or at least not entirely intentionally). Again, I'm not one to judge, my opinion of them hasn't changed, but it was kind of upsetting for me. maybe it was more my closest friend's comments (both about me and not) than anyone else's but there were still some times when I was really biting my tongue. especially when they asked me to say what I was tihnking.

I don't know, is it just me? has anyone else experienced this. I know this isn't my personal place to rant and such; I would have written about it in my Xanga, but they kind of visit it on a regular basis and I don't want to hurt their feelings or anything, but I need to get it out somewhere.

Welcome, to life.

Helmets are to your left, revolvers to your right.

I am a buttered toast!

That's stinky.

I think the evolution/creationism debate can go both ways...if you want to believe either side, you can come up with evidence to 'prove' it.

I dont believe in Darwinian evolutionism either. Oh, wait, did that upset you? Too bad.


There will always be people with different beliefs than you. Accept it, and move on.

yeah, that's true, but it wasn't really the evolutiong/creation thing, I guess i can understadn that. I just figured that was the only topic I could safely cite.

it wasn't that they thought differently, again, I don't have a problem with that. I probably souldn't have made this post, I just wanted to rant, becuase what I'm saying realy has no effect with examples and I'm not willing to start a debate. I fell kind of better now that I ranted anyway, so if you could kindly ignore/shutdown this thread, i would be much obliged. momentary lapse of jugement.

I think the point she's trying to make is that there is a difference between intelligent, respectful debates and differences in opinion, and downright insulting and ridiculing other opposing ideas.

If you need any help in arguing against Creationism, give me a call. Most Creationist arguments can be refuted fairly easily, unless they go for the anthropic principle, and then you have to do some more work.

Whether you actually want to get locked in battle with them is another question. It's probably a good idea just to keep quiet and leave them to it. But if it is a frequent thing, then constructing a logical, coherent argument isn't hard. Evolution is fact, do not forget that, do not let them convince you otherwise - all Creationist have been already been disproven, so unless they have radical new evidence, you have the upper hand here. If they are intelligent, and more importantly rational, then they'll respond positively to your logical arguments and assume your position.

It isn't really a question of 'difference in belief'. Refusal to accept evolution is ignorance.

I believe in human rights... did that upset you? Yeah, well move on...

Wow, I subconciously made a smart post, because it's a human right to have your own opinion!

I think the majority of you are interpreting this the wrong way. She isn't saying, correct me if I'm worng, that that she is bothered by the fact that her friends have different opinions, but by the opinions themselves. For exsmple, a family friend of mine is a really intellegent lady, but she is rather racist. This is surprising because you would think that she would be intellegent enough to see past skin color.

Sugarless, I'm really interested to see what other things your friends were saying. I doubt it would cause too much of a stir since people seem to be on their toes with the bannings.

Now that is offensive.

I truly hate this attitude. You're basically saying that there will always be rude, ignorant people and we should just deal with that. It's not about opinion, it's about disregarding fact and insulting people who don't believe what you do.

Sugarless did not say she had a problem with their beliefs, in fact, she explicitly said the opposite. What she does have a problem with is seemingly intelligent people believing completely illogical things, refusing to consider other points of view and being rude to her because she agrees with the proven facts.

Thankyou so much maevie and Bobbert.

I know the feeling - accept the viewpoints were switched. I don't believe in Darwinian evolution but have freinds who do. When they start talking about it, I'm uncomfortable, but I, like you, don't go criticizing them, and still respect them greatly.

Where you say that "unwilling to look at facts and reason", well, that's debatable. To a Creationist, evolution appears ridculous and beyond reason. When a person belives in something that strongly, they often take those beliefs as fact. Fact and reason are in the eye of the beholder, I guess you could say.

Oh, and Mort-Hog - Shut the Hell up. Somethings can't be simply "proven". It's takes faith (a concept I know you don't understand) to believe. Speaking of ignorance...

But natural selection can. And has.

Refusing to believe in natural selection is like refusing to believe the Earth is spherical, or that it revolves around the Sun.

heh...sorry, but this just reminded me of when I was listening ot my teacher's lecture on social darwinism and a bird flew into the window with such force that there was actually a dent in the window...heh.

and Nightwind- I see your point, the whole facts and reason applies to other arguments as well, but I thank you for not flaming me in any way.

There's such a thing as relatively open minded religious people, but the fact that they adhere to a belief like that makes them closed minded to that degree at least. It's not meant to be an insult, it's just a mindset. To be really open minded you'd have to not believe in anything (except evolution because it has scientific basis). There's a very good reason why I don't make friends with people like that (well, except for this one person).

But I know exactly how you feel. It's very frustrating (and disapointing). The best thing you can do is probably to learn to ignore them, and avoid bringing up the subject at all.

I feel sorry for Galileo because he saw things (heliocentric sol system) with his own eyes and calculations that the church just flat out told him were false while the church had no proof other than their interpretation of what the Bible said. I think faith is certainly a good thing, emotionally and otherwise, but I don't think people should apply their religious beliefs to as much of the secular world as they seem to.

When it comes to creation/evolution theres really no such thing as absolute belief either way (whether you choose to admit it or not). Our minds are far too questioning for that, unless you have some kind of mental imbalance. However, there is absolute faith, which 9 times out of 10 I find myself more intrigued by ones beliefs than not. Usually the 1/10 is that person that goes off on what theyve been taught to believe and haven't actually managed to think for themselves.

Even so, you should be no more ashamed of your own beliefs than your friends are of expressing theirs. If provided with substantial backing as to why you believe a certain way, any rational mind should come to respect that. As far as getting annoyed with closed mindedness concerning religion from people you respect, question why you respect them and focus on that instead of such trivial and useless debating.

P.S> wont be suprised to see somebody banned due to the touchy topic and whats been posted so far. It's a shame beligerance has become such a common form of communication...

Alright, here's the way I see it. Nobody is completely open-minded. Everyone has issues that they're simply not willing to compromise on, some more than others. Tempers will flare, things will be said, and you'll be left with a choice. You can either be forward with them, and tell them that even though you don't necessarily agree with them, you still respect their opinion, or you can keep it in and let it fester, until you eventually confront them and end up saying something you'll really regret.

I hope that you're not seriously implying that all atheists are open-minded.

Er... before you go saying such things as "close-minded, not-so-very intelligent" you may wasn't to re-consider your own position on creationism.

Evolution isn't quite as rock solid fact as a lot of people would like to have you think. The Theory of Evolution itself changes drastically over time. You'd be rather naive to think it won't do that again. I don't see how suggesting that the schools not represent it as absolute fact is close-minded or stupid.

Not nessessarily. That's just one issue. Someone who's open minded about this may not be about a number of different things, and vice versa. And I say this only considering most atheists are actually agnostics. In other words, someone who doesn't believe in god because his parents or his friends told him god doesn't exist and doesn't really understand why isn't really any better.

I probably shouldn't have even used that as an example, since that's what everyone's focusing on, as far as the close-midedness and even the not-so-very intelligent part, I was definitley not talking about the evolutionism vs creationalism. I wouldn't base opinions off of only one thing and it's not THAT easy to get me upset.

That's what creationists keep saying, and like mort says, I have yet to see any evidence suggesting to the contrary. Back it up with something that's not pseudo-science.



There haven't been any drastic changes at all. Minor adjustments are made as new evidence comes to light, and the theory becomes more accurate. The theory stands until disproven, and it hasn't been disproven yet.



Until disproven, it's conventionally accepted as fact. Nothing is "absolute fact" as you call it. They teach that the earth orbits around the sun, because it's conventionally accepted as a fact. They teach that hitler was at the head of germany in world war 2 because it's conventionally accepted as a fact, etc.

Huh? Me in a creationism/evolution debate?

Some fun facts:

As it is right now, there's not a single reason to accept creationism over science. Meaning, if you still want to debate for creationism, you have to come up with new arguments, cause none of them are valid. ***None***.

The reason you believe in biblical creationism is arbitrary. In other circumstances (area, genes, family, childhood, media, etc etc etc...) you would've believed the muslim version of it. Evolution is the only theory that passes the tests across the whole globe (and passes them with A+ grades). Science minimizes subjectivity views. Your religious doctrine maximizes them, and subjectivity has no place in search of reality.

That's also, gbk, why there's no such thing as 'believing' in evolution.

Obi, I maybe remember five names on massassi, and you're one of them. I remember asking you, in the previous non-debate, to read a book on the subject, and I really question it. I may be out of line here, but what school did you go to? How old are you?

Also, consistently calling evolution Theory of Evolution may make you feel warm and safe, but the reality doesn't change by that. Why not constantly call gravity Theory of Gravity (because it is a theory) ?

Obi - I don't think evolution has changed all that much since Mendel, which was more a completion. That's the thing biologists and other scientists do nowadays - they keep finding evidence pro evolution, none contra. Not because of bias. They just don't find anything pointing to creationism instead of evolution. One fossil in the wrong place, and the whole evolution theory falls. It doesn't happen, and I'm pretty damn sure that it won't. There is no scientist conspiracy or anything. There also is no debate.

Sugarless - come to Belgium. Over here we realize that you can't go blindly dissing established theory like erosion - whoops I mean evolution - without backing it up with evidence or even being normal. Over here the mindset is still: either prove something is wrong, or stfu. Soon America will be a sort of WWII climate, with all scientists fleeing to Europe in order not to get silenced by the stupid majority.

All the best

In your opinion, of course.



Again, spoken like a true atheist - beliving that birth is completely random. Fact is, I wasn't born someplace else, and I am the way I am. No ifs, just look at what is, not what could have been.


Is it impossible for you to leave us alone to our beliefs?

only if you also leave ours alone. If our unbiased scientific evidence contridicts with your beliefs, mabye you should rethink them.

not saying they are wrong, but there is no law saying you have to have the exact beliefs of your religion. There is nothing wrong with questioning your beliefs.

Also, why do people use athieist as an insult? couldn't that be considered religous descrimination (discriminating them for thier lack of a set religion)

Though I doubt Kwiet knows it, the Theory of Evolution and evolution are not one and the same. Evolution is proven to happen - the Theory of Evolution is a theory on how humans descended from varying creatures, though, because it has not been observed (as evolution has), it remains a theory, though a widely-accepted one in scientific circles.



While I'm sure a relative few consider Belgium to be the scientific safe haven of the world, and it is humorous how you try to paint America as a nation persecuting evolutionists, it's also rather insulting and arrogant of you to make such false claims.



It's the same as "spoken like a true Christian." Snide, yes, but not necessarily meant as an insult.

Hey, I am not going out of my way to criticize. However, if someone posts a scathing remark about my beliefs, I'm liable to reply in kind. Personally, I wish we could all just leave each other to our own devices, but well, when Hell freezes over...

An interesting point that I always think about when the debate between creation and evolution erupts is that from a truly objective standpoint, it is impossible to prove anything at all. Every scientific observation that we make must be filtered through our brains, which are not particularly reliable. This can be applied to greater ideas like evolution, or simple things like the existence of chairs. Do they exist... or do you just think they do?

Consider: Which of these is she doing in the original post?

sfjkgkfjgdkfjgdgfjk.




Yes it is.

Evolution is fact.

Just throwing some information out there. I've found some of this stuff to be fairly subjective but a lot of it does make sense.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp


Many Creationists I have met believe what they believe because it's the way they grew up but not all Creationists haven't done their research.

ah, just give it up mort. :p

Yes, the two interpretations that humans either descended from apes as supported by what we know of evolution combined with our virtually identical DNA compared with the idea that we were just put here and all the physical evidence scattered around was just a trick?

It seems quite clear (though no creationist would agree) that one point of view is taking the facts and coming to the logical conclusion, and the other is starting with a huge presupposition and then disregarding all physical evidence in order to avoid contradicting yourself.

The church has backtracked and changed its views so many times in light of scientific evidence (big one - earth orbiting sun) and I just cannot understand why there is still debate about this one.

I have to agree that this makes perfect sense, that Creationism seems to go against logical thought by using the Bible as fact but I would hardly think that Evolution is supported by "fact." Logical assumptions seems a better phrase. I'm still trying to sort all of this out for myself but it doesn't make sense to me that everything we know in this world came from absolutely nothing. I don't understand how something as articulate as a human being can be "created" from nothing by absolute random chance. Random chances don't seem to make sense because I would think that there would be far more things that came from random coincidence than there would be actual creation that does work(humans, animals, etc.). Natural selection by mutation only seems to support Creationism rather than Evolution as I understand it.

There isn't enough information to totally convince me that Creationism works but I simply do not believe that Evolution is possible. I simply cannot believe that humans can come from absolutely nothing and "evolve" by random chance into the amazing beings that we are.

Then you don't understand it, as made obvious by the rest of your post.

That's how I understand it. Remember, this is all subjective. I try very hard not to approach any situation, especially Evolution vs. Creationism debates, assuming anything or jumping to any conclusions.

I'm not exactly sure what you understand and what you don't so I'll just try to explain it as simple as I can.

You have gazelles and guepardes, which are two of the fastest species on earth. The gazelles are herbivores, and the guepardes are their predators. The guepardes can eat other food as well, but none as rich in nutrients as the gazelles, and if they don't eat gazelles at least on a semi-regular basis, they die.

So, like with humans or with any other species, some of them are fast, some of them are slow, some are weak, some are strong, some tall, some short, etc.. Those who were too slow couldn't manage to catch any gazelles, therefore, they eventually died off, leaving only the fastest. The fastest breed amongst themselves and through heredity, produce fast offspring. Over time, since all the slow guepardes die, they can't mate, so the species consists only of the fastest.

The same thing happends with the gazelles. Some are fast, some are slow. Some have keen senses, others don't. The fast ones with keen senses can spot the guepardes early and outrun them. The slow ones don't have time to get away, and since the guepardes are all fast now (as explained in earlier paragraph), they inevitably get cought and die. Since the slow gazelles died off, only the fast ones are left to mate amongst eachother, producing only fast gazelles.

If all the gazelles are strong and fast, then only the best of the guepards will manage to catch them... and so the process occurs again, and again. The end result is that these two animals are both extremely fast.

None of it is random. The reason why simple cellular lifeforms have managed to evolve into complex organized lifeforms such as human beings is simply because those who couldn't died. In fact, in alot of cases, species can't catch up, and become instinct. I don't have exact numbers, but less than 1% of all species that have ever walked the earth are still alive today.

Forgive me if I've misinterpreted you, but you seem to suggest that it is inconceivable to you that a organism as complex as a human being could come about by random chance and there surely must have been some kind of guiding intelligence "designing" it?

First off, consider the appendix. What important function does this organ perform? Umm, aside from getting appendicitis and having to be removed, nothing. That should at least make you question the assumption of some grand design to humans and other animals.

Second off, consider the nature of mutation. I don't think Creationists could argue that mutation exists. It is a verifiable process that happens on a generational basis, not on a many-generation basis like evolution. Not only do you have gene-mixing, but you get changes in DNA. This leads to very small changes that are totally new (and not a mix of the parent's DNA). These happen totally at random.

This is where natural selection kicks in. You have a population with variations. As Flex explained, it's all about who can reproduce the most. Therefore, if you have a variation that makes you slightly slower than the rest of the herd, then you're likely to either be eaten, or not eat enough and starve. That's a simplistic model, but it serves well for an example.

So the environment [by which I don't just mean the Earth. I mean the world, it's inhabitants, basically everything] determines how much each variation gets passed onto the next generation. This new generation with its different distribution of variations means the environment against which this generation will be naturally selected is also subtly different.

Which would at least give a reason why the appendix might be there - at one point in time, such an organ was an advantage and became part of the body. However, at some point it ceased being an advantage, but was neither a disadvantage. Therefore, it stayed there, neither helping nor hindering humans.

The "guiding intelligence" theory doesn't really give any explanation for the presence of the appendix. The only way that I can see God fitting into evolution is if the micro changes on a generational level are guided by Him. However, the nature of random mutations combined with natural selection means there's no NEED for an intelligence at this level.

Once life itself started, the processes by which it evolves dictate that more complex organisms would arise.

I don't personally believe in God, but there are so many places that God could be hiding in scientific theory that I find it ludicrous that religious people still try to go against scientific principles. I see any God that existed as a kind of catalyst. Set up the initial conditions and the micro rules of the Universe, and see what happens. Existence is an emergent system that follows logically from the fundamental interactions. Trying to explain high level systems like human beings only in terms of fundamental interactions between sub-atomic particles is "tricky" (in the same sense of the word as Deep Thought used), but compare that to trying to figure out what fundamental interactions would be necessary to get a high level system of this spec?