Evolution - A serious question.

[PearlWatson]

Look, first of all, I do believe in a God, despite my username... although it's somewhat different from the traditional Christian conception of God.

But here's the thing with religion based solely on authority: which one am I supposed to believe? In case you hadn't noticed, Hinduism and Christianity say quite different things. They both claim to be authoritative, and ultimately only because they say they are.

The only way to solve such a dilemma is to come up with some criteria to judge religions with competing claims. What those criteria are is majorly up for grabs. I'm not going to believe in something just because some religious organization tells me I should when there are other religious organizations that have equally viable but mutually exclusive claims, because one of them must be wrong. Ultimately, their authority is based on nothing but air. Why aren't you a Hindu, anyway, Millsapa? Why not believe in that religion instead?

In the end, a "relevant expert" is someone who has some evidence to back up their claims. Evolution as a theory emerged to help explain the data. Creationism emerged the same way, but now it no longer fits the data, so creation scientists are trying to fit the data to the theory. But it just doesn't work that way. You can't ignore evidence contrary to your theory just because you find it distasteful, and that's exactly what [Darwinists] are doing.

I fixed that for you.
Would you say a "relevant expert" is also someone who has some evidence to dispute claims?

If you go with evolution, over ID or creation, on the basis of consensus then shouldn't you also take religion on the basis of consensus? Which ever belief system has the most support?

 

[The-Joker]

Evolution is not the capacity of bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance, but which never evolves into anything more than bacteria. In fact evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Darwin's theory says we get a whole new species not a taller version of the same species.

Nope. Literally, that is the definition of evolution

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.[1]

 

[The-Joker]

So, you are saying that mutations are done by gradual steps...of surviving organisms...but the fossil record doesn't show gradual steps.

What the **** are you talking about? Of course the fossil record shows gradual steps... I must have misunderstood you... explain, please.

 

[One Brow]

So creatures randomly mutated attributes that they just happened to need at the time. Absurd.

Depends on what you mean by "attributes". Based on experience, you are envisioning a Hopeless Monster/saltationistic view, which is not part of evolutionary theory.

 

[One Brow]

So the first weener to appear was based on one mutation?

That's the Hopeless Monster idea, not evolutionary theory.

 

[One Brow]

Evolution is not the capacity of bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance, but which never evolves into anything more than bacteria.

What else would a bacteria evolve into?

In fact evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all.

That's pretty much what evolutionary theory is.

Darwin's theory says we get a whole new species not a taller version of the same species.

Actually, Darwin's theory applies to populations. It absolutely says the population gets taller individuals, when taller is favored by the environment.

Species come about when two different populations descended from a common population can/do no longer interbreed. It's a concept applied by humans for the purposes of categorization, not an evolutionary unit.

 

[One Brow]

If you go with evolution, over ID or creation, on the basis of consensus then shouldn't you also take religion on the basis of consensus? Which ever belief system has the most support?

If consensus referred to majority opinion, you might have a point.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

I fixed that for you.
Would you say a "relevant expert" is also someone who has some evidence to dispute claims?

If you go with evolution, over ID or creation, on the basis of consensus then shouldn't you also take religion on the basis of consensus? Which ever belief system has the most support?

I go with the evidence that I find more compelling... and I find the evidence for evolution a hell of a lot more compelling than the "evidence" for creationism.

If you can give me evidence why Christianity is more likely to be true than Hinduism or Buddhism, I'd love to hear it. But I doubt you know much about either one, because you'd rather stick to what you're comfortable believing rather than what's more likely to be true.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

So let me get this straight. Milhopsapa thinks evolutionary theory is random mutations creating wild changes in an organism despite being told countless times that it isn't?

Then he/she/ brings up social darwinism (survival of the fittest) which has never been used in evolutionary theory. Then he/she/ also seems to argue against Darwinian principles as if the scientific community holds dear the stuff Darwin suggested as if it's gospel, even though it should be quite well known that much of Darwin's suppositions have long since known to be inaccurate.

It's like Hopsapa is trying to dubunk 19th century evolutionism and then claiming he/she is debunking 21st century evolutionism in the process.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

So let me get this straight. Milhopsapa thinks evolutionary theory is random mutations creating wild changes in an organism despite being told countless times that it isn't?

Then he/she/ brings up social darwinism (survival of the fittest) which has never been used in evolutionary theory. Then he/she/ also seems to argue against Darwinian principles as if the scientific community holds dear the stuff Darwin suggested as if it's gospel, even though it should be quite well known that much of Darwin's suppositions have long since known to be inaccurate.

It's like Hopsapa is trying to dubunk 19th century evolutionism and then claiming he/she is debunking 21st century evolutionism in the process.

This.

I don't know why I even started posting in this thread. It's not going to accomplish anything other than give me headaches.

 

[The-Joker]

This.

I don't know why I even started posting in this thread. It's not going to accomplish anything other than give me headaches.

Agreed, slapper is either a hack genius... or the most stubborn person on earth... either way we can't help her.

 

[PearlWatson]

I go with the evidence that I find more compelling... and I find the evidence for evolution a hell of a lot more compelling than the "evidence" for creationism.

If you can give me evidence why Christianity is more likely to be true than Hinduism or Buddhism, I'd love to hear it. But I doubt you know much about either one, because you'd rather stick to what you're comfortable believing rather than what's more likely to be true.

That's not what you said initially. You brought up consensus among biologists. I thought it was weird for someone who had "atheist" in their name to believe something on consensus.
Can I ask what "evidence" you find so compelling?

In the end, it comes down to this: I am not a biologist. But all biologists I know personally -- and all but a very few "creation scientists" who make up less than 5% of the scientific community -- believe evolution is a fact. And since I'm not an expert in the area, I'm going to defer to the people who actually know something about it, much as most of them would defer to me on picking good video games. The people who claim not to believe in evolution... well, unless you're a biologist and have some compelling evidence for me, I'm not terribly inclined to listen to you, because 95% of the relevant experts are telling me something differently.