It's not "do you believe in evolution"

MonkeyBalls

It's "do you have the intellectual honesty to accept it, despite the cognitive dissonance it may cause you".

Funny how the primates that deny evolution are also the ones who'd prefer that it wasn't true.

hiorta

Whether it is believed or not, it is our only self-driven vehicle.

Garreth

It's not "do you believe in evolution"

It's "do you believe in the theory of evolution"

I did it for the lulz!

Zombrex

Its "Do you reject scientific theories on the basis that they conflict with your chosen interpretation of your chosen religion"

If the person doesn't do that its all good. I've no problem with someone who says they don't accept evolution and can give me a scientific reason. It is when they say that their sky god told them it isn't true, thats when I get dismissive of them.

Daftendirekt

'Do you accept the theory of evolution as being accurate?'

Sounds better to me...

krudler

"which is more likely, we evolved over millions of years through natural stages or that an incompetent deity conjoured us out of thin air and stood back chuckling to himself while became obsessed with proving whether he existed in the first place?"

sounds better again

Galvasean

I've never encountered anyone who didn't think evolution was corret who didn't have a religious motivation about it. Says a lot really.

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

I've never encountered anyone who didn't think evolution was corret who didn't have a religious motivation about it. Says a lot really.

The theory of evolution gave us Jurassic Park, end of argument right there

MonkeyBalls

Daftendirekt wrote: »

'Do you accept the theory of evolution as being accurate?'

Sounds better to me...

It's sometimes best to avoid "theory" because they latch onto it, misunderstanding what a theory means.

Turtwig

Evolution is a religion, ffs! Anyone who suggest otherwise deserves to be shot.

Now say your penance of ten Darwins.
Our Darwin, Who art a genius
Hallowed be Thy Mind;
Thy evolution come,
Thy will be done,
In fact as it is in theory.
Give us today a transition fossil,
And forgive us our mutation,
As we survive those who try to kill us;
And lead our lot into natural selection,
But deliver us from creationism.

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

I've never encountered anyone who didn't think evolution was corret who didn't have a religious motivation about it. Says a lot really.

I was amused to hear recently that the Islamic world rejects evolution on the basis that Darwin was a Christian.

Undergod

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I was amused to hear recently that the Islamic world rejects evolution on the basis that Darwin was a Christian.

Wow. Link?

The Mad Hatter

Undergod wrote: »

Wow. Link?

It was in the middle of a long lecture by a Christian biologist whose name escapes me. I think it may have been posted in the BCP thread.

Edit: Ah, it was Ken Miller. Sam Vimes posted the video here, and this is it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

(The mention of Islamic creationism, like I said, is way in, during the Q&A near the end.

fontanalis

Would it be true to say that alot of people are getting creation and evolution mixed up in this arguement? Also if you don't believe in evolution then the only alternative is that very living thing was placed on earth at the time of its existence in its form at the time.

Erren Music

Surely the evolution of dog's can be used to explain evolution simply to idiots.

Genghiz Cohen

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

(The mention of Islamic creationism, like I said, is way in, during the Q&A near the end.

1:18:00 onwards.

Great vid.

Sam Vimes

Erren Music wrote: »

Surely the evolution of dog's can be used to explain evolution simply to idiots.

Unfortunately not. Their new thing is the idea of "kinds", so dogs can evolve into different kinds of dogs but a dog can never become a "non-dog". They never quite define what the word kind means or what would constitute evolution from one kind to another. I think they want to be shown a dog giving birth to a cat as proof of evolution even though that would instantly disprove it

And of course it's only when they're presented with an example like different species of dog that they say they accept that random mutation and selection can produce thousands of different of varieties of fully functional dogs all of whom have unique characteristics. At all other times they talk about evolution as if it's the craziest idea ever thought up and that it's a religion etc.

Kepti

krudler wrote: »

The theory of evolution gave us Jurassic Park, end of argument right there

Then it follows that the theory of evolution was responsible for Jurassic Park 2 and 3.

2-1 to religion.

Galvasean

fontanalis wrote: »

if you don't believe in evolution then the only alternative is that very living thing was placed on earth at the time of its existence in its form at the time.

I propose a new theory. New types of animals randomly fell from the sky at various intervals in the Earth's history. Prominant times of 'random faunal population' include the Cambrian, Jurassic and Eocene.

Kepti wrote: »

Then it follows that the theory of evolution was responsible for Jurassic Park 2 and 3.

2-1 to religion.

Jurassic Park 2 was fairly good. However JP3 was the equivalent of 6 bad films.

Turtwig

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

1:18:00 onwards.

Great vid.

Time shift
Courtesy of Malty.:)