why would someone not accept Evolution as a fact ?

Original post by science over you

Why does evolution need to explain the origin of life? Isn't abiogenesis a valid explanation even though a hypothesis.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Abiogenesis is something i cannot believe in. I mean, how can a cell learn to reproduce?

Original post by DaveSmith99

What missing links?

Evolution doesn't even attempt to explain the origin of life, so why would this make a difference?

If I did believe in evolution, yet was atheist and disagreed with abiogenesis, there is a fundemental error of the origins of life. Yet if I believe in a certain religion that explains everything, then i would be more inclined to believe in that religion.

Original post by PythianLegume

If you went to a library and they had editions 1,2,3 and 5 of a book, would you conclude that edition 5 was unrelated to the first 3?

Nope, but why do all four have to be related in a way? What if a man made books where each edition talked about a different subject or topic?

Reply 63

Original post by james22

It is as proven as anything outside of mathematics can be. It is not a hypothesis. People don't accept God as fact because tehre is no evidence, the same cannot be said for evolution.

"God" has religious connotations with it. How about a supreme creator of organisms? How is there not any analytical evidence for this?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 64

Original post by TheLionHearted

Nope, but why do all four have to be related in a way? What if a man made books where each edition talked about a different subject or topic?

You do know what an edition is right? An edition is a new release of the same book, updated to include newer material.

My point was that a clear trend doesn't require data points all along it. Science uses this all the time, for example when drawing a graph from a few points. There is no need to check every value in the range, only a few.

Reply 65

DaveSmith99

14

Original post by TheLionHearted

If I did believe in evolution, yet was atheist and disagreed with abiogenesis, there is a fundemental error of the origins of life. Yet if I believe in a certain religion that explains everything, then i would be more inclined to believe in that religion.

There is no error, just something that science hasn't worked out yet. We didn't use to understand comets or lightening, we thought they were curses from the Gods. Just because we didn't have the knowledge to explain them back then doesn't mean that they had to have supernatural causes, and we know know that they don't. Just because a religion offers an explanation for something science can't doesn't make the religion true.

Reply 66

Original post by science over you

"God" has religious connotations with it. How about a supreme creator of organisms? How is there not any analytical evidence for this?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Is there analytical evidence for it? You can't expect someone to confirm the non-existence of data.

Reply 67

Original post by PythianLegume

You do know what an edition is right? An edition is a new release of the same book, updated to include newer material.

My point was that a clear trend doesn't require data points all along it. Science uses this all the time, for example when drawing a graph from a few points. There is no need to check every value in the range, only a few.

Seems like I didn't. :colondollar:

I thought you were talking about volumes instead of editions. You make a good point.
So, if we, and the apes around today, all descended from a common ancestor, what was it? Also, is there a chain of evolutions for other modern primates with a substantial amount of evidence?

Reply 68

Original post by DaveSmith99

There is no error, just something that science hasn't worked out yet. We didn't use to understand comets or lightening, we thought they were curses from the Gods. Just because we didn't have the knowledge to explain them back then doesn't mean that they had to have supernatural causes, and we know know that they don't. Just because a religion offers an explanation for something science can't doesn't make the religion true.

I see. So until then, do I not have the right to question it then? What if science can never prove it? The fact that science hasn't explained it yet, doesn't mean it ever will, or won't.

Reply 69

the bear

20

if evolution is true then why are there so many ugly people ?

Reply 70

Original post by TheLionHearted

Seems like I didn't. :colondollar:

I thought you were talking about volumes instead of editions. You make a good point.
So, if we, and the apes around today, all descended from a common ancestor, what was it? Also, is there a chain of evolutions for other modern primates with a substantial amount of evidence?

I suggest you look at the list of human evolution fossils someone linked a few posts back.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so I can't answer these questions for you, but I assure you there are answers out there if you look. I simply accept most of science on the trust that there isn't a huge conspiracy perpetrated by everyone who has ever studied it in depth (millions of people).

Reply 71

Original post by TheLionHearted

I see. So until then, do I not have the right to question it then? What if science can never prove it? The fact that science hasn't explained it yet, doesn't mean it ever will, or won't.

He wasn't saying that you don't have the right to question science. He was merely pointing out that the failure of science to provide an explanation (not that there is such a thing in this case) doesn't mean that other explanations are true.

Reply 72

Clip

19

I'm really into Ancient Astronaut theory, myself.

Reply 73

Original post by PythianLegume

Is there analytical evidence for it? You can't expect someone to confirm the non-existence of data.

Let's take abiogenesis for example? Do you believe in this hypothesis and under what logical reasoning, do you believe in it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 74

Original post by science over you

Let's take abiogenesis for example? Do you believe in this hypothesis and under what logical reasoning, do you believe in it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I wasn't talking about abiogenesis. You said 'how is there not any analytical evidence for this?' referring to a supreme creator. I asked what evidence you had.

I believe in abiogenesis simply because I believe that there are natural causes of all phenomenon in the world, because there has never been any respectable evidence of supernatural influences on anything, ever. I don't know of any specific mechanisms for abiogenesis because I'm not an expert in the field. However, there's plenty of evidence for it out there - just a quick google search can prove that.

Reply 75

Original post by PythianLegume

I suggest you look at the list of human evolution fossils someone linked a few posts back.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so I can't answer these questions for you, but I assure you there are answers out there if you look. I simply accept most of science on the trust that there isn't a huge conspiracy perpetrated by everyone who has ever studied it in depth (millions of people).

That argument holds no weight. Are you implying you trust the scientific methodology because you are obliged to think that science is not a worldwide conspiracy? Or because x number of people have studied it "in depth". Then look no further, spontaneous generation a widely regarded "theory" in the scientific community was refuted with a simple experiment even though millions have testified to its accuracy etc. Your reasoning is really flawed.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 76

DaveSmith99

14

Original post by TheLionHearted

I see. So until then, do I not have the right to question it then? What if science can never prove it? The fact that science hasn't explained it yet, doesn't mean it ever will, or won't.

You have the right to question everything, science is built on questioning everything and accepting nothing on faith. Abiogenesis and evolution are completely separate processes the validity of one is not dependent on the validity of the other, and evolution has already been proven far, far beyond any degree of reasonable doubt. This constant questioning is the reason why science is the only reliable method there is for answering these questions, science is about acknowledging that you don't have the answers then doing everything humanly possible to find them.

Reply 77

Original post by PythianLegume

He wasn't saying that you don't have the right to question science. He was merely pointing out that the failure of science to provide an explanation (not that there is such a thing in this case) doesn't mean that other explanations are true.

There is such a thing though, because abiogenesis is just a way for atheists to explain the beginning of life, despite being weak. However, I have only come to the conclusion of abiogenesis being weak with a quick read-up on the subject. I'll look into it extensively but I do not doubt that I will come to the same conclusion.

Reply 78

Original post by PythianLegume

I wasn't talking about abiogenesis. You said 'how is there not any analytical evidence for this?' referring to a supreme creator. I asked what evidence you had.

I believe in abiogenesis simply because I believe that there are natural causes of all phenomenon in the world, because there has never been any respectable evidence of supernatural influences on anything, ever. I don't know of any specific mechanisms for abiogenesis because I'm not an expert in the field. However, there's plenty of evidence for it out there - just a quick google search can prove that.

Yeah but isn't that parallel to the great cop-out "Faith". "Im not an expert" yet I believe what I'm told by x number of scientists. So can you demean religious authorities on the basis that they believe their holy scriptures because x people told them.

I'll write a long response in a few day's for you. :biggrin:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 79