The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

why would someone not accept Evolution as a fact ?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by TheLionHearted
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.


Your making the assumption that a belief system has to explain everything for it to be valid.


Original post by science over you
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


Yes, but holy scriptures have no basis. The difference is that I know of the validity of the scientific method. Not only does the logic make sense, but I see the proof that it works every time I turn on the lights or use my computer, or do practically anything in the modern world. Whereas religious faith is always faith. Even the authorities just have faith. Ultimately, everyone who believes in God believes on faith, not evidence. In science, there are a number of experts who have concrete proof.
Original post by Biomed SS
why would someone not accept Evolution as a fact ?


Well because they subscribe to what I like to call the "Religious Double Standard", or RDS for short.

The RDS has four component parts:

1) Anything that goes against their religious texts is false until it is conclusively proved beyond all doubt.
2) Even if something that goes against their religious beliefs is conclusively proved beyond all doubt, that proof can be ignored simply by uttering the phrase "god created the proof".
3) Anything that is to do with their religion is assumed to be true unless it is conclusively disproved.
4) Even if something to do with their religion is conclusively proved to be false, any evidence used to prove that can be ignored simply by uttering the phrase "god created the proof".

Those people who have a religion are happy to accept everything that they view as the word of god as complete fact, without any evidence whatsoever to support it, however anything which goes against their religious beliefs is false, no matter how much evidence exists.


Now, if we compare evolution and creationism we see the following:

Evolution - Enormous amounts of proof to show it to be real.
- Almost universally accepted throughout the scientific community as being true.
- No evidence at all which conclusively proves evolution to be an incorrect idea.
- A few minor pieces which are so far unexplained.

Creationism - No proof at all to show that it is real. There has never been a single shred of evidence to show that the universe was created by god.

So obviously from those two, evolution is the only logical, rational choice for explaining how we are here today, but because of the RDS it isn't the choice that religious nutjobs make.

The final point for evolution, the fact that there are a few very minor gaps in our knowledge about evolution is enough for those who believe in the RDS to write off evolution as false and accept creationism to be true, despite the total lack of any form of proof of creationism.
Original post by TheLionHearted
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.


Why does science not being able to fully explain something yet mean that God has to exist?
Reply 83
Avatar for james22
james22
16
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


It's on you to show that there is evidence, not for me to show that there isn't.
Reply 84
Avatar for Biomed SS
Biomed SS
OP
let me get this clear, origin of life is not what evolution is trying to explain,

evolution explains the origin of different species !

i will recommend again that people read Richard Dawkins book Evidence for evolution.

regards

Biomed SS
Original post by PythianLegume
Spontaneous generation is a theory from ancient history. And the fact that science over-rules it's previously mistaken beliefs is one of the strengths of science - it becomes more and more accurate.

I don't trust the scientific methodology because of trust. The scientific methodology is logically rigorous, and I understand why science as a process works. What I said was that I trust the outcomes of science on the basis that there isn't a worldwide conspiracy. I don't have time to check up on the history of the science of microwaves and electronics before I put my bakes beans in the microwave oven. I trust that the millions of people who have studied these fields have not all decided to cover up the truth. No-one can reasonably study all of science; they don't have the time.

If you truly believe my reasoning is flawed, I suggest not stepping foot in a hospital, using any electronic device or motor vehicle, etc. until you understand and have thoroughly studied all the associated field of science personally. Otherwise, like every other human being, you're just going to have to trust that other people aren't evil scheming bastards.


It doesn't matter if the spontaneous generation theory was from now or the ancient times; it doesn't override the fact that people you call "scientists" even through the rigorous analysis and experimental can come together in their millions and can still make erroneous claims etc. Reiterating my original response, how does abiogenesis have any tangible evidence? Likewise god doesn't have any tangible evidence, so how can you go around claiming that you have "trust" in the scientific methodologies even though they "claim" hypothesises which don't have any self elevating proof. Isn't this not parallel to "faith"?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by TheLionHearted
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.


Just because one theory cannot be proved does not mean that you can assume any other theory to be correct.

I went out last night and got drunk. This morning I woke up in my own house with no recollection of how I got here.

Based on the fact that my house is a five minute walk from the bar I know I was in, and that I do not ever get a taxi home, logic says that I walked home at the end of the night.

However as I have no memory of doing so, and no proof that I walked home, I can conclusively say that I developed the power of flight and flew home.

Sure, there are plenty of logical explanations that could be applied here, but because my initial theory, that I walked home, cannot be proved I am free to believe any other theory I choose, and so I believe that I flew home.



An example that is incredibly stupid, but no more stupid than the religious argument of "there is no really solid scientific proof to show how life began on this planet, therefore we believe that all life was created by god".
[video="youtube;MEsYdiA7OL0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEsYdiA7OL0[/video]

Consider all your arguments, invalid :bubbles:
Original post by Biomed SS
let me get this clear, origin of life is not what evolution is trying to explain,

evolution explains the origin of different species !

i will recommend again that people read Richard Dawkins book Evidence for evolution.

regards

Biomed SS


No offence but Richard Dawkins should stick to his zoological studies and stop interfering with evolutionary biological studies. His book is just a mix of other people's views and evidence which you can find in any other textbook. Has he optimised any scientific discovery in biology, one would like to think so but this is simply not true.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by science over you
It doesn't matter if the spontaneous generation theory was from now or the ancient times; it doesn't override the fact that people you call "scientists" even through the rigorous analysis and experimental can come together in their millions and can still make erroneous claims etc. Reiterating my original response, how does abiogenesis have any tangible evidence? Likewise god doesn't have any tangible evidence, so how can you go around claiming that you have "trust" in the scientific methodologies even though they "claim" hypothesises which don't have any self elevating proof. Isn't this not parallel to "faith"?

Posted from TSR Mobile


Trust in scientific methodologies is completely different from trust in scientific 'claims' or theories. The scientific methodology is logically/philosophically rigorous. Theories themselves are more open to interpretation of the evidence, and as such there is always a margin for error in any scientific theory. It is the nature of knowledge that we can never know anything that happens in the world to be 100% true (the only things we can say to be 100% true are deductions of pure logic, e.g. mathematical proofs). However, once there is overwhleming evidence for something, we begin to accept it as truth. There is overwhelming evidence for various scientific theories, such as evolution or gravity, so that we can be almost completely sure that they are true and I can confidently say that I will not begin to spontaneously float in a few minutes time.

Abiogenesis is possibly a different story - I've not heard a single confident explanation of the origin of life, and scientists never claim to know the origin of life perfectly. The field is always steeped in 'this might be's.

And as others have pointed out, abiogenesis is different to evolution and are unrelated theories. Neither does the absence of a scientific explanation validate any other explanation, such as a religious one.

Again, it comes down to my final point - religious faith is always ultimately based on faith, scientific theories are ultimately based on evidence, even if everyone who believes them doesn't have access to this evidence. I doubt you've explored the science behind pharmaceuticals and pain relief, yet you'll still use a paracetamol/ibuprofen when you have a headache.
Reply 90
Avatar for Biomed SS
Biomed SS
OP
Original post by Zerohedge100
Please could you clarify how Darwin's studies exclude the possibility of predestination that the specific life forms studies would evolve in the manner observed. Darwin concluded it was down to strength/ characteristics of an individual animal and fitness for an environment but surely this is just an explanation attributed to an observation. How can you positively exclude the explanation of predestination?

If you can do this, please explain as I'm interested.




Posted from TSR Mobile


predestination from what i know means that events occur due to gods decision.

evolution demonstrates enormously, that selfishness and other factors contribute for a organism to survive. what kind of god would want to see that, a battle just to be alive so that. a battle between one person against a bacterial disease or a rabbit being able to run away in time so the fox dont eat it.

what kind of god would like to see that, in any religious context as far as im aware, god is supposed to be loving and caring not a devil who will watch living organisms die because they not fit enough to live !
which is true because gods creation was supposed to be perfect, as truth beholds its not perfect as many living organisms fail and die.
i dont think any type of god would like to plan pain and harm to the things god created in the first place.

but we all know these events still happen.

and please dont just use Darwin there has been more development on the evolution theory since his time. as we now have DNA techniques etc to back it up.
Reply 91
Avatar for Biomed SS
Biomed SS
OP
Original post by science over you
No offence but Richard Dawkins should stick to his zoological studies and stop interfering with evolutionary biological studies. His book is just a mix of other people's views and evidence which you can find in any other textbook. Has he optimised any scientific discovery in biology, one would like to think so but this is simply not true.

Posted from TSR Mobile


im sorry but i dont understand what ur saying.

the book im recommending has evidence for evolution and the explanation of what evolution is for all people from all backgrounds.

he is known as evolutionary scientist. i dont know what more u want.
Original post by PythianLegume
Trust in scientific methodologies is completely different from trust in scientific 'claims' or theories. The scientific methodology is logically/philosophically rigorous. Theories themselves are more open to interpretation of the evidence, and as such there is always a margin for error in any scientific theory. It is the nature of knowledge that we can never know anything that happens in the world to be 100% true (the only things we can say to be 100% true are deductions of pure logic, e.g. mathematical proofs). However, once there is overwhleming evidence for something, we begin to accept it as truth. There is overwhelming evidence for various scientific theories, such as evolution or gravity, so that we can be almost completely sure that they are true and I can confidently say that I will not begin to spontaneously float in a few minutes time.

Abiogenesis is possibly a different story - I've not heard a single confident explanation of the origin of life, and scientists never claim to know the origin of life perfectly. The field is always steeped in 'this might be's.

And as others have pointed out, abiogenesis is different to evolution and are unrelated theories. Neither does the absence of a scientific explanation validate any other explanation, such as a religious one.

Again, it comes down to my final point - religious faith is always ultimately based on faith, scientific theories are ultimately based on evidence, even if everyone who believes them doesn't have access to this evidence. I doubt you've explored the science behind pharmaceuticals and pain relief, yet you'll still use a paracetamol/ibuprofen when you have a headache.


This is 99% true but how is abiogenesis a better explanation then the supernatural hypothesis? Matter fact, it's a matter of going down basic chemistry; every reaction must have a catalyst. Atheistic abiogenesis is completely illogical and is not within the bounds of science or the natural world for that fact as they want us to believe that the natural world caused itself to exist by non organic material without no catalaysation occurring. This in itself is defying a scientific rule.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 93
Avatar for Biomed SS
Biomed SS
OP
Original post by Dragonrage973
[video="youtube;MEsYdiA7OL0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEsYdiA7OL0[/video]

Consider all your arguments, invalid :bubbles:


brilliant clip,

this brings to us to the fundamentals of do we understand what science is?

science never claims that one fact is 100%,

in fact science asks you all the time can u produce evidence against the fact ?

if so then the fact is wrong. but if u cant then fact is still fact.
science works best to prove itself wrong thats what science does and thats how science develops and science allows criticisms if you have a justified argument with evidence.
Original post by Biomed SS
predestination from what i know means that events occur due to gods decision.

evolution demonstrates enormously, that selfishness and other factors contribute for a organism to survive. what kind of god would want to see that, a battle just to be alive so that. a battle between one person against a bacterial disease or a rabbit being able to run away in time so the fox dont eat it.

what kind of god would like to see that, in any religious context as far as im aware, god is supposed to be loving and caring not a devil who will watch living organisms die because they not fit enough to live !
which is true because gods creation was supposed to be perfect, as truth beholds its not perfect as many living organisms fail and die.
i dont think any type of god would like to plan pain and harm to the things god created in the first place.

but we all know these events still happen.

and please dont just use Darwin there has been more development on the evolution theory since his time. as we now have DNA techniques etc to back it up.


Of course, the "God is not loving, therfore god doesn't exist because he's such an arse". Nice logic, well done. :facepalm:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by science over you
This is 99% true but how is abiogenesis a better explanation then the supernatural hypothesis? Matter fact, it's a matter of going down basic chemistry; every reaction must have a catalyst. Atheistic abiogenesis is completely illogical and is not within the bounds of science or the natural world for that fact as they want us to believe that the natural world caused itself to exist by non organic material without no catalaysation occurring. This in itself is defying a scientific rule.

Posted from TSR Mobile


"Every reaction must have a catalyst" is complete *******s. In fact, having studied Chemistry to the first year of undergraduate level, I can say that I have come across very few reactions which have a catalyst other than acid or base (which can easily be found in the natural world). Do you really believe that world-class biochemists are making elementary mistakes in basic chemistry? I accept there could be problems with abiogenesis, I'm not an expert and so can't say.

Regardless, the discussion of this thread is with regards to evolution, not abiogenesis. Evolution has an exceptional evidence base from over a hundred years of study. Evolution is a much better explanation than creationism, and I can say that confidently. I imagine an expert in abiogenesis could probably say similar things for that, too.
Original post by Algorithm69
If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys today?


lol
Original post by Flauta
Yes, you do.


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Cool story bro,

If you wanna have sex with a silver back gorilla and commit bestiality then please feel free to do so but don't force Evolution down people's throats. You wanna know what's a fact? You are a hybrid hobo between qwuasimodo and a whale.

regards,

it's no lacking outchea
#7x10 hunnit OTF
Original post by PythianLegume
"Every reaction must have a catalyst" is complete *******s. In fact, having studied Chemistry to the first year of undergraduate level, I can say that I have come across very few reactions which have a catalyst other than acid or base (which can easily be found in the natural world). Do you really believe that world-class biochemists are making elementary mistakes in basic chemistry? I accept there could be problems with abiogenesis, I'm not an expert and so can't say.

Regardless, the discussion of this thread is with regards to evolution, not abiogenesis. Evolution has an exceptional evidence base from over a hundred years of study. Evolution is a much better explanation than creationism, and I can say that confidently. I imagine an expert in abiogenesis could probably say similar things for that, too.


lol, I meant in the biochemistry sense. For example, a catalyst speeds up a reaction, this is crucial for abiogenesis as if a reaction is effectively slow it can lead to the reaction "not occuring". A reaction without a catalyst can take upto millions/trillons of years. Evolutionary biological/abiogenesis studies show that in the first stages of abiogenesis, the time span would have gone extremely fast. Between acid/alkali didn't exist before abiogenesis neither did the biodiversity or natural world we see today, so your point is moot.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by science over you
lol, I meant in the biochemistry sense. For example, a catalyst speeds up a reaction, this is crucial for abiogenesis as if a reaction is effectively slow it can lead to the reaction "not occuring". A reaction without a catalyst can take upto millions/trillons of years. Evolutionary biological/abiogenesis studies show that in the first stages of abiogenesis, the time span would have gone extremely fast.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

Posted from TSR Mobile


That link supports abiogenesis...

It debunks exactly what you're saying.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you