• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What are some non-biblical/religious arguments against evolution?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: MikeSci457DC
What I don't get is how people always compare evolution to gravity....

Evolution works through a mechanism called natural selection. It's observable. I've observed it.

If anyone could point me towards a clear, concise, and correct mechanism of gravity it would be wonderful. Until then I am more apt to believe in evolution than gravity.


Edited for spelling😕
Click to expand...
As I understand it, spacetime gets curved, the traditional explanation being a thin rubber sheet. Mass deflects the rubber sheet, causing objects in motion to curve toward the mass. It is as if an object moving in a straight line continues to do so, but its "straight" path is actually curved as a result of the "medium" - spacetime - itself being curved. Put an ant on a Mobius Strip. As far as she's concerned, she's going in a straight line, when actually her path is curved.
 
Originally posted by: Superrock
Evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy and things progressing towards greater and greater disorder.

In order for a complex organ like the eye to evolve it would need simultaneous, complex connections to evolve simultaneously. Statistically this isn't possible, nor would it make sense for it to occur because the construction of the eye is an all or nothing in terms of functionality.
Click to expand...

Google around for irreducible complexity and you'll find that you're wrong.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: GregGreen
What is so hard to believe about natural selection? Is it that hard to draw the conceptual link from humans doing artificial selection on domesticated animals to animals that will reproduce more successfully in the wild because they are better suited to the environment? Of course I wouldn't believe in evolution either if I thought the world was only 6,000 years old...
Click to expand...

Natural selection is a whole other theory.
Click to expand...
Natural selection isn't a theory at all.

What is so easy is poking holes in Evolution. One can do this when they aren't blinded by their faith in evolution and step outside their own beliefs to see the shortcomings.
Click to expand...
Well-poisoning. Typical creationist claptrap.

 
Damn, it ... I started reading this, but my tail (what is known as your tailbone) is kinda punching into the seat a little bit. It kinda feals wired..


*adjusts* ... ahh all better.
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: MikeSci457DC
What I don't get is how people always compare evolution to gravity....

Evolution works through a mechanism called natural selection. It's observable. I've observed it.

If anyone could point me towards a clear, concise, and correct mechanism of gravity it would be wonderful. Until then I am more apt to believe in evolution than gravity.


Edited for spelling😕
Click to expand...
As I understand it, spacetime gets curved, the traditional explanation being a thin rubber sheet. Mass deflects the rubber sheet, causing objects in motion to curve toward the mass. It is as if an object moving in a straight line continues to do so, but its "straight" path is actually curved as a result of the "medium" - spacetime - itself being curved. Put an ant on a Mobius Strip. As far as she's concerned, she's going in a straight line, when actually her path is curved.
Click to expand...

but how does gravity actually act? if I were to remove that mass, what would happen to the sheet? Those are the questions about gravity.
 
Originally posted by: Garth
What is so easy is poking holes in Evolution. One can do this when they aren't blinded by their faith in evolution and step outside their own beliefs to see the shortcomings.
Click to expand...
Well-poisoning. Typical creationist claptrap.
Click to expand...

You assume too much. I never stated a position eitherway.

But I am open-minded enough to take into accounts all aspects of science the the "theory" of evolution without being blinded by faith.

Why do you close your mind so blindly to your faith?
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Garth
What is so easy is poking holes in Evolution. One can do this when they aren't blinded by their faith in evolution and step outside their own beliefs to see the shortcomings.
Click to expand...
Well-poisoning. Typical creationist claptrap.
Click to expand...

You assume too much. I never stated a position eitherway.
Click to expand...
You don't have to state your position for your statements to be typical of creationist claptrap.

But I am open-minded enough to take into accounts all aspects of science the the "theory" of evolution without being blinded by faith.

Why do you close your mind so blindly to your faith?
Click to expand...
Because it is an abuse of language to describe belief in evolution as "faith." Willfully or not, you are ignorant of the validation evolution has already received and continues to receive daily in laboratories across the globe. We don't usually describe our confidence in such successful scientific ideas as "faith." It is only the pathetic creationists that hope to characterize evolutionists to be what is fortunately only true for them: holding onto ideas that are in absolute contradiction with the facts due to nothing more than ignorant dogmatism.

Open-minded, my ass.
 
Originally posted by: morkman100
Originally posted by: XMan
I don't deny that species can adapt to changes in environment, and those that do tend to survive, but the one question I've had about evolution (and never had explained to my satisfaction) is - if mankind descended from apes, why are there still apes? Dinosaurs were the predecessors to birds, but there aren't any more dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

Evolution does not say that Man evolved from Apes. It says that Man and Ape have a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

Side question, isn't man an ape himself? Don't we belong in the same biological family/class as other apes?
 
Originally posted by: w3stfa11
Originally posted by: morkman100
Originally posted by: XMan
I don't deny that species can adapt to changes in environment, and those that do tend to survive, but the one question I've had about evolution (and never had explained to my satisfaction) is - if mankind descended from apes, why are there still apes? Dinosaurs were the predecessors to birds, but there aren't any more dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

Evolution does not say that Man evolved from Apes. It says that Man and Ape have a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

Side question, isn't man an ape himself? Don't we belong in the same biological family/class as other apes?
Click to expand...
Humans are primates, yes, although not all primates are causally described as "apes." We are of the family Hominidae, which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans (usually described as the "great apes").
 
Originally posted by: Superrock
In order for a complex organ like the eye to evolve it would need simultaneous, complex connections to evolve simultaneously. Statistically this isn't possible, nor would it make sense for it to occur because the construction of the eye is an all or nothing in terms of functionality.
Click to expand...

Although I'm tempted to just yell at you, I don't want to get spittle on my LCD. Instead I invite you to watch this.
 
Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Damn, it ... I started reading this, but my tail (what is known as your tailbone) is kinda punching into the seat a little bit. It kinda feals wired..


*adjusts* ... ahh all better.
Click to expand...


lol :thumbsup: vestigial tails ftw.
 
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Garth
What is so easy is poking holes in Evolution. One can do this when they aren't blinded by their faith in evolution and step outside their own beliefs to see the shortcomings.
Click to expand...
Well-poisoning. Typical creationist claptrap.
Click to expand...

You assume too much. I never stated a position eitherway.
Click to expand...
You don't have to state your position for your statements to be typical of creationist claptrap.

But I am open-minded enough to take into accounts all aspects of science the the "theory" of evolution without being blinded by faith.

Why do you close your mind so blindly to your faith?
Click to expand...
Because it is an abuse of language to describe belief in evolution as "faith." Willfully or not, you are ignorant of the validation evolution has already received and continues to receive daily in laboratories across the globe. We don't usually describe our confidence in such successful scientific ideas as "faith." It is only the pathetic creationists that hope to characterize evolutionists to be what is fortunately only true for them: holding onto ideas that are in absolute contradiction with the facts due to nothing more than ignorant dogmatism.

Open-minded, my ass.
Click to expand...


yeah, arguing that "belief" in evolution constitutes "faith" presents a fundamantal ignorance to what science is, and how it works. Furthermore, it shows that such a mind is forever blinded by some particular faith, and unwilling to accept that there are other methods of seeking truth in this Universe (by fallible, emprical means). You may "believe" that you are open-minded...but simply, your wanton use and misunderstanding of the word "belief" shows how closed-minded you are 😉

Science represents a human-imposed means of testing natural laws. Laws which we give names to, yes, but that hold up through rigorous testing.

Religion represents human-imposed explanations towards natural phenomena that reject any means of testing or even questioning.
 
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
The origin of species is in the fiction section of my local bookstore. Obviously only fiction would be found in the fiction section right? 😕
Click to expand...


you live in Kansas, I take it?
 
Lol...Dinosaurs...yeah, what will they think up next?

THERE NEVER WERE ANY DINOSAURS, PEOPLE. IT WAS ALL JUST A HOAX

As for evolution, I can't say I know one way or the other, but it seems like just another scam like global warming or affirmative action or Dancing With the Stars.
 
Originally posted by: scootermaster
Lol...Dinosaurs...yeah, what will they think up next?

THERE NEVER WERE ANY DINOSAURS, PEOPLE. IT WAS ALL JUST A HOAX

As for evolution, I can't say I know one way or the other, but it seems like just another scam like global warming or affirmative action or Dancing With the Stars.
Click to expand...

My sarcasm meter just collapsed into a singularity.... are you serious or not?
 
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
And the mathematical probability of everything in the Bible happening?

PWNED.
Click to expand...

P(EITBH) > P(Evolution) + P(Abiogenesis)
Click to expand...

Impossible. P(Evolution) and P(Abiogenesis) are both 1.

EDIT: I'm not even joking, BTW. Both evolution and abiogenesis are observed events.
 
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
And the mathematical probability of everything in the Bible happening?

PWNED.
Click to expand...

P(EITBH) > P(Evolution) + P(Abiogenesis)
Click to expand...

This actually raises another interesting point.

We have literally billions upon billions of data points recording instances where dead people have stayed dead and did not resurrect after 3 days of being dead.

If we were to regard the allegation of Jesus' resurrection objectively, we would label it an out lier, and absent extraordinarily convincing evidence to the contrary, we should assume that it is a measurement error.

Of course, when all the evidence is restricted to ancient anonymous manuscripts that themselves exhibit evidence of tampering and plagiarism, we shouldn't assume anything else.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: MikeSci457DC
What I don't get is how people always compare evolution to gravity....

Evolution works through a mechanism called natural selection. It's observable. I've observed it.

If anyone could point me towards a clear, concise, and correct mechanism of gravity it would be wonderful. Until then I am more apt to believe in evolution than gravity.


Edited for spelling😕
Click to expand...

We don't understand gravity and still can't truly explain it.

Similar to evolution.

A true scientist understands this. I'm not trolling.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: Just like light. Scientists don't truly know what light is. Sure, we can describe it, but we don't understand the very nature of light, among other things.

And its entirely likely that we will never, not in an infinite amount of time, find out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top