Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends

  • bohm

    hooberus: In order to say evolution cannot create information (which is the central claim of your article), one must have some idea of what information is, otherwise it would be a completely empty claim, nothing more than stating: "Evolution cannot create the things i dont want it to create".

    So how is information defined in that article? Kolmogorov Complexity? Entropy? what?

    I will bet you got no idea whatsoever because evolution DO increase information, trivially!

  • cofty
    By "Evolution" (capital "E") I mean the complete evolutionary naturalist version of history (molecules to man), not merely "evolution" in the limited sense of mere biological "change" (which of course everyone including Biblical creationists accept)

    This is a distiction without a difference that only exists in the mind of creationists. Its like saying, "I believe its possible for a human to walk to the next town but no way is it possible to walk all the way from coast to coast." Evolution is evolution - change over time; litttle changes add up to big changes.

  • Ding

    I think a non-evidence reason for believing something that most people believe in is the desire to conform to what other people think so as not to be ridiculed or ostracized.

    It applies in all areas of life, including both science and religion.

  • poppers

    Personally I don't "believe" in evolution; I just accept the evidence - same as I don't "believe" in gravity.

    I like how you put this.

  • Lion Cask
    Lion Cask

    Oh, now this thread is just lame. Hooberus (or is it Hubris?), congratulations. You may be the next featured video in the series "Why do people laugh at Creationists?". There are 30 in the series so far. This one is the first. Watch. Listen. Enjoy. Learn. Pull your head out of the sand and open your eyes, ears and mind. (Yeah, I know. Ain't gonna happen. Well, consider this: most of us in here have been where you are. We understand why your perspective is flawed. You have never been where we are and until you are you will rely on belief over knowledge.)

  • Finally-Free

    I'm astonished that people even have the time to give a damn.


  • Leolaia

    Non-evidence reasons for believing in the theory of relativity

    Non-evidence reason #1

    Albert Einstein was one of the smartest people who ever lived.

    Non-evidence reason #2

    Because he was so smart, spouting off relativity stuff makes me look smart.

    Non-evidence reason #3

    The Nazis despised Einstein; being pro-relativity makes you anti-Nazi and against everything the Nazis stood for.

    Non-evidence reason #4

    The theory of relativity paves the way for moral relativism which makes you less likely to be a chauvinist and ethnocentric.

    Non-evidence reason #5

    Because time dilation and time travel to the future are way cool.

  • cofty

    genius :)

  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    Bohm's arguing over definitions again. Did you ever figure out the meaning of the word believe?

    I suppose that because I can jump over a curb, I can leap over my house. Evolution is, by definition, a compilation of small changes to reach a large change. The assumption is that change is unlimited. The creationist assumption is that there is a limit to the amount of change.

    As for gravity, its effects have been observed, measured, and repeated for several hundred years. Evolution, in regards to one species giving rise to what is clearly another species, has never been observed. Yes, evolution is supposed to have happened over a time span of millions of years, but that does not negate the fact that it has never been observed. 100 years in "bacteria years" is the equivelent to several million human years. But we still have all the same bacteria as we did 100 years ago. Fruit flies are still fruit flies. Laboratory results show a limited change, but never a change to what is clearly another species.

    I have never understood why evolutionists get their knickers in a twist when it is pointed out to them that they believe that we evolved from rocks, water, air, or whatever. If that is what happened, what's the big deal? Why are they so adamant that abiogenesis is separate from evolution? Can anyone tell me at what point one stopped and the next began? Let's be real, there couldn't be evolution without abiogenisis. One flows into the other. If the thought that we evolved from rocks or air is too painful or silly to bear, perhaps it is time to reconsider your reality.

    As for the video above, it is interesting that you have to go to a kid that is not well informed and talking off the top of his head to make your point instead of going to someone that actually understands what creationists teach.

  • sabastious
    The assumption is that change is unlimited.

    Change is unlimited, all things keep going through change, forever.

    Not an assumption.


Share this