Why some people reject evolution

[Danmark]

[you can skip the intro and go right to the last paragraph]

Growing up, I was seldom interested in math. At first it seemed tedious and boring. I invented my own shortcuts to make it easier. Later it required discipline when it got too difficult to do in my head. So, i loved geometry, but lost interest after trig, which I didn't even try to understand. I've been thinking of trying to teach myself calculus, just to see if, at 69 I can do it. So, I looked for a free online course of study and found this:

As Henry Ford said, " Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs ". Too much of the world is complicated by layers of evolution. If you understand how each layer is put down then you can begin to understand the complex systems that govern our world. Charles Darwin wrote in 1859 in his On The Origin of Species,

"When we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond his comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which had a history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, nearly in the same as when we look at any great mechanical invention as the summing of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting, I speak from experience, will the study of natural history become! " http://www.understandingcalculus.com/

So here's the question, do people not believe in evolution just because the Bible tells them so? Or is there another factor; that rather than try to understand it in small steps, one tiny transition at a time, since the entirety of the process ("microbe to man") seems impossible to them, do they reject it out of hand without looking at it step by step?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Do you really believe the theory of evolution either claims or depends on the idea that a bird suddenly gives birth to a reptile? When you ask:

"I also understand that we've never seen an animals produce what they aren't, only what they are. So when a reptile evolved into a bird, the reptile was producing something fundamentally different than what it was, thus, an animal "producing what it isn't, not what it is," it suggests this is what you think; that change that require hundred of billions of years take place in 40.

Not at all. My stance on evolution (macro) is even bolder than that. I am saying that macroevolution did not take place suddenly, nor did it take place gradually. So, all areas are covered here.

I get it. Since we are unable to observe these macro changes real time, the evolutionist must take the all-too-convenient stance of "oh, it happened so long ago. It takes so long to occur", so that they will conveniently take themselves and any other person out of the observational equation, but yet, it happens.

"No one has EVER saw it happen"
"No one will EVER see it happen"
"But guess what, it happens"

Far too convenient.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 200 by For_The_Kingdom]

Since we are unable to observe these macro changes real time, the evolutionist must take the all-too-convenient stance of "oh, it happened so long ago. It takes so long to occur", so that they will conveniently take themselves and any other person out of the observational equation, but yet, it happens.

Good grief! Really? It is not about taking a convenient stance. The evidence shows that it does take a long time and it did occur in the distant past. There is no element of choice involved. Your post reflects a desperate attempt to discredit what is the most supported scientific theory we have. Evolution is a fact. Get over it.

[DeMotts]

Do you really believe the theory of evolution either claims or depends on the idea that a bird suddenly gives birth to a reptile? When you ask:

"I also understand that we've never seen an animals produce what they aren't, only what they are. So when a reptile evolved into a bird, the reptile was producing something fundamentally different than what it was, thus, an animal "producing what it isn't, not what it is," it suggests this is what you think; that change that require hundred of billions of years take place in 40.

Not at all. My stance on evolution (macro) is even bolder than that. I am saying that macroevolution did not take place suddenly, nor did it take place gradually. So, all areas are covered here.

I get it. Since we are unable to observe these macro changes real time, the evolutionist must take the all-too-convenient stance of "oh, it happened so long ago. It takes so long to occur", so that they will conveniently take themselves and any other person out of the observational equation, but yet, it happens.

"No one has EVER saw it happen"
"No one will EVER see it happen"
"But guess what, it happens"

Far too convenient.

No one has ever seen the Colorado river carve out the Grand Canyon.
No one has ever seen a continent drift across an ocean.
No one has ever seen a granite mountain rise out of the earth.
No one has ever seen a star live it's life and die.

These things have happened. No one has seen them. But they happened.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Good grief! Really? It is not about taking a convenient stance. The evidence shows that it does take a long time and it did occur in the distant past.

What evidence?

There is no element of choice involved. Your post reflects a desperate attempt to discredit what is the most supported scientific theory we have. Evolution is a fact. Get over it.

Christian theism is a fact. Get over it.

[Danmark]

Good grief! Really? It is not about taking a convenient stance. The evidence shows that it does take a long time and it did occur in the distant past.

What evidence?

There is no element of choice involved. Your post reflects a desperate attempt to discredit what is the most supported scientific theory we have. Evolution is a fact. Get over it.

Christian theism is a fact. Get over it.

The evidence for evolution and the fact it occurs over millions of years is so overwhelming it is considered a fact as well as a theory.

Evolution is both fact and theory....
... the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Christian theism by definition is not a fact, it is a belief. Now you are just misusing language.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 198 by Danmark]
That post had a typo and sentence structure errors. It should read:

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

"I also understand that we've never seen an animals produce what they aren't, only what they are. So when a reptile evolved into a bird, the reptile was producing something fundamentally different than what it was, thus, an animal "producing what it isn't, not what it is,"

Your post suggests this is what you think; that change that requires hundreds of millions of years takes place in 40.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No one has ever seen the Colorado river carve out the Grand Canyon.
No one has ever seen a continent drift across an ocean.
No one has ever seen a granite mountain rise out of the earth.
No one has ever seen a star live it's life and die.

So the question is what evidence do we have to believe in things that we haven't observed??

These things have happened. No one has seen them. But they happened.

Based on what evidence? I'm sure you will be able to provide evidence for each of those things, right? Well, that would mean that evidence is backing up the claims, right?

Well, I am saying that I see no such evidence for macroevolution.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Your post suggests this is what you think; that change that requires hundreds of millions of years takes place in 40.[/color][/b]

A reptile evolving into a bird in 40 years is just as absurd as a reptile evolving into a bird in 400 million years.

Age doesn't help the theory, in my opinion.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 207 by For_The_Kingdom]

A reptile evolving into a bird in 40 years is just as absurd as a reptile evolving into a bird in 400 million years.

Age doesn't help the theory, in my opinion.

The changes involved in what you call "macro" evolution (which isn't a scientific term ... just something theists use to artificially distinguish between small evolutionary changes which they accept because this doesn't torpedo the biblical creation story, and larger evolutionary changes that create new species and things like reptiles to birds, which does not jive with biblical myth) do take time. So it is impossible for large changes to occur in 40 years for large animals like reptiles and birds, because such changes are only the result of a cumulation of many small changes, each taking possibly many generations to occur.

The time frames you need to think about are multiples of one generation cycle. If a bacterium has a lifetime of only 30 minutes, then there are 48 generational cycles in a single 24 hour day. In that case evolutionary changes happen much faster (still possibly many thousands or even millions of generations) compared to something like a human with a 25 year (or so) generational cycle. And of course there are plenty of bacterial diseases in humans that have developed resistance to vaccines in relatively short periods of time. If you could see these bacteria with your naked eye you would call those changes "macro" evolution, but it is no different than the reptile to bird sequence of which we do know a great deal about.

So time is a big factor in evolutionary change, and there is no such things a "micro" and "macro" evolution ... just terminology made up by anti-evolutionists to create an artificial distinction between things they are OK with believing, and things they are not.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The evidence for evolution and the fact it occurs over millions of years is so overwhelming it is considered a fact as well as a theory.

Evolution is both fact and theory....
... the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Christian theism by definition is not a fact, it is a belief. Now you are just misusing language.

Science is supposed to be based a methodology based on observation, experiment, and prediction.

1.Observation: You've never observed macroevolution (reptile-bird).

2. Experiment: You've never conducted an experiment which would lead you to the macro direction.

3. Prediction: Based on the lack of #1 & #2, there is no way to predict when such changes will ever occur, if at all.

So basically, evolution (macro) technically aint science. Now of course, many of you would like to think that it is science, but it really isn't. It is a presupposition, which is fine. But when you start calling presuppositions facts, that's when it becomes an issue.