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?

[Rufus21]

My bias leans that way because I see it as extremely plausible and a good answer for why this creative process exists as a mindful process. You see no mind, because your bias leans the other way. Plain and simple.

You keep saying that I am biased simply because I disagree with you. I asked you to explain this but you refused:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 569#890569

I am starting with an open mind and no preconceived notions. I am examining all the evidence and accepting all possibilities. The fact that the evidence does not support your beliefs is not related to me in any way. Others in this thread seem to agree.

In fact I even tried to look at it through the same filter as you and it still didn't make any sense. Even when I ignore the facts and try to understand your opinions, it just doesn't add up. Someone with the same bias you have should not come to the same conclusions.

So I don't know how to continue a discussion when facts are ignored and personal biases are required to interpret opinions.

[PghPanther]

However, I take into account the fact that at least we know that in order for design to take place, intelligence is required - as there are plenty of examples to go by regarding that.

But that simply isn't true. We have seen complexity arise from simplicity using a mindless process without any intelligent interference. We know for a fact that it happens. You can't ignore this and expect to see the truth.

Certainly you're not speaking of living things. We have seen a complexity arise from simplicity? Please do give one example where it has been 'seen'. I have scoured the planet for such an observance and have not found one. If you have please share.

Have you actually seen grass grow while watching it?........have you seen infants grow into people while staring at them?

How do we know that happens since we can observe it in real time?...........well we can invest time in making comparisons of the evidence we have both with before and after experience, photos, videos etc to make that comparison and come to a conclusion that grass grows and people age..........

Now connect the dots........

[2timothy316]

However, I take into account the fact that at least we know that in order for design to take place, intelligence is required - as there are plenty of examples to go by regarding that.

But that simply isn't true. We have seen complexity arise from simplicity using a mindless process without any intelligent interference. We know for a fact that it happens. You can't ignore this and expect to see the truth.

Certainly you're not speaking of living things. We have seen a complexity arise from simplicity? Please do give one example where it has been 'seen'. I have scoured the planet for such an observance and have not found one. If you have please share.

Have you actually seen grass grow while watching it?........have you seen infants grow into people while staring at them?

How do we know that happens since we can observe it in real time?...........well we can invest time in making comparisons of the evidence we have both with before and after experience, photos, videos etc to make that comparison and come to a conclusion that grass grows and people age..........

Now connect the dots........

Um no. Nice try. I mean life evolving from a tiny fish all the way to a human. Please show the example of that, every single step. If you can't show every step then it's not proven true and you're missing some dots.

[Bust Nak]

Um no. Nice try. I mean life evolving from a tiny fish all the way to a human. Please show the example of that, every single step. If you can't show every step then it's not proven true and you're missing some dots.

But if you can't provide every single step of grass grow or people age, why would you challenge someone to do a even harder task?

[2timothy316]

Um no. Nice try. I mean life evolving from a tiny fish all the way to a human. Please show the example of that, every single step. If you can't show every step then it's not proven true and you're missing some dots.

But if you can't provide every single step of grass grow or people age, why would you challenge someone to do a even harder task?

I didn't give the challenge. Here is what was said,

"We have seen complexity arise from simplicity using a mindless process without any intelligent interference. We know for a fact that it happens. You can't ignore this and expect to see the truth."

I'm asking for what 'we have seen'. And BTW people can and do show every step of a person's growth. Just search 'daily pictures of fetus' and 'daily pictures of a person growing up'. I did it and found what you say is a hard challenge in like 15 secs. However, I have never seen such a thing that supports evolution. Just speculation. I have never seen an animal were it's heart evolved before its veins. Or veins before its heart. If evolution was true then we should see something in the mid stages of evolution. Nothing like that has ever been seen as it was claimed. What we see today are finished products and a finished product can't be used for evidence of evolution. It like saying here is how we built a car and then just giving someone a completed car and saying, 'that's how we did it.' So they said they have the evidence and I'm asking for it. Beside complexity is already in a fetus in the way of DNA. Its like that car, the car is a complex thing in it's planning. What evolution says is that complexity comes on it's own and never has there been a car that got more complex on it's own. Why should I think that DNA, which is waaaaaay more complex than a car get more complex on its own?

[Rufus21]

I mean life evolving from a tiny fish all the way to a human. Please show the example of that, every single step. If you can't show every step then it's not proven true and you're missing some dots.

Ah yes, the old "Pics or it didn't happen" excuse.

It's actually much easier than you make it seem. We don't have to rely on fossil evidence anymore, so missing links are not a problem. Genetics can show us every step of the way. For example:

http://presse.inra.fr/en/Press-releases ... s-and-fish

This has been known for a long time and the information is everywhere. A simple search will show you everything you need to know. Or if you insist on actual photos of evolution in progress:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4713003884

Now, can you prove every single step of your evidence of a supernatural creator? Are there any missing dots?

[Rufus21]

If evolution was true then we should see something in the mid stages of evolution. Nothing like that has ever been seen as it was claimed.

That evidence exists in almost every life form if you know where to look:



In fact, I could argue that every single extant life form is in the mid stages of evolution since it will eventually change into something else (assuming it survives).

What we see today are finished products and a finished product can't be used for evidence of evolution.

Unless we could see the progress of life over time. In your car example, we could see the assembly line where the pieces are put together and the car is being built over time. Or we could take it apart and see how all the pieces fit together and compare it to pieces of earlier, simpler cars to see how they changed. A finished product can tell us a lot.

What evolution says is that complexity comes on it's own and never has there been a car that got more complex on it's own.

Never has there been a car that reproduced with genetic mutations. On the other hand, there have been billions of life forms that show complexity evolving from simpler forms. Literally everything that has ever existed is another form of proof.

Why should I think that DNA, which is waaaaaay more complex than a car get more complex on its own?

Because we've seen it. I don't know how much simpler the answer can be.

[2timothy316]

I mean life evolving from a tiny fish all the way to a human. Please show the example of that, every single step. If you can't show every step then it's not proven true and you're missing some dots.

Ah yes, the old "Pics or it didn't happen" excuse.

Odd, do you not ask for evidence? Why is it an 'excuse' when I ask but not when you do?

It's actually much easier than you make it seem. We don't have to rely on fossil evidence anymore, so missing links are not a problem. Genetics can show us every step of the way. For example:

http://presse.inra.fr/en/Press-releases ... s-and-fish

It still is not enough to prove evolution. Missing links will always be a problem for those that are trying to use real science to prove evolution. Anything else is speculation for us that need to 'see' it before we believe it. That is what science is you know. Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

So where is the experiment I can observe? I saw no experiments in your link showing a zebrafish to spotted gar to human. There is no proof.

Mankind is also 60% banana. I am excited to see the 'bridge' between us and a banana.

This has been known for a long time and the information is everywhere. A simple search will show you everything you need to know. Or if you insist on actual photos of evolution in progress:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4713003884

Um not quite. Evolution is supposed to be without intelligent influence. What you showed me here was human involvement in a lab to get a particular result with bacteria.

Now, can you prove every single step of your evidence of a supernatural creator? Are there any missing dots?

Actually your link above supports intelligent design as humans were directly involved in altering the bacteria. That's intelligence influencing an outcome on a lower organism. You have added more dots...but not the side you thought. What you need to show is a bacteria evolving its DNA by adding DNA information where it was never present before. Adding a flagella to an organism that already can add a flagella to itself is not evolution as the adding of a flagella is already in its DNA code. A bacteria adding a fin to itself without any intelligent involvement now that would be interesting. However how is adding a flagella to move faster different from ants that add wings to migrate? The explanation is not evolution but DNA. The bacteria has the DNA code to add flagella just like an ant has the DNA code to grow wings. But no one is shouting about evolution when ants do this. The flagella like the wings serve a purpose. Do you know what something that serves a purpose is called? It's called a design and a design means 'to conceive and plan out in the mind'. It also means 'to have as a purpose'.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design

You didn't help your argument.

[Bust Nak]

Odd, do you not ask for evidence? Why is it an 'excuse' when I ask but not when you do?

Because it is unreasonable to not accept empirical evidence we do have for evolution while demand more.

And BTW people can and do show every step of a person's growth. Just search 'daily pictures of fetus' and 'daily pictures of a person growing up'.

What would you say to those who reject such pictures with "Daily? It still is not enough to prove aging. Missing hours will always be a problem for those that are trying to use real science to prove aging. Anything else is speculation..."

[2timothy316]

Odd, do you not ask for evidence? Why is it an 'excuse' when I ask but not when you do?

Because it is unreasonable to not accept empirical evidence we do have for evolution while demand more.

So what you are saying is that the poster that said, "We have seen complexity arise from simplicity using a mindless process without any intelligent interference." should not have said that.

And BTW people can and do show every step of a person's growth. Just search 'daily pictures of fetus' and 'daily pictures of a person growing up'.

What would you say to those who reject such pictures with "Daily? It still is not enough to prove aging. Missing hours will always be a problem for those that are trying to use real science to prove aging. Anything else is speculation..."

But evolution is not even showing the above. No, it's like they are showing me a child in one pic and then showing a fish in the next and saying, that's the same person. Certainly you can see why I'm skeptical. There is no pics of a something in mid evolution. Not a single one. There is nothing on earth that is a 3rd, half, a 4th or even 99.9% between changes. It's all finished product.