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?

[William]

[Replying to post 38 by H.sapiens]

My opinion means nothing,

Certainly, your opinion about me means nothing...

opinions are like noses ... everyone has one.

And everyone has an Ahole. Just because we all have one, doesn't mean we have to be one.

But claims backed by evidence and analysis, that's a horse's mouth of another color.

What claims did I make which have to be 'backed by evidence and analysis' or are you just being generic?

Claims about GOD existing?

If so, then the first hurdle is to determine what is meant by GOD and the next is to determine what would constitute evidence that the GOD existed.

Oh but there are already one or more threads dealing with that very topic, here on this site.

For example, this thread;
What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

Assuming the member who started that thread meant 'scientific evidence', it appears that no one had an answer to the question except that science at present is not a useful process for answering the question.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 20 by paarsurrey1]

If you assume someone "kicked it off" you get an infinite regression which isn't helpful.

Does the impossibility of an infinite regress prove God exists?
If not.
Why it is impossible, please?
Regards

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

Let's see where Abiogenesis goes first! Once you get older and hear more out-of-this-World stories, the lessons from school seem to lessen in worth. However, I "stick" to evolution as such, but there may be surprises around the corner for us to discover.

So: the Bible may actually end up shining a lot brighter (than the facade "truths" make us believe)!

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 38 by H.sapiens]

My opinion means nothing,

Certainly, your opinion about me means nothing...

opinions are like noses ... everyone has one.

And everyone has an Ahole. Just because we all have one, doesn't mean we have to be one.

But claims backed by evidence and analysis, that's a horse's mouth of another color.

What claims did I make which have to be 'backed by evidence and analysis' or are you just being generic?

Claims about GOD existing?

If so, then the first hurdle is to determine what is meant by GOD and the next is to determine what would constitute evidence that the GOD existed.

Oh but there are already one or more threads dealing with that very topic, here on this site.

For example, this thread;
What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

Assuming the member who started that thread meant 'scientific evidence', it appears that no one had an answer to the question except that science at present is not a useful process for answering the question.

Science has proven to be the best and most productive approach to examining, falsifying and integrating that man has yet discovered. Science has yet to prove productive when it comes to religion, pink unicorns or leprechauns. Perhaps this is because science is blind when it comes to religion, pink unicorns or leprechauns or, as I might suggest, given science's amazing track record in all other areas, it is more than passing likely that religion, pink unicorns and leprechauns are frauds.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 44 by H.sapiens]

H.sapiens wrote:
Science has proven to be the best and most productive approach to examining, falsifying and integrating that man has yet discovered. Science has yet to prove productive when it comes to religion, pink unicorns or leprechauns. Perhaps this is because science is blind when it comes to religion, pink unicorns or leprechauns or, as I might suggest, given science's amazing track record in all other areas, it is more than passing likely that religion, pink unicorns and leprechauns are frauds

pink unicorns and leprechauns

Doe one believe in "pink unicorns and leprechauns" to exist, please?
If not then why club them with Religion which deals with the Unseen yet existing? No founder of any revealed religion mentioned of the "pink unicorns and leprechauns". Right, please?
Why not to club them with science that deals with the Seen, please?

Regards

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 44 by H.sapiens]

H.sapiens wrote:
Science has proven to be the best and most productive approach to examining, falsifying and integrating that man has yet discovered. Science has yet to prove productive when it comes to religion, pink unicorns or leprechauns. Perhaps this is because science is blind when it comes to religion, pink unicorns or leprechauns or, as I might suggest, given science's amazing track record in all other areas, it is more than passing likely that religion, pink unicorns and leprechauns are frauds

pink unicorns and leprechauns

Doe one believe in "pink unicorns and leprechauns" to exist, please?

Some people do, some people will believe the most irrational things, take yourself for example.

If not then why club them with Religion which deals with the Unseen yet existing?

The point is that science, while unable to "club" religion, pink unicorns and leprechauns, indicates that all three are equally unlikely.

No founder of any revealed religion mentioned of the "pink unicorns and leprechauns". Right, please?

Claiming "revealed religion" as a form of evidence is meaningless, we can say the same of the revealed truths of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, an obvious fraud.

Why not to club them with science that deals with the Seen, please?

Regards

Asked and answered.

[Wootah]

[Replying to H.sapiens]

Actually I think you didn't see Paarsurry1's point.

A unicorn if it exists is a seen object. God never claimed to be seeable (I'll agree with that for the purposes of discussion).

It's just a basic category error from you.

Of course does something have to be visible to exist is a good question. But I didn't get the impression you were asking that.

If I may suggest. Unicorns, FSM and other examples suggest some fundamental lack of understanding of religion and lack of civility. Perhaps the rejection of religion on your part is the persistent clinging to simplistic viewpoints of what religion is (let alone of what Christianity is)?

At the very least it may explain making such a simple category error?

[otseng]

And everyone has an Ahole. Just because we all have one, doesn't mean we have to be one.

Moderator Final Warning

Coded profanity and indirect attacks are not allowed on the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

A unicorn if it exists is a seen object.

The typical unicorn is, but not the pink one, but I don't blame you for not know every little detail of satire.

If I may suggest. Unicorns, FSM and other examples suggest some fundamental lack of understanding of religion and lack of civility...

Let me suggest that the satire is more accurate to the real thing than you might think.

[Petrameansrock]

I think a lot of people reject evolution because it is not compatible with a literal Biblical interpretation. And because if you don't have a literal interpretation of the Bible it is hard to reconcile any of it, it is a very slippery slope to deny Biblical literalism if you are a Christian.