Who are you to say that? What on earth could possibly make you think that you are better than anybody here, let alone better than everyone by so much that you could say something as rude as that?
Evolution is change in genetics over time. That's all. There is literally no reason why belief in creationism should cause you to believe evolution is impossible.
Believing a powerful being created the universe makes you a creationist. Believing evolution is impossible just makes you ignorant. It has happened within recorded history. Animal husbandry is literally humans taking control of evolution in particular species.
I wasn’t saying that evolution wasn’t impossible I know it does happen but we do not believe it happened for humans. Like a monkey was just walking around one day and his tail fell off?
I want start by stating I don't think there is anything wrong with believing God created humans who were genetically the same species of humans we see today with no evolution having happened. I think it raises questions about the origin of other humanoid species in our genus and why God choose to create humans specifically when similar species already existed in the world. But again, I don't see anything wrong with believing that.
The problem I have is with people having a problem with learning what the theory is to better understand it because it is contrary to their religious beliefs.
And on that note, I have a problem with your statement. It's an obvious strawman argument. You make the belief in evolution seem stupid by misrepresentation and oversimplification. No primate, monkey or otherwise, changed in its life to become more human like. At least not in the theory of evolution. Instead, primate children which more closely resembled humans had a high survival or mating rate.
Over time this meant that less of the population had certain traits, and the primates who did were still less likely to have children. Even if you have start with a population that is 100% blue hair and only has a .01% chance of producing a red haired child. If every blue haired child was killed on their 30th birthday, eventually you would be up with a population that has nearly all red hair.
This is again a simplification of the process, but they key is there. Changes are the result if random mutations I'm the genetic code being beneficial enough that they get passed on more than what used to be typical. Evolution is slow.
No.
1. A monkey isn't a specific species. Different monkeys have different genetic codes. Their similarities to humans are not uniform.
2. Monkeys are not apes. Both are primates. Humans are far more closely related to other apes than we are related to monekys. We share more of our genetic code because we have a closer common ancestor.
3. Humans are only about 60% genetically similar to bananas. The number varies a little from moneky to monkey, but it's around 90% in general.
4. Even if your statement was true, it wouldn't suggest evolution was false. It would suggest we had a closer common ancestor with bananas. It would suggest that humans aren't actually primates at all. Or perhaps, oddly, that bananas were primates. It would raise a lot of questions and almost certainly shift our view of evolution. But it is not actually evidence against the theory of evolution.
Science is a method that we can used to discover what is true. Do you care about whether your beliefs are true? Remember, faith is not a reliable pathway to truth. Indeed, there is nothing one couldn't accept as true purely on faith. And just in case, no need to talk about "*true* faith"; that would be a No True Scotsman fallacy. If you care about what's true, how do you make sure your beliefs are justified?
@mostlyghostly06 The problem here is that you think it is a question of science or religion and have already made up your mind as to which is correct without even entertaining the possibility of the other even as a tool for understanding others beliefs. This is the root kind of refusal to be educated that the post is making fun of. It's also the kind of mentality that allows for discrimination and hatred to grow unchecked for generations. Even if your beliefs result in being kind and fair to all people, if your starting point is blind adherence to the religion with no room to even understand other beliefs you are still wrong. And more often than not that blind adherence actually leads to allowances to terrible acts.
Science isn't against religion. In fact some of the greatest scientific minds in history have been religious men. Often scientists found themselves at odds with the church, but this usually had very little to do with science opposing religion. It almost always had to...
...do with science opposing thoughtlessness and lack of education. Church officials understood that their power in the world came largely from the fact that most people couldn't actually read the bible for themselves and had to rely on a middle man for their ability to achieve an afterlife in heaven. Scientists supported reason. Reason is a natural enemy of the state. An ignorant people is one who is easier to control. And that is exactly what the church in those days wanted.
And some church officials may want that now, but a lot has changed, and their is less power in it now.
And as such there is less reason now than there has ever been for science and religion to be at odds. The fact is, science is sort of based on the idea that if you try really hard to disprove something and fail repeatedly, that thing must be true. Because you can't actually prove something is true without first taking some things as true on faith. And science tries to take as little on faith as possible...
...therefore nothing is true. But everything is possible. Except things we know for certain are not true. Because we can test something and prove a hypothesis false relativity easily.
And so essentially if you can't prove its false it is probably true is sort of the best we have for theories of the universe. And therefore, since we can't disprove the existence of God-there probably is one. Sure, it's a lot more complicated than that. But at its core, this is the kind of rational that Christians in the scientific community use to justify their beliefs.
The important thing is-science isn't opposed to religion. And when you refuse to even learn about something because it might oppose your beliefs, you are the problem.
Believing a powerful being created the universe makes you a creationist. Believing evolution is impossible just makes you ignorant. It has happened within recorded history. Animal husbandry is literally humans taking control of evolution in particular species.
The problem I have is with people having a problem with learning what the theory is to better understand it because it is contrary to their religious beliefs.
And on that note, I have a problem with your statement. It's an obvious strawman argument. You make the belief in evolution seem stupid by misrepresentation and oversimplification. No primate, monkey or otherwise, changed in its life to become more human like. At least not in the theory of evolution. Instead, primate children which more closely resembled humans had a high survival or mating rate.
This is again a simplification of the process, but they key is there. Changes are the result if random mutations I'm the genetic code being beneficial enough that they get passed on more than what used to be typical. Evolution is slow.
1. A monkey isn't a specific species. Different monkeys have different genetic codes. Their similarities to humans are not uniform.
2. Monkeys are not apes. Both are primates. Humans are far more closely related to other apes than we are related to monekys. We share more of our genetic code because we have a closer common ancestor.
3. Humans are only about 60% genetically similar to bananas. The number varies a little from moneky to monkey, but it's around 90% in general.
4. Even if your statement was true, it wouldn't suggest evolution was false. It would suggest we had a closer common ancestor with bananas. It would suggest that humans aren't actually primates at all. Or perhaps, oddly, that bananas were primates. It would raise a lot of questions and almost certainly shift our view of evolution. But it is not actually evidence against the theory of evolution.
Science isn't against religion. In fact some of the greatest scientific minds in history have been religious men. Often scientists found themselves at odds with the church, but this usually had very little to do with science opposing religion. It almost always had to...
And some church officials may want that now, but a lot has changed, and their is less power in it now.
And as such there is less reason now than there has ever been for science and religion to be at odds. The fact is, science is sort of based on the idea that if you try really hard to disprove something and fail repeatedly, that thing must be true. Because you can't actually prove something is true without first taking some things as true on faith. And science tries to take as little on faith as possible...
And so essentially if you can't prove its false it is probably true is sort of the best we have for theories of the universe. And therefore, since we can't disprove the existence of God-there probably is one. Sure, it's a lot more complicated than that. But at its core, this is the kind of rational that Christians in the scientific community use to justify their beliefs.
The important thing is-science isn't opposed to religion. And when you refuse to even learn about something because it might oppose your beliefs, you are the problem.