Who believes in evolution?

[ninwa]

there is no 100% concrete proof of it

Where's the 100% concrete proof for creationism?

[kurrymuncher]

there is no 100% concrete proof of it

Where's the 100% concrete proof for creationism?

There isnt, thats because its bullshit.

[lukeperry91]

People who reject evolution on account of it lacking the necessary evidence, only to accept something with even less evidence, are proles.

[Mao]

People who reject evolution on account of it lacking the necessary evidence, only to accept something with even less evidence, are proles.

People who accept evolution on account that 1) alternate theories lack evidence and 2) evolution has validated evidence, and hence reject alternate theories, are also proles.

Evolution is not proven, and it is silly to state that it is the correct theory. Many of us acknowledge this, many of us do not. A truly scientific mind is an open mind.

Hence it is silly to reject religion, but logical to believe in evolution over creationism because of current evidence.

[TrueLight]

there is no 100% concrete proof of it

Where's the 100% concrete proof for creationism?

i never said there was!

[/0]

People who reject evolution on account of it lacking the necessary evidence, only to accept something with even less evidence, are proles.

People who accept evolution on account that 1) alternate theories lack evidence and 2) evolution has validated evidence, and hence reject alternate theories, are also proles.

Evolution is not proven, and it is silly to state that it is the correct theory. Many of us acknowledge this, many of us do not. A truly scientific mind is an open mind.

Hence it is silly to reject religion, but logical to believe in evolution over creationism because of current evidence.

You're right that there is no such thing as the correct theory; there is only the best theory.
However, I'm wondering if you would apply your same logic about 'accepting evolution' to the round-earth theory.
1) alternative theories (flat-earth etc.) lack evidence
2) round-earth theory has validated evidence
Now would you be a prole for accepting the world is round?

Also, I don't think you can even call religion a 'theory', or for that matter anything 'logical'. Unlike scientific theories, religious beliefs cannot be disproven, since they are not based on any logic to begin with. You can't disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster watches over us, or that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. In fact, in Kitzmiller vs Dover (2005), the main reason why Intelligent Design was rejected, was all the other radical beliefs such as witchcraft, numerology and astrology, would have to be included under its umbrella. I think a truly scientific mind would be open to reasonable ideas, but closed to ****.

(I don't think anybody has a truly scientific mind, or we would all be robots... personal, irrational beliefs are part of being human)

[lukeperry91]

Mao, I see where you're coming from but what other criteria is there when deciding which theory(s) to accept? Some of the most seasoned minds rely solely on remedies to diseases without 100% percent concrete evidence proving that remedy's usefulness, without having to utilize the infinity of other options. In a practical sense, we have to accept what has the most validated evidence if we want to thrive. Take the evolution of the atomic model, pretense dictates that the current model is not absolute, and therefore improvements can be made on it, but that doesn't mean that in a lab anything other than the current model is considered.

[sxcalexc]

A quarter of participants don't believe in evolution; just wow. Given what we currently know, to not accept evolution as the best theory is ludicrous.

[TrueLight]

the question is very broad you can interpret it in many ways

[clinton_09]

I haven't read what other people have said but excuse me if i have repeated what has already been said. If evolution does exist, then why aren't apes and monkeys still transforming, how did they just stop? also Darwin didnt even believe what he made up, he was shocked that people believed him. Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.

[ReVeL]

If evolution does exist, then why aren't apes and monkeys still transforming, how did they just stop?

Doesn't evolution take place over millions of years? Therefore they could still be transforming but it would seem to us they weren't, because of our relatively short history.

[ninwa]

Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.

Because there couldn't possibly be any other reason one would become a Christian except to signify their disbelief in the theory of evolution ... ?

[excal]

@/0
Ok, but is there any evidence/testing of evolution? You didn't show any.
And I did say it was a good theory.

Ok, but did you show any evidence/testing of creationism? Oh and,

Over9000: How do you test God? I want to hear your answers.

As I said above belief requires faith. No test.

doesn't count. I could simply say that 'I believe in evolution and therefore it is right', which is what you're saying that it should be ('[it] requires faith, no test') for creationism.

For the record, I am a Catholic.

m@tty - have you no response to this? Or are you just avoiding having to defend the indefensible (that the burden of proof for creationism ought to be lower than for evolution)?

I have noticed that you were on the site today at 12pm.

[clinton_09]

Also the fact that Darwin became a christian is pretty solid proof that evolution does not exist.

Because there couldn't possibly be any other reason one would become a Christian except to signify their disbelief in the theory of evolution ... ?

no i wasnt saying that, but the fact he created the theory, then through further scientific research discovering his "theory" was not correct but christianity was, is a significant point. I'm a christian myself and IMO i believe evolution is ridiculous, however if anyone wishes to believe in that theory then good for them.

[m@tty]

Like this better??
'Belief in God requires faith and a personal test, there is no communal test'

When I said 'no test' with relation to religion, I meant there is no universal evidence. One mans 'test' will not satisfy anothers skepticism, because it is supernatural it does not fit in with general world views and is thus rejected by everyone who has not had personal proof.

Belief comes from understanding the 'proof'(personal or communal) for yourself. Where this proof comes from is different for all things. With religion to understand for yourself you must in some way witness God, be this an act or communication or anything else, the main thing is the personal experience must provide rock solid evidence to you that God is real, if you do not have this you stand no chance of continuing belief.

There must be strong communal proof for any scientific hypothesis, as it must withstand the scrutiny of the scientific community. What happens with religion cannot happen with scientific hypotheses, you must find strong evidence for your ideas in order to be able to show others that your ideas are correct/the best explanation for unexplained occurrences or better than other explanations.
i.e. if a monkey spirit came and told you it is your ancestor it may make you believe but it will mean nothing except lower credibility amongst scientists and probably a straight jacket.
This applies to evolution you must either understand why you believe it by considering the evidence yourself or you just trust all the scientist(majority) who agree.

All belief requires some kind of personal 'test' whether this test can be shared is where logic(fit in with common sense and is natural comes in, all scientific proof must be logical(shareable), all religious proof is not logical(cannot be shared to have same effect)
It is this difference in nature of scientific and spiritual understanding that allows them to work together.