Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Jose Fly]

Their behaviors aren't coping methods either. It's entirely inaccurate to claim such, as their behaviors are rooted in their beliefs, and what they are are the results of such highly insulated and highly filtered subcultures. Prayer is how they cope. Stating fallacies and errors when it comes to science is because that subculture does control information coming in. Ken Ham isn't coping to them, it's hearing the same thing they've read in their church literature.

We'll just have to disagree on this. I see a great deal of similarities between the behaviors of creationists, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and global warming deniers. Even though the beliefs of those groups vary considerably, their behaviors are quite similar.

I suggest you look into the topic of denialism. It's quite informative and helps makes sense of a lot of what goes on here.

 

[LightofTruth]

Once again, ALL rather beside the point of whether evolution is a real phenomenon and whether humans really are a type of ape.

It's easy to look at similarities and make classifications. it's also easy to see the great divide.

 

[Jose Fly]

@LightofTruth a question....obviously you deny the notion that humans share an evolutionary common ancestry with other primates. However, the world's life scientists have concluded that we do have such an evolutionary past.

My question for you...how do you explain that? Do you believe these scientists are bad at their jobs? Do you believe they're involved in a massive conspiracy? Or do you have some other explanation?

 

[LightofTruth]

@LightofTruth a question....obviously you deny the notion that humans share an evolutionary common ancestry with other primates. However, the world's life scientists have concluded that we do have such an evolutionary past.

My question for you...how do you explain that? Do you believe these scientists are bad at their jobs? Do you believe they're involved in a massive conspiracy? Or do you have some other explanation?

I believe that their assumption that man morphed from apes is incorrect. Skulls of different creatures similar to man does not mean those skulls are pre-human. your term "evolutionary ancestry" has no proof. If it did then it would be the greatest news of all time. However, there have been some hoaxes.

 

[Audie]

@LightofTruth a question....obviously you deny the notion that humans share an evolutionary common ancestry with other primates. However, the world's life scientists have concluded that we do have such an evolutionary past.

My question for you...how do you explain that? Do you believe these scientists are bad at their jobs? Do you believe they're involved in a massive conspiracy? Or do you have some other explanation?

I want to know how people get to know
more than any scientist on earth without
ever having to study

WHY dont the use their talents to cure cancer???
Hydrogen fusion?

 

[LightofTruth]

I want to know how people get to know
more than any scientist on earth without
ever having to study

WHY dont the use their talents to cure cancer???
Hydrogen fusion?

Ask the elephants.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I want to know how people get to know
more than any scientist on earth without
ever having to study

WHY dont the use their talents to cure cancer???
Hydrogen fusion?

Too busy fighting ebil evolutionists.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We'll just have to disagree on this.

I used to be one of them. It's not coping, it's bad information from the top down combined with a subculture that is highly insular and does filter information. It's a rigid faith that has become toxic. For many, it's all they know.

 

[LightofTruth]

Too busy fighting ebil evolutionists.

It seems that what evolutionist are most concerned with is proving creationist wrong. They would love to spit in the face of creationist. Except it will never happen.

 

[Polymath257]

It's easy to look at similarities and make classifications. it's also easy to see the great divide.

It's also much more work to look deeper than appearances and to collect actual data to help you in your investigation.

The people who study evolution *don't* start out assuming that some ape 'morphed' (what a word) into humans.

Instead, they look at the evidence from fossils, genetics, comparative anatomy, etc, and look for the explanations that best fit that evidence.

You like to claim that the evidence doesn't prove evolution. This is just as true that the evidence doesn't *prove* general relativity. But both explanations have weathered many attempts to show them wrong, have been able to make predictions that have been shown to be true, and are therefor the best scientific explanations we currently have.

Creationism, on the other hand, was found to be lacking in the evidence department by about 1820 and hasn't gotten any better since.

 

[Jose Fly]

I believe that their assumption that man morphed from apes is incorrect.

Yes, we all realize that. And as I noted, the scientific community has concluded otherwise for quite some time now.

My question is...how do you explain that? Have the world's life scientists collectively been bad at their jobs for the last century? Have they been conspiring?

Skulls of different creatures similar to man does not mean those skulls are pre-human. your term "evolutionary ancestry" has no proof.

How exactly do you know? Have you studied the scientific data and analyses?

 

[Polymath257]

It seems that what evolutionist are most concerned with is proving creationist wrong. They would love to spit in the face of creationist. Except it will never happen.

That's actually an illusion that comes from being on an internet forum. Most people who study evolution go about their business without giving creationists a second thought.

Actual scientists are more interested in testing their ideas, challenging their assumptions, and doing the field work that is required to get reliable information. They seldom think about creationism except, perhaps as a strange cultural phenomenon.

 

[Jose Fly]

I want to know how people get to know
more than any scientist on earth without
ever having to study

WHY dont the use their talents to cure cancer???
Hydrogen fusion?

Exactly. Does @LightofTruth consider himself to be an expert in evolutionary biology? Paleontology? Genetics?

 

[Polymath257]

I believe that their assumption that man morphed from apes is incorrect. Skulls of different creatures similar to man does not mean those skulls are pre-human. your term "evolutionary ancestry" has no proof. If it did then it would be the greatest news of all time. However, there have been some hoaxes.

Well, we can determine *when* those skulls formed and thereby determine they were pre-human. No humans remains have been found from over about 300,000 years ago. So, anything before that is pre-human.

In particular, Homo erectus is pre-human. It also has many of the characteristics of humans, from fire usage, to standing upright. But H. erectus is also clearly a different species.

Before that, we have Homo habilus. Again, it stood upright, used tools, and had a largish brain size for its body size. It was *before* H. erectus and was, thereby pre-human.

The problem with 'great news' is that people can ignore it (like many creationists), or they just don't care (like most others).

Yes, there have been hoaxes. That doesn't eliminate the *real* cases that have been found. And, I might point out, the hoaxes were uncovered by those scientists studying and trying to understand the development of humans. When the hoaxes didn't fit into the data, they became suspicious.

 

[Jose Fly]

I used to be one of them. It's not coping, it's bad information from the top down combined with a subculture that is highly insular and does filter information. It's a rigid faith that has become toxic. For many, it's all they know.

We may be talking past each other. I realize that the root of their denialism is belief and their insular culture. But these folks don't exist in a vacuum either. They live in the same world we do and they're generally aware that in western culture, science and scientists are highly regarded and those scientists have concluded that evolution/common descent is real. They also know that much of society laughs at them and their beliefs (see jokes about them thinking The Flintstones is a documentary). So how does a creationist cope with that?

That's where the coping mechanisms come in. They're a means for them to deal with all that uncomfortable reality (highly regarded scientists disagreeing with them, being laughed at, etc.).

EDIT: To put it another way, coping mechanisms help denialists come to terms with the fact that much of the rest of the world (including science) understands that their beliefs simply don't match up with reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems that what evolutionist are most concerned with is proving creationist wrong. They would love to spit in the face of creationist. Except it will never happen.

LOL, the Genesis story was shown to be myth over 100 years ago. You claimed that you wanted to learn. Now it looks as if you were lying.

If you do not understand the basics the evidence presented to you will go right over your head.

Partially because scientists are human and have been known to falsely claim "that is not evidence" at times there is a clear definition of scientific evidence:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Do you have a problem with that definition?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We may be talking past each other. I realize that the root of their denialism is belief and their insular culture. But these folks don't exist in a vacuum either. They live in the same world we do and they're generally aware that in western culture, science and scientists are highly regarded and those scientists have concluded that evolution/common descent is real. They also know that much of society laughs at them and their beliefs (see jokes about them thinking The Flintstones is a documentary). So how does a creationist cope with that?

That's where the coping mechanisms come in. They're a means for them to deal with all that uncomfortable reality (highly regarded scientists disagreeing with them, being laughed at, etc.).

EDIT: To put it another way, coping mechanisms help denialists come to terms with the fact that much of the rest of the world (including science) understands that their beliefs simply don't match up with reality.

The myth of martyrdom figures into this as well. There are wildly exaggerated claims of early Christians that were put to death by the Romans. Creationists have the mistaken idea that the theory of evolution is an attack on Christianity. Of course since most Christians worldwide accept the fact of evolution that is not the case. Sadly they equate themselves to early martyrs and think that they are defending the faith when in reality they are attacking it.

 

[LightofTruth]

Yes, we all realize that. And as I noted, the scientific community has concluded otherwise for quite some time now.

My question is...how do you explain that? Have the world's life scientists collectively been bad at their jobs for the last century? Have they been conspiring?


How exactly do you know? Have you studied the scientific data and analyses?

I explain it by saying that there are extinct creatures. There are fossils of creatures that no longer exist and can be classified with creatures that do exist.

 

[LightofTruth]

LOL, the Genesis story was shown to be myth over 100 years ago. You claimed that you wanted to learn. Now it looks as if you were lying.

If you do not understand the basics the evidence presented to you will go right over your head.

Partially because scientists are human and have been known to falsely claim "that is not evidence" at times there is a clear definition of scientific evidence:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Do you have a problem with that definition?

The Genesis story was never shown to be a myth.

 

[Jose Fly]

The myth of martyrdom figures into this as well. There are wildly exaggerated claims of early Christians that were put to death by the Romans. Creationists have the mistaken idea that the theory of evolution is an attack on Christianity. Of course since most Christians worldwide accept the fact of evolution that is not the case. Sadly they equate themselves to early martyrs and think that they are defending the faith when in reality they are attacking it.

Definitely. It's not uncommon for them to point out that Jesus and his followers were also persecuted for their beliefs and Jesus said believers would be similarly persecuted. It's another means for them to cope with the fact that much of the world is against them on this issue.