Why is there so much opposition to evolution?

[Reverend Rick]

Eight pages and not a single post on topic.

Why is there so much opposition to evolution?

To me this would not be a discussion about whether evolution occurs or not but why people oppose the evolution theory.

The simple answer is because anti-evolutionists do not want to believe they came from animals because they believe animals do not have a soul.

It's a simple question with a simple answer.

 

[Man of Faith]

Message to Man of Faith: Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is one of the over 99% of experts in the U.S. who accept evolution. He is a devout Roman Catholic. He has an article about the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun. Do you understand enough about the article to have an informed opinion about it?

How can you understand evolution better than a large consensus of experts who accept it, including many Christians?

You believe that a global flood occured, but you are most certainly not an expert in geology. You believe that the earth is young, but you are most certainly not an expert in physics.

Are you in love with Ken Miller?

 

[Man of Faith]

Since human chromosome 2 has about 240,000,000 base pairs, that 150,000 difference represents only 6/100's of one percent. To use your pipe analogy, your two 6 inch pieces of pipe welded together would be 12.0075 inches long.

Since there are telomeric and pretelomeric sequences in human chromosome 2 at the exact location where chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b would fuse, it's like finding a 12 inch piece of pipe with a weld in the middle covering a cut through the pipe. Arguing that this pipe wasn't originally two 6 inch pieces is futile.

Again, evolution is supposedly based on science right? Do you have the peer reviewed scientific document to back up this claim that a fusion can produce usable genetic information?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Man of Faith: Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is one of the over 99% of experts in the U.S. who accept evolution. He is a devout Roman Catholic. He has an article about the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun. Do you understand enough about the article to have an informed opinion about it?

How can you understand evolution better than a large consensus of experts who accept it, including many Christians?

You believe that a global flood occured, but you are most certainly not an expert in geology. You believe that the earth is young, but you are most certainly not an expert in physics.

Are you in love with Ken Miller?

Since Ken Miller is only one of over 99% of American experts who accept evolution, I obviously only used him as an example since he is a widely respected expert on evolution. Do you have an adequate enough understanding about Miller's article to oppose it? If so, please state your scientific reasons for opposing it. This is a science forum. Do wish to discuss many scientific topics in detail or not?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Man of Faith: You recently started a thread on hell at the General Religiouis Debates forum. You did not offer any evidence to back up your theory, you just preached. Based upon that thread, and what you have posted at this forum, I have come to the conclusion that you much prefer preaching, asserting, ranting, and raving to actually discussing evidence that supports your opinions.

Since inerrancy is surely the primary reason for your opinions about science, and many other things, would you like to have some discussions about inerrancy at the General Religious Debates forum? The Bible most certainly is not not inerrant. It contains many errors, many unverifiable claims, and many interpolations.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Because creation has been deemed as religion by a non-scientific judge that's why.

Too funny...So let's posit that a creator created life, mind you this is an assumption because there is no evidence for this, you can't conclude it was "God of the bible", gods of any other faith or aliens.

It has been banished by decree from the science class.

It's been deemed to not adhere to the Scientific Method, thus it isn't science.

If it was given a fair shake it would defeat evolution soundly.

Take your best shot...we're all ears. Present your testable evidence.

 

[doppelganger]

Evolution is based on a profound spirituality. It places the human being in a completely different relationship to the universe than "god-creator" religions and their attendant spirituality - specifically by removing the individual's ego as the centerpiece and purpose of the holistic system that is the universe. This is why the Church feared Copernicus/Galileo - because their ideas took the Earth out of the center of the cosmos, and changed human spirituality. And it's why the Church has been even more resistant to "evolution," because it further removes the individual human ego as the centerpiece of Earth's systems, and thereby negates the ability to maintain the individual ego's illusion that it is special and loved. Not infrequently, this illusion is the main psychological appeal of "god/creator" religious belief for many people.

And this is why you often see such an emotional/irrational response - evolution takes away the psychological pacifier that is "God loves me" or the "universe is all about me and my good" that many people use to mismanage their existential angst.

The individual human being becomes merely a piece of unitary physio-biological system, and the idea that the universe has a will directed for the ego's individual purposes or good fades out accordingly. There is no need for an intervening "God" once one adopts the understanding that being is but a cog in a bigger machine that does not depend on the well-being of any particular, individual organism.

 

[Man of Faith]

Message to Man of Faith: You recently started a thread on hell at the General Religiouis Debates forum. You did not offer any evidence to back up your theory, you just preached. Based upon that thread, and what you have posted at this forum, I have come to the conclusion that you much prefer preaching, asserting, ranting, and raving to actually discussing evidence that supports your opinions.

Since inerrancy is surely the primary reason for your opinions about science, and many other things, would you like to have some discussions about inerrancy at the General Religious Debates forum? The Bible most certainly is not not inerrant. It contains many errors, many unverifiable claims, and many interpolations.

I just now, in front of your eyes, single handedly destroyed the fused chromosome between chimp and man as evidence for evolution. What more do you want?

It’s not like I have some secret data stored away. Both evolutionists and creationists have the same scientific data. It’s the interpretation of the data that is different. That’s what I am doing, interpretation data differently than you. That is what the debate is about. If we start debating about the interpretation of data, is it really necessary to post the data? It’s right at your fingertips on the internets.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If I fused two pieces of pipe together, would the pipe be longer than the two pieces individually? The supposed fused chromosome has 150,000 more base pairs than the two that were supposedly fused individually.

Because chimps, apes and humans have arms, does that prove we came from the same ancestor?

Then let this "Christian" biologist explain it to you then....

[youtube]Z8rbm15HnB0[/youtube]
DNA Fused = Evolution OR?? Leave Comments All Opinions Valued - YouTube

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I just now, in front of your eyes, single handedly destroyed the fused chromosome between chimp and man as evidence for evolution. What more do you want?

It’s not like I have some secret data stored away. Both evolutionists and creationists have the same scientific data. It’s the interpretation of the data that is different. That’s what I am doing, interpretation data differently than you. That is what the debate is about. If we start debating about the interpretation of data, is it really necessary to post the data? It’s right at your fingertips on the internets.

Our chimpanzee cousins have 24 pairs of chromosomes and we have twenty three. Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes. There is no debate on this. What this means is at some time we also had 24 pairs. Additionally what this means is we're related..genetically and morphologically. Since the data is available to both creationist and proponents of evolution please give us your interpretation of this fusion....

 

[Man of Faith]

Our chimpanzee cousins have 24 pairs of chromosomes and we have twenty three. Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes. There is no debate on this. What this means is at some time we also had 24 pairs. Additionally what this means is we're related..genetically and morphologically. Since the data is available to both creationist and proponents of evolution please give us your interpretation of this fusion....

My interpretation is it isn't a fusion. Did you see it fuse? Or if it is a fusion, it happend during creation week when God made man individually from no ancestor.

 

[doppelganger]

Hey, DP, you need to learn to speak "Surreal" to understand what's going on this "debate."

Carry on.

 

[Alceste]

My interpretation is it isn't a fusion. Did you see it fuse? Or if it is a fusion, it happend during creation week when God made man individually from no ancestor.

That's a rationalization, not an interpretation.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

My interpretation is it isn't a fusion.

Then what evidence do you base your interpretation off?

Did you see it fuse? Or if it is a fusion, it happend during creation week when God made man individually from no ancestor.

Did you see "God" create?

Did you see "God" cause the chromosome to fuse?

 

[Firepac]

That is correct, one judge deemed that creation was religion.

Oh really? Can you please tell us who this judge is and how he got the vast vast majority of scientists to agree with him?

Well I gave it my best shot.

So making up bs was your best shot? LMAO no wonder creationism isn't going anywhere.

 

[Man of Faith]

Oh really? Can you please tell us who this judge is and how he got the vast vast majority of scientists to agree with him?

If a judge says that if you teach science you will teach evolution and not creation, and you have bills to pay, a mortgate, kids that need braces, car payment, what would most normal people do?

 

[Firepac]

That might have been true at one time, but after my research I found out that I was right, it didn't happen.

Making stuff up doesn't count as research.

If a judge says that if you teach science you will teach evolution and not creation, and you have bills to pay, a mortgate, kids that need braces, car payment, what would most normal people do?

That has absolutely nothing to do with my question whatsoever.

 

[Agnostic75]

I just now, in front of your eyes, single handedly destroyed the fused chromosome between chimp and man as evidence for evolution. What more do you want?

But nothing that you have posted in any thread would stand up in a court of law about the teaching of evolution in public schools, nor do you have anywhere near the education, and influence, of the over 99% of experts, including many Christian experts, who believe that evolution is true. You, and everyone else at these forums, know that you are not qualified to appear in a televised television debate as an expert on evolution. Since even creationists with Ph.d.'s in biology, or biochemistry, have not been able to convince even 1% of experts that evolution is false, you are obviously wasting your time.

Regarding the Dover trial, the judge who ruled again creationists just so happens to be a Republican, and a Christian, but he knows that creationism is not science, and does not belong in public schools.

And of course, even if creationism is true, that does not come anywhere near proving that the God of the Bible exists. For example, anyone who has even a modest amount of common sense knows that a global flood did not occur, and that the earth is young.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am not sure there is much opposition to evolution.

Untill I joined this forum in 2005 I was not aware there was any opposition at all. Or rathaer that it had died out in the 19th century. None of the traditional Churches have a problem with it at all.

I had certainly never met anyone, who though it other than true, and I have had a pretty long life.

It seems to be very much a USA centred religious Idea.

I find it strange indeed, that in a country that is so advanced scientificaly, can also be so backward in scientific education.

 

[meogi]

Why is there so much opposition to evolution?

Because one type of authority trumps all others. If your authority comes from the all-powerful creator of everything, then the authority of your fellow man is worthless.