Refresher on Beliefs

[SnakyDragon]

Hey. This is my first-ever post, so if I make a mistake, please point it out, whether it's grammar, spelling, accidental rule-breaking, etc. Regarding the latter, as a moderator in other websites/forums, I understand how stupid some people can be relating to rules, and I don't want to be a detriment to this site.

I have always firmly believed in many things. Among those things is evolution. And I realize that I have a point of view that not everyone else shares, but I just can't see WHY groups of people don't believe in it. It's been scientifically proven (by real scientists, I might add, not corporations trying to get money for their products or some lazy jerk with a billion variables who decides that a sparse amount of evidence is a "Law"), evidence of it is everywhere, it's taught in most schools, and yet some people just don't think it happened.

I have friends who are notevolutionists. I am not trying to flame, hate, snipe, or anything remotely like that. I want your point of view on this so I can better understand what people are thinking.

[WallofYawn]

Actually, no one, and I mean NO ONE BELIEVES in evolution. There are people who agree with it.(because it;s backed by facts and evidence) and those who disagree. But no one BELIEVES in evolution, because Evolution REQUIRES NO BELIEF, it simply requires you have common sense and can take facts for what they are.(srry, pet peeve)

Now that that's out of the way: The reason some disagree with Evolution is because, simply put, they are stupid. Its the same group of people who think the Earth is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, and that global warming is non-existent.

I don't care if you believe in Jesus or the flying Spaghetti Monster, if you ignore Evolution and ignore Gravity, that's just ignoring what's staring you right in the face. Most of the people, religious or not, who disagree with Evolution either never went to High School or they grew up in an area where their education was religiously oriented.

Evolution is not the enemy of religion. Evolution has nothing to do with religion. Why can't people get that? Agreeing with Evolution doesn't make you a bad Christian, it makes you a realist and a person grounded in reality.

Ignorance is bliss to the ignorant, and a torment to the intelligent, who try as they might, cannot win against such ignorance. Ignorance will always win because it's like a disease. Stupidity and racism are mental diseases passed down from father to son through the spoken word, and kept going because "all that matters is winning." Not what's right and correct and factual. 'Tis a shame.

[Ranger2]

One thing I would like to add, though; scientists have not proved evolution. Science really is not very good at indisputably proving things, and according to the scientific method, rarely tries to. Evolution is a theory, which means that while so far it has passed just about every test we've thrown at it, we cannot say "case closed." We never can. And don't take my word-any scientist who studies evolution would tell you that science is proof without certainty. In fact, scientists don't accept any hypotheses; they either reject or fail to reject one.

So, yes, evolution does require some belief. It has stood up to tests better than creationism, but ultimately, to accept the idea of evolution as we know it as complete and perfectly true takes belief. So yes, if you have no doubts about evolution, you believe in evolution. If you fail to reject it as a hypothesis and continue testing it, then you are thinking like a scientist.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/23/14 06:18 AM, Light wrote: inb4 Camarohusky has another huge argument with me over the minutiae regarding this claim.

Let's agree to meet in the middle. Both of the arguments are right. Your argument is functionally right. My argument is right on technicality.

You are right, that in all functional purposes, evolution can be treated as truth. It has a mountain of positive evidence and a dearth of negative evidence. This is enough evidence both scientifically and logically for evolution to be widely considered as truth, up until it is either definitively proven (by that I mean somking gun. think watching an apple fall to prove there is gravity on earth) or until some new evidence comes and knocks the theory on its side.

Ranger2 and I are right in that by the technical definition of proven, evolution has not been proven. While there is a ton of evidence, the definitive proof does not exist. This goes for most scientific theories. We do not dispute that evolution is what we believe as right, we just disapprove of people saying you can't 'believe' it and calling it what it is not. The act of belief is the act of taking a logical or emotional jump toward a conclusion. Some jumps are large, some jumps are miniscule. They are still jumps regrdless of their size. The fact there is that last little jump in evolution requires us to believe it to be true. What throws people off is that the belief portion is so small they think it doesn't exist. Evolution is 99% evidence, 1% belief, whereas many other theories or ideas can range closer to 50/50.

Think of it like calling Korbel champagne. It looks like champagne. It tastes like champagne. In all aspects it is champagne. However, based on the definition of champagne (being grown in Champagne, France), it is not. You can functionally act and treat it as such, but in the end, because it doesn't fit the definition of champagne it is not champagne.

So act like its true, and claim that those who do not believe in it are foolish to ignore such a strong amount of evidence, but do not call it what it is not. Then again, we are just splitting hairs here, because in the end, all of us arguing this functionally believe evolution is true.

[WallofYawn]

At 4/22/14 11:46 PM, Ranger2 wrote: One thing I would like to add, though; scientists have not proved evolution. Science really is not very good at indisputably proving things, and according to the scientific method, rarely tries to. Evolution is a theory, which means that while so far it has passed just about every test we've thrown at it, we cannot say "case closed." We never can. And don't take my word-any scientist who studies evolution would tell you that science is proof without certainty. In fact, scientists don't accept any hypotheses; they either reject or fail to reject one.

So, yes, evolution does require some belief. It has stood up to tests better than creationism, but ultimately, to accept the idea of evolution as we know it as complete and perfectly true takes belief. So yes, if you have no doubts about evolution, you believe in evolution. If you fail to reject it as a hypothesis and continue testing it, then you are thinking like a scientist.

Ok, but just because I have doubts in Evolution doesn't mean I choose to believe in it. I accept Evolution as mostly correct, and accept that there are flaws, but I still accept that it is at least very sound, due to the fact there is evidence. Without evidence, I would not accept the theory. Belief requires you accept something with no proof.

I believe in reincarnation and the power of mother nature. THAT is a belief. Evolution is a theory, and one we accept because it's tangible for the most part. I don't jump off a roof because I believe in gravity, I choose not to jump off a roof because I know it will kill me. I've seen it. It requires no belief. Now, I could be assuming, and my assumption can be based on facts, and those assumptions can be partly or entirely wrong.

What your statement hinges on is this: how much evidence is needed for it to no longer be a belief? And where and how do you distinguish belief from assumption? Are they interchangeable? I get your point, though. I think more like a scientist myself. I understand it's not an unbreakable truth to end all truths. It is a theory, and we don't understand every aspect of it, but the more we test it and mull over it, the more it withstands the test of time.

This is a neat thread.

[Camarohusky]

Definition of belief per Merriam Webster:

"conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"

You believe it. You may know it, but to get to the point of knowing it you must believe it.

[AxTekk]

At 4/23/14 10:22 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Ranger2 and I are right in that by the technical definition of proven, evolution has not been proven.

Would you say that it would ever be possible for evolution to be proven in that sense though?

[Camarohusky]

At 4/23/14 03:25 PM, AxTekk wrote: Would you say that it would ever be possible for evolution to be proven in that sense though?

Yes, but it'd be very difficult. Yet, if you look at it, most of the science we consider fact requires this last logical jump as well. Even readily observable things like gravity do.

In order to definitively prove evolution, as it relates to humans, we would need a generation by generation family tree tracking a current generation human to another species in a lineal manner.

Like I said before, I'm not saying evolution isn't right, or that I don't believe it. I'm merely asking people to acknowledge how much we actually know about it. There have been numerous such theories with mountains of evidence that were proven wrong. There will be more in the future.

[SnakyDragon]

At 4/23/14 03:25 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 4/23/14 10:22 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Ranger2 and I are right in that by the technical definition of proven, evolution has not been proven.

Would you say that it would ever be possible for evolution to be proven in that sense though?

Yes. Eventually, humans will get to the point where we will live long enough on Earth (if it doesn't get destroyed by global warming, absence of trees producing oxygen or a super-volcano/meteor) where we will see physical proof that evolution exists. Proof. If we survive long enough, eventually, somewhere, somehow... It. Will. Be. Proven. If not proven, then it will be so widely accepted that it might as well be proven. It will become like gravity. Or the fact that stars are really just giant balls of burning hydrogen being converted into helium.

Also, I concur. This IS a cool thread.

Moving on from that awesome point, though, as I was refreshing myself on what else had been said on this thread, I noticed a comment eight minutes ago by Camarohusky:

"Like I said before, I'm not saying evolution isn't right, or that I don't believe it. I'm merely asking people to acknowledge how much we actually know about it. There have been numerous such theories with mountains of evidence that were proven wrong. There will be more in the future."

Can you list some of these theories? I'd actually like to do some research into this topic, and knowing the names of these would help greatly. Thanks!

Anyway, I'll state two pieces of evidence we have on that, since I like where this is going, and this can spawn more polite argument and growth of knowledge that we have going on here. DNA is one, because the simple fact that all humans share 99.99% of DNA with each other is pretty great (and we share around 40% with a head of lettuce), and blows some minds. We also share a massive amount of DNA with chimpanzees, apes, and gorillas (though less so with them). Since we know we came after them (fossils), it's safe to assume we had to pop out from somewhere. Another piece of evidence is related, in the fact that we didn't all pop out of nowhere. There aren't bones of humans from the middle of the Mesozoic Era. Yet there are bones from humans a few thousand years ago. No species has been here forever. And we know that we didn't just spontaneously appear, so where did we come from?

And mutations happen all the time. Things go wrong. Chances are, we're just the result of mutation after mutation, ugly baby that grows and mates and survives and spawns another ugly baby that survives long enough to reproduce. And then another mutation, and then another, on and on and on until the first human (a really, really misshapen human) pops out of a really, REALLYugly adult ugly baby (try to follow my logic on that. Please.).

[AxTekk]

At 4/23/14 05:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In order to definitively prove evolution, as it relates to humans, we would need a generation by generation family tree tracking a current generation human to another species in a lineal manner.

I think that sounds solid - I'm not sure we as a species will survive for the millions of years necessary for that to happen though. Nor do I think the environmental pressures are that high for us to change in significant, non-superficial ways.

Like I said before, I'm not saying evolution isn't right, or that I don't believe it. I'm merely asking people to acknowledge how much we actually know about it. There have been numerous such theories with mountains of evidence that were proven wrong. There will be more in the future.

Yeah, that sounds fair. I do think it's odd that people always act most skeptical with evolution though - It's widely been described as the most solid scientific theory yet in terms of all the proof for it that exists. Yet, no-one argues that we should be teaching the alternatives for gravity or the general theory of relativity in science classes (except for where mainstream science suggests they don't apply). I mean, the theory that epilepsy used to be caused by being possessed by demons probably has more scientific evidence than intelligent design (and it might be true) it's just that evolutions more of a du jour target for skepticism.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/24/14 03:23 AM, Light wrote: The thing is, the "smoking gun" of the theory has been found already through years of meticulous experimentation.

No it hasn't. We do not have a generation by generation direct line from our species to another. We have a shit ton of evidence that indicate it, but no direct indisputable proof.

I'm only claiming that the core of the theory of evolution is beyond dispute, not some of the applications of it or some of the very fine details of it.

Then say that. Simplifying it to "it has been proven" is oversimplifying to the point of being false. "All but proven" "Proven beyond any reasonable doubt" "Proven to the point where no person can rationally believe otherwise" are all true. "Definitively proven" is NOT true.

This analogy is inappropriate because it appears that you're treating evolution as if it isn't true, but only that it appears to be true.

No, I'm just asking you to call it what it is. In all aspects that matter it is proven. In the technical aspect it is not proven, just has an extremely high probability of being correct (think well above 99.999%).

As I said before, all good theories should be open to modification and adjustment, but in the case of the theory of evolution, it's an open-and-shut case as to whether or not species evolve over time

So was the static Earth theory, and guess what? PLATE TECTONICS.

I'll happily concede that this is true. My problem is that the word "belief" carries with it a connotation of not knowing something for certain.

Does carry a connotation, true, and that's why I addressed the size of the logical jump.

While it's technically true that I believe 2 + 2 = 4, I don't like using that word because it implies that the answer to the question of what two and two equal is under dispute, when it's not. So I and everyone else prefer say "I know 2 +2 = 4" as opposed to "I believe 2 +2 = 4."

You cannot use math to discuss belief. Math is artificial. Math works the way it does not because it was proven so through evidence and observation. Math works the way it does because it was made to. We do not need to believe that 1+1=2 because we created 1+1 precisely to equal 2. It's just like language. The German word for foot, fuss, doesn't need to be believed, because there is nothing to believe. A fuss isn't a fuss for some reason we need to research. It was assigned that name nd therefore no doubt is carried with it.

I do understand what you're trying to get at, which is why I said you are functionally right. We know it to the point where we do not need to take that conscious last logical jump. The evidence is so strong that the leap of faith to the finished conclusion is too smll for us to notice, as well it should be. Yet, that leap of faith still exists.

It's the same thing with evolution. I know it's true. I believe it's true. But I prefer to say I know it because to say that I believe it implies that the theory is actually still under dispute when it's really not.

No it doesn't. All it says is that this is the conclusion you have reached based on the evidence. It's like talking to a person who just turned 21 and saying "I believe that makes you old enough to have a beer now." You're not indicating you doubt the person's age. You're indicating that based upon your knowledge of the alcohol age minimum and the person's stated age above that minimum you have deduced they can have alcohol.

That's really my gripe when I see people saying that evolution hasn't been proven yet when it has been.

In a sense yes, in a sense no. That's the point I have been trying to make all along.