Why do idiots still believe in evolution?

Question

I have weighed Darwinism, and found it lacking.
I have seen the inadequate support from the fossil record and left wondering.
I have thought of the evolution of the eye and left with a head aching.
I have heard them say Creation is ludicrous, and found their belief implies that all things that exist do so only because of chance, and was hurting.
I have witnessed their evasion of certain inqueries and was found weeping.
Darwinists, why do ye feel such convition in belief when it means nothing to the intelligent?
Darwinist, why dost thou torment me so.

Evidently people aren't getting the point. Many of you say proof but my question is, what proof? Please show me exactly what do you have that proves evolution to be accurate and Creation to be false. All I've seen here are insults and and people saying "all the proof." I put it to you that you have no definitive proof for your theory, and Hell, if evolution was correct then why is it just a theory and not a law? So my question remains, what proof?

Oh, yeah and probably i should be more specific with my question here, I am asking evidence for only macroevolution, "which is the all lifeforms came about by chance" thing. I say this because evolution is a rather broad term.

Perhaps I should put a bit more detail into this, eh? For one thing, the title, while I'm discussing things. I realize the impression that it gives you but I assure you that I knew it was the best way to get peoples attention. As for the pretentious *** comment down there I am not saying that I'm super bleeding smart. There are still details about evolution that I don't know (granted not too much but they're there). As for the prose, I'm not entirely sure why I did that. Now then, for my reasons in blaspheming Darwinism: it is not for religious reasons as many religious people do, in fact, believe in it (even if with some variation). First I shall describe the eye, which will take a few more additions. The human eye, a complex little bugger with its pupil, optic nerve, and aqueous humor. In the eye you have such things as the cornea, which, along with the lens, refracts light in order to help the eye focus; the iris, which dilates the pupil to allow whatever light is

necessary for you to see properly; the ciliary muscle, which allows the lens to change shape as in accordance with the changes in the ambient light; the retina, which transfers all the information it recieves from the eye to the brain; the choroid, which provides oxygen and nourishment to the outer layers of the retina; the sclera (I hope I spelled that right), which is that white part that provides protection for the inner parts of the eye. I could go on with this, but I think you get the point. Now for my point in this: according to the Theory of Evolution, either one part of the eye had to come into being after another, or the earliest form of the eye (that would be interesting to see, or maybe that's my scientist side talking) slowly mutated into these several different acting tissues within an organ. I think we can easily rule out that first one as all of these parts only make the eye work by working in unison, which would make the second much more promising. To an extant, of

course. The second idea I find lacking because I just have to wonder how, exactly, could the eye have come about at all. Macroevolution relies heavily on mutation, and leads to my wond'ring of how many mutations would've had to go on before something good actually worked out. I do realize that evolution allows for billions of years for it all to have happened, and at an incredibly slow pace, but that does nothing to diminish my thinking on this. What would the original organ that would eventually become an eye look like? What was its function? Why would it have evolved any further (note that for an organ to evolve, the mutation that would lead to it would have to have an immediate benefit to the creature or it would have been just a mutation)? Why would it have evolved into different parts, each with its own specific function? How often would creatures with mutations find a mate? Why would a creature with even a beneficial mutation find a mate? Based on said creature's

fractionally improved chance at survival? Or based on the physical appearance of the creature and any other talents necessary to attract a mate? Okay, I overdid that last one. ANYways, my next question that lead to me doubting Darwinism was about thought. Why would any species develope it? What is the immediate advantage of the early stages of conscious thought? What the hell, is an early stage of conscious thought? I'm serious with this one, scientists help me out here, what would an early stage of conscious thought even be? I can't imagine that at all. This lead to yet another thought-filled question: why are people even capable of understanding the universe and everything therein? Though our understanding of the cosmos and all things within it is, admittedly, lacking, that still hasn't stopped us from figuring out a great deal. When science has found an answer to a question, we can guess that the answer is, if not right on, then damn close to it, when we use what we learn

to invent new things or make improvements on already existing things. We know that science is a useful thing to have, otherwise it would not have such an effect on our lives. Even though there is an enormous amount about the cosmos that we don't know, we have discovered a great deal about the universe. Given that, why are people capable of understanding it? What process in evolution would have ended in us being able to comprehend what we see, do, and touch in such a way that would eventually have us break so many barriers in our history? To me, all it takes is just our ability to understand so much so well to doubt evolution.
Now for the fossil record. No doubt many who came here has seen one of those paintings or whatever that depict a found fossil of a species from the past, a modern descendant of that species, and all those pictures in between them representing some of the different species that came along until one became the other. Well, how many of those have actually been

discovered and how many of them are just what archaeologists think came in between? Macroevolution implies an insane amount of variation in the fossils found, because, hell, it does take about a hundred million years (or whatever might be the average) for one species to become another, and those hundred million years would've produced so many different creatures, and not all of them would have successful mutations. That would mean that every other fossil we dig up would very, very, rarely be exaclty the same as another of its species, given however much time differed from one discovery to the next, and some would have unsuccessful mutations and others would have the opposite. I'm not trying to imply here, in case any are getting that message, that we would be discovering any more fossils than we already are. I am, however, suggesting that those fossils we do find should very rarely have look like the member of the exact same species, ESPECIALLY if they're found in differing places

in the ground (higher up means more recent, blah, blah, blah for those who don't know what I'm talking about). My question on the fossil record, therefore, is how many varitations in species have we actually discovered. Not a whole lot, honestly (for disputors, to this in particular, just tell a good site that details discovered fossils in relating to this)
For my statement about how evolution is ridiculous instead of creation in the initial description, that was meant less to be proof of the failing arguements used in Darwinism and more to just let Darwinists know how I could describe evolution as ludicrous in a single sentence.
Let it be known that I wrote the "evading questions" part to describe NOT an action that all Darwinists use, but instead to describe the action that an annoying number of them have used on me when they ran out of things to say. This stems from the annoying number of people who don't even really understand their own beliefs that have tried to argue with me

when all that I hoped would be that an actual scientist had come in for an intelligent debate and not to hurl insults.

Echlistoso,

Where did I say that the bible was my basis for doubting evolution? I thought I had written that religion was not a factor in my final decision. My basis for this question is:
1) just the controversy around the question (and the joy I get from angering people), and
2) because I like to question anything and everything, ESPECIALLY if people regard it as an indesputable fact. "Mankind has continued to evolve by acts of disobedience," as I once heard. I am a gamer, and this means that I am less than capable of arguing my points with anything resembling logical grace and reasoning. The fact that I have only a limited number of characters to work with per addition makes things even more irritating. Forgive me if I seem pretentious and unreasonably hard-headed in all this, but there are still things that I would like to see and know. Socrates believed that only by asking questions can we learn, and that is what's goin' on now. And thanks for the link, it'll help.

Answer 1

I suggest that if you have looked at the evidence for evolution and still found it lacking, it was most likely because of your pre-existing theologic aversion to accepting evolution, not the lack of evidence for evolution, nor the amount of evidence for literal creation.

There is also the possibility that your knowlege about the areas of science in which the empirical evidence lies is so limited that you are unable to find the discrepencies in the fallacious, invalid, and often-times fraudulent arguments that fundamentalist biblical literalists have been spoon-feeding you. Although I am certain this plays no small part in your conclusion, I give the most weight to those reasons I gave in the paragraph above.

I say this with confidence simply because I have personally looked at the evidence for evolution and against, and did my own studying to understand those parts which were over my head. One can criticize the evidence for evolution all they want, but there is NO evidence for the literal creation story told in Genesis, other than Genesis.

I simply wanted to know which to believe, and I didn't ever feel that I couldn't be a christian if I believed in evolution, so there was no conflict to prevent me from doing so.

When fundamentalists say that evolution disputes the bible, what they really SHOULD be saying is that it disputes THEIR INTERPRETATION of the bible.

As I am sure you are aware, every denomination has a different interpretation of some part of scripture, and even among non-denominational parties, there is stiff disagreement from verse to verse. And all claim to have the correct interpretation, as they have all been led by the Holy Spirit, right?

So, it isn't a matter of either/or when deciding to believe in evolution or the bible. One can believe in both.

I fail to see any reason why God could not have used a non-miraculous, natural method to create us. Is he not powerful or wise enough to do so? Of course, I believe that God has the ability to create miracles and suspend the laws of physics (Which He created) whenever He wishes to do so. However, the world I see demonstrates to me that He only very rarely violates the laws which He created.

The bible is clear as to whom created us and why. The "hows" are not nearly so clear. Neither is it important to know how. Who and why are the only questions that need to be addressed by the creation account in Genesis.

I suggest you go to http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html. Try not to get too PO'd when you realize that creationists have not been fully honest with you. If you can find a creationist argument that isn't already refuted there, you should definitely post it here.

As for your statement about the eye, http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html explains in layman's terms why the argument you certainly got from either a creationist or an ID publication is invalid.

All of the talkorigin.org links have other links and sources that you can check out for yourself.

Just remember that you don't have to, nor should you, question your faith as a christian if and when evolution becomes convincing to you. It won't make you fallen, nor evil. Over ten thousand members of the clergy would agree. http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm

I don't mean to insult you, but, honestly, your lack of understanding of basic science and illogical, poorly thought out arguments make it awfully difficult to engage in a meaningful debate with you. And as you continue to add to your initial question, it only gets worse.

For example: "Macroevolution implies an insane amount of variation in the fossils found, because, hell, it does take about a hundred million years (or whatever might be the average) for one species to become another, and those hundred million years would've produced so many different creatures, and not all of them would have successful mutations."

Just to start with, you are amking the wild and wrong assumption that evolutionary changes MUST occur in all species, and, equally wrong, you assume that these changes occur within a specified time. Scientists fully recognize that not all species are able to change and adapt to their environments, or carve new niches for themselves within the same environment. That is one reason why some species go extinct and others don't. The desert tortois in Arizona hasn't changed much in over a million years. But one million years ago, Arizona wasn't a desert. Sharks have had the same design for about 40 million years. Why haven't they diversified as much as other types of animals have? Who knows, but that they didn't doesn't mean that it doesn't happen with other organisms.

A real scientist isn't going to bother debating you. It would be futile as long as you don't have the educational background to make an effective argument, a basic grasp of logic versus fallacy, and absolutely no interest in having your theologic bias challenged or changed.

"Where did I say that the bible was my basis for doubting evolution?"
What other basis is there? There is no evidence for any other idea. Although Intelligent Design offers some intriguing philosophical argumnets, there is not a shred of empirical evidence to support it. And remember, Dr. Behe, one of the most prestigious ID advocates that can legitimately be called a scientist, accepts evolution. Creationism doesn't even have a leg in the race.

And if you are offended that other people here are tossing insults at you, don't forget that you threw the first stone. (ie, calling evolutionists idiots)

Answer 2

people are so arrogant when you challange a commonly held "belief" bcz that is all that a "theory" is a belief based on inconclusive evidence that is interpreted one way or another but is not proven to be 100% right although it MAY (remember MAY) be...
There is nothing wrong in challenging that theory, so many people who posted a reply here have also not read ur qn properly since you state that your disbelief in the evolution theory does not stem from religious reasons... People are quick to attack people who challange commonly held beliefs it forces them to think too much or to back up their beliefs and most people can only come up with insults or say things like "bcz its true" or "bcz ao much research has been done" however its still a theory as you mention after all that so-called research... etc etc...
Although i believe the world is in a constant state of flux and change it dosent mean we are evolving it may be a little arrogant to think that for example the human eye is constantly evoliving or whatever else .. cz according to that theory our vision should be improving, disease should be less prevalent etc...
There is flux in the world but i believe it goes both ways.. i also believe that the complexity of the world does demonstrate some sort of design at work... funny how evolution was able to occur so well if what we started off with was random raw materials/chemicals/matter/atoms etc... i am not necessarily advocating that there is a god but that the who came first the chicken or the egg arguement seems to apply here...
did we evolve or were we always here but in different states of flux??
even if we did evolve were did the first atoms come from?? and dont say the big bang cz then the qn just goes on where did the atoms and energy to create the big bang come from??
In my opnion therefore it must mean that atoms/matters always existed but just in different forms and patterns... and not necessarily in a linear so-called evolutionary terms...

Answer 3

1)The fossil record is incomplete, but everything supports evolution
2)The eye can very easily be explained. Photosensitive cells exist on many plants and animals. A membrane would be the next logicla step in order to protect these cells. At this point the eye would be used more to detect light, dark, and movement. A membrane could then be transformed slowly into a lens gradually getting sharper.
3)The thought that the probability of these things happening has no foundation, and is guesswork at best. Also I have yet to see one of these 'equations' that uses time and times tested...important parts of statistics.
4) I evade nothing, but where is the evidence for your beliefs?

well...???

Answer 4

And God said, "Let there be a few people who refuse to acknowledge the realities of the world of around them and who call the people who don't 'idiots', and who can't spell and/or type, and who allow themselves to be 'tormented' by a man who is long dead and by a theory that has since been proven. Oh - and by the way, let there be people who copy words that are from the 1500's in a pathetic attempt to imagine their silly words as artful".

Come to think of it, maybe that's exactly how things happened...

(It always kind of amazes me that so many people spend so much time being all frazzled and mind-stewing over evolution versus creationism. There's a point where who-gives-a-rat's-bottom who thinks what! Work on your spellling, and leave the thinking to someone more qualified, dear.)

The proof is there, but a person needs to have enough of an understanding of science to be able understand it. I'm thinking that ain't you.

Answer 5

Darwinian macroevolution is not a very solid theory, given what we currently know about microbiology. Microevolution is an observable fact, but we have yet to see one specise evolve into a new, different one. Punctuated Evolution might have a better chance of panning out, however.

I would hold that thse who adhere to Darwinianism mostly do so in order to deny a higher power. If there is no higher power, if there is noone to hold us accountable for our actions in this life, then there is a great deal of freedom in that.

Answer 6

God created the universe and allowed it free will. Free will allows his creation to grow and mutate and evolve. But free will also causes degradation and death. Change and evolution is part of God's divine design and should be celebrated.

Answer 7

Evolutionary theory as incomplete as it is still has 100% more verifiable evidence to back it up than creationism which has not a single shred.

Come talk to me when there is even a single piece of verifiable evidence to support creationism, until then quit being so gullible.

Answer 8

Actually it is a proven fact that the higher the intelligence level (IQ) the less likely one is to believe in creationism (because it is a ridiculous, pitiful fairytale).

Answer 9

Because Evolution is real.

Change is happening continuously all around us and the universe, at all times, from star and galaxy formations to people's lives. Evolution is all around us and in many, many forms, not just species evolution.

Evolution is a part of nature.

Answer 10

I suggest that you and your family don't visit idiots to treat illnesses, manage your money, teach your children, or build your houses. Instead, make certain that all of these people have guaranteed their intelligence by signing their allegiance to creationist theory.

I hope you enjoy your short, lonely life.