Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 7 8 9 10 11 12

Original poster

to wonder how people can not believe in Evolution .......

283 replies

cookielove · 19/02/2012 21:41

After a discussion at work which actually started about a childs' dress (day nursery) leading onto the duggars and then religion, it came clear to me that several of my work colleagues do not believe in evolution and not only that but also dinosaurs not existing

Now i can understand the more religious people not believing as Evolution and adam and eve clash, but for those who were not religious how can you not believe in Evolution. Its proven.

I mean really how can people not believe in Evolution or dinosaurs.

I quote one of my work colleagues 'well there's lots of dinosaur toys so they must have been real' .... WTAF?

Please tell MN that you believe in Evolution, and dinosaurs ......

OP posts:

Becaroooo · 21/02/2012 09:20

garlicfrother · 21/02/2012 09:21

I have always wondered what creationists think they are filling up their cars with - Made me laff, Bec! God would have put actual petrol in the ground, wouldn't s/he?

Oooh, yes, and created a beer plant!

GrimmaTheNome · 21/02/2012 09:34

Oooh, yes, and created a beer plant!
Pastafarian heaven includes a beer volcano.

PopcornBiscuit · 21/02/2012 09:40

"Interesting how you are now distancing yourself from your claim that Genesis portrayed events in "pretty much the same order" as science has shown."

I'm quite relaxed about this as I'm not a fundamentalist. Your points are correct, the order isn't exactly the same, but it still starts with light, then the earth, then creatures, then human beings.

Obviously it's not a 21st century scientific account, and nor should it be.

GrimmaTheNome · 21/02/2012 09:47

but it still starts with light, then the earth, then creatures, then human beings.

until you get to chapter 2 . Which isn't a significant problem if you read it all as metaphor, but does anyone know how literalist creationists deal with the two different versions? I know they can manage some extraordinary mental gymnastics to try to square circles, but I've never heard how they get round that.

Snorbs · 21/02/2012 10:24

Humans are not the pinnacle of evolution. Evolution hasn't stopped now that humans are here. All life is constantly evolving, albeit at wildly varying rates depending on their environment.

garlicfrother · 21/02/2012 10:37

YY Snorbs, what about the plants & birds that have evolved at Chernobyl to live very happily in a radioactive environment that would kill un-adapted creatures?
Either god made them uranium-friendly or they did it all by themselves. Either way, it's evolution :)

Lueji · 21/02/2012 10:53

I don't know why you bang about petrol.

Petroleum was created by god obviously, and he decided to bury it in difficult places just to make our life difficult. Shame he created such limited supplies and not evenly distributed to all regions.

PopcornBiscuit · 21/02/2012 11:02

"All life is constantly evolving, albeit at wildly varying rates depending on their environment."

Agree. Fascinating isn't it!

HeteronormativeBuckethead · 21/02/2012 14:31

Not if you are a fake scientist it's not.

Debsbear · 21/02/2012 14:41

Everytime I look out of a window I am awestruck at the world around me. I do not believe that all that happened by chance,, whether there was a "creator" that created everything in a nanosecond or whether there was a a "mind" that helped everything to evolve over time, I don't really know. I think there are massive flaws in the evolutionists arguments, at least as great as those in Creationists arguments, even Darwin didn't actually believe his theory, which is why he called it a "Theory". Frankly, I don't care how long it took for us to get where we are, I'm more concerned about where we are going. I want my children to grow up being tolerant of other people's beliefs and opinions. To think about why they believe what they believe, not to just accept what they are told, either by religion or scientists, but to look at the facts for themselves, but even when they come to a different conclusion to someone else, not to belittle that person.

PopcornBiscuit · 21/02/2012 14:43

"Not if you are a fake scientist it's not."

Are you talking to me, HeteronormativeBuckethead?

garlicfrother · 21/02/2012 14:50

Darwin didn't actually believe his theory, which is why he called it a "Theory".

Riiiight. You sound so sweet, I really don't want to rock your boat of loveliness. But you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word theory.

TapirBackRider · 21/02/2012 15:00

Debsbear - gravity is a theory, doesn't make it any less likely though.

Definition of Theory (from freedictionary)

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Your comment about Darwin calling it a theory because he didn't believe in it made me laugh. A scientist doesn't have to believe, they are more interested in finding out the why, when and where, documenting their observations and then doing it all again.

mathanxiety · 21/02/2012 15:00

Bit dim here, but what has petrol to do with evolution?

TapirBackRider · 21/02/2012 15:02

Math - I think it's because creationists believe in the earth being 6000 years old.

Lueji · 21/02/2012 15:02

even Darwin didn't actually believe his theory, which is why he called it a "Theory".
Scientists work based on theories. It has nothing to do with believing in them or not.

To think about why they believe what they believe, not to just accept what they are told, either by religion or scientists, but to look at the facts for themselves, but even when they come to a different conclusion to someone else, not to belittle that person.
I don't agree with belittling people, but why should non-experts consider that their opinions on a subject they know little about are just as valid as an expert? (and I don't mean professional experts)

And then there's the old religion vs scientists again. Many scientists are religious or have some form of belief. Even some that work on evolution.
Different fields altogether.

Richard Dawkings is just as guilty as religious creationists. The first says that you must be an atheist if you accept evolution and the seconds say that if you believe in god you must accept creationism.

I haven't seen planets outside the solar system, but I have no reason to doubt the several experts who say there are such planets and have found evidence for them. Similarly, why should anyone doubt the thousands of people who work on evolution and say that the evidence is in favour of it?

Lueji · 21/02/2012 15:06

Further on "theories".
Darwin first thought of his theory (actually natural selection, not evolution) when he was young. He thought that nobody would believe him. So, he dedicated his life to gather evidence in favour of his theory.

Wallace, on the other side of the world, came to the same conclusion and was about to publish his version, which pushed Darwin to finally publish his book.

Nothing about doubting their theories.

Lueji · 21/02/2012 15:22

what has petrol to do with evolution?

Petrol is made from a fossil: petroleum or crude oil. That is why it's considered a fossil fuel.
It is made up of hydrocarbons that result from the very slow decomposition of organic material without oxygen over millions of years.

fbnomore · 21/02/2012 15:24

evolution isnt proven. its a theory. one with a lot of evidence, but still just a theory.

religion and evolution shouldnt be mutually exclusive. adam and eve are compatible with evolution when you consider mitochondrial evidence.

'belief' in evolution or science is faith in itself.

GrimmaTheNome · 21/02/2012 15:25

Richard Dawkings is just as guilty as religious creationists. The first says that you must be an atheist if you accept evolution

Now that I don't believe for one moment. People make up nearly as many things about Richard Dawkins as they do about God

GrimmaTheNome · 21/02/2012 15:26

still just a theory.

1,2,3 all together now bang heads on desk

mathanxiety · 21/02/2012 15:26

Thank you Lueji. Just as I thought - nothing to do with evolution.

PeppyNephrine · 21/02/2012 15:27

We don't need "belief" in science, and you don't understand what the word "theory" means, fbnomore.

Science and religion are mutually exclusive, as disciplines. A person can accomodate both if they want, but they don't mix on a academic level.

GrimmaTheNome · 21/02/2012 15:30

religion and evolution aren't mutually exclusive though - lots of christians understand that evolution is how we got here.

Flip

1 2 ··· 7 8 9 10 11 12

Swipe left for the next trending thread