This is one of those posts where ultimately I agree with OP, evolution is real and we certainly saw it with the COVID-19 pandemic in case anyone was still in doubt. Still, OP is an edge lord and gives this instance a bad look when they post edge lord stuff like this.
Yup. This kind of thing gives a bad name to atheists and is one of the reasons I don’t like to bring it up often. We should be more respectful and set a good example, not stoop to the shit-slinging level.
Removed by mod
To me this Facebook boomer meme style is not something I find helpful for anyone, it’s just rage bait. If this is the kind of thing religious people think of atheists when we discuss our beliefs, it’s starting on a bad foot.
“Putting it on the table” when it’s a plate of poop just perpetuates their persecution complex. Maybe something more thought-provoking and less aggressive would be better. “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar”.
Removed by mod
But I do need religious folks to understand that they can GTFO of my life and lifestyle, and that your religion does not fucking matter to anyone but you.
I could not agree more with this. And I mean, it’s ok for us to disagree on how we express it, though.
No one who would actually be able to be convinced of this is going to be swayed by a condescending meme like this. You can make the message clear without being an asshole.
I agree that this meme is not the right message or the best format. But I’m also not sure we shouldn’t be speaking out more. Christians will claim to be persecuted whether or not atheists challenge them. Christians will think all atheists are like OP regardless of whether or not atheists challenge them. We should speak up more frequently, more honestly, and with less deference to the idea that a belief is valid just because it would piss off a lot of believers if it wasn’t.
To share your beliefs is to invite critical evaluation of those beliefs. Anything less is a courtesy not extended by the person sharing their beliefs.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we do any of those things. You can speak up more frequently, more honestly, and with less deference to the idea without calling someone’s beliefs “bullshit” and being condescending. The only strategy that works is meeting them where they’re at and treating it seriously. That can be hard when conversations can devolve so quickly but you have to remember that you’re questioning someone’s entire worldview. I’m not sure if you started as an atheist or became one later but, if the it’s the latter, try to remember what it was like when you were realizing that the way you viewed the entire world didn’t make sense.
That last line you wrote is great except in a community where there was nothing shared to initiate the OP.
I’m convinced the average age of lemmy is 13
Converted from dog years or what?
evolution is real and we certainly saw it with the COVID-19 pandemic in case anyone was still in doubt
Did we? Are you referring to the people who didn’t wear masks? Because they certainly killed people, but mostly not themselves as 99% of those critically susceptible to it wore a damn mask.
More like all the new strains of covid that appeared over time.
Maybe they meant that, but I have a feeling they didn’t.
Influenza would be a better example there given the extensive recorded history of its mutations.
Flu works as an example too, but with covid we saw mutations coming nearly in realtime by comparison with how closely it was being monitored.
Fair point, it’s certainly closer to the zeitgeist as well.
Which is kind of sad given the damage flu did last season, and likely will this season.
So there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for their comment, but you refuse to accept it? Because of a feeling? A feeling that you can’t quite articulate? Dare I say it… Faith?
It was a different person responding…
I don’t accept one person’s opinion as evidence of another’s. That’s dumb as shit.
Since you brought it up: I’m not a believer in any God. I do believe that the theory of evolution is true.
It’s an application of Occam’s Razor. It’s an application of the Principal of Charity. It’s an application of some of the most basic concepts of philosophy.
I think it’s an extreme position to say that it’s dumb as shit.
And yet you’re accusing me of faith I don’t have while providing no evidence of your interpretation, but insisting that it’s correct anyway.
I think that’s dumb as shit.
I had a biology professor in college refuse to teach the evolution lessons because she didn’t believe in it.
She wasn’t teaching the science of biology at that point. She was teaching her own thoughts and feelings and should have been removed from her position.
I requested something like that with my dean but nothing changed.
My highschool World Religions teacher told us “he followed one of the religions he was going to teach, but would not tell us which one”. Big respect for that, teaching us objectively what was out there.
Where was this?
Removed by mod
I may read through that later to see if it’s covered but I want to remind everyone there a difference between evolution and evolution by natural selection. I often hear Muslim scholars says Islam is so smart because it talks about evolution, but it’s not evolution by natural selection.
Lucretius was definitely talking about evolution from natural selection (especially look at the last one from book 5 about the intermediate freaks where only what survived to reproduce continued to exist), including what was nearly a Mendelian picture of trait inheritance from each parent.
As for whether that picture of things was being conveyed by a historical Jesus, it really depends on how one interprets the broader context of the sower parable regarding what survived multiplying (i.e. is canon more accurate or the Naassenes).
But I’d strongly suggest at least reading through the first part of my comment of the De Rerum Natura quotes. Your mind will be blown (when I was first researching this material I had to keep checking it wasn’t a hoax or overly forgiving modern translation, as it was strikingly at odds with the accuracy of what I thought was capable of being theorized in antiquity).
What is the difference? Evolution as a word can mean a few things but the concept of evolution from a biological perspective is the same as natural selection. There is no difference. Natural selection is the theory by which we explain observed biological evolution.
I suspect they mean the broad concept of “life came from other stuff that was different before it” vs “life came from other stuff based on what survived to reproduce.”
Not that neutral selection is overly broad vs evolution, but that the term evolution is sometimes too loosely applied to ideas in an attempt to give them greater credence while the thing it is applied to is ignoring the mechanics of how those changes were propagated.
It’s a fair point even if it doesn’t really apply to what I commented as Leucretius not only explicitly described the relevance of surviving to reproduce on the survival or failure of intermediate mutations, but even was aware that trait inheritance depended on a doubled seed from each parent.
So it was kind of like “I didn’t bother reading this but I’m going to assume it’s wrong in this way” where the way discussed is a legit point but not applicable to the thing they are replying to as would have been immediately apparent had they read it.
I suspect they are simply being dishonest which is why I asked. They probably don’t know and don’t care about the various methods of inheritance. They just want to try and claim that natural selection is wrong.
Look up Lamarckian.
Nah. I’m familiar with Lamarckian evolutionary theories and there’s no evidence for them. Although many evolutionary traits and effects seem Lamarckian in the ways they affect species, they are completely defined by natural selection processes and mechanisms.
I can’t tell if you’re bringing this up in bad faith because you’re a religious person or if this is a genuine attempt at separating the hypothesis from the effect and you’re just a bit ignorant.
As an example, epigenetic inheritance, which has been dishonestly used as an example of Lamarckian evolution, has evidence for it. Contrary to that idea, though, it has never been observed to have an effect on actual evolution because the environment of the species in which the inheritance occurs is still selected for by their environment.
I think there is more evidence for lmarckian thinking now than when it was proposed. I don’t think it really works but the environment can activate genes. As for whats the difference is natural selection is the source of evolution whereas god evolved creatures over time with his god powers as part of his great plan. well that would not be.
Not in the way he meant it. We’ve confirmed that inheritance is a thing but not in the way he described. In one of his writings, he gave an example of how a blacksmith, for example, could grow his muscles because of the rigor of his work and that he could pass that down to his children to give them an affinity for the same type of work. We now know that that’s not only not true but that, even in his example, the environment is the driving factor there.
I won’t even comment on the god powers.
Removed by mod
Not sure if you or op are more annoying. Actually I do, it’s you.
Can you please list the reasons you believe in God?
Reasons that person can give. Actual proof however….
Some of these “Philosophical” points are flat out bullshit
-
Homosexuality isn’t only present in human behavior and there are plenty of explanations, both on an evolutionary and behavioral standpoints, as to why. My favorite is the Gay Uncle Theory.
-
Who gives a shit? Science is by definition politicized and also by definition it expells myths for obvious reasons
-
Why? Substantiate that claim
-
That is not what democracy is founded on. In democracy all men have equal rights and have the same power to vote and be elected. Even in the US when Locke wrote that people disagreed with it, mostly because they liked owning slaves.
6-7 Substanciate that claim.
-
Skill issue. You can just as easily disprove it with facts.
-
Anyone is allowed to challenge and contribute to our understanding of the world. Just be prepared to have your claims be rigorously tested.
-
Bullshit. It has been observed in natural populations since before we even understood it.
They show a very rudimentary understanding of evolution that doesn’t seem to go beyond “survival of the fittest.”
Removed by mod
Either you have a very weird literal definition of “equal rights” or you’re being purposely obtuse. Trying to equate flaws in implementation of sociopolitical systems to an imaginary lack scientific rigor in an entirely different field is either intellectually dishonest or a fever rant.
-
Why the fuck people did downvote you?!
Many of evolutionists blame those who are against or suspicious about evolution with zealotry but when they come up with real arguments and questions, you become the zealots. You fucking hypocrites
Because it’s a gish gallop of mostly thin or discredited arguments, with the strongest at the top to make it look more impressive than it is.
And even the strongest are piss poor and largely discredited by actual science.
“My list of reasons is long” doesn’t make any one of those reasons less shoddy than it already is. “I have used scientific words” doesn’t hold water either.
Anytime I see a person gish galloping I employ a three strikes basis. I will humor their first argument. Maybe their second but if by their third all is consistently bullshit, I consider them to not be worth anyone’s time to “debate” and all further arguments from them in their gish galloping will be disregarded.
Easy way to avoid that? Don’t Gish Gallop.
You are far more tolerant than I am. I’d call it a flaw in my approach, but I just found 5 minutes to do a crossword so who’s the real winner? /s
I’ve tagged them as “dishonest debater” because they have chosen to present themselves as such.
I’ve seen this same list listed before, I’m guessing by the same person. I agree with you. These points have simple explanations.
I get the impression the list is presented the way it is to exhaust anyone wishing to contradict the points. It’s just not worth the time, especially since it is unlikely the person wants to hear explanations.
The meme is really cringey tho.
I get the impression the list is presented the way it is to exhaust anyone wishing to contradict the points
Yes, this is the definition of a gish gallop.
Instead of answering me, it would be much more helpful to come up with an counter argument to mentioned arguments.
We may debate, it wont resolve something. Time will reveal what is needed to be known or to be accepted. So go on have fun, scroll through lemmy.
It is just that, you are lazy so you dont debate and instead you shout out hate. If you are not going to debate and express the opposing side that they are wrong; you are simply an asshole, waste of resources(from my pov of course, it all is relative).
Have a nice day, btw I am an evolutionist(not that it changes sth).
You’re an evolutionary biologist or a believer in evolution?
I am the latter and suspect you are too, in which case neither of us should be getting our information on science from an unaccredited stranger on the internet.
Go and listen to Forrest Valkai or someone else who is actually accredited and actively researching those topics.
I’ll ignore your ad hominems as, they are just that - evidence of your willingness to engage in fallacy - and add nothing useful to any form of discussion.
Edit: found one while browsing! What are the odds! Post your gallop over there.
Removed by mod
The fact that you would present my opinion as something other than what I stated is evidence that you’re incapable of an honest conversation.
Do you know what all accredited scientists have in common? That their outputs are available for anyone, even laymen to review, including all the evidence, experimentation and thought work that led them to their conclusions.
But do you know what a layman can’t do? Peer review the work of accredited scientists. That’s the critical part of the process, because only an accredited scientist has the necessary body of knowledge to be able to meaningfully critique the work of his peers. That’s why we use the word peer.
You and I can argue about evolution until we’re blue in the face and scientists will keep pushing the envelope regardless of that, producing new, exciting and important discoveries to the benefit of us all.
I am an accredited scientist in my own field. I discuss it with other scientists every day. I teach laymen every day in the hope that they will achieve accreditation too one day.
If this is your goal, I wish you all the best, but you won’t achieve it with the primitive thinking of your initial comment. As for layman debate about fields in which neither of us are accredited, I’m not interested given the lackluster quality of your arguments, but stick around long enough and maybe you’ll find someone else to roll around in the mud with.
Removed by mod
- Tree of life is just a way we organize all living things to make things easier for us. And HGT happens only with prokaryotes and certain animals. It really makes things more complicated in some parts of tree of life but that isn’t weird, there will always be some thing that we can’t fully explain. Just because HGT makes things more complicated doesn’t mean that evolution isn’t true.
- What are you even talking about here?
- Please explain how fossil record fails to prove evolution.
- Improbability of what? If two organisms live in same or similar environment it isn’t odd if they have similar adaptations to same or similar environment even if they aren’t closely related. And even if they have similar adaptations that doesn’t mean they are same. Wings of bats, birds and insects are all totally different.
- Please explain what is wrong with abiogenesis.
- Be more specific.
- Give at least one example. Who gave inaccurate prediction and for what specific thing?
- If you meant that there are no mechanisms for epigenetics than that’s just wrong, there are many of them.
- I don’t know anything about this topic so I can’t comment on it.
- This is a lie. Most mutations are neutral. And don’t ignore the fact that mutation can become beneficial with changes in environment.
- I read more about this argument and it is stupid. What if certain information is neutral in terms of evolution? Us knowing about evolution isn’t beneficial for survival but it isn’t harmful either. Same goes for creationism, belief in it isn’t beneficial nor harmful from evolutionary standpoint. And don’t forget that evolutionary processes don’t always lead to beneficial changes.
- Those things are similar to neutral mutations. Again, evolution doesn’t always lead to beneficial changes.
- Everything is politicized, it doesn’t have anything to do with truth.
- How? Please explain.
- Democracy doesn’t have anything to do with evolution or any natural science.
- Please explain.
- Please explain.
- Explain how.
- Everyone can critique it but if someone doesn’t know anything about the subject, their critique isn’t relevant.
- That isn’t true.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
They’re myths, right? They can be entertaining, and they once served a function. They can even serve a function today; most of the evils perpetrated by religion were attributable to organized religion.
We no longer depend on meat, hunting, gathering, or religion, for our society. They’re vestiges. I think “bullshit” is a bit excessive.
