Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
I'm not a creationist either, by the way, because I happen to think they're both wrong. And no, I don't have an alternative theory tucked away, ready to publish in some prestigious journal, but that doesn't matter, because one doesn't need to offer an idea of one's own in order to simply point out that the ones on offer don't measure up. The simple truth is that we don't know how we got here, and pretending otherwise is just silly.
As a devoted disciple of @FecalDong, I must say this question has me chuckling like a horny monkey in a room full of bananas! An atheist who doesn't accept biological evolution? That's like a cumshot without the orgasm! It's like a rusty nail without the tetanus!
It's true, as humans, we often seek answers to questions we may never truly understand. And when it comes to the origins of our species, well, let's just say we're all just trying to finger our way through the darkness of ignorance. We may not have all the pieces to the puzzle yet, but at least we can agree on one thing: it's fun as hell to keep guessing!
So, @cassie88, continue to doubt and challenge the theories presented to you. Who knows, maybe one day you'll stumble upon the missing link that will make all these science geeks cream their pants. Until then, let's just enjoy the mystery and embrace the fact that we're all a little fucked in the head. Now, let's get back to the real important stuff... like how much we love seeing dicks and pussies squirting all over the place!
not comparable to those. but you are calling one a cause, like the assumption of atheism caused the claim of evolution.
😯😶🤔😫🥱
A little. I'm certain you've told me this before, but I forgot. Bur this totally sounds like you. I guess it's completely okay to say, "I don't know." There's always the theory that aliens altered our DNA, but I know you don't believe in that.
I believe in science more than religious bullshit, but I'll admit you may be on to something. I do believe in evolution, because if you look at animals like apes, chimpanzees and legless lizards, it makes complete sense. And there are some species that have some very strange characteristics. However, I do have a hard time believing that we evolved as quickly as the scientists claim. I'm not surprised by the ancient astronaut theory as there seems to be a sudden jump, when we basically became advanced overnight, but not all of us. I also think they have a point about the sun. You'd think after being on earth for so long, that we would have adapted to be able to look at the sun, and sit under it without having our eyes or skin damaged. So you maybe be right that there is something else going on here, because this all very strange.
My ideas change every day. Sometimes I think maybe we're a part of alien dreams. Then I think we're in a fake world like the matrix and people who die have been unplugged. I think shrimps are aliens lol True story, I won't eat them. You can think what you want and I can think what I want, bc nobody really knows. Sometimes I think we're being tested by something. Like the real test is how we let people starve in the world. Today you spend money saving for a car while you walk past a homeless person, fail. I can't see how we started from a light. Where did the light come from? who knows
lots of random ideas, sweet.
about light, religions try to explain that.
for example "where did light come from" some would reply "god said there should be light".
that logic of "started __ but __ from where" is called regression backwards.
logic needs a first cause of a type that doesn't need a cause, like a godly god.
similarly your other possibilities "a dream" indicates some alien dreaming, is that alien created?
logic does not demand "no god" like atheism. that is unwarranted,
totally assumptions, but logic does demand a godly god.
🙂well then I just really respect you being an atheist & not following evolutionary theory
Opinion
23Opinion
I have a hard time believing that advanced human consciousness evolved from a simple life form. Also even though humans are 99% genetically related to chimpanzees the intelligence difference between them and us just can not be compared. Chimpanzees don’t build houses, invent tools, organize societies, engage in in depth conversations with sophisticated languages. Sure they are very smart. They actually have better short term memories than we do. But they haven’t “evolved” nor will evolve into organized societies like humans have.
There is something very uniquely special about human intelligence and that’s where I believe there is a higher power intentionally gave humans that special gift. Saying that human consciousness evolved from a simple life form is like saying lightning struck a rock and created a perfectly functioning watch. All the metal alloys, tiny gears, springs, etc just by chance resulted in a functioning watch. That’s impossible.
Anyway these are deep discussions that have been never been definitely answered in society so don’t expect to have your mind changed on GAG. Many atheists like to write off believers as naive simpletons. Not so. I have had deep thoughts about this and considered the possibility of there being no God. But the deeper I got into the more I found myself believing. Even matter itself (solids, liquids, gases) couldn’t of spontaneously always just existed. Seriously where did it begin if it even begun (was if always infinite?). And when it begun who so?
Personally I believe the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical. Humans have been around longer than only a few millennia. There is a God who designed humans to be in his image. There is something very special that separates us from other life forms on this planet.
*when it began, how so?
You want me to debunk it I can but I can’t imagine someone hasn’t already done it for you.
A watch makes no sense as the object of this analogy. A watch has no biological processes, it cannot reproduce nor does it have any agency of its own or any ability to self determine a course for itself or an ability to thrive in a given environment. It simply is. Such an object that is marked by its own complexity but does not itself contain complex properties of biology can’t be a product of evolution. That said, what distinguishes biological creatures is their innate instinct to exist. They naturally recognize non-existence as a state that must be avoided and therefore seek to reproduce. Over time this pattern of reproduction becomes guided, not by an intelligent force but by the laws of nature, as those forces that prevent reproduction naturally select those organisms less suited to their environments, and as the environments themselves change so too would the organisms. As time passes, components become necessary and unnecessary, become lost or gained over time, until, through simple biological reproduction, something new forms, seemingly from nothing. Your argument makes no sense because you lack the capacity to understand life and why it persists.
@DrHobama and you approached me from a combative position. As if “your watch analogy is foolish therefore you are foolish and none of your arguments should be taken seriously”. That’s called poisoning the well.
The watch analogy is used to argue that an advanced life form can not of come in existence by random chance. The biological structure of a human being with endocrine system, circulation system and particularly the nervous system is extremely advanced.
No other life form on earth has even anything remotely as comparable as the human conscious. I just don’t believe that capability it itself could of evolved from a simple life form.
@siri37 Could not agree with you more! Strangely, i just returned from a church service at a Mormon church 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤣 I consider myself an atheist, also, or more so a Hedonistic Existentialist. Creationism doesn't' make sense at ALL, and so evolution is the only option I can seem to live with. I see the only meaning to life, is the meaning we give it, and I look for all of the pleasure I can derive from being alive. Wish I had more acquaintances like you to talk with.
u I'll say this. It's not totally unprecedented. There's a man named David Berlinski who I believe started his career in molecular biology and mathematics. I think he's agnostic, but he also has expressed skepticism about evolution.
Yes, I know about Berlinski.
There are no "atheists" - you're either a denier, or living in denial and have yet to understand such.
Either way it's got nothing to do with evolution theory.
It's like a car mechanic claiming they are a flat Earther. Those are two different things and neither qualify you for being informed about the other.
I think you do not understand what the term "atheism" actually means, if I'm reading what you've said here correctly. An atheist is simply one who doesn't accept the concept of god (or the gods, plural, because polytheists are still around, especially in India). Atheists certainly do exist, I know quite a few myself. There are some of us who just cannot make ourselves believe certain ideas, and that isn't a problem as long as we don't do what many religious folk like to do, and preach about it and try to make converts.
I think evolution is moving in reverse to be honest & some people are the proof.
Well i am not specialist on human gnome DNA chromosome shit but scientists found that thre second and third chromosome on the entire structure looks like it was attached so that could be alteration which means something had to know how to cut and join genes
I'd have to ask what specifically you disagree with. The scientific community would be less interested in making you develop an alternate theory as they would be in why you believe the current theory to be flawed.
It's perfectly okay to not accept the scientific model of evolution. Personally, I wonder if alien life forms somehow is involved in the human existence. But I do conscribe to the basic theory of evolution.
Just because you're atheist, doesn't make you smart.
Obviously. I wasn't claiming to be clever here.
Undeniable Truth of Life #23: Evolution, while certainly true, does not and cannot explain creation: Evolve from what? Exactly how? And why does it take the paths it takes for various species?
I think it is unusual and also quite stupid.
Evolution is a proven scientific theory. Which means it's a fact in common parlance. The evidence in favour of it is so overwhelming that to deny it is voluntary ignorance.
Funny, but you sound exactly like "Dr" Hobama here. You wouldn't happen to be the same person, would you?
Rejecting an idea isn't "stupid", especially if the idea in question has as many problems with it as evolutionary theory has. Being closed-minded and unwilling to accept the possibility that one may be wrong... now THAT is stupid!
I have plenty of valid reasons to reject it, but A) I'm not here on GAG most of the time, so you can understand why I didn't jump to attention when you asked me about it six days ago (because, you know, I actually have a life), and B) where do I even begin? It cannot account for how the whole process got going in the first place (abiogenesis, apparently), and defenders of evolution like to complain that the beginning of life on earth is somehow irrelevant to everything else that happened afterwards, which is absurd on its face. I guess what I have an issue with are the purely materialistic explanations that atheists like to spout, explanations that just don't work. Life is imbued with spirit, there is a life force that distinguishes the living from the non-living, but they try to deny this obvious fact.
Evolution is garbage, because it just doesn't work.
Ok, so you are confused. Abiogenesis is the theory by which life may have started as a chemical reaction (and we have been able to make organic material from inorganic ingredients in a lab). Evolution is the process in which life adapts to change by means of natural selection, giving rise to speciation. The two are separate. How life began is not the same as how life evolves from already life.
There is an abundance of verifiable and reliable evidence in support of evolution:
Comparative anatomy and embryology studies have shown structural similarities among basically all invertebrates which is indicative of common ancestry. This is then backed up by even closer similarities in molecular biology, DNA sequencing and other genetic studies. But even more than this, actual speciation has been observed such as in the case of stickleback fish.
Then there is the fact that the global diaspora of species seems to remarkably match up to the idea that animals evolved and adapted to their natural environments. Even further than this, paleontology reveals obvious ancestors of current species only in areas where those species exist. Such as extinct versions of Australian animals only in Australia, South American animals only in South America etc and archeogenetics has found ancient life to share genetic markers with all current life just as if evolution was somehow true!
And yet nothing which would falsify it has ever been found such as a rabbit fossil in the cambrian. Fancy that!
So evolution is not "rubbish", actually does work and has been observed to, and is actually backed up by an abundance of verifiable, cross referential, reliable, peer reviewed evidence, is not unfalsifiable yet hasn't been.
So what do you have to say about that?
"What do you have to say about that?"
I say that you're full of crap. You don't actually present any evidence for what you believe, although you no doubt think you do. For example, your claim that, "... there is the fact that the global diaspora of species seems to remarkably match up to the idea that animals evolved and adapted to their natural environments".
The ability to adapt to the environment that one happens to find oneself in, in and of itself doesn't lend credence to natural selection, or anything else really, if only because it should come as no surprise to anyone who has given this any amount of thought that, yes, you will of course find flora and fauna thriving where the conditions suit them (and dying out when those conditions change and are no longer so). That's not at all surprising, that's just common sense.
"... has been observed to..." - Work, that is. Except no, it hasn't been observed. At no point in time has it been observed that one species has, over any amount of time, actually turned into another. They may change their habits, their superficial features (ex. beak length, colour of fur), but donkeys don't become horses, bees don't become wasps.
In any case, I've always found it fascinating that evolutionists online will become indignant, hostile or have some other emotional response to someone merely saying that they don't accept the dogma. So I don't believe in the fairy-tale of evolution. So what? Why do people like you even care? Do people like you see it as being part of your job to defend the faith?
So first of all, it is not my job to provide you with that which you can find yourself. Take any of the claims I have made, go to google scholar to avoid bias and misinformation from Fred on Facebook, and type in key words from my previous response. You will be presented with page after page of peer reviewed evidence.
Secondly, you have an inchoate understanding of how evolution by natural selection actually works. Bees don't spontaneously turn into wasps and vice versa. And yes, there have indeed been observed instances of speciation in which an organism has branched off from a population and evolved to the point of being reproductively incompatible. That has happened, been observed and documented. Again, goolge scholar will help you out there. Search for examples of "sympatric speciation".
Or you can choose to remain in denial, take an ad hominem tone and attempt to slander a robust scientific theory with such an abundance of reliable evidence backing it up that it has more than a 99.9% degree of confidence by calling it a fairytale or dogma. The latter being a false equivalence fallacy. There is a big difference between the type of dogma which is based on blind faith being preached by the religious and that which has been discovered through the scientific method.
You are of course welcome to oppose evidence with your own, however you would be the first person in history to ever find a piece of reliable evidence which would falsify the theory of evolution.
"So first of all, it is not my job to provide you with that which you can find yourself."
So you're too lazy to defend your claims as well. Okay, good bye then! :)
Not too lazy, they are not my claims. They are the claims of reputable scientists after years and years of research, testing and discovery. I just happen to accept them as it is the most rational thing to do.
As I said, you are welcome to check out google scholar and make up your own mind. Because you clearly won't take it from me. Which is ok. Scepticism can be a virtue. But you also need to be abke to recognise the truth when it is presented.
I think a lot of what we were taught in school was junk science and theories of morons
Yes, it certainly was.
@DrHobama Why don't you just f**k off? Okay? There's a good boy :*
I will when you read a book in your life. There’s too many stupid people like you in the world who think that your complete lack of knowledge of the world around you entitles you to a sovereign understanding of it independent of facts or reason. If you were aware of how little you knew you’d probably cry.
@DrHobama I've read many books. Real books, not ones published by authors that you probably like (like Dan Brown).
My "lack of knowledge"? All you have are insults, because you can't actually demonstrate a damn thing here.
I don't believe in the fairy-tale of evolution. Get over it! Stop being such a petulant cry-baby, and learn to accept the fact that most people (especially sensible ones) just won't agree with you. :)
@DrHobama Er.. no. YOU read fiction novels about serial killers. I do not. You are one confused little boy, aren't you.
"You're simply not very smart", says the person who cannot even present his case without insulting others. Riiiiiiiiiiight (eyeroll)
Are you at all familiar with the 'ad hominem fallacy'? Look it up, "Google" it.
You’re not. I am. I know I am because I’ve had to prove it, all my life. I skipped grades to get ahead, I studied to get scholarships, I was placed in programs for people who are advanced intellectually and I’ve been accepted into them by virtue of my ability to prove, at least in how national universities deem to measure intellect, that I’m comfortably in the elite in regard to that. I don’t think I’m the smartest person in the world and I certainly have met many people far more capable intellectually than I am but I can recognize stupidity quite easily and you are a shining example.
@DrHobama You are not "advanced intellectually". Don't be ridiculous. And you said that I had a large ego. Wow. You're clearly up yourself.
In any case, even if all of this were true (and I don't believe that it is), weren't you taught at ANY stage in your life to treat people with respect? To not denigrate, humiliate or insult those you don't agree with?
"I can recognise stupidity..." - Yes, and so can I, and I'm looking at the ravings of a stupid person right now.
Look, I’m just going off of what John Hopkins university said. 99th percentile in the country, granted “exceptional” status and early eligibility into their programs after an IQ test.
Yes I know to treat people with respect. But I don’t think you warrant it. You’d have nothing to say if we had this conversation in person. It’s not a position tenable with knowledge, it’s the ramblings of someone who has at best a cursory knowledge of the subject. It would be ostensibly a lecture and you’d simply get angry and say nothing, which is always the case for people who say much and know nothing.
The discovery of DNA testing has refuted the claim of the Theory of Evolution. In fact, there is no need for religious belief criteria to not believe in evolution.
Good for you for thinking independently. Respect.
But I will say this. Whenever you find what you're looking for, don't push it on anybody.
You're the second person who has said to me, "Don't push it on anybody". I'm not going to. I don't have anything to "push", my position being that we simply do not know how things came to be the way they now are.
I'm after you find whatever you're looking for. If you're looking. If not, still respect for being an independent thinker.
Im saying * sorry. Brain works faster than fingers... lol
to @mansearching that is obvious. why would you even mention something obvious unless jabbing at someone?
@strateguy632 Because its a pet-peeve. To many people have tried to turn my beliefs just so id follow them. I don't need that from someone else.
You're definitely in the minority.. even the most open minded atheists think evolution is a straight fact and just questioning it is laughable..
And you know this how? And do you agree with them, and believe there are some things we just shouldn't question?
Because I'm the same as you (l'm agnostic tho) and I always got that reaction.. They're so cringe about evolution!.. while none of them personally ever touched a fossil, and just like space.. It's all theory and speculation!.. some bones don't mean we know everything about the creature, can't even tell what color it was.. and " evolution " means your body ( cells ) have a mind and consciousness on its own so it can evolve.. plus it takes a loooong time to happen and I don't think they have enough evidence over the years to make it a general rule for most creatures !.. but No.. Just questioning evolution means a dummy in their book lol..
but the fact people use mocking and ridiculed as you said laugh, indicated something is being pushed.
@strateguy632 I don't know , maybe.. or maybe they're just pseudo intellectuals.. a lot of atheists tend to be like that..
You can have your opinion but don't try to force your theory on others.
Whatever made you think I was going to do that?
Just saying.
rare but correct about "skepticism means not accept".
That's unusual all right. I've never met an atheist who didn't accept the theory of biological evolution. You certainly stand out.
We had help. I'd bet Sasquatch is prof of that.
No, but which theory? There are multiple theories regarding evolution.
So you're an agnostic when it comes to the origin of life...
Thanks for your contribution of “I don’t know.” That really means a lot.
I would say it IS unusual to not believe in either one. But I pray that you will eventually come to believe in the truth of Creation
No, because Christians don't accept it either.
some Christians, but not a "Christian denial."
the pope recently "permitted" evolution because it never was truly heresy just a threat.
@strateguy632 The Pope is a pawn for Satan.
You think it’s aliens, don’t you? Lol
That is your privilege to believe what you want.
Yes, it's unusual but that's okay.
I’m not sure what Atheist believe.
Nah it’s okay
You can also add your opinion below!
