Not believing in evolution -- dealbreaker?

[Skyraider829]

Even if I ran into the rare person that was never irrational I wouldn't enjoy their company. Someone so cerebral and passionless that they didn't let their emotions run their life in certain areas. Vulcans are not for me.

 

Who says that someone who isn't irrational some of the time has to be a bore? Rationality does not prevent or mask passion. I completely disagree with that. I'm a rational person and I believe emotions are important in certain aspects of your life, of course - but in some sense, equating emotions to irrationality is fallacious as not all emotions are completely and independently irrational in nature. There are also reasons to love and laugh and enjoy things. There some things that only belong in the rational realm of thinking, and some things that belong only to the emotional realm of thinking, but there are quite a few things that happen to overlap.

[Eternal Sunshine]

No I wouldn't. I typically find this all out within first 5 dates or so.

 

I also couldn't date a guy with different political beliefs.

[deathandtaxes]

Jeez, everyone talks about how close-minded this guy is, and yet most here are being EXACTLY that - closed-minded. Calling him "ignorant" (which is narrow-minded and ignorant in itself) just because he doesn't have YOUR views. That's about the epitome of arrogance.

 

Just because he doesn't have the same belief system as most posting here, that doesn't make him ignorant or small-minded or sub-human. When you get older and wiser, you'll see that something like this is NOT the end-all and be-all to a realtionship.

 

It's comical how those who are always preaching about "tolerance" are usually the ones that have NONE - unless you're following their agenda, of course.

 

I have only said that such a disparity in worldviews and beliefs will only lead to a lot of friction and unhappiness.

[serial muse]

It's one thing to believe in something that can't be proven, it's quite another to deny facts.

 

Well said.

[Mrlonelyone]

Evolution isn't a belief system. It is evidence based science subject to refutation or support by observations and new evidence. Even the Pat Robertsons of the world admit now that bacteria and viruses can evolve and change. One sect even has gone to the trouble of posulating that the bible only refers to the most recent "eart age", and that the existence of past geological systems and epocs and even earlier forms of human have no bearing on the bible. A astrophysicist who practices Judaism went as far as to calculate, based on relativity, that from the reference frame of the big bang the universe is only about six days old plus a few fractions of a second.

 

So religious people can be somewhat reasonable.

 

Then there are young Earth Creationist who think the world is literally 6000 years old and that all science is a fraud perpetrated by satan.

[Standard-Fare]

The guy I'm dating said he doesn't believe in Darwin-style evolution because he doesn't believe modern humans could have happened "by chance." Which is what evolution proposes -- that a series of tiny chances piled on top of each other for humans to evolve to their current forms (from an ancestry that traces back to apes).

 

He said something like: "The mere fact that I'm alive here and breathing is a miracle," and that he can't believe that anything other than "intelligent design" could create beings so beautiful and complex. So it seems he subscribes to intelligent design, which is better than some other theories of creationism, but I wouldn't allow the conversation to go too far into that because I just kept getting angrier.

 

I also wanted to point out that if he considers it a "miracle that he's breathing" then why does he piss all over that intelligent design by smoking 10 cigarettes a day. But didn't seem like the right time to go there....

[Mascara]

If he thinks evolution is the product of chance, then he hasn't understood what it is. And if doesn't understand what it is, he's dismissing something from a place of wilful ignorance and he himself can therefore be dismissed.

 

If that were me, as soon as he said that, all I'd ever hear come out of his mouth from that point would be "wibble wibble wibble"

[Standard-Fare]

If he thinks evolution is the product of chance, then he hasn't understood what it is. And if doesn't understand what it is, he's dismissing something from a place of wilful ignorance and he himself can therefore be dismissed.

 

If that were me, as soon as he said that, all I'd ever hear come out of his mouth from that point would be "wibble wibble wibble"

 

 

I mean, I think I understood what his argument was there... but damn if I can explain it now.

[phineas]

humans are primates (no apostrophe)

[Phoe]

My ex doesn't believe in evolution. He said he'd sooner believe aliens dropped us here than believe in evolution.

 

It boggled me, but it wasn't a deal breaker.

[charlietheginger]

The guy I'm dating said he doesn't believe in Darwin-style evolution because he doesn't believe modern humans could have happened "by chance." Which is what evolution proposes -- that a series of tiny chances piled on top of each other for humans to evolve to their current forms (from an ancestry that traces back to apes).

 

He said something like: "The mere fact that I'm alive here and breathing is a miracle," and that he can't believe that anything other than "intelligent design" could create beings so beautiful and complex. So it seems he subscribes to intelligent design, which is better than some other theories of creationism, but I wouldn't allow the conversation to go too far into that because I just kept getting angrier.

 

I also wanted to point out that if he considers it a "miracle that he's breathing" then why does he piss all over that intelligent design by smoking 10 cigarettes a day. But didn't seem like the right time to go there....

I

 

the fact he is alive and breathing well he is not alone 7billion

others are alive and breathing.....

 

how beautiful and complex its is?

War poverty cancer is that beautiful?

 

So lets say this complex creature is designed so it can

killl other creatures for food .... is that complex?

[Weezy1973]

Most people have some sort of "blind spot" when it comes to irrational thought - for some it's evolution, for others it might be astrology, or psychic powers, or the Loch Ness monster. It's only a deal breaker if it is something that you hold true to yourself as one of your values. Expecting your significant other to hold the exact same opinions as you seems a bit ridiculous.

 

And let's not forget - falling in love is perhaps the least rational thing out there - but we all want it to happen...

[runningfar]

for some it's evolution, for others it might be astrology, or psychic powers, or the Loch Ness monster. QUOTE]

 

For the record, I'm not sure I could abide by any of those, either.

 

Guess I got lucky on my fiancé!

 

He and I have some differing political views, but nothing fundamental.

[heartshaped]

The guy I'm dating said he doesn't believe in Darwin-style evolution because he doesn't believe modern humans could have happened "by chance." Which is what evolution proposes -- that a series of tiny chances piled on top of each other for humans to evolve to their current forms (from an ancestry that traces back to apes).

 

He said something like: "The mere fact that I'm alive here and breathing is a miracle," and that he can't believe that anything other than "intelligent design" could create beings so beautiful and complex. So it seems he subscribes to intelligent design, which is better than some other theories of creationism, but I wouldn't allow the conversation to go too far into that because I just kept getting angrier.

 

I also wanted to point out that if he considers it a "miracle that he's breathing" then why does he piss all over that intelligent design by smoking 10 cigarettes a day. But didn't seem like the right time to go there....

 

I'm sorry, but could you please stop postulating that evolution proposes that we evolved from apes. The idea is that we share a common ancestor not that we descended from them.

 

I don't mean to be rude, OP, but really, I don't know why you and your suitor are even disagreeing over this when it sounds as if neither of you have a good grasp of the issue.

[Standard-Fare]

I'm sorry, but could you please stop postulating that evolution proposes that we evolved from apes. The idea is that we share a common ancestor not that we descended from them.

 

I don't mean to be rude, OP, but really, I don't know why you and your suitor are even disagreeing over this when it sounds as if neither of you have a good grasp of the issue.

 

OK, pardon my clumsy phrasing, I do realize that we didn't directly descend from apes, but from a common "apelike" ancestor. The point being, early humans shared shared some traits with apes and then evolved from that. The guy I'm dating doesn't believe that.

 

But I'm not claiming to be particularly knowledgeable about evolution and it's been years since I studied it. The bigger point is, humans didn't just magically appear in the sophisticated form they are today without evolving for centuries.

 

"Intelligent design" theories deny Darwinism. I don't accept that.

[ChessPieceFace]

Humans ARE apes! The theory isn't "humans came from chimpanzees" anyway, but that they have a common ancestor and diverged.

 

And as I said, there are not nearly enough transitional forms to support this at the current time. Look at the difference in musculature between ALL current apes and ALL homo sapiens, current and fossilized. Look at the rib cage shape. The cranium. You take it on FAITH that these missing transitional forms are still out there, still hiding 150 years after the fact. That's where you are no different than other people of FAITH. And when you deny it, the arrogance is apparent.

 

Abso-friggin-lutely.

 

This isn't your thread and I wasn't asking you. Kindly take your ignorance of basic scientific fact elsewhere. Or go actually look at the progression of fossils from lower/precursor apes to homo-sapiens and come back with a cogent theory as to how the musculature, cranium, rib cage, forearm lengths and so many other traits changed overnight without leaving transitional forms showing any of the process of evolution you so ardently believe in.

 

If it didn't happen on its own, it happened by intent. Maybe the intent is an invisible omnipotent being or maybe it's simply another race from the countless planets out there. Our own barely intelligent ape race is already able to manipulate genetics. Certainly a far more advanced race could create and modify life forms easily. Or hey, keep believing in your dogma. It's what most people do.

Edited October 9, 2013 by ChessPieceFace

[runningfar]

And as I said, there are not nearly enough transitional forms to support this at the current time. Look at the difference in musculature between ALL current apes and ALL homo sapiens, current and fossilized. Look at the rib cage shape. The cranium. You take it on FAITH that these missing transitional forms are still out there, still hiding 150 years after the fact. That's where you are no different than other people of FAITH. And when you deny it, the arrogance is apparent.

 

 

This isn't your thread and I wasn't asking you. Kindly take your ignorance of basic scientific fact elsewhere..

 

Well you said it. That certainly makes it true.

 

And the general scientific consensus... ignorance! The whole lot of them!

You asked a question. I merely answered it. That would absolutely be a deal breaker, as well.

 

I love the moving target for the transitional elements with each one found, though.

[ChessPieceFace]

And the general scientific consensus... ignorance!

 

Fallacy - Appeal to Authority

 

The whole lot of them!

 

Fallacy - Appeal to Belief

 

You asked a question.

 

Not of you. Outright lie.

 

I merely answered it.

 

If you merely answered (the question which, again, was not directed at you) you wouldn't still be typing. Outright lie.

 

That would absolutely be a deal breaker, as well.

 

I never asked what your deal-breakers are, nor do I care.

 

I love the moving target for the transitional elements with each one found, though.

 

Another outright lie. I added items to the list, not removed them. No evidence was provided. No transitional forms exist and no scientifically valid explanation has been presented for the abrupt transition from ape traits to human traits. You're a fanatical believer drowning in fallacy and irony.

[runningfar]

Ah, this has been amusing!

 

For me to be giving fallacies, I'd have to be arguing your point with you. And I'm not, because this thread was about irrational beliefs being deal breakers, not the debate of those beliefs themselves. But it's been fun!

[phineas]

And as I said, there are not nearly enough transitional forms to support this at the current time. Look at the difference in musculature between ALL current apes and ALL homo sapiens, current and fossilized. Look at the rib cage shape. The cranium. You take it on FAITH that these missing transitional forms are still out there, still hiding 150 years after the fact. That's where you are no different than other people of FAITH. And when you deny it, the arrogance is apparent.

 

 

 

This isn't your thread and I wasn't asking you. Kindly take your ignorance of basic scientific fact elsewhere. Or go actually look at the progression of fossils from lower/precursor apes to homo-sapiens and come back with a cogent theory as to how the musculature, cranium, rib cage, forearm lengths and so many other traits changed overnight without leaving transitional forms showing any of the process of evolution you so ardently believe in.

 

If it didn't happen on its own, it happened by intent. Maybe the intent is an invisible omnipotent being or maybe it's simply another race from the countless planets out there. Our own barely intelligent ape race is already able to manipulate genetics. Certainly a far more advanced race could create and modify life forms easily. Or hey, keep believing in your dogma. It's what most people do.

 

what you are talking about is the "missing link" and I agree.

 

There is strangely a lack of fossil remains for that transitional time period you speak of. Between 1 & 3 million years ago they believe there are multiple species that walked upright buy due to having only a few samples scientists still can't agree on which one of those we evolved from if any.

 

Evolution is just a theory. A widely accepted theory but still just a theory.

It isn't scientific law.

 

Like I said though, I'll accept evolutionary theory over some of the stuff I've heard from creationists who believe the world started with Adam & Eve.

[crederer]

My ex was a proponent of the "just a theory" hogwash. She felt there was evidence to support it, but because it was "theory" it wasn't based on any real fact. She also completely misunderstood what evolution actually means (which is even made more bizzare by the fact her mom is a retired high school biology teacher -- although, then AGAIN her mom taught a creationist type of biology).

 

Looking back on everything I realize this is something I clashed heavily with her on. I wanted to overlook it but now I know in the future I really can't.

 

To me, it's one thing if you don't understand the theory -- I sure as hell don't completely understand it, but when you blatantly deny the conclusions and mix up real scientific theory with the term's everyday definition, that really bothers me.

 

Evolution isn't a theory. It's a fact. Creationism is a theory.

[AMusing]

OP, don't feel bad about not being firm on specifics of evolution and still not wanting to be with someone who has rejected it entirely. I don't know much about, say, art, but if I were dating someone who insisted the Sistine Chapel's ceiling was painted by Rembrandt, I would have a hard time respecting him too.

 

And as I said, there are not nearly enough transitional forms to support this at the current time. [...] You take it on FAITH that these missing transitional forms are still out there, still hiding 150 years after the fact. That's where you are no different than other people of FAITH. And when you deny it, the arrogance is apparent.

 

Fossils are wonderful, useful, and astonishingly common given what has to happen for them not only to form, but for us to find them. Of course there are more fossils out there, how silly to think otherwise. That's has nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with common sense and most likely outcomes. We're still finding new extant animals! But even without a single transitional fossil, the theory of evolution would be very well supported at this point. DNA comparison of chimps and humans, for example, fits beautifully with earlier evolutionary theory--as it was established before DNA sequencing was possible.

 

Read one of Gould's books on punctuated equilibrium for a nice discussion on the fossil record. Then read E.O. Wilson's book on human evolution, followed by a nice dose of Dawkins, to round things out.

[Mascara]

 

Evolution is just a theory. A widely accepted theory but still just a theory.

 

Sorry, I generally believe that people can believe what they like - as long as they get their details correct - and the phrase "it's just a theory" often comes up. This is down to a misunderstanding about what the word "theory" means in a scientific capacity. It doesn't mean "one idea about what MIGHT have happened" as it does in non-scientific theories. Evolution, gravity etc come under this definition.

 

From the Oxford English Dictionary - scientific theory is the first. General thoughts about things are the second -

 

1. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
   
   
2. A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
   
   

[SoleMate]

...go actually look at the progression of fossils from lower/precursor apes to homo-sapiens and come back with a cogent theory as to how the musculature, cranium, rib cage, forearm lengths and so many other traits changed overnight...

 

Not "overnight", Chess. Over thousands and tens of thousands of generations.

 

...without leaving transitional forms showing any of the process of evolution you so ardently believe in.

Pretty much every hominid fossil found is a new transition between something and something else. The fossil record is constantly surprising us. Best recent example is the very small hominids found on the island of Flores. There are so many surprises (and will be many more in the future) because the fossil record is necessarily sparse. Only 1 creature in perhaps 1,000,000 even has the chance to become fossilized and later be found.

 

Future beings studying our fossil record from the perspective of the year 1,000,000 A.D. may not be able to verify the existence of many creatures alive today. They won't know there were over 40 species of hummingbird or be able to trace the speciation of finches in the Galapagos and find all the "missing links" to some arbitrary standard, except by very good luck. If they're smart, they won't make arguments of the absence of such creatures or phenomena from the absence of complete evidence therefor.

 

If we did have 100,000 well-preserved hominid fossils from a single geographic area, covering perhaps a stretch of 1,000,000 years, so that there were uniformly 2 or 3 individuals from every generation, and well-trained scientists were unable to establish an evolutionary path based on gradual and cumulative change, then that would be powerful evidence that would challenge evolution as I know it.

 

Likewise, if creatures appeared "overnight" in great numbers, without any plausible precursor species, while the geology showed that similar fossil-bearing strata anywhere on earth that was slightly older contained nothing remotely similar, again anywhere from which such animals could have migrated, then yes, that would provide some support for an "alien seeding" or "creation" hypothesis. I'm scientific, I'd let the evidence take me where it would. If I were a paleontologist, nothing would excite me more than powerful evidence tending to disprove evolution. That would gain worldwide attention and plenty of $$$$ (interviews, books, lectures etc.) immediately. Kind of like cold fusion except if the evidence actually stands up, that person if the new replacement for Darwin.

Edited October 9, 2013 by SoleMate

[TouchedByViolet]

Yup, deal breaker. Evolution is such a simple concept. Life adapts to survive. Given enough time and external forces evolution happens.