Not believing in evolution -- dealbreaker?

[salparadise]

The thing that saddens me about this is the underlying takeaway seems to be: "People with very different upbringings can't form successful relationships." Or more specifically, "Northeast U.S. vs. Southeast U.S. = big culture clash."

 

Do you really feel that the difference in beliefs is an inherent difference between the cultures? That's a gross generalization and simply not true. I find that to be as absurd a notion as new earth creationism! There are bible thumpers, po whites, and rednecks in the Northeast, just as there are intelligent, progressive, educated people in the Southeast. Trying to paint an individual with a stereotype based on geography... must be a Northeastern thing?

 

I am a southerner and had a relationship with a smart, liberal woman from New York. Guess which one of us was devoutly religious. She avoided any direct discussion of evolutionism/creationism by just saying she wasn't sure how it all came together. Which I thought was ok.

 

Our last clash along these lines involved "Obama's war on coal." But it's pretty obvious that I'm going to take the liberal "coal = bad" view given my background. Meanwhile, his viewpoint is formed by actual growing up near coal mines and seeing friends and family members lose jobs and find no other livelihood. He's coming at it from an entirely different angle and I can't relate.

 

I am probably from the same general area... the coal producing region around the borders of TN, KY, WV, VA. I have relatives from the center of the coal region who believe in a literal translation of the Bible, and of course they do not believe in evolution, yet they are highly intelligent people (based on the academic achievements of their progeny). It's interesting to see how all of this works, and while influences is fairly certain, it's a mistake to assume that individuals are defined by geographical trends.

 

That being said, I don't think I could entertain a an outright creationist... unless she had some damn fine looking genes! Sometimes one has to make sacrifices for the future generations, ya know.

Edited October 9, 2013 by salparadise

[Skyraider829]

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.

 

It is true that evolution was not a smooth nexus of biological changes over time in a graduated manner - it appears to have occurred in "bursts". I wouldn't call evolution a theory in the strictest sense, I would be more inclined talk of the processes of evolution (sexual selection, natural selection, horizontal gene transfer, etc.) as theories of how it happened on both the macro and microscales of all life forms.

[Skyraider829]

I am probably from the same general area... the coal producing region around the borders of TN, KY, WV, VA. I have relatives from the center of the coal region who believe in a literal translation of the Bible, and of course they do not believe in evolution, yet they are highly intelligent people (based on the academic achievements of their progeny). It's interesting to see how all of this works, and while influences is fairly certain, it's a mistake to assume that individuals are defined by geographical trends.

 

Ditto. Geography is not a strict criteria for the dogmas or beliefs of people. The "Bible Belt" is a loose description of the types of people who live in those regions. People move and they take their ways and qualities with them. Influences are spread all over and in between.

 

Its kind of funny how intelligent people can believe such things like creationism. However I think the proves that sometimes intelligence is not always "aligned" so to speak with scientific reasoning.

[soccerrprp]

It is true that evolution was not a smooth nexus of biological changes over time in a graduated manner - it appears to have occurred in "bursts". I wouldn't call evolution a theory in the strictest sense, I would be more inclined talk of the processes of evolution (sexual selection, natural selection, horizontal gene transfer, etc.) as theories of how it happened on both the macro and microscales of all life forms.

 

Lovely. Really.

 

This is part of the problem with people who believe in evolution. They fail to adequately explain why it's so difficult or impossible (for some) to observe, so many people dismiss it as quackery. I especially love it when some evolutionists fixate on the "humans evolved from apes" and seem surprised that someone would think that was absurd.

 

I was married to a woman who had serious misgivings about evolution. Not a deal-breaker for me, obviously. She didn't totally dismiss it, but had a tough time swallowing the whole pill. I did my best to help her understand and be sensitive to her lack of understanding. In the end, don't know if she fully accepted it, but 12+ years of marriage is a darn good indicator that it was not THAT important when there are so many other core beliefs and values that are more important.

[Shepp]

If evolution is a CORE value to the OP, then let that person go. I believe in evolution and don't find it to be a CORE value. In fact, people who believe in evolution have their own degree of loyalty to theory that falls on a spectrum of evolutionary commitment and adherence. Shall I reject potential mates b/c they don't believe in evolution AS MUCH as I do? Not.

 

Anyway, if evolutions is that strong of a value to you, then move on.

 

I agree! I believe in evolution, I never really considered it something to believe in or not. But its not like particularly important to me! I was surprised how many people on this thread think someone being religious would be a deal-breaker for them.

 

Religion has always been a bit of a non-issue for me dating wise, a girl being religious wouldn't put me off her, its not really a topic that ever comes up for me - I guess maybe a girl being religious could put her off me maybe, cause im not...but then if it did that would annoy me, i'm not a religious man, but I'm a good man, I try my hardest to be honourable, not because of a god telling me to but because I want to be.

Sure if you listen to the bible & commandments & that i'm a sinner for sure, but i'm proud of the way I live my life and I never pray when things are going right for me, I put it down to my own abilities, so I wont pray for help when things are going wrong or I want something - and for that I think if there is a higher force, it'll pay me regard - and if it doesn't then that's the reason I never followed it in the first place.

 

So I guess religion could cause fractions in a relationship I had - but not just because someone didn't believe in evolution, anymore than if they didn't believe in...long division.

[ChessPieceFace]

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.

 

Glad we agree, then. (sic)

[Skyraider829]

This is part of the problem with people who believe in evolution. They fail to adequately explain why it's so difficult or impossible (for some) to observe, so many people dismiss it as quackery. I especially love it when some evolutionists fixate on the "humans evolved from apes" and seem surprised that someone would think that was absurd.

 

That's the point of contention between those who attempt to explain evolution and those whom are trying to understand it; it is that those who were brought up on a specific dogma just aren't interested and some truly believe they're endowed with some sort of infallible knowledge that they gained from their "teachings". Its a challenger to try to explain something to any person who does not take an interest in what you're talking about.

 

I don't grasp what some evolutionists mean by saying "human beings evolved from apes". Not true in the slightest. Common ancestry is what evolution suggests and it seems quite apparent. From that common ancestor, via divergent speciation came hominoids and eventually homo sapiens. Its not hard to grasp at all.

 

Also, for some folks - their attention span only lasts milliseconds and are impatient so sitting down and learning some of the methods of science and research will be a bore to them and they don't want to hear it. They just want a short, one sentence answer and that just isn't always the case in any field of science - especially biology and evolutionary theory.

 

I was married to a woman who had serious misgivings about evolution. Not a deal-breaker for me, obviously. She didn't totally dismiss it, but had a tough time swallowing the whole pill. I did my best to help her understand and be sensitive to her lack of understanding. In the end, don't know if she fully accepted it, but 12+ years of marriage is a darn good indicator that it was not THAT important when there are so many other core beliefs and values that are more important./

 

Indeed it is. To me, world views and the ideas of how humans beings became what they are and where they came from is not as important as the connections and views you have about each other. And I would speculate that if anybody is truly "in love" with someone then they would have the respect and consideration for their own views on things. People have better things to talk about and properly argue about other than evolution.

 

I suppose these people have some difficulty with evolution because they were taught to only seek doctrine from a young age and so they're emotionally locked in to it and they are reactions are centered around this doctrinal concentration. People should question and learn from the world around them beginning at a young age.

[ChessPieceFace]

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

 

Except that the "fact" that evolution has most likely happened in many species does not rule out tampering or intervention. We humans have already tampered with many species and their "natural evolution."

 

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.

 

It's "silly" to defend a belief by calling opposing beliefs silly.

 

"We haven't found all the fossils on Earth yet, therefore the missing transitional forms are obviously still lurking out there, waiting to verify my assumption of the evolution of humans from precursor primates" - this is a biased assumption which degrades with each passing year.

 

Coming up on 154 years since Darwin's 'Origin of Species.' He expected many more transitional forms, we still don't have them. Your faith and belief system compel you to cling to the belief that they are still out there. That's very unscientific of you.

 

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

 

Then that would be tens of thousands of generations of transitional forms missing from the fossil record, making your case even worse.

 

Only 1 creature in perhaps 1,000,000 even has the chance to become fossilized and later be found.

 

Yet many creatures have many, many, many fossilized copies. We have fossils of primates and human relatives but not even close to enough transitional forms. What habitat behavior or geological disaster could have wiped out this mysteriously absent group of fossils? It's just random chance that after 154 years there's still a massive gaping hole in the record?

 

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.

 

But they can make arguments for the presence of consistently absent fossils based on faith. No problem there...

 

I'm scientific

 

Stop kidding yourself. You are "scientific" only in dogmatically supporting accepted scientific beliefs. You gloss over anything which challenges your beliefs.

 

It's amusing how similar "mainstream science" is to mainstream religion. Both react in the same hostile manner to anyone challenging their assumptions. It's too comforting and safe to cling to beliefs rather than challenge them.

 

Take evolution to its logical end. If life is so robust, leading toward higher forms, why is it so hard for you to accept the possibility of ET civilizations? We haven't even had computers for 1 century and look at what we're doing with them. Imagine showing a smartphone to someone from 1913. Their mind = blown. We can already map genomes and manipulate genetics to a degree, and we're barely more than hairless apes. Tweaking primate genes would be child's play to any civilization that managed to survive long enough to leave their planet. That gives them the means. Motive? Life and its forms are ultimately what's interesting, not dead empty planets. Opportunity? That's the only big question and where belief comes in. Whether they could get here, and have been here. I know what I believe, based on all of the evidence and accounts.

[Titania22]

 

Take evolution to its logical end. If life is so robust, leading toward higher forms, why is it so hard for you to accept the possibility of ET civilizations? We haven't even had computers for 1 century and look at what we're doing with them. Imagine showing a smartphone to someone from 1913. Their mind = blown. We can already map genomes and manipulate genetics to a degree, and we're barely more than hairless apes. Tweaking primate genes would be child's play to any civilization that managed to survive long enough to leave their planet. That gives them the means. Motive? Life and its forms are ultimately what's interesting, not dead empty planets. Opportunity? That's the only big question and where belief comes in. Whether they could get here, and have been here. I know what I believe, based on all of the evidence and accounts.

 

Not to mention that we already genetically modify viruses and plants.

[irc333]

Then we got married (civil ceremony), and I realized just how deep the differences ran. He, like your prospect, did not believe in evolution. At first, it didn't matter...

 

You know...I've often wondered why atheists got married ....I figured they just lived together without getting married most times only because marriage is a religious ceremony.

Edited October 10, 2013 by irc333

[salparadise]

If they're smart, they won't make arguments of the absence of such creatures or phenomena from the absence of complete evidence therefor.

 

Absence of evidence is rarely conclusive evidence of absence. When self professed scientific minds use the argument that something is not true because it cannot be proven to their satisfaction all you can do is shrug your shoulders and walk away letting them bask in their ignorance. How egoic can one be to assume that anything they can't see can't exist––that is the achilles heel of purely evidence based scientific reasoning.

 

The thing that has sealed the deal on the anthropological evidence for Darwinism is that our ability to date fossil evidence is pretty good, and we can now use DNA to independently confirm migrations, timelines, etc., and it still fits and supports a cohesive theory. If the basic theory were wrong, the odds are overwhelming that newly developed methods would not support the chronology.

 

So if someone insists on using the absence of evidence argument, you can turn it around and also say that there is absence of evidence to the contrary, but again this kind of logic is flawed and should really be dismissed out of hand. It's just a waste of time to debate people who refuse to give any credence whatsoever to a theory that the credible evidence that we do have clearly supports based on the assertion that it's incomplete. It's important for those folks to believe that we are a class apart from the animals, and that motivation will always be the basis of their beliefs.

[Vyliss]

Never thought about it until now but yes deal breaker for sure. It means our core fundamental beliefs are completely incompatible and will cause lots of arguments that I would rather avoid. Too hard basically. I'd go for a guy that was easy to get along with.

[AMusing]

It's "silly" to defend a belief by calling opposing beliefs silly.

 

"We haven't found all the fossils on Earth yet, therefore the missing transitional forms are obviously still lurking out there, waiting to verify my assumption of the evolution of humans from precursor primates" - this is a biased assumption which degrades with each passing year.

 

Coming up on 154 years since Darwin's 'Origin of Species.' He expected many more transitional forms, we still don't have them. Your faith and belief system compel you to cling to the belief that they are still out there. That's very unscientific of you.

 

Oh jeez. Is this a new debate tactic you're trying? "Instead of talking about the points brought up, I'm going to stomp my feet and whine because someone isn't following the rules of debate." Anyway, ok, it's not silly , but it is contrary to the most likely outcome. "We" are still regularly finding fossils, many of which could be transitional. It takes a big leap to think, "Sure, we've been finding fossils all along, including major ones just last year, but NOW we've completely cleaned out all the fossils anywhere on Earth, because 150 years of looking seems like a long time." Or are you only considering transitional fossils in the hominid clade? Or, more likely, are you referring to complete fossilized skeletons of direct ancestors to humans? If that's the case, sure, I wouldn't be shocked if we never found an entire fossilized skeleton of one of our direct ancestors. But then, no evolutionary biologist or paleontologist expect to find one.

 

And you entirely ignored my more important point: even without a single transitional fossil, comparative genomics studies offer compelling evidence to support our conclusion. If there were compelling evidence that our conclusions were wrong (and there isn't a shred of evidence), we would change our theories accordingly. That's the beauty of science over faith, and precisely the reason why I couldn't date someone who didn't "believe" in evolution: it tells me he would stubbornly cling to all his beliefs, regardless of evidence against them. How unattractive.

 

Then that would be tens of thousands of generations of transitional forms missing from the fossil record, making your case even worse.

 

Again, you have expectations of the fossil record that no one trained in the field has.

 

Take evolution to its logical end. If life is so robust, leading toward higher forms, why is it so hard for you to accept the possibility of ET civilizations?

I don't think many people deny the possibility of alien life. Nobody here has. Some scientists think that the origins of life here could've come from another planet. But there is literally no evidence that something came and "tweaked" primate genes to "make" humans. You want to believe it, because it would make humans "special." That's natural, but not based in any scientific findings.

 

Anyway, I'm happy to discuss the validity of evolutionary theory and the data supporting it, but I have a feeling that this thread will promptly be shut down for going quite off topic.

[AMusing]

You know...I've often wondered why atheists got married ....I figured they just lived together without getting married most times only because marriage is a religious ceremony.

 

Because marriage is a legal contract with substantial social and financial ramifications. It is also an opportunity to celebrate love and commitment between two people, and a chance to wear a really pretty dress.

 

Getting married by clergy--making it a religious rite--would not be meaningful to me, but that doesn't mean marriage itself isn't still deeply meaningful. Some non-religious people may wish to get married in a church, though. Perhaps because: churches are pretty, solemn, and designed to hold a large audience; they submit to family pressures if their family is religious; or as a nod to historical and cultural ties.

[SoleMate]

...why is it so hard for you to accept the possibility of ET civilizations?

 

Chess, you're really all over the place. I DON'T deny the possibility of life outside the Earth. Nobody here has said anything REMOTELY like that, so what made you think we had?

 

But the possibility of extraterrestrial life is a good example to help illustrate the difference between science and faith.

 

I think it's quite likely that there is life outside earth. Just based on chemical and geological arguments about how life likely originated, plus the well-known statistics about stars, planets, galaxies etc., there were so many opportunities for life generation that my casual review of the data indicates likelihood. So I believe it's likely. I do not have faith about life outside earth existing or not existing, and plausible evidence either way would readily sway my judgment. I also know that even if 1 billion civilizations existed right now, who were physiologically and intellectually able to communicate with us, it is effectively certain that we would never know it. The distances are just too vast and they swamp the speed of light and the duration of civilizations and life itself.

 

But I am absolutely open to cogent argument and facts pointing to any possible conclusion.

 

Before I spend any more time typing, Chess, are you open to being convinced by facts and argument? Are you willing to do some reading so we have a solid factbase to work from? You've made a lot of claims about the non-existence of fossils that must necessarily have been 1) present, 2) preserved, 3) findable, 4) found, and 5) correctly catalogued, analyzed, and published for evolution to be true, so I'd like to see your data on that.

 

Most or all fossils of early hominids are partial - just a few bones, teeth, part of a skull, a few ribs. Based on your logic, these hominids mostly did not have feet because we SHOULD have found more foot bones by now! Think of all their feet, toes etc. Where are those fossilized toes? Nowhere! Therefore they did not exist! Bwa ha ha ha ha!!!!

[Atem]

For those of you who believe in evolution – as in Darwinism, humans descended from apes – would you even CONSIDER dating someone who didn't?

 

I grew up in the Northeast U.S., college-educated there, etc., and haven't even had to deal with this viewpoint before. Unfortunately, I've now discovered it in the man I'm dating.

 

During the warm-weather months, I spend a lot of time in a coastal area of the South. This year I started a romance there. The guy is sweet, charming, and very kind to me. He grew up in a rural area of the South and I could always tell our different backgrounds would make for some contrasting political/religious views.

 

I can accept most of our differences. We don't talk about them much and when they come up it's usually through interesting debate. But ... it came out this weekend that he doesn't believe in evolution and I was pretty appalled. Don't even know if I can accept it. I'll be completely honest at the risk of sounding snobbish/unfair -- I think this is touching on some of my fears/prejudices of "The South."

 

Since we have only skimmed the surface in our different belief systems, I fear this is just the tip of the iceberg and we should probably cut loose now.

 

I'd agree with you.

 

This guy's a ****ing idiot, plain and simple, regardless of how nice he may be.

 

Let him go and find someone with a brain so he can find his very own Michelle Bachman.

 

You'll both be better off in the long-term.

[Skyraider829]

You know...I've often wondered why atheists got married ....I figured they just lived together without getting married most times only because marriage is a religious ceremony.

 

I never thought of marriage as a religious ceremony. I see it as a finalization of two people's love and dedication to one another through a special ceremony. I don't get how that correlates with religion.

[Mascara]

Marriage CAN be a religious ceremony. It isn't always. Here in the UK, I'd say just as many couples have the non-religious ceremony.

[mached]

Another example of how angry and narrow minded some on the left can be.

[lollipopspot]

I agree! I believe in evolution, I never really considered it something to believe in or not. But its not like particularly important to me! I was surprised how many people on this thread think someone being religious would be a deal-breaker for them.

 

Religious fervor in the US is often very different than in the UK. It's a much bigger issue in the US.

[lollipopspot]

Another example of how angry and narrow minded some on the left can be.

 

Angry about what?

 

All ideas are not equally worthy of consideration.

 

Or: I'm a breatharian. I believe that humans can survive on air alone, and do not need to eat food.

 

I certainly hope you're not narrow minded about that, and respect my belief as equal to yours. I'm also trying to get laws passed so that my belief will be taught to children in schools, on par with the "foodist" beliefs.

[mached]

I'd agree with you.

 

This guy's a ****ing idiot, plain and simple, regardless of how nice he may be.

 

Let him go and find someone with a brain so he can find his very own Michelle Bachman.

 

You'll both be better off in the long-term.

 

Angry about what?

 

All ideas are not equally worthy of consideration.

 

Or: I'm a breatharian. I believe that humans can survive on air alone, and do not need to eat food.

 

I certainly hope you're not narrow minded about that, and respect my belief as equal to yours. I'm also trying to get laws passed so that my belief will be taught to children in schools, on par with the "foodist" beliefs.

 

Wasn't specifically referring to you, but you seem to fit the mold

[lollipopspot]

Wasn't specifically referring to you, but you seem to fit the mold

 

So are you narrow minded about my breatharian beliefs?

[deathandtaxes]

Jeez this thread has derailed. What was a simple question about having differing beliefs being a dealbreaker people start arguing over stuff and getting nowhere. I suggest you go read Ishamel instead. You will feel better.

[hppr]

For those of you who believe in evolution – as in Darwinism, humans descended from apes – would you even CONSIDER dating someone who didn't?

 

I grew up in the Northeast U.S., college-educated there, etc., and haven't even had to deal with this viewpoint before. Unfortunately, I've now discovered it in the man I'm dating.

 

During the warm-weather months, I spend a lot of time in a coastal area of the South. This year I started a romance there. The guy is sweet, charming, and very kind to me. He grew up in a rural area of the South and I could always tell our different backgrounds would make for some contrasting political/religious views.

 

I can accept most of our differences. We don't talk about them much and when they come up it's usually through interesting debate. But ... it came out this weekend that he doesn't believe in evolution and I was pretty appalled. Don't even know if I can accept it. I'll be completely honest at the risk of sounding snobbish/unfair -- I think this is touching on some of my fears/prejudices of "The South."

 

Since we have only skimmed the surface in our different belief systems, I fear this is just the tip of the iceberg and we should probably cut loose now.

 

I'd say you have a lot of growing up to do.