What do you call someone who doesn't believe in either evolution or religion?

[Consistency]

Religion is bolony to me because it was written by men from an egotistic point of view and contradicts the basic laws of nature.

 

Evolution theory is bolony to me because it was written by men from an egotistic point of view and contradicts the basic laws of nature.

 

Religion is anti-science.

Evolution theory is anti-religion.

 

What do you call someone who doesn't follow the far right and far left type of mentality? Not anti but simply non-religious/non-evolution type of mentality?

Edited February 5, 2013 by Consistency

[pwagen]

Ignorant.

[Consistency]

Ignorant.

 

I didn't say I was ANTI-science or ANTI-religion.

 

A non-conformist is not an anti-conformist.

 

I read the information and don't accept everything about evolution and religion. Only what is actually factual.

[pwagen]

Evolution happening is as factual as it gets. If you deny that, you either don't understand it, or simply refuse to believe it for some arbitrary reason. Thus, you're as ignorant (willfully or otherwise) and anti-scientific as a creationist.

 

I'm not sure a wish to be different ("non-conformist") is a very good way to judge evidence.

[Arete]

Ignorant.

 

Your political subdivision of the religious as being "far right" and evolution being a "far left" concept at least appears uninformed:

 

a) The Pope accepts evolution http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19956961/#.URFLrWfpp8s

b) applied biology you use every day is fundamentally reliant on evolution, e.g. the flu vaccine: http://bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/02/03/why-our-flu-vaccines-can-keep/SAZCYJcc3tiaKifJcJrSgI/story.html

c) there are plenty of left wing Christians: http://www.thechristianleft.org/

d) and conservatives who accept evolution e.g. Jon McCainhttp://conservapedia.com/John_McCain#Evolution

 

Despite unrepresentative coverage, it's only a small proportion of religious people who do not accept evolutionary theory.

 

 

Only what is actually factual.

 

Given evolution as defined by the accumulation of mutations resulting in reciprocal reproductive isolation of populations has been directly observed and documented - I'd be interested to hear what counts as factual -

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v230/n5292/abs/230289a0.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11048719

[iNow]

I would call that person confused.

 

Evolution is not anti-religion. In fact, it quite handily explains why religion is so common and prevalent. It's just that it contradicts the fictions of some religions, and hence people think it's anti-religion, but that's a bit like saying the germ theory of disease or the theory of gravity is anti-religion, which is ignorant.

[moreinput]

Sexually frustrated?

[howlingmadpanda]

Extremely ignorant?

[Phi for All]

Evolution theory is bolony to me because it was written by men from an egotistic point of view and contradicts the basic laws of nature.

Can you explain why you think this is so?

 

As a working scientific theory, evolution is one of the most carefully studied and documented explanations for natural phenomena in the history of mankind. It is certainly NOT "egotistical"; the methodology used tries to remove as much bias from its conclusions as possible. And rather than contradict what you call "laws of nature", it is seen by many to be the very definition of natural law. And it's a body of work improved upon daily for over 150 years and critiqued by more people than almost any other theory.

 

And please give us some examples of where evolution contradicts the laws of nature.

 

And I ask the rest of the my fellow members to stick to meaningful replies to sincere questions.

[Consistency]

I believe in evolution as it actually happens however not in a specie evolving into another specie and especially don't believe in man-written evolution to fit a narrow-minded view which excludes the possibility of creators without free will.

This contradicts the basic laws of nature and common sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

Everything about nature is in symbiosis and in constant equilibrium except human civilization and whatever else is made-up from the same type of mentality of a civilized human.

Examples of symbiosis in nature:

1) different types of micro-organisms in the GI tract are only able to break down certain molecules to other molecules until passing them over to another micro-organism which has the enzymes to break these molecules down further.

2) micro-organisms break down certain molecules, produce vitamins and produce a percentage of amino acids for its host in return for a warm place to live and energy.

3) We eat the fruit for the purpose of spreading the seed for the plant.

Example of constant equilibrium in nature: herbivores eat grass to keep an equilibrium in vegetation and to spread grass seeds, insectivores eat insects, frugivores eat fruit/nuts/edible leaves and carnivores eats the weak mammals including their rivals youngs to keep an equilibrium in the whole population.

Absurd assumtions of evolutionary theory: that a small fish can evolve into a 150 ton whale or that a small creature can evolve into a cow over millions of years.

 

If evolutionary theory is correct... a herbivore can evolve into a carnivore and vice-versa by consuming the opposite diet.

[Arete]

however not in a specie evolving into another species

 

As previously cited, a species evolving into another species has been directly observed. It happens - that's unequivocal.

 

This contradicts the basic laws of nature and common sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

 

The link doesn't support the assertion.

 

 

Everything about nature is in symbiosis and in constant equilibrium except human civilization and whatever else is made-up from the same type of mentality of a civilized human.

 

First - organisms exist in multiple states from lethally antagonistic to entirely dependent on each other. Everything about nature is certainly not in symbiosis -

http://biology.mcgill.ca/faculty/bell/articles/31.BellMaynardSmith_1987_Nature327.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2527535?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101642105083

 

Succession and disturbance are natural forces. The assertion that nature is in "constant equilibrium is trivially proven false - e.g.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2261392?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101642105083

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00001223?LI=true

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/ab/2008/00000058/00000004/art00006

 

 

 

 

 

 

herbivores eat grass to keep an equilibrium in vegetation and to spread grass seeds, insectivores eat insects, frugivores eat fruit/nuts/edible leaves and carnivores eats the weak mammals including their rivals youngs to keep an equilibrium in the whole population.

 

 

These dynamics are not constant: see trophic cascade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_cascade

 

Absurd assumtions of evolutionary theory: that a small fish can evolve into a 150 ton whale or that a small creature can evolve into a cow over millions of years.

 

This is a strawman argument - fish and whales are very distantly related. Nevertheless - rapid shifts in body size have been observed:

A 100% change in body size within human time scale observed in snakes for example:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2409767?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101642105083

 

 

 

If evolutionary theory is correct... a herbivore can evolve into a carnivore and vice-versa by consuming the opposite diet.

 

Simply untrue. Evolutionary theory makes no such prediction - therefore not only is the argument from incredulity logically flawed in of itself, it's leveled at a strawman.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Arete

[Consistency]

As previously cited, a species evolving into another species has been directly observed. It happens - that's unequivocal.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11048719

 

 

Can the apple feeding race mate with the hawthorn feeding race and produce viable offsprings?

 

 

a herbivore can evolve into a carnivore and vice-versa by consuming the opposite diet.

Simply untrue. Evolutionary theory makes no such prediction - therefore not only is the argument from incredulity logically flawed in of itself, it's leveled at a strawman.

 

 

The last universal ancestor (LUA), also called the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), or the cenancestor, is the most recent organism from which all organisms now living on Earth descend.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

 

If the above is true, so is my original comment quoted above.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Consistency

[Moontanman]

I believe in evolution as it actually happens however not in a specie evolving into another specie and especially don't believe in man-written evolution to fit a narrow-minded view which excludes the possibility of creators without free will.

 

This contradicts the basic laws of nature and common sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

 

your link in no way supports this assertion... if you think it does feel free to elaborate...

 

 

Everything about nature is in symbiosis and in constant equilibrium except human civilization and whatever else is made-up from the same type of mentality of a civilized human.

 

Examples of symbiosis in nature:

 

1) different types of micro-organisms in the GI tract are only able to break down certain molecules to other molecules until passing them over to another micro-organism which has the enzymes to break these molecules down further.

 

2) micro-organisms break down certain molecules, produce vitamins and produce a percentage of amino acids for its host in return for a warm place to live and energy.

 

3) We eat the fruit for the purpose of spreading the seed for the plant.

 

Example of constant equilibrium in nature: herbivores eat grass to keep an equilibrium in vegetation and to spread grass seeds, insectivores eat insects, frugivores eat fruit/nuts/edible leaves and carnivores eats the weak mammals including their rivals youngs to keep an equilibrium in the whole population.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to show here, please elaborate...

 

 

Absurd assumtions of evolutionary theory: that a small fish can evolve into a 150 ton whale

 

Absurd assertions do not trump reality, yes a tiny fish did indeed over many millions years evolve evolve into a whale but to try and say the decent is direct to lend credence to your assertion that evolutionary theory is absurd is more than a bit less than honest... You know what you said was not accurate, why did you make such a statement if you are looking for reality?

 

or that a small creature can evolve into a cow over millions of years.

 

Again this is indeed technically true but your attempt to make it look absurd fails on a great many levels as do all creationist arguments, they do not have the science to back up their horse feathers so they try and use subterfuge to discredit what they cannot do with real evidence..

 

If evolutionary theory is correct... a herbivore can evolve into a carnivore and vice-versa by consuming the opposite diet.

 

yes, a population of herbivores can over successive generations evolve a population of carnivores but your mechanism is false and nothing but an attempt to use ridicule instead of evidence to win your position, totally dishonest dude but that is what Creation Science is all about, lies and misdirection, nothing more...

[Phi for All]

I believe in evolution as it actually happens however not in a specie evolving into another specie and especially don't believe in man-written evolution to fit a narrow-minded view which excludes the possibility of creators without free will.

 

Thanks for not using the misleading micro/macro evolution labels many creationists use. It's sincerely appreciated.

 

If you understand and trust that natural selection drives small changes within a population over generations, why is it so far fetched to trust that those changes, along with climate and other environmental drivers, can't allow for large changes and even speciation over incredibly vast amounts of time?

 

How can "man-written evolution", which has been investigated every day by thousands of people for the last 150 years, have a more "narrow-minded view" than the one you're displaying through your appeals to ridicule, or that of anyone who assumes everything we don't yet understand is the work of an unobservable creator?

[michel123456]

I don't think that a fish evolved into a whale. Moontanman where are you? Please explain the difference between a fish and a marine mammal.

 

---------------

For the OP: a sceptic.

Edited February 12, 2013 by michel123456

[Phi for All]

I don't think that a fish evolved into a whale.

 

Actually, there is evidence that all vertebrates started as very small fish (Haikouichthys is one name I remember). Whales have hipbones so it's thought that they must have been amphibian for a time, walking on land with legs. They developed into mammals at some point but I'm not sure if that was before or after they moved back to the oceans.

[Moontanman]

I don't think that a fish evolved into a whale. Moontanman where are you? Please explain the difference between a fish and a marine mammal.

 

---------------

For the OP: a sceptic.

 

 

His description dishonestly suggested that a whale directly evolved from a fish, that is a lie, he knows it, but he said it anyway. in reality a whale is a mammal which evolved from a reptile which evolved from an amphibian which evolved from a fish (very simplified version) so he tried to ridicule evolution by saying something that seemed to be true, the average person who has knowledge of evolution probably understands the line of decent in a simple way, but it is not a direct line of decent from a fish to a whale, he knows it but his main goal is to obfuscate the situation, not lend any real understanding of it...

[pwagen]

 

For the OP: a sceptic.

There's a limit to how sceptic one can be. Sure, question everything. But if you are provided with strong evidence of something, denying it for no good reason isn't being a sceptic. It's being willfully ignorant.

[Moontanman]

Actually, there is evidence that all vertebrates started as very small fish (Haikuichthys is one name I remember). Whales have hipbones so it's thought that they must have been amphibian for a time, walking on land with legs. They developed into mammals at some point but I'm not sure if that was before or after they moved back to the oceans.

 

 

Whales evolved from land mammals, the line of decent is quite well known and in some real detail. Consistency was being dishonest, he knows it but he said it anyway because that's what creationists do...

[Phi for All]

Whales evolved from land mammals, the line of decent is quite well known and in some real detail.

 

I need to look into that detail, obviously. Whales are an amazing evolutionary story. I remember reading where a creationist museum famously removed the hipbones from a whale skeleton they had so they could avoid uncomfortable, obviously narrow-minded questions from rational customers.

[Moontanman]

I need to look into that detail, obviously. Whales are an amazing evolutionary story. I remember reading where a creationist museum famously removed the hipbones from a whale skeleton they had so they could avoid uncomfortable, obviously narrow-minded questions from rational customers.

 

 

Yes, the Creationist museum in Tennessee (i think) it is a government funded museum as well, makes you fell all warm and fuzzy inside dudn't it?

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

[Arete]

The closest extant relative of the baleen whales is thought to be the hippo -

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/265/1412/2251.short

 

And the toothed whales are most closely related to ursoids (bears) with a semi aquatic mammalian carnivore likely the most common ancestor.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7241/full/nature07985.html

[Moontanman]

This guy is an artists conception of the most basal of all placental mammals, all mammals evolved from this line, land and marine and everything in between...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/meet-mama-first-ancestor-placental-mammals-revealed-191137721.html

The closest extant relative of the baleen whales is thought to be the hippo -

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/265/1412/2251.short

 

And the toothed whales are most closely related to ursoids (bears) with a semi aquatic mammalian carnivore likely the most common ancestor.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7241/full/nature07985.html

 

 

Um, no, all whales descend from the same land mammal line and bears are not part of that line... your last link is about seals and sea lions, not part of the line resulting in whales...

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

 

Edited February 12, 2013 by Moontanman

[Arete]

 

 

Um, no, all whales descend from the same land mammal line and bears are not part of that line... your last link is about seals and sea lions, not part of the line resulting in whales...

 

You're right - I meant the seals and sea lions (i.e. pinnepeds).

[Consistency]

Thanks for not using the misleading micro/macro evolution labels many creationists use. It's sincerely appreciated.

 

If you understand and trust that natural selection drives small changes within a population over generations, why is it so far fetched to trust that those changes, along with climate and other environmental drivers, can't allow for large changes and even speciation over incredibly vast amounts of time?

 

Did a carnivore willfully choose to be a predator and a herbivore willfully choose to get hunted down?

 

Mainly because animals don't move and evolve without predation and/or pressures. The predators had to be created with the plant eaters for the purpose of weeding out the weak; natural selection and ultimately evolution.

 

The universe is a closed-loop system and so is everything about nature except human civilization.

 

How can "man-written evolution", which has been investigated every day by thousands of people for the last 150 years, have a more "narrow-minded view" than the one you're displaying through your appeals to ridicule, or that of anyone who assumes everything we don't yet understand is the work of an unobservable creator?

 

Thousands of virgins. I strongly believe anyone who has never had sex; should not talk about evolution.

 

How did a penis and a vagina come to fit perfectly together?

 

I don't believe in an unobservable creator because there is the question of who created the creator. My only hypothesis is that the Sun and the planets are doing their dance and out of this dance... create organisms through a fusion process when organisms are needed to fit in the closed-loop system or after a mass extinction.

 

Actually, there is evidence that all vertebrates started as very small fish (Haikouichthys is one name I remember). Whales have hipbones so it's thought that they must have been amphibian for a time, walking on land with legs. They developed into mammals at some point but I'm not sure if that was before or after they moved back to the oceans.

 

thought = assumption(hypothesis without evidence) = a guess.

 

Maybe the hipbones in whales serve another purpose than in land mammals or they serve the exact same purpose as in humans. Since whales are bigger than small fish.. the hipbone could serve as stabilizer for swimming. Since we aren't whales.. we don't know its true purpose.

 

Whales evolved from land mammals, the line of decent is quite well known and in some real detail. Consistency was being dishonest, he knows it but he said it anyway because that's what creationists do...

 

Before or after the land mammals drowned?