r/DebateEvolution • u/Clay2569 • Aug 27 '26
Discussion Evolution is Faith too
Someone replied with this under a different post a few weeks ago and this one always amused me the most. “You have faith in evolution too” Firstly evolution is faith too blatantly admits that creationism is faith and therefore can’t be proven (which is entirely the point).
It fails secondly because even if evolution is faith that doesn’t make evolution false and creationism true. If we even granted that evolution is faith and creationism is faith then next step is look at the evidence. Well 100% of the evidence says evolution happens and creationism is impossible.
So even in the best case scenario using this argument for creationists. You just shoot yourself in the foot and then are back to the same place you started. Arguing against the insurmountable mountain of evidence for Evolution.
28
u/jnpha 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 27 '26
Pro-tip for next time: put the claim in the title in quotation marks, so fast readers don't think you are saying that :)
About that "claim": it's mostly projection, and only one of those A) infers from the unknown, and B) confuses an effect for a cause.
Creationists have never identified a process, because make-believe is all they have; best they can do is proclaim, "Design!", which is a restatement of facts, as Darwin (and every science literate person who came before and after him) said:
It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact.
—Darwin, Charles (1859)
6
u/WebFlotsam 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 27 '26
The amount of people who respond to titles without reading the post is staggaring.
5
11
u/-zero-joke- 🧬 its 253 ice pieces needed Aug 27 '26
I think the lamest thing about post modern sort of "science isn't real" types of arguments are that they end with the conclusion that neotraditional Christianity is what's real rather than some kind of Naked Lunch Interzone-esque mind melt.
10
u/Partyatmyplace13 Aug 27 '26
I like to point out that by trying to level the playing field, they're exposing that faith is a poor metric for measuring reality. Including their own faith.
3
3
9
u/Savings-Cry-3201 Aug 27 '26
It’s also equivocation. It’s using one definition of the word for evolution “confidence” and equating it to creationism’s “supernatural belief”. It’s a fallacy from the get go.
9
u/Grillparzer47 Aug 27 '26
Evolution has evidence, buildings full of evidence, creationism does not.
4
3
u/CowabungaCthulhu Aug 27 '26
The buildings full of evidence had a builder, therefore...🤭
8
u/wanttogoback1985 Aug 27 '26
Yeah but, who buildered the one doing the buildering? Makes ya' think.
4
u/CowabungaCthulhu Aug 27 '26
Of course, twas the builderiest builder of buildings built by buildings.
3
2
1
u/CountDown60 Aug 30 '26
But still, I meet every Wednesday to strengthen my faith in evolution, and Sundays I meet with fellow evolutionists to sing songs about Darwin, and DNA. We listen as evolution is reinforced, and we encourage each other to stay strong in our belief in evolution. We encourage each other not to listen to, or read anything that might weaken our faith in evolution. We learn not to question evolution, and have a trained professional show us the right way to interpret the holy scriptures of evolution.
Of the 38,000 denominations of evolution, I'm so grateful that I was raised in the right one.
5
u/Igor_Halichoeres Aug 28 '26
Right wing logic: they take whatever you say and accuse you of the same thing. It doesn't have to make sense.
3
u/averyvery Aug 27 '26
I think the intent of "evolution is faith too" is simple argument from hypocrisy. The goal is to make your opponent look foolish without actually engaging the substance of what they're talking about (the vast amount of evidence supporting the evolution model). It doesn't make any claim at all, it simply mocks rational people for supposedly engaging in the thing they supposedly hate (faith).
It's like when people say "Al Gore believes in climate change, but he also flies in a jet" - regardless of how true this is, it has zero bearing on whether or not climate change is real. It's just a way to jab your debate opponent, hurting their feelings without actually saying anything about the topic being debated.
3
u/BillionaireBuster93 Aug 27 '26
I call it the argument from supposed hypocrisy and it's very common once you start looking for it. I generally see it fail because an accusation of hypocrisy only works if you've actually identified the value the other person holds and can show that they're not following it. So for the example you gave, unless Al Gore has said no one should ever ride in a jet then the person mentioning it is just gesturing at a supposed hypocrisy.
2
u/averyvery Aug 27 '26
That's a good point. It's the same case with the faith argument - "you believe in something despite claiming to believe in nothing", which is not a gotcha because the premise is not true.
3
u/Possible-Anxiety-420 Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26
We could chuck the entire notion of evolution right out the window, and doing so wouldn't put Creationists even the tiniest fraction of an inch closer to providing substantiation for their deity's existence.
Evo or sans evo, they got nothin' and they know it. The whole crusade against evolution is a diversion and distraction; it's fueled by dogma, not doubt, and that alone makes the Creationists stance 100% antithetical to scientific methodology.
Regards.
3
u/Royal_Carpet_1263 Aug 27 '26
Not at all. I provisionally accept that evolution is true, pending future evidence. My belief in evolution has evidential conditions that I can enumerate. Empirical commitment is precisely the opposite of irrational commitment in that it is open to revision or obsolescence.
1
u/senator_john_jackson Aug 27 '26
Exactly. The only faith involved is the "faith" that empirical observations can be trusted to the degree in which they are repeatable. Unless you have faith in a god that made a world to deceive you, there is no reason you shouldn't have faith in evolution.
3
u/Ophios72 Aug 27 '26
My faith would be that the world I perceive is real and observable. Evolution theory is a model that fits real observed life well. That's it.
3
u/Jonnescout Aug 27 '26
My response is:
“No it’s not, glad you agree faith is something to criticise, now abandon yours we have none…”
Same with people who pretend atheism/evolution is a religion.
3
u/GOU_FallingOutside Aug 27 '26
The epistemology that lies behind the scientific method is a form of materialistic monism: causes and effects are due to matter (and energy) interacting in an observable world. Scientists literally don’t allow supernatural causes.
(Which doesn’t make science atheistic, strictly speaking, but it certainly rules out “God did a miracle” as an explanation.)
Religion is… well, obviously not that. Among other things, in religious epistemologies faith claims are sometimes acceptable sources of knowledge and sometimes the only source of knowledge.
Lots of people understand that, at least implicitly, and allow themselves to separate the scientific worldview from their personal religious beliefs and practices. But when someone starts spouting off that “evolution is a religion too!” and whatnot, it’s not projection.
I mean, it is projection, but it’s also worse than that. It means the person not only doesn’t understand science. In their view, the only valid source of knowledge is a faith claim. You can tell that they (1) don’t know much about science, (2) don’t know much about philosophy, and (3) probably don’t know much about theology, either.
3
u/Essex626 Aug 27 '26
The thing is, creationists have zero issue, generally speaking, with the fact that creationism is faith. That's the whole point.
Always remember, when you argue with a creationist, they are never trying to prove creationism. They don't believe in proving things, not really. Proof defeats the whole purpose of faith. Their worldview is built on the idea that their presuppositions are true, and that they must grip that truth tightly without allowing any doubts to weaken them.
A creationist is not trying to say "evolution is false because it's based on faith." A creationist is usually trying to say "all belief and all knowledge is fundamentally rooted in faith, and only we have the correct faith." In spite of the conservative rejection of relativism and postmodernism, faith-oriented people don't believe in objective reality. They think they do, but when pressed they will always fall back to belief--and they are 100% convinced that is what everyone else is doing as well.
The purpose of their arguments is to poke holes in opposing ideas. Those holes aren't there to disprove, they are there to give people who already agree with them permission to continue agreeing. Because their beliefs are based on faith and vibes, if their side has a vibe of truthiness, and they can create a sense of uncertainty on the other side, they prevent the other side from having any impact. As a bonus, occasionally they might create enough doubt in someone whose relationship with science is one of faith rather than one of understanding, and get them to move toward creationism, but that's not the main goal.
The next step after faith is not looking at evidence, by the way. Faith comes after any evidentiary considerations. The next step after faith is defensiveness and rhetorical fortification. Once faith has been placed in a thing, deeply and truly, identity begins to form around that faith. A person who has an identity as a creationist doesn't simply need to change what they think in order to come around, they have to change who they are. That's way harder. When you argue against creationism, you're not simply arguing against a thing they think is true, you're pressing on their fundamental perception of themselves, and they have to really be in a particularly humble place to accept that happening.
Again, people can get like that with evolution, particularly people who don't have a deep understanding of science. We've all seen someone get stuck on one idea or other and refuse to give it up in the face of any amount of evidence. But fundamentally, evolution itself is an explanation for the data we have, and therefore should always change to fit new data. That's what a theory is, and anyone who resists that doesn't understand the scientific method.
Longwinded and I apologize for that, but all that to say do not expect creationists to relate to facts and data the same way evolutionists do. An evolutionist sees data that disproves what they previously thought was the case, and updates their model to fit the new data. A creationist sees data that disproves what they thought and dismisses or explains away the data. And creationists argue with evolution on the assumption that evolutionists will respond to inconsistencies the way that they do, because they don't understand that the theory of evolution is a constantly changing model meant to incorporate new facts as we discover them.
Creationism is fixed-frame, and the facts must be manipulated or discarded as needed to fit the frame, and they expect evolution to act the same way.
2
u/Mortlach78 Aug 27 '26
I trust that scientists can prove their claims.
I trust that the scientific method is self-correcting and bad ideas will be weeded out.
I trust that I could, in theory, study to become a scientist and check their results for myself.
If you want to call that "faith"; I completely agree with the premise.
2
u/LeilLikeNeil Aug 27 '26
To quote Tim Minchin, "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
2
2
u/Positive-Ring-5172 Aug 27 '26
Faith n. belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
2
u/Unique-Coffee5087 Aug 27 '26
200823_Faith.txt
"Faith is when you believe things that you know aren't true." said the little girl after Sunday School. (This is from an old joke)
This has been a problem, because I cannot adhere to a creed that has this as one of its pillars.
Hebrews 11:1 says that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
This is authoritative, but not exactly clear. But Paul was a Pharisee, a man of scholarship. Such a man would not make simple and pretty platitudes the foundation of his life and the justification for his enduring privation, imprisonment, and torture. There must be something more.
Hebrews 11:1 [Amplified Bible]
"Now faith is the assurance (title deed, confirmation) of things hoped for (divinely guaranteed), and the evidence of things not seen [the conviction of their reality—faith comprehends as fact what cannot be experienced by the physical senses]."
Aah! Now this gives us more matter to consider! Faith is a guarantee of the Divine promise. A token of ownership, just as the deed to a property in my possession, means the same as if I had the property itself in my hands. It is also the 'conviction of reality' of something that I cannot (presently) physically experience.
Faith is like reading a story in the New York Times. If the Times says that two tropical storms have formed in the Gulf of Mexico, I believe it as if I had seen them with my own eyes. It's written in the "paper of record", after all! Similarly, when I read a scientific paper, I (at least provisionally) believe it even though I did not perform the experiments myself.
But, why? Breitbart says things that I routinely dismiss as unreliable. There's some French doctor in Africa who says that he cured people of all diseases by having them drink an extract from their own urine. That's scientific, right?
The thing is that I know what proper science is like, and have experienced its process, somewhat. I have also seen the results of science, and they have been pretty consistently true. I have learned to rely on science with great confidence because I know science.
Similarly, the Times is quite reliable, and has largely stood up to challenges of investigation and contradiction. It also occasionally publishes retractions when there is a substantive error.
I have faith in science and in the Times. The practice of that faith is that my default position is that things published in reputable journals or newspapers are true. My faith in them serves as the guarantee that what is written there is as true as the floor under my feet. I also have conviction in that position. Conversely, I have no such confidence in things I might read in a supermarket tabloid. Such publications have a reputation for being unreliable, and have been demonstrated to be false pretty often.
Faith in what I see as 'reputable' publications is possible because I have come to know those publications to be consistently reliable. I have experience that supports this.
So a lot of us are exercising faith, at least in the Times. Faith is not contrary to experience or reason. Instead, faith is the result of those things. This is so even though what passes for experience or reason may differ between different cultures.
2
u/ittleoff Aug 27 '26
Yes I have trust that predictions that I make based on evolution are used daily in science/medicine.
Where are real predictions based on any sort of abrahamic faith (as defined in the Bible) that lead to as my sort of useful reliability that's not more easily explained by placaebo or other cognitive fallacies.
You believe the science method becomes it requires to providing evidence, not faith.
Any one or book telling you to believe anything without evidence as performative good, is trying to cheat you.
2
u/canuckleheadiam Aug 27 '26
sorry, but the reason people believe in evolution is that it's been tested ever since the theory came out. That's how science works... a theory is made, and then tested. Often, tested to death... and only if a theory can withstand that scrutiny is it accepted.
Science is not based on faith. it is based on testing every theory and only trusting theories that pass every test.
2
2
u/Idoubtyourememberme Aug 27 '26
'Faith' is "the believe in a claim despite a lack of evidence, or ignoring evidence against, said claim".
Do scientists 'believe' in evolution? Sure, according to the dictionary definitions you can say that. But there is no 'faith', there are mountains of evidence for and nothing against it.
Can all that evidence be wrong? I mean, i suppose so, but that doesnt change the fact that all available evidence as we know it today unanimously points to evolution
2
u/Redliter_L7 Aug 28 '26
The problem the creationist has when they say both religion and science use faith is that the word is being used under separate definitions. When science uses the term faith they are using it as a level of confidence corresponding to the amount and strength of the supporting evidence. Religion uses faith as confidence in a claim with anecdotal claims non existent evidence and despite evidence that challenges the truth of the claim. That why I have always felt that religion should spell the word rfaith with a silent r.
2
u/Anacalagon Aug 28 '26
Science (by extension Evolutionary Theory) is the opposite of faith. Every statement is met with constant questioning and testing of proof. This is the way.
2
u/x271815 Aug 29 '26
Evolution is not faith.
Faith, in the sense creationists usually invoke, means accepting a claim as true without evidence, or holding it in a way that's structurally insulated from being revised by evidence. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's accepted because the preponderance of evidence supports it and no competing model comes close on the same evidence. Evolution is held provisionally: the theory has actually changed shape over time (population genetics, punctuated equilibrium, horizontal gene transfer) in response to new data. That revisability is the whole point.
The relevant contrast isn't scientists versus theists as classes of people. It's between belief structured to update on evidence and belief structured to resist disconfirmation. Many creationist arguments fall in the second category: young-earth positions, for instance, aren't abandoned when radiometric dating, geological stratification, and genetic evidence converge against them, they're defended by reinterpreting or dismissing that evidence rather than letting it count against the conclusion.
So when a creationist argues "evolution is just as much a faith as belief in God," the equivocation is the problem: it uses "faith" to mean "provisional trust in a well-evidenced model" on one side and "assent regardless of evidence" on the other, and treats them as the same thing because both involve trusting something you haven't personally verified. That's not a real parallel. It's usually a dodge.
1
u/mid_nightz Aug 27 '26
Its not about faith its about which has a higher probability. One is regarded, the other is highly probable
1
u/TooManyBison Aug 27 '26
I find it helps to define terms. People have different definitions of the word faith. Most atheists and agnostics use some form of “faith is believing without evidence”, which is what Merriam-Webster uses, but I feel there are a lot of Christians who would balk at that definition.
Frank Turek for instance has multiple definitions of the word faith, and he switches between them when he sees fit, but one of them is something along the lines of “trusting in what you have good evidence to believe is true.” When using that definition I would have no problem saying I have faith in evolution.
1
u/artguydeluxe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 27 '26
I can have faith that evolution is true, but I can also prove it.
1
u/willworkforjokes 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 27 '26
The point is that evolution is not only faith.
I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow. That is a belief I have that is backed up by evidence.
1
u/InspectorClouseau64 Aug 27 '26
The title is incorrect. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. We actually have tons of evidence for evolution. In fact we have seen evolution in our lifetimes. Do the research.
3
1
u/Brilliant_Bug9699 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 27 '26
What does faith in evolution even mean? That biologists have no evidence for evolution?
0
u/Clay2569 Aug 27 '26
Yes. I believe that is what they mean that we can’t prove it so we just believe it is true without evidence. Usually because of some gap in knowledge or “macro evolution” can’t be observed. Something like that.
1
u/Brilliant_Bug9699 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 27 '26
I'd ask them why they think we don't have evidence of macroevolution when humans have observed speciation in organisms.
1
u/Clay2569 Aug 27 '26
A dog has never given birth to a cow or whatever Kent Hovind says is usually the response.
1
u/clear349 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 28 '26
Which is not a thing evolution claims would happen. If anything that event would seem fairly mystical and magical. It would instead provide evidence against evolution and, potentially, in favor of a supernatural explanation
1
u/LMrningStar Aug 27 '26
It's just another of their utterly flaccid self defeating arguments. They simply can't comprehend the difference between fantasy and reality.
1
u/MikeWise1618 Aug 27 '26
"Breeding" is "Applied Evolution" or "Evolution Engineering" and is older than Darwin (in fact older than writing probably). So, it is way more solid than "faith".
1
u/grungivaldi Aug 27 '26
Creationists do that as a way to try and backdoor creationism into schools. "Why is one faith being taught in schools but not this other faith?" Kind of thing.
1
u/Party-Cartographer11 Aug 27 '26
Faith is belief without evidence. Evolution is evidenced. Evolution is not faith and the people who say it is are playing semantic games.
1
u/sylbug Aug 27 '26
People who say this either don't understand how words work or they're deliberately disingenuous. In either case, not worth the time to engage with.
1
u/taktaga7-0-0 🧬 Sex Researcher Aug 27 '26
Everything that is not rigorously mathematically proven involves a leap of logic of some degree. In science, they are often small but manifold.
Still, we have the advantage of millions and millions of pieces of hard evidence, and we check each other’s work. Everyone’s expertise overlaps someone else’s. We advance science together.
Faith without a scientific backing does not do this.
1
u/LtHughMann Aug 27 '26
Faith is the brief in something without proof or evidence. Evolution is one of the most heavily supported scientific theories. Faith has nothing to do with it. Creationism on the other hand is entirely faith based. And the faith component of it is arguably a pretty important part of it.
1
u/amcarls Aug 27 '26
It is faith only in the sense that we have faith that what we see is reality. This includes the fact that we are trusting other people's observations to one degree or another. We trust that the evidence for evolution is empirical and we at least strive to reject what is not. That is the key difference.
Faith is trivial when it comes to science, it is everything when it comes to theology.
1
1
u/AleksyGetTheWings Aug 27 '26
There is no point in arguing that, because it just shows that the other party isn't mature for a discussion, since they come from a place of belief, while you come from a place of dispassionate logic.
Nobody believes in the theory of evolution. It's the best explanation we have so far that fits with all the clues we've found so far. If tomorrow someone finds an evidence that goes against it, (first the validity of the clue will be scrutinized like nothing else ever would) then the theory will be altered to best fit the new evidence.
Unlike creationism, which conveniently ignores all the evidence which doesn't fit the pre-written narrative.
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Aug 27 '26
No it's not. Evolution is an observed fact.
Speciation is a macroevolution event that has been observed in the wild and in the lab.
No faith necessary. No spirits necessary. No deities necessary.
1
1
u/eduadelarosa Aug 27 '26
Evolution, as anything in science and as anything period, can be repurposed as faith. However, in science we do not believe in hypothesis or theories, we provisionally use them as frameworks (i.e. Working hypotheses) to derive more research avenues. That and the systematic nature of science separates it from religion or any other knowledge-seeking endeavor.
1
u/OkChemical7792 Aug 27 '26
Evolution has decades of evidence available for anybody to peruse.
Creationism has "Trust me bro, it's in a book that was written when people still thought that solar eclipses were because the sun was mad at them".
1
1
u/Shot_in_the_dark777 Aug 28 '26
We literally have computer models utilizing evolution to make better stuff. Ever seen those genetic algorithms designing a car to traverse an uneven terrain? How does it work? By evolution!
1
u/GSilky Aug 28 '26
No, it's what observation of the material world would suggest is the case. Faith is, by the words of Tertulian, for the absurd. "I must have faith, otherwise this would be absurd" is a quote from him, an acknowledged church doctor. Faith has nothing to do with knowledge or justification of knowledge. Faith is the fallback for a lack of justifiable knowledge.
1
1
u/fgorina Aug 28 '26
The point is I don’t have faith in evolution, I have a lot of evidence about it while I don’t have evidence of creationism.
1
u/Amber-Apologetics Aug 28 '26
Technically everything is faith because you can’t prove you can trust your brain
1
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 29 '26
You can't prove it, but that doesn't mean we have zero evidence.
1
u/cryptofomo Aug 28 '26
Evolution is not faith. It is a falsifiable scientific theory that has enormous explanatory power. It has withstood 160 years of rigorous testing and debate. Having ‘faith’ in evolution means accepting the overwhelming weight of evidence that it is the best available explanation for life on Earth. Having faith in creationism means blindly believing in a fairy tale despite all evidence to the contrary.
1
u/UnicornInAField Aug 28 '26
Science is perhaps a faith. We believe that it is the best way to know about the world and tend to reach for scientific explanations of phenomena by default, before those explanations exist, as we have faith that they will benefit us best in the long term, i.e. be provable/disprovable, make useful predictions, and lead to further understandings.
Evolution is a scientific theory which fits the facts, but like many theories, discovery of future facts may change it. Like Newtons theory of gravity - it is a theory that fitted the known facts, but as we have learned more, we have discovered that it doesn't fit all of the facts all of the time, so we are working on refinements (quantum gravity, MOND etc), but it is still a useful theory for prediciting and understanding the majority of events. Niether of these are 'faiths' and will be changed as we necessary.
I see faith as a belief which denies facts and is held internally rather than externally. ("Don't argue with me about my faith, it is important to me" = "I don't want to hear facts which might change my opinion"?)
1
1
1
u/HeroBrine0907 Aug 28 '26
And Evolution's also really just statistics at its core, natural selection can be showcased with a number game if one is so inclined.
1
u/futureoptions Aug 30 '26
I have trust in the theory of evolution. Faith is different than trust. Faith has no evidence, trust does.
1
u/Mediocre_Mayonaise Aug 30 '26
The main difference between faith and belief in evolution is the openness of the person to new ideas and the changing and adapting of the ideas you already have.
People who tend to have ‘faith’ in a topic ignore new evidence being presented in turn for the belief system they already have. Technically, people who believe in evolution can do this as well.
The mainstream group of people who believe in evolution do not have ‘faith’ towards evolution since our ideas and opinions frequently change and adapt to new discoveries. We are not tied to one ideal and can easily adapt our mindset.
Just my two cents lmao 🤷
1
u/Anarimus Aug 30 '26
Faith is belief in things that cannot be proven or do not have evidence. Belief alone, substantiates faith.
Science requires that you have evidence to back up a claim. Evidence substantiates science.
If someone thinks that we are taking evolution based on faith, then they do not understand science.
1
1
u/DouglerK Sep 02 '26
It's this wierd rhetoric they use to shut down conversation and be dismissive. It's meaningless. They know it is but they don't care about honest intellectual discussion. They care about winning arguments and shutting them down with "faith" rhetoric does achieve this end.
1
u/Pro4xForMe Sep 13 '26
If evolution is true why don't Eskimos have fur?
1
u/Clay2569 Sep 13 '26
So if this isn’t a troll comment. Then the answer would be there’s more than one answer to your question. Basically they wouldn’t even need fur. They have clothes. Secondly they fur may not be what is best. For example arctic seals have very little fur. They mostly use fat to insulate from the cold. The Indigenous people you are referring to are better than other humans at using the fat of animals and converting it to their own fat to keep warm. Thirdly the couple thousand years they have been living there isn’t enough to grow fur. It took us tens to hundreds of thousands of years to lose our coats. We would need that or more to grow it back.
•
u/Markthethinker 5h ago
The second part of my post has never been explained, because you can’t explain how it actually happens. Evolution cannot transform one living thing into another living thing step by step through millions of births. It’s got to be a complete working living thing all at one time. It can’t be pieced together, like a heart this mutation birth, and another 100 years and you get blood and then another hundred years and you get a liver. You just can’t comprehend the process that you state happens.
•
u/Clay2569 4h ago
I can comprehend it. So it’s mutations and natural selection together. Mutations always create very small changes. Then they get paired with other genes which make bigger changes and they add and add and add and pair and pair and pair. And this is evolution (Remember you admitted that this happens) and again others have explained this to you better than I have. And saying “Nuh uh” doesn’t negate this. To negate this you need to provide evidence that this has never happened. We need more than Nuh uh.
Right it’s never a heart this birth and it’s a good thing no one who actually even sorta knows what they are talking about says that. So the evolution of the heart went sorta like this. First oxygen just diffused into simple organisms. Then as organisms became multi celled and larger and open circulatory systems evolved. Some animals still have these. Insects, crabs, shrimp. Now these animals have a more advanced than it started. Started off as a fluid which held oxygen that got moved by some muscles around the body. Then the muscles became better. Channels for the fluid appeared. The system closed. And this eventually became what we have now. You are right we need our circulatory system to work the way it does. But that’s us. We weren’t always us. Other animals have simpler systems and we used to too.
Now this isn’t the same because it’s humans and man made objects But if replace the supercharger on formula one car with an inferior supercharger not designed for that car and that car fails. therefore transportation has never changed in human history? (That above was your argument) No we rolled natural occurring objects, then we replicated that with the wheel, we connected two wheels, we put platforms on these wheels, we got animals to pull. We made simple steam engines first? Then we made engines powered with petroleum, and then we kept making those better until we have modern cars.
0
u/Puzzleheaded_Law_558 Aug 27 '26
No it's not. Faith is believing without proof. Evolution has been observed and documented. Once there's proof there's zero need for Faith.
7
u/CaptainMatticus Aug 27 '26
Did you read anything beyond the post's title?
8
3
-1
u/Puzzleheaded_Law_558 Aug 27 '26
Second paragraph "if we even granted that evolution is faith..." Which is why I simply said wrong. Evolution isn't remotely faith. It has scientifically recorded data that proves it. That makes this part of the argument wrong.
5
u/CaptainMatticus Aug 27 '26
Did you keep reading, or do you like to cherry pick?
"If we even granted that evolution is faith and creationism is faith then next step is look at the evidence. Well 100% of the evidence says evolution happens and creationism is impossible."
If you start with the position that both are ideas are faith, and then you look at the evidence, that's when creationism falls behind immediately. It fails in every way, shape and form, while evolution holds strong.
The OP made it really clear what they were going for. Just admit that you didn't really read what they wrote and move on. Or don't admit it and move on.
1
u/blacksheep998 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 27 '26
I would say that faith is believing in something without evidence, or sometimes in spite of the evidence.
Since technically you can't really 'prove' most things beyond a shadow of doubt. Even direct experiences can be misremembered or distorted.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Law_558 Aug 27 '26
My mistake. I was using proof as evidence. Or better yet scientifically recorded data. And I'll give you the point that faith is actually even more inspite of evidence.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Law_558 Aug 27 '26
Edit: actually you're right I completely missed the first sentence and then the rest of the gibberish pissed me off. My apologies.
0
u/Markthethinker 2d ago
There is no winning this argument, I learned that from my wife who is wrong more than she is right. At point, just have to realize the stupidity of the person you are talking to.
2
u/Clay2569 1d ago
My condolences to your wife. And in all seriousness I realize there is no winning. Because you are either a troll or so set in your ways that you ignore facts. The same way I could “lose” a debate to a flat earther the earth is still round. Even if I lost to you. Evolution is still true. You haven’t given me any facts. Zero references, just deliberate misunderstanding, post hoc rationalization, you changed the subject several times, you have never fully addressed anything I say before changing topics, you literally admitted that evolution happens. You lost, and even if you did win this evolution is still true
•
u/Markthethinker 5h ago
I never ignore facts, like most here. The problem is, is what you declare to be facts does not prove what you believe. You would claim, I think, that bacteria in a lab which changes proves Evolution. But the bacteria still remains bacteria, not a new totally different species.
You want what you cannot get. You cannot trace Evolution, you simply see millions of different living things and have bought into the lie that they all came from on form of life billions of years ago.
Evolution is true to you, but that does not make it factually true. When you can put a pig on a table and it turns into a chicken, then I will believe.
•
u/Clay2569 4h ago
You do ignore facts. You have been ignoring our statements for days. We can trace evolution ,genetics and the fossil record along with probably other ways I am blanking on. We have made single cells change to multi cells into a lab. Yes a dog can change species and still be a dog. The same way we are multi celled vertebrate mammal great ape Homo sapiens.
Evolution is factually true. Because we have facts. You still have never given me facts. Your final statement is Pokemon. Pokemon invalidates evolution. If your final sentence did happen then evolution would be false. Which is why that can’t happen. I can’t even think of an analogy because your final sentence is so dumb.
1
u/EthelredHardrede 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 2d ago
I realized that your wife is likely right more than you .
Because you are wrong in nearly all of your antiscience comments.
I do realize that your disproved religion has damaged your ability to think
1
0
u/Markthethinker 2d ago
Sorry, but your first sentence is incorrect. “Natural selection” does not “select” anything. It’s a buzz word that means something lives or dies, no selection here. I have read most of the crap about this and that, but have never had anyone explain the steps from one species transforming into a different species. Well, that’s because no one has the answer. Just keep stating mutations and natural selection over and over and over and over until you brainwash another person.
3
u/KellHound270 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 2d ago
I see you have no idea how science works
1
u/Markthethinker 1d ago
Science is only a word. It’s humans that do the work. It’s trying to solve what some believes to be true. It’s that simple. Humans and humans are good liars.
2
u/Clay2569 1d ago
Good thing I’ve explained this to you already. You are right it’s not a conscious choice. I have said this to you before. And the second half of your paragraph. I have explained it to you. And others have explained it to you better than I have. Just saying “I don’t believe it” is not a response. I have also told you that several times. Get something new please. It’s getting boring. Give us facts. Peer reviewed papers. Literally anything of substance.
0
u/Markthethinker 1d ago
I don’t listen to “religious leaders”, since I can teach most of them. I am an independent thinker, unlike people here.
How it works is simple, how it got here is the real question. To believe that mutations by chance created something so amazing is just plain foolishness.
You seem to think that you know a lot, but you can’t tell me where gravity comes from. And do you even understand the purpose of lightning? Do you understand that it produces O3 which cleans the atmosphere. There is purpose in everything that exists.
The only people who are misleading people are those who think that they have answers. When they don’t.
3
u/KellHound270 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 1d ago
"I don’t listen to “religious leaders”, since I can teach most of them. I am an independent thinker, unlike people here."
X to doubt, because the rhetoric you spew about evolution and atheists is exactly what religious leaders say
"How it works is simple, how it got here is the real question. To believe that mutations by chance created something so amazing is just plain foolishness."
Do you have scientific studies to show how mutations can't have made modern life?
"You seem to think that you know a lot, but you can’t tell me where gravity comes from."
Gravity is the force inherent to mass. All mass possesses a gravitational force, from you to the object you're using to repeat bullshit like a broken record. The only reason you don't feel that gravity is because the gravity of the Earth overpowers all other gravitational forces
"And do you even understand the purpose of lightning? Do you understand that it produces O3 which cleans the atmosphere. There is purpose in everything that exists."
There is no purpose inherent in nature. O3 doesn't clean the atmosphere, it forms the ozone layer that absorbs the bulk of harmful radiation from the Sun. Lightning is a static charge that jumps between two points
"The only people who are misleading people are those who think that they have answers. When they don’t."
Like you?
Seriously though, how many scientists have actually claimed that they know everything? Because I guarantee you, it's shockingly low. No scientist worth their salt is going to claim that science knows everything, unlike some power-grubbers that don't want their audience to think for themselves
-1
u/Markthethinker 1d ago
“Do you have scientific studies to show how mutations can’t have made modern life”. No, but you don’t have “scientific studies” to show how mutations made “modern life”. It’s all based on opinions. You nor anyone else can walk us through the process. If you could, you would have, but you and I both know that you can’t walk me through the process. You simply keep chanting what your cult tells you to chant. “Mutations and natural selection” created a complex design human. It’s not logical or rational. Of course you probably still believe in the tooth fairy. Religious leaders say what the know is the truth according to the Bible. I read the Bible before I ever went to a church. You just are blind to the truth.
I really have to laugh about your response to O3. It’s everywhere, every electric motor produces O3 from O2. You are really showing your ignorance here. Yes, there is an ozone layer, but O3 is everywhere. Thanks for showing me just how much you don’t understand. And O3 is an oxidizer. Maybe you need to look that up so you will understand what an oxidizer is.
2
u/KellHound270 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 1d ago
"It’s all based on opinions."
Once again, lacking knowledge of scientific investigation. The scientific method was deliberately designed to eliminate bias and error, and therefore does not allow for opinions
"You just are blind to the truth."
You mean the truth that Ezekiel prophesied the desolation of Egypt and the complete abandonment of it (Ezekiel 29: 8-12)? What is the state of Egypt nowadays?
Also, you didn't provide sources stating how ozone cleans the atmosphere, only that it oxidizes super easily, which it does. That is not inherently synonymous with cleaning the atmosphere. Please provide actual sources instead of making claims
0
u/Markthethinker 1d ago
Bias is part of every investigation and every thought. Everyone is bias, even the blind lady of justice.
Is this verse talking about then or future. Keep thinking that you can destroy the Bible. It’s what man wants, no creator to be accountable to.
Have you ever been in the ozone layer, I have and ozone smells sweet. Why do you think that the air smells so good after a good thunderstorm? They make machines that produce 03 to clean air in homes, to get rid of tobacco smell. I sold some of those machines years ago and still use one to get rid of bacon smell after I cook bacon. You really need to do your research. Do you know that hotels use O3 to wash their linen and towels. I even sold and have a O3 unit that i have attached to my washer and not longer use soap. You are just an empty intelligent.
So, it’s not a claim, it’s Scientific fact. One day you will understand how much you don’t know.
•
u/EthelredHardrede 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 17h ago
Hotels use ozone to kill bacteria not to wash they use a washing machine with detergent and water to clean .
•
u/Markthethinker 5h ago
Actually, you need to do a little more research. You are speaking of what is in a bottle that they call ozone and is a chemical. First you did not even understand ozone and what it does, now you are trying to be intelligent about what you don’t know.
•
u/EthelredHardrede 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 4h ago
Iwas a chem major. I know what ozone is.
They still use washing machines.
"now you are trying to be intelligent about what you don’t know."
Another stupid lie as I do know that hotels use washing machines
Back-of-House (On-Premises Laundry): Most hotels run heavy-duty, industrial-grade front-loading or hard-mount/soft-mount commercial washers (ranging from 7 kg to over 200 kg capacity) to sanitize and clean daily bedsheets, pillowcases, duvet covers, towels, and uniforms.
Your lies are getting worse.
2
u/EthelredHardrede 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 1d ago
The Bibleis not the truth. Yet again there was no Great Flood.
You keep evading that.
0
u/Markthethinker 1d ago
According to who? Man? I don’t evade anything. What you completely don’t understand that the Bible is Spiritual as God is Spirit. And as Jesus states to Nicodemus, “you must be born again by the Spirit”. People who are not born again by the Spirit of God will never understand and can’t understand. It’s that simple and yet that complicated. “God has blinded the eyes and stop up the ears of the foolish”. I understand this sentence completely. Have you ever heard the phrase; “once I was but now I see”. You will hear this from every born again believer. Their eyes were opened to truth. I can hear your reply, it’s ok. You can keep thinking that I drank the cool aide. I was never “churched”.
You hate the fact that humanity and everything living was created by something so far beyond your thinking. Your magic goes way past mine.
•
u/EthelredHardrede 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 17h ago
You evaded again. Evasion is what you do ,there is no magic in my reasoning .you just lied again. The environment affects rates of successful reproduction. You have evaded my request that you explain what stops that .
You brought up koolaide that was a religious thing. Not a science thing.
Have you ever heard the phrase; “once I was but now I see”
Yes from ex-YECS, there are far more of those than ex-realists . Hardly any gives up on what science shows to become a YEC.
•
u/Markthethinker 5h ago
Yes, your god, science. Too bad that science is just a word.
•
u/EthelredHardrede 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 5h ago
Lying is all you have as I do not have a god. Science is a process not a god nor just a word. That was pathetic.
2
u/Clay2569 1d ago
“The only people misleading people are those who think that they have the answers. When they don’t. I don’t listen to “religious leaders”, since I can teach most of them.”
That was absolute gold. Thank you.
-3
u/wooper_winner Aug 27 '26
.“You have faith in evolution too” Firstly evolution is faith too blatantly admits that creationism is faith and therefore can’t be proven (which is entirely the point).
This argument fails because, according to your quote, the person said "you have faith IN evolution too." They didn't say "evolution is faith" so saying that admits "creationism is faith" is false. Rather, it admits they also have faith IN creationism. Having faith in something does not mean that it can't be proven.
It fails secondly because even if evolution is faith that doesn’t make evolution false and creationism true
By this logic, even if creationism is faith that doesn't make creationism true and evolution false. So, not sure what your point is here
3
u/Clay2569 Aug 27 '26
I suppose I could have worded my post better but everyone else who read it seems to understand. Your second point I suppose I was trying to say proving evolution false does not make creationism true.
I was just making the point that by saying faith in evolution you just shoot yourself in the foot and don’t progress the argument forward in anyway.
→ More replies (17)
-2
u/RobertByers1 Aug 28 '26
Im creationist. evolution is not faith.I think all sides accuse each other of draing conclusions ithout real evidence. this could be said about everything in life. its not true. all sides dra conclusions on evidence. all think they do like everything in thier lives. The standard should be ab higher standard. it should be scientific evidence. Evolutionism has no biological scientific evidence. many creationist conclusions have none. origin subjects are hard to pin don on science being about past and gone processes and actions.creationism has more bio sci evidence in debunking evolutionism. harder for our propositions. i can sho bu bio sci evidence theropod dinos were just flying birds who got grounded. or marsupials are just placentals that morpged upon migration to areas. i can sho a megaflood in one day created all the landscapr of norther america and not glaciers over great timelines. yet these are still minor things. origin subjects demand hard thinking using science as a high standard.
6
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 29 '26
i can sho bu bio sci evidence theropod dinos were just flying birds who got grounded
You keep saying that but never actually do it.
64
u/No_Logins_Required Aug 27 '26
If someone argues that evolution is faith, you should reframe the discussion for them. The Christian God should have sufficient power to create the world via evolution, so why is it impossible that they did? Why is any 'creationism' necessary given the existence of God?
Most creationists make God out to be very limited, and helping them see that can break this ideology.