Bigotry and Human Evolution

@avalanchethecat said
I would say, if you look around at how creatures and humans in particular interact and behave towards each other, the rules and customs followed (and not followed) are much more like something haphazardly arisen and evolved than software installed by a perfect creator.

Life from non-life is abiogenesis, while evolution is supposedly what followed life from non-life. That chemical reaction that caused life is so far out there no one has a clue, yet many are willing to overlook it and assume it occurred. So evolution is driven by natural selection strong or more fit move forward that which isn't doesn't. Nowhere in that equation is there an information generating mechanism if it was all a mindless process from start to now that could write code to perform tasks and improve the processes as time went on.

Talking about interactions, rules, customs simply by looking at how in theory, purely natural mindless chemical reactions could get to such things is out there. So people who say "God did it" when they didn't know what happened has been replaced with 'Evolution did it" when they don't know it's gone full circle. Life is highly complex as individuals, and amazingly so in just a single cell. The interaction of different fully formed life adds so much more it isn't funny. The evolutionary explanation isn't realistic, at least not without something guiding the process that would make the complexity disappear as we see in computer programming and hardware design.

@kellyjay said
Life from non-life is abiogenesis, while evolution is supposedly what followed life from non-life. That chemical reaction that caused life is so far out there no one has a clue, yet many are willing to overlook it and assume it occurred. So evolution is driven by natural selection strong or more fit move forward that which isn't doesn't. Nowhere in that equation is there an ...[text shortened]... cess that would make the complexity disappear as we see in computer programming and hardware design.

We don't yet understand how life started. We haven't yet mapped out every step of the evolutionary path between simple, single-celled organisms and the profusion of complex life we see around us today. Two thousand years ago, there were a lot of other things we didn't understand but about which we have, in the intervening period, developed a very thorough understanding. Do you see where I'm going with this?

@avalanchethecat said
We don't yet understand how life started. We haven't yet mapped out every step of the evolutionary path between simple, single-celled organisms and the profusion of complex life we see around us today. Two thousand years ago, there were a lot of other things we didn't understand but about which we have, in the intervening period, developed a very thorough understanding. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Yeah we don’t know so evolution did it.

@kellyjay said
Yeah we don’t know so evolution did it.

Such a crass statement does no justice to avalanchethecat's post, that isn't what they are saying at all. To say that 'evolution didn't do it' is to ignore the huge body of scientific evidence and understanding that all living things share a common ancestry, which can be explained in no other sensible, logical way except to conclude that life forms have evolved to be as they are. By all means carry on believing that your god made everything, but please don't try to dismiss or belittle those who are genuinely seeking an answer to this ever fascinating and complex subject with meaningless and inaccurate statements, it really doesn't do your own intelligence any justice.
To say 'It's in the bible so it must be true' is a quick and convenient fix, to try to work out what's actually going on takes a little longer.

@indonesia-phil said
Such a crass statement does no justice to avalanchethecat's post, that isn't what they are saying at all. To say that 'evolution didn't do it' is to ignore the huge body of scientific evidence and understanding that all living things share a common ancestry, which can be explained in no other sensible, logical way except to conclude that life forms have evolved to be a ...[text shortened]... e' is a quick and convenient fix, to try to work out what's actually going on takes a little longer.

You think I am wrong? An assumption is all that is taking place when we assume evolution is the answer when so much is unknown. So it is exactly like someone saying God did it with out having all the details! An information directed system preforming complex tasks in what world other than evolution springs up completely without agency directing it?

@kellyjay said
Yeah we don’t know so evolution did it.

Yeah we don't know, so God did it.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Yeah we don't know, so God did it.

At least evolution theory tries to explain how some things happen.

Creationism does not.

The non-explainers should not get to shoot down the explainers, even if the explainers get some things wrong.

@kellyjay said
You think I am wrong? An assumption is all that is taking place when we assume evolution is the answer when so much is unknown. So it is exactly like someone saying God did it with out having all the details! An information directed system preforming complex tasks in what world other than evolution springs up completely without agency directing it?

I have yet to hear from a creationist exactly how it is that we have the beautiful sequences of fossils in securely dated strata which are the bedrock of the theory of evolution. How does that happen, Kellyjay? Does your god periodically alter living species? Is "creation" some sort of continuous process involving extinction of some species and radiation and adaptation of others? If so, how is that not evolution? And if not, please explain why there are no human fossils in strata older than a few hundred thousand years? No hominid fossils in strata older than a few million years? No large mammals whatsoever beyond 65million years? No trees older than 350million years? What reasonable alternative is there to evolution?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Yeah we don't know, so God did it.

Saying either God or evolution did it is meaningless both are simply assertions. If if it is acceptable that evolution is true that still doesn’t rule out God, that can only occur if it can be shown mindless goalless processes could pull off abiogenesis and after evolution.

So the real discussion boils down to mindlessness or a mind, which is the most reasonable explanation?

@bigdogg said
At least evolution theory tries to explain how some things happen.

Creationism does not.

The non-explainers should not get to shoot down the explainers, even if the explainers get some things wrong.

Not true!

How and why can both be answers without contradictions; moreover, some of the foundational views of science come from people who believed in God. I don’t believe you need a list of names but you do I can give them.

@avalanchethecat said
I have yet to hear from a creationist exactly how it is that we have the beautiful sequences of fossils in securely dated strata which are the bedrock of the theory of evolution. How does that happen, Kellyjay? Does your god periodically alter living species? Is "creation" some sort of continuous process involving extinction of some species and radiation and ad ...[text shortened]... lion years? No trees older than 350million years? What reasonable alternative is there to evolution?

I give this some thought.

@kellyjay said
Not true!

How and why can both be answers without contradictions; moreover, some of the foundational views of science come from people who believed in God. I don’t believe you need a list of names but you do I can give them.

The scientists who believed in God did not rely on God to make their discoveries. They used the scientific method. (When they failed to do so appropriately, other people no doubt stepped in and corrected things.)

The problem is that Religion is the wrong tool for finding out how the physical world works. Science works 💯% better.

@kellyjay said
Saying either God or evolution did it is meaningless both are simply assertions. If if it is acceptable that evolution is true that still doesn’t rule out God, that can only occur if it can be shown mindless goalless processes could pull off abiogenesis and after evolution.

So the real discussion boils down to mindlessness or a mind, which is the most reasonable explanation?

You use this word 'abiogenesis' as a kind of strawman argument against evolution. How life started really isn't relevant to the discussion of whether or not the process of evolution actually happens. Nobody knows how life on Earth started. That's a different argument entirely.

@indonesia-phil said
Such a crass statement does no justice to avalanchethecat's post, that isn't what they are saying at all. To say that 'evolution didn't do it' is to ignore the huge body of scientific evidence and understanding that all living things share a common ancestry, which can be explained in no other sensible, logical way except to conclude that life forms have evolved to be a ...[text shortened]... e' is a quick and convenient fix, to try to work out what's actually going on takes a little longer.

"To say that 'evolution didn't do it' is to ignore the huge body of scientific evidence and understanding that all living things share a common ancestry, which can be explained in no other sensible, logical way except to conclude that life forms have evolved to be as they are."

That's not logical. Everything made was made of the matter that was created in the beginning, so of course there is going to be evidence that all living things share a common ancestry. That proves nothing.
And the "huge body of scientific evidence" is purely theoretical, and there are absolutely no links in the fossil record that shows anything has evolved. There's nothing there.

What's worse about you entire post is the grammatical fallacies you employed to bolster a failed theory, topping it off with insults against kellyjay's intelligence to make you feel better about the lie you've embraced about the origin of life.

Believing what the Bible says isn't a "quick and convenient fix". Saying as much is merely a quick and convenient fix for your broken down science.

@josephw said
And the "huge body of scientific evidence" is purely theoretical, and there are absolutely no links in the fossil record that shows anything has evolved. There's nothing there.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zcqbdxs/revision/7

While this is one of endless resources that prove you wrong, I'm well aware that you're not looking for evidence. You're simply trying to defend your faith, evidence be damned.

"We walk by faith, not by sight". In other words, beliefs are more important to you than evidence.

Evolution---no, all science---is built upon observations and tests from which the the most direct and logical conclusions can be made from.

Religion is the polar opposite. "Faith" is rewarded above direct observation. Hence, terms like "doubting Thomas", referring to a disciple who needed to confirm a claim for himself rather than just believing something impossible actually happened.

A Christian's entire life and worldview is built around their beliefs. So they have no choice but to attack whatever challenges those beliefs.

I know I'm not saying anything new, but this just has to be reiterated every now and then. Evolution's fight is not merely against ignorance; in the age of the internet, that's easily fixed. The fight is against willing and proud ignorance. That is a monumental task.

You may all resume your discussions.