Evolution: What The Fossils Say

[Speedwell]

The nature of logic is hot or cold, black or white, go or no go, With the statemet God didn't do it you have an inverse logic which is intuitively obvious. No escapi g it.

The question of whether God did it or didn't do it is independent of the question of whether the theory of evolution is a reasonable explanation of the diversity of life which we observe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your all over the road here. I contrasted 'God did it', with, 'God didn't do it', neither are scientific because natural science is an exclusively naturalistic epistemology. What you called a strawsman is inverse logic, there's always a flip side to logic.

Wrong, you are claiming that God did it in a specific way that we know to be false. I am not "all over the road" there, You are making an incorrect conclusion again. The fact that life is the product of evolution does not rule out God as the ultimate creator of the universe. Atheists do not believe that simply because there is no reliable evidence that supports any god doing that at all.

You are trying to make a false dichotomy where none was proposed in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The nature of logic is hot or cold, black or white, go or no go, With the statemet God didn't do it you have an inverse logic which is intuitively obvious. No escapi g it.

Again, no one here has claimed "God didn't do it". That is your strawman not ours.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What I do know is that Kenya and Tanzinia were home to the vast majority of hominid fossils. Which is not that far from the Savannah of central Africa. They obviously migrated as far as the Congo in the west, No reason their ancestors couldn't have migrated the same space to the east. The only chimpanzee fossils ever recognized as ancestral chimpanzee were found in Oldovia Gorge, where the Leaky family got famous fabricating the handy man myths.

Fossil chimp teeth were found in the Rift Valley near Lake Baringo in Kenya.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand that it's not an explanation that you accept, but it is an explanation.

This has nothing to do with wheter or not I believe / accept this claim.

That this claim is not an explanation has everything to do with the fact that it has no explanatory power. It explains nothing.

Explanation:
something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable; exposition:

Saying "god did it", explains nothing. It clarifies nothing. It makes nothing understandable. It merely asserts.

The evidence will point to the truth, even when we don't agree or like the truth.

There is no independent verifiable evidence for your assertion that "god dun it".

One really shows their denial if they can't even acknowledge a possible explanation.

One really shows their stubborness if one can't even acknowledge the difference between explanation and assertion.

It's quite similar to how creationists deny evolution as a possible explanation for diversity of life on earth even though if evolution turns out to be true

Evolution IS an explanation. A very very substantiated and valid explanation.
It includes a mechanism by wich it happens.
It clarifies the processes involved and the resulting facts.
It makes the facts and process understandable.
And it is testable and verifiable as well.

Evolution is not merely "nature did it!!".

Rather, it is a solid model that can be verified and applied to reality. It offers explanation of the facts we observe. It explains why mammals have hair and reptiles don't. It explains why human eyes have a blind spot while the octopus eye doesn't. It explains why chickens have inactive DNA to build teeth. It explains why you don't find any mammals with feathers.

Evolution, as an explanation, can account AND explain the facts.
It is much, much, much more then just an assertion.

, it really has no bearing on God forming biological life to do what He wants it to do, which is change and evolve and flourish into higher realms of existence and understanding.

It also has no bearing on the undetectable cookie monster laying an egg which seeded life on earth.

There's denial on both sides and only the truth can clear things up

You don't know in advance what the truth is.
And there's no denial on my side. Rather, there is an understanding of the difference between explanation and assertion.

, we just need to be careful not to say certain explanations are not explanations when in reality they are explanations

You need to learn what the word "explanation" means, and how a mere assertion does not fit that definition.

 

[Chriliman]

This has nothing to do with wheter or not I believe / accept this claim.

That this claim is not an explanation has everything to do with the fact that it has no explanatory power. It explains nothing.

Explanation:
something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable; exposition:

Saying "god did it", explains nothing. It clarifies nothing. It makes nothing understandable. It merely asserts.




There is no independent verifiable evidence for your assertion that "god dun it".



One really shows their stubborness if one can't even acknowledge the difference between explanation and assertion.



Evolution IS an explanation. A very very substantiated and valid explanation.
It includes a mechanism by wich it happens.
It clarifies the processes involved and the resulting facts.
It makes the facts and process understandable.
And it is testable and verifiable as well.

Evolution is not merely "nature did it!!".

Rather, it is a solid model that can be verified and applied to reality. It offers explanation of the facts we observe. It explains why mammals have hair and reptiles don't. It explains why human eyes have a blind spot while the octopus eye doesn't. It explains why chickens have inactive DNA to build teeth. It explains why you don't find any mammals with feathers.

Evolution, as an explanation, can account AND explain the facts.
It is much, much, much more then just an assertion.



It also has no bearing on the undetectable cookie monster laying an egg which seeded life on earth.



You don't know in advance what the truth is.
And there's no denial on my side. Rather, there is an understanding of the difference between explanation and assertion.



You need to learn what the word "explanation" means, and how a mere assertion does not fit that definition.

An explanation informs us of what the truth could be, it's not necessarily proof of the truth. Agree?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An explanation informs us of what the truth could be, it's not necessarily proof of the truth. Agree?

No.

Read my post again. I even gave you the definition to clarify what the word "explanation" means.
Here it is again:


Explanation:
something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable;

A mere assertion, like your "god did it", does not fit that definition.
It explains nothing.
It clarifies nothing.
It makes nothing understandable.
Instead, it just asserts.

 

[Chriliman]

No.

Read my post again. I even gave you the definition to clarify what the word "explanation" means.
Here it is again:

I read your post and I understand what it says. Your post is an explanation.

Explanation:
something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable;

The statement "An eternal God formed heaven and earth for a specific purpose and that purpose is to give abundant life" is understandable and is an explanation of origins and life as we know it. It is understandable and it does offer an explanation, but this doesn't mean you should accept it as true at face value, you can and should expect more convincing evidence to support the explanation in order to accept it as true.

Same can be said for the statement "An eternal multiverse is the cause behind our universe because when two universes collide, a new universe is caused", this is a statement that is understandable and it offers an explanation, but again, we should expect more convincing evidence in order to accept it as true.

If you can't understand and accept what I'm saying then we can stop here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The statement "An eternal God formed heaven and earth for a specific purpose and that purpose is to give abundant life" is understandable and is an explanation of origins and life as we know it.

No, it is not. It is just an assertion. Are we going to continue like this? Because I'll lose interest rather fast if we do...

It is understandable

The sentence is understandable as it is a string of english words.
But the phenomena it talks about, has not been clarified or adequatly explained by any means. You know nothing more, understand nothing more, cleared up nothing about the nature of the universe.

You just made a bunch assertions about it, which can not be verified, which are not supported, which are not testable,.. in short: which explain nothing at all.

you can and should expect more convincing evidence to support the explanation in order to accept it as true.

"more"?
Perhaps you should start with "any", because you offered nothing.

Same can be said for the statement "An eternal multiverse is the cause behind our universe because when two universes collide, a new universe is caused",

As is, that would also be just an assertion, not an explanation.

this is a statement that is understandable

The statement is understandable, since they are also just english words strung together to form a sentence.
The phenomena it talks about howerver, is not explained by that statement, nore is the phenomena clarified or more understandable as before.

and it offers an explanation

No, it asserts.

, but again, we should expect more convincing evidence in order to accept it as true.

Same as above: not "more". Start with "any". After "any" has been given, you can talk about "more".

If you can't understand and accept what I'm saying then we can stop here.

Says the guy who refuses to acknowledge the difference between assertion and explanation.


So, let's just cut right to the chase and ask the billion dollar question here...
In your opinion, what is the difference between assertion and explanation?

 

[Chriliman]

So, let's just cut right to the chase and ask the billion dollar question here...
In your opinion, what is the difference between assertion and explanation?

Assertions can be explanations and vise versa. I think you tend to assume all assertions are false and therefore you think they should not count as explanations, but the very definition of assertion is: a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief. Notice it says "fact or belief", so this proves an assertion can be an explanation of the facts as well as beliefs.

Again, if you continue trying to find ways to disagree with me then we can be done, this is getting ridiculous.

 

[Speedwell]

Assertions can be explanations and vise versa. I think you tend to assume all assertions are false and therefore you think they should not count as explanations, but the very definition of assertion is: a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief. Notice it says "fact or belief", so this proves an assertion can be an explanation of the facts as well as beliefs.

Again, if you continue trying to find ways to disagree with me then we can be done, this is getting ridiculous.

Yes, but your statement,

"An eternal God formed heaven and earth for a specific purpose and that purpose is to give abundant life"

is still an assertion rather than an explanation. There isn't any "how" in it.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, but your statement,

"An eternal God formed heaven and earth for a specific purpose and that purpose is to give abundant life"

is still an assertion rather than an explanation. There isn't any "how" in it.

I'd like to know 'how' God creates everything just as much as you do. I believe over time he shows us exactly how and also why and this is so that we will accept what He's doing as true and good and it takes time for us to understand and acknowledge Him.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'd like to know 'how' God creates everything just as much as you do. I believe over time he shows us exactly how and also why and this is so that we will accept what He's doing as true and good and it takes time for us to understand and acknowledge Him.

So why the need to presuppose a god?

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, but your statement,

"An eternal God formed heaven and earth for a specific purpose and that purpose is to give abundant life"

is still an assertion rather than an explanation. There isn't any "how" in it.

I'd also add that understanding why something is done is more important than understanding how something is done. When you fully understnad why, you'll be better prepared for understanding how.

Science tends to take the opposite approach, understanding how is more important than why. Evolution is a prime example, they almost know exactly how diversity of life came about on earth, but have no clue why and in some cases don't even want to ask why, all they want is the knowledge of how, but this only leads to incomplete understanding.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'd also add that understanding why something is done is more important than understanding how something is done. When you fully understnad why, you'll be better prepared for understanding how.

Science tends to take the opposite approach, understanding how is more important than why. Evolution is a prime example, they almost know exactly how diversity of life came about on earth, but have no clue why and in some cases don't even want to ask why, all they want is the knowledge of how, but this only leads to incomplete understanding.

I don't find your epistemology credible.

 

[Chriliman]

So why the need to presuppose a god?

I presupposed God in the past because I wanted to know why I exist and He answered and continues to answer.

The explanation that I exist because of random material accidents, wasn't cutting it and even if it were true, it would render the question of 'why?' meaningless, but maybe that's what some people want. Maybe some don't want an explanation of why, they just want an explanation of how and if the how is random material accidents then they're fine with that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Assertions can be explanations and vise versa.

Bzzzzt.

You're done.

 

[Chriliman]

Bzzzzt.

You're done.

So when someone is asserting facts they can't also be explaining anything? If that's what you think then yes, I'm done.

Thanks for the exercise in understanding the mind of an atheist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'd also add that understanding why something is done is more important than understanding how something is done.

Not if the point of the exercise is the come up with an explanation.

The point exactly.

Science tends to take the opposite approach, understanding how is more important than why.

"why" is a loaded question, in this context. It assumes that there is some cosmic reason (in the sense of intent) for the subject matter.

Evolution is a prime example, they almost know exactly how diversity of life came about on earth, but have no clue why

First, try to have a clue if "why" is even a sensible question to ask.

You can form all kinds of nonsensical questions by stringing english words togethere in grammatically correct sentences.

For example: "what does purple taste like?" and "what is the color of anger?"
Then there are those questions wich are loaded with unsupported premises and assertions, like "why do you hit your wife" or "when did you use drugs?".

The "why" questions you talk about here, are those kind of questions.

and in some cases don't even want to ask why

Like?

, all they want is the knowledge of how, but this only leads to incomplete understanding.

Says you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I presupposed God in the past because I wanted to know why I exist and He answered and continues to answer.

Like, actually an audible voice that you perceived with your ears?

The explanation that I exist because of random material accidents

lol!

and even if it were true, it would render the question of 'why?' meaningless,

Did you just admit a preference to using (fallacious) emotional reasoning?
Did you just say that it is okay to believe one thing over another, because it "feels" better?

but maybe that's what some people want.

It seems that the only one here who "wants" things about reality and having it play in active role in what one will and will not believe, is you...

I don't remember any atheist here ever saying anything remotely close to such a thing...

Maybe some don't want an explanation of why, they just want an explanation of how and if the how is random material accidents then they're fine with that.

Or mayby, just maybe, we just want explanations, full stop.
Regardless of our personal preferences and wants and needs.