- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Do you know that "the majority" is not a valid measure of Truth?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Did you know that most theists accept evolution? that atheism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, cheese making, wind surfing or horse riding.
What has origins got to do with evolution?
There is no counter for ignorance like this.It does not intent because it can not (the "I don't know" category).
If it can, it will.
Thirdly, just because you cannot conceive of a third option does not mean that nobody can, or that there is no third option. This is a textbook argument from ignorance.
If you mean it's something for which evolution theory is the right tool to address it, I'll agree.
If you mean it's a problem which challenges the validity of evolution theory, it doesn't.
Why these worries about "don't know"?
It's an enormous universe, and we've only been tackling it at all systematically for a few hundred years.
A hundred years ago we only knew of one galaxy and were just starting to become aware of the whole quantum realm.
We now know of hundreds of billions of galaxies, and are quantum-based devices are fundamental to electronic technology.
We're doing pretty well, so far.
But as an unstable (our glory and our shame?) experimental species we've a long way to go before we can have any assurance at all that we are even a bit special.
I'd say that if you're an atheist, you're more likely to accept evolution than a religious person.
But if you believe in evolution, you can also still be religious. I know many Christians who accept the theory of evolution.
Seriously though, can we stop calling evolution "The Origin of Life"? It has nothing to do with it, the origin of life has more to do with pure chemistry. Evolution is only the scientific theory about how life evolved over time. What is so hard about that?
Chemical reactions gradually change things. That is evolution.
Creationists want evolution to include anything and everything.Evolution has zero to do with the origin of life.
No, Evolution is about how the already existing life changes and evolves over time due to natural selection.
How life started has nothing to do with that.
Creationists want evolution to include anything and everything.
Little do creationists know but evolution also includes the creation of Gods, Gods were selected for, people had more off springs if they felt safe and protected, the more they felt protected the less stress they were under, the less stress they had the longer they lived, the longer they lived the more they bred meaning their genes were passed on to more and more children, so creationists have evolution to thank for their God, in fact all religious people can thank evolution for their Gods.
If you consider "Creation" an alternative, then I'd say "The world popped into existence from nothing for no reason five seconds ago" is also a viable alternative. But it's utterly irrelevant, because whether or not I can come up with an alternative does not impact any part of my argument. You have still presented these things as the only options, but have not given any reasoning for why no other possible argument is valid. Instead, you've tried to pass off the burden of proof for your trichotomy to me. That's not reasonable. Please demonstrate that those are the only options.I claimed (for a good while) that nobody can do that.
You try:
Evolution, Creation, or Not knowing. What else?
Yes. Neither is a dedicated convinced minority.Do you know that "the majority" is not a valid measure of Truth?
If you consider "Creation" an alternative, then I'd say "The world popped into existence from nothing for no reason five seconds ago" is also a viable alternative. But it's utterly irrelevant, because whether or not I can come up with an alternative does not impact any part of my argument. You have still presented these things as the only options, but have not given any reasoning for why no other possible argument is valid. Instead, you've tried to pass off the burden of proof for your trichotomy to me. That's not reasonable. Please demonstrate that those are the only options.
Really? Doesn't creation imply a creator? Some cause or reason for something to exist? Maybe you should define your terms and actually attempt to formulate your argument as a legitimate trichotomy, rather than just demand others provide alternatives - which, if you're looking for scientifically accurate ones, is sort of absurd.But popped into existence is another term for creation.
Really? Doesn't creation imply a creator? Some cause or reason for something to exist? Maybe you should define your terms and actually attempt to formulate your argument as a legitimate trichotomy, rather than just demand others provide alternatives - which, if you're looking for scientifically accurate ones, is sort of absurd.
Yes. Neither is a dedicated convinced minority.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?