The Demise of Evolution

[roman2819]

Well frankly Roman I'm a little disappointed - I anticipated more. All those words, a book, decent grammar and no spelling mistakes (that I could see).


All that, and all we end up with is the tired old Argument From Incredulity. You also managed nicely to confound abiogenesis with evolution - a standard Creationist trope. (Hint: the Theory of Evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis.)

Is this all there is Roman?
OB

Hi Occams

Living in Singapore (Asia), I know people of different faith: Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians , Catholics, Jews, etc. This is a true incident that happened. Once, at a buffet, a Buddhist colleague, who is a vegetarian, said "I don't eat meat, so I must thank god for so many varieties of fruits and vegetable." To which I asked, "You believe that God create them?" Knowing that I am a Christian, he tried to stick to the Buddhist belief that there is no one supreme creator but many divine gods, and he explained to this affect "... the different gods made different varieties, otherwise evolution by itself could not produce so much varieties. … " he went on, and end with, "look at the difference between the appearance of parrot, owl and eagle. I don't think evolution can produce such different designs." These are the words of a non-believer.

The common trait among most non-believers is they think that god(s) exist even though they worship god(s) in different ways. And it has been this way throughout the millenniums. Why are people always talking about God even though they can't see Him? Why doesn't this topic of God just fade away? Simple reason is people look at the creation around them and find it tough to believe all these can happen by themselves.

The fact that same old-fashioned boring idea of creation can perpetuate throughout the age must mean something.

 

[roman2819]

I find that when you boil it down, creationist arguments come down to either arguments from incredulity and/or awe. There doesn't seem to be a way to argue for creationism without resorting to an emotional argument.

Hi PitaBread

I let you decide if this person, a non-believer, was emotional:

Living in Singapore (Asia), I know people of different faith: Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians , Catholics, Jews, etc. This is a true incident that happened. Once, at a buffet, a Buddhist colleague, who is a vegetarian, said "I don't eat meat, so I must thank god for so many varieties of fruits and vegetable." To which I asked, "You believe that God create them?" Knowing that I am a Christian, he tried to stick to the Buddhist belief that there is no one supreme creator but many divine gods, and he explained to this affect "... the different gods made different varieties, otherwise evolution by itself could not produce so much varieties. … " he went on, and end with, "look at the difference between the appearance of parrot, owl and eagle. I don't think evolution can produce such different designs." These are the words of a non-believer.

The common trait among most non-believers is they think that god(s) exist even though they worship god(s) in different ways. And it has been this way throughout the millenniums. Why are people always talking about God even though they can't see Him? Why doesn't this topic of God just fade away? Simple reason is people look at the creation around them and find it tough to believe all these can happen by themselves.

The fact that same old-fashioned boring idea of creation can perpetuate throughout the age must mean something.

 

[Occams Barber]

This is an argument for evolution?

I'm not even going to bother with your first para "The Parable of the Buddhist Diner". It says nothing about the topic apart from your Buddhist friend desperately needing to spend a little time studying biology

Your first post was about evolution. This second post appears to vacillate between the existence of your God and evolution. Let me give you an initial heads up Roman. Many Christian churches and individuals accept the idea of evolution. It is also possible to be a non-believer in gods (an atheist) and not accept evolution. The two concepts are not interdependent.

Now for your second para.

The common trait among most non-believers is they think that god(s) exist even though they worship god(s) in different ways. And it has been this way throughout the millenniums.

The first sentence is internally contradictory. You have non-believers with the common trait of thinking god(s)exist? - by your definition they are non-believers. To make it even worse you have these non-believers worshipping gods for millennia. I'd hazard a guess at what you're trying to say but I really have no idea.

Next bit.

Why are people always talking about God even though they can't see Him? Why doesn't this topic of God just fade away? Simple reason is people look at the creation around them and find it tough to believe all these can happen by themselves. The fact that same old-fashioned boring idea of creation can perpetuate throughout the age must mean something.

What is so amazing about people, Christians or non believers talking about God? And why wouldn't they talk about God if some of them believe it exists and some don't? And because the creation idea still exists doesn't make it true. We could apply the same silly logic to astrology and a flat earth.

Your big finish? - a rewind of the Argument From Incredulity.

Roman - you come across as a nice but naïve kid but your arguments aren't arguments and your thinking is all over the place. If you seriously believe you have an argument against evolution please, for your sake, test it out privately, preferably in a Biology Faculty or Museum of Natural History.
OB

 

[roman2819]

This is an argument for evolution?

I'm not even going to bother with your first para "The Parable of the Buddhist Diner". It says nothing about the topic apart from your Buddhist friend desperately needing to spend a little time studying biology

Your first post was about evolution. This second post appears to vacillate between the existence of your God and evolution. Let me give you an initial heads up Roman. Many Christian churches and individuals accept the idea of evolution. It is also possible to be a non-believer in gods (an atheist) and not accept evolution. The two concepts are not interdependent.

Now for your second para.

The first sentence is internally contradictory. You have non-believers with the common trait of thinking god(s)exist? - by your definition they are non-believers. To make it even worse you have these non-believers worshipping gods for millennia. I'd hazard a guess at what you're trying to say but I really have no idea.

Next bit.

What is so amazing about people, Christians or non believers talking about God? And why wouldn't they talk about God if some of them believe it exists and some don't? And because the creation idea still exists doesn't make it true. We could apply the same silly logic to astrology and a flat earth.

Your big finish? - a rewind of the Argument From Incredulity.

Roman - you come across as a nice but naïve kid but your arguments aren't arguments and your thinking is all over the place. If you seriously believe you have an argument against evolution please, for your sake, test it out privately, preferably in a Biology Faculty or Museum of Natural History.
OB

What is your understanding of evolution? Is it life started all by itself -- without God at all -- and evolved from a few simple cells into millions of species of creatures and living things that we know today? That is the definition of evolution I go by.

Some has shifted the definition of evolution to say that God started it but living things evolved by themselves -- but this is not the evolution most people go by; I am going by the evolution which means there is no god and no creator, that lifeforms start and evolve all by themselves.

 

[Jimmy D]

What is your understanding of evolution? Is it life started all by itself -- without God at all -- and evolved from a few simple cells into millions of species of creatures and living things that we know today? That is the definition of evolution I go by.

Some has shifted the definition of evolution to say that God started it but living things evolved by themselves -- but this is not the evolution most people go by; I am going by the evolution which means there is no god and no one creator, that lifeforms start and evolve all by themselves.

You are conflating evolution with abiogenesis.

Whether God started life, chemicals began reacting in a certain way in a primordal sea or aliens seeded the Earth makes no difference. What do you think Darwin said about it?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What is your understanding of evolution? Is it life started all by itself -- without God at all -- and evolved from a few simple cells into millions of species of creatures and living things that we know today? That is the definition of evolution I go by.

Some has shifted the definition of evolution to say that God started it but living things evolved by themselves -- but this is not the evolution most people go by; I am going by the evolution which means there is no god and no one creator, that lifeforms start and evolve all by themselves.

There is no evolution which denies God or gods. This is a horrible creationist strawman that you need to stop asserting.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Hi PitaBread

I let you decide if this person, a non-believer, was emotional:

Living in Singapore (Asia), I know people of different faith: Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians , Catholics, Jews, etc. This is a true incident that happened. Once, at a buffet, a Buddhist colleague, who is a vegetarian, said "I don't eat meat, so I must thank god for so many varieties of fruits and vegetable." To which I asked, "You believe that God create them?" Knowing that I am a Christian, he tried to stick to the Buddhist belief that there is no one supreme creator but many divine gods, and he explained to this affect "... the different gods made different varieties, otherwise evolution by itself could not produce so much varieties. … " he went on, and end with, "look at the difference between the appearance of parrot, owl and eagle. I don't think evolution can produce such different designs." These are the words of a non-believer.

The common trait among most non-believers is they think that god(s) exist even though they worship god(s) in different ways. And it has been this way throughout the millenniums. Why are people always talking about God even though they can't see Him? Why doesn't this topic of God just fade away? Simple reason is people look at the creation around them and find it tough to believe all these can happen by themselves.

The fact that same old-fashioned boring idea of creation can perpetuate throughout the age must mean something.

Does your current place of abode have some relevance? Is there something special about Singapore? And your story is not convincing - anecdotes which supposedly support your argument are rarely truthful, particularly when they misrepresent other religious beliefs. Your claims about Buddhism are inaccurate.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Not sue how favorably God looks upon modern medicine, many of the medicine methods cause more problems than they heal. I guess the major contribution modern medicine has been, is the diagnostic ability.

I know this it will not be modern medicine that is used by people on the new earth. To me that modern medicine goes with this fallen state of the earth now, it has its bad and also good points. Kinda matches the fallen state of man some truth mixed in with untruth.

Really in many cases modern medicine extends the life, so a person can suffer just a little longer.

Do you then believe Noah was scientist he built a boat.

So to you agriculture, warfare, boat building, medicine are the same as a person saying 50 million years ago this and this did this, that brought about this, which in turn brought about this. And we know this because a scientist says so because he looked at a fossil or a rock and the fossil/rock told him so.

Ah, so you are happy to claim "this scientific idea is satanic, but this one is God given"? I bet you can't give anything other than personal opinion to back that bizarre claim, can you?

 

[pitabread]

Hi PitaBread

I let you decide if this person, a non-believer, was emotional:

Arguments from incredulity are inherently emotional in nature. That's what incredulity is.

Insofar as random anecdotes go, I take those with a grain of salt given the individual in question is not here to speak to their own belief about how they think life came about.

The common trait among most non-believers is they think that god(s) exist even though they worship god(s) in different ways.

Let's clarify terms. Are you referring to non-believer as non-Christian? Because there are plenty of people of other spiritual beliefs that still believe in a god or gods. Calling them a "non-believer" is misleading though if you actually mean the term atheist, which in this case the person in your example clearly isn't.

Saying there are people of other spiritual faiths who also believe in a creator isn't useful to the discussion. We're both already on the same page about that.

Simple reason is people look at the creation around them and find it tough to believe all these can happen by themselves.

Sure, and that is personal incredulity. Which ultimately is an emotional reaction.

The fact that same old-fashioned boring idea of creation can perpetuate throughout the age must mean something.

Sure, it means that ideas in human culture can get passed on through generations. There is nothing particularly unusual about that.

 

[ruthiesea]

There is probably not a scientific theory that states there is no God.
But i was not saying that there was one, but what little i have seen about many of the major players in the science system. They sure like to boast of their atheism.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

That sure sound like something that has scientific overtones and i am sure he would not be as confident in his stance if it was not for science.

I know quite a few scientists who believe in G-d. They worship with me once a week.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not sue how favorably God looks upon modern medicine, many of the medicine methods cause more problems than they heal.

I have a very big feeling that this is less about how God looks upon modern medicine and how you look upon modern medicine.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Interesting how some creationists treat Satan as a kind of “get out of jail free” card that magically makes the problems with their position disappear.

Can’t mount a legitimate, evidence-based objection to evolution? Claim it is a deception from the devil. Problem solved.

How convenient.

Not so fast. Many of us just interpret the evidence differently. You guys don't own the evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not so fast. Many of us just interpret the evidence differently. You guys don't own the evidence.

Yeah, but only one interpretation is actually backed up science AND the evidence. You have to jump through a whole circus-ful of hoops to get your evidence to work.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yeah, but only one interpretation is actually backed up science AND the evidence. You have to jump through a whole circus-ful of hoops to get your evidence to work.

I admit that science has done a very good sales job.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I admit that science has done a very good sales job.

Not really. You're just bad at science, and also bad at trying to combine it with religion.

 

[expos4ever]

Not so fast. Many of us just interpret the evidence differently. You guys don't own the evidence.

What you call "interpreting the evidence differently" I call something else: bearing false witness seasoned with a dose of poisonous rhetoric

It is a fascinating study in the group-level behaviours - a particular group (fundamentalist Christians) who claim to espouse truth-telling are perfectly willing to compromise themselves by engaging in systematic misrepresentation and distortion in order to preserve another belief - that evolution is false.

Let's be real here: there is basically zero dispute among qualified experts that evolution happened and the evidence for it is overwhelming. Creationists cannot, of course, dispute the facts since the case against them is devastating. So what do they do? They engage in systematic misrepresentation. To wit:

- abuse the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. claim that this law does not permit evolution);
- claim that evolution is a random process (only elements are random, others are decidedly not random).
- the fossil record has gaps (while there is a sense in which this is true, it is decidedly not true in the sense that matters).

To complement the telling of falsehoods, they often engage in poisonous rhetoric - vague claims about how evolution is a lie of the devil and that its adherents are misled minions of the prince of darkness.

It seems to me that the creationists are like the proverbial lobster boiled slowly - they appear to have lost the ability to recognize that they are participating in a systematic program of falsehoods and the abuse of the principles of fair and reasonable argument.

 

[pitabread]

Many of us just interpret the evidence differently.

It doesn't really work like that.

 

[expos4ever]

I admit that science has done a very good sales job.

A good "sales job"?!

One would need to live under rock or, more likely, be wilfully ignorant to deny that science has contributed to enormous advances in understanding of the world. No one is saying that the accrual of such knowledge does not bring associated risks. But to imply, as you do, that science is somehow a giant sham - that it has had to "sell" itself to gain acceptance since it cannot appeal to its actual accomplishments - is a wild misrepresentation of the truth.

But, again, creationists have shown over and over and over how they are willing to sacrifice truth in service of their position that evolution didn't happen.

 

[Nithavela]

A good "sales job"?!

One would need to live under rock or, more likely, be wilfully ignorant to deny that science has contributed to enormous advances in understanding of the world. No one is saying that the accrual of such knowledge does not bring associated risks. But to imply, as you do, that science is somehow a giant sham - that it has had to "sell" itself to gain acceptance since it cannot appeal to its actual accomplishments - is a wild misrepresentation of the truth.

But, again, creationists have shown over and over and over how they are willing to sacrifice truth in service of their position that evolution didn't happen.

Where have all those advanced led us? To self-inflicted extinction.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Where have all those advanced led us? To self-inflicted extinction.

As well as longer life spans, greatly reduced infant mortality rates, the destruction of many deadly types of diseases.
Really, it's just a positives-negatives game. A heads and tails of the coin.