The Logical Pathway From "Evolution is wrong" to "Therefore God"

[DogmaHunter]

well yes, it is true.
the way i'm referred to as a creationist is typical of such behavior.

That's because you use creationist arguments.
If you don't wish to be labeled (or mistaken?) as such, perhaps you shouldn't be parotting the nonsense these people spew on the interwebs...

i find abiogenesis equally ludicrous, thats why.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different fields of study... that's one.
Secondly, I find quantum mechanics to be ridiculous. Truelly ridiculous. Completely crazy, insane, illogical and even non-sensical.

But you know what? It works. And my emotional objections to it won't change the fact that particles simply are the way they are.

What your emotional response is to such things is irrelevant. What matters is the evidence in support of it.

"things becoming alive" flies in the face of everything rational.

And "time slows down as speed increases relative to the observer" doesn't?
Or "a particle can be measured *here* while it actually is *over there*" doesn't?

Your common sense is not a pathway to truth when it comes to learning new things. Scientific progress challenges what we call "common sense" all the time.

It seems to me that you are slowly but surely shifting into the fallacy that Prof Dawkins called the "argument from personal incredulity". ie: "my evidence against evolution is that I don't believe/understand it..."

no need to chastise me, i was simply answering the OPs questions regarding the topic.

And I was simply responding to your post.

 

[whois]

That's because you use creationist arguments.
If you don't wish to be labeled (or mistaken?) as such, perhaps you shouldn't be parotting the nonsense these people spew on the interwebs...

can you post a link to a post of mine where i used a "creationist argument"?

Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different fields of study... that's one.
Secondly, I find quantum mechanics to be ridiculous. Truelly ridiculous. Completely crazy, insane, illogical and even non-sensical.

But you know what? It works. And my emotional objections to it won't change the fact that particles simply are the way they are.

What your emotional response is to such things is irrelevant. What matters is the evidence in support of it.

correct, it's the evidence that matters.
i've seen no evidence whatsoever that "things become alive".
alive, as in the biological cell found in plants and animals.

 

[The Cadet]

correct, it's the evidence that matters.
i've seen no evidence whatsoever that "things become alive".
alive, as in the biological cell found in plants and animals.

Two questions, true or false.

Are things alive on earth today?
Was there ever a time where earth did not harbor life?

 

[whois]

Two questions, true or false.

assuming the "holographic" universe false:

Are things alive on earth today?

true, there appears to be life present on earth.

Was there ever a time where earth did not harbor life?

i don't know.
we can make some assumptions, then come to a conclusion though.
if we assume the answer false, then life is some kind of fundamental property of the universe.
if we assume the answer true, then we have 2 choices:
1. life arose by "evolution"
2. life was created by a god.

if the "holographic" universe assumption is true then the above questions are moot.

 

[Loudmouth]

assuming the "holographic" universe false:

true, there appears to be life present on earth.

i don't know.
we can make some assumptions, then come to a conclusion though.
if we assume the answer false, then life is some kind of fundamental property of the universe.
if we assume the answer true, then we have 2 choices:
1. life arose by "evolution"
2. life was created by a god.

if the "holographic" universe assumption is true then the above questions are moot.

What about . . .
3. life arose by abiogenesis.
4. life arose by a natural process we have yet to discover.

 

[Armoured]

then we have 2 choices:
1. life arose by "evolution"
2. life was created by a god.

Life arose by abiogenesis, which is a completely separate field to evolution. Evolution may, in fact, be utterly wrong, but that doesn't affect the understanding of how life arose.

 

[The Cadet]

true, there appears to be life present on earth.

i don't know.

How much of modern cosmology do you accept? This is perhaps a key question, because life as we know it cannot survive the situations present on a nascent earth. It's too hot and chaotic, basically, and the organic compounds needed for life are simply not there.

if we assume the answer false, then life is some kind of fundamental property of the universe.

How does that even make sense, though? Like, given how we want to define life, I don't think this sentence is even coherent.

if we assume the answer true, then we have 2 choices:
1. life arose by "evolution"
2. life was created by a god.

That's not a true dichotomy though. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it merely explains the diversity once we have life. A better dichotomy would be, assuming life arose and had some cause:

1. Life arose by natural causes
2. Life arose by non-natural causes

...Which is actually a true dichotomy - A or not A. The problem is, we have no mechanism to examine the latter. Supernatural causation is unattributable, and even if we could tell what the cause was, it's still useless as supernatural explanations do nothing to further our understanding of reality (not to mention have always either been proven wrong or not been proven, so a perfect track record of failure). It basically has to follow that life on earth arose naturally. Either that, or it came here on an asteroid, and developed naturally wherever that asteroid came from.

 

[Loudmouth]

can you post a link to a post of mine where i used a "creationist argument"?

First, you have the usual conflation of evolution and abiogenesis.

Second, you use the fallacy of personal incredulity to argue against abiogenesis.

Three, you use a false dichotomy of evolution and god to argue for the creation of life by a deity.

i've seen no evidence whatsoever that "things become alive".

What evidence have you seen as it relates to the origin of life?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Life arose by abiogenesis, which is a completely separate field to evolution. Evolution may, in fact, be utterly wrong, but that doesn't affect the understanding of how life arose.

Indeed. How the first life originated and how life changes over generations are unrelated to the extent that a deity could have poofed the first life into existence, and evolution could still be valid, and evolution could be completely wrong, but it wouldn't mean that a deity poofed life into existence. Just like how the existence of deities isn't strongly tied to any afterlife. There could be an afterlife, but no deities, there could be deities, but no afterlife, there could be both but they are unrelated to each other and don't interact, and both could be nonexistent.

 

[whois]

Life arose by abiogenesis, . . .

maybe.
science has been unable to conclusively answer the question.

. . . which is a completely separate field to evolution.

yes, i will agree.

Evolution may, in fact, be utterly wrong, . . .

the theory (darwinism) might be wrong, but if evolution itself is wrong then it can mean one of 2 things:
1. our understanding of the universe is wrong.
2. there is a god.

. . . but that doesn't affect the understanding of how life arose.

i question whether life "arose" at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

the theory (darwinism) might be wrong, but if evolution itself is wrong then it can mean one of 2 things:
1. our understanding of the universe is wrong.
2. there is a god.

i question whether life "arose" at all.

Can you name one example of a scientific theory being wrong, and the resolution to that problem being the verified actions of a known deity?

I can name many many examples of natural explanations replacing natural explanations, many examples of natural explanations replacing supernatural explanations, but not one instance of a supernatural explanation replacing a natural explanation.

 

[Cearbhall]

Can anyone help me understand this? In another thread, a member tried to explain to me that the only reason people like me cling to the theory of evolution is because if evolution is untrue, belief in god must follow.

Oy vey.

I don't have to cling desperately to evolution. I am the product of evolution.

 

[Armoured]

i question whether life "arose" at all.

Um... unless you are suggesting life has always existed, it must have arose at some point, right?

 

[Armoured]

Can you name one example of a scientific theory being wrong, and the resolution to that problem being the verified actions of a known deity?

All that nonsense about Maxwell's equations. It's all been proven just to be Thor mucking about.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, but when we look back through time, we find that most likely, the first cells were incredibly simplistic, to the point where such definitions are questionable at best. It's not a clear-cut divide. There's not some unbridgeable gap between non-living matter and living matter.

Please provide any evidence that shows the first cells were incredibly simplistic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please provide any evidence that shows the first cells were incredibly simplistic.

Life was much simpler in the distant past. At one point, the only evidence we have is of single celled organisms. It isn't until the oxidation of the atmosphere and oceans that we finally start to see complex life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Life was much simpler in the distant past. At one point, the only evidence we have is of single celled organisms. It isn't until the oxidation of the atmosphere and oceans that we finally start to see complex life.

The complexity in one celled life is incredible. Like I said, please provide any evidence that the first cell was incredible simple.

 

[Loudmouth]

The complexity in one celled life is incredible.

Not compared to multicellular life. You are also looking at modern unicellular organisms. The trend in the fossil record is clearly towards simpler life.

Like I said, please provide any evidence that the first cell was incredible simple.

I did provide it.

 

[The Cadet]

Please provide any evidence that shows the first cells were incredibly simplistic.

Two major hints:
1. From basic chemical compounds, you couldn't get much more than an incredibly basic nucleotide factory in a lipid layer
2. As creatures evolve, they tend to get more and more complex, so extrapolating backwards, at some point they must have been considerably more simple.

As for modern mono-cellular life being complex, well, yeah. As Thunderf00t so excellently put it, "What you are looking at is the most successful organism on earth; a grizzled heavyweight champion of evolution." Modern mono-cellular eukaryotes are often very complex organisms. There is simply no reason to believe the earliest life forms were anything like that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not compared to multicellular life. You are also looking at modern unicellular organisms. The trend in the fossil record is clearly towards simpler life.



I did provide it.

I am not asking you to compare anything. I am wanting this evidence that the first cell was incredibly simple.