What is your best counter evidence for evolution? Evolution is a scientific fact. Just like gravity. We can see that it happens [Spirituality & Religion]
NO one can give evidence against evolution. The very BEST a creationist can do is to make an argument from ignorance which boils down to "I don't understand how x could happen naturally, therefore god is responsible".
I feel that in the past when people were closer to nature, almost everybody involved in agriculture, evolution was widely understood and believed. All our domestic animals and food plants have been painstakingly domesticated and bred for the qualities preferred over centuries and millennias. This would never have worked if people didn't pick some of the largest & most succulent potatoes to plant for next year rather than eat, for example. In other species the effect can be seen in mere generation or two. Yet today people are "Nah bro, evolution is a conspiracy, microevolution in viruses and such is possible but there's never been evidence of this so-called evolution!" They wouldn't have survived in an agrarian society.
Part of the problem is lack of common world language and mind constructs to discuss the issue. For one thing, what's actually true and unchanged is the "concept of evolution" as opposed to creation only. A scientist can talk your ears off about all the ways the "Theory of Evolution" which is an attempt at explaining the concept of evolution has changed since Darwin's day. In fact, Darwinian evolution is today seemingly giving way to Lamarckian evolution, a Theory once discredited.
Yet on the other side, the more science advances, the more solidly things like evolution on the whole are established as a fact. Today genetic sequences obtained of modern plants & their thousand years old ancestors show exactly how they have evolved, scans of human genomes show selective sweeps for & against specific traits, to say nothing of being able to show exactly the relatively minor genetic changes needed to go from apes to humans. The only thing that "can't be proven" in the large scheme is that there isn't an omnipotent power that's making it look like evolution. Unfortunately for religion(s), this could be any god, alien, simulation or pink elephant doing it rather than their favorite god.
Whee for too long responses that still can't more than scratch the surface :p
I think it is important to recognize that while science is still debating exactly [i]how[/i] evolution takes place, there's no legitimate controversy over the fact that it does.
@Pikachu Evolution doesn't *necessarily* prove that there wasn't creation to start it off, but unfortunately modern day creationists have chosen to deny evolution at all.
And the "how" evolution takes place is constantly being pushed into even narrower range of possibilities & unknowns, cue the "God of the gaps/missing link" idea. Like yeah, our ancient ancestors picked wolves from the wild and "somehow" turned them into dogs, and today dog-breeders design new dog breeds the same way. Yet no matter how many dogs you carry out into the wild, they don't suddenly turn back into wolves. Yeah, they can still breed with wolves though.
Speciation is interesting matter, but in the case of humans, it's clearly & even visually (under a microscope) obvious under microscope that human ancestors two chromosomes fused into single chromosome. Human chromosome 2 is basically same as chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13 joined at ends. With different number of chromosomes, having offspring was no longer certain. And yeah, I haven't really read up if they have a theory about whether this chromosome fusion happened in 500 people at once, I'm guessing that initially they were able to *rarely* have offspring.
Regardless if this was creation for the sake of creation, there'd be no need to form humans by joining two chimpanzee chromosomes together. So to keep god in the picture you have to postulate a god that fakes evidence of evolution as a "test", a global conspiracy of scientists where not even one owner of a microscope & smartphone dares to post a picture disproving it or a god that works through natural phenomenon in which case evolution is true. Or, y'know, just rant that "it's just a theory" and "there's no evidence" when there's libraries worth of evidence...
@GodSpeed63 [quote]Dream on, kid. You have a short memory.[/quote] You're just lying again, you've [b]never[/b] presented a shred of evidence to support you ludicrous claims. If I be wrong, prove it by either posting a link to it or post your evidence here now. If you can't do either of those you'll prove me right again.
Benarro · 18-21, M I will talk to you openly, politely and honestly. I will be able to covert you out of your christian fate. If you're ever willing to try I'm here.
a · 18-21, F Thank you but first of all you are far too young to have anything insightful on the subject...you simply have no experience of the world whereas I do, Second unless you have read either Dostoyevsky or Solzhenitsyn you know nothing about God, humanity, good or evil...have you read either? I am guessing not.
The fact you consider yourself somehow more intelligent or rational than I am (unless you speak three languages and have lived in four countries and are working to support yourself in a country other than your own than your own can forget you being the first) that you can "convert" me (proving by your choice of words that atheism is a sort of religious belief to those deluded by it)shows what is well known about atheism...that it is a self-conceit in an attempt to make the atheist interesting to himself.
Read more deeply (not just those authors who support your self-conceit), travel, fall in love...that will open your eyes mind and heart...and the soul you of course do not now believe you have. God Bless.
Benarro · 18-21, M As it happens, I speak more than three languages, I have read those *two very well known* authors you mention. I support myself in a country that's not my own as it happens (in my fourth language). As for my use of the word 'convert', you're reading too much into it. You seem to be forgetting its more common sense of 'change'. What is the evidence that you have a soul, as opposed to a mind?
Why would you (age range 18-21) have the life experience you assume I don't have (without knowing me). In any case, that comment is irrelevant - I think you said that out of defensiveness. You telling me to read more (again without knowing me is strange) - a meta- comment independent of any actual content, which I guess is more defensiveness without having to discuss content.
If you want to decline the offer, do it honestly. You're afraid to really engage - or you're not interested in high-level discussion of that topic.
a · 18-21, F Sorry I don't believe you about languages. And what does "two very well known" in """" supposed to mean? Nor have you read either of them or else you could tell me NOW what was the greatest single criticism Solzhenitsyn levelled against atheism and in what book? But of course you cannot, again a sign of your immaturity. I on the other hand have posted a Story here on Dostoyevsky which you doubtless have also not read.
Lying to achieve your goal is a sure sign of insecurity (and immaturity which you have already shown) which you try to overcome by believing in nothing since you cannot believe in yourself. Don't message me again otherwise I will consider it harassment.
Benarro · 18-21, M If you want to voice chat I could prove the issue with the languages. Easily done. I'd say S's his biggest attack against atheism is that it lead to the Russian Revolution, which he takes to be one of the great historical tragedies and the ruin of millions and millions of people. I've not read your ruminations on Dostoyevsky - I'd be glad to discuss them with you if you want. As for your last sentence, "Don't message me again otherwise I will consider it harassment." - ok I won't contact you if you're that insecure. Too bad- could have been a good chat if you're really as intelligent as you think you are.
a · 18-21, F I will report you now for harassing me as I warned
@Benarro Her age range is the same as yours yet she says you're far too young to have anything insightful on the subject. LOL! Then she's so insecure that she considers your perfectly polite and reasonable reply "harrassment". What a snowflake!
[quote]The very BEST a creationist can do is to make an argument from ignorance which boils down to "I don't understand how x could happen naturally, therefore god is responsible".[/quote]
As a Keraunosian public service:
If you ever want to [i]not[/i] have to take the time to spell out the significance of this error in a debate (only for your reasoning likely to be ignored anyway), this is a recognized logical fallacy, and you can just dump this link on them as a response.
@Keraunos They wouldn't read it because it disagrees with their religious beliefs (watch at least one of them jump on that phrase). They can't sully their pure thoughts with such blasphemy.
Okay so to start with, I believe in evolution, I'm not here to disprove it.
But it's not a fact, it's a Scientific Theory. People don't understand that scientific Theories are the closest we get to facts. Literally they're a capital T Theory because nothing and no one has disproven it. They think "theory" that means it's just a guess.
Well ig it is a guess... Just with hundreds of years of people trying to disprove it and failing to back it up.
@ForeverGrowingOld the thing is because the skeptical arguments cannot be defeated, there can be no facts at all. Not even 1+1 = 2. But I do think we might as well go on using the word to mean - 'essentially irrefutable' with a silent 'essentially'.
@Pikachu [quote]sadly this is a misunderstanding that i still hear repeated by the creationist[/quote] I'm not sure it is a misunderstanding. In most cases I believe it's a deliberate attempt to dismiss the evidence. Some creationists claim to be highly qualified scientists so they know what the term means, it's not credible that they would misunderstand it.
I asked if i was correct in my assumption. The implicit invitation being for you to correct me if i was wrong in that assumption.
Nevertheless, i think i have proven my point.
1) You said evolution is a theory and not a fact. 2) I pointed out that while it's a fact the germs cause disease, it's still known as the germ theory of disease. 3) You acknowledge this fact but refuse to apply the same logic to evolution.
Point proven, yes?
Feel free to reply if any of that is in error. If not, have a pleasant evening.
Honestly, this world running with or without a Creator is not in our right or control to argue for or against. We may consider God just a postulation but that does not change reality no matter how right we think we are. This also goes the other way. Proof is firstly a human thing and we can't prove anything from our creation or true origins of existence. Second, a Creator is something that is feasible and possible; there is no denying it. People can try to make God obselete, but that is not within reason. If you shut God out, then what's the point of this discussion at all? We will live in a world forever separate from the foundation up. This talk about evolution and abiogenesis does not relate to the Creation of this universe. We got no proof or reasoning or probable support for that. Just another postulation for one WITHOUT God .-.
This of this ._. What is CREATION? Does that include only the chemical world we see before us? I think not
Well we can argue and debate for any point whether it is our right or not lol.
[quote]but that does not change reality no matter how right we think we are[/quote]
Agreed. But that says nothing about what is actually reality.
[quote] Second, a Creator is something that is feasible and possible; there is no denying it[/quote]
God is certainly possible, but that does't mean that a god is [i]necessary[/i]. Given that we have known mechanisms for how life achieved its current complexity and hypothesized mechanisms for how life began it IS within reason to suggest that a god is not necessary to explain it.
Essentially your argument is coming down to the god of the gaps:
"sure, we can see that w, x and y might have naturalistic explanations which do not require the intervention of a supernatural being, but what about [i]Z[/i] ?!"
But this is all just speculation, isn't it.
You can't show that a god is necessary. I can't show that a god is not responsible.
[quote]If you shut God out, then what's the point of this discussion at all?[/quote]
So let's bring it back to the subject of this thread which is evolution and the evidences against it. My understanding is that you don't feel there is evidence against evolution. So we are in agreement.
SW-User
@Pikachu I don't think evolution can be rejected. However, I just believe that it does not deal with the creation of this universe ._. Creationism does not mean the earth was made 6,000 years ago. I'm talking the big bang type
[quote]You can't show that a god is necessary. I can't show that a god is not responsible.[/quote] [quote]"sure, we can see that w, x and y might have naturalistic explanations which do not require the intervention of a supernatural being, but what about Z ?!"
But this is all just speculation, isn't it.[/quote] What I am saying is that God may not be a speculation. If you reject the origins of the texts of the Abrahamic religions, then you would live in a world where God does not need to exist .-. However, where one is open to the origins of the Abrahamic religions being truly the Creator, then this discussion would make more sense ,_,
Honestly, some of us believe, some of us don't. Those of us that don't believe see no reason for God to exist. Those of us that do so no reason against God. It's an endless cycle of opposition but I'm not diving into that. I am looking to just explain that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive XD You talk like evolution means God cannot exist
Evolution is the theory of how things change and adapt in the natural world. Survival of the fittest. It is not fact, but as close as can be determined.
@hertoy my point is that if you're strict enough then nothing is a fact at all - even something like: 'paracetamol lowers fevers' - but basically anyone would call that a 'fact'- formally speaking it is not, nothing is. You seem to be suggesting that there is no experimental evidence for Evolution - do you think that's true?
@Benarro Until such time every other competing theory of evolution is DISPROVED, evolution must remain a theory. It is the leading candidate with 90%+ positive following.
@hertoy that's not true, experiments are built to remove all other variables, including chance (apart from literally magic): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b3jENUXxAg
