The overwhelming evidence that Evolution has occurred can be ignored because we don't know the ultimate origins of life. True or false? [Spirituality & Religion]

@Budwick So, nothing, you have learned nothing, only the same preconceived notions you came in with.

@Budwick


Yes. Evolution theory describes how evolution occurs.
Yes. Abiogenesis is a separate issue.

so far we are in agreement.


Unless you can supply a more explanatory, consistent, coherent and predictive model OR show where the theory of evolution is in error then yes, you are justified in accepting the theory of evolution.

@Pikachu Ah of course abiogenesis, which became impossible once Earth's atmosphere assumed its present composition.

Pretty convenient, eh?

So, it was a trick question all along? All that crap about "we don't know the ultimate origins of life" - and you were all wound up to toss in the old abiogenesis trick.

Pik, is it a hypothesis, theory or law that you are full of shit?

@Budwick
It didn’t, just less likely, and it was never particularly likely to begin with.

Also, anything that does happen to emerge is likely to be eaten in short order by the existing microbes.


See, you’re the one that’s not making sense. That’s not a coherent statement.

@Budwick

Sorry, what point did you feel you were making?

Let's try this again:

There are many distinct lines of evidence which point towards evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life that exists on this planet.

Now this is the part where you have to concentrate and try to answer directly:

Do you think that if evolution theory does not explain how life ultimately began that all the evidence that it has occurred can be ignored?

This is a yes or no question which you will then follow up with a justification.

Aaaaand swing, batter, batter!

@Pikachu According to what you say, no. Cuz according to you, evolution doesn't attempt to explain how life began.

And, I have no idea what the fuck you are trying to prove unless like Thesus suggested, you just want to start arguments over minutia.

@Budwick


There. That wasn't so hard, was it?
We are in agreement.


The question posed in this thread is a direct response to the opinion and assertions of creationists here on SW.

Glad we could agree on this🙂

@Pikachu I don't believe my regurgitating what you said is agreement.

What kind of scientist would make that assumption?

Science does not explain the origin of life. Not even that obscure bullshit you cited earlier.

@Budwick
According to literally everyone in the field of evolutionary research, actually.

@OggggO So, you just plain don't know.
All that huffing and puffing, and you don't know.

Well, Nee ner nee ner - I do!

@Budwick Don't know what? Huffing and puffing about what?

@Budwick Not knowing is fine. It’s hilarious how threatened you folks are when people simply say “we don’t know yet, and we’re looking into it”.

It sure beats accepting Stone Age myths at face value 🤷‍♂️

@Budwick
That is correct.

Evolution explains what happens once life has begun.

The origin of that life is called abiogenesis, and is a separate topic.

All that is necessary for evolution is that life exists. The subject matter of evolution is simply and solely around what then happens, and how.

We already know that abiogenesis has occurred on this planet (unless you think that there's no life this planet). The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is currently the most complete, comprehensive, and coherent explanation for the evidence of what has occurred subsequent to abiogenesis.

@Budwick

Well you said you had learned it. Sorry if i interpreted that to mean that you had accepted it.

So this is part where i ask you to then detail what issue you take with the things you have learned.

Go on.

@Budwick



Knowledge doesn't necessarily denote truth though.
After all, children know that santa claus delivers presents to good girls and boys.
But that doesn't mean that santa is real or responsible for anything.