Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes but when you think about it...when did the giraffe evolve such a long neck and why? Is there any evidence it needed such a long neck when there are food sources and other animals that eat similar foods lower to the ground?

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with Pascal's Wager?

Since you brought it up for no reason I can figure, living things evolve in ways that allow them to take advantage of unoccupied niches. If there are leaves out of reach and mutations occur that provide an advantage, they become fixed in the population. Over time, this positive feedback supports the evolution of longer necks in some species. We see relatives of the giraffe that exist now or from the fossil record with the evolved neck length trait intermediate to the giraffe. We see other mammals that have had some measure of convergence under different selection pressure. Camels, Llamas and some other animals with long necks. We see animals that have increased neck elongation for many different selection pressures.

The advantage is in access to resources for which there is less competition.

That's (diversity) a problem for evolution generally I think...

No. Exactly the opposite. Evolution is the scientific explanation for the diversity that is observed. This is supported by all manner of evidence from an array of scientific disciplines.

there are countless examples of diversity that don't really fit.

I don't know what that means. Unless you mean novel. But novel isn't an argument against the theory of evolution and certainly not a problem for the phenomena.

More importantly, these creatures appear to exist at around the same time and not millions of years apart.

Again, you have lost me. What creatures?

So why did that diversity suddenly evolve all at once?

The diversity of mammals did not evolve all at once.

Creationists have a consistent answer for that, however, i think its problematic for evolution.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The fact that it is recognized as a false dichotomy doesn't ignore that it is two choices. It highlights that fact. Pascal's Wager is about the choice between living as if God exists and living as if God does not exist. It is a false dichotomy, since it ignores the possibility of a third option.

Sorry but that ignores the foundational question of epistomology.

Everyone asks the same basic questions. And you point about a 3 option is a red herring...because pascal is answering a specific pair of parties...as did the post I was responding to.

If you want a third option, you need ro spell it out logically.

Let me explain...

Do you disagree that it is a fact of life that we are born and we die?

Do you have any proof that birth and death are not the only absolutes in terms of human existence?

Unless you can 100% prove that life and death are not the only binary outcomes we all face, then I argue life and death are evidence that are consistent with and support both Pascals Wager and religion ( thats just my view)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes but when you think about it...when did the giraffe evolve such a long neck and why? Is there any evidence it needed such a long neck when there are food sources and other animals that eat similar foods lower to the ground?
That's (diversity) a problem for evolution generally I think...there are countless examples of diversity that don't really fit. More importantly, these creatures appear to exist at around the same time and not millions of years apart. So why did that diversity suddenly evolve all at once?
Also, when a functioning system works, wouldnt it be expected thst such a system would replicate itself in a universal way (because it works). In evolution, we have systems thst should be the same but are not. Intelligent design has a perfect explanation for this, but for evolution, again it's problematic...why isn't it the same everywhere? Why are the different animals in similar systems around the world? We can't use the survival of the fittest or extinction defenses...I dont think that explains it well.

Creationists have a consistent answer for that, however, i think its problematic for evolution.

I'd suggest doing some literature review on evolution and the theory of evolution or even take a class, but I'm guessing that would be frowned upon for many reasons I imagine. But it would help so much.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The fact that it is recognized as a false dichotomy doesn't ignore that it is two choices. It highlights that fact. Pascal's Wager is about the choice between living as if God exists and living as if God does not exist. It is a false dichotomy, since it ignores the possibility of a third option.

Sorry but that ignores the foundational question of epistomology.

Everyone asks the same basic questions. And you point about a 3 option is a red herring...because pascal is answering a specific pair of parties...as did the post I was responding to.

If you want a third option, you need ro spell it out logically.

Let me explain...

Do you disagree that it is a fact of life that we are born and we die?

Do you have any proof that birth and death are not the only absolutes in terms of human existence?

Unless you can 100% prove that life and death are not the only binary outcomes we all face, then I argue life and death are evidence that are consistent with and support both Pascals Wager and religion ( thats just my view)

Oh by the way, let's not forget...in claiming a third option, one is claiming not to turn left or right...but that's a logical fallacy in my view because one is already traveling along a pathway...not turning ignores the choice to travel in a particular direction along a path in the first place...and indeed to even choose to travel!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry but that ignores the foundational question of epistomology.

What?

Everyone asks the same basic questions. And you point about a 3 option is a red herring...because pascal is answering a specific pair of parties...as did the post I was responding to.

No. It represents the incomplete nature of the wager.

If you want a third option, you need ro spell it out logically.

What if there is another god that is not God?

Let me explain...

Do you disagree that it is a fact of life that we are born and we die?

All the evidence indicates that to be the basic outline. A fairly well recognized feature of human life and that of many other things. I can't wait to see where you are going with this.

Do you have any proof that birth and death are not the only absolutes in terms of human existence?

Do you have evidence that they are not. That is the question that demands your support. I'm not claiming they are. This has nothing to do with the questions of Pascal's Wager or refutation of the false dichotomy or the length of giraffe necks. It is seems that you have other things you want to ram through wrapped in all of this.

Unless you can 100% prove that life and death are not the only binary outcomes we all face,

No one can and you cannot prove they aren't.

then I argue life and death are evidence that are consistent with and support both Pascals Wager and religion ( thats just my view)

Pascal's Wager is not about life and death it is about the existence of God and wagers that even if God didn't exist, living a life following the principles of Christianity would be a better choice than to disavow them and find out that God does exist.

You are all over the place like a high school boy on Prom night. More than half of what you are talking about has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager or evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ah but that isnt accuate either. documented history shows that the bible is the most consistently supported religion historically, it is internally the most consistent with its own and it dates older than others.
But hey, i dont care which religion you use...its the same outcome if one doesnt choose to follow it.

Really? Citation needed. You need a reliable source. Christian apologists do not count. They tend to be liars for Jesus.

And what you do not understand about the wager is that worshipping the "wrong God" is usually just as bad or even worse than worshipping no God. The wager fails.

You have ignored the fact that Pascals Wager sets 2 parameters...its only dicussing a wager between religion and atheism and that is the point here.

Nope, see above.

Also, your complaint about the cost to the individual is also bull...you aren't a Christian or religious right? So how would you even know? Heresay?

I was one. So again, wrong. You do not understand the cost properly.

Next time you want to copy Redit answers (ie its a false dichotomy)...at least reference them

What? Now false accusations. I never have used Redit. Some o the arguments I use arise from my science education. Some of my arguments arise from facts that I have learned since college. You need to be specific.

Do you want to deal with any of the arguments that I have used. For example this is one of my favorites since it was one that I recognized immediately when I saw it. You on the other hand will probably be clueless. If you believe that there was a worldwide flood and that the sedimentary rocks came from the mythical flood this picture alone refutes that belief:

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry but that ignores the foundational question of epistomology.

Everyone asks the same basic questions. And you point about a 3 option is a red herring...because pascal is answering a specific pair of parties...as did the post I was responding to.

If you want a third option, you need ro spell it out logically.

Let me explain...

Do you disagree that it is a fact of life that we are born and we die?

Do you have any proof that birth and death are not the only absolutes in terms of human existence?

Unless you can 100% prove that life and death are not the only binary outcomes we all face, then I argue life and death are evidence that are consistent with and support both Pascals Wager and religion ( thats just my view)

Oh by the way, let's not forget...in claiming a third option, one is claiming not to turn left or right...but that's a logical fallacy in my view because one is already traveling along a pathway...not turning ignores the choice to travel in a particular direction along a path in the first place...and indeed to even choose to travel!

What other binary outcomes are you thinking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes but when you think about it...when did the giraffe evolve such a long neck and why? Is there any evidence it needed such a long neck when there are food sources and other animals that eat similar foods lower to the ground?
That's (diversity) a problem for evolution generally I think...there are countless examples of diversity that don't really fit. More importantly, these creatures appear to exist at around the same time and not millions of years apart. So why did that diversity suddenly evolve all at once?
Also, when a functioning system works, wouldnt it be expected thst such a system would replicate itself in a universal way (because it works). In evolution, we have systems thst should be the same but are not. Intelligent design has a perfect explanation for this, but for evolution, again it's problematic...why isn't it the same everywhere? Why are the different animals in similar systems around the world? We can't use the survival of the fittest or extinction defenses...I dont think that explains it well.

Creationists have a consistent answer for that, however, i think its problematic for evolution.

Yes. The evolution of the giraffe is fairly well recorded in the fossil record:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.150393

That is quite a long and fairly technical article. As to the why, that is still being discussed. There are more factors than just food involved. I could link some articles on that as well, but the why is not as clear. We do have evidence of how and when it happened. But once again that does not exactly tell us why.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry but that ignores the foundational question of epistomology.

Everyone asks the same basic questions. And you point about a 3 option is a red herring...because pascal is answering a specific pair of parties...as did the post I was responding to.

If you want a third option, you need ro spell it out logically.

Let me explain...

Do you disagree that it is a fact of life that we are born and we die?

Do you have any proof that birth and death are not the only absolutes in terms of human existence?

Unless you can 100% prove that life and death are not the only binary outcomes we all face, then I argue life and death are evidence that are consistent with and support both Pascals Wager and religion ( thats just my view)

Oh by the way, let's not forget...in claiming a third option, one is claiming not to turn left or right...but that's a logical fallacy in my view because one is already traveling along a pathway...not turning ignores the choice to travel in a particular direction along a path in the first place...and indeed to even choose to travel!

You still there?

 

[McBell]

Creationists have a consistent answer for that, however, i think its problematic for evolution.

Yes.
It is the exact same reply for pretty much everything:

GodDidIt​

Problem is "GodDidIt" does not answer any of the 'how' questions.
This is fully demonstrated by creationists running tail tucked when asked for the same level of specifics they demand from science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Arguments from ignorance with the default value being whatever you choose to believe. I call it the default paradigm and the answer varies with the whatever ignorance is applied by whatever random creationist. So, it is a null answer.

Congratulations.

Except that how do you figure as a believer in the process of evolution this animal grew such a long neck?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except that how do you figure as a believer in the process of evolution this animal grew such a long neck?

I am betting that he would probably accept this:

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes.
It is the exact same reply for pretty much everything:

GodDidIt​

Problem is "GodDidIt" does not answer any of the 'how' questions.
This is fully demonstrated by creationists running tail tucked when asked for the same level of specifics they demand from science.

Ok I'll ask you the same question. How do you as a believer in the process of evolution figure the giraffe developed such an outstandingly long neck?

 

[McBell]

Except that how do you figure as a believer in the process of evolution this animal grew such a long neck?

See post #2449

 

[McBell]

Ok I'll ask you the same question. How do you as a believer in the process of evolution figure the giraffe developed such an outstandingly long neck?

See post #2449

 

[John53]

The fact that it is recognized as a false dichotomy doesn't ignore that it is two choices. It highlights that fact. Pascal's Wager is about the choice between living as if God exists and living as if God does not exist. It is a false dichotomy, since it ignores the possibility of a third option.

Also you have to rely on the fact that if there is a God it is dumb enough to not work out you're saying it does exist just in case.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am betting that he would probably accept this:

You would win the bet. Of course I accept rational, scientific conclusions of the evidence of the natural world. I certainly don't lock myself in a circle demanding that reality be ignored and substituted with works like literalism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Also you have to rely on the fact that if there is a God it is dumb enough to not work out you're saying it does exist just in case.

That's an interesting perspective I hadn't thought about. I was thinking that the third option in that would be mainly one driven by disinterest, but stupidity would work too.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'd suggest doing some literature review on evolution and the theory of evolution or even take a class, but I'm guessing that would be frowned upon for many reasons I imagine. But it would help so much.

There we go again no answer as to how the giraffe got such a long neck but then a bit insulting. Very interesting.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's an interesting perspective I hadn't thought about. I was thinking that the third option in that would be mainly one driven by disinterest, but stupidity would work too.

Ooo how insulting.