Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

Oh no!

Not another "I personally don't understand evolution therefore it clearly didn't happen" thread

As though one random person who has never studied it knows more than those who study it as professionals and all those people are wrong.......

One can study buildings that are still standing from a long time ago but not know how they got built.

 

[Eddi]

One can study buildings that are still standing from a long time ago but not know how they got built.

Life forms are nothing like buildings

Buildings aren't alive!!!

You clearly lack even a basic education

It's embarrassing to watch

 

[Eddi]

One can study buildings that are still standing from a long time ago but not know how they got built.

And we know how lifeforms came to be, there is zero mystery about it unless you lack even a basic education

 

[cladking]

And we know how lifeforms came to be, there is zero mystery about it unless you lack even a basic education

How about consciousness? What is it and did it just spring from the mind? How?

 

[Eddi]

How about consciousness? What is it and did it just spring from the mind? How?

I am not aware what the current consensus is on that so I cannot say although I am sure others can

But that doesn't mean "the big man in the sky did it" and make everything in the biblical mythology true and debunk science

To me that would be a cop out, a non-explanation

 

[cladking]

I am not aware what the current consensus is on that so I cannot say although I am sure others can

But that doesn't mean "the big man in the sky did it" and make everything in the biblical mythology true and debunk science

To me that would be a cop out, a non-explanation

It must be nice to have Priests (called "Peers") to answer every question or to at least explain why they are irrelevant to our omniscience.

 

[Eddi]

It must be nice to have Priests (called "Peers") to answer every question or to at least explain why they are irrelevant to our omniscience.

I think it would be both arrogant and ignorant for me to not know when I am not a specialist

It would be very un-self aware

I believe in God but I also believe in nature

And I am not a specialist in the study of nature

Others clearly are so I defer to their superior understanding

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not aware what the current consensus is on that so I cannot say although I am sure others can

But that doesn't mean "the big man in the sky did it" and make everything in the biblical mythology true and debunk science

To me that would be a cop out, a non-explanation

Oh the current consensus...does that make it true?

 

[YoursTrue]

I think it would be both arrogant and ignorant for me to not know when I am not a specialist

It would be very un-self aware

I believe in God but I also believe in nature

And I am not a specialist in the study of nature

Others clearly are so I defer to their superior understanding

Nature does not necessarily equate to the theory of evolution.

 

[Eddi]

Oh the current consensus...does that make it true?

It makes it way more credible than "the big man in the sky did it"

That's just ignorance it is a lack of any real understanding

 

[Eddi]

Nature does not necessarily equate to the theory of evolution.

How would you know anything about that????

You cannot even tell the difference between a building and a lifeforms

I can't take anything you come out with seriously

 

[YoursTrue]

It makes it way more credible than "the big man in the sky did it"

That's just ignorance it is a lack of any real understanding

That's the point you don't get. I'm speaking ONLY of the lack of proof or reality of the theory of evolution.

 

[Eddi]

That's the point you don't get. I'm speaking ONLY of the lack of proof or reality of the theory of evolution.

So you expect reasonable people to choose "the big man in the sky did it" (coming from clearly ignorant people) over a well evidenced theory upheld by the work of tens of thousands of specialists who actually study it, rather than taking some primative book as a source of facts?????

 

[YoursTrue]

It makes it way more credible than "the big man in the sky did it"

That's just ignorance it is a lack of any real understanding

I'm not saying what you are saying about my viewpoint.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you expect reasonable people to choose "the big man in the sky did it" (coming from clearly ignorant people) over a well evidenced theory upheld by the work of tens of thousands of specialists who actually study it, rather than taking some primative book as a source of facts?????

There you go again. I am not comparing. You are.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

They don't know exactly how it came about. There is the materialist camp that believes it must have happened as a result of unthinking processes. Then there is the more spiritualist view that life in the universe is fostered by intelligence (my camp).

And since intelligence is complex, it must have been fostered by --- oh, wait!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?
It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.
So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

Well, OP was okay, but you betray your agenda almost immediately in posts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

 

[cladking]

That's the point you don't get. I'm speaking ONLY of the lack of proof or reality of the theory of evolution.

It lacks not only experimental support for gradual change caused by survival of the fittest but lacks even a definition for "consciousness". There's really very little justification for believing in replication (of the ability to have) consciousness through genetics and DNA and that it arose through so simple a means as survival of the fittest. There is no justification to believe that consciousness which has resisted both definition and reduction to experiment could have arisen piecemeal.

Science has its place but this place is obviously not in understanding life or the nature of the change in the abstraction we call "species". It works better for understanding orbits and the interplay between elemental forces and star clusters. Chemistry is its forte. Anything that can be reduced is rife for the application of science. Reducing ramps to what mustta been is an utter failure. Reducing life to "species" is an abject failure as well.

 

[McBell]

How about consciousness? What is it and did it just spring from the mind? How?

consciousness is not real.
It is all in your mind.

 

[cladking]

consciousness is not real.
It is all in your mind.

So I hear from inside and outside.