Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Eli G]

...That would be time wasted by my standards. I have no reason to believe that the Bible is a source of knowledge about the future of humanity especially given how much it got wrong about its past.

It's Ok, you don't have to like them, but the promises are there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol yes, would an allele or two make a difference in intelligence?

Probably not. And just an allele or two is very rarely going to stop two populations from breeding with each other since they are likely to have quite a few differences in alleles. That is why evolution is not an instantaneous event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's Ok, you don't have to like them, but the promises are there.

Most religions tend to make promises.

 

[YoursTrue]

Many theist have made that point in the past………but honestly I don see how theism “solves” that problem.

If theism is true and there is a heaven, what would be the meaning or purpose of life , for example why should I spend high quality time with my wife and daughter instead of eating Cheetos and watching Netflix all the time………………we are all going to heaven anyway, so who cares if I waste my life in this planet by eting Cheetos all day long?

What do you mean IF there is a heaven? Define what you mean by heaven, please.

 

[YoursTrue]

Most religions tend to make promises.

It seems to me that the idea of death vs life is reasonable. I daresay most cosmologists recognize death as a reality. Not reincarnation. And I agree many do not recognize the existence of...GOD as portrayed in the book you do not believe in. I learned a while back that only the God you do not believe exists, but I do can, bring you to Him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems to me that the idea of death vs life is reasonable. I daresay most cosmologists recognize death as a reality. Not reincarnation. And I agree many do not recognize the existence of...GOD as portrayed in the book you do not believe in. I learned a while back that only the God you do not believe exists, but I do can, bring you to Him.

That was not an answer. Almost all religions make promises. Most of them promise some sort of life after death. That means that when Christianity makes one it can be refuted with a "So what?"

 

[Pogo]

The statement "A testimony is a claim without evidence" is not entirely accurate. While a testimony can be a form of claim, it doesn't necessarily imply a lack of evidence. Testimony often refers to the statement or declaration made by a witness under oath, and it can be supported by evidence such as personal observation, experience, or other forms of documentation.

I disagree with the chatGPT above. Testimony is the words of somebody claiming that he or somebody else heard, saw, or did something. Any accompanying corroborating evidence is distinct from the testimony.

Niggle
Read the way Leroy queried GPT , it agrees with you in that the evidence is not part of the testimony, though claim is another situation.
It is also avoiding absolute statements.

 

[Pogo]

That's an interesting issue: Can mutations really generate new species?

For example: if genetic mutations appear in some humans (that have happened), can these produce new species of human-apes capable of reproducing and prolonging their life effectively?

Apo-A1 Milano protects against fatty buildup in hearts in people who have the mutation and they have significantly extended lives. Good or bad? long past reproducing age so depends on whether they are net plus or minus to younger members. Useful babysitters, poor farm workers. is this enough to lead to speciation, probably not but if their social relations depend on elder care enough they may stop interbreeding with others who spend a lot of time on child care.

 

[Pogo]

It's Ok, you don't have to like them, but the promises are there.

Promises, promises.
eh heard it all before.

 

[leroy]

Yes, we see it quite often.

Okay, it is not about "prolonging their life". Evolution is all about improving the odds of reproducing and having those organisms reproduce successfully themselves. It does not good to prolong a life indefinitely if that organism cannot reproduce. Even if a lifespan was increased by a factor of ten, if that animal could not reproduce when it died the mutations it had would disappear. So once again, evolution is all about successful reproduction.

If prolonging life does no good, then why did humans live for so many years compared to other apes and other mammals? (I don´t know is a valid answer BTW)

 

[leroy]

What do you mean IF there is a heaven? Define what you mean by heaven, please.

To be in Heaven= an everlasting experience of unimaginable joy



My concern is why should my limited 80 to 100 years that I will live in this planet are relevant. If I will be on a much better place for a potentially infinite amount of years ?...... why is it important weather if I waste my life watching Netflix all day long, instead of perusing my professional and personal goals if I will end up in heaven anyway

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the promises are there.

Yes, I know. Some of those promises are unfalsifiable and need not be kept (heaven for the saved and perdition for the remainder) and some are falsified (with faith one can move mountains).

you don't have to like them

It's that I don't believe them. Why should I? Why do you?

 

[blü 2]

Well, we'll see as to what happens. Now if you want to say my dear Dr. Hawking's conclusions or posits get more accurate -- well anyway he's not around to testify any more...or figure --
ooo --- ooo ---

Worried about Earth’s future? Well, the outlook is worse than even scientists can grasp

Humanity is destroying Earth’s ability to support complex life. But coming to grips with the magnitude of the problem is hard, even for experts.

theconversation.com

Yes, sure, but first I'd like to clear up what entity with objective existence you intend to denote when you use the word "God".

It seems to me that that only way God (indeed all supernatural entities) are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains.

And that these ideas are largely implanted by acculturation, so that in broad outline the West is full of Judeo-Christians, and the East is full of Hindus and Buddhists, and things are not much different to how they were 2000 years ago.

What am I missing?

 

[leroy]

It's that I don't believe them. Why should I? Why do you (beilve in those promises?)

Becase Jesús sayas so

This i show I would elaborate my argument, (read the whole post before answering)

1 there are good arguments for the existence of God (I am talking about some generic type of God)

2 if God exist miracles every once in a while become probable (or atleast not very unlikely)

3 if miracles are not very unlikely, then the specific miracle of the resurrection becomes probable (especially given the historical evidence for this event)

4 if Jesus resurrected, then he is who he claimed to be (which means that he has authority)

5 we have multiple *reports* (I can´t use the word testimony anymore) from contemporary people that describe what Jesus said and did (including the promises)

6 these reports are historically reliable

Given that I grant all 6 points I trust in such promises

I know that you (plural) are in skeptic mode and would deny anything that contradicts your view,. But I bet the average person (even the average atheist that you find in the streets) would say that points 2-6 are likely to be true………………. Being point 1 the only “difficult point”



Now, I don’t expect (nor whant) you to respond to all the points…………… my question is do you see any incoherence of flaw in that logic?.......... do you find any step to an insuperable obstacle?



Just for the record, I don’t think that any of the steps follows logically from the previous step, all I am saying is that given the previous step, the next steps seems “easy”

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The difference between you and I is that I support my accusations, you accuse me of commiting logical fallacies or scientific mistakes, but you never support those assertion.

No. The difference between you and I is that I read what other people post and not go off half cocked from misreading things.

You'll want to reread what I wrote. I made no such accusations. I was defending the accusations you made. And without any support to them as I recall.

I am @TagliatelliMonster accusing for committing a straw man fallacy and this is my justification:

I said:
well supported testimonies made by well-informed people in a context where lies are improbable count as evidence.

His reply (starwman)

I have bridge for you to buy.
Apparently your standard of evidence is so low that the above became "more likely", merely because I claimed it.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/irony-of-the-evolutionary-belief.272884/page-113#post-8510662

So this is obviously a starwman fallacy, since I didn’t say that mere claims are evidence, nor that all calims are evidence. I provided criteria and only claims that complete this criteria can be considered evidence (his bridge example doesnt pass the criteria, becasue he is clearly lying)

So my question is, what are you going to do? Are you going to correct Tag? Are you going to respond with an arrogant tone and tell him to go study some logic or reading comprehension?.... or are these arrogant comments and corrections only apply to people like me or @YoursTrue or peole that are not part of your cult?

In other words do you reprobate all fallacies or just the ones made by people that disagree with you on specific topics like evolution

I didn't respond to anyone with an arrogant tone recommending further education. That is a you problem. Not a me problem. I recommended someone with an obvious interest in science and trouble using and following logic take a class to help them improve in understanding and articulating their position in the context of science.

I don't see any logical fallacies in his post and you really haven't isolated one through demonstration.

I am defining testimony as “what other people sayo or report” and atleast according to Chat GPT the definition is correct………….but if you have a different definition in mind then non of my comments apply

Scientific papers are reports from other people, so by my defection they are testimonies…………. But you can use any other word if you want

Scientific reports are not testimonies and this has been amply demonstrated on this thread.

You've placed yourself in a position where I can find no value in continuing to communicate with you. I tried. Good luck to you.

 

[Pogo]

1 there are God arguments for the existence of God (I am talking about some generic type of God)

Yeah maybe there are God arguments, but I have never heard a good one.

My idea is that the local god for our universe is in god HS in a universe creation lab and he is one of those jokers who just wants to see what happens if he makes a mess of things.
So here we are, he got the universe started and eventually even got some reproducing things going on one bit of dust after a few tries. Enter a bunch of mucking around and a few meteors just for fun and some of his meat puppets got the bright idea that he might be out there. Sally said your universe is stupid, so he said watch this and made a bunch of religions and now the meat puppets are all fighting and destroying the atmosphere on the dirt ball he finally got working but he is bored so lets see what happens if they roast themselves.

I think this meets all of your criteria for things a god could do and this isn't even a particularly evil one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Luckily nobody is equating scientific literature with “mere claims”

You have been when you claim that they are testimonies.

accordign to chat gpt

The statement "A testimony is a claim without evidence" is not entirely accurate. While a testimony can be a form of claim, it doesn't necessarily imply a lack of evidence. Testimony often refers to the statement or declaration made by a witness under oath, and it can be supported by evidence such as personal observation, experience, or other forms of documentation.

Even within the scope of this definition, a testimony does not rise to the level of a scientific report. Sorry.

However, it's essential to recognize that testimonies alone may not always constitute sufficient evidence to prove a claim beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in legal contexts where corroboration and other forms of evidence may be required for validation. Nevertheless, testimonies can still hold significant value in various situations, particularly when they align with other evidence or provide unique perspectives.

I don't recall that anyone has dismissed testimonies as useless. Just that scientific papers are not testimonies.

So ether CHAT GPT is also part of this massive pro creationsits conspiracy………. Or maybe (just maybe) you are wrong, maybe testimony doesn’t necessarily implies “without evidence” According to the common usage of this word

I don't think you and one or two others counts as a massive conspiracy. But I like your grit.

I'm not wrong. A testimony is a claim without evidence used as evidence. There may be other facts brought in to support the testimonial claim, but they don't ride along with it naturally.

Maybe you are wrong. But I don't see you considering that possibility.

Regardless of your reply…………… do you understand that I am more likely to trust Chat GPT as a source than random people from forums with a clear bias for disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing and with clear bias to defend each other, even when they are obviously wrong?

And being one of those random people on a forum and one with a posting history I am aware of, where do think I rank the quality of your posts?

I disagree that anyone has disregarded what you claim. In fact, regard for what you post has been the focus of this thread for several pages.

This just sounds like more sour grapes to me.

For the sake of this thread I will follow @It Aint Necessarily advise use the Word claim instead of testimony , but I am far form convinced that testimony implies “without evidence” and zero supporting evidence has been provided for such a claim

You do what you feel you need to do and continue reading. I would improve the breadth and depth of my sources were I in your position. But that is me.

I saw an alien eat a baby. What is it that makes this testimony a fact for you?

How about this testimony? I saw a woman invent the cotton gin.

Or this testimony? I saw a stork deliver a baby to my neighbor's house.

Or this testimony? I saw that minister shoplifting. It wasn't my friend that shoplifted.

Why are these facts to you? What evidence is delivered in those statements?

I've even written them here, so they are documented. I could repeat them in a court of law so they are in the court records. Does that make them less claim and more fact?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do you suppose these people who wrote the Bible were experts in?

A claim that requires evidence rather than just assertion.

I read the Bible regularly. I can attest that the writers were not experts in science with an in depth knowledge of the natural world. I wouldn't expect them to be that kind of expert. And that does not imply or state that I think they were stupid. Just ignorant of much information.

By the time I was 8 or 10, I probably knew more about the world around me than the men who wrote the Bible. And there is no evidence that God saw fit to provide the information the writers didn't have to fill in the gaps of their ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If prolonging life does no good, then why did humans live for so many years compared to other apes and other mammals? (I don´t know is a valid answer BTW)

Do we? The last time that I checked it was not that much longer. The main difference is due to our larger brain and the amount of time it takes to become an adult. We have a longer childhood, it takes longer to raise a being where reasoning is the key to survival. In other words, a longer lifespan is a side effect of our increased intelligence. It was needed and the cost of a prolonged childhood was made up for by more success as an adult. The goal was never just to live longer. The only goal to evolution is to pass on genes. That can have some amazingly different results for different reasons.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Probably not. And just an allele or two is very rarely going to stop two populations from breeding with each other since they are likely to have quite a few differences in alleles. That is why evolution is not an instantaneous event.

But a ill eel is still an eel.