Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Valjean]

@shunyadragon Just in case you dismissed the whole paper and didn’t read it. Here is the conclusion.

Conclusion​

In summary, the ubiquity of microbes on earth is living evidence that there was a global Flood. Either microbes have travelled short distances for extremely long amounts of time (which is highly unlikely due to the numerous problems associated with global distance transport) or they have travelled extremely long distances in short periods of time.

Whole continents have split, merged and split again during microbes' time on Earth. If entire continents can circle the planet and redistribute themselves, trillions of highly mobile microbes would have no problem doing so.
How fast did covid or HIV overrun the Earth? -- and their agents aren't even motile, nor can they reproduce thenselves.

It is ultimately a matter of faith as to which perspective is true.

No. Faith is never epistemically valid. Hunches carry no evidentiary or truth-value. We need observable, repeatable, testable, objective evidence -- which we have.
Why give any credence to unfounded claims, when you have actual, empirical evidence? That seems irrational, no?

The presence of microbes everywhere has never been given a mechanistic explanation from a secular perspective and the best explanation given is in terms of Noah’s Flood.

No! they've been circulating in the wind, water and in multicellular life-forms for billions of years.

For every step we take, the microbial kind is everywhere and should cause us to pause and remember that there was a global Flood.

Floods leave evidence. Geologists and hydrologists know and are able to assess this evidence, and there is simply no evidence for a global flood.
There are also numerous scientific reasons why one could not have happened. We have uninterrupted timelines of life dating back well before any flood event time claims.

In particular, every time before it rains can be a reminder that God judged the world with water because of the geosmin smell we experience anywhere on the globe. We can smell the evidence of a global Flood just before God sends a rainbow to remind us that He will never use water again to judge the earth

That's just utter nonsense. It's a pretty fantasy story, at best. Smells and rainbows have natural, understandable, non-magical, explanations.

(Genesis 9:11,13). Biblical creationists can have confidence in the biblical account because the bacterial kind is everywhere. So now we can say that there are trillions of living things, contained in soil layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.

No. Bacteria have been everywhere for billions of years. New bacteria appear all the time, and they often spread through out the world in just a few years -- sans inondation.

Biblical creationists have confidence because rational thought was discouraged during their formative years. They never developed critical reasoning skills. A belief in magic and fantasy stories was downloaded long before they developed any firewalls or fact-checking skills. Now they're axiomatic; part of their intellectual operating systems.

 

[Valjean]

ElishaElijah said:
Have you figured how deep you need to drill for the billions of years old scenario you got? You probably be at the core. Don’t think that works, I think my timeline is a lot closer even by your method.
Yeah, you would think there would be some trees about 500,000 years old someplace in the billions of years scenario, yet the living things we got and the world we live in still look like Genesis 1.

The billions of years is arrived at by radiometric dating, not drilling. There are also stromatolite and coral masses stratometrically dated back billions of years.
But most flood chronologies claim it happened only ~5000 years ago. We have human habitation sites dating right through that period, with no evidence of any flood. Ice cores, tree rings and lake varves have also been cited here.

How can you rationally defend the least (no) evidenced claim, in the face of so much consilient evidence to the contrary?

 

[shunyadragon]

that isnt really a good point. The reality is, like in courts of law, there is such a thing as reasonable doubt.
Now given that the human fossil record for example, is highly stacked in favour of the Evolutionary model (those fossils that support the creation story are left out of the equation), when one also considers a huge amount of historical evidence that also supports the biblical creation model, i would argue that increasingly the odds are turning away from evolution.

There are absolutely no fossil or historical evidence that support the Creationist religious agenda. I have seen many dishonest selective interpretations of fossil evidence by the likes of AIG.

Please cite some examples. I have likely heard of them before.

There is very strong evidence now that homo erectus, neanderthals, and modern humans not only coexisted but also inbred.I think that this causes enormous problems for the entire evolution timeline in terms of human ancestry (let alone similar problems with other evidences that supposedly support to the theory).

Actually the evidence of inbreeding between closely related species and subspecies is common through out the history of life, and contributes to the genetic diversity in the evolution of populations of life.

One excellent source of information is "Bones of Contention" by Lubenov. It highlights significant problems and these are ongoing.

A terrible dishonest Creationist hatchet job to justify an ancient tribal agenda.

One of the main contentions objecting to evolution of primate species is the overlapping and inbreeding of related species disproves evolution.

The reality evolution in the history takes place in the genetic diversity of populations including closely related species and subspecies throughout the history of life as a natural part of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

It’s science so it’s like play time, theory, ever changing, interpretation and proves nothing.
You’re not even sure, yet you base your eternal destiny on it.

The evidence is clear, specific and can be confirmed on an annual basis today in lakes. One severe contradiction in your argument is citing the age of trees, which of course can also be observed on an annual basis as tree rings, and dated. The principle is the same for lake varves. It is a dishonest conclusion on your part to accept the dating of trees and not lake varves, because of your religious agenda.

The radiometric dating of ancient rocks millions and billions of years old is a separate issue, which you reject without any knowledge of the science involved.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Genesis 1 wins again, God check mates you every time. In the end the Word of God always proves to be true.

You can't persuade critical thinkers by insisting that the Bible is accurate. You'll need to demonstrate it, which is impossible if what you believe is false.

You may not like it but I do because Jesus Christ also says this and knew that there was a global flood but won’t be again, it will be fire this time.

”For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.“
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭24‬:‭38‬-‭44‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

So according to Matthew 24 I will be ready when Jesus Christ returns, because I’m going to do what He says.

There is no reason to believe that. To use your own words, "it’s like play time, theory, ever changing, interpretation and proves nothing"

The reality is, like in courts of law, there is such a thing as reasonable doubt.

There is no reasonable doubt regarding the theory of evolution. It has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. To doubt it requires that one ignore evidence.

given that the human fossil record for example, is highly stacked in favour of the Evolutionary model (those fossils that support the creation story are left out of the equation)

There are no fossils left out, nor are there any that support creationism. This is a fine example of unreasonable doubt. You have to invent scenarios that don't exist.

There is very strong evidence now that homo erectus, neanderthals, and modern humans not only coexisted but also inbred.I think that this causes enormous problems for the entire evolution timeline in terms of human ancestry (let alone similar problems with other evidences that supposedly support to the theory).

I'd say that it causes enormous problems for the idea that man was created rather than evolved. You're outright saying that there were other creatures alive in the past that differ from modern man. That's evolution.

The claim that none of the data supports a literal interpretation of Genesis...that is simply wrong and it has been shown wrong on many occasions for decades. The amount of evidence proving that is wrong is on the rise and its gained significant weight, particularly in the last 3 decades.

You claim to have knowledge that those trying to teach you don't possess. Did you think that any of them would believe you? More false claims and more unreasonable doubt.

You're wrong about creationism and you're wrong about evolution, but it's perfectly fine that you think like this. You've survived this long with those beliefs and should be able to make it a natural death still holding them. Nobody here has a stake in or benefits from changing that.

But I would like to know what motivates you to argue science with the scientifically literate. I understand that you won't tell me. I've asked many creationists why they do this including you recently (link), and none acknowledges even seeing the question. You must know by now that you convince nobody. And it's got to be a little rough on the ego to have your sacred beliefs and your thinking rejected. Yet here you are anyway. In that other post, I wrote, "It must be because they are deliberately martyring themselves before an imagined audience of one to gain approval," wasn't I? Once again, I don't expect you to answer, which suggests that that is correct.

On the subject of questions that no creationist will acknowledge having seen much less answer is the one that asks if your beliefs are false, was holding them anyway a good life? That is, if you are wrong, does that make the choice to believe and live like you do a good one anyway, or is this only worth it if the god and afterlife that you believe in actually await you? For some reason, people asked this also don't want to answer, and I think I know the reason for that as well, and it's similar to the one above. You feel like you're not allowed to.

You're always free to chime in (free with me, that is) if those speculations miss the mark and you have any interest in being understood rather than misunderstood, but this is where I'm at. Nothing else accounts for the unwillingness to answer except for fear of displeasing your god.

 

[shunyadragon]

The claim that none of the data supports a literal interpretation of Genesis...that is simply wrong and it has been shown wrong on many occasions for decades. The amount of evidence proving that is wrong is on the rise and its gained significant weight, particularly in the last 3 decades. There are even a number of well known non christian scientists now who do not agree with the darwinian model.

Id suggest you purchase Lubenovs book and actually read it in its entirety. You will be very surprised with what you find out about the real story regarding the fossil record.

The book has been around awhile, and at best it can be used as a door stop. I have read he book in it's entirety and submitted reviews of the book. It remains a dishonest hatchet job form a Creationist perspective and I described one of the main points as bogus in detail in a previous post,

 

[shunyadragon]

Who ever said we had to? I don’t operate from theory but realty and facts. This also could change, like science does quite often.

Does Science Need Falsifiability?

Scientists are rethinking the fundamental principle that scientific theories must make testable predictions.

www.pbs.org

So far you have rejected facts such as 150,000 years of annual sediments as fact, but rely on on your clinging to and ancient world view as the answer without science.

You tend to cite things based on the head liner and fail to read and understand the reference. The reference does not remotely agree with you. Yes, it does question the use of falsifiability concept, but it does not reject the use of the concept in science. It urges improvement and re thinking as to how it is used, Note bold.

Does Science Need Falsifiability?

Scientists are rethinking the fundamental principle that scientific theories must make testable predictions.

www.pbs.org

But Ellis and Silk worry that if physicists abandon falsifiability, they could damage the public’s trust in science and scientists at a time when that trust is critical to policymaking. “This battle for the heart and soul of physics is opening up at a time when scientific results—in topics from climate change to the theory of evolution—are being questioned by some politicians and religious fundamentalists,” Ellis and Silk wrote in Nature.

“The fear is that it would become difficult to separate such ‘science’ from New Age thinking, or science fiction,” says Ellis. If scientists backpedal on falsifiability, Ellis fears, intellectual disputes that were once resolved by experiment will devolve into never-ending philosophical feuds, and both the progress and the reputation of science will suffer.

But Carroll argues that he is simply calling for greater openness and honesty about the way science really happens. “I think that it’s more important than ever that scientists tell the truth. And the truth is that in practice, falsifiability is not a good criterion for telling science from non-science,” he says.

Perhaps “falsifiability” isn’t up to shouldering the full scientific and philosophical burden that’s been placed on it. “Sean is right that ‘falsifiability’ is a crude slogan that fails to capture what science really aims at,” argues MIT computer scientist Scott Aaronson, writing on his blog Shtetl Optimized. Yet, writes Aaronson, “falsifiability shouldn’t be ‘retired.’ Instead, falsifiability’s portfolio should be expanded , with full-time assistants (like explanatory power) hired to lighten falsifiability’s load.”

“I think falsifiability is not a perfect criterion, but it’s much less pernicious than what’s being served up by the ‘post-empirical’ faction,” says Frank Wilczek, a physicist at MIT. “Falsifiability is too impatient, in some sense,” putting immediate demands on theories that are not yet mature enough to meet them. “It’s an important discipline, but if it is applied too rigorously and too early, it can be stifling.”

So, where do we go from here?

“We need to rethink these issues in a philosophically sophisticated way that also takes the best interpretations of fundamental science, and it's limitations, seriously,” says Ellis. “Maybe we have to accept uncertainty as a profound aspect of our understanding of the universe in cosmology as well as particle physics.”

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The book has been around awhile, and at best it can be used as a door stop. I have read he book in it's entirety and submitted reviews of the book. It remains a dishonest hatchet job form a Creationist perspective and I described one of the main points as bogus in detail in a previous post,

bogus claims?
Let me ask you this then,

are you denying that the books evidence (which is extremely well referenced) on the fact that Homo Erectus, Neandertals, and modern humans have coexisted and indeed probably even inbred?

How do you explain the findings of Homo Erectus fossils in caves where the fossils have been dated at tens of thousands of years old. Clearly this is evidence that they live far more recently than what has consistently been claimed by secular naturalism and its fabrications of the truth.

Also, how do you explain the intentional hiding of fossils that support the creation timeline from the published evolutionary record?

You may have read the book in its entirety, but you still ignore the realities of what the book exposes.

In any case...i would like to read your post that deals with its claims. I should like to critique your claims as i suspect that you walk around these rooms making yourself out to be some kind of expert on the subject of critique...it would be good if you also tell us what qualifies you to write academic critiques? Are you a published writer with relevant post graduate degrees?

From your profile you appear to make no mention of any qualifications. I accept that is a humble approach, however, given the nature of your claims on these forums, your credibility as one with academic training would be assumed unless we know otherwise. So when i hear you suposedly make the claim you have written debunking published writings, your qualifications would need to be at least on par with the writer you are refuting!

I can dissagree with a doctoral level of qualification, but since i only have a bachelor degree, i cannot make the claim you make here!

 

[shunyadragon]

Except science doesn’t prove things

Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”

Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

www.psychologytoday.com

Your accusation does not prove things reflects lack of knowledge of science and scientific methods. Proof is for math and logic, and even logical arguments require one to accept the assumption and they are not necessarily true.

In science the scientific methods to falsification of theories and hypothesis to acquire knowledge of our physical existence, and they are always open for new discoveries and new information, therefore never proved, but based on a sound foundation of knowledge of past research and discoveries.

Are you positive about science not going back on life being billions of years old?

Yes, based on many years of research and discoveries. As more research and discoveries progress we will get more information on the early history of life.

You have thousands of scientist working throughout the 29th,20th and 21st centuries developing the foundation of our scientific knowledge in hundreds of the best academic universities in the world. Now the foundation is not going to change. Further research and discoveries will refine our knowledge of our physical existence, and the natural history of life.

I do believe in God as a universal Creator of the Natural Laws processes. What science simply discoveries is the natural results of God's Creation. God does not Create false evidence just fool scientists for hundreds if not over a thousand years .

 

[shunyadragon]

bogus claims?
Let me ask you this then,

are you denying that the books evidence (which is extremely well referenced) on the fact that Homo Erectus, Neandertals, and modern humans have coexisted and indeed probably even inbred?

No, but this is a natural process in the evolution of life on earth where inbreeding between related species, subspecies and varieties is a part of developing the genetic diversity in populations. Evolution is in populations with genetic diversity in response to changing environments.

How do you explain the findings of Homo Erectus fossils in caves where the fossils have been dated at tens of thousands of years old. Clearly this is evidence that they live far more recently than what has consistently been claimed by secular naturalism and its fabrications of the truth.

I do not need to explain it because it is true. Like the whole history of the evolution of life a diversity of closely related species, subspecies and varieties coexist. There was definitely overlap of the coexistence of related primates species and subspecies in the history of the evolution of our ancestors.

Species

humanorigins.si.edu

Neanderthals 400,000 to ~40,000-maybe as late as 10,000? years ago. Neanderthals were isolated in Europe and Asia down to the the Levant before humans arrived and first interacted with Neanderthals in the Levant.
Homo erectus - 1.89 million to ~110,000 years ago.
Homo heidelbergensis - 700,000 to 200,000 years ago
Homo Habilis - 2.4 -1.4 million years ago
Homo sapiens -~300,000 to the present.

Also, how do you explain the intentional hiding of fossils that support the creation timeline from the published evolutionary record?

There is no intentional hiding fossils that support the Creation timeline, These fossils either do not exist, or they are known fossils that are dishonestly interpreted to fit a Creationist agenda,

Please provide reliable references supporting this claim.

You may have read the book in its entirety, but you still ignore the realities of what the book exposes.

No, I have responded to the issues concerning the dishonest author, and one issue is the author is a Young Earth Creationist citing evidence of homo sapien ancestors tens of thousands of years old. If he believes the evidence he cites there is a contradiction with his beliefs.

In any case...i would like to read your post that deals with its claims. I should like to critique your claims as i suspect that you walk around these rooms making yourself out to be some kind of expert on the subject of critique...it would be good if you also tell us what qualifies you to write academic critiques? Are you a published writer with relevant post graduate degrees?

From your profile you appear to make no mention of any qualifications. I accept that is a humble approach, however, given the nature of your claims on these forums, your credibility as one with academic training would be assumed unless we know otherwise. So when i hear you supposedly make the claim you have written debunking published writings, your qualifications would need to be at least on par with the writer you are refuting!

I already responded to falsehood of one of his major claims, in this thread and in this post. More to come.

I am a geologist with over 50 years field experience around the world. I have a reputation in this form as having extenxive knowledges in the sciences. philosophy and theology and accurately and specifically responding with documented sources.

I can dissagree with a doctoral level of qualification, but since i only have a bachelor degree, i cannot make the claim you make here!

I have a masters of science. I rely on references from peer reviewed scientists at the Doctorate level. Level is education may be an issue at times, but you are citing a scientist that believes in Young Earth Creationism making contradictory references. You still may have a problem of you accepting references at the Doctorate level from peer reviewed journals from major universities of the world. 95%+ of all Doctorate scientists in the sciences related to evolution support evolution as well as all the major academic universities of the world and their peer reviewed journals.

The following is an example of Ludenow's misrepresentation of the sciences of evolution where he refers to a simplistic diagram showing what the layman would see as the "Human Parade." In reality this simplistic High School level illustration does not remotely represent the scientific view of how the evolution of primates lead to homosapiens.

"Here Lubenow exposes the false claim of the "human parade", the very familiar graphic showing chimps on the far left progressing to the right with more upright figures until modern man appears on the far right. This human evolution parade is a scientific fraud, a "fiction" (p. 168), as described in a January 2000 article in the science journal."

 

[Subduction Zone]

bogus claims?
Let me ask you this then,

are you denying that the books evidence (which is extremely well referenced) on the fact that Homo Erectus, Neandertals, and modern humans have coexisted and indeed probably even inbred?

How do you explain the findings of Homo Erectus fossils in caves where the fossils have been dated at tens of thousands of years old. Clearly this is evidence that they live far more recently than what has consistently been claimed by secular naturalism and its fabrications of the truth.

Also, how do you explain the intentional hiding of fossils that support the creation timeline from the published evolutionary record?

You may have read the book in its entirety, but you still ignore the realities of what the book exposes.

In any case...i would like to read your post that deals with its claims. I should like to critique your claims as i suspect that you walk around these rooms making yourself out to be some kind of expert on the subject of critique...it would be good if you also tell us what qualifies you to write academic critiques? Are you a published writer with relevant post graduate degrees?

From your profile you appear to make no mention of any qualifications. I accept that is a humble approach, however, given the nature of your claims on these forums, your credibility as one with academic training would be assumed unless we know otherwise. So when i hear you suposedly make the claim you have written debunking published writings, your qualifications would need to be at least on par with the writer you are refuting!

I can dissagree with a doctoral level of qualification, but since i only have a bachelor degree, i cannot make the claim you make here!

You appear to have a skewed idea of what evolution is. There was no sudden change from Homo heidelbergensis (the current most likely last non-Homo sapiens ancestor, to Homo sapiens. The changes would have been gradual, as the changes of Latin to Spanish were in Spain. (by the way, there were quite a few variants at one time. There still are to an extent in Spain. Rather similar to evolution. No Latin speaking mother ever had a Spanish speaking baby. In a sense Homo erectus never went "extinct" we are clear descendants of them. Species is a description of a population that is also often of limited time span. It is a a human attempt to put a label on an idea but due to evolution it does not quite fit at the beginning and at the end of the species. Here is an illustration that might help make it clearer:

Oh crap. I forgot that images are not loading.

Human evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That will take you to the image.

In fact it is a very good basic article:

Human evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[shunyadragon]

bogus claims?
Let me ask you this then,

In this section of Lubenow's book makes bogus claims against the dating methods used and supported by 95%+ of all major universities of the world and misrepresents discoveries of what he calls "soft-tissues oh yes soft tissues 70 million years old.

"Section 6 covers specifics of dating methods. The section is only 20 pages long and covers some specifics of radiocarbon dating and other dating methods. Lubenow also provides some details of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) study group--a collection of young earth creation scientists who studied various issues in geology, physics, geophysics, and astrophysics--and their findings. The most interesting might be the dating of recently formed rock (<50 year old) to ~3 million years. (For those who have an interest in current dating methods, and how unreliable they are, look online for articles about recent discoveries of soft-tissue [yes, soft tissue!] in dinosaur fossils dated to 70 million years ago.)"

Only twenty pages is brief dishonesty concerning over 100 years of the development of radiometric and other dating methods supported by 95%+ of all the doctorate level scientists in the fields related to evolution and every major academic university in the world..First there are othe dating methods which corroborate radiometric dating.

The best example off the top of my head is the over 150.000 lake sediment seasonal lamela with a seasonal pollen layer just as they are being deposited to in a lake in Japan compared to several radiometric dating methods. One extremely well physically documented research project that disproves YEC.

I will specifically address the dishonest reference to the "soft-tissue" issue in the nest post. reference the author of the research involved.

 

[shunyadragon]

bogus claims?
Let me ask you this then,

are you denying that the books evidence (which is extremely well referenced) on the fact that Homo Erectus, Neandertals, and modern humans have coexisted and indeed probably even inbred?

Actually interbreeding. I this thread Relevant recent research in the science of evolution

I am posting several peer reviewed articles on the role of interbreeding between closely related species and subspecies to clearly demonstrate that Mr. Lubenow is ignorant concerning the research on the topic he rights about for obvious reasons he is not a scientist.

By the way it is Mister Marvin Lubenow. He is not a scientist. He has a Masters Degree in systematic theology, and NO science background.

 

[shunyadragon]

I found an interesting site: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Thar goes into great detail the false claims of Creationists concerning radiometric dating. "soft-tissue" in Dinosaur fossils, and other false information in Mr. Ludenhow's book. It is long and detailed with references to other articles.. A good read. I will cite section concerning in response to the claims of Mr. Ludenow.

 

[Madsaac]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

Superior Intelligence? Prove it.........you can't, no one can, it's impossible to know what happened before the Big Bang.

However, we have a pretty good idea of what happened after the Big Bang...and one thing is for sure, there is no proof of a god.

 

[blü 2]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

First, while we don't have a precise date for the emergence of protolife, there's been life on earth for at least 3.5 bn years. So the millions of years of lifelessness were the earliest years of our planet. We're at the far end of a sequence at least 3.5 bn years long.

Second, we have no reason to think protolife had any other significant property than to produce copies of itself. Just how the prototype functioned is still a matter of conjecture.

Third, it appears from the evidence that for at least two billion years, life was limited to nucleated multicelled microorganisms. Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) living in the oceans using sunlight for photosynthesis released the oxygen part of our atmosphere. Possibly as a result of the rise in oxygen levels over time, more complex creatures began to appear, proto-plants and proto-animals in the oceans. Which, something over half a billion years ago resulted in what's called the Cambrian explosion, as a whole range of critters appear for the first time in the fossil layers.

This is really the first time that "intelligence" becomes a factor, A critter which can react appropriately to obtain its food and to spawn will succeed sufficiently to grow in numbers in the environment it's found in. After the Cambrian, critters were able to become larger in size, and also smarter when it came to reactions and processes relating to surviving and breeding. We came ashore, or Tiktaalik did, some 375 million years ago. In terms of intelligence, it's all a matter of definitions after that ─ were the amphibiae intelligent? The reptiles? The mammals? The primates? Are chimps, dolphins, molluscs, dogs, humans, intelligent?

Whatever way you look at it, intelligence is the product of evolution.

So tell us about the evolutionary processes that brought God into existence, For instance, the Abrahamic God has only been around since about 1500 BCE, so is thousands of years younger than the gods of Egypt and Mesopotamia and indeed Canaan.

Or can it be, do you think, that gods are human artifacts, concepts that humans have found useful in reinforcing tribal coherence, and providing explanations for inexplicable natural phenomena like thunder, lightning, famine, drought, flood, plague, dreams of people who've died, luck at hunting, war, love ... ?

 

[Eli G]

If human evolution is such a magnificent process that supposedly took so many millions and millions of years... how is it that diseases based on human anatomy still exist? Isn't it supposed that after so much evolution there would no longer be human conditions like a simple seasonal flu?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If human evolution is such a magnificent process that supposedly took so many millions and millions of years... how is it that diseases based on human anatomy still exist? Isn't it supposed that after so much evolution there would no longer be human conditions like a simple seasonal flu?

You didn't know that viruses are living populations that also evolve?

I mean, literally, the fact that there are seasonal flu variations is an actual, living demonstration of evolution in action. If populations didn't evolve, there wouldn't be seasonal flu variations.

It's pretty funny that you think pointing out an example of evolution somehow disproves evolution.

 

[Eli G]

How come dinosaurs that were bigger and more "capable" of fighting than tiny viruses, didn't survive until now?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How come dinosaurs that were bigger and more "capable" of fighting than tiny viruses, didn't survive until now?

I'm going to let you re-word that hilarious sentence in your own time.