Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Pogo]

show us the intermediatory for the next evoutionary generation of humans...where are they???

More of an explanation of production of this is not allowed here, but maybe your pastor will fill you in on the details.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

But you don't like having to explain the bad things like cancer and other diseases because you have trapped yourselves

It's been Christians themselves. Creationist Christians make claims about the universe and how life exists as being a magical creation, all deliberate, and I ask about all these negative, natural things that kill innocent people. These Christians can't explain why their God created cancer, and why cancers kill children horribly. Thus the nonsense is creationism, and literalist interpretations of Genesis.

Just not in a way that is factual, nor is consistent with what we observe about reality. No doubt creationists have their own fantasy explanations, but they aren't backed by experts, and not consistent with reasoning.

Let's note that not all Christians are creationists. Most are well educated and rational. They have come to terms with the absurdities of conservative Christian beliefs, and don't regard them as true.

When I look at the Bible I do so without assuming it is true at face value. I also consider the human history of how the Bible came about, in its many versions and forms. I can't make conclusions that defy reason, fact, and reality.

i find it timewasting to talk with people who keep relying on wives tails for their knowledge.

Id suggest you study some debates on youtube between atheism and Christianity regarding morality, suffering and death. Once you have done that, then come back here and we can discuss your above comment.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

More of an explanation of production of this is not allowed here, but maybe your pastor will fill you in on the details.

showing pretty pictures of modern humans is not answering the question.

show me a human with an evolutionary gain please...like a precursor to us growing wings, or with limbs showing an evolutionary advance towards the ability to jump like a flea, or what about the ability to swing through trees like a monkey (oh hang on, we've gone backwards there)!!!

The evolutionary image below shows physcial progresson...but it has clearly stopped...oh ****e, whats happened?

The problem is, there are no modern examples of the next level of progression or intermediatories between either...and there must be if the theory is true!

 

[F1fan]

i find it timewasting to talk with people who keep relying on wives tails for their knowledge.

Gee whiz, tell us more in the next post.

And don't forget to explain what the wives tales are, in your view. It appears as if you realized a no win situation, and are backing out through the bushes.

Id suggest you study some debates on youtube between atheism and Christianity regarding morality, suffering and death. Once you have done that, then come back here and we can discuss your above comment.

I've been debating religion on the internet since 1996. I'm quite experienced.

I notice you don't offer any tutorial in your vast expertise and skill at religious debate.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I've been debating religion on the internet since 1996. I'm quite experienced.

and yet with all that experience, you somehow managed to come up with the profoundly errant statement that Christians are unable to explain the origins of sin, suffering, and death?

You are dog barking up trees

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I´ll agree that naturalistic hypothesis tend to be more parsimonious, and for that reason they score more points…. But parsimony is not the only criteria

But assuming that you also have a note that says “ohhh I stole your dog because I want you to suffer” In this case, while 1 is more parsimonious than 2. The best hypothesis would be 2 because this hypothesis explains both the missing dog and the note (it has more explanatory scope, it explains a greater number of things)

In that case, [1] - someone left the door open - doesn't account for all relevant evidence. It doesn't account for the letter. [2]-[5] do. Maybe the cartels, extraterrestrials or Odin left the letter. But [2], being the most parsimonious of the four, becomes the leading candidate hypothesis.

For reference:
1. The dog is missing because somebody left the door open.
2. The dog is gone because your angry ex-girlfriend took it to make you suffer.
3. The dog is gone because a cartel broke in, took it, and intends to ransom it.
4. The dog is gone because extraterrestrials beamed it up for an anal probe.
5. The dog is gone because Odin teleported it away.

I agree on that if 2 hypotheses are equal in terms of explanatory power, explanatory scope, intrinsic probability etc. one most go for the most simple hypothesis (the one that makes less assumptions)

Does "go for" mean accept provisionally as the best of competing hypotheses or does it mean accept as correct? If the first, yes, we should go for the most parsimonious hypothesis. If the latter, then no, we shouldn't go for it.

if one hypothesis has more explanatory power and/or scope, etc… this hypothesis could be the best even if it is not the simplest

No, it's not the best until it's the most parsimonious hypothesis that accounts for all of the relevant evidence even if correct. When you introduced the letter, [2] became the best choice. But maybe [4] is actually the correct answer as to what happened to the dog. If so, extraterrestrials exist and took your dog. If so, evidence of that waits to be uncovered. Until then, there is no reason to consider extraterrestrials likely to be the correct hypothesis.

As an aside, here's what an analogous list looks like for where life on earth came from. The strange numbering is to mimic the other list
1. It appeared naturalistically through abiogenesis and evolution (the abiogenesis could have occurred on Mars, for example, and arrived on earth on a meteor, which perhaps could be number [2]).
4. Extraterrestrial intelligent designers naturalistically through abiogenesis and evolution long ago and far away perpetrated a fraud on humanity (naturalistic intelligent designer)
5. A god (superntural intelligent designer)

Any of the three are logically possible, and [1] leads the others by a LOT, but falsify the theory, and [1] drops off the list leaving only [4] and [5], and in that order.

It is just an example of an absurd consequence of the multiverse hypothesis. ……….. if everything that is possible will happen in some universe (no matter how unlikely) then talking snakes and young universes that look old would occur in some universes

OK. How is that absurd? If it's possible, and all possibilities become actual eventually somewhere, and not just once either - infinitely many times, just like finely tuned universes.

show us the intermediatory for the next evoutionary generation of humans

Look in the mirror. You're it. So am I.

The evoution of man has gone from ape like to us...from walking on all fours to on twos...more upright, but where is the next progression shown?

The next step in the evolution of man if we survive ourselves won't be biological: "Transhumanism is the position that human beings should be permitted to use technology to modify and enhance human cognition and bodily function, expanding abilities and capacities beyond current biological constraints."

thats stupid

That was in response to, "Can you “mathematically” prove the existence of God with an equation or with set of equations? If the answer is “no”, then you also cannot prove God."

I think he's criticizing your use of the word prove, which is only relevant in pure reasoning like Euclidean theorems, syllogisms, and arithmetic. What's stupid is continually misusing that word even after having the problem explained to you. Empirical studies use a different standard for belief. The theory of evolution has never been proven and never will be, but it has been shown to be correct beyond reasonable doubt.

Also, be certain not to make spelling, punctuational, or grammatical errors when calling someone stupid. It's not a good look for you.

Christianity at is foundational level is the only world view that best explains (through internal and external evidence) the "bad things" in this world.

You've never satisfactorily explained the existence of gratuitous suffering. Naturalistic hypotheses do that. And you have no evidence to justify belief in gods much less for your god in particular - just faith.

I suggest you actually open a bible and read the first 3 chapters of Genesis. Then, once you have done that, read Matthew Chapter 27. Finally, read Revelation Chapter 21. Unless you are actually willing to read the above 3 references...please do not waste this forums time with your errant wives tails about the origin of Sin and Evil!

Not relevant to a skeptic. Religious concepts like sin and evil in their religious sense as in defiance to God and the quality Satan possesses to account for its malice require acceptance of Christian dogma to consider seriously. I haven't consulted a Bible for anything in decades now except to quote it in discussions like these, and even then, not as authoritative.

 

[Pogo]

showing pretty pictures of modern humans is not answering the question.

show me a human with an evolutionary gain please...like a precursor to us growing wings, or with limbs showing an evolutionary advance towards the ability to jump like a flea, or what about the ability to swing through trees like a monkey (oh hang on, we've gone backwards there)!!!

The evolutionary image below shows physcial progresson...but it has clearly stopped...oh ****e, whats happened?
View attachment 90606


The problem is, there are no modern examples of the next level of progression or intermediatories between either...and there must be if the theory is true!

;No, the next level of progression is the generation that will be reproducing with all the new mutations etc from the current generation. This is the most basic level of biological evolution and not even denied by the creationists who dance the micro-macro mambo. You are at least 100 years behind the time in your understanding.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

evolution isnt a sudden voila and the next complete update appears...its claimed to be a slow process over very long periods of time (even for humanity).

Take a look around you next time you are out in a large shopping center...do you see any slow change to the next step in evolution for humanity?

Look at your own contradiction -- why would I expect to find changes in my short lifetime if evolution happens over the course of not many but hundreds, thousands and millions of lifetimes?

But look around, at people from various parts of this earth alive today. There are many obvious differences between people from different parts of the globe: skin color, eye shape, hair, average height, and more -- all the result of evolution, but very recent evolution, meaning despite those evolutionary differences, we all remain human, the human race. (I don't believe in "racial theories" of our human family.)

The reason for my inclusion of cancer here is a simple one...our bodies are not finding solutions to cancer...we are spending billions of dollars each year around the world desperately trying to find artificial medical solutions to the problem that evolution clearly is unable to solve through natural selection! The additional dilemma is that cancer is found in animals as well...which is supportive of the biblical claim that this kind of disease is a result of sin and not a gain in the level of evolutionary achievement.

Our bodies aren't finding solutions to ageing, either. There's a simple reason for that, in a natural world: once we've done our procreating business (takes longer for humans, who have extended childhood necessary to learn how to be human), we're no longer needed. Most cancers (not all) appear later in life, and therefore, along with any other sort of death, there's really no need for nature to "find solutions."

Not sure if you know this or not, but the concesus i have been given a few years ago by a medical researcher who worked in Newcastle University under a professor who was studying cancer was that given enough time, we will all die of cancer eventually!

Then your "medical researcher" is an idiot! People will still die for all sorts of other reasons over which we'll never have total control. There will still be disease (we'll never beat them all because evolution keeps concocting more). There will still be accidents, there'll still be murder, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, fires, jealous wives and husbands, wars, parasites,

For God’s sake, let us sit upon the ground​

And tell sad stories of the death of kings;​

How some have been deposed; some slain in war,​

Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;​

Some poison’d by their wives: some sleeping kill’d;​

All murder’d: for within the hollow crown​

That rounds the mortal temples of a king​

Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,​

Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,​

Allowing him a breath, a little scene,​

To monarchize, be fear’d and kill with looks,​

Infusing him with self and vain conceit,​

As if this flesh which walls about our life,​

Were brass impregnable, and humor’d thus​

Comes at the last and with a little pin​

Bores through his castle wall, and farewell king!​

(Shakespeare, Richard II)​

 

[Eli G]

How many millions of lifetimes did it take for apes to learn to cook?

And other stupid apes are still jumping... Roast meat is delicious, what are they waiting for?

 

[Pogo]

Then your "medical researcher" is an idiot! People will still die for all sorts of other reasons over which we'll never have total control. There will still be disease (we'll never beat them all because evolution keeps concocting more). There will still be accidents, there'll still be murder, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, fires, jealous wives and husbands, wars, parasites,

Well actually it was just one of those throwaway comments that says if we don't die of something else, eventually errors in DNA replication will get us.

 

[leroy]

This thread is about how evolution is ironic. What's ironic is that creationists insist that the universe was designed and fine tuned by a God, and all done deliberately. But you don't like having to explain the bad things like cancer and other diseases because you have trapped yourselves. "God is love, oh but he nature might kill your child with Leukemia, and won't intervene." Creationists built the trap without realizing it. You decided to use it without realizing it's a trap. And now you are upset that the trap is being pointed out to you. You would rather ignore and forget that creationism is a trap as an explanation, and you want to forget it.

The whole "chance" issue is not something that can be calculated and argued. The universe exists at 100%. What are the odds of a God existing? You didn't even bother to play with that math because you have no data, just obsolete cultural stoires that don't correlate to reality. If every person on the planet was issued a lottery ticket and soneone will win, the odds are highly against any of us winning, over 8 billion to 1. It's improbable that we will win. But when someone wins is it so improbable that they won that God is the only explanation? No.

The fine tuning idea is highly flawed, and you don't like acknowledging how it is flawed, you just want to believe it and write about it.

The fine tuning idea is highly flawed, and you don't like acknowledging how it is flawed, you just want to believe it and write about it.

I´ts obvious that you have no idea what FT means so how do you know that the idea is flawed?

that math

The math is widely available in the literature, a and it is not controversial.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well actually it was just one of those throwaway comments that says if we don't die of something else, eventually errors in DNA replication will get us.

Oh, c'mon -- I was trying to wax poetic!

 

[Pogo]

Oh, c'mon -- I was trying to wax poetic!

The italics confused me.

 

[blü 2]

i find it timewasting to talk with people who keep relying on wives tails for their knowledge.

Snap! I have the same thought when I encounter fundies trying to assert myth and folktale as fact.

 

[McBell]

i find it timewasting to talk with people who keep relying on wives tails for their knowledge.

 

[F1fan]

and yet with all that experience, you somehow managed to come up with the profoundly errant statement that Christians are unable to explain the origins of sin, suffering, and death?

You are dog barking up trees

I don’t see you making any effort. You must feel like a scared cat in a tree.

 

[blü 2]

In other words, can you prove that there is no God?

The trouble is that there's no coherent concept of a god with objective existence ie existing in the world external to the self, not merely a personal concept, notion, thing imagined.

Which very strongly points to gods being social / cultural artifacts (the Abrahamic gods), personifications of concepts (the Greek gods), and so on.

If that's wrong, why is there no description of a real god such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not.

I haven't even found a definition of "godness", the quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead &c would lack.

So what exactly is it that you're asking me to prove has no objective existence?

 

[Eli G]

Modern "apes" jumping ...

 

[Pogo]

I don’t see you making any effort. You must feel like a scared cat in a tree.

Maybe that other god Satan got his tongue.

 

[F1fan]

I´ts obvious that you have no idea what FT means so how do you know that the idea is flawed?

I’ve read enough criticism to understand it’s bogus. Yet you are still pushing it. Think twice about accusations that you are guilty of.

The math is widely available in the literature, a and it is not controversial.

Why don’t experts back you up?