Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[Looncall]

A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject.

I don't see why the fact that we all recognise certain concepts, such as truth & morality for example, doesn't make them objective according to the above def. - I'm referring to the concepts..

It's all too easy to claim that we're just here because we
ie. "poof, and its happened"

but this is not a valid explanation .. it's like saying that intelligent life is just "a freak occurence"
ie. pure chance without a reason / meaning

Please explain why this is not a possible state of affairs. (The fact that you might not like it is irrelevant.)

 

[muhammad_isa]

Please explain why this is not a possible state of affairs. (The fact that you might not like it is irrelevant.)

Do I really have to? Isn't it obvious? It is to me.. it has nothing to do with "not liking it" ..

I assume you've heard of the theory of probability .. oh for pete's sake .. forget it!

 

[outhouse]

Do I really have to? Isn't it obvious? It is to me.. it has nothing to do with "not liking it" ..

I assume you've heard of the theory of probability .. oh for pete's sake .. forget it!

logic, knowledge and reason are hard to grasp sometimes.

The lack of these are a crime against humanity and ones own personal development

 

[PolyHedral]

Do I really have to? Isn't it obvious? It is to me.. it has nothing to do with "not liking it" ..

I assume you've heard of the theory of probability .. oh for pete's sake .. forget it!

What's wrong with the universe being unlikely?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do I really have to? Isn't it obvious? It is to me.. it has nothing to do with "not liking it" ..

I assume you've heard of the theory of probability .. oh for pete's sake .. forget it!

Have you ever heard of statistical thermodynamics?

 

[glyphkenn]

I have participated in a number of threads on creation and evolution. One thing that I have noticed is that antievolutionists, such as rusra02, have argued that there is no evidence for evolution. So I want to ask rusra02 something: suppose evolution was completely refuted. Suppose it was totally refuted and you got what you wanted. Suppose that everyone on this forum, including myself, finally was forced to conclude that evolution was not true due to the sheer weight of scientific evidence against it. Let's suppose that the case was so overwhelming as to make it impossible to deny that evolution was false.

Then what? What would Rusra02 like to see happen? Seriously. Even if it would never likely happen, what would Rusra02 like or hope would happen? Convert to creationism? Become Christians? At least declare agnosticism? Suppose that all of this talk about "propaganda" and other such conspiracy-talk was completely true, the facts all true and verifiable, and proven true to the extent that it was impossible to deny. What then?

creationist would still be faced with proving their hypothesis .

 

[Looncall]

Do I really have to? Isn't it obvious? It is to me.. it has nothing to do with "not liking it" ..

I assume you've heard of the theory of probability .. oh for pete's sake .. forget it!

It is not at all obvious to a mind untainted with superstition.

You are evidently unable to support your view, so I must regard it as mere delusion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are evidently unable to support your view, so I must regard it as mere delusion.

Am I? Must you?

You might consider yourself "a freak of nature" with no universal reason for existing, but not I

 

[McBell]

Am I?

Based upon your post after post of empty claims on this forum, yes.

Must you?

I came to the same conclusion long ago.
You are all talk, no substance.

You might consider yourself "a freak of nature" with no universal reason for existing, but not I

Your considering me a freak of nature based upon your own empty claims is actually somewhat of a comfort for me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your considering me a freak of nature based upon your own empty claims is actually somewhat of a comfort for me.

You're twisting my words .. you dehumanise yourself by denying my "empty claims"

..or, perhaps you do think there's a "higher reason" for your existence, other than freak chance .. pure coincidence!?

 

[painted wolf]

Just because someone accepts that their existence is purely natural doesn't mean that they think their existence has no purpose or meaning... or that they are a "freak of nature".

wa:do

 

[McBell]

You're twisting my words .. you dehumanise yourself by denying my "empty claims"

I am not the one who has reduced not only my own existence, but the existence of everyone, to merely the play things of an imaginary friend.

..or, perhaps you do think there's a "higher reason" for your existence, other than freak chance .. pure coincidence!?

I do not feel like a freak at all.

however, I do understand your need to call names and transfer your fears, anxieties and insecurities onto others.

I have no need nor desire for an imaginary friend.
However, I understand that some people are only good out of fear of punishment and hope for reward.

 

[Photonic]

Just because someone accepts that their existence is purely natural doesn't mean that they think their existence has no purpose or meaning... or that they are a "freak of nature".

wa:do

I'm fairly sure my purpose in life is clearer than anything you could derive from a theistic view.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm fairly sure my purpose in life is clearer than anything you could derive from a theistic view.

I'm sure you think that.

But hey.... I'm not out to mock your purpose in life if you don't mock mine... indeed they are probably pretty similar to one another, despite mine have theistic overtones.

wa:do

 

[Heathen Hammer]

He might have been using the word 'you' in the general; based on his general replies. Just a thought

 

[painted wolf]

yeah, I'm just being nippy... playfully nippy... :wolf:

wa:do