The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

[McBell]

I always love how religious creationists try to drag evolution down by calling it a "religion". As if the label "religion" suddenly makes it less likely to be true. As if an idea being religious is, in and of itself, an argument against it.

It is absolutely hilariously ironic.



Off course, regardless of that shoot-my-own-foot sillyness, evolution is not a religion. It's a scientific theory like any other. The main difference with many other theories, is that evolution is better supported then most.

Seems to me it is an admission that they see religion is as false as they claim evolution to be.
Why else would they try to compare them as an insult?

I mean, if they thought that religion was all that and a bag of chips, they would not be trying to insult evolution by calling it a religion, right?

 

[muhammad_isa]

We are talking about science. In scientific context, evolution means only one thing in biology..

No, it doesn't.
There are several theories, covering many different areas..
..such as evolutionary psychology, and the list goes on.

No, apes / primates. Monkey is a type of primate. So is a human..

Right .. we are apes BY DEFINITION .. we are not apes/monkeys, as in the furry creatures
who can't talk.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And cladistics tells us that we are monkeys. The theory of evolution explains that fact to us.

No, it doesn't.

Darwin had a fever .. he was confused

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it doesn't.
There are several theories, covering many different areas..
..such as evolutionary psychology, and the list goes on.


Right .. we are apes BY DEFINITION .. we are not apes/monkeys, as in the furry creatures
who can't talk.

No, your one example is a failure because it is a subset of biological evolution.

And no, not by definition. By fact. Please don't be silly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it doesn't.

Darwin had a fever .. he was confused

Oh, I see,you have no clue.

 

[Left Coast]

***STAFF POST***

Ahem.

Attention everyone in this thread. That means you @SavedByTheLord @McBell @Subduction Zone and anyone else.

You need to keep it civil if you want to keep up this conversation. That means you may not accuse each other of lying or insult each other.

You also need to phrase your beliefs as beliefs, not facts.

"BUT BUT BUT BUT..."

I don't wanna hear it.

Play nicely and disagree respectfully or we'll shut this thread down.

Okay?

 

[exchemist]

No, it doesn't.

Darwin had a fever .. he was confused

Cladistics did not exist in Darwin’s day.

But if you are going to resort to facetiousness, there is not much point in continuing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, let's try to proceed cautiously.

How would anyone propose to support their beliefs? In my opinion the most reliable way would be by following the scientific method. Does anyone disagree with that? Or agree with that?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Okay, let's try to proceed cautiously.

How would anyone propose to support their beliefs? In my opinion the most reliable way would be by following the scientific method. Does anyone disagree with that? Or agree with that?

I agree with the scientific method why did the evolutionists abandon it ?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Okay, let's try to proceed cautiously.

How would anyone propose to support their beliefs? In my opinion the most reliable way would be by following the scientific method. Does anyone disagree with that? Or agree with that?

I disagree.

"The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible."

I don't know about impossible, but not far off.
It makes no sense for existence to be a product of randomness.

Is AI random in nature? Does a chat-bot just happen to make sense, by spewing random words?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with the scientific method why did the evolutionists abandon it ?

We never did. Let's go over the concept. Here is a simplified flow chart of the scientific method. Can you show me where you think that scientists abandoned the scientific method. I can show you where creationists abandoned it:

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree.

"The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible."

I don't know about impossible, but not far off.
It makes no sense for existence to be a product of randomness.

Is AI random in nature? Does a chat-bot just happen to make sense, by spewing random words?

But you are using a strawman. No one proposes that it was "a product of randomness". If you want to debate the issue then you should try to debate the actual claims. Abiogenesis proposes that life arose by natural materials following the laws of chemistry. That is not "a product of randomness". It may make for a very uneven path from nonlife to life, but since each step has to follow various rules one cannot call it random.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Abiogenesis proposes that life arose by natural materials following the laws of chemistry. That is not "a product of randomness". It may make for a very uneven path from nonlife to life, but since each step has to follow various rules one cannot call it random.

Who/what made the rules .. or are you saying that the rules evolved too?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who/what made the rules .. or are you saying that the rules evolved too?

Why assume that there had to be a "someone". You may be conflating human rules, which are man made, with natural laws.

They are not the same thing at all. Human rules are proscriptive: Do this, don't do that.

Natural rules or law are descriptive: When the temperature is x and the pressure is y and we have z mixture the result will be products a, b, and c.

No one is telling the chemicals to react in a specific way. It is what we observe under specific circumstances.

It is quite natural for people to make an equivocation fallacy. That is where one makes an error because a word may have more than one definition.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You may be conflating human rules, which are man made, with natural laws..

We are not talking about human laws .. there were no humans around at the time.

Natural rules or law are descriptive..

The word "natural" does not describe anything in particular .. just that it is.

It is what we observe under specific circumstances..

Naturally

It is quite natural for people to make an equivocation fallacy. That is where one makes an error because a word may have more than one definition.

I have no idea what you mean..
If life did not come about by random chance, then it must have come about by some other
means.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are not talking about human laws .. there were no humans around at the time.


The word "natural" does not describe anything in particular .. just that it is.

Yes correct on both.

Naturally

Again yes. Why are you abusing smiley faces?

I have no idea what you mean..
If life did not come about by random chance, then it must have come about by some other
means.

No that is a false dichotomy. Or perhaps you should define your terms better. When a large rock has its supporting material eroded away and it rolls down a steep hill I would not call that "random". Would you? I would call it a consequence of geology and weathering.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No that is a false dichotomy. Or perhaps you should define your terms better..

Errr, no. My English is not that bad.

If life did not come about by random means .. then it means it must have been guided by something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Errr, no. My English is not that bad.

If life did not come about by random means .. then it means it must have been guided by something.

Then I disagree, because I do not describe materials following the rules of nature as random. Nor has anyone shown a need for a God. I cannot prove that there wasn't something to guide life into existence, but I cannot see any need for such a guide either.

What is your evidence that a guide is needed?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then I disagree, because I do not describe materials following the rules of nature as random..

They are not .. and there you have it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are not .. and there you have it.

I do not get what you are trying to say.