The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[IndigoChild5559]

Christianity. Its writings are the oldest, most consistent, and most well supported through internal and external evidence, of any philosophical world view.

I can't agree with this. For one thing, we have religious texts that are older than the Bible, such as the epic of Gilgamesh, or the Vedas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't agree with this. For one thing, we have religious texts that are older than the Bible, such as the epic of Gilgamesh, or the Vedas.

He believes the myths of Genesis and Exodus so he probably believes that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nevertheless. You'd expect some mention of a large population of Hebrews amongst the Egyptians, both written and illustrated. You'd expect some Hebrew DNA somewhere.
You'd think the exodus of most of Egypt's population would be noted -- both by the Egyptians and surrounding nations. You'd expect it to alter Egyptian life and subsequent history considerably.
You'd think millions of people living in a desert for forty years would leave some evidence of their residence.
I'd be surprised if ~2.5 million people + livestock could survive a week in such an environment.

This is, off course, all very true.

We can track a nomadic tribe of 20 in the desert but somehow hundreds of thousands if not millions didn't leave a trace.
And yes, if so many slaves simply walked out of an ancient society overnight, it would have had such enormous economic repercussians that that society would have completely imploded and collapsed. For sure it would not have gone by unnoticed.

Especially the surrounding nations and Egypt's enemies would have had a field day reporting on this since it would have been the BIGGEST humiliation of ancient times. They also would have not hesitated to take advantage of Egypt's ensuing social unrest and economic collapse to move in and plunder / conquer / take-over.

It's hard to imagine such an event taking place and NOT be followed by Egypt's utter destruction, both as a civilisation and as a cultural force.
But none of this happened. Instead, all throughout this supposed period, it's business as usual with not a dent in Egypt's power and influence.


All that combined with the fact that it is archeologically nearly impossible to tell the difference between an ancient israelite and a canaanite....
All this tells us that hebrews never were massively enslaved in egypt. There was no exodus. There was no conquest of canaan. And Israelis are simply canaanites who reinvented their history with some mythological story. Much like how ancient Romans reinvented their history with the myth of Romulus and Remus.



Having said all that, I just try to be extra carefull when people try to hint that "the story should be considered true until demonstrated false"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here is the problem. No one can explain thru science where things came from.

Actually, scientific methodology works exceptionally well to find out where things come from....

They have to skip over where things came from. We don't see dead matter turning into something alive. It all had to start somewhere.

Shifting the goal posts again, are we?

The topic is evolution (the cambrian explosion specifically), not abiogenesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And just because you (and some unbelieving historians) believe it not to be true, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Correct. Beliefs do not matter.
What matters is evidence.

The evidence says it didn't happen. This is why honest historians don't believe it happened and instead believe it didn't happen.

So why do you believe it DID happen, despite the evidence saying the opposite?

I'm not trying to force anyone to believe anything. We all have free will.

I don't think this is a matter of will.
This is a matter of accepting evidence and being honest about the evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So that same thing should apply when someone tries to claim there is no God.

Sure. Remind me, who here makes that claim?

Or that God didn't create things.

Depends on the subject off course.
If the claim is that god created my computer, well then I have clear evidence that he didn't and that it instead was created and assembled in a factory of Lenovo.

If the claim is that god created my cat, well then I have clear evidence that he didn't and that instead the cat was created by its parents through biological reproduction.

If the claim is that god created the human species, well then I have clear evidence that he didn't and that the species instead evolved over the past several million years. I have genetic evidence that we share ancestors with the other living things on this planet.

So to say that god did not create my computer, my cat, or the human species... then those aren't claims from ignorance. Those are claims from knowledge, backed by very solid evidence.

Asserting that there is no God because it has not yet been proven to be true.

Nobody does that, to my knowledge.

It's an argument from ignorance fallacy.

It would be, if anyone actually made that claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that Pogo is an argument from the definition of ignorance fallacy that you sent.

Euh... no, it's not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are making the claim there is no God.

He literally just told you he doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Great, since you are making no claim that there is not a God. Then at least you are acknowledging that it is possible there is a God.

Doesn't follow.


How do you demonstrate that a god is "possible"?
Something being possible isn't something you can just assume....

For example, it is possible for me to win the lottery. That is demonstrable. I could get the numbers right.
But, is it also possible for me the invent a shapeshifting device?
I don't know. It depends on wheter or not the laws of physics actually allow for such a thing to exist.

Do I believe such a device already exist? No. I have no reason to. Do I consider it more likely that they don't? Yes. For the simple reason that we don't have any common knowledge of physics that would allow for it. Can I rule it out? No. A guy using such a device could be standing right in my office right now shapeshifted into a fly and I wouldn't be able to find out.

I see gods, and every other supernatural entity, in the same way.

So, no... I don't consider gods "possible" for the simple reason that they can't be demonstrated to be possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I feel that same way about evolution. Can't have life evolving if there is no life to begin with.

Well, the sooner you realize that evolution and abiogenesis are two different scientific fields of inquiry and that the scope of evolution doesn't extent to abiogenesis, the sooner you can start an honest evaluation of the evidence about evolution.

As long as you stick to this strawman though, you're only going to keep being wrong about it.

It took God breathing into man the breath of life for living man to exist.

Bare assertion. This requires evidence.

Explain how science solves it?

It's a non-problem. Humans evolved.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But science can't explain how you get life from dead matter.

Not really true, but let's run with it.

It matters not.
Science CAN explain how you get the diversity of life from simple beginnings.

 

[Esteban X]

And just because you (and some unbelieving historians) believe it not to be true, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I'm not trying to force anyone to believe anything. We all have free will.

There is more evidence that it didn't happen than that it did. If one is interested in the truth one would follow where the evidence leads.

 

[Esteban X]

You are making the claim there is no God.

Atheism is not believing there is a god, believing there is no god is different

 

[wellwisher]

One aspect of evolution that is not stressed enough is the impact of consciousness on evolution. Natural selection suggests more of a connection to external factors on biology and DNA, whereas consciousness is an internal factor that can aid survival, through memory and experience, even in less than optimal places, where natural selection may not be your best bet.

I was watching a nature special on TV last night, about elephants. These elephant groups were unique and not what you normally expect of the African Savanna elephants, which are the most studied. One group was in the Rain Forests of the Congo, and the other smaller group, was in the Namib Desert in Namibia's Kunene Region. The latter is one of the driest places in earth. Both groups are not exactly in the most likely places expected of external natural selection. Their survival is due to the intelligence of the elephants, who learn to adapt to these less than normal environments for African elephants.

The rain forest elephants were interesting; paradise with unique hazards, but I was particularly struck by the desert elephants which move in small family groups led by older matriarchs. The mature males tend to be more solitary. They walk, by themselves, day after day; over 50 miles a day, going around the desert to find small pockets of water and/or food, then to another, without over eating or over drinking, to maintain these precious stockpiles for another day. Each year they walk the equivalent of Alaska to Florida. They have a few key places they need to go to gain the needed dried salt spray from the ocean. Their body needs salt to survive.

They have very strong memories and amazing navigation skills. They need to keep moving to find the sparse food and water sources their entire life; 40 years. They also circle back to meet up with their mate and her group, to see if they can have a date. Their breeding depends if the female thinks her baby can survive; does she anticipate have enough water to make the needed milk. This is an impossible landscape for any family situation, yet they all persist.

The females, babies and younger elephants so the same, in terms of the long constant walk, with an older matriarch remembering all the routes and safe spots, needed for food, water and salt, year after year. The younger females will learn from her and lead someday. Even one day old babies will need to keep up the pace or not survive. Her mother and aunts will help the baby. These elephants were partiality naturally selective, but they also learned to adapt and have selected this environment based their learned memories, taught from generation to generation.

This is similar to humans, in the sense we do not just rely on natural selection. We can also make manmade selections. We can farm our own selected food crops. and we have control over the selective breeding of pets and farm animals; conscious selection. Humans have ended up all over the earth, even where there are a wide range of natural selective parameters; not perfect, using intelligence to adapt and even thrive.

Civilization and farming would have been a conscious choice, not to be fully dependent on nature's bounty based on natural selection, since natural food stocks run out if too many humans use only natural places. Instead, consciousness allowed a way to provide perpetual food in one good location, which is not exactly natural or based on natural selection. The Bible symbolism is about the rise of human consciousness to the level of being up to the task of life, in a more self sustaining way.

 

[sayak83]

given your usual way of thinking about these things, im not suprised by that statement. You are an individual who doesnt give a rats...so why even bother? As i have said before, i do not know why you even discuss these things...its a pointless endeavour to even engage with you on these things. But you know what, as ive done many times before, ill go there again...

1. Epistomology forms part of human nature. We are inquisitive and want to know where we came from, why we are here, and what happens next. Its innate within us that we do not want to die.

2. The most consistent answer to the above question with by far (and i mean BY FAR) the most volumous evidence is Christianity. Its writings are the oldest, most consistent, and most well supported through internal and external evidence, of any philosophical world view. when applied to all aspects of our existence, it better answers the Epistomological dilemma humans face than any other world view.

3. We all know that you dont believe the above, but honestly, i dont really care. The reason i don't care is that you refuse to even research the Christian philosophy and its evidences properly...so engaging with you at length on these issues is timewasting.

No. It does not. Hindus and Buddhists do it much better. Care for a debate?

 

[Polymath257]

I realize that stars, moons, and planets do not speak and they are not considered alive by scientists. But this does not mean God did not create them. Also, about natural life itself. That some cells may have put themselves together does not mean that birds are not fabulous creatures. I think they are, and I don't think they came about by "natural evolution." I also don't think that science has the goods on these things. They may have theories and fossils they analyze and place within the realm of their logic.

Yes, birds ands mammals are fabulous creatures. But we were talking about how life originated. That origin was before the first birds or mammals, long before the first fish, and long before complex cells (eucaryotes).

 

[Pogo]

This is, off course, all very true.

Just a friendly nitpick.

Is it off course or of course?

“Of course” is an formal way of saying “yes” or to give someone permission to do something. Student: Can I have some extra homework? Teacher: Of course you can. “Off course” is used when a vehicle doesn't follow a planned, or intended route.Jan 30, 2020

Of course this quote went off course in it's intention very quickly with "an formal" that should have been "an informal" and I will add my own lost cause that "an formal" should have been "a formal".
Carry On.

 

[Pogo]

He literally just told you he doesn't.

Literally only counts in his idolization of his favorite book, and then only when convenient.

 

[Pogo]

One aspect of evolution that is not stressed enough is the impact of consciousness on evolution. Natural selection suggests more of a connection to external factors on biology and DNA, whereas consciousness is an internal factor that can aid survival, through memory and experience, even in less than optimal places, where natural selection may not be your best bet.

I was watching a nature special on TV last night, about elephants. These elephant groups were unique and not what you normally expect of the African Savanna elephants, which are the most studied. One group was in the Rain Forests of the Congo, and the other smaller group, was in the Namib Desert in Namibia's Kunene Region. The latter is one of the driest places in earth. Both groups are not exactly in the most likely places expected of external natural selection. Their survival is due to the intelligence of the elephants, who learn to adapt to these less than normal environments for African elephants.

The rain forest elephants were interesting; paradise with unique hazards, but I was particularly struck by the desert elephants which move in small family groups led by older matriarchs. The mature males tend to be more solitary. They walk, by themselves, day after day; over 50 miles a day, going around the desert to find small pockets of water and/or food, then to another, without over eating or over drinking, to maintain these precious stockpiles for another day. Each year they walk the equivalent of Alaska to Florida. They have a few key places they need to go to gain the needed dried salt spray from the ocean. Their body needs salt to survive.

They have very strong memories and amazing navigation skills. They need to keep moving to find the sparse food and water sources their entire life; 40 years. They also circle back to meet up with their mate and her group, to see if they can have a date. Their breeding depends if the female thinks her baby can survive; does she anticipate have enough water to make the needed milk. This is an impossible landscape for any family situation, yet they all persist.

The females, babies and younger elephants so the same, in terms of the long constant walk, with an older matriarch remembering all the routes and safe spots, needed for food, water and salt, year after year. The younger females will learn from her and lead someday. Even one day old babies will need to keep up the pace or not survive. Her mother and aunts will help the baby. These elephants were partiality naturally selective, but they also learned to adapt and have selected this environment based their learned memories, taught from generation to generation.

This is similar to humans, in the sense we do not just rely on natural selection. We can also make manmade selections. We can farm our own selected food crops. and we have control over the selective breeding of pets and farm animals; conscious selection. Humans have ended up all over the earth, even where there are a wide range of natural selective parameters; not perfect, using intelligence to adapt and even thrive.

Civilization and farming would have been a conscious choice, not to be fully dependent on nature's bounty based on natural selection, since natural food stocks run out if too many humans use only natural places. Instead, consciousness allowed a way to provide perpetual food in one good location, which is not exactly natural or based on natural selection. The Bible symbolism is about the rise of human consciousness to the level of being up to the task of life, in a more self sustaining way.

Yeah, that is what the symbolism is about and you obviously agree that humans are not the only creatures to have evolved these capasbilities.

 

[metis]

Maybe he didn't part the waters of the Jordan either.

It was the Reed Sea.