The Hypocrisy of Evolution

[Ouroboros]

Hello,
Unfortunately, you missed my point in regards to '3 words.' It has nothing to do with length, but everything to do with simplicity. Long 'things' can be simple and short 'things' can be extremely complicated.

Blurgh is simpler. It's a much better explanation than "God did it." Blurgh is the answer that answers all questions.

What's my favorite color? Blurgh.

How do you make pancakes? Blurgh.

See. It's so much simpler.

Now, in regards to your statement of 'an explanation is only and explanation…' really does not make sense. To explain something, is simply to describe something with relevant details/facts. Now, in the context of the universe, accurately explaining the origin, i.e describing it, does simply factor down to, God created it.

Uhm... can you give the relevant details and facts regarding your explanation "God did it"? And perhaps I should demand that same level of primary source and brevity as you did?

You see, the thing is, to explain relevant details and facts, you have to do it with natural science. You can't skip out on the enlightenment just because you don't like it. Details and facts have to do with nature, so natural explanations are the ones you have to do.

 

[Nietzsche]

Hello,
So, your claim is 'it is too vast a topic to sum up simply,' please correct if I am wrong.

Do you know how DNA works, and why procreation is superior to mitosis? The benefits that outside genetic material has?

But if this is so, I have a question out of concern, if the concept of evolution is so logical and obvious, then why does it require so much explanation, and only the 'most brilliant scientists' (exaggeration intended) can fully understand it?

Do the "most brilliant scientists" thing again and I'll be done here. That is the quickest way to destroy any possible good will with me.

But no. It's not that evolution is complex(or rather, it is, but you an sum it up). It's that you're asking about an extremely specific, environment-directed process brought about by hundreds of millions of years worth of evolution.

This would be like me showing you all the most base molecules & atoms that make up a seed, without ever explaining to you what a seed is, and then showing you a tree. If you had no idea before what either of those things were, you learn nothing, and in fact only end up more confused.

There is another problem here. You come off as someone who does not want to learn. You are already convinced, and you are for some reason incapable of reconciling your faith with something that is accepted by every biologist in the world.

Whereas the opposing view, God created everything, is easily explained, and understood and it only took 3 words.

That's not an explanation. It does not explain anything. You might as well tell cancer patients that God wills it and they shouldn't seek treatment for it.

 

[Devin]

By putting it inside quotes is to indicate that it's not meant to be taken literally as really a person creating. The problem with language is that sometimes there are words that are missing to express ideas. For instance, our language is based on the idea that everything that comes into being is made by something or someone, by an actor, which means saying "created" immediately infers the idea of a conscious actor creating. By putting it inside quotes is to hint to the reader that there's something in the connotation that has to be read and understood slightly different. In this case, reading "created" is to read more like "produced by" without the meaning of an conscious actor.

Or, you can read it this way. I consider the universe to be God, so sure, "God did it" works for me in that sense. God, the universe, created or produced life. But people get a bit confused over that because they want to separate God as a concept from reality. God to some people has to be an entity away and different from the natural and the world.

Hello,
I may have been vague, I was not looking for the grammatical context of the use of the word, simply your reasoning for using it, which you did state in your opening line.
Now, in connection to your statement, where 'creates' is in quotes as it relates to the world, we are in agreement. The world does not 'create' itself. However,

Blurgh is simpler. It's a much better explanation than "God did it." Blurgh is the answer that answers all questions.

What's my favorite color? Blurgh.

How do you make pancakes? Blurgh.

See. It's so much simpler.


Uhm... can you give the relevant details and facts regarding your explanation "God did it"? And perhaps I should demand that same level of primary source and brevity as you did?

You see, the thing is, to explain relevant details and facts, you have to do it with natural science. You can't skip out on the enlightenment just because you don't like it. Details and facts have to do with nature, so natural explanations are the ones you have to do.

Hello,
Sure, the logical explanation of 'miracles' or anomalies. According to your statement, 'to explain relevant details and facts, you have to do it with natural science,' our framework for validating experiences or 'things' is based on math (consistent natural science) because as you also stated, there are gaps in language, however, there are no gaps when it comes to numbers, they remain the same always, according to 'natural science.' So anything that is 'outside the numbers' must then, logically, be attributed to God.

Unfortunately, your request cannot be completed in the terms you defined. You are expecting the concept of God; eternal, infinite, perfect etc., to be defined, related to, quantified and calculated etc., by a framework that is only meant to quantify the matter which exists within time and space, but matter which exists outside time and space.

 

[Devin]

Do you know how DNA works, and why procreation is superior to mitosis? The benefits that outside genetic material has?


Do the "most brilliant scientists" thing again and I'll be done here. That is the quickest way to destroy any possible good will with me.

But no. It's not that evolution is complex(or rather, it is, but you an sum it up). It's that you're asking about an extremely specific, environment-directed process brought about by hundreds of millions of years worth of evolution.

This would be like me showing you all the most base molecules & atoms that make up a seed, without ever explaining to you what a seed is, and then showing you a tree. If you had no idea before what either of those things were, you learn nothing, and in fact only end up more confused.

There is another problem here. You come off as someone who does not want to learn. You are already convinced, and you are for some reason incapable of reconciling your faith with something that is accepted by every biologist in the world.


That's not an explanation. It does not explain anything. You might as well tell cancer patients that God wills it and they shouldn't seek treatment for it.

Hello,
I do apologize, I meant no offense, truly!
Now, it seems a little off to me, that someone would believe in 'hundreds of millions of years of evolution' when no one was there 'hundreds of million's of years ago' and no one today, has EVER witnessed evolution.
Also, your statement of the seed and the tree, I understand what you are implying, however, the complete opposite is true for most people, myself included. From a molecular anatomical standpoint, I cannot explain to you ( and have never had it explained to me in that capacity) what a seed it, however, I do know for an indisputable fact, that a seed will become a tree, no confusion here.
Now, I am truly not trying to debate with you, I am thoroughly enjoying this conversation, but, your statement of '…accepted by every biologist in the world' is incorrect.
Lastly, it does in fact explain, which is to simply describe using relevant facts/details. And with regard to your (I'm assuming), rhetorical statement of 'tell cancer patients that God wills it and they shouldn't seek treatment for it,' why wouldn't/shouldn't/couldn't that be a logical conclusion?

 

[Nietzsche]

Hello,
I do apologize, I meant no offense, truly!
Now, it seems a little off to me, that someone would believe in 'hundreds of millions of years of evolution' when no one was there 'hundreds of million's of years ago' and no one today, has EVER witnessed evolution.

Really? We've never witnessed species-wide change based on environmental forces? Have you not looked at African Elephants? They're losing their tusks because the ones with the biggest set are being poached, and thus the only ones living to spread their genes are predisposed to smaller tusks. That's evolution. Proceed to pile that up over eons, it's not hard to see what would happen.

As for no one being there hundreds of millions of years ago; We weren't, no. But we know how things work. Why has there never been a dinosaur & mastodon found in the same layer of rock? In fact, why are all the fossils we find in such neat layers? We know how things work. The foundation of everything we do is based on a very simple concept, that past results are repeatable. Nuclear power would not work, germ theory would be useless, oil could be found anywhere, so many things would be radically different if the universe were not consistent.

Also, your statement of the seed and the tree, I understand what you are implying, however, the complete opposite is true for most people, myself included. From a molecular anatomical standpoint, I cannot explain to you ( and have never had it explained to me in that capacity) what a seed it, however, I do know for an indisputable fact, that a seed will become a tree, no confusion here.

You were not paying attention. If you did not know what a seed or a tree was. In this regard, you do not understand biology very well.

Now, I am truly not trying to debate with you, I am thoroughly enjoying this conversation, but, your statement of '…accepted by every biologist in the world' is incorrect.

How about "every respectable biologist"? The fact of the matter is that "Creationist Biologist" is an absurdly small group, one that is utterly insignificant and almost an oxymoron because of the nature of their work.

Lastly, it does in fact explain, which is to simply describe using relevant facts/details.

Really. So Germ-theory should take a backseat to "God wills it"?

And with regard to your (I'm assuming), rhetorical statement of 'tell cancer patients that God wills it and they shouldn't seek treatment for it,' why wouldn't/shouldn't/couldn't that be a logical conclusion?

Because it turns life into an utterly futile, strictly scripted puppet-show wherein every character suffers indignity & pain for no reason, and inevitably dies, for no reason. There's no point. "Everything bad that happens to you is for good reason" is the most disgusting thing I can imagine. Would you say that to a survivor of Auschwitz? A mother whos' 6yr old son is dying of leukemia?

 

[Devin]

Really? We've never witnessed species-wide change based on environmental forces? Have you not looked at African Elephants? They're losing their tusks because the ones with the biggest set are being poached, and thus the only ones living to spread their genes are predisposed to smaller tusks. That's evolution. Proceed to pile that up over eons, it's not hard to see what would happen.

As for no one being there hundreds of millions of years ago; We weren't, no. But we know how things work. Why has there never been a dinosaur & mastodon found in the same layer of rock? In fact, why are all the fossils we find in such neat layers? We know how things work. The foundation of everything we do is based on a very simple concept, that past results are repeatable. Nuclear power would not work, germ theory would be useless, oil could be found anywhere, so many things would be radically different if the universe were not consistent.


You were not paying attention. If you did not know what a seed or a tree was. In this regard, you do not understand biology very well.


How about "every respectable biologist"? The fact of the matter is that "Creationist Biologist" is an absurdly small group, one that is utterly insignificant and almost an oxymoron because of the nature of their work.


Really. So Germ-theory should take a backseat to "God wills it"?


Because it turns life into an utterly futile, strictly scripted puppet-show wherein every character suffers indignity & pain for no reason, and inevitably dies, for no reason. There's no point. "Everything bad that happens to you is for good reason" is the most disgusting thing I can imagine. Would you say that to a survivor of Auschwitz? A mother whos' 6yr old son is dying of leukemia?

Hello again,
First off, you described adaptation, NOT evolution. Evolution is a change from one kind to another…Elephant to elephant, not evolution.

I know I skipped over a few of your statements…

So, removing God, there is no pain & indignity? You are a human, and based on our conversation, do not believe in God, so have you never felt pain? Or suffered? Will you not die? If 'utterly futile' is to be used to describe a life with God or a life with evolution, it would most certain apply to evolution, survival of the fittest implies pain, suffering, strictly scripted puppet-show and death! And to your rhetorical question, yes, that is what I would say! And have in VERY similar, literal, situations. You should be careful when using rhetorical questions, because rhetorical for you may be real life experience for someone else.
Respectfully

 

[Ouroboros]

Hello,
I may have been vague, I was not looking for the grammatical context of the use of the word, simply your reasoning for using it, which you did state in your opening line.
Now, in connection to your statement, where 'creates' is in quotes as it relates to the world, we are in agreement. The world does not 'create' itself. However,

No, but it produces. And, since we as humans are part of the world and agents of the world, the world does create, truly, through us.

Hello,
Sure, the logical explanation of 'miracles' or anomalies. According to your statement, 'to explain relevant details and facts, you have to do it with natural science,' our framework for validating experiences or 'things' is based on math (consistent natural science) because as you also stated, there are gaps in language, however, there are no gaps when it comes to numbers, they remain the same always, according to 'natural science.' So anything that is 'outside the numbers' must then, logically, be attributed to God.

God of the gaps? It's a belief, not an explanation... well, it's your own explanation.

When it comes to science, the interest is not in the matter if God did it or not, but how it was done. If there is a God, then we should be curious about how God did it. To say, "God did it", doesn't answer "How did God do it?" Natural science does.

Unfortunately, your request cannot be completed in the terms you defined. You are expecting the concept of God; eternal, infinite, perfect etc., to be defined, related to, quantified and calculated etc., by a framework that is only meant to quantify the matter which exists within time and space, but matter which exists outside time and space.

Then it's not an explanation that we can share, but just a belief that you have so you can explain it to yourself.

 

[Sapiens]

Hello all,
For the evolutionists in this discussion, I have a question for you; how did sex originate? And let Albert Einstein's quote shape your answer "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.'
Respectfully,
Devin

To keep it as simple as possible: diecious organisms with random assortment of gametes had (and continue to have) greater access to the gene pool of succeeding generations than did monoecious ones.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hello again,
First off, you described adaptation, NOT evolution. Evolution is a change from one kind to another…Elephant to elephant, not evolution.

Not quite true.

Evolution stands for "change over generations." It's only about change, not just speciation. Speciation is one of the things in theory of evolution, but not the only thing. If you study evolution in school, you would read about mutations and changes within a species as well as speciation.

 

[Nietzsche]

Hello again,
First off, you described adaptation, NOT evolution. Evolution is a change from one kind to another…Elephant to elephant, not evolution.

And this is where you show some serious ignorance. Evolution is not one thing to completely different thing. That's something you could learn with a six-second Google search. Also, just dawned one, there are evolutions we've witnessed, because we're the ones who orchestrated them.

Look up corn, potatoes, just about every farmed fruit & vegetable. Corn is the most impressive of them, but the Banana is the most recent. There are also cows, dogs & such. Dogs especially.

So, removing God, there is no pain & indignity? You are a human, and based on our conversation, do not believe in God, so have you never felt pain? Or suffered? Will you not die? If 'utterly futile' is to be used to describe a life with God or a life with evolution, it would most certain apply to evolution, survival of the fittest implies pain, suffering, strictly scripted puppet-show and death!

You're getting hung up on the wrong part. The idea that everything is predetermined is not something evolution deals with. Evolution is a term for a series of mechanisms, and nothing more. You can use it to make predictions on how life will respond to change, if you know the parameters of said change. It means nothing beyond that.

My problem with "God wills it" is that it does mean everything is scripted. It means nothing we do, have done, or will ever do matters. This conversation we're having. If you're right, anything I say simply doesn't matter. Nor anything you say. No choice you or I make matters. It was determined ages ago, before we were born. We do not even get the dignity of committing suicide, because that would be part of the plan too. All the greatest monsters in human history? Not their fault now. God willed it.

The Holocaust? God's Will.
The Rwandan Genocide? God.
Molested children? God.

This is an utterly horrifying road to go down.

And to your rhetorical question, yes, that is what I would say! And have in VERY similar, literal, situations. You should be careful when using rhetorical questions, because rhetorical for you may be real life experience for someone else.
Respectfully

I was using my own experiences.

 

[Devin]

Not quite true.

Evolution stands for "change over generations." It's only about change, not just speciation. Speciation is one of the things in theory of evolution, but not the only thing. If you study evolution in school, you would read about mutations and changes within a species as well as speciation.

Hello,
So can you give an example, that has been scientifically witnessed, of one species changing to another species/kind?

 

[Sapiens]

Hello,
So can you give an example, that has been scientifically witnessed, of one species changing to another species/kind?

I do get tired of answering the same old questions: Observed Instances of Speciation that's why this (Online Reference: FAQs and tutorials on the Theory of Evolution | ReligiousForums.com was setup at the root of this forum.

Don't these folks study anything at all on their own?

Don't they know how to submit a google query?

Are they just as physically lazy as they seem to be intellectually lazy?

 

[Ouroboros]

Hello,
So can you give an example, that has been scientifically witnessed, of one species changing to another species/kind?

It's difficult to witness it in a lifetime, simply because it require too many changes over too many generations. But there's other evidence we can look at to know it happens. 1) ring species, 2) hybridization, 3) fossils, 4) genetic evidence.

1) Ring species show that sexual separation can happen if individuals/groups are separated over distances. Speciation events take time, but the principle builds on that one species is broken up into two or more groups where the two groups in their separation evolve different traits to a point where they're not sexually compatible anymore, which can be seen in ring species.

2) Hybrids. There are plenty of hybrids producing new species, especially in plants. There were some new ones discovered last year.

3) Fossils. We have almost complete fossil records of trilobites, horses, whales, and other species, evolving from one kind to another kind. We also have things like winged dinosaurs, where features that are unique to dinosaurs and unique to birds can be found in the same fossil.

4) There's plenty of genetic evidence to show ancestry. Like transposons, ERVs, or dormant genes. Example of dormant genes are like the teeth in chicken, which they had when they were still dinosaurs way back.

Also, the term "species" is actually not as precise as people think.

 

[Devin]

And this is where you show some serious ignorance. Evolution is not one thing to completely different thing. That's something you could learn with a six-second Google search. Also, just dawned one, there are evolutions we've witnessed, because we're the ones who orchestrated them.

Look up corn, potatoes, just about every farmed fruit & vegetable. Corn is the most impressive of them, but the Banana is the most recent. There are also cows, dogs & such. Dogs especially.



You're getting hung up on the wrong part. The idea that everything is predetermined is not something evolution deals with. Evolution is a term for a series of mechanisms, and nothing more. You can use it to make predictions on how life will respond to change, if you know the parameters of said change. It means nothing beyond that.

My problem with "God wills it" is that it does mean everything is scripted. It means nothing we do, have done, or will ever do matters. This conversation we're having. If you're right, anything I say simply doesn't matter. Nor anything you say. No choice you or I make matters. It was determined ages ago, before we were born. We do not even get the dignity of committing suicide, because that would be part of the plan too. All the greatest monsters in human history? Not their fault now. God willed it.

The Holocaust? God's Will.
The Rwandan Genocide? God.
Molested children? God.

This is an utterly horrifying road to go down.


I was using my own experiences.

Hello,
But it is, hence, ape to man, one kind to another. It is truly so strange to me, evolutionists want everyone else to believe that everything came from a puddle of goo and magically changed to a frog, then to an ape then to a man. But when it is presented as what it is, a change from one kind to another, the statement is dismissed and regarded as 'ignorant.' But, again, it is a change of kind, ape, one kind, to man, another kind. I am lost as to the unnecessary arguments about this. And if evolution is true, why can we not receive blood from an ape?

Unfortunately, in regards to life and how much matters, you are incorrect. What we do DOES matter, it is OUR choice. God knows, but because He is sovereign over Himself, does not impose His will on our choices, hence free will. And continuing down this road, us having free will and God not imposing, then yes, atrocities are a possibility and even a reality. Where you are wrong is implying that God caused them, which He did not! People caused them.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hello,
But it is, hence, ape to man, one kind to another. It is truly so strange to me, evolutionists want everyone else to believe that everything came from a puddle of goo and magically changed to a frog, then to an ape then to a man. But when it is presented as what it is, a change from one kind to another, the statement is dismissed and regarded as 'ignorant.' But, again, it is a change of kind, ape, one kind, to man, another kind. I am lost as to the unnecessary arguments about this. And if evolution is true, why can we not receive blood from an ape?

Because of blood type. You wouldn't mix A, B, O, etc.

We have enough fossils of Australopithecus to know that we came from apes.

Besides, who are you to question God? If God used evolution to produce life, then why are you so resistant to it and try to disprove it?

 

[Nietzsche]

Hello,
But it is, hence, ape to man, one kind to another. It is truly so strange to me, evolutionists want everyone else to believe that everything came from a puddle of goo and magically changed to a frog, then to an ape then to a man. But when it is presented as what it is, a change from one kind to another, the statement is dismissed and regarded as 'ignorant.' But, again, it is a change of kind, ape, one kind, to man, another kind. I am lost as to the unnecessary arguments about this. And if evolution is true, why can we not receive blood from an ape?

Errr. We didn't go from "ape to man". We're still apes. That hasn't changed. We're just a different kind of ape. What is your explanation for the massive overlap between human & chimpanzees?

Unfortunately, in regards to life and how much matters, you are incorrect. What we do DOES matter, it is OUR choice. God knows, but because He is sovereign over Himself, does not impose His will on our choices, hence free will. And continuing down this road, us having free will and God not imposing, then yes, atrocities are a possibility and even a reality. Where you are wrong is implying that God caused them, which He did not! People caused them.

This is going off-topic. I was only using it to point out how useless "God did it" is for anything. Using that explanation, there's no need for us to bother. No need to cure the sick, God willed it. Following that logic it would show an incredible lack of faith in God that you'd use medicine at all.

 

[Sapiens]

It's difficult to witness it in a lifetime, simply because it require too many changes over too many generations. But there's other evidence we can look at to know it happens. 1) ring species, 2) hybridization, 3) fossils, 4) genetic evidence.

There are many examples that can be witnessed in less than a lifetime.

1) Ring species show that sexual separation can happen if individuals/groups are separated over distances. Speciation events take time, but the principle builds on that one species is broken up into two or more groups where the two groups in their separation evolve different traits to a point where they're not sexually compatible anymore, which can be seen in ring species.

Ring species are a good example because they substitute separation in space for separation in time.

2) Hybrids. There are plenty of hybrids producing new species, especially in plants. There were some new ones discovered last year.

Yes, in plants hybridization has created "immediate" species.

3) Fossils. We have almost complete fossil records of trilobites, horses, whales, and other species, evolving from one kind to another kind. We also have things like winged dinosaurs, where features that are unique to dinosaurs and unique to birds can be found in the same fossil.

Each and every organism is a missing link between what it's parents were and what it's offspring will be.

4) There's plenty of genetic evidence to show ancestry. Like transposons, ERVs, or dormant genes. Example of dormant genes are like the teeth in chicken, which they had when they were still dinosaurs way back.

The evidence is so clear, and so accessible, that I find myself become intolerant of the conversation.

Hello,
But it is, hence, ape to man, one kind to another. It is truly so strange to me, evolutionists want everyone else to believe that everything came from a puddle of goo and magically changed to a frog, then to an ape then to a man. But when it is presented as what it is, a change from one kind to another, the statement is dismissed and regarded as 'ignorant.' But, again, it is a change of kind, ape, one kind, to man, another kind. I am lost as to the unnecessary arguments about this. And if evolution is true, why can we not receive blood from an ape?

No, you can believe any kind of foolishness in the privacy of your home that you wish ... just don't go on about it in public, it is sort of the intellectual equivalent of picking your nose.

Your basic argument in this paragraph is what is known as a straw-man, if you don't know what that is, look it up.

Here's a hint to your question: can you receive blood from all other people?

Unfortunately, in regards to life and how much matters, you are incorrect. What we do DOES matter, it is OUR choice. God knows, but because He is sovereign over Himself, does not impose His will on our choices, hence free will. And continuing down this road, us having free will and God not imposing, then yes, atrocities are a possibility and even a reality. Where you are wrong is implying that God caused them, which He did not! People caused them.

What complete and utter claptrap, I can't be bothered

 

[Ouroboros]

There are many examples that can be witnessed in less than a lifetime.
Ring species are a good example because they substitute separation in space for separation in time.
Yes, in plants hybridization has created "immediate" species.
Each and every organism is a missing link between what it's parents were and what it's offspring will be.
The evidence is so clear, and so accessible, that I find myself become intolerant of the conversation.

Agree.

And yes, a good point (that I myself try to get anti-science people to get) that every individual is in fact a "missing" link, or a sub-sub-sub-species.

It's amazing that people can watch CSI and other shows where they use "unique DNA" to prove that someone did something, yet can't see that each and every DNA is unique... When did God create each and every person's unique genetic code, I wonder?

 

[outhouse]

and no one today, has EVER witnessed evolution.

Not true.

 

[shawn001]

Debunking God was also an explicit goal of classical physics, static/eternal steady state universes, Big Crunch, Multiverses and M theory-
it's never had a great track record of being backed up by evidence. this academic preference for a particular conclusion has served to sidetrack, delay scientific progress on one hand, on the other it has helped underscore the need for creative intelligence to explain what is otherwise inexplicable by chance alone.

"Debunking God was also an explicit goal of classical physics, static/eternal steady state universes, Big Crunch, Multiverses and M theory-"

No its wasn't and what God? There are millions and millions of them. Cosmology doesn't study God and is looking for how things work in nature.

and you left out the weak anthropic principle.