What convinced you that Evolution is the truth?

[Marwan]

That doesn't demonstrate anything.

You're going to need to make an argument, and respond to my points.

I have responded.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have responded.

You've provided nothing to counter my points.
You've provided nothing to make your case.
You're in a debate forum, where you're expected to do these things.

Just quoting religious text without further comment doesn't actually demonstrate anything at all, except that your religious book exists.

 

[McBell]

God is the Greatest, God is the Greatest, i testify that there is no god or deity but God, all praise and glory belongs to God, the Most Glorious, the Most Merciful!
-------

Preaching is not allowed on this forum

Atheism is just a negative belief that turns out to be false.

Atheism is the lack of belief in deity

Science has nothing to do with truth and reality, it is a false construction of reality. The whole thing is based on illusion. It has nothing to do with Reality.

You have mixed up science with your beliefs.

How to step out of the illusion and become aware of the only thing that is not an illusion but rather an Absolute aka God aka The Truth ?

Again, preaching is not allowed on this forum.

That's something you need to figure out for yourself Angie

Gonna have to.
Cause it is not like you are going to offer up anything with substance.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hey hey hey, TLK! Whaddaya say?
(Wow, that rhymes.)
Is that original enough for ya?

You could say that, but it would indicate a disappointing lack of originality on your part.

Lol.
I’m not so interested in being original, as I am in learning what is the truth about life and all the different aspects of it.

True…

I’m glad you agree that natural processes have no thinking ability. Keep that in mind…

…but the ability to act doesn't require thinking….

Cause and effect requires no intelligent agent.

That’s not what I was talking about, though; I was talking about the first of these elegantly structured molecular machines in the cell. And built to replicate! It is “wondrously impressive.”

we can say that sexual reproduction does carry a distinct advantage - the introduction of new genetic material leads to diversity among offspring.

Remember what you said earlier, that it’s “true” that natural processes can’t think?
But now, are you claiming that evolution had the foresight to drastically overhaul asexuality, with its energy-conserving process providing more offspring to an energy-consuming process, to convey a genetic advantage?

Foresight… that’s thinking.
Come on.

A bush, like a tree, starts from a single seed.
Your article simply states that evolution is actually more complex than scientists thought so.

The more organisms that are being discovered, especially with the Cambrian biota, the more there seem to be branches w/o any attachment to the trunk.

And yes, more discoveries are making it more complex - “evolution of the gaps”. That takes a lot of faith.

That's the way you see it. And if the way you see it is correct, it would mean that we are, quite literally, the most important things in this universe.
Quite flattering - but not especially convincing.

Yes, I would agree on humans being important.
Now I understand you won’t accept this, but doesn’t the Bible indicate that, when it says God’s Firstborn, Jesus, gave his life “as a ransom” for mankind? (Matthew 20:28) That does make us kind of special.

It seems you’re an amiable person; I appreciate that.

Have a good day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is part of the atheist manifesto

No.
Many theists, in fact the majority of theists, have no problem at all with evolution.
That evolution is somehow connected to atheism, is a lie that is spread by fundamentalists.

Also, explain why an evolutionary biologist, viz. Richard Dawkins, is at the head of so-called militant atheism (I strongly condemn this label, because it distracts from what atheism really is, an above-all rational, hence good enterprise).

Correlation does not imply causation.
Apparantly you aren't aware of the many world renown evolutionary biologists that are christians.

There's also guys like Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchins, etc etc etc who are just as "leading" as Dawkins (if not more) in this so-called "militant atheism", yet none of them are biologists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To those who deigned to reply to my comments, believers and nonbelievers ...
I remain unconvinced that the problem of irreducible complexity has been solved or even addressed in a does-it-justice manner. I wish we had an expert on board, who could clear up the matter in a way satisfactory to all parties. I have a basic, high-school level knowledge of biology and one particular memory file intrigues me - grainy, white page, a beaker, and mention something called a primordial soup.[/I]

IMO, it doesn't even need solving as at its root it is nothing more or less then an argument from ignorance.

It can be summarized in the following statement:

"I don't know how to reduce this thing, so therefor it can't be"


As I always say: logical fallacies do not require refutation. They only require being pointed out.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I’m glad you agree that natural processes have no thinking ability. Keep that in mind…

That’s not what I was talking about, though; I was talking about the first of these elegantly structured molecular machines in the cell. And built to replicate! It is “wondrously impressive.”

Have you actually seen the first of these elegantly structured molecular machines, or are you looking only at the current ones?

Remember what you said earlier, that it’s “true” that natural processes can’t think?
But now, are you claiming that evolution had the foresight to drastically overhaul asexuality, with its energy-conserving process providing more offspring to an energy-consuming process, to convey a genetic advantage?

Foresight… that’s thinking.
Come on.

Given that you were disingenuous enough to deliberately omit the rest of my post, your attempt to twist my words here comes across as dishonest and ineffective, and your previous claim to be seeking "truth" can be dismissed. Nothing can be gained from a scientific discussion with you, so let's talk religion:

The more organisms that are being discovered, especially with the Cambrian biota, the more there seem to be branches w/o any attachment to the trunk.

And yes, more discoveries are making it more complex - “evolution of the gaps”. That takes a lot of faith.

What's wrong with having faith?

Yes, I would agree on humans being important.
Now I understand you won’t accept this, but doesn’t the Bible indicate that, when it says God’s Firstborn, Jesus, gave his life “as a ransom” for mankind? (Matthew 20:28) That does make us kind of special.

So... having already decided that humans are the most important thing in creation (unsurprising, being one yourself), you've embraced a religious line of thought which supports that belief, precisely because it supports that belief.

That's called "confirmation bias."

It seems you’re an amiable person; I appreciate that.

Have a good day.

It seems you mistook my amiable nature as something you could exploit.

 

[Agent Smith]

IMO, it doesn't even need solving as at its root it is nothing more or less then an argument from ignorance.

It can be summarized in the following statement:

"I don't know how to reduce this thing, so therefor it can't be"


As I always say: logical fallacies do not require refutation. They only require being pointed out.

A superb observation.

 

[Agent Smith]

No.
Many theists, in fact the majority of theists, have no problem at all with evolution.
That evolution is somehow connected to atheism, is a lie that is spread by fundamentalists.



Correlation does not imply causation.
Apparantly you aren't aware of the many world renown evolutionary biologists that are christians.

There's also guys like Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchins, etc etc etc who are just as "leading" as Dawkins (if not more) in this so-called "militant atheism", yet none of them are biologists.

Indeed, how true!

 

[Agent Smith]

Cogito, we're missing some crucial ideas in the debate. Perhaps too early in the discussion to mention this ... 19 pages on.

 

[YoursTrue]

Explain?

Instinct, the life supporting it's next generation is keeping itself alive thru the generations.

Every life that lived during adam/eve...cain and able...... noah...etc... are here NOW, alive and in the flesh. When you understand the light, the spirit, the unveiling is available.

OK, the descriptions have been unequal and yet similar, since the creation of the 'word'

The step's recorded biologically.

No, the environment can cause altercations. The life wants to survive just by being in process. ie.... the light.

The light? -- and the life wants to survive? Aren't you attributing anthropomorphic qualities to vegetation? I know that sunlight certainly helps the growth of much vegetation, but to say the life wants to survive? How is this scientifically researched, please.

 

[YoursTrue]

To those who deigned to reply to my comments, believers and nonbelievers ...
I remain unconvinced that the problem of irreducible complexity has been solved or even addressed in a does-it-justice manner. I wish we had an expert on board, who could clear up the matter in a way satisfactory to all parties. I have a basic, high-school level knowledge of biology and one particular memory file intrigues me - grainy, white page, a beaker, and mention something called a primordial soup.[/I]

I find it difficult to imagine that prokaryotes emerged as the first lifeform as said by some. I mean by evolution. Before I continue, do you believe prokaryotes were the first lifeforms on the earth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The light? -- and the life wants to survive? Aren't you attributing anthropomorphic qualities to vegetation? I know that sunlight certainly helps the growth of much vegetation, but to say the life wants to survive? How is this scientifically researched, please.

No, but there is a natural drive to survive and reproduce. The organisms without such a drive very quickly go extinct. Think about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find it difficult to imagine that prokaryotes emerged as the first lifeform as said by some. I mean by evolution. Before I continue, do you believe prokaryotes were the first lifeforms on the earth?

That depends upon how one defines "prokaryotes". I would say that the earliest of life would not qualify as being prokaryotes since it would have been too simple even for that. Prokaryotes are the simplest life forms that exist today. That is due to competition. If an organism cannot compete with others it will quickly go extinct. The very first life would have only had have the ability to reproduce somewhat reliably. It would not need to have a well defined cell wall. A natural cell wall would have been "good enough". It would not need to split into exactly two. The original RNA may have had several copies before the cell split. It would not have been until there was life everywhere that competition would have made efficiency necessary to survive. Once again, at the very start of life there was no competition.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, but there is a natural drive to survive and reproduce. The organisms without such a drive very quickly go extinct. Think about it.

I'm thinkin', but do you have at least a link I can look at to support the idea that "organisms without such a drive very quickly go extinct?" At that point, prokaryotes -- have or not have such a drive, what do you think? Besides, I see that prokaryotes are really complex organisms. But let's settle on one subject -- that of which organisms without such a drive, and by drive I think you mean a need to live(?) very quickly go extinct?

 

[YoursTrue]

That depends upon how one defines "prokaryotes". I would say that the earliest of life would not qualify as being prokaryotes since it would have been too simple even for that. Prokaryotes are the simplest life forms that exist today. That is due to competition. If an organism cannot compete with others it will quickly go extinct. The very first life would have only had have the ability to reproduce somewhat reliably. It would not need to have a well defined cell wall. A natural cell wall would have been "good enough". It would not need to split into exactly two. The original RNA may have had several copies before the cell split. It would not have been until there was life everywhere that competition would have made efficiency necessary to survive. Once again, at the very start of life there was no competition.

From what I have read, it appears that many say prokaryotes are the first living organism. Maybe I'm wrong and scientists don't say that. You say they are too simple? They seem pretty complex to me. But then I'm not a biological scientist or something like that -- only looking at what is said. And how prokaryotes are depicted.

 

[YoursTrue]

That depends upon how one defines "prokaryotes". I would say that the earliest of life would not qualify as being prokaryotes since it would have been too simple even for that. Prokaryotes are the simplest life forms that exist today. That is due to competition. If an organism cannot compete with others it will quickly go extinct. The very first life would have only had have the ability to reproduce somewhat reliably. It would not need to have a well defined cell wall. A natural cell wall would have been "good enough". It would not need to split into exactly two. The original RNA may have had several copies before the cell split. It would not have been until there was life everywhere that competition would have made efficiency necessary to survive. Once again, at the very start of life there was no competition.

start of life. what was it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm thinkin', but do you have at least a link I can look at to support the idea that "organisms without such a drive very quickly go extinct?" At that point, prokaryotes -- have or not have such a drive, what do you think? Besides, I see that prokaryotes are really complex organisms. But let's settle on one subject -- that of which organisms without such a drive, and by drive I think you mean a need to live(?) very quickly go extinct?

It is rather obvious that if an organism does not reproduce that it will go extinct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

start of life. what was it?

That would be abiogenesis. As to the details, we do not know all off those yet. We may never know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From what I have read, it appears that many say prokaryotes are the first living organism. Maybe I'm wrong and scientists don't say that. You say they are too simple? They seem pretty complex to me. But then I'm not a biological scientist or something like that -- only looking at what is said. And how prokaryotes are depicted.

Some do, some just say "first life". Modern prokaryotes are very complex. But then they have been evolving for 3.8 billion years. If complexity helps, and it often does, then it will be added to the genome. The first life had no need for complexity.


Do you not understand that there is a lot of competition going on today?