What's the Deal with Evolution?

[Wildswanderer]

That sounds typically human. Few animals behave this way.

Lol, you've never had animals have you?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why would "being less evolved" involve less claim to moral consideration? Isn't that sort of human, tribal morality accountable for our history of endless conflict and exploitation?

This isn't "philosophy

Darwin got it. You obviously don't.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

 

[Wildswanderer]

What do you think animal behavior entails? You look down on animals. You consider their behavior wrong.
Is human behavior any better? I'd say it's worse. Animals do what's needful. It's only humans who behave immorally.

Why do you think our present, human behavior is non-animal?

Have you ever raised animals? They are inherently selfish... There's always a pecking order. There's no compassion for the weak.

Jesus said we should help those less fortunate than ourselves. That's decent human behavior.
Of course there's a lot more to it than that but that's just one example.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I was replying to someone who said we should not enslave animals. Context is important.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What do you think is the most crucial missing piece and explain how it is a problem for evolution theory.

There thosands of missing parts. How can a butterfly develop gps to get it to a warmer climate without the whole species dying in the process?
How can a species develop camouflage without going extinct because of predation before that ever happens?
Michael Denton:“Neither of the two fundamental axioms” of neo Darwinism,“…continuity of nature…linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell” and “adaptive design…from a blind random process have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859.”

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There thosands of missing parts. How can a butterfly develop gps to get it to a warmer climate without the whole species dying in the process?
How can a species develop camouflage without going extinct because of predation before that ever happens?
Michael Denton:“Neither of the two fundamental axioms” of neo Darwinism,“…continuity of nature…linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell” and “adaptive design…from a blind random process have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859.”

You didn't actually answer the question.
Engaging in fallacious argument from incredulity, does not answer the question.

Care to try again?

 

[Wildswanderer]

You didn't actually answer the question.
Engaging in fallacious argument from incredulity, does not answer the question.

Care to try again?

I did answer. Sorry you didn't like my answer.

 

[Windwalker]

No, that’s not what the Scripture is saying!

Yes it is.

Here, look at Hebrews 11:1 from BibleHub:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see..
Do you see all those translations calling faith a “conviction”, and “proof”?

I see faith is the "substance," "assurance", "reality", "confidence", "surety", etc. I agree with all of that. When we lack physical evidence, we have only what our hearts tell us, what we inuit with the heart, not see with the eyes. That's what all the translations are saying. What our heart tells us, through the eyes of faith, is the substance of things hoped for.

We "know" in our hearts, what the eyes has no evidence to trust in to calm the anxious mind. That is what a religious faith is. The entire chapter gives example after example of that in action, not seeing, yet trusting not the eyes, but resting in the heart through faith. That is the "assurance", and it is found not outside of yourself, but within your heart. That's the whole chapter.

That doesn’t come from a ‘feeling’. Neither does “evidence.”

Do you believe faith is a matter of reason and logic and evidences, or is a matter of the heart? Is faith head-centered, or heart-centered?

See Romans 1:20....views denying these things, are just “inexcusable.”

Not sure what this passage has to do with Hebrews 11:1? Romans 1:20 is actually saying, even if they don't have faith, reason alone should be able to convince even the unfaithful that God exists, because just look at the fact of creation? He is making the case that even without faith, they are without excuse because their own eyes should convince them of the reality of God. But that's not faith. That's just reason anyone, the whole world has and can be judged by, according to Paul's logic there in that verse.

Question: Today we know gravity keeps the Earth in a steady orbit of the Sun as Newton discovered, but how do you think it got into that precise orbit?

Actually, it's held in place by a combination of gravitational and centrifugal forces. Were the earth not in motion in an orbit around the sun, it would get sucked right into it and burned up. How it got into that orbit, is a matter that physics can, and does explain correctly. It took time for things to settle down, and that which was in highly elliptical orbits in the early solar system got destroyed. Those that weren't survived. It's that simple actually.

Think of it like blasting a field with shotgun pellets everywhere. Any animal standing out in the open would be killed. But those protected behind trees and rocks would survive. A bad orbit would get you killed, a good orbit would protect you. It's a case of probabilities. That said however, I do believe God created everything. And apparently, based upon the evidence we can clearly see, this is how.

(Have you ever seen videos describing the materialistic explanation of how the Earth formed? It’s completely laughable!)

Yes, and it's true based upon everything we know about how the natural world works. We aren't completely in the dark about nature. Now, while I accept that the laws of physics is responsible for how the earth was formed, I still see that as an act of God. But you don't. Why? What is the difference between us? Faith does not deny evidence. It never, ever should. "Faith tells me I can step off a cliff and not fall", is a claim of foolish ignorance, not faith at all.

What evidence, do you think, existed in Paul’s day when he wrote Romans?

When Paul wrote Romans, he was operating off the assumptions of the world of his day about the natural world, and therefore, as a human, he reflected the views of that pre-scientific, premodern world. If he were to write today, he would doubtless be drawing off a scientific understanding of nature as well. I seriously doubt he would be a science-denier, and call that faith.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why? If I'm an animal why should I pretend otherwise?

You are an animal.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I did answer. Sorry you didn't like my answer.

You don't answer. You respond. The response are more claims, straw men, off point, ridiculous, etc. Just not answers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I suspect you have never even looked into a creation model of origins.

I doubt you really know what that means. That is what I see here. You claim to know so much, but you avoid enlightening us like it was lethal to you.

If you know these things and can support your claims, then you should have no difficulty elaborating on them. Instead you make claims, sometimes ridiculous claims, don't answer questions, use obvious straw man arguments, and then parade about like you won something.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol, you've never had animals have you?

See. There is no answer in your post. This is targeting the poster you are responding to. It is evidence about you, but does nothing to define and illustrate the claims about science that you have made.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For many years I have asked for a creationist to point me in the direction of The Theory of Creation, never yet got a satisfactory response, anyone want to help me now?

Even I cannot help you on that one. There is belief in creation, but no formalized theory of creation. There cannot be. It isn't science and there is no explanation that answers questions beyond the spiritual.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why? If I'm an animal why should I pretend otherwise?

I have seen a lot of pretend so far, but the one thing you do not have to pretend about is the fact that humans are animals. Created that way or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you ever raised animals? They are inherently selfish... There's always a pecking order. There's no compassion for the weak.

Jesus said we should help those less fortunate than ourselves. That's decent human behavior.
Of course there's a lot more to it than that but that's just one example.

We have been trying to help you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh I can live as a Hunter gatherer. PEOPLE did that too you know, and still do. But if I'm an ape why should I care about the rest of the tribe anyway? If I'm the biggest and meanest I get to be boss. That might mean I have to kill a few other apes to get the point across, but hey I'm just an animal right? The columbine shooters understood that philosophy of evolution... and so did Darwin. He was ok with killing aboriginals because they were supposed to be less evolved.

There we go. You clearly do not understand biological fitness and think it means might makes right. In fact, you operate here under the might makes right paradigm. You don't know anything about the biology and social behavior of apes including humans. Then you use fallacies to attack a theory that has nothing to do with telling people to kill other people.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is often the unknown we fear. And Hanlon's Razor certainly applies to most of the candidates here, surely it does for @Wildswanderer. Add peak Dunning-Kruger into the mix and you have analysed their behaviour pretty well.
But that doesn't explain the behaviour of the pro evolution side. It takes two to tango and all of us could have ignored him (after explaining why he is off-topic). Why do we let us get trolled every time? (I think I did pretty well in this thread but I let my myself be dragged into a "conversation" with @Hockeycowboy on an other thread again.) We should be above that.

I was responding here again and was reminded of our brief discussion. It is easy to get sucked in. But it is like having an argument with a plant. You can scream all the logic, reason and evidence at it that you can and the plant will just sit there being a plant.

Thanks for your post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did answer. Sorry you didn't like my answer.

You did not.

I asked for a specific example, your best example, and I also asked you to unpack how that is supposedly a problem for the theory.

You didn't do that.

Instead, what you said was "I don't understand how this thing here can occur" as if that is somehow evidence that it didn't occur.

 

[Wildswanderer]

There we go. You clearly do not understand biological fitness and think it means might makes right. In fact, you operate here under the might makes right paradigm. You don't know anything about the biology and social behavior of apes including humans. Then you use fallacies to attack a theory that has nothing to do with telling people to kill other people.

I know nothing about human behavior?
That's hilarious! How old are you, twelve or thirteen?

 

[ratiocinator]

Blah, blah, blah, if you have nothing to add, don't bother posting.

Matthew 7:5.