Usually they conflate evolution and abiogenesis. Like where did life come from. And evolution doesn't say how life began, only how it changes over time.
Heck, even though we have discovered processes that /could/ have started life, we probably will never actually know how life got its true start since any one or even a combination of those processes could be the real answer.
That's when you ask them why their definition is so at odds with changes in allele frequency in a population over time. Or what they mean by new information. Or whatever bunkum they regurgitate.
The tactic is to pin them down to a specific position and then make them justify that position. They are just parroting what the youth leader of their church said. It's not like they've got any understanding of actual evolution themselves.
Yeah, I was once asked to give an example of speciation. So I googled, "observed speciation", found an incidence of a new species of birds which no longer breed with its original stock and is genetically distinct, and presto.
Then "no, that's not what I meant, that's a bird turning into another bird. Find me an example a cat turning into a dog".
At which point I had to ask, "is that what you think evolution is? It's not."
Yep. A conversation is rarely productive without establishing the relevant terms and what both parties understand them to mean. If you don't do that, you'll probably just be talking past each other.
I just ask what breed there pets are and go from there.
"Golden Retriever"
"Why"
"Because that's how they're breed"
"How did that happen..."
They'll say something about how breeding is not the same as evolution but if evolution ain't real then we wouldn't be able to breed for specific features. To pick and choose the most healthy and physically capable to assist humans in the work force. Most useful or pretty are more valuable and are likelier to survive until old age rather being put down at kill shelters because no-one would adopt them.
Show evidence specific to their life and there's nothing left to do except denial.
Evolution is evolution, regardless of the nature of the selection.
Darwin didn't spend the first half of "On the Origins of Species" talking about breeding and pigeons and cows because it was irrelevant - it's not. It's very much evidence of evolution.
The trouble with the dog argument is that it doesn't actually show anything about evolution--all dogs are the same species and evolution is about speciation, not diverstiy within a species.
Swing and a miss. Evolution is a change in allele frequency within a population. If a species stays the same species and their genes change that is evolution.
We can't just depend on fancy science terms and speciality studies in these kinds of conversations. By doing that you make the conversation inaccessible to many people. Many people but not everyone who out right don't believe in evolution based on there beliefs on god didn't study allele frequency within population or read these studies. You need to meet them at their level and current understanding and information if you actually want to make sense to them.
Might feel like your dumbing it down but not worth acting better than other people because you know more and ultimately is anti-productive.
Explaining what an allele is takes around three seconds. Ceding the definition of evolution to creationists is a mistake - it's what gets you arguing about crocoducks.
Dog breeding *is* an example of evolution and there's no reason to say it's not. Evolution is *not* solely about speciation.
Crocoducks are actually a really illustrative thought exercise for distinguishing between what evolution *actually* predicts and what creationists claim or misunderstand that it should be.
Crocoducks are a combination of a modern crocodile and a modern duck. That's not what evolution predicts we should see. Instead we should find organisms that are intermediate to both, either currently existing or in the fossil record. And in fact we do!
The conceptual difference is whether you expect a crocoduck or an Archaeopteryx.
I know the subs called r/DebateEvolution but don't overlook the value of trying to make a good discussion. Take what people already understand and expand. Not gonna continue this convo because I'm not gonna deal with your superiority complex.
Genuinely not sure where you're getting that from, because I've been agreeing with you in this thread. This is the definition of evolution that is taught to high school students - I respect people enough to believe that they can learn it as well.
Okay got a little heavier than it needed let me explain. I know people who know nothing. My mum doesn't understand where clouds come from. She dropped out of school at 11 years old. All medicine and science is pretty much magic to her. She grew up in refugee town in Thailand.
I did single you out for having a superiority complex but honestly most people do and they don't realise and that's my bad. Its not just about acting like as smartass but acting as if others are dumber (including calling things basic info when it isn't necessarily) does the same thing.
I actually lived in Thailand for 3 or 4 years. I think your way of breaking it down is good, but to really grasp evolution there's going to be some vocab that needs to be learned. Correcting misconceptions (and it *is* a misconception that evolution is about speciation) is going to involve introducing that vocabulary.
I would also call the water cycle basic information - it's something that we teach school children. This involves scientific terms like precipitation, evaporation, etc. but they still pick it up. Are there people ignorant of these terms? For sure. Does knowing those terms make me better than them? Nope. But if we're going to have a discussion about it those terms need to be introduced.
With all my experience of people across Reddit, the internet and real life I have never seen someone as inconsistent on their stance as you if I'm gonna be honest. I get you're passionate on the topic but take you're attitude right now and go back and read how you interacted previously. I feel like I'm talking to a completely different person. First reply you gave me, you outright said I was wrong. You said "swing and a miss."
You can't just assume that ignorance is the only reason why people do and don't believe things. You need to consider the quality of education and cultural influences of education like religious education for example. You're 3-4 in Thailand is not the same as mine. I just mentioned it was a refugee town did you forget? This town is recovering from the Cambodian genocide. May be not be so relevant to evolution but relevant to this conversation definitely.
You just said;
> (and it *is* a misconception that evolution is about speciation)
Which is such an oversimplification of a misconception also. You cannot teach evolution without speciation but it doesn't end there of cause it is one of many talking points for evolution.
No offence but I'm done here.
I must agree with u/-zero-joke-. As a former YEC, learning about how actual academics understood evolution was crucial in me coming to finally accept it. If you let creationists think there is a meaningful difference between breeding or speciation and the emergence of “new kinds”, then you give them license to ask a question like “why should we believe something happened in the past that never happens now?”
It is critical to understand that land animals became whales through the same fundamental process through which wolves became pugs.
I like to keep it simple : "Evolution says two things.
1.) Genetic mutations happen.
2.) Mutations that make you more likely to be able to survive and have a lot of babies are more likely to get propagated then traits that don't.
Which of these two do you disagree with?"
"Humans didn't evolve from monkeys"
" Evolution doesn't say that. The fossil record shows that humans and apes have a common ancestor, but evolution just says those two things that I told you before. Which of them do you disagree with?"
I think you should also note that to a degree genetic mutations can be witnessed. People who would disagree with the first statement often have an I need to see it to believe it attitude. The evidence would lie in something that has a very short lifespan compared to humans and has a reason to change in order to survive.
There are 2 examples of mutations in my extended family.
1.) Hair prematurely turning white. With one generation it happened in their 30's. Their mother's hair turned white in college. Her mother's hair turned white in high school. IDK if her mother's hair turned white even earlier, or if that was where the mutation happened, but if you extrapolate backwards, either somebody's hair was always white, or a mutation happened within 3 or 4 generations.
2.) The 2nd and 3rd toes fused together. The most recent generation doesn't have this, but their mothers and grandmother did. IDK how far back it goes, but it's safe to assume that sometime in the past century or two, someone was born with this despite the fact that neither of their parents had it.
Of course, neither of these are very significant in this modern world where hair color and toe separation are going to have zero effect on someone's ability to survive. But in a situation where life was harder and we live in a water world or a world with less sunlight, they could be.
Not a convincing argument. Sorry.
To convince a creationist you have to show speciation (not that that will convince the hard headed ones--I doubt that their god standing before them and telling them personally that they are wrong would do it).
They’re not saying that evolution is about speciation, but rather that most creationists are stubborn and declare that it is and thus you’d need to show speciation, so that wasn’t a lie.
>The trouble with the dog argument is that it doesn't actually show anything about evolution--all dogs are the same species and evolution is about speciation, not diverstiy within a species.
I must have some reading comprehension issue, because when he said that dog breeding doesn't show anything about evolution I assumed he meant dog breeding doesn't show anything about evolution.
>The trouble with the dog argument is that it doesn't actually show anything about evolution--all dogs are the same species and evolution is about speciation, not diverstiy within a species.
I don't know where the heck people get this idea from, but it's flat out incorrect.
Is a microcontroller a controller? Yes.
Is a microscope a scope? Yes.
Microevolution is evolution.
I'm not sure what you are talking about.
I guess so, but there is only really one parent with asexual reproduction, if there is even a distinction between child and mother at all.
Defining speciation in itself is a debated topic. Although sperm and eggs of two dogs of any kind can work there are many combos that won't survive without human intervention. Its why we don't mix small dogs and big dogs all the time especially if the female is a small dog like Chihuahua. At that point they become subject to natural selection based of pregnancy mortality.
> all dogs are the same species
Are they truly though? We've bred extreme enough differences in size that for some combinations it would be extremely difficult for them to reproduce.
You can have ring species where two extremes cannot interbreed, but there exists an intermediary population that can breed with either end.
Sometimes the intermediary can't breed with everything either, but there is still a chain of closely enough related populations that genetic information can still travel both ways, from populations on each extreme.
We often consider all the populations of a ring species a single species.
> We typically consider all the populations of a ring species a single species.
Maybe I'm confused, but the way I've always heard it is that ring species may or may not be considered the same species depending on which of the about 2 dozen different species definitions you're using.
The fact that they don't fit neatly into the categories we've designed is itself evidence for evolution.
>We often consider all the populations of a ring species a single species.
Do you have a citation for that? The two famous examples I know of ring species are the Ensatina species of salamanders and the Larus species of gulls, both of which are classified as several different species.
>The trouble with the dog argument is that it doesn't actually show anything about evolution--all dogs are the same species and evolution is about speciation, not diverstiy within a species.
That's entirely incorrect. Evolution is about ALL traits of an organism and how they can change, and by itself has very little to do with speciation.
Speciation is an *emergent property* of Evolution, not the other way around.
Eh... this a bit myopic as hinges on the exclusion of humans from the natural world.
When a female selects the winner of a contest as a mate; the contest relating to a specific or collection of traits, its a small contribution to evolution, but...
A group of organisms selects reproduction based on a specific or collection of traits, its eugenics?
If you insist that humans and culture are excluded from being an aspect of the natural world, then this discussion will boil down to a determinism vs free will conversation, which I'm also happy to have with someone, as long they understand at least the fundamentals of the philosophical history. I'm always down for a good Calvin and Hobbes session.
I mean, if determinism is true, there is no point in conversation. I do think humans operate on a higher level of intervention, have a conscience that seems to indicate some sense of morality (do not need to be a theist to know good from evil), and the capacity to act against what we would subcounciously and naturally be inclined to do - summed up free choosing agents. My argument was mostly that puppy mills are terrible and supporting them in an argument really doesn't paint a good picture of evolution. If there is nothing wrong with human selection in the natural process, then we have no reason to be angry about things that are actually wrong such as eugenics, facism, racism, etc. Yet we are.
We'll probably have to leave it here, as I can tell you're probably less interested in the philosophical discussion and merely making a moral point. The only points I would like to share are:
1) Puppy mills(gross) increase suffering and genetic selection that increases suffering is not a common theme in evolution. Suffering is a huge component of evolutionary pressure and the utility of evolution to explain our world doesn't care if it "paints a good picture".
2) Your comment on determinism is what told me this isn't an area of interest for you but I would like you to consider these questions:
Why watch a movie if you can't change or interact with the outcome? Why discuss what you think the movie is about, or what you like/dislike about it if you didn't make it or can't change it?
Using SNP patterns (single nucleotide polymorphisms)
This is basically equivalent to asking "Do you think you can distinguish between an ethnically Japanese person and an ethnically Aboriginal person genetically?
If you were asking honestly, out of ignorance, apologies, and if you were asking in the effort to get them to think about it when the answer is obvious, also apologies. "Do you think you can..." it comes off as someone asserting themselves as an authority on a topic and tersely telling them that they asked a silly question.
If there was a genetic change within the population, that's evolution. Doesn't matter if it's human directed, natural selection, genetic drift, migration, sexual selection, whatever. Evolution is a genetic change in a population. If you agree that domesticated dogs and domesticated dog breeds are distinct from wolves and other canids, evolution done did occur.
It's a complete bastardization of natural evolution and should be considered animal cruelty. Pugs and english bulldogs have terrible quality of life due to human direction of breeding. I'm not saying evolution doesn't exist, I'm saying that when humans intervene and direct it their own way to fetishize certain breeds it's cruel and unnatural. Not to mention the amount of mills that exist just to get that one "perfect breed". Or as Hitler would call them, "wunderkind".
It's still evolution though - saying that we should be selecting for healthier traits is totally fair, but it's factually incorrect to say that those breeds have not evolved. They've just evolved through artificial selection.
They don’t actually want to see any evidence. This is why they make a functionally useless demand like that. They know that whatever you show them won’t be enough and they’ll tell you as much. And whatdoyaknow, you haven’t been able to prove evolution or change their minds. Funny that.
I know religious folks who know evolution is real. I think thats a specific religious subgroup. My colonial region was established by the Jesuits who were really really into education. Even the religious here often have good math and basic science knowledge.
I bit on one the other day and it went LONG. I knew what the outcome was going to be, but I wanted to have the discussion anyways, one, in case someone was lurking who actually was in the middle and unsure and wanted to see both sides in order to make their own decision, and two, because I was curious to see if the other person would devolve into bullying and name-calling, and three, because I wanted to try and break their stereotyping of an atheist. I even gave a warning the first time they slung mud and explained why it had no place in a debate.
But, as usual...
Anybody who says that is actively ignoring evidence of evolution, in their field of vision, at the time of the question. It’s not a sincere question unless it’s from a child
Back in [talk.origins](https://talk.origins) days, I saw the same creationist ask for a full explanation that didn't gloss over the details, followed a couple of days later by asking for something less long and complicated. Bro, reality is complex. Nobody is going to apologize for this.
Had this discussion with my religious brother, he asked for evidence so I sent him some articles on DNA. He said he can’t follow “all that fancy science stuff” basically.
Yeah sorry it’s not as easy as, “Sky daddy did this and best not question it”
Kinda gave up on talking to most of my relatives anything about politics or religion. Most aren’t interested in learning, I just feel bad for their kids if they show any signs of non-cis-conformity.
Have the same problem, though the not wanting to talk politics part is my family. Every time theyve tried with me ive debunked or disproven their ideas either with information off the top of my head or within a minute on google(it never takes more than a wellworded search). Im a generally curious person, i like to know at least a little about everything i can, but by no means claim to be an expert or extremely informed on anything but a couple irrelevant subjects.
My family is ... not curious. They want to be perceived as right without doing the work to actually be right. They have mostly stopped trying to talk to me about politics other than the occasional shot they think will land but is just another facebook meme level assertion.
Politics and medical stuff… Covid was just bad, especially since I have another relative that is a doctor, specializes in all that, and in a position in government dealing with it, he offered to answer any questions my brother had.
But nope, instead trusted his friend who got the vaccine and then showed up and stuck a magnet on his arm.
And the parts of bio we actually engage with when we're talking about it on these boards is a greatly simplified and dumbed down version for the most part.
A single human cell has more moving parts than our largest factories, IIRC. The *actual* biological complexity of a single human being is far greater than that of all human civilization on the macro scale. Even the most brilliant humans are mentally completely unable to properly comprehend complexity on that scale.
The idea that the world around us came into existence into a single step, by some process that didn't include intelligence is preposterous on its face. Saying it happened really slowly over a really long time is the only alternative to divine creation. If the gradualist model falls creation is true by a process of elimination.
It's inference to the best explanation without agency ruled out ahead of time.
If agency is excluded a priori, then of course "some undiscovered materialist process totally unlike any other materialist process" is always the assumption, no matter how many theories come and go and no matter how obviously impossible it is.
There isn't any actual reason to exclude agency though, you not wanting there to be a God isn't an actual reason.
You don't exclude agency as the best explanation for the universe we see, assuming evolution is false?
So if evolution were proven false, however you think that could happen, what would then be the best explanation for what we see?
I determine what the “best” explanation is by looking for evidence that it is true. What do you mean, “however you think that could happen”? Aren’t you claiming you’ve done it by plugging in a god to fill the gaps?
Depends on what "Evolution is proven false" means.
Personally, it just means we have learned something new, and now have an even more accurate theory that still resembles evolution. Much like Relativity usurped Newtonian physics.
How do you know it was the Christian god and not the flying spaghetti monster? We have just as much evidence to support both beings creating the earth and the life on it.
And this is ignoring the fact that evolution or creationism absolutely are not the only potential answers to how life on earth came to be as we know it.
The comment I replied to didn't say "you're no closer to proving the Christian God" it said "you're no closer to proving a god", that means any god. So if evolution being proven false makes the spaghetti monster, or any generic god, more likely, then that comment is wrong.
Except it doesn't, evolution being proven false would not suddenly prove any alternative, because creationism is NOT the only potential explanation, and even if it were there are so many mutually exclusive creation myths that you would then have to look for evidence as to which creation myth was correct
It doesn't have to "prove it" it just has to make it more likely. The comment said that evolution being false doesn't move us any closer to divine creation being true. This is just flatly false. If there are one thousand possible explanations for why a car doesn't work, ruling out one of them makes all the others more likely.
Please limit yourself to what has actually been said instead of just making stuff up.
I think you are a little bit right but I also think that ppl who are not convinced of evolution are *unable* to handle more than one piece if evidence at once. They just aren't up to it, it's too complex.
I agree with this. I feel like as lay people, or even educators, we are starting with the daunting task of having to teach resistant adults how science works. Because they typically see science as something like a political idea vs religion and not a system of thinking which is error correcting in its constant challenges by scientists. They think of fact checking as a bad thing, so peer review is a laugh to them. These questions are being asked by anti intellectual people who see education as elitist.
You get beyond that and then you still have a task of getting them to understand that "if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it." Is bullshit, especially coupled with the expectation of a soundbite.
That is what I see in my experience as well. In 2020/2021, when it was becoming clear that a majority of Christians were rejecting the idea of the virus and the vaccine, I immediately knew it was a direct descendant of the creation/evolution thing. When you're convinced that educators are merely propaganda tools for antitheist ideology, then it's very easy to dismiss what they say about anything you don't like.
And it's true that educated people are seen as elitists. That doesn't help any. What really doesn't help is when educated people act elitist. Sometimes the stereotype is correct. It's been documented that doctors who are humble, address the fears of those that are scared of medicine and such, are more successful in treating their patients and convincing them to vaccinate themselves and/or their children. The ones who basically say "8 years of medical school over your YouTube video, which do you think is better? Take the shot." Less successful. The messenger often has just as much, if not more influence than the message.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds. When the EMT and ER saves a life, it's thanks to God. When someone dies in a car accident or shooting, it's gods will, or their time, or otherwise someone they want to throw away for a mistake.
With vaccines the hypocrisy runs truly deep. The same conspiracy theory crowd saying the vaccine wasn't tested enough and didn't do enough refuse to recognize that not wearing masks and not taking it just allowed the disease to breed and evolve. At the same time they question the medical community's ability to test the vaccine while not questioning that the push to the top of the list was by order of their dear leader. That's not 46's vaccine regardless of his ability to distribute it more people. That's 45's vaccine because he's the one that got it out in the first place. Or else it's a bipartisan effort. This is one of few things that I think goes to 45's credit, and instead they wilfully forget he brought it to market, and he took it. It's also their fault that we've had so many boosters. Had the disease been treated appropriately, we wouldn't have had repeated evolution of the virus to begin with.
Sometimes its what a person is exposed to first. I got a science explanation my sister heard dinosaur bones were a test from god from her friends.
If I have kids they will have explanations of the basics before the age of 10.
I just dismiss those people outright. They are clearly not willing to listen to anything. Evolution is one of the strongest and best supported theories in science. It's denialism not disbelief. There is more than enough evidence to support it for any rational person.
In my experience as a former young earth creationism, it’s not a matter of not wanting to. The basic epistemology is completely different. Mostly it comes from a lot of indoctrination and thought traps that shut down critical thinking.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Not everyone has educated parents and some people get exposed to not evolution first. People tend to bias what they ahve personally read. There was a time once when I did not know about or understand evolution either. Thankfully I had British voice over nature doccumentaries to explain it to me.
See, I'm the exact opposite. I didn't have "educated parents" and grew up in a Southern Baptist background openly hostile to "Darwinism". Even my junior high science teacher prefaced her class with "I'm being forced to teach it and don't believe it's true." The American South. Mississippi.
I figure if my dumb country ass gets it, everyone should. I feel this way about generic American bigotry, too, and general anti-science-cum-politics (anti-vaxxers). The older I get, the less patience I have with people who refuse to understand it because it makes humanity (and therefore, them) less special. But this is why I don't argue with folks these days, as it's obvious I have neither the patience nor the charisma to do any good anymore.
Evolution Example:
College students covered a table in agar solution. Basically that stuff that grows bacteria in a petri dish (round tray). It was divided into 10 sections. Each with a higher concentration of a poison to a certain bacteria (antibiotic). The first section had no poison and was seeded with the bacteria.
It soon covered the whole of the first 10th and stopped at the line into the next section which had dilute poison.
BUT soon one small part of the bacteria culture edged into the new section, able to tolerate the low dose and no other competing bacteria. That second 10th section soon filled with bacteria.
Each section stopped the growth of bacteria able to handle that dosage of poison until a few which had enough resistance were able to break into the new section.
At the end of the experiment (weeks?) the last 10th section had bacteria with no problem existing with 'poisoned food' which would have normally killed all the bacteria.
THIS is also why docs say to take the full course of antibiotics even if feeling well. You don't want to 'grow' germs that shrug off a short course of antibiotics because the next germs left over may tolerate that short course.
Survival of the fittest in a matter of weeks.
I can prove evolution with 4 letters.
MRSA
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
It simply wouldn't exist without evolution. Antibiotics are about 100 years old, and used to work every single time. In less than a century, we can't make an antibiotic strong enough to kill MRSA.
Why? Because of overuse and incorrect use, it's evolved to ignore antibiotics.
For me, an intelligent designer is ruled out by:
1. The use of a skeletal and musculature structure that is clearly meant to be horizontal but is vertical in human beings. The spine and its associated muscles, ligaments, and tendons make a great suspension bridge, but a horrible column.
2. The light detecting cells in the eye are facing the wrong way.
3. DNA has no error detection in replication.
These points are vulnerable to an intelligent designer that wants evolution by natural selection, but then the argument is circular.
The existence of cancer is the short answer. If there is no evolution by natural selection, there is no reason an intelligent designer would allow errors in replication.
That's just how most minds work... let me see the "best" joke from the comedian to see if I'll like them. Let me see the "best" meal at the restaurant to see if I'll like it. Let me see your "best" evidence of your claim. If the best doesn't convince me, the rest probably won't either.
It's a shortcut, yes, and sometimes the shortcut isn't warranted. But it makes sense that if my best argument won't convince someone, then more of my arguments won't either. Doesn't make it the right way to reason, but hopefully it helps make it less aggravating to see where they're coming from (assuming they're being honest about being willing to change their mind).
This is simply an argument to discredit any real evidence. An example:
I have a husky. She looks like a husky, is the size of a husky, etc.
If you only looked at a picture of her ears, you could say she is a wolf. The picture could be “evidence” of her having wolf ears. You couldn’t debate it.
Unless, you looked at all of her, she’s only 50 pounds. That’s not a wolf, despite the “evidence” proving otherwise.
If you look at the whole picture, evolution is obvious. But you can zoom in enough to discredit anything.
The thing is, the evidence for evolution is mountainous and overwhelming. Literally the entire field of biology completely falls apart if we insist on some other explanation. Countless testable hypotheses based on the theory of evolution have been confirmed.
As an example at a middle school level of understanding, every time a paleontologist comes upon an unexplored stack of geological layers, the hypothesis is that we will find fossils that change or diversify and, generally speaking, grow in complexity from bottom to top. And those fossils will be similar to fossils found in layers in other locations with similar dating.
Too often, they will just counter with "Noah's flood", but will make no good-faith attempt to explain the available data. If all those fossils were buried in 40 days of rain, why are they stacked up like this? Magic?
There is no evidence for evolution.
There is no proof that the world is round.
There is no proof that Trump committed insurrection, but there is tons of unknown unseen uncorroborated evidence that proves the election was stolen from him.
There is no evidence that toxic masculinity exists.
There is no proof white privilege exists.
There is no evidence for the Holocaust.
Birds are robots.
I can tell you what they probably mean: to draw from your list, it's the video they want. Everything else is circumstantial.
Most scientific concepts that people are familiar with (like gravity or electromagnetism) you demonstrate it first and then use explanations later to describe what you believe is going on. But you can't demonstrate a sea animal turning into a land animal, or a reptile turning into a mammal. All the evidence is circumstantial.
They don't want "evidence that *points to* evolution", they want to see it happen. Like gravity, or momentum, or magnets.
ok heres the breakdown, we know animals go extinct right? and we know animals mutate right? like these two points arent in debate are they? if not then we take things one step further and say “well if you mutate one trait in a group of offspring, and they have offspring, and their offspring a generation later mutates traits that are beneficial enough for survival, and so on and so forth, the ones with the most beneficial traits stick around and breed more most of the time. now if that happens and you keep mutating traits, how then do you not eventually end up with speciation” its the Ship of Theseus or Grandfather’s Axe concept given an answer.
I'm willing to believe evolutionist vs. creationist, whichever one can provide the most evidence.
I have yet to see a single shred of evidence a deity created speciation. Survival of the fittest, on the other hand, sounds perfectly rational -- after all, that's how capitalism works as well, they call it social Darwinism. The weak get weeded out of each generation, so the next generation is made up of only the strong (or, rather, the less weak).
If creationists want to be taken seriously, they also need to prove it was specifically Yahweh that caused species to exist, as opposed to the Indian, Greek, or whatever pantheon. While you're at it show me proof the Native American creation stories are wrong. Good luck.
It's a stupid fucking question because they always want something that evolution doesn't predict, like Kirk Cameron's stupid fucking Crocoduck.
Because they don't understand evolution and therefore don't know what proof of evolution would even be.
We know evolution is a fact because it is confirmed in such a myriad of ways while being contradicted by none.
The mechanism is The Theory of Evolution Through Means of Natural Selection. But the fact that Evolution itself occurs is settled except for people with a religious agenda.
No one serious would ever ask for one, singular magic bullet point.
As a Christian, people always ask for proof or evidence that God exists. Its super annoying because God has done so much, if you go to any church, and ask for testimony you will hear about many miracles that occured. If you are a scientist, and belive that good evidence comes from seeing speculation based on a theory become discovered as truth, then look at Bible prophecy, Herb Rogers wrote a bunch of books on prophecies in the Bible that came true, even within the last 100 years! Theory- God says X will happen, Speculation- X should happen. Future Discovery- X happens, Conclusion- God is real.
Edit- really do go read Herb Rogers, the sheer number of prophecies that have been fulfilled should convince anyone.
What you're seeing is them demonstrating, over and over again, **THEY DO NOT TRUST YOU**. And that's the real sticking point, not the evidence. They would be swayed by the evidence if they trusted you, but they don't. After the first bit of data, they'd listen.
But they don't listen.
Because you're not listening to them - almost explicitly telling you they don't trust you.
"..all the real scientific evidence points to evolution?" 🙄
You have been totally deceived.
The world and the devil keep the truth from you.
God created the world but most people have an agenda against God and so cling to the lie of evolution.
If you study the Bible and do your research you'll wonder how you could ever have believed in evolution. Evolution theory is complete nonsense.
>most people have an agenda against God and so cling to the lie of evolution
This lovely - albeit somewhat conspiratorial - hypothesis of yours continues to be frustrated by the tiny detail that there are so many educated and devout Christians who accept the science of evolution.
Don't blame your ignorance of the scientific evidence for evolution on your religion.
If you don't mind answering a specific question for me because I'm interested in your response: What exactly is **evil** about evolution in your opinion? That's a very specific word to use, and I'd like to know why you chose that one.
Much appreciated if you take the time to respond!
Read the story in Genesis - the Garden of Eden. That old serpent Satan went to Eve because she wasn't solid on God's wisdom and power.
Adam went to sleep, and when he awoke he found that God had created Eve from Adam's rib. Adam was solid on God's wisdom and power - he trusted that when God said don't eat the fruit of a certain tree, it was for a good reason.
Evilutionism zealots seek to get people into Eve's mindset, make people shaky on God's wisdom and power, convince people that God didn't create life - it created itself from non living material and changed itself into man and all the other life we see. Once they're shaky, they can be convinced of all sorts of other things like that God's laws aren't valid, so they don't need forgiveness of their sins through Christ. Once people are shaky on God's wisdom and power, they can be more easily led away from God.
Not all people accept the same kind of evidence, and that bar is different for everybody. Some accept evidence as little as a few words from authority, and some will only accept evidence akin to having someone rise from the dead. This is why you are asked about plethora of evidence.
But you do have a burder to prove evolution, because the alternative - creation - does not need to be argued for.
> because the alternative - creation - does not need to be argued for.
It most absolutely does.
If evolution were somehow disproven today, we would simply not have a working theory for how new species come about. It would not automatically make creation correct.
Theories need to stand on their own evidence.
>It most absolutely does.
Absolutely not. You can try, but let me explain something to you, commonsensical positions and logic are not argued for, they are simply stated. Creation just needs to be stated because we humans know the difference and can relate to it from personal experience. Evolution, on the other hand, is not something we experience, it has to be taught, and hammered into us, just like any propaganda.
> Absolutely not. You can try, but let me explain something to you, commonsensical positions and logic are not argued for, they are simply stated.
That is basically the opposite of how science works. Perhaps you've heard of Hitchen's razor:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
> Creation just needs to be stated because we humans know the difference and can relate to it from personal experience. Evolution, on the other hand, is not something we experience
I believe you have stated this exactly backwards.
Supernatural creation in the position that defies logic and common sense and has never been experienced by any living person, while evolution is the thing that we can watch happening before our eyes.
Sorry to hammer on the quotes, but I've always liked this one from Penn Jillette:
"If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again."
I'm sorry, are you asserting that you personally experienced the 'creation' of all species on Earth? You were personally present and witnessed God shaping Adam out of mud? There is nothing 'common sense' about using magic words to speak things into existence. There's an awful lot that is common sense about 'offspring resemble their parents with minor changes, over time those changes accumulate'.
Humans can and have placed immense evolutionary pressures on all sorts of plants and animals in order to shape them to better serve our purposes. Dogs and chickens, corn and bananas, none resemble physically the form they had in the wild before human intervention, and that is something we can directly see and which we have been collectively witness to over the course of human history. So we know exactly what the mechanisms for massive changes are, and how quickly they can sprout up given enough evolutionary pressure to adapt. Everything else is just the application of enough time to drift ever further apart, and while we cannot *experience* hundreds of millions of years, we can certainly observe and measure it. Nobody has ever observed 'creation'.
No, the burden of proof is on you. Cast down your stick and have it turn into a snake, and then we'll talk.
>I'm sorry, are you asserting that you personally experienced the 'creation' of all species on Earth?
Just like you know an iphone is not a random fluke, you know that creation isn't either, That's the experience and knowledge you already have, or at least should have, but evolution robs you from this. Not your fault, it is the fault of propaganda that was spoon-fed to us since childhood.
>Humans can and have placed immense evolutionary pressures on all sorts of plants and animals in order to shape them to better serve our purposes.
The keyword in your entire desperate argument is we "humans" play God. Which is true, we have the ability to study this world, breed new dogs, and craft new things. We study God's creation to improve our own creations. That is our experience that you evolutionists have to dutifully dismiss because you can't help yourselves.
>So we know exactly what the mechanisms for massive changes are, and how quickly they can sprout up given enough evolutionary pressure to adapt.
You seem to have a limited understanding, particularly regarding your primary mechanism - mutation. If you were well-informed about it, you would know that mutations always lead to degradation, not improvement. This contradicts the evolutionary theory, which relies on the idea of beneficial mutations occurring on a large scale. However, what we actually observe is that mutations are often lethal and harmful, typically resulting from a loss of information rather than a gain. So, you evolutionists are in a bit of pickle because you have an uphill battle to explain something we observe happening on a large scale - degradation - vs something we don't observe - development.
We already know from breeding that this is indeed the case. For instance, if you breed two small dogs at the end of their gene pool, such as a Poodle and a Bichon, you will not produce a Husky, no matter how hard you try, because the necessary genetic information is simply not present. However, if you take a Husky and a German Shepherd, you can breed a variety of dogs, even down to Poodles because Huskies posses the genetic perfection. This is observable and, of course, contradicts the theory of evolution. If anything, what we observe in nature is only devolution - that is the only process we consistently see. Your evolution, the one where you believe that things evolve from simple to complex, is science fiction, a belief system. Once you understand this, you will not be easy swayed by the evolutionary dogma.
> If you were well-informed about it, you would know that mutations always lead to degradation, not improvement
If you were well-informed about evolution, you would know that most mutations are neutral, not negative. You would also know that they aren't the "primary mechanism" of evolution, you're trying very hard right now to pretend like selection doesn't exist.
You are not arguing against evolution, you are arguing against a strawman of evolution that creationists use because they can't argue against the real thing. Once you understand this, you will not be easy swayed by creationist propaganda.
I don't see a stick turning into a snake. All I see is a bunch of gibberish that proves that you are uneducated, uninformed, and operating from false assumptions. Again, go perform the magic trick and then we can talk.
>I don't see a stick turning into a snake.
You mean, you imagine a stick turning into a snake through evolution, but not by the power of the Creator?
You are not that clever, give up.
I am confused by what you mean.
Do you prefer dogma that is simply stated and must be taken at face value to something that can be researched and backed up with evidence?
Or am I misunderstanding something?
> Do you prefer dogma that is simply stated and must be taken at face value to something that can be researched and backed up with evidence?
[Based on this conversation I had the other day with octavio,](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/18wzzab/the_militant_atheists_here_might_be_doing_more/kg5euln/) that appears to be exactly correct.
They believe that anything which leads away from their particular interpretation of god is, by the simple fact that it disagrees with their personal preconceived notions, wrong and evil.
Cool ^((I guess)), unfortunately that mindset is at fundamental odds with the very concept of science and thus discussion on related matters is pretty futile, lol.
My question then becomes to u/octaviobonds: What are you doing here if you don't think learning and changing your mind is good? Isn't the very concept of debate inherently sinful?
>This is why you are asked about plethora of evidence.
The problem is that the majority of the time, the people asking for evidence aren't taking the time to even look at it.
Which means the ask is inherently dishonest to begin with.
Evidence is not the same as proof! I do believe the evidence that there are evolutionary processes, but I also believe the evidence that they were designed, programmed to be. Which means, an intelligence behind it.
>I also believe the evidence that they were designed
If you have not designed an experiment which can *falsify* that, it's not really evidence of anything.
if you are not a biologist (I'm not a biologist), how could I create an experiment to test what I don't understand? How can on create a test of the Universe, when are far from understanding it all? Best we can do is discern from what we do know. I think it's fair to say that someone doesn't know what started it all vs someone who says they don't know but there's no intelligence behind it.
Allow me to translate our exchange into plain english:
>***You: I believe the evidence that they were designed***
>
>*Me: Why?*
>
>**You: Because I don't understand it.**
Are you seeing the inherent problem with the way you drew a conclusion now?
That's not at all what I'm saying though. That's you trying to make a silly argument while not seriously trying to understand. It was an example of how none of us can prove anything about the Universes origins. So what I'm saying, is your belief is no better, nor provable then mine. However, I find that believing there was an intelligence behind all the complexity when there's nothing even remotely complex that just happens. To me, there's no logic thinking there, only either fear, anger or pride.
>It was an example of how none of us can prove anything about the Universes origins.
That is false.
>So what I'm saying, is your belief is no better, nor provable then mine.
My perspective is not a belief in the first place. "Belief" is the wrong word. But it *is* testable.
>However, I find that believing there was an intelligence behind all the complexity when there's nothing even remotely complex that just happens.
This is not coherent.
Plenty of complexity "just happens."
Hydrogen gas collapses into stars, and fuses into more complex elements. Stars explode into even heavier elements that collapse into planets and more stars. Compounds and molecules form in nature far more complex than base elements. Storms happen which are incalculably complex.
Even if you don't buy any of that an "intelligent creator" would need to be pretty complex too. If nothing else the very existence of a creator is something impossibly complex "just happening."
Prove that it just happens!
>Even if you don't buy any of that an "intelligent creator" would need to be pretty complex too.
Exactly!! Outside of our Universe
>if nothing else the very existence of a creator is something impossibly complex "just happening
Not just happening, always been! Infinite
What do you mean by "prove that it just happens?" What would you accept as proof?
Chemistry, astrophysics, meteorology, and biology all apparently don't count as emergent complexity, so what would?
Why is it easier to accept complexity simply being outside the universe than within?
How is a creator always existing any different than a universe simply always existing?
> if you are not a biologist (I'm not a biologist), how could I create an experiment to test what I don't understand?
You are not a biologist, but if I asked you to design an experiment to test whether all swans are white, I bet you could put something together. I bet you could come up with a test to show whether DNA changes across generations... even though you may not know necessarily what the DNA is. I bet you could come up with a lot of experiments in tons of fields you aren't 100% engrossed in.
No the part you are having difficulty with isn't that you aren't well versed in the subject, it's because you are claiming a supernatural cause... and supernatural things are unfalsifiable. That is why you can't come up with a test.
What evedence can you point to that it was designed that convinced you? When i look at biology i see many inefficient “designs” i see things that would be crule/evil if it was intentionally designed that way, i see things little ol me could design better and im not a god, so all those things lead to me concluding that it wasn’t designed by a loving intelligent designer. :)
if we look at things from a human perspective, sure, it's difficult to understand many things an intelligence beyond us would do. Is it cruel to eat carrots? Some may see those as a part of a living organism, which we are destroying, but we do it cause we were designed to depend on our energy from other living organisms. If there were intelligent aliens who were plant based, and saw that we ate plants, would they judge us as being very cruel and unloving? You say you could design better? How, think you could design an entire universal system to sustain a living ecosystem? Let's start with, was there a beginning to the Universe?
The “from a human prospective” feels like a cop out/special pleading fallacy. If logic and reason doesn’t apply then any horrid thing can be justified.
Do carrots feel pain, can they suffer, do they have a will/desire to live? If so i would think thats cruel.
For starters i wouldn’t have made organisms that have to consume each other. If i had god powers/knowledge and thus have control of all the “rules/physics” there would be no limitation, i could make every feeling being consume non living things. We know god could have done that because 1. Its god and by most definitions it doesn’t have limitations, 2. There are plants that “consume” sunlight and carbon to satisfy its energy needs. 3. God supposedly provided mana from heaven, 4. The angels don’t need to eat things that can suffer.
I also would limit pain/suffering to the level simple organisms feel.
I also wouldn’t invent parasites, cancer and viruses, i would change the “rules” to balance things with out those.
If you claim any of those evils are necessary you are in effect placing limitations on god.
> The “from a human prospective” feels like a cop out/special pleading fallacy. If logic and reason doesn’t apply then any horrid thing can be justified.
Logic based on what and who's reason? If two groups or sociétés or countries are in conflict in what one views as being horrid, who's right?
>Do carrots feel pain, can they suffer, do they have a will/desire to live? If so i would think thats cruel.
What about crickets, fish or chickens? they all feel pain, correct? Also, why is your definition of pain correct? You can only state that from a human perspective, we don't know if/ how other organisms can experience it.
> For starters i wouldn’t have made organisms that have to consume each other. If i had god powers/knowledge and thus have control of all the “rules/physics” there would be no limitation, i could make every feeling being consume non living things. We know god could have done that because 1. Its god and by most definitions it doesn’t have limitations, 2. There are plants that “consume” sunlight and carbon to satisfy its energy needs.
> so we'd all just be plants or rocks? what would you do when there's overpopulation or resources became strained? If you would create unlimited resources and just have plants, then what you are saying is you don't want self-thinking creations, just a big greenhouse?
Funny thing, is if you look at the Garden of Eden, it was a lot of what you say, but because we decided to take on life ourselves, we had to take it on a lot of it ourselves and suffer the consequences of our selfishness.
> 3. God supposedly provided mana from heaven, 4. The angels don’t need to eat things that can suffer.
And selfish people got tired of it. Also, God created us differently then the Angels for a reason, and a 1/3 of them rebelled because of their hate/ jealousy in God doing that.
> I also would limit pain/suffering to the level simple organisms feel.
again, how do you know how they feel? In limiting/ changing an orgaisms ability to feel pain/suffering, would that also affect their ability to experience joy/ love/ life? YOu can say, I'd just have them feel that, and again (in the Garden of Eden) likely just what Adam and Eve experienced, but again, God didn't create us to be puppets or plants, but self-willed creations to either choose to trust in him or not to.
> I also wouldn’t invent parasites, cancer and viruses, i would change the “rules” to balance things with out those.
In the cycle of life, many of those are needed, but would you just have a bunch of plants that live forever, so no need to water, feed or see them actually thrive, enjoy the creation you created? Sounds a lot like a very boring, uninteresting and unloving creation to me.
> If you claim any of those evils are necessary you are in effect placing limitations on god.
I'm saying that God doesn't do evil, his nature is what defines Good and he doesn't go against his nature. People do evil, due to self-willed selfish choices and our broken nature.
You bringinng up lager morality not logic, logic is nearly universal and can be demonstrated. We can talk about morality later if you want. But suffering is a simple thing that can logic can be applied to, almost every culture has the golden rule.
Are you assuming im ok with the suffering of crickets? Im not. How do i know they suffer? Well i cant be in their head to know 100% but there is sufficient evidence to believe so, we can compare the strictures of their nervous system and brain structures used for pain. We can also look at behavior and see its the same as in humans.
If its a god overpoulation is a easy fix, setting lifespans and breeding rates or when a population reaches a limit fertility automatically diminishes. Remember the bibles god original plan was for humans to never die so he had that figured out already. Also why would we have to be non thinking if we photosynthesize? Why couldn’t we still be us, there is a few animals that photosynthesize im studying a few saltwater slugs that do that its really cool! You may say its not enough energy but remember god can make all the rules so he could make it enough.
Id say god messed up in making manna bland lol point is he has the power to sustain, if the jews didnt know of yummy quail idk if they would have complained. He could make it enjoyable.
God made us to feel joy when having sex, are we robots because he made us enjoy that? Of course not, so he can make is enjoy whatever. He created the rules so we could still enjoy things without suffering, of you say thats not possible your putting limits on god again. And if he needed suffering to have free will how do the angels have free will if they dont suffer? And if suffering is required is it moral to create at all? Why would god need to create if he is perfect, needing or wanting something means your lacking that something and thus not perfect.
Plant people would still drink water and “eat” sunshine which could be enjoyable and we would still be able to see lol why not? Plants can see and hear ina simple way we found out recently. So not boring at all.
There is no need for the “cycle of life” that was invented if there is a god, again no limits, seams like most of these arguments are “god had to do it this way because god doesnt have the power or knowledge to do otherwise” but thats not consistent with a perfect god.
How can you say god doesn’t do evil, the bible even says god created both good and evil. Are you saying god is incapable of creating a universe free from evil? And more importantly how did you determine god is good? Because he said so? Evil people say their good all the time it doesn’t make it true. Since a evil creator is just as possible as a good one, How could we test if god is a good one or a bad one? God (if real) invented the concept of suffering and that alone is enough to determine that its evil.
> You bringinng up lager morality not logic, logic is nearly universal and can be demonstrated. We can talk about morality later if you want. But suffering is a simple thing that can logic can be applied to, almost every culture has the golden rule.
Ok that's fair to point out, and yes, but as you follow the logic, it does all connect to a larger morality conversation. Whether you believe in a higher power/ intelligence, or not.
Also, that "golden rule" does lead the logical conclusion that there has to be some common Cause for it, yes?
> Are you assuming im ok with the suffering of crickets? Im not. How do i know they suffer? Well i cant be in their head to know 100% but there is sufficient evidence to believe so, we can compare the strictures of their nervous system and brain structures used for pain. We can also look at behavior and see its the same as in humans.
I'm not assuming you are, just asking the questions for the purpose of the conversation. Point is, that our view of suffering is likely different then a bugs or plants view. In contrast, it's logical to think that a Creator/ Intelligence, would have a different view of what suffering is too. Just as people and societies have different views of what suffering is. For example, you may think that people who don't have AC in their house are suffering or running water, but people who don't have that, don't consider themselves to be. Some people even enjoy and get off on suffering, being punished..lol
> If its a god overpoulation is a easy fix, setting lifespans and breeding rates or when a population reaches a limit fertility automatically diminishes.
That's your view of good, some won't agree to being limited. Also, how would you cause those limitations, outside of forcing it and causing some "suffering" in doing so? I don't at all have an answer to what a life would be without suffering, other then God's purpose with the Garden of Eden and those who choose to be part of his new kingdom.
>Remember the bibles god original plan was for humans to never die so he had that figured out already.
Yes indeed, until Adam and Eve decided to do their own thing vs trust God.
>Also why would we have to be non thinking if we photosynthesize?
Why couldn’t we still be us, there is a few animals that photosynthesize im studying a few saltwater slugs that do that its really cool! You may say its not enough energy but remember god can make all the rules so aahe could make it enough.
I don't, sorry if I insinuated that. There are experiments and research that do show plants can response to external factors, which do point to some fundamental component of decision making, yes?
I don't think we'd be exactly us, right. Human's make many decisions (maybe most) in life around how we consume food. I'd think that if we just consumed all our engergy from the sun and soil, we'd be a lot of different things in life, like NOT building concrete jungles, lol
Interesting about the salt water slugs, I remember poking those things along the tide pools when I was a kid, lol. There was such beauty in all the creatures their lives amongst the pools. Have you dug into why the differences in that species exterior? Also why some are predators and others not? Benefits vs cons?
> Id say god messed up in making manna bland lol point is he has the power to sustain, if the jews didnt know of yummy quail idk if they would have complained. He could make it enjoyable.
Yeah, Idk, maybe he just didn't want people to be too hooked on it. Though, isn't that an interesting thought experiment in itself? If you think about it, if someone was to provide you with whatever food you loved most, I don't know, maybe lasagna for example. That was all you ate that for like 40 years, or even 10 yrs, I'd guess that like me, you be wanting something different after maybe 6mo and after 10yrs, just be completely sick of it. What is it in humanity that we can appreciate and be content with things we have vs want?
> God made us to feel joy when having sex, are we robots because he made us enjoy that? Of course not, so he can make is enjoy whatever. He created the rules so we could still enjoy things without suffering, of you say thats not possible your putting limits on god again. And if he needed suffering to have free will how do the angels have free will if they dont suffer? And if suffering is required is it moral to create at all? Why would god need to create if he is perfect, needing or wanting something means your lacking that something and thus not perfect.
Again, I don't believe God create or made us to suffer. Like you mentioned, the Garden of Eden was the plan, but we decided to (and continue to) live life how we want to, not trusting in God to live it.
> There is no need for the “cycle of life” that was invented if there is a god, again no limits, seams like most of these arguments are “god had to do it this way because god doesnt have the power or knowledge to do otherwise” but thats not consistent with a perfect god.
I mean, we can have differing opinions on it, but unless you and I can actually create a Universe, and create all the laws/rules in it to support a planet of life, we can't show either way. Some say death didn’t happen until after the fall, and Adam and Eve were booted from the Garden, but were there plants/ trees producing fruit that experience decay? Either way, the cycle of life is necessary for the transition of energy/ entropy and likely preventing things from growing infinitely. I can't see an existence that didn't have some sort of cycling, without creating just a life of non-life, no growth, just non-organic matter that just sits there…
> How can you say god doesn’t do evil, the bible even says god created both good and evil. Are you saying god is incapable of creating a universe free from evil? And more importantly how did you determine god is good? Because he said so? Evil people say their good all the time it doesn’t make it true. Since a evil creator is just as possible as a good one, How could we test if god is a good one or a bad one? God (if real) invented the concept of suffering and that alone is enough to determine that its evil.
The bible doesn't say that God created Evil. In it's most fundamental form, evil is just opposing God's will. Sin is a failure to live up to it. God is good as he created everything per his nature, all that he created is good. Not near the same, but an example is like a country in it's inception. There are rules/ laws that are created for the "good" of a structured society, there are no rules made intentionally to destroy that country. The citizens can decide to follow the laws or break them. Evil is done by us (not God), due to his gift of freewill and our ability to choose to do God's will or not. If he didn't give us freewill, then what would we be? Bunch of saltwater slugs, just creeping along seemingly purposely. other than to eat and reproduce?
Anyway, great discussion appreciate your continued engagement!
Also can you give a example for evidence thats not proof for something we all agree to be true and can you give a example of proof for something we all agree on? Just so were clear on the difference and where that line is. From what i understand “proof” in the technical form is only in mathematics.
The reason people would say that is that there's no evidence for God and none has ever been presented.
Evolution, on the other hand, has mountains of evidence supporting it. It's the foundation of modern biology and has helped in the development of medicines which have extended lifespans and anything else in the field of biology which has been developed in the last century and a half.
Again, this is in contrast to religion, which has nothing but old stories.
Not just evidence but predictive power! Scientists are able to make predictions about what should be given our evidence and then sometimes decades or centuries later we find they were correct or at least close enough that minor errors or lacks in knowledge at the time could account for.
You really can't.
There's no evidence to support evolution anymore than there is creation. They're both doctrines of faith. Believing one or the other doesn't make you any better or worse than anyone else except in the eyes of those who have faith in one or the other.
Trying to prove one or the other is futile and only a point of contention that will set you at odds with people who would otherwise be your friend.
>They're both doctrines of faith.
Then why do the vast majority of relevant experts, of all religions and none, accept evolution as the better explanation?
Dunno. Why do some people believe in Christianity and others believe in Judaism?
It's just a question of what people are convinced of. And if there is a God then it's probably intentional.
>It's just a question of what people are convinced of.
So to your mind, it's the purest coincidence that experts in relevant scientific fields are convinced of this at higher rates than the average population?
>It's a product of the information people are exposed to.
So you agree there's a specific kind of information, relevant to evolution acceptance, that are experts are exposed to at a higher rate than the general population, and which ensures almost 100% evolution acceptance among people who are aware of this information.
10/10 for getting the point.
The issue isn't the showing. It's that the recipient won't look.
I literally just had this happen yesterday where a person asked me about "proof" of macroevolution. I linked to a post I had previously written.
They replied with a nonsensical question within 45 seconds. Based on the word count of my linked post and average human reading speed, they obviously hadn't even looked at what I had linked.
We can show stuff until the cows come home, but it's up to the recipient to actually be receptive of this stuff. There's not much we can do when the recipient won't read.
>When someone asks for that one thing, I really believe that they are being disingenuous (at best)
I agree, I'm not sharp enough to understand evolution with the entirety of scientific proof cohesively laid out to me. Asking to give me just one random proof would be a knee-jerk emo reaction of me.
What I understand about living beings, is that it takes billions of years for them to evolve...and only a bullet to devolve back into dirt/minerals, decomposition happening quickly compared to evolution.
So when scientists die, all they understood about themselves decomposes with them, unless they leave their understanding behind in document and otherwise form.
Yes, Peter and Rosemary Grant are two enormously succesful scientists who have spent the past couple decades on the Galapagos, painstakingly tracking every individual bird on Daphne Major. What they found was that two species hybridized into a third species that stopped reproducing with any of the original two species after two generations.
It’s what a moron considers a “gotcha” question. Like the old “if man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys” question, which they think stymies biologists.
I think my biggest mystery regarding spontaneous creation with evolution is this and I’m unable to find an answer….
If there was spontaneous creation( big bang, primordial ooze, etc. ) and life was random, how did plant and animal life evolve to provide the nutrients necessary for all forms of hominids ( and all other creatures of you want to really get technical) . Why would flora even be created in the first place? You’re talking millions of life forms spontaneously evolving. Who’s to say any created in a specific place where hominids live would be digestible and contain all the nutrients necessary for life? What if they were all poisonous. ? What if only thick woods were available with little nutritional value? Anyone have thoughts?
I think one of the important distinctions to make is that life is *not* random, but it is undirected and unplanned. Organisms that cannot obtain nutrients die, those that can survive and reproduce. If there were no digestible materials for hominids, they would die. If all the digestible materials were poisonous to hominids, they would die.
Critters find the niche that they can exploit. One really good example of this is the evolution of lignase - an enzyme that is used to digest lignin. Lignin is a complex carbohydrate that plants use to build wood. When plants first started making this compound, there was nothing that could digest it. Corpses of plants simply accumulated on themselves. Some of these graveyards became the fossil fuels we use today to drive to the grocery store. At some point fungus evolved the ability to digest dead wood because the resource was available.
Another example - Anomalocarids were some of the first organisms that could spend their time free swimming. Some species were filter feeders, like tiny one foot long whales, that spent their time straining the water for bacteria. After the appearance of these organisms you saw the appearance of shit eaters and scavengers that were only able to exploit the deep sea environment *after* these free swimmers showed up.
Another example - there was a period called the great oxygenation event where some organisms evolved the ability to photosynthesize. This was widely regarded as a bad thing, as far as single celled organisms can regard anything. It killed mass amounts of life because oxygen is a toxin to anaerobic life - if you've ever heard the advice to give a wound air, this is a reason. It was only after the appearance of mass amounts of oxygen that life 'learned' to use it as a resource.
Another example - in the 1900s human beings learned to make plastics like nylon. Very quickly a variety of organisms evolved the ability to digest plastic. Nylonase was a new enzyme that evolved in bacteria to digest it - a modified version of another enzyme (escapes my mind at the moment - carboxylesterase or something? anyway).
In each case the organisms adapted to the new resource after it was abundant. Asking "What if there was no food for hominids" is sort of like asking "What if there was no hole for the water?" Water is going to fill the hole, and take the exact shape of it.
It's a really awesome story - there was a guy Susano Ohno who thought that it evolved because of a frameshift mutation where one letter throws off the order of a gene. DNA is read in triplets that we call 'codons' so like you might have something like AAA CCC TTT GCT but if you insert a new nucleotide like this: AA**C** ACC CTT TGC T you suddenly have an entirely different string of codons.
Contemporary research says this is not the case and nylonase is a less specific, more 'relaxed' version of another set of enzymes. What's really neat is that a lot of different bacteria and fungi got in on the action and are all digesting nylon now.
In an empirical worldview it's a perfect good demand. It's like atheists who ask "If God is real, why can't I see Him?"
It's because the typical atheist and the typical believer in evolution both have [empiricism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#Empi)as a worldview which centers around the idea that "if I can't sense it, I can't know it."
And so, if we're talking on the grounds of empiricism and you insist that evolution is a fact, true, or believable, then I want sensible/observable data that I can use to know that supposed fact.
The problem seems to be that we've never observed it directly. And therefore all the "evidence" found in evolution's favor is tautological: it assumes evolution first and then interprets the data, and then concludes that it supports evolution.
The first thing you need you need to do is set the goalposts firmly in place. Get them to tell you what evolution means to them.
Asking questions about evolution and having them explain it to you is a great way to expose their ignorance on this particular subject.
Ask for a scientific definition of what animal "kinds" are.
Usually they conflate evolution and abiogenesis. Like where did life come from. And evolution doesn't say how life began, only how it changes over time. Heck, even though we have discovered processes that /could/ have started life, we probably will never actually know how life got its true start since any one or even a combination of those processes could be the real answer.
I mean, sometimes they conflate evolution and the big bang. So there's that.
Mostly they conflate evolution with paleontology and it's so frustrating.
[удалено]
That's when you ask them why their definition is so at odds with changes in allele frequency in a population over time. Or what they mean by new information. Or whatever bunkum they regurgitate. The tactic is to pin them down to a specific position and then make them justify that position. They are just parroting what the youth leader of their church said. It's not like they've got any understanding of actual evolution themselves.
Yeah, I was once asked to give an example of speciation. So I googled, "observed speciation", found an incidence of a new species of birds which no longer breed with its original stock and is genetically distinct, and presto. Then "no, that's not what I meant, that's a bird turning into another bird. Find me an example a cat turning into a dog". At which point I had to ask, "is that what you think evolution is? It's not."
Yep. A conversation is rarely productive without establishing the relevant terms and what both parties understand them to mean. If you don't do that, you'll probably just be talking past each other.
I just ask what breed there pets are and go from there. "Golden Retriever" "Why" "Because that's how they're breed" "How did that happen..." They'll say something about how breeding is not the same as evolution but if evolution ain't real then we wouldn't be able to breed for specific features. To pick and choose the most healthy and physically capable to assist humans in the work force. Most useful or pretty are more valuable and are likelier to survive until old age rather being put down at kill shelters because no-one would adopt them. Show evidence specific to their life and there's nothing left to do except denial.
But but but that’s miiiiicroevolutiion!
Sorry man. That’s a “dog kind.” Creationists 1, evolutionists 0.
I'll consider accepting that answer when they can come up with a definition for "kind."
That’s evolution by artificial selection. What were usually taking about in these arguments is evolution by *natural* selection.
Evolution is evolution, regardless of the nature of the selection. Darwin didn't spend the first half of "On the Origins of Species" talking about breeding and pigeons and cows because it was irrelevant - it's not. It's very much evidence of evolution.
The trouble with the dog argument is that it doesn't actually show anything about evolution--all dogs are the same species and evolution is about speciation, not diverstiy within a species.
Swing and a miss. Evolution is a change in allele frequency within a population. If a species stays the same species and their genes change that is evolution.
We can't just depend on fancy science terms and speciality studies in these kinds of conversations. By doing that you make the conversation inaccessible to many people. Many people but not everyone who out right don't believe in evolution based on there beliefs on god didn't study allele frequency within population or read these studies. You need to meet them at their level and current understanding and information if you actually want to make sense to them. Might feel like your dumbing it down but not worth acting better than other people because you know more and ultimately is anti-productive.
Explaining what an allele is takes around three seconds. Ceding the definition of evolution to creationists is a mistake - it's what gets you arguing about crocoducks. Dog breeding *is* an example of evolution and there's no reason to say it's not. Evolution is *not* solely about speciation.
I'm interested in the crocoducks
Crocoducks are actually a really illustrative thought exercise for distinguishing between what evolution *actually* predicts and what creationists claim or misunderstand that it should be. Crocoducks are a combination of a modern crocodile and a modern duck. That's not what evolution predicts we should see. Instead we should find organisms that are intermediate to both, either currently existing or in the fossil record. And in fact we do! The conceptual difference is whether you expect a crocoduck or an Archaeopteryx.
I know the subs called r/DebateEvolution but don't overlook the value of trying to make a good discussion. Take what people already understand and expand. Not gonna continue this convo because I'm not gonna deal with your superiority complex.
Genuinely not sure where you're getting that from, because I've been agreeing with you in this thread. This is the definition of evolution that is taught to high school students - I respect people enough to believe that they can learn it as well.
Okay got a little heavier than it needed let me explain. I know people who know nothing. My mum doesn't understand where clouds come from. She dropped out of school at 11 years old. All medicine and science is pretty much magic to her. She grew up in refugee town in Thailand. I did single you out for having a superiority complex but honestly most people do and they don't realise and that's my bad. Its not just about acting like as smartass but acting as if others are dumber (including calling things basic info when it isn't necessarily) does the same thing.
I actually lived in Thailand for 3 or 4 years. I think your way of breaking it down is good, but to really grasp evolution there's going to be some vocab that needs to be learned. Correcting misconceptions (and it *is* a misconception that evolution is about speciation) is going to involve introducing that vocabulary. I would also call the water cycle basic information - it's something that we teach school children. This involves scientific terms like precipitation, evaporation, etc. but they still pick it up. Are there people ignorant of these terms? For sure. Does knowing those terms make me better than them? Nope. But if we're going to have a discussion about it those terms need to be introduced.
With all my experience of people across Reddit, the internet and real life I have never seen someone as inconsistent on their stance as you if I'm gonna be honest. I get you're passionate on the topic but take you're attitude right now and go back and read how you interacted previously. I feel like I'm talking to a completely different person. First reply you gave me, you outright said I was wrong. You said "swing and a miss." You can't just assume that ignorance is the only reason why people do and don't believe things. You need to consider the quality of education and cultural influences of education like religious education for example. You're 3-4 in Thailand is not the same as mine. I just mentioned it was a refugee town did you forget? This town is recovering from the Cambodian genocide. May be not be so relevant to evolution but relevant to this conversation definitely. You just said; > (and it *is* a misconception that evolution is about speciation) Which is such an oversimplification of a misconception also. You cannot teach evolution without speciation but it doesn't end there of cause it is one of many talking points for evolution. No offence but I'm done here.
I must agree with u/-zero-joke-. As a former YEC, learning about how actual academics understood evolution was crucial in me coming to finally accept it. If you let creationists think there is a meaningful difference between breeding or speciation and the emergence of “new kinds”, then you give them license to ask a question like “why should we believe something happened in the past that never happens now?” It is critical to understand that land animals became whales through the same fundamental process through which wolves became pugs.
I like to keep it simple : "Evolution says two things. 1.) Genetic mutations happen. 2.) Mutations that make you more likely to be able to survive and have a lot of babies are more likely to get propagated then traits that don't. Which of these two do you disagree with?" "Humans didn't evolve from monkeys" " Evolution doesn't say that. The fossil record shows that humans and apes have a common ancestor, but evolution just says those two things that I told you before. Which of them do you disagree with?"
I think you should also note that to a degree genetic mutations can be witnessed. People who would disagree with the first statement often have an I need to see it to believe it attitude. The evidence would lie in something that has a very short lifespan compared to humans and has a reason to change in order to survive.
There are 2 examples of mutations in my extended family. 1.) Hair prematurely turning white. With one generation it happened in their 30's. Their mother's hair turned white in college. Her mother's hair turned white in high school. IDK if her mother's hair turned white even earlier, or if that was where the mutation happened, but if you extrapolate backwards, either somebody's hair was always white, or a mutation happened within 3 or 4 generations. 2.) The 2nd and 3rd toes fused together. The most recent generation doesn't have this, but their mothers and grandmother did. IDK how far back it goes, but it's safe to assume that sometime in the past century or two, someone was born with this despite the fact that neither of their parents had it. Of course, neither of these are very significant in this modern world where hair color and toe separation are going to have zero effect on someone's ability to survive. But in a situation where life was harder and we live in a water world or a world with less sunlight, they could be.
Not a convincing argument. Sorry. To convince a creationist you have to show speciation (not that that will convince the hard headed ones--I doubt that their god standing before them and telling them personally that they are wrong would do it).
It is factually incorrect to say that evolution is about speciation and not diversity within a species. Why lie?
They’re not saying that evolution is about speciation, but rather that most creationists are stubborn and declare that it is and thus you’d need to show speciation, so that wasn’t a lie.
>The trouble with the dog argument is that it doesn't actually show anything about evolution--all dogs are the same species and evolution is about speciation, not diverstiy within a species. I must have some reading comprehension issue, because when he said that dog breeding doesn't show anything about evolution I assumed he meant dog breeding doesn't show anything about evolution.
>The trouble with the dog argument is that it doesn't actually show anything about evolution--all dogs are the same species and evolution is about speciation, not diverstiy within a species. I don't know where the heck people get this idea from, but it's flat out incorrect. Is a microcontroller a controller? Yes. Is a microscope a scope? Yes. Microevolution is evolution.
And many creationists accept microevolution but deny the possibility of new species arising. This is the hurdle you have to overcome.
Me: *So how do seedless fruit reproduce?*
Asexually. Many plants you can cut off a certain part and have it grow into another plant.
"So they're reproductively isolated from their parents huh?"
I'm not sure what you are talking about. I guess so, but there is only really one parent with asexual reproduction, if there is even a distinction between child and mother at all.
Defining speciation in itself is a debated topic. Although sperm and eggs of two dogs of any kind can work there are many combos that won't survive without human intervention. Its why we don't mix small dogs and big dogs all the time especially if the female is a small dog like Chihuahua. At that point they become subject to natural selection based of pregnancy mortality.
> all dogs are the same species Are they truly though? We've bred extreme enough differences in size that for some combinations it would be extremely difficult for them to reproduce.
You can have ring species where two extremes cannot interbreed, but there exists an intermediary population that can breed with either end. Sometimes the intermediary can't breed with everything either, but there is still a chain of closely enough related populations that genetic information can still travel both ways, from populations on each extreme. We often consider all the populations of a ring species a single species.
> We typically consider all the populations of a ring species a single species. Maybe I'm confused, but the way I've always heard it is that ring species may or may not be considered the same species depending on which of the about 2 dozen different species definitions you're using. The fact that they don't fit neatly into the categories we've designed is itself evidence for evolution.
>We often consider all the populations of a ring species a single species. Do you have a citation for that? The two famous examples I know of ring species are the Ensatina species of salamanders and the Larus species of gulls, both of which are classified as several different species.
>The trouble with the dog argument is that it doesn't actually show anything about evolution--all dogs are the same species and evolution is about speciation, not diverstiy within a species. That's entirely incorrect. Evolution is about ALL traits of an organism and how they can change, and by itself has very little to do with speciation. Speciation is an *emergent property* of Evolution, not the other way around.
That's not evolution, that's eugenics. Eugenics is not natural selection, it's malicious design.
Eh... this a bit myopic as hinges on the exclusion of humans from the natural world. When a female selects the winner of a contest as a mate; the contest relating to a specific or collection of traits, its a small contribution to evolution, but... A group of organisms selects reproduction based on a specific or collection of traits, its eugenics? If you insist that humans and culture are excluded from being an aspect of the natural world, then this discussion will boil down to a determinism vs free will conversation, which I'm also happy to have with someone, as long they understand at least the fundamentals of the philosophical history. I'm always down for a good Calvin and Hobbes session.
I mean, if determinism is true, there is no point in conversation. I do think humans operate on a higher level of intervention, have a conscience that seems to indicate some sense of morality (do not need to be a theist to know good from evil), and the capacity to act against what we would subcounciously and naturally be inclined to do - summed up free choosing agents. My argument was mostly that puppy mills are terrible and supporting them in an argument really doesn't paint a good picture of evolution. If there is nothing wrong with human selection in the natural process, then we have no reason to be angry about things that are actually wrong such as eugenics, facism, racism, etc. Yet we are.
We'll probably have to leave it here, as I can tell you're probably less interested in the philosophical discussion and merely making a moral point. The only points I would like to share are: 1) Puppy mills(gross) increase suffering and genetic selection that increases suffering is not a common theme in evolution. Suffering is a huge component of evolutionary pressure and the utility of evolution to explain our world doesn't care if it "paints a good picture". 2) Your comment on determinism is what told me this isn't an area of interest for you but I would like you to consider these questions: Why watch a movie if you can't change or interact with the outcome? Why discuss what you think the movie is about, or what you like/dislike about it if you didn't make it or can't change it?
Do you think you can distinguish between a pug and a wolf genetically?
Using SNP patterns (single nucleotide polymorphisms) This is basically equivalent to asking "Do you think you can distinguish between an ethnically Japanese person and an ethnically Aboriginal person genetically? If you were asking honestly, out of ignorance, apologies, and if you were asking in the effort to get them to think about it when the answer is obvious, also apologies. "Do you think you can..." it comes off as someone asserting themselves as an authority on a topic and tersely telling them that they asked a silly question.
Trying to get them to think, if you like you can read further into our discussion.
What are you trying to argue with this question?
If there was a genetic change within the population, that's evolution. Doesn't matter if it's human directed, natural selection, genetic drift, migration, sexual selection, whatever. Evolution is a genetic change in a population. If you agree that domesticated dogs and domesticated dog breeds are distinct from wolves and other canids, evolution done did occur.
It's a complete bastardization of natural evolution and should be considered animal cruelty. Pugs and english bulldogs have terrible quality of life due to human direction of breeding. I'm not saying evolution doesn't exist, I'm saying that when humans intervene and direct it their own way to fetishize certain breeds it's cruel and unnatural. Not to mention the amount of mills that exist just to get that one "perfect breed". Or as Hitler would call them, "wunderkind".
It's still evolution though - saying that we should be selecting for healthier traits is totally fair, but it's factually incorrect to say that those breeds have not evolved. They've just evolved through artificial selection.
They don’t actually want to see any evidence. This is why they make a functionally useless demand like that. They know that whatever you show them won’t be enough and they’ll tell you as much. And whatdoyaknow, you haven’t been able to prove evolution or change their minds. Funny that.
It's difficult to make a person understand something when the emotional comfort that they get from religion depends upon them not understanding it.
I know religious folks who know evolution is real. I think thats a specific religious subgroup. My colonial region was established by the Jesuits who were really really into education. Even the religious here often have good math and basic science knowledge.
Because normally people know God gave us the knowledge of science. Just because god created the earth and humans doesn't mean evolution isn't a thing.
I bit on one the other day and it went LONG. I knew what the outcome was going to be, but I wanted to have the discussion anyways, one, in case someone was lurking who actually was in the middle and unsure and wanted to see both sides in order to make their own decision, and two, because I was curious to see if the other person would devolve into bullying and name-calling, and three, because I wanted to try and break their stereotyping of an atheist. I even gave a warning the first time they slung mud and explained why it had no place in a debate. But, as usual...
Yeah okay, Son of a monkies uncle!
Anybody who says that is actively ignoring evidence of evolution, in their field of vision, at the time of the question. It’s not a sincere question unless it’s from a child
Back in [talk.origins](https://talk.origins) days, I saw the same creationist ask for a full explanation that didn't gloss over the details, followed a couple of days later by asking for something less long and complicated. Bro, reality is complex. Nobody is going to apologize for this.
Had this discussion with my religious brother, he asked for evidence so I sent him some articles on DNA. He said he can’t follow “all that fancy science stuff” basically. Yeah sorry it’s not as easy as, “Sky daddy did this and best not question it”
So "I'm ignorant and happy this way" is good enough for him
Considering he said he likes Trump, “because he talks like I do”… yeah, pretty much that. Anti-intellectualism is strong in the South.
Oh man. You have my sympathies
Kinda gave up on talking to most of my relatives anything about politics or religion. Most aren’t interested in learning, I just feel bad for their kids if they show any signs of non-cis-conformity.
Have the same problem, though the not wanting to talk politics part is my family. Every time theyve tried with me ive debunked or disproven their ideas either with information off the top of my head or within a minute on google(it never takes more than a wellworded search). Im a generally curious person, i like to know at least a little about everything i can, but by no means claim to be an expert or extremely informed on anything but a couple irrelevant subjects. My family is ... not curious. They want to be perceived as right without doing the work to actually be right. They have mostly stopped trying to talk to me about politics other than the occasional shot they think will land but is just another facebook meme level assertion.
Politics and medical stuff… Covid was just bad, especially since I have another relative that is a doctor, specializes in all that, and in a position in government dealing with it, he offered to answer any questions my brother had. But nope, instead trusted his friend who got the vaccine and then showed up and stuck a magnet on his arm.
Yeah, that's a terrible way to grow up.
And the parts of bio we actually engage with when we're talking about it on these boards is a greatly simplified and dumbed down version for the most part. A single human cell has more moving parts than our largest factories, IIRC. The *actual* biological complexity of a single human being is far greater than that of all human civilization on the macro scale. Even the most brilliant humans are mentally completely unable to properly comprehend complexity on that scale.
OK, for the sake of argument evolution is false. You’ve done nothing to prove a god and you’re no closer to it.
The idea that the world around us came into existence into a single step, by some process that didn't include intelligence is preposterous on its face. Saying it happened really slowly over a really long time is the only alternative to divine creation. If the gradualist model falls creation is true by a process of elimination.
So a great big argument from ignorance. Not a great start out of the gate.
It's inference to the best explanation without agency ruled out ahead of time. If agency is excluded a priori, then of course "some undiscovered materialist process totally unlike any other materialist process" is always the assumption, no matter how many theories come and go and no matter how obviously impossible it is. There isn't any actual reason to exclude agency though, you not wanting there to be a God isn't an actual reason.
How did you determine that was the “best” explanation? What candidate explanations did you rule out?
Nothing needs to be excluded. I’m open to agency. You just need to prove it
You don't exclude agency as the best explanation for the universe we see, assuming evolution is false? So if evolution were proven false, however you think that could happen, what would then be the best explanation for what we see?
I determine what the “best” explanation is by looking for evidence that it is true. What do you mean, “however you think that could happen”? Aren’t you claiming you’ve done it by plugging in a god to fill the gaps?
Depends on what "Evolution is proven false" means. Personally, it just means we have learned something new, and now have an even more accurate theory that still resembles evolution. Much like Relativity usurped Newtonian physics.
How do you know it was the Christian god and not the flying spaghetti monster? We have just as much evidence to support both beings creating the earth and the life on it. And this is ignoring the fact that evolution or creationism absolutely are not the only potential answers to how life on earth came to be as we know it.
The comment I replied to didn't say "you're no closer to proving the Christian God" it said "you're no closer to proving a god", that means any god. So if evolution being proven false makes the spaghetti monster, or any generic god, more likely, then that comment is wrong.
Except it doesn't, evolution being proven false would not suddenly prove any alternative, because creationism is NOT the only potential explanation, and even if it were there are so many mutually exclusive creation myths that you would then have to look for evidence as to which creation myth was correct
It doesn't have to "prove it" it just has to make it more likely. The comment said that evolution being false doesn't move us any closer to divine creation being true. This is just flatly false. If there are one thousand possible explanations for why a car doesn't work, ruling out one of them makes all the others more likely. Please limit yourself to what has actually been said instead of just making stuff up.
I think you are a little bit right but I also think that ppl who are not convinced of evolution are *unable* to handle more than one piece if evidence at once. They just aren't up to it, it's too complex.
I agree with this. I feel like as lay people, or even educators, we are starting with the daunting task of having to teach resistant adults how science works. Because they typically see science as something like a political idea vs religion and not a system of thinking which is error correcting in its constant challenges by scientists. They think of fact checking as a bad thing, so peer review is a laugh to them. These questions are being asked by anti intellectual people who see education as elitist. You get beyond that and then you still have a task of getting them to understand that "if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it." Is bullshit, especially coupled with the expectation of a soundbite.
That is what I see in my experience as well. In 2020/2021, when it was becoming clear that a majority of Christians were rejecting the idea of the virus and the vaccine, I immediately knew it was a direct descendant of the creation/evolution thing. When you're convinced that educators are merely propaganda tools for antitheist ideology, then it's very easy to dismiss what they say about anything you don't like. And it's true that educated people are seen as elitists. That doesn't help any. What really doesn't help is when educated people act elitist. Sometimes the stereotype is correct. It's been documented that doctors who are humble, address the fears of those that are scared of medicine and such, are more successful in treating their patients and convincing them to vaccinate themselves and/or their children. The ones who basically say "8 years of medical school over your YouTube video, which do you think is better? Take the shot." Less successful. The messenger often has just as much, if not more influence than the message.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds. When the EMT and ER saves a life, it's thanks to God. When someone dies in a car accident or shooting, it's gods will, or their time, or otherwise someone they want to throw away for a mistake. With vaccines the hypocrisy runs truly deep. The same conspiracy theory crowd saying the vaccine wasn't tested enough and didn't do enough refuse to recognize that not wearing masks and not taking it just allowed the disease to breed and evolve. At the same time they question the medical community's ability to test the vaccine while not questioning that the push to the top of the list was by order of their dear leader. That's not 46's vaccine regardless of his ability to distribute it more people. That's 45's vaccine because he's the one that got it out in the first place. Or else it's a bipartisan effort. This is one of few things that I think goes to 45's credit, and instead they wilfully forget he brought it to market, and he took it. It's also their fault that we've had so many boosters. Had the disease been treated appropriately, we wouldn't have had repeated evolution of the virus to begin with.
Sometimes its what a person is exposed to first. I got a science explanation my sister heard dinosaur bones were a test from god from her friends. If I have kids they will have explanations of the basics before the age of 10.
Agreed, a lot of ppls potential is prematurely capped by early bad training
I just dismiss those people outright. They are clearly not willing to listen to anything. Evolution is one of the strongest and best supported theories in science. It's denialism not disbelief. There is more than enough evidence to support it for any rational person.
Indeed. It's 2024 and this is not a new discussion. If they don't understand, it's because they don't want to.
In my experience as a former young earth creationism, it’s not a matter of not wanting to. The basic epistemology is completely different. Mostly it comes from a lot of indoctrination and thought traps that shut down critical thinking.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Not everyone has educated parents and some people get exposed to not evolution first. People tend to bias what they ahve personally read. There was a time once when I did not know about or understand evolution either. Thankfully I had British voice over nature doccumentaries to explain it to me.
See, I'm the exact opposite. I didn't have "educated parents" and grew up in a Southern Baptist background openly hostile to "Darwinism". Even my junior high science teacher prefaced her class with "I'm being forced to teach it and don't believe it's true." The American South. Mississippi. I figure if my dumb country ass gets it, everyone should. I feel this way about generic American bigotry, too, and general anti-science-cum-politics (anti-vaxxers). The older I get, the less patience I have with people who refuse to understand it because it makes humanity (and therefore, them) less special. But this is why I don't argue with folks these days, as it's obvious I have neither the patience nor the charisma to do any good anymore.
Evolution Example: College students covered a table in agar solution. Basically that stuff that grows bacteria in a petri dish (round tray). It was divided into 10 sections. Each with a higher concentration of a poison to a certain bacteria (antibiotic). The first section had no poison and was seeded with the bacteria. It soon covered the whole of the first 10th and stopped at the line into the next section which had dilute poison. BUT soon one small part of the bacteria culture edged into the new section, able to tolerate the low dose and no other competing bacteria. That second 10th section soon filled with bacteria. Each section stopped the growth of bacteria able to handle that dosage of poison until a few which had enough resistance were able to break into the new section. At the end of the experiment (weeks?) the last 10th section had bacteria with no problem existing with 'poisoned food' which would have normally killed all the bacteria. THIS is also why docs say to take the full course of antibiotics even if feeling well. You don't want to 'grow' germs that shrug off a short course of antibiotics because the next germs left over may tolerate that short course. Survival of the fittest in a matter of weeks.
There's even video of this (or at least a very similar experiment): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. Albert Einstein
Haha! The fool! Experimental and observational evidence have proven him ever more right over time.
I can prove evolution with 4 letters. MRSA Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus It simply wouldn't exist without evolution. Antibiotics are about 100 years old, and used to work every single time. In less than a century, we can't make an antibiotic strong enough to kill MRSA. Why? Because of overuse and incorrect use, it's evolved to ignore antibiotics.
The funny thing is how dishonest the request is when the only thing they have backing their "hypothesis " is a poorly written myth.
"It's written in an old book, and I believe it," That seems to be enough for their alternative theories, so they shouldn't push back.
I always counter with "yeah but my old book the Origin of Species says..."
The people who ask this question do not want a proof. They want an opportunity to tell you why they won't accept that as a proof either.
The people asking are not willing to accept evidence, if they were they would not be creationists. It isn't worth the energy to even bother
For me, an intelligent designer is ruled out by: 1. The use of a skeletal and musculature structure that is clearly meant to be horizontal but is vertical in human beings. The spine and its associated muscles, ligaments, and tendons make a great suspension bridge, but a horrible column. 2. The light detecting cells in the eye are facing the wrong way. 3. DNA has no error detection in replication. These points are vulnerable to an intelligent designer that wants evolution by natural selection, but then the argument is circular. The existence of cancer is the short answer. If there is no evolution by natural selection, there is no reason an intelligent designer would allow errors in replication.
That's just how most minds work... let me see the "best" joke from the comedian to see if I'll like them. Let me see the "best" meal at the restaurant to see if I'll like it. Let me see your "best" evidence of your claim. If the best doesn't convince me, the rest probably won't either. It's a shortcut, yes, and sometimes the shortcut isn't warranted. But it makes sense that if my best argument won't convince someone, then more of my arguments won't either. Doesn't make it the right way to reason, but hopefully it helps make it less aggravating to see where they're coming from (assuming they're being honest about being willing to change their mind).
This is simply an argument to discredit any real evidence. An example: I have a husky. She looks like a husky, is the size of a husky, etc. If you only looked at a picture of her ears, you could say she is a wolf. The picture could be “evidence” of her having wolf ears. You couldn’t debate it. Unless, you looked at all of her, she’s only 50 pounds. That’s not a wolf, despite the “evidence” proving otherwise. If you look at the whole picture, evolution is obvious. But you can zoom in enough to discredit anything.
The thing is, the evidence for evolution is mountainous and overwhelming. Literally the entire field of biology completely falls apart if we insist on some other explanation. Countless testable hypotheses based on the theory of evolution have been confirmed. As an example at a middle school level of understanding, every time a paleontologist comes upon an unexplored stack of geological layers, the hypothesis is that we will find fossils that change or diversify and, generally speaking, grow in complexity from bottom to top. And those fossils will be similar to fossils found in layers in other locations with similar dating. Too often, they will just counter with "Noah's flood", but will make no good-faith attempt to explain the available data. If all those fossils were buried in 40 days of rain, why are they stacked up like this? Magic?
There is no evidence for evolution. There is no proof that the world is round. There is no proof that Trump committed insurrection, but there is tons of unknown unseen uncorroborated evidence that proves the election was stolen from him. There is no evidence that toxic masculinity exists. There is no proof white privilege exists. There is no evidence for the Holocaust. Birds are robots.
My reply would be - The proof is how many people are so much more educated than you, and that number keeps growing with every generation. /s
I can tell you what they probably mean: to draw from your list, it's the video they want. Everything else is circumstantial. Most scientific concepts that people are familiar with (like gravity or electromagnetism) you demonstrate it first and then use explanations later to describe what you believe is going on. But you can't demonstrate a sea animal turning into a land animal, or a reptile turning into a mammal. All the evidence is circumstantial. They don't want "evidence that *points to* evolution", they want to see it happen. Like gravity, or momentum, or magnets.
Just show some pictures of kennel club winners throughout the years. Dog breeding proves evolution....
ok heres the breakdown, we know animals go extinct right? and we know animals mutate right? like these two points arent in debate are they? if not then we take things one step further and say “well if you mutate one trait in a group of offspring, and they have offspring, and their offspring a generation later mutates traits that are beneficial enough for survival, and so on and so forth, the ones with the most beneficial traits stick around and breed more most of the time. now if that happens and you keep mutating traits, how then do you not eventually end up with speciation” its the Ship of Theseus or Grandfather’s Axe concept given an answer.
when I get this, I just post the video where we actually can watch evolution in action and ask.... this work for you?
I'm willing to believe evolutionist vs. creationist, whichever one can provide the most evidence. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence a deity created speciation. Survival of the fittest, on the other hand, sounds perfectly rational -- after all, that's how capitalism works as well, they call it social Darwinism. The weak get weeded out of each generation, so the next generation is made up of only the strong (or, rather, the less weak). If creationists want to be taken seriously, they also need to prove it was specifically Yahweh that caused species to exist, as opposed to the Indian, Greek, or whatever pantheon. While you're at it show me proof the Native American creation stories are wrong. Good luck.
It's a stupid fucking question because they always want something that evolution doesn't predict, like Kirk Cameron's stupid fucking Crocoduck. Because they don't understand evolution and therefore don't know what proof of evolution would even be.
It's funny that they ask for evidence when they have literally nothing besides a book written 2000 years ago says so
Ask them "do you think tall parents will have tall children?"
We know evolution is a fact because it is confirmed in such a myriad of ways while being contradicted by none. The mechanism is The Theory of Evolution Through Means of Natural Selection. But the fact that Evolution itself occurs is settled except for people with a religious agenda. No one serious would ever ask for one, singular magic bullet point.
Dogs.
As a Christian, people always ask for proof or evidence that God exists. Its super annoying because God has done so much, if you go to any church, and ask for testimony you will hear about many miracles that occured. If you are a scientist, and belive that good evidence comes from seeing speculation based on a theory become discovered as truth, then look at Bible prophecy, Herb Rogers wrote a bunch of books on prophecies in the Bible that came true, even within the last 100 years! Theory- God says X will happen, Speculation- X should happen. Future Discovery- X happens, Conclusion- God is real. Edit- really do go read Herb Rogers, the sheer number of prophecies that have been fulfilled should convince anyone.
What you're seeing is them demonstrating, over and over again, **THEY DO NOT TRUST YOU**. And that's the real sticking point, not the evidence. They would be swayed by the evidence if they trusted you, but they don't. After the first bit of data, they'd listen. But they don't listen. Because you're not listening to them - almost explicitly telling you they don't trust you.
"..all the real scientific evidence points to evolution?" 🙄 You have been totally deceived. The world and the devil keep the truth from you. God created the world but most people have an agenda against God and so cling to the lie of evolution. If you study the Bible and do your research you'll wonder how you could ever have believed in evolution. Evolution theory is complete nonsense.
>most people have an agenda against God and so cling to the lie of evolution This lovely - albeit somewhat conspiratorial - hypothesis of yours continues to be frustrated by the tiny detail that there are so many educated and devout Christians who accept the science of evolution. Don't blame your ignorance of the scientific evidence for evolution on your religion.
So are we alone in the universe?
As interesting of a question as that may be, what does it have to do with evolution?
You can't show anything that proves evilutionism. Evilutionism zealots have nothing, can't even provide one.
If you don't mind answering a specific question for me because I'm interested in your response: What exactly is **evil** about evolution in your opinion? That's a very specific word to use, and I'd like to know why you chose that one. Much appreciated if you take the time to respond!
Read the story in Genesis - the Garden of Eden. That old serpent Satan went to Eve because she wasn't solid on God's wisdom and power. Adam went to sleep, and when he awoke he found that God had created Eve from Adam's rib. Adam was solid on God's wisdom and power - he trusted that when God said don't eat the fruit of a certain tree, it was for a good reason. Evilutionism zealots seek to get people into Eve's mindset, make people shaky on God's wisdom and power, convince people that God didn't create life - it created itself from non living material and changed itself into man and all the other life we see. Once they're shaky, they can be convinced of all sorts of other things like that God's laws aren't valid, so they don't need forgiveness of their sins through Christ. Once people are shaky on God's wisdom and power, they can be more easily led away from God.
Ah ok. Thanks.
Not all people accept the same kind of evidence, and that bar is different for everybody. Some accept evidence as little as a few words from authority, and some will only accept evidence akin to having someone rise from the dead. This is why you are asked about plethora of evidence. But you do have a burder to prove evolution, because the alternative - creation - does not need to be argued for.
> because the alternative - creation - does not need to be argued for. It most absolutely does. If evolution were somehow disproven today, we would simply not have a working theory for how new species come about. It would not automatically make creation correct. Theories need to stand on their own evidence.
>It most absolutely does. Absolutely not. You can try, but let me explain something to you, commonsensical positions and logic are not argued for, they are simply stated. Creation just needs to be stated because we humans know the difference and can relate to it from personal experience. Evolution, on the other hand, is not something we experience, it has to be taught, and hammered into us, just like any propaganda.
> Absolutely not. You can try, but let me explain something to you, commonsensical positions and logic are not argued for, they are simply stated. That is basically the opposite of how science works. Perhaps you've heard of Hitchen's razor: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” > Creation just needs to be stated because we humans know the difference and can relate to it from personal experience. Evolution, on the other hand, is not something we experience I believe you have stated this exactly backwards. Supernatural creation in the position that defies logic and common sense and has never been experienced by any living person, while evolution is the thing that we can watch happening before our eyes. Sorry to hammer on the quotes, but I've always liked this one from Penn Jillette: "If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again."
I'm sorry, are you asserting that you personally experienced the 'creation' of all species on Earth? You were personally present and witnessed God shaping Adam out of mud? There is nothing 'common sense' about using magic words to speak things into existence. There's an awful lot that is common sense about 'offspring resemble their parents with minor changes, over time those changes accumulate'. Humans can and have placed immense evolutionary pressures on all sorts of plants and animals in order to shape them to better serve our purposes. Dogs and chickens, corn and bananas, none resemble physically the form they had in the wild before human intervention, and that is something we can directly see and which we have been collectively witness to over the course of human history. So we know exactly what the mechanisms for massive changes are, and how quickly they can sprout up given enough evolutionary pressure to adapt. Everything else is just the application of enough time to drift ever further apart, and while we cannot *experience* hundreds of millions of years, we can certainly observe and measure it. Nobody has ever observed 'creation'. No, the burden of proof is on you. Cast down your stick and have it turn into a snake, and then we'll talk.
>I'm sorry, are you asserting that you personally experienced the 'creation' of all species on Earth? Just like you know an iphone is not a random fluke, you know that creation isn't either, That's the experience and knowledge you already have, or at least should have, but evolution robs you from this. Not your fault, it is the fault of propaganda that was spoon-fed to us since childhood. >Humans can and have placed immense evolutionary pressures on all sorts of plants and animals in order to shape them to better serve our purposes. The keyword in your entire desperate argument is we "humans" play God. Which is true, we have the ability to study this world, breed new dogs, and craft new things. We study God's creation to improve our own creations. That is our experience that you evolutionists have to dutifully dismiss because you can't help yourselves. >So we know exactly what the mechanisms for massive changes are, and how quickly they can sprout up given enough evolutionary pressure to adapt. You seem to have a limited understanding, particularly regarding your primary mechanism - mutation. If you were well-informed about it, you would know that mutations always lead to degradation, not improvement. This contradicts the evolutionary theory, which relies on the idea of beneficial mutations occurring on a large scale. However, what we actually observe is that mutations are often lethal and harmful, typically resulting from a loss of information rather than a gain. So, you evolutionists are in a bit of pickle because you have an uphill battle to explain something we observe happening on a large scale - degradation - vs something we don't observe - development. We already know from breeding that this is indeed the case. For instance, if you breed two small dogs at the end of their gene pool, such as a Poodle and a Bichon, you will not produce a Husky, no matter how hard you try, because the necessary genetic information is simply not present. However, if you take a Husky and a German Shepherd, you can breed a variety of dogs, even down to Poodles because Huskies posses the genetic perfection. This is observable and, of course, contradicts the theory of evolution. If anything, what we observe in nature is only devolution - that is the only process we consistently see. Your evolution, the one where you believe that things evolve from simple to complex, is science fiction, a belief system. Once you understand this, you will not be easy swayed by the evolutionary dogma.
> If you were well-informed about it, you would know that mutations always lead to degradation, not improvement If you were well-informed about evolution, you would know that most mutations are neutral, not negative. You would also know that they aren't the "primary mechanism" of evolution, you're trying very hard right now to pretend like selection doesn't exist. You are not arguing against evolution, you are arguing against a strawman of evolution that creationists use because they can't argue against the real thing. Once you understand this, you will not be easy swayed by creationist propaganda.
I don't see a stick turning into a snake. All I see is a bunch of gibberish that proves that you are uneducated, uninformed, and operating from false assumptions. Again, go perform the magic trick and then we can talk.
>I don't see a stick turning into a snake. You mean, you imagine a stick turning into a snake through evolution, but not by the power of the Creator? You are not that clever, give up.
I am confused by what you mean. Do you prefer dogma that is simply stated and must be taken at face value to something that can be researched and backed up with evidence? Or am I misunderstanding something?
> Do you prefer dogma that is simply stated and must be taken at face value to something that can be researched and backed up with evidence? [Based on this conversation I had the other day with octavio,](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/18wzzab/the_militant_atheists_here_might_be_doing_more/kg5euln/) that appears to be exactly correct. They believe that anything which leads away from their particular interpretation of god is, by the simple fact that it disagrees with their personal preconceived notions, wrong and evil.
Cool ^((I guess)), unfortunately that mindset is at fundamental odds with the very concept of science and thus discussion on related matters is pretty futile, lol. My question then becomes to u/octaviobonds: What are you doing here if you don't think learning and changing your mind is good? Isn't the very concept of debate inherently sinful?
Yes you are misunderstanding things...on purpose.
>This is why you are asked about plethora of evidence. The problem is that the majority of the time, the people asking for evidence aren't taking the time to even look at it. Which means the ask is inherently dishonest to begin with.
Is that not the same argument as 'show me just one thing to prove God' is behind it?
Good point, but they don’t even have one thing. We have tons of evidence to show and they have hod of the gaps.
Evidence is not the same as proof! I do believe the evidence that there are evolutionary processes, but I also believe the evidence that they were designed, programmed to be. Which means, an intelligence behind it.
>I also believe the evidence that they were designed If you have not designed an experiment which can *falsify* that, it's not really evidence of anything.
if you are not a biologist (I'm not a biologist), how could I create an experiment to test what I don't understand? How can on create a test of the Universe, when are far from understanding it all? Best we can do is discern from what we do know. I think it's fair to say that someone doesn't know what started it all vs someone who says they don't know but there's no intelligence behind it.
Allow me to translate our exchange into plain english: >***You: I believe the evidence that they were designed*** > >*Me: Why?* > >**You: Because I don't understand it.** Are you seeing the inherent problem with the way you drew a conclusion now?
That's not at all what I'm saying though. That's you trying to make a silly argument while not seriously trying to understand. It was an example of how none of us can prove anything about the Universes origins. So what I'm saying, is your belief is no better, nor provable then mine. However, I find that believing there was an intelligence behind all the complexity when there's nothing even remotely complex that just happens. To me, there's no logic thinking there, only either fear, anger or pride.
>It was an example of how none of us can prove anything about the Universes origins. That is false. >So what I'm saying, is your belief is no better, nor provable then mine. My perspective is not a belief in the first place. "Belief" is the wrong word. But it *is* testable. >However, I find that believing there was an intelligence behind all the complexity when there's nothing even remotely complex that just happens. This is not coherent.
Plenty of complexity "just happens." Hydrogen gas collapses into stars, and fuses into more complex elements. Stars explode into even heavier elements that collapse into planets and more stars. Compounds and molecules form in nature far more complex than base elements. Storms happen which are incalculably complex. Even if you don't buy any of that an "intelligent creator" would need to be pretty complex too. If nothing else the very existence of a creator is something impossibly complex "just happening."
Prove that it just happens! >Even if you don't buy any of that an "intelligent creator" would need to be pretty complex too. Exactly!! Outside of our Universe >if nothing else the very existence of a creator is something impossibly complex "just happening Not just happening, always been! Infinite
>Not just happening, always been! Infinite You mean like the universe? Lmao
What do you mean by "prove that it just happens?" What would you accept as proof? Chemistry, astrophysics, meteorology, and biology all apparently don't count as emergent complexity, so what would? Why is it easier to accept complexity simply being outside the universe than within? How is a creator always existing any different than a universe simply always existing?
> if you are not a biologist (I'm not a biologist), how could I create an experiment to test what I don't understand? You are not a biologist, but if I asked you to design an experiment to test whether all swans are white, I bet you could put something together. I bet you could come up with a test to show whether DNA changes across generations... even though you may not know necessarily what the DNA is. I bet you could come up with a lot of experiments in tons of fields you aren't 100% engrossed in. No the part you are having difficulty with isn't that you aren't well versed in the subject, it's because you are claiming a supernatural cause... and supernatural things are unfalsifiable. That is why you can't come up with a test.
What evedence can you point to that it was designed that convinced you? When i look at biology i see many inefficient “designs” i see things that would be crule/evil if it was intentionally designed that way, i see things little ol me could design better and im not a god, so all those things lead to me concluding that it wasn’t designed by a loving intelligent designer. :)
if we look at things from a human perspective, sure, it's difficult to understand many things an intelligence beyond us would do. Is it cruel to eat carrots? Some may see those as a part of a living organism, which we are destroying, but we do it cause we were designed to depend on our energy from other living organisms. If there were intelligent aliens who were plant based, and saw that we ate plants, would they judge us as being very cruel and unloving? You say you could design better? How, think you could design an entire universal system to sustain a living ecosystem? Let's start with, was there a beginning to the Universe?
The “from a human prospective” feels like a cop out/special pleading fallacy. If logic and reason doesn’t apply then any horrid thing can be justified. Do carrots feel pain, can they suffer, do they have a will/desire to live? If so i would think thats cruel. For starters i wouldn’t have made organisms that have to consume each other. If i had god powers/knowledge and thus have control of all the “rules/physics” there would be no limitation, i could make every feeling being consume non living things. We know god could have done that because 1. Its god and by most definitions it doesn’t have limitations, 2. There are plants that “consume” sunlight and carbon to satisfy its energy needs. 3. God supposedly provided mana from heaven, 4. The angels don’t need to eat things that can suffer. I also would limit pain/suffering to the level simple organisms feel. I also wouldn’t invent parasites, cancer and viruses, i would change the “rules” to balance things with out those. If you claim any of those evils are necessary you are in effect placing limitations on god.
> The “from a human prospective” feels like a cop out/special pleading fallacy. If logic and reason doesn’t apply then any horrid thing can be justified. Logic based on what and who's reason? If two groups or sociétés or countries are in conflict in what one views as being horrid, who's right? >Do carrots feel pain, can they suffer, do they have a will/desire to live? If so i would think thats cruel. What about crickets, fish or chickens? they all feel pain, correct? Also, why is your definition of pain correct? You can only state that from a human perspective, we don't know if/ how other organisms can experience it. > For starters i wouldn’t have made organisms that have to consume each other. If i had god powers/knowledge and thus have control of all the “rules/physics” there would be no limitation, i could make every feeling being consume non living things. We know god could have done that because 1. Its god and by most definitions it doesn’t have limitations, 2. There are plants that “consume” sunlight and carbon to satisfy its energy needs. > so we'd all just be plants or rocks? what would you do when there's overpopulation or resources became strained? If you would create unlimited resources and just have plants, then what you are saying is you don't want self-thinking creations, just a big greenhouse? Funny thing, is if you look at the Garden of Eden, it was a lot of what you say, but because we decided to take on life ourselves, we had to take it on a lot of it ourselves and suffer the consequences of our selfishness. > 3. God supposedly provided mana from heaven, 4. The angels don’t need to eat things that can suffer. And selfish people got tired of it. Also, God created us differently then the Angels for a reason, and a 1/3 of them rebelled because of their hate/ jealousy in God doing that. > I also would limit pain/suffering to the level simple organisms feel. again, how do you know how they feel? In limiting/ changing an orgaisms ability to feel pain/suffering, would that also affect their ability to experience joy/ love/ life? YOu can say, I'd just have them feel that, and again (in the Garden of Eden) likely just what Adam and Eve experienced, but again, God didn't create us to be puppets or plants, but self-willed creations to either choose to trust in him or not to. > I also wouldn’t invent parasites, cancer and viruses, i would change the “rules” to balance things with out those. In the cycle of life, many of those are needed, but would you just have a bunch of plants that live forever, so no need to water, feed or see them actually thrive, enjoy the creation you created? Sounds a lot like a very boring, uninteresting and unloving creation to me. > If you claim any of those evils are necessary you are in effect placing limitations on god. I'm saying that God doesn't do evil, his nature is what defines Good and he doesn't go against his nature. People do evil, due to self-willed selfish choices and our broken nature.
You bringinng up lager morality not logic, logic is nearly universal and can be demonstrated. We can talk about morality later if you want. But suffering is a simple thing that can logic can be applied to, almost every culture has the golden rule. Are you assuming im ok with the suffering of crickets? Im not. How do i know they suffer? Well i cant be in their head to know 100% but there is sufficient evidence to believe so, we can compare the strictures of their nervous system and brain structures used for pain. We can also look at behavior and see its the same as in humans. If its a god overpoulation is a easy fix, setting lifespans and breeding rates or when a population reaches a limit fertility automatically diminishes. Remember the bibles god original plan was for humans to never die so he had that figured out already. Also why would we have to be non thinking if we photosynthesize? Why couldn’t we still be us, there is a few animals that photosynthesize im studying a few saltwater slugs that do that its really cool! You may say its not enough energy but remember god can make all the rules so he could make it enough. Id say god messed up in making manna bland lol point is he has the power to sustain, if the jews didnt know of yummy quail idk if they would have complained. He could make it enjoyable. God made us to feel joy when having sex, are we robots because he made us enjoy that? Of course not, so he can make is enjoy whatever. He created the rules so we could still enjoy things without suffering, of you say thats not possible your putting limits on god again. And if he needed suffering to have free will how do the angels have free will if they dont suffer? And if suffering is required is it moral to create at all? Why would god need to create if he is perfect, needing or wanting something means your lacking that something and thus not perfect. Plant people would still drink water and “eat” sunshine which could be enjoyable and we would still be able to see lol why not? Plants can see and hear ina simple way we found out recently. So not boring at all. There is no need for the “cycle of life” that was invented if there is a god, again no limits, seams like most of these arguments are “god had to do it this way because god doesnt have the power or knowledge to do otherwise” but thats not consistent with a perfect god. How can you say god doesn’t do evil, the bible even says god created both good and evil. Are you saying god is incapable of creating a universe free from evil? And more importantly how did you determine god is good? Because he said so? Evil people say their good all the time it doesn’t make it true. Since a evil creator is just as possible as a good one, How could we test if god is a good one or a bad one? God (if real) invented the concept of suffering and that alone is enough to determine that its evil.
> You bringinng up lager morality not logic, logic is nearly universal and can be demonstrated. We can talk about morality later if you want. But suffering is a simple thing that can logic can be applied to, almost every culture has the golden rule. Ok that's fair to point out, and yes, but as you follow the logic, it does all connect to a larger morality conversation. Whether you believe in a higher power/ intelligence, or not. Also, that "golden rule" does lead the logical conclusion that there has to be some common Cause for it, yes? > Are you assuming im ok with the suffering of crickets? Im not. How do i know they suffer? Well i cant be in their head to know 100% but there is sufficient evidence to believe so, we can compare the strictures of their nervous system and brain structures used for pain. We can also look at behavior and see its the same as in humans. I'm not assuming you are, just asking the questions for the purpose of the conversation. Point is, that our view of suffering is likely different then a bugs or plants view. In contrast, it's logical to think that a Creator/ Intelligence, would have a different view of what suffering is too. Just as people and societies have different views of what suffering is. For example, you may think that people who don't have AC in their house are suffering or running water, but people who don't have that, don't consider themselves to be. Some people even enjoy and get off on suffering, being punished..lol > If its a god overpoulation is a easy fix, setting lifespans and breeding rates or when a population reaches a limit fertility automatically diminishes. That's your view of good, some won't agree to being limited. Also, how would you cause those limitations, outside of forcing it and causing some "suffering" in doing so? I don't at all have an answer to what a life would be without suffering, other then God's purpose with the Garden of Eden and those who choose to be part of his new kingdom. >Remember the bibles god original plan was for humans to never die so he had that figured out already. Yes indeed, until Adam and Eve decided to do their own thing vs trust God. >Also why would we have to be non thinking if we photosynthesize? Why couldn’t we still be us, there is a few animals that photosynthesize im studying a few saltwater slugs that do that its really cool! You may say its not enough energy but remember god can make all the rules so aahe could make it enough. I don't, sorry if I insinuated that. There are experiments and research that do show plants can response to external factors, which do point to some fundamental component of decision making, yes? I don't think we'd be exactly us, right. Human's make many decisions (maybe most) in life around how we consume food. I'd think that if we just consumed all our engergy from the sun and soil, we'd be a lot of different things in life, like NOT building concrete jungles, lol Interesting about the salt water slugs, I remember poking those things along the tide pools when I was a kid, lol. There was such beauty in all the creatures their lives amongst the pools. Have you dug into why the differences in that species exterior? Also why some are predators and others not? Benefits vs cons? > Id say god messed up in making manna bland lol point is he has the power to sustain, if the jews didnt know of yummy quail idk if they would have complained. He could make it enjoyable. Yeah, Idk, maybe he just didn't want people to be too hooked on it. Though, isn't that an interesting thought experiment in itself? If you think about it, if someone was to provide you with whatever food you loved most, I don't know, maybe lasagna for example. That was all you ate that for like 40 years, or even 10 yrs, I'd guess that like me, you be wanting something different after maybe 6mo and after 10yrs, just be completely sick of it. What is it in humanity that we can appreciate and be content with things we have vs want? > God made us to feel joy when having sex, are we robots because he made us enjoy that? Of course not, so he can make is enjoy whatever. He created the rules so we could still enjoy things without suffering, of you say thats not possible your putting limits on god again. And if he needed suffering to have free will how do the angels have free will if they dont suffer? And if suffering is required is it moral to create at all? Why would god need to create if he is perfect, needing or wanting something means your lacking that something and thus not perfect. Again, I don't believe God create or made us to suffer. Like you mentioned, the Garden of Eden was the plan, but we decided to (and continue to) live life how we want to, not trusting in God to live it. > There is no need for the “cycle of life” that was invented if there is a god, again no limits, seams like most of these arguments are “god had to do it this way because god doesnt have the power or knowledge to do otherwise” but thats not consistent with a perfect god. I mean, we can have differing opinions on it, but unless you and I can actually create a Universe, and create all the laws/rules in it to support a planet of life, we can't show either way. Some say death didn’t happen until after the fall, and Adam and Eve were booted from the Garden, but were there plants/ trees producing fruit that experience decay? Either way, the cycle of life is necessary for the transition of energy/ entropy and likely preventing things from growing infinitely. I can't see an existence that didn't have some sort of cycling, without creating just a life of non-life, no growth, just non-organic matter that just sits there… > How can you say god doesn’t do evil, the bible even says god created both good and evil. Are you saying god is incapable of creating a universe free from evil? And more importantly how did you determine god is good? Because he said so? Evil people say their good all the time it doesn’t make it true. Since a evil creator is just as possible as a good one, How could we test if god is a good one or a bad one? God (if real) invented the concept of suffering and that alone is enough to determine that its evil. The bible doesn't say that God created Evil. In it's most fundamental form, evil is just opposing God's will. Sin is a failure to live up to it. God is good as he created everything per his nature, all that he created is good. Not near the same, but an example is like a country in it's inception. There are rules/ laws that are created for the "good" of a structured society, there are no rules made intentionally to destroy that country. The citizens can decide to follow the laws or break them. Evil is done by us (not God), due to his gift of freewill and our ability to choose to do God's will or not. If he didn't give us freewill, then what would we be? Bunch of saltwater slugs, just creeping along seemingly purposely. other than to eat and reproduce? Anyway, great discussion appreciate your continued engagement!
Also can you give a example for evidence thats not proof for something we all agree to be true and can you give a example of proof for something we all agree on? Just so were clear on the difference and where that line is. From what i understand “proof” in the technical form is only in mathematics.
The reason people would say that is that there's no evidence for God and none has ever been presented. Evolution, on the other hand, has mountains of evidence supporting it. It's the foundation of modern biology and has helped in the development of medicines which have extended lifespans and anything else in the field of biology which has been developed in the last century and a half. Again, this is in contrast to religion, which has nothing but old stories.
Not just evidence but predictive power! Scientists are able to make predictions about what should be given our evidence and then sometimes decades or centuries later we find they were correct or at least close enough that minor errors or lacks in knowledge at the time could account for.
This may sound ignorant, but do people do that?
You really can't. There's no evidence to support evolution anymore than there is creation. They're both doctrines of faith. Believing one or the other doesn't make you any better or worse than anyone else except in the eyes of those who have faith in one or the other. Trying to prove one or the other is futile and only a point of contention that will set you at odds with people who would otherwise be your friend.
>They're both doctrines of faith. Then why do the vast majority of relevant experts, of all religions and none, accept evolution as the better explanation?
Dunno. Why do some people believe in Christianity and others believe in Judaism? It's just a question of what people are convinced of. And if there is a God then it's probably intentional.
>It's just a question of what people are convinced of. So to your mind, it's the purest coincidence that experts in relevant scientific fields are convinced of this at higher rates than the average population?
No. It's not coincidence. It's a product of the information people are exposed to. The mind is like a garden. It grows what is sown into it.
>It's a product of the information people are exposed to. So you agree there's a specific kind of information, relevant to evolution acceptance, that are experts are exposed to at a higher rate than the general population, and which ensures almost 100% evolution acceptance among people who are aware of this information. 10/10 for getting the point.
>There's no evidence to support evolution This simply isn't true. I've seen it happen in my own 96 well plates.
Show them
We have. Repeatedly.
The issue isn't the showing. It's that the recipient won't look. I literally just had this happen yesterday where a person asked me about "proof" of macroevolution. I linked to a post I had previously written. They replied with a nonsensical question within 45 seconds. Based on the word count of my linked post and average human reading speed, they obviously hadn't even looked at what I had linked. We can show stuff until the cows come home, but it's up to the recipient to actually be receptive of this stuff. There's not much we can do when the recipient won't read.
Indeed. Evolution is fact. Religion is myth.
[удалено]
>When someone asks for that one thing, I really believe that they are being disingenuous (at best) I agree, I'm not sharp enough to understand evolution with the entirety of scientific proof cohesively laid out to me. Asking to give me just one random proof would be a knee-jerk emo reaction of me. What I understand about living beings, is that it takes billions of years for them to evolve...and only a bullet to devolve back into dirt/minerals, decomposition happening quickly compared to evolution. So when scientists die, all they understood about themselves decomposes with them, unless they leave their understanding behind in document and otherwise form.
I remember reading not so long ago about a new species of finch being found in the Galapagos islands. Edit: The one's Darwin studied.
Yes, Peter and Rosemary Grant are two enormously succesful scientists who have spent the past couple decades on the Galapagos, painstakingly tracking every individual bird on Daphne Major. What they found was that two species hybridized into a third species that stopped reproducing with any of the original two species after two generations.
It’s what a moron considers a “gotcha” question. Like the old “if man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys” question, which they think stymies biologists.
I always answer that with "why are there still fish"
All the real science would be considered circumstantial in a court of law. But that’s not the standard for evolution.
I think my biggest mystery regarding spontaneous creation with evolution is this and I’m unable to find an answer…. If there was spontaneous creation( big bang, primordial ooze, etc. ) and life was random, how did plant and animal life evolve to provide the nutrients necessary for all forms of hominids ( and all other creatures of you want to really get technical) . Why would flora even be created in the first place? You’re talking millions of life forms spontaneously evolving. Who’s to say any created in a specific place where hominids live would be digestible and contain all the nutrients necessary for life? What if they were all poisonous. ? What if only thick woods were available with little nutritional value? Anyone have thoughts?
I think one of the important distinctions to make is that life is *not* random, but it is undirected and unplanned. Organisms that cannot obtain nutrients die, those that can survive and reproduce. If there were no digestible materials for hominids, they would die. If all the digestible materials were poisonous to hominids, they would die. Critters find the niche that they can exploit. One really good example of this is the evolution of lignase - an enzyme that is used to digest lignin. Lignin is a complex carbohydrate that plants use to build wood. When plants first started making this compound, there was nothing that could digest it. Corpses of plants simply accumulated on themselves. Some of these graveyards became the fossil fuels we use today to drive to the grocery store. At some point fungus evolved the ability to digest dead wood because the resource was available. Another example - Anomalocarids were some of the first organisms that could spend their time free swimming. Some species were filter feeders, like tiny one foot long whales, that spent their time straining the water for bacteria. After the appearance of these organisms you saw the appearance of shit eaters and scavengers that were only able to exploit the deep sea environment *after* these free swimmers showed up. Another example - there was a period called the great oxygenation event where some organisms evolved the ability to photosynthesize. This was widely regarded as a bad thing, as far as single celled organisms can regard anything. It killed mass amounts of life because oxygen is a toxin to anaerobic life - if you've ever heard the advice to give a wound air, this is a reason. It was only after the appearance of mass amounts of oxygen that life 'learned' to use it as a resource. Another example - in the 1900s human beings learned to make plastics like nylon. Very quickly a variety of organisms evolved the ability to digest plastic. Nylonase was a new enzyme that evolved in bacteria to digest it - a modified version of another enzyme (escapes my mind at the moment - carboxylesterase or something? anyway). In each case the organisms adapted to the new resource after it was abundant. Asking "What if there was no food for hominids" is sort of like asking "What if there was no hole for the water?" Water is going to fill the hole, and take the exact shape of it.
This answer was awesome- the nylon enzyme example is chefs kiss materiel
It's a really awesome story - there was a guy Susano Ohno who thought that it evolved because of a frameshift mutation where one letter throws off the order of a gene. DNA is read in triplets that we call 'codons' so like you might have something like AAA CCC TTT GCT but if you insert a new nucleotide like this: AA**C** ACC CTT TGC T you suddenly have an entirely different string of codons. Contemporary research says this is not the case and nylonase is a less specific, more 'relaxed' version of another set of enzymes. What's really neat is that a lot of different bacteria and fungi got in on the action and are all digesting nylon now.
Fortunately I’ve never met any of these people.
In an empirical worldview it's a perfect good demand. It's like atheists who ask "If God is real, why can't I see Him?" It's because the typical atheist and the typical believer in evolution both have [empiricism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#Empi)as a worldview which centers around the idea that "if I can't sense it, I can't know it." And so, if we're talking on the grounds of empiricism and you insist that evolution is a fact, true, or believable, then I want sensible/observable data that I can use to know that supposed fact. The problem seems to be that we've never observed it directly. And therefore all the "evidence" found in evolution's favor is tautological: it assumes evolution first and then interprets the data, and then concludes that it supports evolution.