What's the Deal with Evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

Because it followed another branch?
If we came from animals, they all have to be back in our past somewhere.

The evidence supports that we share a common ancestry with canines. You have failed to show that we do not. Your denial and ignorance is not evidence that a scientific theory is refuted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I tried to keep it on topic but I failed hard. Sorry, but sometimes there is nothing you can do.

It does offer examples of the observation that some Christians are irrationally incensed by the science. I would say that most of the posts in opposition to the theory reveal how little the opposition understands the science or the details as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why? It's simply survival of the fittest.

So biological fitness can be added to the list of concepts you do not understand. Got it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why? Why can't I rip it apart with my teeth? According to evolution I'm a mammal and a predator.

We're omnivores.

 

[Heyo]

It does offer examples of the observation that some Christians are irrationally incensed by the science. I would say that most of the posts in opposition to the theory reveal how little the opposition understands the science or the details as well.

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

 

[Valjean]

If we came from animals, they all have to be back in our past somewhere.

??? -- your point?
You mean they're not?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Answers to what, exactly? You seem to have gone off in a bizarre tangent about behaving like different animals. I see no questions that need answers. You can't logically go from a scientific theory, that describes what is to some sort of moral idea about how things ought to be and how you ought to behave. Different animals have totally different behaviours to each other. Why would a human behave like some other animal?

Like a carnivore ape? Isn't that what I was just told we are?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you no longer have serious responses to the posts. As I see it, your claims were left unsupported. Questions to you left unanswered. And your arguments fell apart about as can be expected considering how fatally flawed and dusty they were to start.

The theory of evolution does not tell you to behave or not to behave like a monster. That is up to you.

No, it tells me to act like a carnivore ape. Because that's what I'm told we are.

 

[Wildswanderer]

??? -- your point?

I already made it. Go back and read.

 

[Valjean]

No, it tells me to act like a carnivore ape. Because that's what I'm told we are.

Stop it! Nothing's telling you how to act. Get over yourself. "Animal" is not a status marker. It's not degrading to be one.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Stop it! Nothing's telling you how to act. Get over yourself. "Animal" is not a status marker. It's not degrading to be one.

If I'm a carnivorous ape, why would I not act like one?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, it tells me to act like a carnivore ape. Because that's what I'm told we are.

It was bad enough when you didn't answer any questions, but when your arguments break down to ridiculous posts, it is clear you have nothing. I MEAN NOTHING.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Like a carnivore ape? Isn't that what I was just told we are?

This is hilarious!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I agree with you. I can pretty much tell after just the first few questions I asked that were left unanswered that engaging was going to be pointless. Sometimes I let it go. But I have to admit the sheer arrogance of their ignorance sets me off. Reading the posts of someone that clearly knows nothing about the subject, yet dictates that it is wrong with that Dunning/Kruger, logical fallacy authority. Just something about that coming up at the right time for me.

But you are right. It is easy to get sucked in.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I agree with you. I can pretty much tell after just the first few questions I asked that were left unanswered that engaging was going to be pointless. Sometimes I let it go. But I have to admit the sheer arrogance of their ignorance sets me off. Reading the posts of someone that clearly knows nothing about the subject, yet dictates that it is wrong with that Dunning/Kruger, logical fallacy authority. Just something about that coming up at the right time for me.

But you are right. It is easy to get sucked in.

Never heard of it before!
Here’s a concise, fascinating article about it....

What is the Dunning–Kruger Effect? - Facty


Hope you’re doing well, my friend.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Never heard of it before!
Here’s a concise, fascinating article about it....

What is the Dunning–Kruger Effect? - Facty


Hope you’re doing well, my friend.

I am doing well. I hope you are too.

It is a very common condition. I see it here a lot.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But what this verse is saying is that faith itself is the evidence, when there is nothing else that you can offer as evidence. "Things we cannot see", means we have no other evidence of its truth, other than our intuition, our hearts telling us. That "faith" is the evidence, when there is no evidence "we can see", as the verse says.

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

Here, look at Hebrews 11:1 from BibleHub:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see..
Do you see all those translations calling faith a “conviction”, and “proof”? That doesn’t come from a ‘feeling’. Neither does “evidence.”

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


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

That’s evidence. For us.

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

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

 

[ratiocinator]

Like a carnivore ape? Isn't that what I was just told we are?

No. We are omnivorous, social apes and different species of ape have different behaviours too. And you totally ignored my actual point. There is nothing in the ToE (or any other scientific theory, for that matter) that can tell you what you ought or ought not to do. Suggesting that there is just emphasises the fact that you don't understand the theory or science in general.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No I mean I would not have the right to have a dog for a pet if Darwin's theory was correct and we are just animals.

Why?

Or God forbid, to actually eat a dog or a cow or a sheep would be like eating great grandma.

How would that be "like that"?

You make no sense.
Which isn't surprising.

I've never seen anyone try and make a creative argument against a well-established scientific theory like evolution, while making sense. So no surprise there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you eat meat?

Yes.

Do you wear clothes?

Yes.

Then you are enslaving and killing animals. It's inevitable.

Enslaving - no.
Killing and consuming - yes.

Even if you don't eat meat, all farming kills lots of little animals.

Yes.

It is literally impossible to stay alive and not kill living things for consumption.
This goes for most lifeforms. Even herbivores. They too kill and consume life. Plant life, that is.



What of it?