ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I think it's hilarious that you start by saying that "the posters here have not read a word I have said", and then proceed to accuse other people of making arguments and statements demonstrating that you have clearly never read a word THEY'VE said.
Nobody here says "it just popped out of nowhere". What they have said, repeatedly and at length, is that we don't know yet. There is no requirement to concoct a fantasy when you're openly admitting to not actually knowing the truth yet. Nor has anybody here said that it "does't matter". This type of projection drifts from the side of delusion into outright dishonesty.
Actually, no it doesn't. Everything we already know to be true will still be true, and we can still continue to find out more. If it is somehow proven that a God exists and created life, that still does not answer the question of exactly how life was created, and we can still continue to analyse and learn about the process.
Secondly, this is a vacuous point. Anyone could just as easily say "If the answer to the big question is not a powerful intelligent first cause of everything, then the foundation of your beliefs crumbles into nothing". You have to demonstrate a proposition to be true BEFORE the consequences of it become meaningful or useful to consider. There's absolutely no point in saying "But if God exists, you're wrong", any more than there is to saying "But if the sun is pulled across the sky by Helios' chariot, then your theory about the sun remaining stationary is wrong!"
Please demonstrate your claim, or else I will file it away along with claims such as "Most politicians are lizard-people" and "Most feminists want to eradicate all men from the planet" i my drawer labelled "claims people make that are conveniently impossible to prove because there is a vast global conspiracy to suppress it despite a complete absence of any kind of evidence for either the truth of the claims or any kind of conspiracy to suppress them because any absence of evidence is merely the evidence of the vastness of the conspiracy in the eyes of people who are completely deluded".
Note to self: I need wider drawers...
If you mean "the origin of life", then you are wrong. Evolutionary theory is about how life changes over time, not about how life originated. There is no requirement for evolution to explain the origin of life, any more than there is a requirement for the theory of gravity to explain the origin of physical forces or mass.
Firstly, you cannot quantify "design" as an intrinsic facet of an object or organism. We only recognise design if and when we understand or have observed the process behind it. We cannot instinctively or logically deduce whether something is designed or occurs naturally if we have no frame of reference with which to divide that which occurs naturally from that which is the result of manufacture. If you found a small, metallic disc that was perfectly spherical, but had never encountered such an object before or previously been aware of any process used to manufacture it, you would not be able to jump to the conclusion that it was designed - and nor should you. If you then found a large tree from which dozens of metallic discs were growing, you would have a frame of reference from which to make a conclusion - likewise if you found a man at a forge pounding lumps of iron into discs.
To assert that life must have been designed merely because "it is complex" is simply evoking another fallacy: the assumption that "complexity" is in any way a meaningful concept to anything other than a human mind. Again, "complexity" is not an innate facet of an object, but a result of human thought processes attempting to understand something and finding difficult.
You're right, it is difficult to believe.
However, when we unearth THOUSANDS of bones (including many nearly complete skeletons) and subject them all to rigorous analysis, testing and dating and find that every single one that we find shows a clear pattern through the geological strata that is perfectly consistent with evolutionary predictions that life diversified over time (and completely refute any predictions that life arose suddenly, or is unchanging), THAT is when we can start putting together the "evolutionary chain".
Then, by all means, continue to believe what you like. I assure you, the world will continue turning. I would only say that you clearly do not actually know anything about evolution, or you would not make the ridiculous claims that you do above, and I simply do not think you are educated enough on the subject to suitably claim that "it is too much of a stretch" for you. If you had demonstrated that you understood the theory and the science behind it, that would be another matter, but since you clearly don't I feel your statement here proves that you are putting the cart before the horse and dismissing the theory pre-emptively out of some prejudgement of bias. I suggest you try educating yourself on the subject before deciding to throw the baby out with the bath-water. It is not unreasonable, considering you most certainly would feel the same way about anyone who rejects your position, that it is only wise to reject something once you actually understand enough about it.
God of the gaps argument. "Science cannot explain X yet, therefore any assumption about X - even one which prevents me from accepting any possible scientific explanation in the future - is perfectly valid".
Since there are thousands of religions with just as many varied ideas about how the Universe came to be, this argument seems both ignorant and evidence of a mind far too eager to gamble with reality.
