-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The top wrong assumptions i've came across when debating theist about evolution
- Thread starter Segev Moran
- Start date
syo
Well-Known Member
if god isn't responsible for a sophisticated nature with laws then who is? luck?
syo
Well-Known Member
why I think there is a cause? let me think...
syo
Well-Known Member
i'll think about it.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Personally, I don't see any reason why any intelligence would be responsible for the way that matter behaves in our universe. "Natural laws" were not put into place by any intelligence. They are merely a way for humans to understand how the natural world works.
But, your question illustrates that you are utilizing the God of the gaps argument.
Tony L Smith
Tony
I Debate a lot.
I love to share my ideas and hear ideas other people have.
I love being exposed to many different points of view people have.
Unfortunately, many times, when i debate theists, they have many arguments against evolution, yet all of them (without an exception) are due to misconception of what the evolution theory is.
The top ones are those:
1. Evolution fails to explain the ORIGIN of life.
This is wrong. not because evolution can explain the origin of life, because evolution doesn't deal with the question of the origin of life.
Evolution deals with the process of explaining how all species on earth, evolved from a single first life form.
It doesn't try to answer the question of how this life form created.
Evolution is a biological theory. The origin of life are physical and chemical ones.
(although many physical and chemical fact support the evolution process)
2. Species evolved from literally one living cell.
This is wrong. When a first living cell is mentioned, the meaning here is for the first cells that had the ability to replicate. There could be billions, there could be only thousands, we don't have an answer yet.
It is also possible life didn't origin on earth, rather on some far planets and where spread to earth on meteors and asteroids.
3. I Can accept micro evolution, but there is no proof for macro evolution
This is wrong. There are thousands of proofs. Evolution does not happen as follows:
A => A => A => A => A => A => A=>H
rather:
A => B => C => D => E => F => G => H
The changes are small, they are indeed "micro" evolution, but after many many many many many many micro evolution to the same group of animals, they become so different, that they can no longer procreate with other kind of species they evolved from and thus a new specie is generated.
So: If we have a specie A, that is spread for example on land that is divided into warm environment, and cold environment.
Slowly over millions of years, Specie A will now be divided to two groups:
A that is more adjusted to warm (Aw), and A that is more adjusted to cold (Ac).
As long as Aw can procreate with Ac, it is still specie A (this will be less common though, as the Aw would survive better in the warm environment, and avoid living among Ac and vise versa. (although some occasions will probably occur create an Awc
Now after some more millions of years, the changes between Aw and Ac are so big, that those same occasions that Aw tried to procreate with Ac, the offspring died very quickly
After some more millions of years, the changes are now so big, that when Aw and Ac try to procreate that is is rarely possible as the procreation (internal) mechanism changed so much, it can barely "merge".
After some more years, the changes are so big, that Aw now can never procreate with Ac, to the point they biologically unable.
In the time, A now have evolved into B and C.
or in short:
[GALLERY=media, 8000]A2BC by Segev Moran posted May 11, 2017 at 12:29 AM[/GALLERY]
4. Evolution and everything else in our universe, is how God "works".
I can't claim it is wrong, as there is no way to falsify such claim.
It will however raise many question that most of them don't paint this God's face in a "bright color".
If you find any of my explanations is wrong, i'll be glad to hear your opinion.
cheers
Tony L Smith
Tony
Sorry probably not working this right. Didn't mean to post twice.
I see how evolution is a valid view. I have enjoyed the use of the term in many books. Maybe I'm up for a debate, not sure. I might not be able to stand the heat. We will see.
Many may use natural things to explain things but even this process of calculation can only carry us so far. By that I mean you can't explain what is outside the box clearly using what is in the box, you will only be able to use items in the box in a parable type way.
That being said, things inside the box can give insight though to what lays outside of time and space (outside the box).
If the pattern of male and female is a fundamental and/or a foundation of principle, then there are some flawed views about how things came into existence.
If you say you don't believe in 'outside the box', then where did your curiosity come from.
I see how evolution is a valid view. I have enjoyed the use of the term in many books. Maybe I'm up for a debate, not sure. I might not be able to stand the heat. We will see.
Many may use natural things to explain things but even this process of calculation can only carry us so far. By that I mean you can't explain what is outside the box clearly using what is in the box, you will only be able to use items in the box in a parable type way.
That being said, things inside the box can give insight though to what lays outside of time and space (outside the box).
If the pattern of male and female is a fundamental and/or a foundation of principle, then there are some flawed views about how things came into existence.
If you say you don't believe in 'outside the box', then where did your curiosity come from.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
The whole problem with "outside the box", is that by definition, nobody--repeat--nobody can see outside that box-- what with it being, not in the box where humans exist.
Thus, it's merely an amusing mental exercise to talking about it.
For example, for all anyone knows? The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe out of Divine Pasta, and then carefully avoids all evidences of It's creation.
This is just as valid as anyone else's "outside the box" conjecture.
So I have to disagree that you can use whats in the box to project what's not-in-the-box.
That's ... not logical, and there is no real reason to presume a connection.
The box, of course, being the Universe we exist within.
I've always been amused by the mental dodge that "god is outside the universe".
Naturally, the obvious rebuttal to that, is if god is outside? God cannot interfere in any way with the universe... god would have to put at least a part of itself into the universe to affect it in any meaningful way. And there goes the "god is outside the box" argument-- falls flat.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Human curiosity and the thirst for understanding is an evolutionary trait which has helped us to survive as a species.
Tony L Smith
Tony
I know your only thinking that I'm saying that God is outside the box, but that is not the important point of what I'm exposing. The important thing here which may be even harder for us to grasp is that you are from outside the box. Along with the rest of us. Its really not a religion, its a vanishing point.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Unless you have actual, demonstratively obvious proof of such a claim?
Your "we are from outside the box" is pure conjecture.
No more valid than saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster will touch you with it's noodly appendage, and you will be blessed. R'Amen.
Both ideas have equal validity. Right up there with a Golden Ticket To Hogwarts...
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
No idea. But you'd think if he were, he wouldn't have me on ignore. Trolls usually don't do that.
If you notice, like most creationists he has a set of talking points that he repeats ad nauseum, regardless of what anyone posts in response. Try and count how many times he points out that Darwinism is a Victorian idea for starters.Come on, he thinks a scientific theory = "best guess", he thinks any scientific theory could be called "gospel"? It betrays a shocking ignorance of how science works and what a scientific theory means, or he is sitting at his laptop having a chuckle. I think it is the latter...
Tony L Smith
Tony
In that light all arguments are conjecture. I have no problem with a Flying Spaghetti Monster image other than its just an image. I can't prove the unformed from the realm of the formed anyway. Undefined and formless don't scare me either. Knowing doesn't come from my intellect, it comes from the same place yours does. I might can try to argue to prove my point but I don't have the answers in my intelligence. But "I am", the same as you are. I may have decided to lay down what I thought I knew to experience something I didn't know in my emotional understanding yet. You can't reach different levels without letting go of (or at least be willing to) the old levels.