Evolution is Unscientific

[juantoo3]

It means condescension and ridicule are not effective discussion techniques, not to mention simply uncivilized, uncouth and just plain mean spirited. Unchecked, it leads to ostracization and ultimately war. I would think these ends all by themselves are sufficient reason to nip in the bud given the parameters surrounding the purpose of this site, no?

Disagreement is expected. How that disagreement is expressed says more about the ridiculer than it does about the one being ridiculed. There is more than enough division in the modern world today, I would think finding ways to meet in the middle would be most appropriate, given the current zeitgeist.

Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

 

[juantoo3]

Just because you are invited to a battle doesn't mean you have to accept the invitation.

 

[RJM]

would think these ends all by themselves are sufficient reason to nip in the bud given the parameters surrounding the purpose of this site, no?

Yes. It's what makes IO different

@wil's mission statement from the Code of Conduct: Our group seeks to fulfil a mission of interfaith dialogue and exploration of others' beliefs while being a place to discuss the intricacies of our own belief in a safe format.

 

[juantoo3]

Yet even here we have evidence to the contrary.

Some over the years here have been and are simply bitter, mean old people who get their jollies ridiculing others. They are easy to spot and ignore, their contributions are essentially worthless.

But for someone who espouses logic and evidentiary reasoning, such is quite out of character. I can only hope it is an off day random occurrence.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

I'm not convinced.

"You find that people cooperate, you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.' You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that's obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."
- Noam Chomsky -

Of course you're not . . .

 

[RJM]

That is the current dogma

It's the most current scientific research open to scrutiny and peer review

still speculative

Agreed. But the facts observed are nevertheless facts

has yet to be demonstrated, therefore

It has been demonstrated, hence the report

therefore is taken on faith.

Anyone can check the research

Decades of lab research have come up empty.

Empty of what?

 

[RJM]

But it's still the mechanism of the 'how' imo.

 

[juantoo3]

It's the most current scientific research open to scrutiny and peer review
Agreed. But the facts observed are nevertheless facts
It has been demonstrated, hence the report
Anyone can check the research
Empty of what?

Fair enough, I hadn't read that far, after half a dozen paragraphs talking about speculated "billions of years ago," I lost interest.

Reading your snippet I see better what you are getting at. I'm still hesitant to accept at face value, but if true it would go far in explaining the process.

I have generally stayed out of the abiogenesis discussion because there was so much speculation that has been unsubstantiated.

 

[juantoo3]

Cells began adhering to each other, creating cell groups that have a higher survival rate, partly because it's harder for predators to kill a group of cells than a single cell.

During the period of time being discussed, all life was single cell...that would include predators.

So are you suggesting the predator was something like a cancer cell or a virus?

More than 3 billion years after the appearance of microbes, life got more complicated. Cells organized themselves into new three-dimensional structures. They began to divide up the labor of life, so that some tissues were in charge of moving around, while others managed eating and digesting. They developed new ways for cells to communicate and share resources. These complex multicellular creatures were the first animals, and they were a major success. Soon afterward, roughly 540 million years ago, animal life erupted, diversifying into a kaleidoscope of forms in what’s known as the Cambrian explosion.

The first "complex multicellular creatures" would still be plants. The Cambrian explosion came much later.

Before you scoff...you share half of your genetic material with bananas and yeast...fully 50%.

 

[RJM]

have generally stayed out of the abiogenesis discussion because there was so much speculation that has been unsubstantiated.

God created Adam from the dust of the earth = abiogenesis, imo

 

[juantoo3]

God created Adam from the dust of the earth = abiogenesis, imo

What evidence? This is the science board afterall...

I think I understand why some folks seek to understand at such an early stage, but to me it feels...I don't know...redundant? superfluous? too easy to misdirect faith (in that it has been almost purely speculative for decades)?

My understanding is that all life is connected...circle of life...web of life...whatever meme floats one's boat, and I found that supported with the Genome Mapping Project. That was sufficient for me, trying to carry back further just seemed to me extra effort that still leads to the same conclusion.

 

[RJM]

What evidence? This is the science board afterall...

I think I understand why some folks seek to understand at such an early stage, but to me it feels...I don't know...redundant? superfluous? too easy to misdirect faith (in that it has been almost purely speculative for decades)?

My understanding is that all life is connected...circle of life...web of life...whatever meme floats one's boat, and I found that supported with the Genome Mapping Project. That was sufficient for me, trying to carry back further just seemed to me extra effort that still leads to the same conclusion.

Sure. But I don't get theist resistance to evolution and abiogenesis? It's just the mechanism. The Bible says God created Adam from dust. Unless someone must have the literal Biblical account of creation?

Anyway ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

How is that any different than proselyzing? How does that make you any less of a zealot?
There's your religious reasoning again...

The difference is that we try to explain only if asked. Otherwise, we do not touch the subject. Show me any topic started by me to condemn religion or belief in God. The theists start and topic and when we reply, they cry.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Modern medicine is a pill mill. Trauma medicine is fantastic, but chronic disease is one medication after another until one has a grocery list of meds (and no money for food). It is a vicious cycle.

That is what the brain is for, to think for yourself, to analyze the information and be careful when believing in things without evidence.
Mega medication is well documented.

That was sufficient for me, trying to carry back further just seemed to me extra effort that still leads to the same conclusion.

If you carry it further, you would come to dust with which God made us; black wet soil if you go by Quran.
That is why 'Out of Africa' theory. We were created black. And in the image of God, which shows the God is black (like the Hindus believe)

Krishna Jagannatha, click to enlarge the image.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Or Rama.

Click to enlarge the image.

Or Adi Shakti (primeval power) Mariamman, the Mother Goddess.

Click to enlarge the image.

 

[RJM]

In a dimension where entropy rules, and all order dissolves into random disorder, all heat dissipates eventually to absolute zero -- where did the original order come from, against all odds of chance, stacked coincidence, far beyond any calculation of odds?

 

[juantoo3]

The difference is that we try to explain only if asked. Otherwise, we do not touch the subject. Show me any topic started by me to condemn religion or belief in God. The theists start and topic and when we reply, they cry.

It isn't the fact you replied that drew my response, it is what your reply consisted of. Your response was quite out of character for you, and honestly in contrast to the site's declared purpose.

You have seen me respond in disagreement often...that is called communicating, dialogue, conversation. There are other times I roll my eyes to myself and move along, and you never see.

If you would be so kind, please explain to me how you expect someone with a minimalist / simplistic / "literal" religious view to react to your condescension? How would you react to someone behaving in a condescending manner towards you? I'm not asking you to agree, I'm asking you to be considerate of alternate views.

Those who like to clash dogmas have plenty of other sites to go to for "I'm right!, No, I'm right!" arguments. That manner of argument wins no hearts and minds, neither does it cultivate tolerance and respect for those who see the world differently. Condescension is a method of sealing the mind from learning, it is a method of closing oneself off from the rest of the world. This isn't limited to religion, far from it; this is a problem that spans entire cultures.

 

[Aupmanyav]

-- where did the original order come from, against all odds of chance, stacked coincidence, far beyond any calculation of odds?

What order? It had to happen. Ample time, some 4.7 billion years. The ingredients were here (and perhaps the similar story in other parts of the universe - habitable worlds). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability

 

[Aupmanyav]

How would you react to someone behaving in a condescending manner towards you? .. I'm asking you to be considerate of alternate views.

I would state my argument. I am very considerate. RJM has his view and I have no problem with that. But if someone attacks my view then I have to reply. How can I be considerate of utter falsehood?

 

[juantoo3]

But if someone attacks my view then I have to reply. How can I be considerate of utter falsehood?

It wasn't RJM that drew your condescension.

One doesn't have to accept an invitation to a battle.

Response to what you consider falsehood needn't be condescending.