Everything you believe about the history of the world is False

reply to post by libertytoall


Nothing to support or clarify or even illustrate your statement? That's called a weak statement, you know.

Just a brilliant hypothesis actually.

reply to post by CircleOfDust

Now adherents to evolution don't usually believe in God, especially those who believe in not just microevolution but the macro kind as well. They believe that the history of humanity is all about PROGRESS... That it's up and up and up for the advancement of humankind.

Your gold, silver, bronze, iron age symbolism is sort of interesting and all that, but your description of what adherents to evolution believe about the world is so far off target that it detracts from any message you may have been trying to deliver.

First, macroevolution is just microevolution over a long time. Its a silly and totally useless distinction. Creationists like to argue from ignorance about it, but they argue from ignorance about everything, so that's OK.

Second, evolutionists don't "believe that the history of humanity is all about PROGRESS". Well, I suppose some do, but that doesn't have anything to do with evolution; assuming of course that you are talking specifically about biological evolution. If you are talking about cosmological evolution, then you are making even less sense. The word 'evolution' means 'change over time'. Period. It can be applied to any system that changes, whether the system is the cosmos, man's ideas about the cosmos, one's personal opinion about the state of the economy or whether broccoli is good for you or not.

Third, if you are talking about biological evolution (since you seem to be contrasting with 'creationists'), then you have absolutely zero understanding about evolution and what 'adherents to evolution' believe. Biologic evolution is NOT ABOUT PROGRESS, it is about CHANGE. There is no up and up; there is only reproduce or don't reproduce. Not all change is progress; never has been and never will be.

Biological evolution has no goal, no end game, nothing to progress towards. Things either work or they don't. Some things work better than others, creatures with traits that work better reproduce better. That's all there is to it.

reply to post by rnaa


It's too bad for you that you don't have any evidence for your first point.

On your second and third point, are you saying that those better equipped survive and reproduce, and this is not classified as upward progress?

reply to post by CircleOfDust


Well, I think most of us can agree that the world is more than 6,000 years old. But, I myself, cannot discount the theory of a creator...nor can I discount the theory of evolution. So what category do I fall in?

reply to post by U4ea82



Sounds like you're an agnostic in spirituality and science, if it can be applied to both. There's one simple word that proves that there's a God to me:

Life

If you're not sure, just ask the Creator if he's there to start showing you the answers. If you're sincere you'll get a reply. I guarantee it.

reply to post by CircleOfDust

It's too bad for you that you don't have any evidence for your first point.

Actually, I do. CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

Follow through the subclaims there, especially CB902.2: Evolution by small changes

Here's an entire essay on the subject: Macroevolution: Its Definition, Philosophy and History

On your second and third point, are you saying that those better equipped survive and reproduce, and this is not classified as upward progress?

Yes, that is exactly my point.

Progress implies an end point, a goal. The only 'goal' in biology is reproduction. Those who reproduce "better" continue their line. That is all.

Progress implies that two 'versions' of a life form cannot exist side by side because one is "more evolved" than the other, and this is nonsense. It it the line of thinking that says that if mankind evolved from apes, why do chimpanzees still exist?

There are many ways organisms can reproduce 'better' than their competition. They can evolve ways to exploit resources their competition cannot. They can evolve ways to work with other organisms to share and even improve the resources available. They evolve ways to breed faster. They can evolve ways to be prettier to the ladies. There are many ways. Organisms become varied to fill environmental niches, random mutation allows them to survive in conditions their competion without such a mutation cannot.

If some microorganism can thrive in hot water near a sea vent but not in cooler water a bit further away, and some random mutation allows a few individuals to survive in the cooler water, they will soon populate the cooler water, while their cousins will remain in the hot water. This is not 'progress', this is simply reproduction of a successful trait - i.e. natural selection.

For example, mankind is not more evolved than chimpanzees; mankind is just differently evolved than a chimpanzee.

reply to post by U4ea82


At first glance I would say you fall in the agnostic category.
Secondly, theory of a creator is a generalized explanation and is not even a hypothesis.
While evolution "theory" is a scientific theory, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.

There are two different definitions for the word theory.
Theory
www.merriam-webster.com...
Scientific Theory
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by libertytoall

 

Nothing to support or clarify or even illustrate your statement? That's called a weak statement, you know.

the same post word for word as in another one of your threads.

Are you an intelligent Bot posting as a human?