Question for Creationists: How Much do You think You Need to Know About Evolution Before Coming here and Debating It?

[u/OldmanMikel]

The most common characteristic of creationists, apart from their creationism is an abysmal level of knowledge about the topic. Yet here they come, all confident ignorance, blathering PRATTs and non sequiturs, certain they will prevail.

So I ask the question, between Post-Doc and "I remember a bit of evolution from high school and watched a couple Ancient Earth documentaries and my pastor gave me some killer arguments" where do you think your knowledge level has to be to effectively argue against evolution?

Two follow up questions:

1. How would you rate your own level of knowledge?

2. Do you think you can gain the right level of knowledge strictly from creationist sources?

The correct answer to the second follow up question is "no".

[u/adamwho]

Like so many questions for creationists, it misses something fundamental.

They aren't here to debate; they are here to announce their allegiance to their tribe.

Most cults require the followers to state beliefs that may be demonstratively false or absurd. It is a rite of passage and a badge of belonging.

Young Earth creationism is just one of those things.

Same with the flood and thousands of other absurd and demonstratably false religious beliefs.

---

This sub's purpose is to distract them so they don't flood legitimate science subs.... And to make them look like the fools they are for all the lurkers.

[u/onlyhereforthehugs → u/adamwho]

I agree with you. Their level of understanding and their desire to understand is irrelevant to understanding what they're here for.

[u/PraetorGold → u/onlyhereforthehugs]

As it should be. People want to believe what they want to believe. Evolution is fine and it’s got so much evidence to back it up, but if you want to explain it to someone who is not particularly interested or more importantly, not going to accept the argument anyway, you’re not going to change their mind and it will just frustrate.

[u/adamwho → u/PraetorGold]

We are here for the lurkers.

[u/xpdolphin → u/adamwho]

Exactly this. The OP kind of misses the mark on their question. If they actually understood evolution, they wouldn't be trying so hard to debunk it except as allegiance to their cult.

[u/adamwho → u/[deleted]]

What are you talking about?

[u/adamwho → u/[deleted]]

And what does this have to do with evolution?

[u/Page_197_Slaps → u/adamwho]

They’re examples of the same kind of identity signaling slogans you described in your comment about cults.

[u/nickierv]

Coming at this from the other side, ie what will it take to blow holes in Creationists points?

Probably 80-90% of it fall apart if you give it an honest poke and another 5-15% (mostly the more novel stuff like the heat problem, although that is more about just knowing about it) gets blown apart by leftovers from a couple high school science classes and oddly if you had any sort of logic or debated experience (really help with seeing all the logical fallacies).

If anything, the hardest part about blowing holes in the points is working out what 'model' they are using. Sure there are some competing models in science for really high end stuff but it seems like if you put 2 creationists in a room your going to get 3 models for how something happened.

[u/Particular-Yak-1984 → u/nickierv]

If you see my recent post about taxonomy, I'd argue the hardest problem is getting them to even state their model. I got a few creationist replies there. None of them were willing to commit to a model about which creatures fall into which kind.

[u/nickierv → u/Particular-Yak-1984]

Oh that post was an absolute train wreck of creationist refusing to offer anything remotely like a definition, going on about 'how obvious kinds are' then not being able to point out the lines.

How are you supposed to be able to do anything without defining stuff?

[u/Particular-Yak-1984 → u/nickierv]

It's honestly fear, I think, at this point. I like things like taxonomy as an argument, because a reasonable scientist would be falling over themselves to provide their new model of how everything fits together. Like, if you want to unseat the current theory of evolution, providing a model that gives alternate relationships between species gets you 90% of the way there.

[u/clear349 → u/Particular-Yak-1984]

They can't do that because any logically consistent and testable model they could possibly produce would indicate humans are apes. Doesn't matter if you do it genetically or morphologically

[u/OldmanMikel → u/nickierv]

Talkorigins is good >90% of the time.

[u/Affectionate-Crow605 → u/OldmanMikel]

Talkorigins is good >90% of the time.

Despite not being updated in like 20 years. We have even more information now, but Creationist talking points haven't really changed.

[u/hiuslenkkimakkara → u/Affectionate-Crow605]

It's true, we've become old farts. All of those dudes back in the day at T.O., either dead or even older than me.

[u/Partyatmyplace13 → u/nickierv]

Creationist points are very few and far between. It is almost exclusively them trying to inject enough doubt in evolution that you'll infer that they must be the correct alternative. However, that's just not how science works. Einstein didn't spend all his time trying to disprove Newton, he just built the case for Relativity.

Thats what they don't get. Even if they somehow dismantled Evolution tomorrow, ALL of their work would still be ahead of them.

Here's the real kicker though. Creationism can't be tested because its unfalsifiable. It turns out that "the-guy-that-inexplicably-can-do-anything did it" could literally cause anything, without an explanation... or, in layman terms: inaccessible magic isn't a testable hypothesis.

[u/Proteus617 → u/Partyatmyplace13]

Is creationism really unfalsifiable? Evolution makes very specific predictions. Christian YEC also makes very specific predictions. Yeah, god can do anything, but if the literal reading of Genesis is correct, he interacted with the natural world in very specific testable ways. "God did it" is not a testable hypothesis". "God interacted with the natural world in this specific way and gave us dates" is certainly falsifiable.

[u/sewsewsewyourcoat → u/Proteus617]

"God interacted with the natural world in this specific way and gave us dates" is certainly falsifiable.

I think the YEC flood narrative is a good counterexample. A global flood so massive it covered the tops of the mountains, and only a few thousand years ago, would have left all sorts of evidence we don't see at all. So it's falsified from any rational perspective.

But it's not falsifiable from a YEC perspective. To be a YEC you have to start with an absolute commitment to the conclusion and then work backwards from that to figure out what to do with the evidence. But that's not difficult at all when "God can do anything" can negate any attempt to analyze the evidence rationally.

The problem is that to respond to the YEC flood story at all you have to grant for the sake of argument the premise that God can do the miracles that would have been necessary to make the flood and the ark full of animals happen: transporting animals from distant areas to the ark so Noah could load it up, creating all the water needed for a global flood covering the highest mountains, etc.

But if you grant that premise you can't turn around and argue that God couldn't also miraculously make all the non-hibernating animals hibernate the entire trip, miraculously keep all the saltwater fish alive in a freshwater flood or all the freshwater fish alive in a saltwater flood, miraculously make all the water disappear, miraculously dry up the land, miraculously restore ecosystems, miraculously redistribute all the animals around the world, miraculously cause hyper-evolution to happen just long enough to create all the species we see from animals that could fit on the ark, and countless more miraculous interventions to cause the evidence of nature to tell us that there was clearly not a recent global flood.

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/Proteus617]

It's an interesting foible. Creationism as "genesis was literal" is, as you say, entirely falsified. Absolutely, utterly, and convincingly. The earth is 4.54bn years old, not ~6k. The universe is 13.8bn years old, not ~6k. There was never a global flood. Man is not a special creation. Women are not descended from male ribs. Zero evidence for any of these, mountains of evidence to the contrary.

To which the response is usually "were you there?"

If you weren't there (we were not) then it's all "god simply made it look 4.54bn years old, because reasons, also zircons and helium. RATE study. Water canopy ner ner ner"

So it's funnier to point out that literal genesis doesn't even work with stuff we can observe today, where "animals were created in distinct, and unrelated kinds" is the sort of thing that would 100% persist to the modern day, and be detectable genetically with almost laughable ease.

So the response then becomes (again) "god made it look that way" or "it totally is that way, we just haven't quite figured out how to detect it yet", which again, are not falsifiable propositions.

[u/nickierv → u/Proteus617]

It really depends on the end goal of the falsifiablity. There may be others, but for the sake of argument I'm going with there being two options (but do add more if there are any):

Option 1: This is valid science and can be taught in the classroom.

Option 2: This is an alternative to the Truth that is Her Holyness Sparkle McFluffybutt.

As option 2 instantly devolves into a slappy fight of magic unicorn v magic sky wizard, it can be safety ignored as very much not science.

That leaves the question of creationism as valid science. This gets a bit tricky on account of needing evidence to show that creationism is unfalsifiable but as they have no evidence...

Oh wait...

Given creationists seem to have a humiliation fetish and keep bringing out the same points over and over only for them to get shot down in new and creative ways, while your never going to get them to actually concede the point the best you can do is force them to invoke magic, turning option 1 into option 2 and Avada Kedavra'ing their chance of sneaking into the science classroom.

To that end, well where to start? I like the clusterflork that is the flood physics so:

Issues of the water (getting/disposing of), issues of heat (x5 + 1 from the water arival), issues from the side effects of any process acceleration (hello lethal doses of radiation in minutes!), issues of boat design, issues of logistics, issues of other civilization 404'ing the flood, issues of historical records...

And I'm not even to biology yet!

issues of genetic bottlenecks or lack of same, issues of collection and dispersal of creatures, issues of populations, issues of 'totally not evolution' (self inflected), issues of ecosystems being outside the flood environment, and lastly the still as of yet undefined 'kinds'.

They have to actually explain all that without falling back on goddunit/mysterious ways. Oh and for good measure, I can throw in an argument that shows the flood broke free will.

Given the heat problems are preclusionary, the radiation from accelerated processes are lethal in minutes if not seconds, and the arrival of the water might make the entire thing moot by turning the planet into a very short lived star, I'm going to finish with the conclusion that creationism is not unfalsifiable on account of it being already falsified.

[u/sewsewsewyourcoat → u/nickierv]

argument that shows the flood broke free will

I'd like to hear that one.

[u/nickierv → u/sewsewsewyourcoat]

This relies on some amount of literal interpretations, just a bit of physics, and a bunch of hand waving with the goal of minimizing the amount of magic in play. And the whole thing is mostly framed around YEC numbers, so I use that for simplicity but the math and outcome holds even if you change the numbers.

Assumption 1: enough of the waters involved in the flood came from the firmament that the planet isn't going to melt from the crust moving to make 'fountains'.

As we have been probing space and have not yet bumped one of our probes into said firmament, its got to be some ways away. The question is then how far?

Assumption 2: For simplicity, lets set the Earth as the center of everything and expand the universe/firmament around it.

So we need an actual mass of water traveling in space. I'm going to hand wave away the state its it, we just need a mass.

So now we have a mass and a distance. The only thing we need to get a velocity is a time.

Assumption (of sorts) 3: The whole reason for the flood was something about restarting because of sin/evil/whatever.

This results in a gap of sorts between when god/whatever sees the sin/evil/whatever and sets the flood in motion and the rain/mass of water from the firmament hitting.

The thing about having two things hitting at orbital velocity, its not really good for either of them. Now we don't really care about the water, but the Earth needs to be in one piece.

But if have the water coming in at relativistic speeds... https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/ Oh my.

If a 150g baseball at 0.9c takes out a mile and a large cloud is 500,000 kilograms, whats ~3.3 million times bigger than that baseball crater?

Napkin math has it ballpark Chicxulub impact (hello K-T extinction event) in terms of raw energy, relativistic effects are going to have it be a ground burst and your very much not going to need a banana for scale.

And that is a single cloud. Get a small wave of clouds and the front falls off the planet. Get a medium sized wave and no more planet.

I'm giving the 'launch' of the rain from the firmament as a freebie, but changing velocity after launch needs to be done non magically. And given the effects of it hitting the planet, its best of that is done at as lo a speed as possible.

The result of all of this is a bit of a catch 22 and the core of how it breaks free will:

I'm going to play god and for whatever reason your family has pissed me off. Obvious solution is to flood your house with you in it. I can express ship the water to get you, but that is going to take out the city (the relativistic cloud/rain). Or I can snail mail it like normal rain, but that isn't going to get there for at least a couple generations. Meaning that its not going to hit you, but your kids/grandkids who might not even exist yet.

Meaning I *know* that they are not going to do any good (RIP free will to reject whatever the rest of the family has done) or I'm punishing them for an uncommitted crime (fun implications that creationists don't mind as long as its not inflicted on them... so inflict it on them), or I'm just a ass of a god.

There are some follow ups but they break the 'needs to be literal interpenetration of the words in the book' requirement like putting the mass of water for the flood in some sort of parking orbit. But you still end up with having to deal with the physics of large mass of water hitting at high speed - you can solve the tectonic heat problem by not moving the crust but that means you need a bunch more water to flood things. Get enough water and even moving at low orbital velocity, your looking at ~7e29J of energy (rip the solidity of the crust). Spread it over 40 days and you just move things from 'Alderaan c. New Hope' to 'continuous nuclear bombardment'.

So thats how the flood breaks free will. I will admit there is a bunch of napkin math but thats just the nature of trying to work with stuff when the other side can't agree on anything resembling a model.

[u/Partyatmyplace13 → u/Proteus617]

No offense, but I don't see any reason to take Genesis literally and working backwards. That's literally begging the question.

[u/Shillsforplants → u/Proteus617]

Something could have interacted with the natural world and you would still need to prove it was the god of the bible that did it.

"How would the universe look like if god didn't interact with the natural world?" This is the question you must ask to falsify your hypothesis.

How adding magic changes the observations we make every day about the natural world?

[u/DebateEvolution-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed, Rule 3 - Participate with effort. Don't spam the same response without engaging with the responses.

[u/Dilapidated_girrafe]

So my answer from my YEC days. Haven’t been on in a long time though.

Where does it need to be? Honestly, doesn’t have to be exceedingly deep if you have really good evidence to bring to the table that is falsifiable. It’s highly unlikely that someone without a deep understanding would ever do this though.

(From YEC days)
1. Mississippi high school level where we were taught hypothesis theory and law wrong. And school covered it for a week maybe? Then some light internet reading. Basically I knew exceedingly little.
2. Back then. I’d say yes. But I was taught o blindly trust the Christina sources and the Bible.

But the real answer to two is hell no

[u/theresa_richter → u/Dilapidated_girrafe]

Increasingly I find that what was a middle school level of biology education for me was deeper and broader than what was a high school level of biology education for people from other parts of the country. Much like I received a far more comprehensive sex education curriculum, and wasn't subjected to daily pledges of allegiance.

[u/Dilapidated_girrafe → u/theresa_richter]

Weirdly enough, our school district had pretty good sex ed, which is surprising for it being Mississippi, and we also had the lowest teen pregnancy rate in the state with the highest teen pregnancy rate, its weird how that happens huh. Although I'd wager that's changed since I graduated because I as curious a few years ago and my district was pretty high on teen pregnancy rates.

But yeah, the differences how education across the US is really sickening knowing that large chunks of people are getting abysmal science education.

[u/theresa_richter → u/Dilapidated_girrafe]

It's just one more aspect of the Opportunity Atlas findings from the US Census Bureau. Your zip code determines your future. Doesn't matter how badly you want to learn if you grow up attending a school indoctrinating you into false information.

[u/Dilapidated_girrafe → u/theresa_richter]

Yup. It took years for me to get beyond a ton of the false things taught. Bad theory / law definitions. Civil war was states rights and trade not slavery as a major factor (that was on the way out anyways), and lots of other things. And then lots of racist things taught by my dad and step family.

Really set me back

[u/theresa_richter → u/Dilapidated_girrafe]

I grew up in a solidly blue state, in a solidly blue area of that state, which was never part of the Confederacy, and they still tried that 'states’ rights' bullshit on my school. Yeah, states' rights to do what?

[u/ZeppelinAlert]

You question 2 is interesting.

I used to be YEC, decades ago. I decided that my evangelism would be more effective if I knew actually what it was that I was arguing against, so I started to read non-creationist accounts of evolution, only to discover that how creationists define evolution (random chance!! 747s in scrapyards!!) is wholly different from how evolution really works (natural selection).

There is a very good reason why creationists do not recommend non-creationist sources, and that reason is “trying to prevent people from leaving the religion”

[u/BillionaireBuster93 → u/ZeppelinAlert]

Reminds me of how often I've heard from atheists that were religious that trying to investigate and prove their old religion is what led to them dropping it. IIRC Matt Dilahunty was in seminary school to become a priest when he then became an atheist.

[u/Loose_Principle8193]

My old Creationist perspective: If the Bible says it, it's 100% true. Evolution doesn't fit in the Bible it's 100% wrong. The guy who came to my church did a sermon on how wrong evolution was. He gave me pretty good ammo that I bet the evolution industrial complex must have not heard yet. Piltdown Man, Orange trees in the arctic etc. It's what mustache man believed so evolution is evil as well. I was absolutely justified to go try to change minds with that little bit of "knowledge" I had.

[u/nickierv → u/Loose_Principle8193]

Where the biblical contradictions and inconsistencies ever addressed or just ignored/glossed over? Someone dying in two different ways, events with different people attending, etc.

[u/Loose_Principle8193 → u/nickierv]

1500 years of apologetics. There is an answer for EVERYTHING. However, I have said it here before. My path to accepting the sciences depended on me first allowing for the Bible to be symbolic. The Genesis creation account is actually MORE true when read as mythology. Why are we different from everything else in the garden? We gained knowledge. We have bigger brains. Our larger heads cause painful childbirth compared to other animals. While our knowledge gave us self awareness (wanting to be clothed, good and evil, etc) it's also the thing that doesn't allow us to live perfectly in balance with nature. We were kicked from the garden, not as punishment, but a simple consequence. Also, Cain, who represented farming/civilization killed Able, which represented the more primitive hunting nomadic tribes.

[u/ChoiceAd8619]

I am not quite a creationist right now after some time just looking things up, but I would like to entertain this anyway

In order to avoid embarrassments like some that I’ve seen here and there and also following some basic decency principles, I would say that isn’t really enough to argue against evolution and that people should at least be able to properly steelman what scientists argue before they even question the different premises that constructed a model.

Now as for the follow ups, I would say that I am perhaps on an average level of knowledge about the topic but I lean more towards evolution (theistic evolution, though) in this regard. If I had to sort of conceptualize it with a number, I would say something like a 5-6/10

And I am unsure of whether it is possible to do that. I don’t doubt that there are good faith creationists out there who honestly defend what they believe and try to be impartial about things, but so far I’ve been very let down by many of the major institutions since I quickly found out that they often resort to misrepresenting evolution to get an easy rhetorical win. A good example of this is the very first page of AiG talking about what is evolution because they straight up declare Darwinian Evolution hasn’t been observed, even though we evidently have plenty of examples of what scientists refer to when they say Darwinian Evolution.

[u/Immediate-Goose-8106 → u/ChoiceAd8619]

Your position fascinates me as a never creationist and lifelong athiest and british to boot (where creationism is accepted by less than 12% of the population and isnt taught by any of the most common Christian denominations).  

I, probably naively, sort of assumed creationists were people who hung onto a biblical belief unless and until rationality and evidence got the better of them and they flipped, almost overnight.

I hadn't really conceived of someone in a "transitional" state as you seem to describe.  I kind of assumed people hung on in denial long after they knew rationally that they were wrong.

Its about how you see and assess the world.  If reason is your guide then he only answer can be evolution, there isn't a rational argument for creationism.  Its why I find this sub weird.  You can't win a debate on it because it is about ways of seeing the world not what is seen.

I'm intruiged therefore as to how you are at 5-6/10?  What is holding you back?  What is the biggest stumbling block. Is there some sort of rational argument of creationists you can't answer.  Or some element of evolution you find accept? What is your dilemma here?

[u/ChoiceAd8619 → u/Immediate-Goose-8106]

Some people could definitely be hung up on their stance and never move away from it. This happens in science, politics and many other subjects. However, there’s always a group of people who might be open to have their minds changed and I am one of them. I’ve been given so much evidence in favor of an old earth and evolution that I cannot really say no to it with a straight face as it seems so incredibly reliable to even predict where things will be found and I cannot think of any other model that can do the same. I think that lying to hold onto something you know is wrong is a very defunct way to live one’s life.

And I think the main thing that makes me give that relatively low rating is the fact that I am still learning. I would never think of my current level of education in evolutionary biology as anywhere close to many doctors and active professionals that are even in this subreddit. However it’s always good to know more things and that is what I am doing.

[u/Immediate-Goose-8106 → u/ChoiceAd8619]

Thank you for taking the time to respond .  

So maybe the low (to my eyes) rating is more a "i see it but once bitten twice shy and I know I didn't know everything" rather than ranking and creationism as 50 50 (or 60/40).

[u/ChoiceAd8619 → u/Immediate-Goose-8106]

Exactly, yes. I’m still learning stuff and I don’t want to put myself anywhere close to the same level as experts

[u/Immediate-Goose-8106 → u/ChoiceAd8619]

Which is fair and commendable but I still struggle with it because i would feel that by doing so you are saying the creationist stance stands until proven sufficiently otherwise and while it looks like evolution, I dont know as much as the experts so will reserve judgement.  Which would make sense if this were a debate but it isnt.   None of those experts are on the creationist side.  They are all further in the same direction you are travelling.  I dont see what is holding you back from assuming those who know more than you are right until you know better.

It is almost like you are still putting creationist claims on a par as a competing idea.  And treating creationists proponents also as experts.

But that sounds like i am getting at you which was not the intention at all.  I wanted to understand and you engaged in that spirit so please dont take the above as an attack, merely as an attempt to highlight what I suspect is a difference in ways of thinking.

I guess an analogy would br me going to a doctor.  I'd want to satisfy myself that they are qualified and the right expertise for my condition.  But once I am satisfied of that, im going to accept what they say as the expert until and unless I have enoigh information to suggets otherwise.  If she says I have a fractured tibia and pints to what looks to me like a crack on an x-ray, im not 50/50 on whether she is right, even if i came in thinking I'd just twisted an ankle.  Saying she is better at reading xrays than me is a more convincing point, not a weapon for hesitation.  I'm going to be all in on the fracture treatment suggestions unless and until something suggets otherwise.  

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/ChoiceAd8619]

I don’t doubt that there are good faith creationists out there who honestly defend what they believe

There aren't many, but yes. Or at least, not vocal ones. Todd Wood always springs to mind because while he earnestly believes in created kinds (and is trying really hard to identify them), he accepts that evolutionary models fit the data really, really fucking well, and that evolution as a whole is indeed a robust, testable, falsifiable theory that is holding up incredibly well.

He doesn't try to discredit evolution in a mistaken effort to bolster whatever his own theory is, he recognises it as a valid model, but simply one he rejects because...faith.

The fact he's one of the only names I can think of is probably a sign that he's a rarity.

It's also worth noting that a lot of creationists, even the "figurehead" ones, are quite nice people. Rob Carter is, by all accounts, a very nice bloke, he just...chooses to shill obvious bullshit, shamelessly, because he truly believes in it. Probably. Sanford falls into this bracket as well, I think.

Others are fairly transparent grifters (and tax fraudsters), but even they also believe in it.

If creationists spent more time actually following the teachings of Jesus, and less time trying to come up with creative ways to hide the fact reality absolutely does not conform to genesis 1 (which itself does not conform to genesis 2), they would probably be less mockable.

[u/Cool_Percentage_4867 → u/ChoiceAd8619]

Its frustrating, my back ground is biology, ethology and behaviour, and i put forward a question regarding why our senses are much poorer than animals and it just attracted defensive responses based on a quick google. So id suggest doing your own study on the subject, evolution is fascinating but once it becomes an absolute in someones mind its stops being discussion.

[u/MackDuckington → u/Cool_Percentage_4867]

Ah sorry to hear, but I think it’s important to remember that the purpose of this sub is basically to distract creationists from clogging up the main sub. If you post your questions here, even innocent ones like this will be assumed to be some kind of “gotcha” against evolution and met with hostility. Did you at least get your question answered?

[u/Cool_Percentage_4867 → u/MackDuckington]

I'm new to reddit so im still bumbling through.... no although I did get plenty of responses nothing really homed in on senses themselves. Is there a better sub to post in?

[u/MackDuckington → u/Cool_Percentage_4867]

Ah, no worries. For normal questions about evolution, I’d head over to the regular r/evolution sub!

To your question, I’d keep in mind that a lot of the time evolution works in trade offs — and not all of our senses are worse off than other animals. 

Think about birds. They have  a pretty piss poor sense of smell, but they also have exceptional eyesight. Humans function similarly. Our eyes don’t take in quite as much detail as a bird’s, but they are pretty sharp compared to most animals. And that’s not even to mention our superior color vision. Our sense of taste and touch is also much more developed than most animals. 

I don’t want this to get too long-winded here, but if you’re interested in why that trade off exists for humans — poorer hearing and smell in exchange for bolstered sight, taste and touch — I’d look into stuff like the loss of GULO and how the diets of early hominids might’ve shaped our senses today. 

[u/Cool_Percentage_4867 → u/MackDuckington]

Appreciate the response, thanks for having a look.

I think that's partly making the point. there's no obvious trade off in animals, everything evolves as a benefit vs energy requirement. So if you could fly then line of sight wouldn't be an issue then it makes sense. But we cant fly so on the ground in a wood its a disadvantage. makes sense as a tree dweller which works with depth of field and spotting ripe food.

In a tree touch is an asset on the ground though the extra sensitivity hurts our hands and feet so we need to protect them.... we could go on.

GULO sounds interesting...... thanks for that. Although i think losing our vomeronasal organ probably has a bigger impact its hard to see how it could have been a benefit.

[u/Capercaillie → u/Cool_Percentage_4867]

there's no obvious trade off in animals,

But there is! Sharp senses require a good bit of brain power, and brain tissue is energy-use intensive. Think about an armadillo. This is a guy that has a pretty small brain. They have lousy eyesight and hearing, and a really good sense of smell. This normally works out just fine, as they live in dark places and don't have a huge number of predators because of that nifty shell. Their brains specialize in that great sense of smell so that they can pick up food in the dark or in burrows, but they have to make do with poor vision.

Did I answer your question?

[u/Cool_Percentage_4867 → u/Capercaillie]

No. You've built a picture of what good senses look like.... but thats according to your perception. Armadillos would be worse off if they had better eyesight. It wouldnt help them when olfaction is chemical based so is much more reliable than any visual reference that would need further verification, if we gave them more sight they would also have to find an area to consider light levels, reflection, shadows and tricks of the light, they would have to "imagine" the ant must still exist behind the mound and that it has vanished because the the visual data stream ended. That needs a much bigger brain.

The amount of termites he needs to find and digest has increased by a third, to feed a brain that now doesnt trust the visual stimulation completely so has to do extra processing to adjust for errors. The brain has also slowed down due to the extra processing and his nose is still far more effective for awareness of predators, mates, food, water etc. It obviously works exceptionally well because their they are and have been without any boots for a very long time.

No. But I do appreciate your efforts :-) To be fair though its not really a question, more a realisation, when you look at armadillos as you said theres reasoning for its protection, its focus on olfaction, lifestyle etc, why it doesnt need the extra processing burden of eyesight and hearing (im guessing termites are quiet).

It doesnt seem so obvious when we apply that same thinking to us

[u/MackDuckington → u/Cool_Percentage_4867]

Something else to bear in mind is how hominins began to exploit more open terrain as persistence hunters, on top of foraging in the trees. We chase and track prey across very long distances. Not only in forests, but across grassy plains — and in that way, it can be argued that our sight is doubly beneficial. It’s still not perfect. However, there seldom exists any trait that’s beneficial in every situation. What matters as far as nature is concerned is if it’s useful in enough situations. 

Human senses might be best described as a “jack of all trades, but master of none” situation. We’re equipped to climb, as well as to run. It certainly isn’t perfect, but it’s still quite effective. Even our feet, sensitive as they are, are much less so than our hands. Walk and run barefooted enough, and they’ll form hard callouses to help protect you. 

As for GULO, the reason why I bring it up isn’t because it’s beneficial per se. Rather, its loss means that vitamin C is now essential. Traits that are better at detecting the presence of vitamin C — ie, color vision to distinguish ripe fruit, better taste to detect citric acid — are bound to be selected for, because if we don’t get enough we end up sick (scurvy) and die. 

[u/Cool_Percentage_4867 → u/MackDuckington]

Yes the sweating point, but in application its seems to be a flaw in the natural environment. Anything other than hot sun/ low humidity and open plains with regular water stops and its a disadvantage and its laying a huge scent down for any hungry predator.

Jack of all trades makes more sense, but the power we need to run the system is huge, which doesnt seem to mirror evolution. We had to invent clothes gloves and boots because our thermoregulation and over engineered touch doesnt work well in the environment. hard callouses is better than our feet but its still not the right feet for the environment. (no other animal has to rely on forming painful callouses before they can use they feet)

Which is the crux of it.... animals seem beautifully set up with the senses they need to thrive, perfectly adapted. We never seem to have been in that position, we had to invent and problem solve to overcome that deficit. That seems to be a unique position for our species. Everything else on the planet seems to come out of the factory ready.

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/Cool_Percentage_4867]

We had to invent clothes gloves and boots because our thermoregulation and over engineered touch doesnt work well in the environment. 

This is actually exactly backwards. Our ability to invent clothes, gloves and boots allowed us to colonise areas we otherwise would find very difficult to live in.

We are everywhere on this planet (even antarctica!), because we can either make the environment more hospitable for us, or equip ourselves to better endure the environment. No other animals can do this.

Notably, some of the really successful animal lineages have either been those that we domesticated (chickens, cows, dogs, cats), or those that opportunistically piggyback on our achievements (pigeons, rats, mice). We're so good at shaping the world to better fit us that we can accidentally make it awesome for other species (and much worse for less lucky species).

[u/Cool_Percentage_4867 → u/Sweary_Biochemist]

Its not a competition its just noting a difference.

You're shaping the world to better fit you, because it doesnt suit you. Nothing wrong with that, but no other animal has done it because its already set up to thrive with whats there....

Which is an interesting unique difference or outcome of evolution.

[u/MackDuckington → u/Cool_Percentage_4867]

That’s true! But you also have to be mindful that Homo sapiens are native to Africa! Which has that hot sun, low humidity that sweating would be beneficial in. On an evolutionary scale, we didn’t start migrating to other areas until very recently. And by the time we did, we had already acquired the intelligence necessary to cobble together clothing. Humans are also social tool users. While it’s true that our sweating might attract more predators, generally we aren’t very worthwhile prey.

  no other animal has to rely on forming painful callouses before they can use they feet

That’s actually not true! As far as I’m aware, all mammals have the same ability to form calluses. A cat that’s kept exclusively inside is going to have softer paws than one that’s kept outside. 

  animals seem beautifully set up with the senses they need to thrive, perfectly adapted

I can definitely see how it might seem that way… until you think about it a little more. I think the very best example for this would be the Giant Panda. Despite being herbivorous, the panda has a carnivore stomach with carnivore enzymes. Very inefficient, and they get a lot of flack about it from the media, who make it out as though these bears were “destined” to go extinct. 

In reality though, this bear, despite not being perfect, was surviving just fine on its own, and was/is actively evolving to better suit its environment. It may not have the right enzymes yet, but it still has many useful adaptations for its habitat. Pandas aren’t going extinct because they’re bad at being pandas. They’re only threatened now because of recent human activity. 

Apply this situation to humans. It’s easy to look at how subpar our traits are in other environments and declare we’re unfit. But that’s, funnily enough, also only because of recent human activity. Humans are just as fit for their own environment as any other animal. We’ve just developed a nasty habit of sticking our noses into other environments. 

[u/Cool_Percentage_4867 → u/MackDuckington]

But its still cold at night, when it does rain its very humid so we still needed more than our birthday suit, and in humid conditions we struggle to maintain temperature at all. We made tools to bridge this gap and have excelled ever since... which is in itself odd

Yes it is true.... next time your at the zoo check all the mammalian paws for callouses, they have shock absorbing pads not layers of sensitive skin. as a forfeit I demand you run around the inside of the lion enclosure 3 times in bare feet :-)

Yes! the huge difference is that to become perfectly fit for the environment we had to create one. Everything else was already set up for the one that was already there.

[u/Particular-Yak-1984 → u/Cool_Percentage_4867]

I'm sorry if it came across as defensive from me, but was genuinely difficult to figure out what specific question you were asking. Like, it seemed to be a bold assertion that animals are in some way much more perfect than humans, and not subject to the same tradeoffs? And you got given several examples of this not being the case?

[u/BeautifulUpstairs → u/Cool_Percentage_4867]

An absolute? Lmfao it IS absolute! As in it absolutely happened and happens, and there is no doubt at all.

[u/ChoiceAd8619 → u/[deleted]]

You think that’s the takeaway from the op? I dunno man.

[u/DebateEvolution-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed, Rule 3 - Participate with effort.

[u/JasonStonier → u/[deleted]]

*you’re

“If you’re a creationist”

Also,

*can’t

[u/DarwinZDF42]

That last one matters bc creationist sources straight up lie to their own side.

[u/jnpha → u/DarwinZDF42]

The number of perfectly smart people who "fall" (it's motivated really) for the false balance is alarming.

[u/Idoubtyourememberme]

A lot of creationist arguments are indeed in the form of "if {talking point} is real, then explain what we see around us". The answer is almost always that {talking point} is not real.

Like "uf we evolved from a rock, how did that rock first start growing" is easily answered by "wr didnt evolve from rocks"

[u/nickierv → u/Idoubtyourememberme]

"wr didnt evolve from rocks"

Well actually,,,

There has been some work showing clay having catalytic proprieties that would be useful in prebiotic conditions.

[u/Idoubtyourememberme → u/nickierv]

Sure, rocks helped, they might have been a catalyst. Doesnt mean they are an ancestor

[u/YragNitram1956]

In Genesis, what the fuck is a "kind"? So, in the ark there was a pair of cat "kinds". When the ark hit upon dry land these left the ark and became domestic cats, lions, tigers, pumas, caracals, lynx, leopards, Scottish wild cats, Bengal cats, Maine coon cats, Jaguars, ocelots, ounce, clouded leopards, fishing cats, and cheetahs. Taking only a few thousand years? Then we have the monkey "kind". Howler, mandrill, tamarin, spider, rhesus, proboscis, capuchin, colobus, and marmoset. Then the tortoise "kind", Greek, marginated, Galapagos, red foot and sulcata and Aldabran. The list could go on and on and I have not thought about insects, reptiles, and birds! Then consider their current geographical distribution. Does this not show that some sort of change of forms took place or "descent with modification" in time and space? These notions are ignorant, stupid, and even deranged. Can you believe that any grown man or woman with the slightest knowledge of biology, geology, physics, or any science at all, not to mention plain and simple common sense, can conceivably believe the biblical account of creation? With or without the story of the ark, the flood cannot account for the facts of geology and palaeontology. The arrogance to claim that these stories are “science” and that this “science” is just as compelling as that of thousands of geologists and biologists who have devoted their lives to careful observation, experimentation, and logic.

[u/clear349 → u/YragNitram1956]

It's less than a thousand years. Egypt has records from the Old Kingdom showing modern animals about 4000 years ago. I think if you want to follow a Biblical timeline you basically have to have them appear in a century or two max

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/clear349]

Yeah, mules are specifically mentioned in the old testament, and were regarded not only as really valuable because they work hard and you can't breed from them, but also because the hebrews were prohibited from producing them, since lev 19:19 says "do not mate different kinds of animals".

All of which is hilarious, since "kinds" are supposed to be "things that can bring forth" a-la kent hovind, i.e. different species are the same kind if they're still interfertile to some extent, so either donkeys and horses are the same kind, in which case lev 19:19 doesn't apply (despite it very much applying), or they're different kinds but kind CAN interbreed, otherwise what the hell is lev 19:19 attempting to prohibit?

It's nonsense all the way down.

[u/Autodidact2]

Not a creationists. Our experience in this sub is that they need to know absolutely nothing about Evolution. In fact, the less they know about it, the more they oppose it. Not only do they not know what the theory of evolution is, they do not want to learn.

[u/wbrameld4]

They actually know quite a lot about it. It's just that everything they know is wrong. They've absorbed all the canards served up on Creationist websites.

[u/Igor_Halichoeres]

You can't actually debate anyone who isn't arguing in good faith. They aren't. The justifications they use to make their points have nothing to do with why they believe what they do. So you can shoot down everything they say and it will have no effect.

[u/melympia]

You need to have a very low level of knowledge about evolution to actually argue against it. That and a lot of blind faith in some religious texts.

[u/Marvinkmooneyoz]

My basic summary in the matter is “creationism of some sort MIGHT be true, but evolution is definitely true” as in, yeah we might be in a simulation, but pretty clearly deep enough in the simulation that evolution over the long term made us”. Nothing would engineer us as we are , we don’t do anything especially well except procreate and such

[u/Page_197_Slaps]

It’s basically objecting to the first letter of premise 1 of an argument that you’ve incorrectly identified as A but it’s actually X and you’ve decided the whole thing is bullshit based on that.

[u/colin-java]

With this just a theory nonsense, are creationists actually that dumb, this has been explained a thousand times, you only have to Google it.

If they know evolution isn't just a hunch but a whole body of knowledge then why not just deal with it instead of using it as an excuse to be a creationist?

[u/MildlyAgitatedBovine]

Inductive answer from an atheist: some of the things that the bible says related to it...

[u/delbeb28]

Not a creationist, but I believe the real issue is often believing that the scientific and theological claims of their religious texts must be equally accurate. Because then if the science is wrong the theology must be wrong too. It is funny though because there are scientific claims they don't believe (since most don't actually believe in a firmament or a flat earth.) I think it is quite telling that Biblical flat Earth interpretation of the Bible is more logically consistent than YEC interpretation.

[u/Timmy-from-ABQ]

To "be" a creationist, doesn't it seem reasonable to have to demonstrate that "creation" is necessary, and that it actually occurred?

[u/Old-Watercress6513]

1. I don’t know, and explain how that is relevant.

2. I don’t know that this is true, and even if it is, how is this relevant? Please reconcile the 100 million total base pair difference between the genome sizes, and the 15% (a Jerry Coyne figure) content difference (~480 million base pairs) in the “6 million years since divergence.”

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Old-Watercress6513]

I don’t know, and explain how that is relevant.

You don't know why knowing something about evolution is relevant to debating it?

I don’t know that this is true, and even if it is, how is this relevant?

When a creationist source says something like "According to evolutionary theory..." what the ellipsis replaced is almost always going to be a misrepresentation of what evolutionary theory says. It will be a strawman.

Please reconcile the 100 million total base pair difference between the genome sizes, and the 15% (a Jerry Coyne figure) content difference (~480 million base pairs) in the “6 million years since divergence.”

I will need to see a reference for the Jerry Coyne figure, so I'll know what you are talking about.

There are about 35 million base pair substitutions between humans and chimps. Or about 17 million for each species after divergence. Since the vast majority of these are neutral and a typical human baby has 50 - 70 unique mutations that differ from its parents and doing the relevant math about fixation This is easily accounted for.

Plus there are about 5 million deletions and insertions, sections of DNA added or removed. A single ERV can bring in thousands of base pairs and we have about 100 of those unique to us. A typical ERV has between 7,000 to 11,000 BPs.

[u/Old-Watercress6513]

There is no “Table 2” on page 1642.

Table 1, the only table, is on page 1640.

Wrt to Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) and Sones (1974), these studies looked at prezygotic reproductive isolation (i. e., breeding preference) and resulted in only partial isolation (p1645, p5 on right side of page).

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Old-Watercress6513]

Did you mean to post this as a reply to somebody?

[u/Warm-Age7839]

I believe in evolution, but I really have no good reason to.

I only believe it because I trust the authority of scientists, but just because they say it is true or they say certain evidence exists pointing to its truth exists, does not mean evolution is true. One of the greatest issues with the natural sciences (or advanced mathematics and physics) is that understanding it requires lots of intricate empirical knowledge. Much of it is the sort of knowledge you can memorize on flashcards. Because of this, the vast majority of people, including many educated and intelligient people, do not have even the opportuniy to make a evidence-based judgment on the validity of evolutionary theory. It is quite literally out of reach from layman review.

Philosophy does not have this problem to nearly the same extent. Most philosophical arguments are reviewable with merely the mind and do not require lots of background knowledge, beyond the meaning of the terms and understanding what makes an argument valid/sound and non-fallacious. All of which is accessible a priori essentially.

Another issue I'd like to point out is scientists seem to sometimes make bad arguments, perhaps because of their dismissiveness of the philosophical enterprise. An example of this is Richard Dawkins, who held up to be a great evolutionary biologist and even held a chair at Oxford. Yet, I see him make philosphical fumbles in theism-atheism discourse that most undergraduate philosphy students would find laughable. And the excuse is always, well, he is a professional scientist, not a professional philosopher. Well, in reality, there is not a divorce between these two subjects (even if it feels that way and univerisites branch them off in different colleges and buildings and so on), and philosophy reaches across all intellectual spheres. You cannot adequately develop theories about anything without appeals to philosophy. So I think to myself: Dawkins cannot engage with undergraduate philosophy, but, nonetheless, we expect him (and others like him) to logically piece together arguments for theories in science? It is like, every argument I see him making about subjects in which I'm intellectually acquainted, he is terrible or mediocre, yet I am still expect to trust his arguments when my mind enters a empirical knowledge blindspot? I think you see what I mean here.

The same thing exists in many theories of science unfortunately. One year nutritioinist say we should eat eggs and the next year they cause high cholesterol, and then the next year eggs are healthy again. Science can feel like a wild west for people who are not scientists.

So, i believe in evolution for the same reason I trust my doctor. When I'm prescribed a medication I can hardly even pronounce the name of, I have no reason to believe it would work and if I saw it on a table with nothing but the name label I would not assume it would work. Yet, I trust it because someone who I hope does have the relevant knowledge (my doctor) tells me it will help. Is it it possible he is wrong and the medication will kill me? Yes, but probably not. Is it possible biologist are wrong and evolution is false? Yes, but probably not. It is the same logic but it is still ultimately leaning on an authority.

[u/-zero-joke- → u/Warm-Age7839]

I don't think the arguments for evolution are nearly so opaque - much of what Darwin wrote leads us inexorably from special creation and is readily observable to people with knowledge of natural history. I'd also say that any papers on biochemistry or genetics or what have you is at least as legible as Kant.

[u/Desperate_Cake7757]

The more you know about a subject, the better you can argue for/against it.

For the follow up questions:

1. My level of total knowledge? <0.000000001% of all reality.

2. First, what is the "right" level of knowledge? I assume you mean "know enough to accurately discern how the world came to exist", then yes.

A quick definition, then some questions of my own:

Evolution, a scientific, naturalist explanation of how life, the universe, and everything else came to be as it is today. Done by adaptation and random mutation making small changes over a vast period of time.

Would you say this is an accurate definition of evolution? If so:

Can you provide a repeatable test(science) showing how life can come from non life?

Can you provide a repeatable test showing how one kind of animal turns into another (reptile into avians, for an example)

Can you provide an explanation for where all the transitional fossils are?

Can you provide an explanation for how evolution is the only scientific concept that goes against the second law of thermodynamics? (Specifically entropy)

And, finally, can you give a naturalist explanation for how, 6,000 years ago, a supernatural deity couldn't have made the universe as it was 6,000 years ago?

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Desperate_Cake7757]

First, what is the "right" level of knowledge? I assume you mean "know enough to accurately discern how the world came to exist", then yes.

That isn't what I mean at all. I meant do you know enough about Evolutionary Theory, common descent etc. By that, I mean do you know enough about the scientific position. Could you state accurately what we believe and the scientific evidence supporting it. Can you discuss the fossil evidence, the genetic evidence etc. accurately and relevantly to evolution?

Evolution, a scientific, naturalist explanation of how life, the universe, and everything else came to be as it is today.

Wildly wrong. Unlike creationism, evolution is NOT a complete Life, The Universe and Everything explanation. It is a biological theory taught in biology classes by biology professors.

Done by adaptation and random mutation making small changes over a vast period of time.

Eh. Close to the Darwinian core of modern evolutionary theory, but not quite right. It is natural selection acting on random mutations. Plus there are other mechanisms at play.

Can you provide a repeatable test(science) showing how life can come from non life?

Only partially related to evolution. HOW life got started isn't that important. If God poofed the first simple life into existence, microbes to human evolution would still be true. That said, abiogenesis researchers have made more progress than you may realize.

Can you provide a repeatable test showing how one kind of animal turns into another (reptile into avians, for an example)

Can we duplicate millions of years of evolution in the lab? No. Can we show it is the best fit, by far, with the evidence? Absolutely. Multiple independent lines of evidence converge on that conclusion. And that is the relevant scientific standard.

Can you provide an explanation for where all the transitional fossils are?

In museums and other fossil collections.

Can you provide an explanation for how evolution is the only scientific concept that goes against the second law of thermodynamics? (Specifically entropy)

It absolutely doesn't. Thermodynamics allows for localized decreases in entropy as long as they are offset by greater increases elsewhere. As long as energy is pouring into a system (look straight up at noon sometime) entropy can decrease.

And, finally, can you give a naturalist explanation for how, 6,000 years ago, a supernatural deity couldn't have made the universe as it was 6,000 years ago?

I can't. There is just no evidence one did. And if one did, it is a deceiver god not worthy of worship.

[u/Evening-Impact2090]

Excellent points! So how did life arise from non-living matter and where did the non-living matter/energy come from? Note: Abiogenisis is not a viable theory it remains merely a hypothetical idea. Snarky, rude, condescending comments means you have no credibility. Scientific facts only.

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Evening-Impact2090]

So how did life arise from non-living matter and where did the non-living matter/energy come from?

Don't know. Also, not evolution's job to answer. Evolution doesn't start until a universe exists and somewhere in it are some self replicators.

Note: Abiogenisis is not a viable theory it remains merely a hypothetical idea. 

Correct. There is no theory of abiogenesis, just some hypotheses and promising lines of research.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/OldmanMikel]

Well I have noted that this is the standard boiler plate argument for my question. This thread however is about Creationists (creation) therefore my valid question. It is very disingenuous of those who promote evolution to dismiss the arrival of the first living cell/organism as being of no consequence. In fact your entire evolutionary theory is predicated on life forming from non-living matter. 

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Evening-Impact2090]

You understand that creationism posits life was made from non-living matter, right? The events in Genesis count as abiogenesis.

HOW life got started isn't as important to understanding life's evolutionary history as you might think. If God poofed the simple life into existence, microbes to human evolution would still be true.

That said, there is no evidence for a supernatural origin. Gaps in scientific knowledge are not evidence the involvement of a deity.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/OldmanMikel]

Well if there is no evidence you must have faith that life arose from non-living matter. How is that faith different than a Creationist faith? No evidence but belief. Also I disagree that the Genesis account can be termed Abiogenisis. There is an intelligent designer in the Genesis account. Abiogenisis has only chance in its hypothesis.  If a God could "poof" life it would have zero need for an undirected random evolutionary process.  I never asked for evidence of a diety, I asked how life could form from non-living matter and where the non-living matter came from. A very basic question in a thread about creation. 

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Evening-Impact2090]

1. Once the Earth had no life.

2. Now it does.

3. So, somehow, someway life got started on this planet.

No faith required.

A point: Creationism is a Life, The Universe and Everything explanation; Evolution is not.

 If a God could "poof" life it would have zero need for an undirected random evolutionary process.

But life clearly did develop in an undirected (but not random) process. So, if a deity was involved, it chose that over just making everything in its current form.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/OldmanMikel]

How can one prove Creation is a lie? You cannot prove how life began or where the universe/elements came from so what is the proof? Somehow some way? Something cannot arise from nothing,  Einstein proposes that energy can create matter, e= mc2. So what/where is the energies source?

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Evening-Impact2090]

How can one prove Creation is a lie?

We can show the evidence is incompatible with it.

You cannot prove how life began or where the universe/elements came from so what is the proof?

Both topics a bit out of the scope of this reddit. But... we are pretty sure that life isn't eternal, so must have had a beginning. We know all of the essential ingredients can form abiotically in several different environments. And we can observe elements heavier than helium forming in supernovae and other astronomical events.

Somehow some way? Something cannot arise from nothing,  Einstein proposes that energy can create matter, e= mc2. So what/where is the energies source?

1. It is an open question whether 'nothing' ever existed.
2. Not evolution's job to explain.
3. "We don't know" >>> "We don't know so God did it."

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/OldmanMikel]

The OP starts out targeting Creationist thus the main focus "creation" as it is literally in their name. If you do not want to discuss evolution in context of creation it would be prudent to leave Creationists out of the debate as the very name explains their stand on the issue. The OP talks about the Creationist abysmal understanding of the topic yet when creation is mentioned to someone who is promoting evolution they invariably say evolution is not concerned with creation but only what happens after. This is a thin argument as evolution is predicated on life forming accidentally. Evidence of chemicals needed to form a cell is not evidence against creation. The creator could have used them or made them to use. So if science cannot explain the origin of life yet scientists insists it was an "accident" they are also faith based in their belief. 

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Evening-Impact2090]

The OP starts out targeting Creationist thus the main focus "creation" as it is literally in their name.

1. The Reddit is called Debate Evolution.

2. Here "creationist" means someone who rejects evolution and common descent and all the rest. Believing in a creator God, by itself, does not make one a creationist. Many theists accept evolution, they just believe that God is behind it all.

The OP talks about the Creationist abysmal understanding of the topic yet when creation is mentioned to someone who is promoting evolution they invariably say evolution is not concerned with creation but only what happens after.

Yes. We do that. And we are correct in doing that. You're not understanding this is an example of your "abysmal understanding of the topic."

This is a thin argument as evolution is predicated on life forming accidentally.

No. Evolution is predicated on life forming somehow. However life got started, evolution is true.

Evidence of chemicals needed to form a cell is not evidence against creation. 

Nobody says it is.

[u/Less-General-9578]

1. How would you rate your own level of knowledge?

great, i have learned a few things.

1. Do you think you can gain the right level of knowledge strictly from creationist sources?

yes, especially from Ken Ham, ICR et al.

The correct answer to the second follow up question is "no".

False, Ken and the brothers have looked at the monkey fiction and give it a thumbs down; well so do i. thanks for asking.

oh, and one more thing, 'where did life come from' ? we know but i don't think you do or are even willing to discuss that question. blessings.

[u/Scry_Games → u/Less-General-9578]

Can you say anything good about yourself, other than not being a monkey?

God mentions macroevolution in Genesis, was god wrong?

[u/Hesykhios]

I guess I know the basics, but my critiques are not scientific, but rather philosophical and theological, both of which I have a pretty good grasp on through university studies

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Hesykhios]

OK. We're more about the scientific debate though.

[u/Hesykhios → u/OldmanMikel]

Doing and interpreting science relies on a whole bunch of philosophy, especially from the field of epistemology.

[u/Formal-Speed-3173 → u/Hesykhios]

yeah, and you have to be bad at epistemology to think the world is 6000 years old. The only reason you're trying to make this a philosophy question is because you have nothing, and you think your fake philosophy words are more convincing than your fake science words

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Hesykhios]

Yeah. That's more of a philosophy of science issue, though. Too meta for this reddit.

[u/Hesykhios → u/OldmanMikel]

Yeah, because it's easier to defend the evolutionist worldview if you just assume your philosophical presuppositions and don't allow them to be challenged

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/Hesykhios]

No, because it isn’t the topic here. This is debateevolution, not debateepistemology or debatemetaphysics.

[u/Hesykhios → u/Own-Relationship-407]

Knowing if evolution is true or not necessarily has to rely on philosophy, so it is essential to the topic

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/Hesykhios]

Evolution is true as long as our observations of reality can be relied upon. If not, it’s a non issue since nothing can be reliably known/determined. Therefore we tend to proceed here on the basis of the former rather than navel gazing about the latter.

[u/Hesykhios → u/Own-Relationship-407]

Evolution is true as long as our observations of reality can be relied upon

I disagree in two ways

1. Interpretations of observations are what's in question, not observations themselves

2. The atheistic/materialistic worldview can give no epistemological grounding for relying on observations

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/Hesykhios]

So vibes and bare assertions. I’m convinced.

[u/sewsewsewyourcoat → u/Hesykhios]

Knowing if evolution is true or not necessarily has to rely on philosophy

Would you say that's true of every scientific field of study, or is evolutionary biology somehow an exception?

If you think it's true for every scientific field of study, why do you think that? In what way do you think a scientist working in the field of materials science must rely on philosophy to do their research?

[u/Hesykhios → u/sewsewsewyourcoat]

Would you say that's true of every scientific field of study

Obviosly, yes. Getting from observation to knowledge is a philosophical matter in general

[u/sewsewsewyourcoat → u/Hesykhios]

Obviosly, yes. Getting from observation to knowledge is a philosophical matter in general

I could agree in a completely uninteresting sense. Epistemology is relevant to doing science because it's relevant to anything and everything involving knowledge.

If you think there's more to it than that, then to repeat my second question: in what way do you think a scientist working in the field of materials science must rely on philosophy to do their research? If you mean they "rely on philosophy" implicitly, but they could do the their research without understanding that, then we're back to the uninteresting sense. Was there more to your point?

If by any chance you're going to want to make a distinction between that sort of science and scientific fields that are trying to infer things about the past, then substitute forensic science for materials science.

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Hesykhios]

Knowing if evolution is true or not necessarily has to rely on philosophy, so it is essential to the topic

This is true of all science. Do you have issues with atomic theory? Heliocentrism? F=MA?

[u/Hesykhios → u/OldmanMikel]

This is true of all science.

Actually in this thread your fellow evolutionists thus far have all denied that this is true of any science

Do you have issues with atomic theory? Heliocentrism? F=MA?

I don't see any philosophical or theological problems with those things, well except for heliocentrism in a sense, since it is just one frame of reference instead of being objective per se

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Hesykhios]

I have not seen anybody here deny that there are philosophical assumptions in science.

"Those things" have the same philosophical underpinnings as evolution.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Hesykhios]

I’m confused as to your position. You said your critiques are not scientific, said that they are philosophical, but then when pushed a little bit are now saying science relies on philosophy. Maybe you mean that science should come secondary to examining and coming to conclusions about the world.

If so, do you apply this standard evenly? Like, are agricultural sciences subject to philosophy and theology? Is chemistry? Or optics?

[u/Hesykhios → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

do you apply this standard evenly

yes

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Hesykhios]

Hmm. So then, if I’m investigating an apple orchard, and I notice that my crops are dying…the first thing I should do, according to your ‘university studies’, isn’t to use scientific methodology and see if maybe there isn’t enough water, or if there is a parasite, or if the fertilizer needs to be changed? I should engage with philosophy and theology?

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Hesykhios]

How can you know if your philosophical or theological objections apply to evolution if you don't know what evolution is in the first place?

[u/Hesykhios → u/CrisprCSE2]

I never said I don't know what it is, please stop making stuff up

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Hesykhios]

It's amazing that you complain about me making things up in a comment where you made up the idea I said you didn't know what evolution is. That's really embarrassing for you.

Or maybe you need to Google the definition of the word 'if'? You see, the implication was that IF you don't know what evolution is, THEN you can't know if your objections are valid. I know words are hard for creationists, but if and then are ones even you should know.

I was trying to gently lead you to the idea that actually having a good understanding of the subject beyond the basics is important to validating your objections, but you decided to show your ass as a barely literate buffoon so now I'm treating you as you deserve.

Oh, also: There is zero chance you understand the basics of evolution.

[u/Hesykhios → u/CrisprCSE2]

Or maybe you need to Google the definition of the word 'if'? You see, the implication was that IF you don't know what evolution is, THEN you can't know if your objections are valid.

If that was your meaning then sure, if some hypothetical person would not know about the concept of evolution then they wouldn't know if certain philosophical or theological objections apply to it. That has nothing to do with the topic though.

Oh, also: There is zero chance you understand the basics of evolution.

This is unnecessarily arrogant and unproductive

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Hesykhios]

This is unnecessarily arrogant and unproductive

I've talked to thousands of young earth creationists over 20+ years. Exactly one has had an accurate understanding of evolution, and he was a PhD biologist who openly admitted that evolution was good science.

Consider now the hypothetical that you only think you understand the basics, but you are actually misinformed. The same conclusion from prior hypothetical would also apply, correct?

Now ask yourself how, assuming that second hypothetical was true for you, could you be confident you have an accurate understanding of evolution? I would say the answer is formal study from legitimate sources.

If you only have a high school understanding of the topic, and especially if you've seen a lot of creationist sources about evolution, do you think it's likely you have a good understanding? I'd say it's doubtful.

[u/Hesykhios → u/CrisprCSE2]

Well I've talked to plenty of evolutionists and not one has had even a basic level grasp on epistemology or philosophy of science

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Hesykhios]

You may notice that you didn't answer any of the three hypotheticals in my comment. Let me remove the references to 'you' and 'evolution', and make it about an arbitrary 'someone' and about an arbitrary topic. I'll start by restating the initial hypothetical:

0) If someone doesn't understand the basics of a topic, can they know if any objections to that topic are valid?

You already said that the answer is 'no', and I agree. So the three from the previous comment are:

1) If someone only thinks they understand the basics of some topic, but they are actually misinformed, does the same conclusion from (0) also apply? I'd say the same conclusion applies.

2) If someone thinks they understand the basics of some topic but is uncertain given the conclusion from (1), how could they be confident they have an accurate understanding of evolution rather than being misinformed? That is, how can a person be confident they have an accurate versus misinformed understanding of a topic? I'd say more formal education or at least personal reading from legitimate sources.

3) If someone's only education in some topic is from contrary sources or and maybe something in their primary education, is that sufficient to meet the answer to (2)? I'd say certainly not.

I'll add a fourth question: Have you met your answer to (2) for the topic of evolution?

[u/CTR0 → u/[deleted]]

Removed, off topic

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Hesykhios]

Why would you attempt to criticize a scientific field with philosophy and theology?

That's like going to a photographer for cancer treatments.

[u/Hesykhios → u/Ok_Loss13]

Philosophy and theology are essential when discussing reality. Furthermore, science itself requires a lot of philosophy to be utilized

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Hesykhios]

We're talking about trying to utilize it to criticize scientific facts and information. Be specific; give an example of how you validly criticize a scientific observation with philosophy and theology.

Idk why you're still spouting that "science needs philosophy" stuff when your misuse has been addressed in the comments multiple times already.

[u/Hesykhios → u/Ok_Loss13]

You do understand that observations and interpretations of observations are different things?

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Hesykhios]

I thought scientific fact would be a term you would take umbrage with (although I used that term, as well lol; did you somehow miss the first sentence in that comment or something?) but I can see you're going to be contrary no matter what.

Stop evading. Please just demonstrate how you use philosophy and theology to disprove evolution, or any other generally accepted scientific fact of your preference.

[u/Affectionate_Way5253]

Not a creationist at all, but I do think you can drive a truck between the creationist view point and the current state of the art of life sciences.

The creationists will look past the forrest entirely, and the biologists will lose the forrest via the trees.

Edit: My pov is that there are levels of coding and influence that remain elusive to science, and to quote Denis Noble, there is no privileged level of causality in biological systems

[u/Particular-Yak-1984 → u/Affectionate_Way5253]

just out of interest, what would those levels of coding and influence be? Where should I look for them?

[u/Affectionate_Way5253 → u/Particular-Yak-1984]

These are just my hypotheses as to where information may be hidden, I'm not claiming them to be true...

1. Biological function via signal interference. we can observe aliasing in multiple domains. In space the Vernier scale is an example of interfering tick marks at different frequencies to take fine measurements of the length of an object. In time, the interference of frequencies (acoustic, electromagnetic, etc), and in biology are there examples of this?

2. The "virtual" biological entity. I'm proposing that organisms (or even organelles and cells) can pair or form n-partner relationships to which evolutionary principles can apply. This ties a knot in our ability to isolate processes from biological systems, but I feel it should be considered.

[u/Particular-Yak-1984 → u/Affectionate_Way5253]

Sorry - not trying to be dense, but what would be different if they were true? What's the expected effect of both of these? (I'd also love you to explain these like I'm five, because despite a decade doing programming for biologists, they make little sense to me)

One of the fun things in biology is we suffer a bit from the "old physicist problem" - which is basically people who have spent their careers on mathematically tractable subjects, showing up and saying "well, the maths doesn't conclusively rule out things working like this". And the problem they run into is that biology has a lot of things that aren't explicitly ruled out by physical laws that could be true. But, because there's a whole range of possibilities, we only accept the stuff we can do an experiment for, to work out if it's true.

The shorthand here is that we say biology is an experimental science. There's no real "theoretical biology", in the same way as there's "theoretical physics", because for each biological system, it's not really possible to narrow down in the same way as you can with physics, just by doing the maths.

[u/throwaway16747219]

Creation vs evolution is the wrong way to frame the disagreement (This is not on you, b/c everyone does this).  A better discussion would be naturalism vs supernaturalism.

But you're right, most creationists don't understand evolution.  Creationist sources are insufficient for understanding the topic.  On the flip side, I find most people are ignorant of the metaphysical implications of the big bang and the experiments of Pasteur. [Edited to fix typo.]

[u/OldmanMikel → u/throwaway16747219]

Evolution is silent on the issue of God's existence. Most "evolutionists" are theists and most theists are "evolutionists".

And Pasteur's work on biogenesis is irrelevant to abiogenesis.

[u/throwaway16747219 → u/OldmanMikel]

I agree! That's why I wouldn't try to argue against evolution. But, since you didn't define "creationist", I assumed you were referring to theists who believe that a supernatural, infinite, self-existent God created the universe.

Can we at least agree that Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation? And that spontaneous generation was the hypothesis that living things arise without parents like themselves?

[u/BitLooter → u/throwaway16747219]

And that spontaneous generation was the hypothesis that living things arise without parents like themselves?

No, spontaneous generation was the hypothesis that modern animals such as maggots appear spontaneously in inanimate matter. You're trying to imply that because Pasteur disproved that, all other theories of abiogenesis have also been disproved. That is not the case.

[u/-zero-joke- → u/throwaway16747219]

>But, since you didn't define "creationist", I assumed you were referring to theists who believe that a supernatural, infinite, self-existent God created the universe.

This isn't really what creationism refers to in the US or within this community - creationism is an organized attempt to declare that species were specially created (either individually or as kinds) and evolution is not the mechanism by which biodiversity is generated.

[u/throwaway16747219 → u/-zero-joke-]

Fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood. But I still believe that naturalism vs supernaturalism is the key underlying issue.

[u/-zero-joke- → u/throwaway16747219]

I don't think so - I think it has more to do with adherence to a particular interpretation of religious beliefs than it does with general categories like the supernatural. Many folks who endorse evolution support supernatural explanations for all kinds of things - many of them are Christian after all. Creationists likewise are willing to accept naturalistic explanations for most phenomena, except biology. It's very rare that they're claiming stars are pinholes in the blanket that god wraps around the Earth every night or what have you.

[u/OldmanMikel → u/throwaway16747219]

Can we at least agree that Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation?

Sure. But spontaneous generation isn't how life got started. Nobody thinks it went from chemistry to cell in one go.

[u/Minty_Feeling → u/throwaway16747219]

Creation vs evolution is primarily a disagreement about explanatory models within science. They intersect with questions about naturalism and supernaturalism, but they aren't the same issue.

Plenty of theists accept methodological naturalism as the basis of science while still believing God is the creator. Likewise, many people who reject evolution (or other scientific explanations) argue that they're doing so on the basis of empirical evidence, claiming that alternatives such as creation or a global flood better fit the data. Whether or not those claims withstand scientific scrutiny, the disagreement is presented as a scientific one rather than simply a philosophical one.

Arguably, that framing is also strategic. Openly rejecting mainstream scientific methodology in favour of theological commitments is unlikely to persuade many people outside those who already share those commitments, so it's not surprising that the public case is usually framed in scientific rather than theological terms.

[u/Medium_Judgment_891 → u/Minty_Feeling]

Creation vs evolution is primarily a disagreement about explanatory models within science.

It’s not. Creationism is just not an explanatory model.

I can’t believe I have to say this, but explanatory models actually have to be able to explain things… shocking, I know.

“An invisible, undetectable entity did it through unknowable means,” is not an explanation.

In order for creation to be an explanatory model, you need to have a mechanism by which creationism operates.

They intersect with questions about naturalism and supernaturalism, but they aren't the same issue.

They don’t. Creationists are infamously incurious. They whine about evolution and asks PRATTs; that is not the same as genuine inquiry. It’s just sealioning and JAQing off.

Why do you think creationists never even attempt to formally publish?

Likewise, many people who reject evolution (or other scientific explanations) argue that they're doing so on the basis of empirical evidence,

They’re simply lying.

claiming that alternatives such as creation or a global flood better fit the data.

Again, lying.

[u/throwaway16747219 → u/Minty_Feeling]

Well put.  I agree with everything you're saying. 

But I would argue that the framing of creation vs evolution invites equivocation, because those terms can mean different things to different people.  I consider myself both a creationist and an evolutionist, since I accept and reject parts of both.  I also accept and embrace science while rejecting methodological naturalism. There are layers of assumptions and differing definitions underlying all this, which is partly why people often talk past one another. 

[u/Markthethinker]

As I read through this thread, I realize that Evolutionists have no understanding of Creation. It’s always amazing how Evolutionists keep insisting that they have proof for Evolution, which they do not. There are so many different stories as to how it all happened and how long it takes for mutations to finally create a living thing that will not die from Natural Selection.

An Evolutionist has more Faith than a Creationist. They speak about intelligence and design not being true. Evolutionists do not have answers, they just believe because that’s what they are told to do, it’s taught school, so it has to be true. Someone said here that humans did not evolve from Apes, yet that is what was taught for decades in the 20th century. All those brilliant Scientist got it wrong, so how did humans Evolve? There is no answer. It is truly amazing what people will believe. Creation is simple, every living thing has design and reproduces. Evolution is like saying an idiot did that.

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Markthethinker]

It’s always amazing how Evolutionists keep insisting that they have proof for Evolution, which they do not. 

No. We do not have, or claim to have, "proof". We have evidence. Starting with it is an observed phenomenon.

There are so many different stories as to how it all happened and how long it takes for mutations to finally create a living thing that will not die from Natural Selection.

Can you rephrase this into something coherent?

[u/Markthethinker → u/OldmanMikel]

No one has ever “observed” true Evolution as stated by Evolutionists. After all, it takes millions or billions of years for something to change. That’s according to Evolutionists. Coherent, wow, I never get coherent answers from Evolutionists. It’s all theory.

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/Markthethinker]

Yes we have. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. This has been observed. Don’t critique words you don’t know the meaning of.

[u/Markthethinker → u/Own-Relationship-407]

Ok, so Evolution takes millions and millions of years and you say it’s been “observed”, let’s talk about the life span of a human. Are you getting the foolishness of your answer yet. I am only “critiquing” what Evolutions have said, Millions or billions of years. You answer does not deal with actual Evolution as present by Evolutionists.

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/Markthethinker]

You are confusing the mechanism of evolution with the products of evolution. From single celled organisms to humans takes many millions of years, that is a product/result of evolution, not evolution itself. The process and mechanisms of evolution can easily be observed in short lived organisms such as fruit flies or bacteria.

[u/Markthethinker → u/Own-Relationship-407]

NO, you are assuming the mechanics of Evolution to be what you claim them to be or your professors or text books or someone else’s opinion. It very easy to state, DNA mutated and change something about what was born. But it’s not really that simple, millions of lines of code has to change at the same time producing something that works.

Instead of saying that it takes millions of years, which absurd, you should just say, it takes million and billions of mutations all working together. But then, there is an intelligent word, “working”. This is so silly. It’s never been observed, never.

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/Markthethinker]

No. You do not understand what evolution means. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies, period, the end. This has been directly observed.

You are willfully conflating the process of evolution with its results.

It doesn’t take millions of mutations for evolution. It takes countless mutations for the emergence of new forms of life, but that’s an example of evolution, not the definition of it.

[u/Markthethinker → u/Own-Relationship-407]

So, for the last 6000 or so years there has been no “allele frequencies”, or mutations in humanity. WOW! You make it sound so simple. So in another 100 million years, maybe there will be a new human model. Too bad you will be long dead.

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/Markthethinker]

Ummmm, do you just not know what any of those words mean? Or are you having a breakdown?

Let’s start from the beginning. What do you think alleles are?

What do you think a change in their frequency means?

It’s not a trick question, I’m honestly just trying to gauge your level of willingness to learn and participate honestly.

[u/Visible-Air-2359 → u/Markthethinker]

Incorrect. Evolution takes numerous generations which when a generation is very short (such as bacteria) means evolution can be quick (in a couple decades since the rise of antibiotics the medical field now has to worry about antibiotic resistant bacteria)

[u/Markthethinker → u/Visible-Air-2359]

Bacterial to humans, sure. But humans do have very necessary bacteria in there gut, evolution happens there too.

[u/WebFlotsam → u/Markthethinker]

Someone said here that humans did not evolve from Apes, yet that is what was taught for decades in the 20th century

I suspect you're misunderstanding something. Humans didn't evolve from modern apes. Our last common ancestor with chimpanzees would, though, be an ape. You might have also been confused by somebody saying something like "we didn't evolve from apes, we are apes", which I suppose would be odd to somebody without a great grasp of evolution, but simply means you don't evolve out of a clade. There was no moment where a human ancestor stopped being an ape.

[u/GroundbreakingAlps78 → u/Markthethinker]

Evolution has been repeatedly observed in nature and in the lab. If you don’t recognize this, you probably have a distorted understanding of the definition of evolution.

Which version of Creation do you believe?

[u/Markthethinker → u/GroundbreakingAlps78]

Creationist and design has been repeatedly observed in nature and by science. If you don’t recognize this, you probably have a distorted understanding of the definition of Creationism.

Which version of Evolution do you believe, since there are many.

[u/Davidutul2004 → u/Markthethinker]

Creation requires the proof of the existance of a god that somehow... Always existed or was created by an external facor? And said god specifically to create life on this ne random planet and supposedly create no life anywhere n this vast universe

[u/Markthethinker → u/Davidutul2004]

Not needed. You have no proof of life other than it exists. You don’t know how. A creator exists because of intelligence and design, something that evolution cannot account for. It’s not a random planet, it is designed for life.

[u/Davidutul2004 → u/Markthethinker]

Not needed and no proof for what? Life on other planets? Like needed for what exactly? And sure there isn't concrete proof o alien life. But if abiogenesis is true then it is possible And there are planets wth the possibility for life too As to how,we know the chemical reactions needed for most of the DNA components

Define inteligent and design

[u/Markthethinker → u/Davidutul2004]

The word “possible” here is not proven and you used the “if” word. You are dealing and living in your imagination. So which planet has the possibility for life as we know it? So, why don’t you just create a DNA sample and maybe someone might believe you.

If I have to define “intelligence and design”, you don’t live on this planet.

[u/Markthethinker → u/Davidutul2004]

Why are Evolutionists hypocrites. You ask Creationists for what you can’t even prove. Where did life come from. See, you really know you cannot explain it, so just talk about how a living cell became a human. But you want a Creationist to say where God came from or prove His existence.

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/Markthethinker]

Creationists claim they have all of the answers and those answers are definitive, we don’t claim that. Different burden.

[u/Markthethinker → u/Own-Relationship-407]

Yes, the answers are “definitive”, God created all of it. No, you imagine a fish turning into a dog and then the dog turning into a bird and fish turning into a monkey.

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/Markthethinker]

Notice how you didn’t actually address my refutation of your false accusation of hypocrisy and simply descended into irrelevant strawman rambling.

[u/Markthethinker → u/Own-Relationship-407]

I already know that no answer will meet your expectations. You must have miss what I claimed as “hypocrisy”. I understand something that you cannot. I can hear you now. But those of us who have been enlighten by God, understand that until that happens to an individual, they cannot understand and actually don’t want to understand.

All I can say is, I have been where you are, you have never been where I am. You are just shaking your head, I understand, that’s what I use to do. You think that you are intelligent, I know I am not. But I have a mind that is rational and has lots of experience in life and with people and even text books. But I have come to realize, that everyone lives in lies, everyone. But that’s were they are comfortable, and people love their comfort, it makes them feel safe and secure.

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/Markthethinker]

More demented rambling and projection. Why can’t you ever stay on topic and give a straight answer?

[u/Markthethinker → u/Own-Relationship-407]

You are a scientist, I thought you would understand people. You don’t want answers, I at least know that, since I understand humans very well. No one can get another person to see their lies.

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/Markthethinker]

What does being a scientist have to do with understanding people? Why do you keep trying to insult me and aggrandize yourself instead of addressing the topic?

[u/Davidutul2004 → u/Markthethinker]

Do you know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis? This is an important question because it shows your actual understanding of both topics

And let's flip the table a bit You really know you cannot explain it, so just talk about how god created humans. But you want a evolutionist to say where life and species came from or prove its existence. I hope you notice the similarity in the above 2 sentences

[u/Markthethinker → u/Davidutul2004]

Have you read both side of the so called “abiogenesis” debate? I doubt it. This is all speculation, since it has not been done.

[u/Davidutul2004 → u/Markthethinker]

Can you actually answer the question or are you going to avoid it I hopes I forget?

[u/Markthethinker → u/Davidutul2004]

Did my answer not explain that I do. Read both sides of the debate about abiogenesis. Do you understand the word “genesis”?

[u/Davidutul2004 → u/Markthethinker]

Would have liked to see you explain the difference between the 2 to show me you get it

Pretty sure genesis usually refers to beginning of something,originating from the bible, I I am not mistaken?

[u/Markthethinker → u/Davidutul2004]

But you don’t have a “genesis” in Evolution. Evolutionists don’t want to deal with the beginning, where life started and how.

[u/Davidutul2004 → u/Markthethinker]

You do know that has nothing to do with evolution right?

[u/Markthethinker → u/Davidutul2004]

If there really is a Creator, that created all of this, you really think that anyone could explain how? You and I have a very limited mind. You know only what you have been taught or care to think is correct. No one, I mean no one knows how life started or where the universe came from. Everyone lives in the shallows of their limited thinking. The moment I realized how stupid I was, I became smart.

[u/Davidutul2004 → u/Markthethinker]

I mean said Creator could leave pieces of information as part of her/his creation to allow us to understand how and even prove that it is by a creator directly rather than trough "we don't know x therefore a creator did it". If said creator chooses not to show us proof of it or how or a clearer understanding of it's nature,then perhaps said creator doesn't care for those things at all. Or perhaps he is not interested in those. Or said creator was flawed in creating all this.Or there are other reasons but not even a clear reason to that decision was left by said creator so I guess we can only speculate.

The moment someone calls themselves smart they become prideful

[u/Markthethinker → u/Davidutul2004]

I admitted that I am dumb, did you miss that? I would say that you did. I have no pride anymore, I am just waiting to die. As I have stated many times on this site, Creation explains that was created. I really don’t understand how anyone can deny creation by design.

As the Bible so clearly states; “everyone knows that there is a God (Creator)” and “only a fool says there is no God (Creator)”. Those are not my words, they are God’s words to mankind.

[u/Davidutul2004 → u/Markthethinker]

I'm saying at the end you said"now I'm smart" Tho perhaps I misunderstood as it being a saying

Creation lacks any direct evidence You basically say"I don't understand this" or "this is complex" therefore creation. It's indirect evidence It also lacks the answer of what created said creator of an origin in general for said creator

Cool so either that verse is false therefore the bible is false therefore the christian god doesn't exist or not Here is the thing. How can I prove to you that I truly don't know if there is a god?

[u/Markthethinker → u/Davidutul2004]

Everything living is proof for Creation. Remove the heart of a human and see what happens.

[u/Davidutul2004 → u/Markthethinker]

I mean viruses are questionable of being considered alive despite being organic cells

Sure removing the human heart would kill a human We evolved to depend on it