Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

I'm going to throw my hat into the ring.

I am not religious, though I am not either, like Mr Dawkins, a militant atheist. I am willing to accept that others have faith and while I disagree fundamentally with the premise of their belief, in this case the Bible, I respect their beliefs enough not to defecate all over them.

That said, the 'Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph' argument is out in public discourse and I therefore have no problem in arguing against it.

The premise of the argument is that it is obvious that the creation of men and women was planned and that the evolution argument cannot deal with that. Well, I would say to that that there is no evidence to suggest that there is or was a plan. Moreover, the evolution theory does deal with this eventuality. Trial and error coupled with the survival of the fittest explains that the best evolved organisms survived. In relation to mammals it would appear that male and female genders were the most successful form of evolution.

However not all species on this planet conform to the male and female genders, some indeed can change genders.

Now an easy rebuttal would be to suggest that that was also in God's plan. I can't really argue against. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike, and both are equally hard to argue against.

I can only guess that we may find out the answer in due course, because at the moment, no matter how hard we argue, this argument is unwinnable.

 

Don't make the mistake of false equivalency. Easy and valid are two different things. A hypothesis is as weak as it is unfalsifiable. The god argument is completely unfalsifiable, therefore, from a thinking person's perspective it is as weak a hypothesis as you can get. Evolution is a falsifiable premise. However, it has yet to be falsified. It is the only show in town outside of the fertile imagination of believers in a faith shared by tribesmen from the Bronze Age.

 

Here's the deal, Eight criticizes evolution because of not enough evidence and yet his beliefs have even less evidence, none in fact.
But say he is truly convinced that all this had to happen because of a god and that there was a chance if he knew who this god was that would be enough to live forever in bliss for eternity and if he was wrong burn in hell for eternity, OK he believes this. If true then a man would have to devote his life to researching all the gods through out history to make sure he was believing in the real god and he would have to research every possible god imaginable and unimaginable, he has to do this to be sure. It would be a life long and never ending purist of the search of a definitive god. But he isn't doing this because his daddy took him to the right god, what a stroke of luck. It saves all the god believers from all that work in making sure they are right.

 

To the extent that either one of you is trying to get people to give up faith by way of reason, or stretch reason to include faith, you are wasting your time; you have different notions of "truth", so you're never using the same measurement tool.

Trying to talk someone out of their faith could be akin to trying to convince someone to give up their back ache. They have one, you don't. If you've had one, you'll probably accept that they have one (unless you are an insurance adjuster), but if you've never had a back ache then you'll have to extrapolate from other pains that you have had, or accept their claim on faith.

 

Only talking just like Eight is, that's all. I probably wouldn't want to change too many peoples minds even if I could. I roof quit a few churches and it's a profitable part of my business and making money is important, so I wouldn't want to screw that up.

 

Yes, those creationists are always looking for cover, eh?

 

lol

That one might go over some heads.

 

It's really not to do with truth.
I think such throwaway generalizations contribute greatly to the distorted views of science Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's wife refers to, which olias posted.

Truth is a fact that has been verified and is provable in conformity to actuality. That is not a notion.

Religious belief is not that. It is a notion.
At most it is a cognitive understanding only held as true.

You can't in my opinion reasonably compare the two, science and religion, with the word truth.

It's as if religious belief can't just admit to itself it isn't truth, but it is to do with what someone wants to believe is truth.

There would be nothing wrong with that in my opinion, if religious believers could just be more honest about it.

 

Oh, but it does have to do with truth.

Verified, provable, "conformity to actuality", you are building us a definition--a notion.

I think this discussion may relate to an old problem from philosophy, of arguing over necessary and sufficient conditions. Science's definition of truth is necessary (well, kind of, we made it far without it), it can help put a satellite into orbit, but it's not sufficient, not to everyone, or even most people.

 

your way leads you down this path.

If “faith” is a prerequisite in a belief in order to see the truth of the belief, being if there were evidence there would be no need for “faith” in any particular belief.
All supernatural beliefs require “faith” in its truth, being there is no evidence proving any particular belief.
So it must be the “faith” itself that dictates what is true.
Therefore every one of the worlds religions are true, being they all rely on the “faith” of the believer to see its truth. -Unknown