Most of the atheists I read would say that evolution can't disprove the existence of any possible interpretation of a god/God/the gods, but it does conflict with many particular interpretations of God.
Evolution discussion
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
Most of the atheists I read would say that evolution can't disprove the existence of any possible interpretation of a god/God/the gods, but it does conflict with many particular interpretations of God.
Confrontation is the worst way to change someone's mind.
I don't have an "ape-like ancestor" concept to throw out; that's your concept. My concept is ape ancestry, that is, human ancestors that are apes, therefore we are apes. An ape always gives birth to an ape. Do you agree with that?
As for the continuum from a common ape ancestor between us and any other ape, it's not made up, but rests on a large amount of evidence.
You think describing embryos as growing skeletons before they have flesh is "accurately"?
1) There is no such thing as "advanced fishes". All present-day fishes have been evolving for the same amount of time.
2) I'm a fish (as is any vertebrate native to land), and my blood clots.
Darwin once wrote that, if there were no whales, then a population of bears could have have descendants that would eventually fill the same niche and look much like the whales of today. Some have taken that to mean Darwin thought whales descended directly from bear-like ancestors, although I don't think he meant that, and if he did, he was wrong.
The current evidence is that whales have a much more recent common ancestry with hippos than with bears, and hippos also have legs.
Evolution can either make something more complex or more simple as time goes on. It has no preference in that regard. There is no drive to complexity. NOr are humans more complex than many other living things.
There is no such thing as "devolving". The very notion of "devolving" implies evolution has a direction. It does not.
Before we discuss what the verse is saying about embryology, I must ask what you mean when you say that god is outside of time. Please answer this logically, and not through the use of out of context quotes by Einstein or any other.
Actions only make sense in the presence of time. By its very nature, the word "creation" describes a temporal event. There was nothing/something and it changed into something/something else. The difference between the first state and the second defines time. If god is outside of time, it can not create anything. It cannot interact with anything (since interaction involves passing of information, an event that requires time).
In addition to defining what it means for something to exist outside of time, I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion. It seems like a big leap since the arrow of time and concepts of timelessness are very complicated, and well outside either of our mathematical expertise. That makes the use of it to justify a verse that wouldn't make sense otherwise quite the stretch.
MVP
Well-Known Member
yet there are fish which have advanced features to help them survive outside of water. You can call them transitional species if you want or living evolution happening in front of your eyes.
Plus we have fish like hagfish or coelacanth and it is obvious that they evolved millions of years before for example salmon or pike evolved.
There are no such thing as advanced features. Different features are better adapted for different environments.
The hagfish and coelacanth of today are as different from their tens-of-millions-of-years-ago ancestors as is any other fish descended from those same ancestors.