Science Negates All of Abrahamic Religions

@kellyjay said
If I were to accept common ancestry for all life at some point asexual life would turn into two different sexes and as time moves on compatible males would have to mate with compatible females. For each species while evolution is altering everything all subsequent changes have to keep every different species males compatible with each female with nothing but mindlessness g ...[text shortened]... improved life.

That seems more reasonable to you than a spiritual being talking through a snake?

If you were to accept common ancestry for all life then I'm sure I and others here would consider this a major step forward in your education and de - conditioning, but since your mythology is hard - wired into your thinking, one is not holding ones' breath. You and others of like mind are constantly trying to second - guess what nature is capable of 'doing' (That's in inverted commas because of course nature is not 'trying' to do anything) because it doesn't fit with your particular mythology. All of the evidence you need for common ancestry is there to be seen, and studied, you refuse to see it, and there are none so blind....

And yes, it does seem more reasonable than a talking snake, since a talking snake is not 'reasonable' at all, is it.

@indonesia-phil said
If you were to accept common ancestry for all life then I'm sure I and others here would consider this a major step forward in your education and de - conditioning, but since your mythology is hard - wired into your thinking, one is not holding ones' breath. You and others of like mind are constantly trying to second - guess what nature is capable of 'doing' (That's i ...[text shortened]... seem more reasonable than a talking snake, since a talking snake is not 'reasonable' at all, is it.

Then you can explain how a mindless process could start life, continue changing it, splitting it into several different species, moving from asexual beings to male and female sexes with everything getting just the right mutations to remain compatible with one other and even know with one they were supposed to mate with for offspring that would continue their species. How a purely mindless process could build minds that function so that they think, are aware of themselves, and so on?

There is nothing reasonable about all this, if there were you'd be able to talk about how a mindless process could perform all of these things, but you cannot, all you can do is harp about a snake, and run down a world-class chemist as if he was a fly by night guy with a degree out of a crackerjack box. Talk about falling short on logic and identifying someone who builds things from molecules up as if he knows nothing.

@moonbus said
You'r mixing up different issues there. I was referring to humans only, not different species or how life got going initially.

You think humans have something special about there evolutionary path not shared by all the rest of life if evolution is true?

Common ancestry means we are nothing more or less than anything else. How it started molds and shapes the processes that you claim are responsible, it must account for everything we see in life, and mindlessness does that for you? All the immaterial things about us in your estimation comes from nothing, but matter coming together again, without any plan, purpose, in a meaningless fashion void intent?

@kellyjay said
all you can do is harp about a snake, and run down a world-class chemist as if he was a fly by night guy with a degree out of a crackerjack box. Talk about falling short on logic and identifying someone who builds things from molecules up as if he knows nothing.

Are there any "world-class chemists" [whose degrees are not "out of a crackerjack box"] that you admire and feel intellectually challenged by because they don't agree with you?

@kellyjay said
Common ancestry means we are nothing more or less than anything else.

Does it?

@kellyjay said
You think humans have something special about there evolutionary path not shared by all the rest of life if evolution is true?

Common ancestry means we are nothing more or less than anything else. How it started molds and shapes the processes that you claim are responsible, it must account for everything we see in life, and mindlessness does that for you? All the immat ...[text shortened]... , but matter coming together again, without any plan, purpose, in a meaningless fashion void intent?

You're missing, or artlessly dodging, the point here. It is possible to recognize a wrong answer, even if one does not yet have the completely right answer.

The point is not whether science (evolution, chemistry, etc.) is the (completely) right answer; that is a separate issue. The point is: is the account in Genesis the right answer, at all? The answer is a clear 'no'. Whatever the right answer is, and even if science does not provide the (completely) right answer, the Bible certainly does not provide the right answer, and science tells us why the biblical answer is not the right answer: because two original specimens cannot populate the entire human race, not literally biologically anyway. There must have been more than two original humans, however or wherever they came from. Therefore, it cannot have been as the Book of Genesis says it was, with only Adam and Eve to populate the entire race.

Indeed, the Book of Genesis already gives us a clue: Cain and Abel had wives. Where did they come from? They belonged to other tribes, humans who did not live in the 'Garden', and there's your answer.

@kellyjay said
Then you can explain how a mindless process could start life, continue changing it, splitting it into several different species, moving from asexual beings to male and female sexes with everything getting just the right mutations to remain compatible with one other and even know with one they were supposed to mate with for offspring that would continue their species. How a ...[text shortened]... g short on logic and identifying someone who builds things from molecules up as if he knows nothing.

Yes, it's called evolution, look it up, it's really interesting.

If you re - read your post you will see that it was you who brought up the talking snake, I was merely replying to your post.

Your world - class chemist is akin to a mathematician who does a really complex equation, draws a line under it and then sticks in any number under that. If the conclusion is wrong, what came before is meaningless.

@indonesia-phil said
Yes, it's called evolution, look it up, it's really interesting.

If you re - read your post you will see that it was you who brought up the talking snake, I was merely replying to your post.

Your world - class chemist is akin to a mathematician who does a really complex equation, draws a line under it and then sticks in any number under that. If the conclusion is wrong, what came before is meaningless.

Doesn't matter what it's called, can it do the things credited to the theory, there is no way that it can happen without careful thought and guidance, that is believable. Simply saying 'evolution' doesn't prove anything, and it also doesn't explain anything, which is pretty much all you have done, not once have you ever tried to talk about the mechanisms that supposedly would be manufacturing life by a mindless process, you ignore that.

You should apply your thought processes to the possibilities that need to be overcome concerning nothing getting credit for everything.

@moonbus said
You're missing, or artlessly dodging, the point here. It is possible to recognize a wrong answer, even if one does not yet have the completely right answer.

The point is not whether science (evolution, chemistry, etc.) is the (completely) right answer; that is a separate issue. The point is: is the account in Genesis the right answer, at all? The answer is a clear 'no'. Wh ...[text shortened]... om? They belonged to other tribes, humans who did not live in the 'Garden', and there's your answer.

You don't have an inkling of an answer concerning the issues at hand in this discussion, outside of your rejecting out of hand due to philosophical reasons you have nothing in the realm of reason that touches how a mindless process could build a human mind or a duck's mind. There has not been ONE thing said by you can give credit to that process, completely or in small pieces concerning a common ancestor. No one disputes small changes that aren't building anything new, that isn't correcting anything wrong, that isn't even identifying anything wrong, or even if there is a right or wrong way to do something constructive.

Adam and Eve had sons and daughters, and they lived a very long time reproducing as did their kids which were not limited to Cain and Able, and we don't even know that those two were their first too, they were just two of three named off the top of my head.

@kellyjay said
You think humans have something special about there evolutionary path not shared by all the rest of life if evolution is true?

You are unaware of the capacities and skills that humans have that are different from other species?

@kellyjay said
Doesn't matter what it's called, can it do the things credited to the theory, there is no way that it can happen without careful thought and guidance, that is believable. Simply saying 'evolution' doesn't prove anything, and it also doesn't explain anything, which is pretty much all you have done, not once have you ever tried to talk about the mechanisms that supposedly wou ...[text shortened]... sses to the possibilities that need to be overcome concerning nothing getting credit for everything.

I'm not going to explain the mechanisms of evolution to you, you're old enough to be able to read about them for yourself.

@indonesia-phil said
I'm not going to explain the mechanisms of evolution to you, you're old enough to be able to read about them for yourself.

There is NOTHING in the mechanisms of evolution that creates something new that has specified functional complex systems, there is nothing in it that can check and correct issues that arise in life. If you only look at a materialistic universe with nothing guiding it all, nothing arranging it all so everything to fall into place, but also maintains itself over time. A tweak here and there changing something already there sure, the isn't altering the whole into something new. There you have nothing but a cleverly devised story that fits your bias.