Is Evolution a science or a faith?

[Anomalocaris]

Ignorance overload! WoW, Harris is one of those people I would like to take into a university biology lab and show him in person, exactly what is wrong with what he thinks. No hiding behind texts, no deflecting and ignoring points. Wait wait, uni lab may be too advanced, how about a high school lab.
And BTW fresh water and salt water do mix, if that were false we would see a halocline in the ocean.

The appropriate role of people like Harris in a university biology lab would be as a type specimen of cognative pathology.

[Tonus]

The responses, which I received for my previous post “Intelligence out of nothing,” had given me an impression that most of the atheists feel humiliation if someone try to challenge Theory of Evolution.

You misunderstand. Rolling our eyes at you is not a sign of humiliation.

[FatAndFaithless]

The responses, which I received for my previous post “Intelligence out of nothing,” had given me an impression that most of the atheists feel humiliation if someone try to challenge Theory of Evolution.

You misunderstand. Rolling our eyes at you is not a sign of humiliation.

Hell, if all he gets is eye-rolls, we're being polite.

[Cyberman]

Depends where we get the eyes from and how fresh they are.

[Bad Wolf]

Halocline requires special conditions to happen.
Nothing in the qur'an mentions those conditions... it just mentions that such a thing happens... but in a very imprecise way which reminds me of Aristotle's projectiles:

Like in underwater caves for example, I saw it on a documentary a few days ago.

[Mister Agenda]

No one here justifies their lack of belief in God with evolution, so what are you even on about?

Don’t look at things locally but look at them globally. Look what our favourite celebrity Mr. Dawkins has to say in this concern.

“What I want to urge upon you is militant atheism. Here I only want to make a point that the elegance of Darwinism is corrosive to religion precisely because it is so elegant, so parsimonious, so powerful, so economically powerful. The god theory is not just the bad theory it turns out to be in principle incapable of doing the job required of it.
So returning to the tactics and the evolution lobby I want to argue that rocking the boat maybe just the right thing to do. My approaching to attacking creationism is unlike the evolution lobby; my approach in attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole. But that’s putting it too negatively. If I was a person who would be interested in preserving religious faith then I would be very afraid of the positive power of the evolutionary science, any science generally but evolution in particular to inspire and enthral precisely because it is ATHEISTIC.”
Richard Dawkins

Yes, evolution is atheistic, in the same sense that plumbing is atheistic. It's only a problem for religion if religion denies it. A religion that denies plumbing is compatible with their beliefs would face similar 'corrosion' of their faith. Some religions used to have a problem with the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. They either learned to accept it or aren't around anymore. Any religion that requires you to disbelieve plain evidence is in trouble.

(26th July 2014 14:15)Harris Wrote: On the contrary, Theory of Evolution seriously lacks evidence. On the other side the belief that God does not exist is self-contradictory due to the existence intelligible universe and human conscious.

Not believing God exists contains no contradictions. Wow, that was easy and required no thought at all! I'm beginning to see why you love making unsupported assertions so much!

It is because you skipped the real part. When you eliminate God, it creates a logical vacuum (a nothingness).

That's an assertion. I reject it because you've provided no good reason to accept it.

So your tight spot is now, you are left in a situation where there is no God, you are not willing to replace God with nothingness in the best-case scenario, and you have no alternate to make a substitution for nothingness.

There never was absolute nothingness. It can't exist. Physics has led us to quantum foam, which seems to have the interesting property of being unable to not exist. It's as close to nothing as it's possible to get, but it's not really nothing. And you've heard this before, so your assertion that I 'have no alternate to make a substitution for nothingness' reflects poorly on either your intelligence or your honesty.

On the other side, you have an intelligible Universe because everything in the universe is running according to fixed laws where every part of it is intelligently designed.

More mere assertions. They're worthless.

(26th July 2014 14:15)Harris Wrote: As a replacement for “BE,” can you offer any scientific explanation how life began?

Several, but if there were no plausible scientifica explanations for how life might have begun, it doesn't add even a fraction of a percent to the probability that YOUR explanation is correct. Using an argument from ignorance (you don't know, therefore I'm right) means you're failing before you even get started.

It does not add even a fraction of a percent to the probability that God does not exist, Either.

That's because it's irrelevant to the question. Why did you bring it up?

(26th July 2014 14:15)Harris Wrote: Unfortunately, there is no moral code in Atheism, which can provide moral code of conduct to the followers of Atheism.

There's no moral code in theism, either, genius.

Quran and tradition of Prophet Mohammad teach exactly how a person should live a social life. We (Muslims) have very rich moral instructions in form of Quran and in from of the traditions of Prophet Mohammad.

Guess what? Islam is not theiism. It is a religion that is theistic. Theism doesn't have a moral code. Aztecs who sacrificed innocents in the name of their religion were also theists. Do you share a moral code with them, just because you're both theists?

(26th July 2014 14:15)Harris Wrote: Without having a moral code, people have little or no knowledge about ethics, about right and wrong, good and bad, virtue and vice, etc. if they are good then it is for the fear of punishment.

Just because atheism and theism doesn't have a moral code doesn't mean atheists and theists don't have moral codes.

For sure, Atheism has no moral code. Almost all religions of the world had given comprehensive details on moral codes to their followers except Atheism.

Theism is not a religon. Most religions are theistic. A few religions are agnostic or atheistic. Theists (and religious atheists) get their moral code from specific religions, not from theism. Most atheists get their moral code from their moral philosophy, not atheism. Most Western atheists are humanists when it comes to their moral code.

(26th July 2014 14:15)Harris Wrote: One essential condition for being a moral person is that the agent must have the relevant understanding (or capacity for understanding) of what the external requirements of morality are. Exactly how much understanding is required is not easy to specify if you do not have a moral code.

We have moral codes, just as much as theists have, and we're often better at following them.

No doubt that an atheist can live superior moral life than a theist who even after having all the wealth of moral code may live no more than an animal life. However, if a person do not have a proper moral code then he is at a risk to follow all his wild desires blindly as he lacks the proper instructions on how to control his desires. Moral code in fact give the knowledge on human values and teach how to respect each other. Moral is a big topic.

Atheists have moral codes. They don't get them from atheism, and theists don't get them from theism. Atheism and theism are opinions on the topic of the existence of God, they contain no morality. There is vast literature on moral philosophy that does not reference God.

Atheist can live a good moral life because conscience is one of the innate properties of human beings. We are also intellectual beings by nature. Like we need academy to increase and polish our intellect same way we also need proper moral code to refine our human values for our healthy and peaceful social life. We are moral beings and moral education is inevitable for us.

Perhaps you shouldn't neglect your moral education and study some John Stuart Mill or John Rawls. Being moral is rational. We don't need supernatural revelations to figure out that it's better to be kind than cruel.

(26th July 2014 14:15)Harris Wrote: Exactly, Science has limitations and it cannot address to the phenomenon, which transcend the material world.

True. Of course, NO method of obtaining knowledge can address phenomena that transcend the material world. If there were, people who use the same method would reach the same conclusions about them.

I do not agree with you when you say, “NO method of obtaining knowledge can address phenomena that transcend the material world.”
We are intellectual beings and our intellect not only depends on our physical experiences but also on our non-physical experiences. For example, we experience the feeling of love, which no material science can define. You cannot reject the concept of love no matter how materialistic your mind is. These immaterial feelings have a very profound impact on your personality where they actually structure your behaviour.

Love is not immaterial, just subtle. An MRI can tell you if someone is feeling love. That doesn't make it less real.

In the race of materialism, people simply forgot that they have very powerful mind that can reach transcendent world only by the use of correct logic.

Correct logic is compelling to everyone, not just to people who already believe the conclusions reached.

(26th July 2014 14:15)Harris Wrote: Following Quran is by no means a lazy act.

It's lazy to assume it contains all the answers rather than doing the work to determine what is really most likely to be the case.

It is a wrong idea because Quran is not a book of science, philosophy, etc.

We're not the ones treating it that way. You are. You are the one who has decided you cannot reconcile the theory of evolution with the Qu'ran, not us.

The subject of Quran is Human Being and human deeds. This scripture directly threaten people who transgress all moral values to achieve their pleasures and on the other side Quran gives good tidings to those who control their desires in Good Faith.

If people would stick to that view of the Qu'ran and not bring it up in discussions about evolution, we'd all be better off.

It's hard to follow, but at least it saves you the mental effort of trying to figure things out based on evidence and reason.

You can never produce scientific evidence for your love to someone.

There's plenty of scientific research into love. We know what chemicals are produced, we know what patterns of activities in the brain occur. If someone doubts that you're in love, have those things measured and if you're really in love, there's your scientific evidence for it.

(26th July 2014 14:15)Harris Wrote: How much I know Theory of Evolution and Natural selection do not have hard scientific facts. Richard Dawkins wrote:

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vison, no foresight, and no sight at all.”
Page 5
The Blind Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins.

I do not think above statement, by any means, a Scientific Fact.

So you think Natural Selection has a mind? Because Dawkins is saying it doesn't and you seem to be claiming that he's not justified in saying that.

You seem to be about as good at figuring out what I'm claiming as you are at anything else having to do with reasonable discourse. Not agreeing that a summary by Dawkins constitutes a scientific fact does not imply that I disagree with him. The process itself is certainly mindless, but it does not rise to the level of scientific fact that it is completely unguided, it's just the most reasonable inference to make given the complete lack of contrary evidence.

If you prove that Natural Selection has mind then it is equivalent to God.

Only if your concept of God allows God to be very, very small in comparison to this vast universe. Natural Selection with a mind woudl be a 'small g' god at best, like Artemis or Amaterasu.

If Natural Selection is blind, unconscious, unguided process (which is in fact the case) then it is nothing more but a DELUSION.

Mere assertion, and thus, worthless.

(26th July 2014 14:15)Harris Wrote: You should study some of the work of Thomas Nagel. Maybe he would take you out from your Evolutionary delusions.

The Nagel who is an atheist who believes in Intelligent Design rather than Creationism?

He don’t believe in Intelligent Design neither in Creationism.

Then of what worth is he to dissuade me from accepting evolution? Does he believe in something besides ID, creationism, or evolution? Because his Wikipedia article has him being a proponent of ID, which you've just said he's not.

Not very choosy about where you get your support are you? It's almost like you don't have to believe in evolution to be an atheist, like we keep telling you.

Thinking minds whether atheist or not cannot take absurd as fact. At least Nagel is an honest atheist.

Yes, what makes an atheist honest in your eyes is agreeing with you on this topic.

I've noted that it is rarely honest people who consider the people they are having a discussion with dishonest for not being convinced by their arguments.

(26th July 2014 14:15)Harris Wrote: If you have evolved a new type of virus from some existing virus then this is not even close to what theory of evolution is claiming.

That is all that evolution claims: that new species develop from previous species. Abiogenesis is a separate subject.

Unfortunately, claim that new better species developed from the old and lesser species do not have any solid scientific evidence in support. Although abiogenesis is a separate study, yet without abiogenesis theory of evolution has no meanings. No first cell, no evolution.

But it does not matter how you arrive at a first cell, evolution applies thereafter, regardless. Evolution explains how species diversify and it is based on the evidence. The mere fact that you cannot see how to disentangle abiogenesis and evolution shows that you do not understand it well enough to critique it intelligently. Which is a shame, because I don't think this failure is due to lack of intelligence on your part (which would be no fault of yours), but willful blindness.

Allah could have poofed the first bacteria into existence out of thin air and evolution would still be the explanation that best fits the evidence for why life is so diverse.

There is no scientific proof for your kind of evolution. Nagel said people would use this concept to make jokes only after two or three generations.

I didn't describe a kind of evolution. There's only one kind. I described a kind of abiogenesis. There's no scientific proof of that kind of abiogenesis, and thus no proof of an Allah who creates life. If there WAS proof of a bacterium appearing out of nowhere, that would better evidence for at least Intelligent Design than has ever before been presented. Nagel is not an authority on biology or evolution. He is already a laughingstock among scientists in the relevant fields.

We're already aware that you don't like evolution because of the conclusions it reaches rather than the science it's based on;

Its not a matter of likeness or not, I repeatedly said that the evolution in which you have faith is not science at all.

The number of times you've said it is completely irrlevant to whether it's true.

People have tried to prove it through scientific methods but they only faced failures. Whatever examples they are trying to give are for adaptations and variations in similar species, nothing else.

You are only able to say that because you are willfully blind to examples that indicate otherwise. You can believe anything you want if you throw out any evidence that doesn't support your position. That's pretty much how believing what you want despite the evidence is done. You have mastered this skill.

but the theory of evolution is separate from hypotheses of abiogenesis. It is not an explanation for why there's life on earth, it's an explanation for why we have such a diversity of species. You don't even know what it is that you're trying to argue against.

Evolution is not science its FAITH. This is my argument.

That's not an argument, merely an assertion...and, as such, worthless.

New and better species evolve from old and inferior species is absurd not science.

That's not the claim of the theory of evolution. As I've noted before, you refuse to understand it well enough to be able to criticize it intelligently.

(26th July 2014 15:35)Harris Wrote: I presume you have read 100s of hard books. However, for some unknown reason, it seems you are not willing to give few hard quotes from those hard books to support your case.

As a rule, we don't quote books to support our case. Quotations are usually (though not necessarily) a fallacioius appeal to authority and a demonstration that one doesn't understand what one is arguing well enough to be able to put it in one's own words.

I don’t understand your idea here. If Dawkins and I share same idea but Dawkins expressed that idea in a much eloquent manner then why should I not quote him directly to make my point?

That's fine, for parrots.

Darwin started with the diversity of species and worked backwards. Evolution is not founded on abiogenesis in any way. It's what the evidence supports no matter what the evidence of life is.

Why do you think you understand the flaws of evolution so well when you demonstrably understand what evolution actually is so poorly?

Without a base how comes something is called theory at all. There is a big hole beneath the tree of life and that tree of life is hanging in the air.

That's a problem for people trying to explain the roots, not people trying to explain the branches. A gap in our knowledge about the roots doesn't mean the roots don't exist, it just means we don't understand them yet. The 'theory of branching' isn't invalidated no matter what we find out about the roots.

If Atheism is not a FAITH at all or say LACK of FAITH in God then how your mind adopted the concept that God does not exist. Funny isn’t it?

I'll bet you Stimbo had not adopted the concept that God does not exist. I know I haven't. That's how badly you misunderstand atheism.

“There is no God,” it is a BELIEF.

Have you heard Stimbo or myself say 'there is no God'? The argument is not about whether that would constitutie a belief, the argument is about whether that's an accurate description of my position. It is not.

You like it or not but this is the truth. You can’t run away by saying it is a lack of Belief. You believe in the non-existence of God without any doubt.

That you're an arrogant, mealy-mouthed little weasel who likes putting words in other people's mouths is what there isn't any doubt about.

If you have faith in someone or something, you feel confident about their ability or goodness even without having any evidence. Belief is something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion. Belief may require, but not necessarily, the evidence.

All this reduces to the fact that without faith, belief has no meaning. If you do not have faith in science, you cannot do science no matter it puts mountain of evidence in front of you.

The fallacy of equivocation is using a word with multiple meaning misleadingly. Faith is a word that is easy to equivocate, implying that posessing it one sense (trust in something or someone) possesses it in the other sense as well (belief based on spiritual apprehension).

Alright! If you think I am not doing justice with FAITH and BELIEF then let us see what Alan Wilson British-born philosopher thinks about these two terms. He wrote:

“We must here make a clear distinction between belief and faith, because, in general practice, belief has come to mean a state of mind which is almost the opposite of faith. Belief, as I use the word here, is the insistence that the truth is what one would “lief” or wish it to be. The believer will open his mind to the truth on the condition that it fits in with his preconceived ideas and wishes. Faith, on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be. Faith has no preconceptions; it is a plunge into the unknown. Belief clings, but faith lets go. In this sense of the word, faith is the essential virtue of science, and likewise of any religion that is not self-deception.”

The Wisdom of Insecurity: A message for an age of anxiety
Alan Wilson Watts

And I do not use the words the way Alan Wilson does, I use them the way an English dictionary does. How am I supposed to know what British-born philosopher's idiosyncratic terminology you're parroting in advance of you saying so? Russian-born philosopher Ayn Rand defines selfishness as a virtue and altruism as a vice.So what? Why don't we stick to plain English, you're having enough trouble as it is.

Harris Wrote: So, you mean to say that atheist is living without having a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. Isn’t it a pitiful situation, if so?

You know, Harris, you're clearly smart enough that I can tell you don't HAVE to be a moron, it's a choice you're making.

No, it does not follow that since atheism is not a philosophy of life or conception of the world that atheists are living without having a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. It just means their philosophy and worldview isn't atheism.

Very interesting!

I hope that means you understand that atheists don't derive their morals from atheism and theists don't derive their morals from theism.

And guess what: your philosophy and world view aren't theism. Theism is the opinion that some sort of God or gods exist, and beyond that you could be a Muslim praying five times a day or an Aztec priest cutting out people's hearts to feed the gods on holidays.

Hmmm! You have put a Muslim who prays five times a day in parallel with someone who cuts people’s heart to feed the gods on holidays. Not a fair parallel.

Only if you think their shared theism is somehow significant. I don't, so them both being theists implies nothing about them being parallel. A reasonable person would have seen I was making a contrast, not trying to draw similarties.

You KNOW that you have to know more about someone than that they are some kind of theist to guess at what else they believe, and you've been repeatedly informed that atheists are diverse (though maybe not as diverse as theists, of which there are easily 50,000 flavors), so only willful ignorance can explain your statement.

If you think I am not trying to understand the individuals then you are correct. My main concern is the ideology and its overall affects over population.

Then it should be important to you to understand that atheists don't have a common ideology any more than theists have a common religion.

Refusal from the existence of God has a direct impact (in a negative sense) over the innate morals. That is what I have learned so far through my studies of atheistic psychology.

You've shown no capacity for taking on new information, so I doubt you've learned anything or that learning anything forms any part of your agenda.

Harris Wrote: Don't get upset. I love you all.

I think you're lying. Nothing you've said shows that you love us. You clearly hold us in contempt and havent' the slightest interest in understanding us better than you already think you do. If you think it's true that you love us, I pity you, for that would indicate you don't have a clue what love really is.

If you argue with your beloved person, does that mean you don’t love him/her or he/she don’t love you? I am discussing with you and arguing with you and this is the sign that I love you.

Making no attempt to truly understand why my 'beloved person' disagrees with me and rejecting every explanation they give out of hand as mendacious...THAT means I'm not showing sincere love.

In what way is repeatedly telling you that whether evolution is true has nothing to do with whether or not God is real 'persistent to put evolution in place of God'?

It is because even after I have demonstrated that theory of evolution has deep flaws by showing scientific facts, logic, and comments of other scientists and philosophers (including atheists); you have closed your eyes on all that stuff. This is the pure sign of your FAITH and BELIEF in the theory of evolution.

Even if that were true...I know it is in your own head...it doesn't imply we're trying to put evolution in place of God. It's just a natural process. If it turned out to be completely false, it doesn't make God any more or less likely. It's irrelevant to the question, unless you define God as a being that can't exist if the theory of evolution is correct.

I think most people who try to undermine the theory of evolution in the name of their God do more damage to the credibility of the idea of God than evolution ever could.

No! I am not undermining evolution for my God but it is Science and Philosophy, which are undermining evolution to keep them clean from absurd.

And you're doing such a bad job of it and intermingling it so much with religious issues, that it makes your whole position look absurd to someone who actually understands the theory. Pro tip: don't quote the Qu'ran in scientific questions if you're not arguing in the name of Allah.

Thank you. Without people like you, the number of people who choose rational skepticism would likely not be rising so quickly. There's nothing like people illustrating the poverty of one side to help those on the fence realize the other side is the one where the less stupid people are.

I am happy to be with the people who are bold to say “Absurd” to an Absurd i.e. new species evolve from different and inferior species

I'm happy you're with them, too.

So now you're claiming that a chimp's DNA being 98% similar to human compared to a cat's DNA being 90% similar and therefore chimps being more closely related to humans genetically than cats is just too mathematically complex for you to grasp?

Read my main article “Is Evolution a science or a Faith” for the answer.

Math too hard for you, got it.

---

Harris Wrote: If there is no God or anything supernatural (a creator) then there is nothing.

Is someone paying you money to say increasingly stupid things? If there is no God or anything supernatural, all that's left is everything that exists.

f you have FAITH in nothingness instead of God only then you can have belief in things like evolution, multiuniverse, blind and unguided forces etc.

I don't even believe there ever was actual nothingness, and I've never met an atheist who does. That's how badly you misunderstand us.

It seems you are supporting the following statement:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
Page 227
The Grand Design
By Stephen W. Hawking

I don't understand the physics involved well enough to know whether I would agree with Hawking, but I have enough discernment to understand that if there's gravity, there's not literally nothing. I don't believe there ever was absolutely nothing. I don't think it's a coherent concept. And I don't think Hawking thinks there was ever absolutely nothing, either.

Without having Faith in something, you cannot have belief in that thing. In any case FAITH is crucial for mind to work or not to work.

Not faith with a capital 'F'. The only faith our minds need to function day-to-day is that which is best defined as 'justified confidence or trust in a person or thing', not 'belief without evidence or proof'. I need enough faith to sit in a chair without worrying it will collapse or turn into a parsnip, I clearly don't need to believe that it wouldn't support me if not for the will of a divine being. I'm not THAT heavy.

Consider the following difference between Faith and Belief and then review your above statement in the light of it.

“We must here make a clear distinction between belief and faith, because, in general practice, belief has come to mean a state of mind which is almost the opposite of faith. Belief, as I use the word here, is the insistence that the truth is what one would “lief” or wish it to be. The believer will open his mind to the truth on the condition that it fits in with his preconceived ideas and wishes. Faith, on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be. Faith has no preconceptions; it is a plunge into the unknown. Belief clings, but faith lets go. In this sense of the word, faith is the essential virtue of science, and likewise of any religion that is not self-deception.”

The Wisdom of Insecurity: A message for an age of anxiety
Alan Wilson Watts

You seem to be repeating yourself. I don't agree with Watt's usage. It's just his opinion. He has no special authority over what the words mean, so I'll stick with the dictionary, thanks.

Mr.wizard Wrote: We get the concept of god not existing from the claim you make that god exists. Its a default position to the claim, you claim god exists, we say we don't believe your claim. Why is this so hard to understand?

No, I am not only saying God exist. I am giving logical evidence from science and nature.

You think you are. That doesn't mean you're succeeding at it.

You are concentrating only on the mechanism but not the agency, which has produced this mechanism, and running it.

Whether there's an agency is what's in question, and the answer to that question has nothing to do with evolution.

Perhaps, because you cannot perceive that agency with your direct senses.

Perhaps, because you cannot perceive that agency with your direct senses either, so it is literally impossible for you to actually know what you're talking about on the matter.

It's impossible for anyone to know what they're talking about when they're referrig to an entity that is undetectable. Maybe you should stop it.

Why should we believe your claims about an entity completely beyond your ability to grasp even if it did exist?

That means you do not have to believe in your senses, your feelings, your emotions, your thoughts because even they exist they are beyond your ability to grasp by means of science.

No, they aren't.

(Today 13:19)Harris Wrote: It is just as if you are saying electronic circuitry inside Sony TV is more important than Akio Morita. Well it is explaining how the circuitry works but it is not if I ask you the question, how that circuitry does comes into existence in first place.

It's just as if you have a piece of electronic circuitry with no way to determine who made it and admitting there's no way you can honestly say who made it.

That shows you completely missed my point. I am saying, if you find a TV and you don’t know who made it that doesn’t mean you do not have idea whether human made that TV or it is evolved by some unguided, blind, and mindless process.

Because we literally know pretty much everything there is to know about TVs, we are justified in concluding that. We know the characteristics of things made by humans. Natural objects don't share those characteristics that distinguish them as made by a designer.

(Today 13:19)Harris Wrote: At this stage, everybody got speechless.

Harris, Harris, wake up! You're drifting off into some kind of dream where other people react to the stupid things you say the way you wish they would.

Yes, we are already discussing these questions for quite some time now. Yet, I haven’t got proper answers.

Proper answers have bitten you on the ass, and you're incapable of realizing ti.

If there is no God then how Universe came into being?

There are several possible natural explanations, but even if there weren't, this remains an argument from ignorance and therefore irrelevant to the question of whether God exists.

No answer

See above for an answer.

If no one knows how life started in first place and how that life looked in its initial form then how comes there is a theory that is explaining how that life evolved?

Because life diversified and the theory explains how.

No answer.

See above for an answer.

Without having a moral code why should one live a moral life?

Generally speaking, atheists have moral codes, so this isn't an issue for us.

No answer

See above for an answer.

If death is the end of everything then what about justice?

We had better do our best to see justice served in this life, then.

No answer

See above for an answer.

[Mister Agenda]

(Today 16:42)Harris Wrote:
(Today 05:46)Esquilax Wrote: (Today 03:56)Harris Wrote: If abiogenesis is not the base of evolution, then how you justify the evolution in the first place.


We don't know. And that's it.

Very interestng, there is no foundation yet there is a big theory with so may intricate details. More interestengly everyone seems to be happy with this theory without even knowing this theory at its root level.

The foundation of the modern synthesis is the multiple lines of evidence supporting common descent modified by the interaction of natural variations with natural selection, which is what evolution is.

What's very interesting is how the fact that evolution is not and never was founded on abiogenesis is completely incapable of penetrating your invincible ignorance.

You are saying evolution is not based on spontaneous appearance of life.

That is correct.

But that has not solved the question.

It's an invalid question.

Without the first appearance of life, evolution is not possible. No matter life appeared spontaneously or otherwise evolution starts only after life came into existence.

That's what we've been trying to tell you.

It’s a very simple thing to understand.

Really? It's been like pulling teeth with you.

So the question remains, if no one know how life came into existence in first place and no one knows how that life form looked like then how comes there is a theory that is explaining how that life evolved from that unknown life form?

Because you don't need to know what the first life form looked like to understand how life thereafter diversified, which is the only thing evolution claims to explain.

(Today 13:19)Harris Wrote: Abiogenesis and evolution are not separate things, they are deeply interconnected with each other. Tell me if there was no first cell then would evolution (in which you believe) ever happened and do you think you and me were corresponding with each other here?

If there was no first cell, we wouldn't be standing here even if there IS a God.

You don’t know whether God has created life in form of cell or in form of something else.

Right, I don't, and have said so repeatedly, as have others. Glad you finally get that much.

Secondly, your answer is the confirmation that abiogenesis and evolution are not separate thing; they are rather deeply interconnected with each other. No life, no evolution.

Maybe it's the words that are confusing you. In one sense, abiogenesis is the scientific study of how life began. In another it is a (without) bio (life) genesis (beginning). Abiogenesis as a science studying the natural origin of life does not have to be true for evolution to be true. But life had to begin somehow for evolution to operate...and life had to begin somehow for creationism or Intelligent Design to be true, as well.

(Today 13:19)Harris Wrote: Further, what makes you believe that life started from the first living cell. Maybe life has started in absolutely different way.

It doesn't matter how it started, evolution is something that happens to populations of reproducing organisms over time.

Apart from technical definitions of evolution, tell me what the mechanism of evolution is. Perhaps you believe in it as an unguided and mindless process, which took advantage from chance and luck to perform its activities.

How many times are you going to ask for the explanation for the mechanisms of evolution only to dismiss it? You're going to get essentially the same answer every time: natural selection acting on variations in organsims over generations.

However the first reproducing organisms came into being, evolution comes into play afterwards.

Thank you for this confirmation.

I would take this as a good sign, were it not for my confidence in your ability to misunderstand the implications of simple ideas.

[Anomalocaris]

You are saying evolution is not based on spontaneous appearance of life.

That is correct.

Actually, there is nothing special about life such that evolution can only happen after life came into being.

Evolution through natural selection as a process happens all the time, everywhere, to minerals and chemicals. Evolution applies to geology just as much as it applies to biology.

Contempary scientific thinking regarding the origin of life sees pre-biotic evolution through natural selection (survival of the fittest) of particular species of complex chemicals and minerals as being the driving force behind the gradual assembly of raw material into life. Spontaneous appearence of life is in itself an act of evolution, just as spontaneous speciation that came after the first life.

---

You are saying evolution is not based on spontaneous appearance of life.

That is correct.

Actually, there is nothing special about life such that evolution can only happen after life came into being.

Evolution through natural selection as a process happens all the time, everywhere, to minerals and chemicals. Evolution applies to geology just as much as it applies to biology.

Contempary scientific thinking regarding the origin of life sees pre-biotic evolution through natural selection (survival of the fittest) of particular species of complex chemicals and minerals as being the driving force behind the gradual assembly of raw material into life. Spontaneous appearence of life is in itself an act of evolution, just as spontaneous speciation that came after the first life.

[Oldm8]

My first post here.
Harris what a long winded post. Brevity would be good.
Instead of cutting and pasting verbatim you could have put it in your own words.
But thanks for the stimulus.
Evolution is not a faith, for anyone who's bothered to study, its a fabulous insight into how the living things around us are constantly adapting to environmental change.
The overwhelming evidence of study on the subject would leave the enquiring mind in no doubt that evolution is fact and in ongoing progress.
Evolution does not disprove or prove the existence of god.
It is not a threat to any believer, in the religious mind god could have created this wonderful mechanism, to ensure the creation continues for eternity.
Billions of people of all religions who believe in god can accept it.
It is however an inevitable system in our universe, the seeds of early life could no more not come in to existence than crystal structures not form from minerals in the earth.
It took a great man Charles Darwin to make the connections and stand up against the powerful Church and establishment of his day to reveal the truth against those who would keep people in ignorance for their own ends.

[Mister Agenda]

That is correct.

Actually, there is nothing special about life such that evolution can only happen after life came into being.

Evolution through natural selection as a process happens all the time, everywhere, to minerals and chemicals. Evolution applies to geology just as much as it applies to biology.

Contempary scientific thinking regarding the origin of life sees pre-biotic evolution through natural selection (survival of the fittest) of particular species of complex chemicals and minerals as being the driving force behind the gradual assembly of raw material into life. Spontaneous appearence of life is in itself an act of evolution, just as spontaneous speciation that came after the first life.

---

That is correct.

Actually, there is nothing special about life such that evolution can only happen after life came into being.

Evolution through natural selection as a process happens all the time, everywhere, to minerals and chemicals. Evolution applies to geology just as much as it applies to biology.

Contempary scientific thinking regarding the origin of life sees pre-biotic evolution through natural selection (survival of the fittest) of particular species of complex chemicals and minerals as being the driving force behind the gradual assembly of raw material into life. Spontaneous appearence of life is in itself an act of evolution, just as spontaneous speciation that came after the first life.

Yes, but none of that means that evolution is based on the spontaneous appearance of life.