Evolution and natural selection ARE the gods of this world!

[Cato]

all evolution shows is how man was assembled from the dust of the earth.  And for two thousand years ago it was a good guess to even see that we came from smaller pieces that were assembled into a larger thing.  

Almond Joy has nuts, Mounds don't.

[comet]

all evolution shows is how man was assembled from the dust of the earth.  And for two thousand years ago it was a good guess to even see that we came from smaller pieces that were assembled into a larger thing.  

Almond Joy has nuts, Mounds don't.

cool, I must be right.
thanks.

[comet]

The atheist delusion:

evolution does not prove god or no god.

So far so good.

It does not show if god is not needed or needed yet.

What do you mean yet?  And needed for what?

The bible does not say how god made man.  It only said it did make man.

Out of dust or mud yes?  Because that's not exactly how the models for  abiogenisis work.  

evolution does not mean "death", it means "growth".

Evolution doesn't mean anything.  It's a description of what does happen and an explanation of how it happens.  Both growth and death are described.

evolution is not anti-bible.

The Bible is wholly irrelevant to evolution.  Whether evolution contradicts the Bible depends on how the book is interpreted.  But evolution does not square with a literal reading of Genesis.  Man was not made out of dust in a day.

all evolution shows is how man was assembled from the dust of the earth.  And for two thousand years ago it was a good guess to even see that we came from smaller pieces that were assembled into a larger thing.  

The theory of evolution says nothing about how life began, it only addresses how life changes.  And two thousand years ago modern man had been around for roughly 200,000 years.

Evolution is how god did it.  Of course that is a logical look.  

Until you explain where this god entity comes in or how we know there is one, let alone that it made things, there's nothing logical about that statement.

 
 yeah, I pretty much agree with ya here But my post stands good enough as is.  You made good arguments but I did not make some of the claims you argued against.  That "evolution means nothing" I don't agree with.  It has a minimum reason(s) it works the way it does.  'no-nothing" doesn't have any observational support.   we can believe if we want. but that's not my thing.
 
  
Over all A literal approach to any belief systems usually does not match observations.  

[Aoi Magi]

I don't agree with.  It has a minimum reason(s) it works the way it does.  'no-nothing" doesn't have any observational support.   we can believe if we want. but that's not my thing.

Umm and what is that reason(s)?

[comet]

I don't agree with.  It has a minimum reason(s) it works the way it does.  'no-nothing" doesn't have any observational support.   we can believe if we want. but that's not my thing.

Umm and what is that reason(s)?

The key word is minimum.  And we understand we really don't have to base a "non belief in A"  because somebody else has a Belief in A".  "fact" ... The universe is one giant data processor.

so, a minimum "human reason".  Based on only what we know.  Which is not a lot.  Evolution seems to be a process that passes on information so that an organism can just "live as is" or adapt to conditional changes in its surroundings in order to, lmao, this will sound funny, to pass on information.  The net effect (of the biosphere) is to make a more complex organism that will to be able to better react to the system around it.

then to evaluate the validity of such a claim we can try the commonsense sense check.  What seems more reasonable with the information we have today?  "no-nothing at all" goal or a minimum goal of passing on information?  

[Aoi Magi]

Umm and what is that reason(s)?

The key word is minimum.  And we understand we really don't have to base a "non belief in A"  because somebody else has a Belief in A".  "fact" ... The universe is one giant data processor.

so, a minimum "human reason".  Based on only what we know.  Which is not a lot.  Evolution seems to be a process that passes on information so that an organism can just "live as is" or adapt to conditional changes in its surroundings in order to, lmao, this will sound funny, to pass on information.  The net effect (of the biosphere) is to make a more complex organism that will to be able to better react to the system around it.

then to evaluate the validity of such a claim we can try the commonsense sense check.  What seems more reasonable with the information we have today?  "no-nothing at all" goal or a minimum goal of passing on information?  

As far as I know, no, evolution isn't exactly passing on information to aid adaptability as you mentioned. Natural selection would be closer to that as it is the process which preserves the "information" that has adapted and discards the rest. Evolution is just a series of random changes and it causes both the changes which survive and those that get discarded, so I don't think we can assume it has the "reason" that you mentioned.

[henryp]

I believe in evolution, because it's what we got. But if in 10000 years (were we to last that long) they find out that there is more too it than just randomness and natural selection, I wouldn't be shocked. The randomness part that is.

[Longhorn]

You don't need to believe in evolution. It's a fact. You only need to acknowledge it.

[henryp]

You don't need to believe in evolution. It's a fact. You only need to acknowledge it.

I've always felt when you start talking billions of years ago, there is an implied margin of error.

[Longhorn]

Evolution applies to present times as well. We still can observe it happening