Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Dubious]

...claiming neanderthals suddenly mutated into modern humans...

I'm not claiming that.

I think I'm as good in reading English as you are! So what does this mean...

how does an entire population suddenly mutate from Neanderthal to modern person?

Denying what was specifically said is a classic Trumpism!

I don't believe in any form of human-evolutionism at all.

There was never any doubt about that, since an original mating pair can only be endorsed scripturally but impossible to affirm in evolutionary terms in which such a pair becomes an overt impossibility.

[Immanuel Can]

...claiming neanderthals suddenly mutated into modern humans...

I'm not claiming that.

I think I'm as good in reading English as you are! So what does this mean...

how does an entire population suddenly mutate from Neanderthal to modern person?

It means, "This is what you think..." I was repeating what seems to me to be your assumption, based on what you said. I certainly wasn't agreeing with it.

But you knew that, I think...you say you can read, so you must understand what "context" is.

[Dubious]

...claiming neanderthals suddenly mutated into modern humans...

I think I'm as good in reading English as you are! So what does this mean...

how does an entire population suddenly mutate from Neanderthal to modern person?

It means, "This is what you think..." I was repeating what seems to me to be your assumption, based on what you said. I certainly wasn't agreeing with it.

But you knew that, I think...you say you can read, so you must understand what "context" is.

It was never my assumption, that's why I argued against yours when you made it. Nothing I said mentioned Neanderthals until you made that incredibly ignorant statement which begged to be corrected!

How come every time you say something completely stupid and ignorant, which happens constantly, it's always someone else's fault?

[Immanuel Can]

I think I'm as good in reading English as you are! So what does this mean...

It means, "This is what you think..." I was repeating what seems to me to be your assumption, based on what you said. I certainly wasn't agreeing with it.

But you knew that, I think...you say you can read, so you must understand what "context" is.

It was never my assumption,...

That's fine. But since you refused to give your narration of human origins, you can understand why I had to estimate what they might be for myself. Try to be more forthcoming, and it won't happen. Keep evading the question, and people will naturally deduce what you probably believe from what you already admitted to believing. That's how logic works.

[Dubious]

It means, "This is what you think..." I was repeating what seems to me to be your assumption, based on what you said. I certainly wasn't agreeing with it.

But you knew that, I think...you say you can read, so you must understand what "context" is.

It was never my assumption,...

That's fine. But since you refused to give your narration of human origins, you can understand why I had to estimate what they might be for myself. Try to be more forthcoming, and it won't happen. Keep evading the question, and people will naturally deduce what you probably believe from what you already admitted to believing. That's how logic works.

What would anyone who believes that Eve was created from Adam's rib and later corrupted by a talking snake know of logic?

I gave the evolutionary version of human origins which includes the origin of ALL life which you argued against in every devious way possible insisting the first mating pair in the bible as the source of human origin, steadfastly acknowledging no other; in response you say I refused to give a narration of human origins. Over and over again it's shown that anything not compatible with your beliefs is thus disqualified from having given ANY explanation. You've done this consistently going way back!

Having to explain evolution is much more complicated than a simple Let there be command which suffices as explanation only for the simple-minded.

You do know what Jesus said about liars and hypocrites for whom he had a special contempt...or don't you!

[Immanuel Can]

It was never my assumption,...

That's fine. But since you refused to give your narration of human origins, you can understand why I had to estimate what they might be for myself. Try to be more forthcoming, and it won't happen. Keep evading the question, and people will naturally deduce what you probably believe from what you already admitted to believing. That's how logic works.

I gave the evolutionary version of human origins...

Evolution requires reproduction.

Logic again, remember?

[Alexiev]

Darwin himself insisted that Natural Selection could only "select" for those mutations that were an immediate survival advantage. He said it is "utterly blind" to anything that does not increase survival chances, and has to "select against" anything that is harmful in regards to survival. So the idea that an irreducibly complex organ could develop by stages is simply ruled out by the basic mechanisms to which Darwin himself .

.

No evolutionary theorist subscribes to that anymore. The gene -- not the individual -- is passed down to the next generation. Thus altruism may be selected for -- an individual's "survival" is less advantageous genetically than 3 of his siblings' survival.

Also, minor changes (like a minor sensitivity to light) may confer adaptive advantages (as I explained earlier). So the supposed irreducible complexity of vision may not exist.

[Dubious]

That's fine. But since you refused to give your narration of human origins, you can understand why I had to estimate what they might be for myself. Try to be more forthcoming, and it won't happen. Keep evading the question, and people will naturally deduce what you probably believe from what you already admitted to believing. That's how logic works.

I gave the evolutionary version of human origins...

Evolution requires reproduction.

Logic again, remember?

Absolutely! Evolution requires reproduction. Sounds completely logical since without reproduction changes in DNA as driven by evolution would not be possible. It's contained in all life since all life is cellular based; even an oak tree can read around two-thirds of your DNA.

Glad we finally got that straightened out!

[Immanuel Can]

Darwin himself insisted that Natural Selection could only "select" for those mutations that were an immediate survival advantage. He said it is "utterly blind" to anything that does not increase survival chances, and has to "select against" anything that is harmful in regards to survival. So the idea that an irreducibly complex organ could develop by stages is simply ruled out by the basic mechanisms to which Darwin himself .

No evolutionary theorist subscribes to that anymore.

Hmmm...I don't think that's the case. At least, there's not another mechanism but survival of the fittest to power Evolutionism, so far as I know.

The gene -- not the individual -- is passed down to the next generation.

Oh. The "selfish gene" theory. Well, nobody can take that one seriously. Genes do not "intend" things. And there's no mechanism that would prefer the survival of genes over individuals. In fact, it's contrary to survival of the fittest itself: Darwin's whole idea was that the individual would survive if it, the individual, were more adapted; but the selfish gene theory implies that genes are "smarter" than individuals, and aim at their own survival in the face of the death or detriment of the individual.

Also, minor changes (like a minor sensitivity to light) may confer adaptive advantages

That sounds possible, until we think about it. When we do, we realize that "light sensitive spot" has already skipped several alleged stages of evolution. Essentially, it's begged the whole question, by pretending it's solved problems its only skipped over.

It's one thing for a spot to be altered by light. But it takes a great deal more to make it "sensitive" in a brain sense: it has to be connected by a series of relays to the brain. That's allegedly millions of years of evolution, with no survival advantage at all involved. And even after those millions of years, the "sensitivity" has to convey to a sufficiently developed brain enough reliable information to enable the organism to have an actual survival advantage. That's millions more years, with no survival-value being implicated at all. That's just the kind of thing that Darwin claimed was utterly impossible. But you can see yourself: if survival of the fittest is the mechanism, then you're looking at multiple millions of years of evolution WITHOUT any involvement of the key mechanism.

Now, there's a theory that's too thin, for sure. It would really need to be filled out with all the intermediate stages, each one identified with the survival advantage it produces. And still, we're nowhere near the development of an eye.

[Immanuel Can]

I gave the evolutionary version of human origins...

Evolution requires reproduction.

Logic again, remember?

Absolutely! Evolution requires reproduction.

If it does, it requires sexual reproduction. And that requires an initial mating pair. That is, unless you have some theory in which masses of individuals simultaneously accidentally produce exactly the same mutation at exactly the same time, and all the non-mutated of the species conveniently die out...and that it happens not once or twice, but millions of times...

I'm not buying that. Science isn't, either.

[Dubious]

Evolution requires reproduction.

Logic again, remember?

Absolutely! Evolution requires reproduction.

If it does, it requires sexual reproduction. And that requires an initial mating pair.

I'm not buying that. Science isn't, either.

Science doesn't believe in Adam and Eve as the initial mating pair. Science believes in the evolution of sex which required multiple organisms to accomplish. Evolution led to mating pair(s) which didn't start with a single pair created by a single LET THERE BE command. What did your 1000 BCE writers of long-held oral traditions know of evolution when almost everything was god-ordered, not science ordered! NADA!

[Immanuel Can]

Absolutely! Evolution requires reproduction.

If it does, it requires sexual reproduction. And that requires an initial mating pair.

I'm not buying that. Science isn't, either.

Science doesn't believe in Adam and Eve as the initial mating pair.

Call them what you want. Call them "Oog" and "Ook," the cave people. There will still have had to be an original mating pair. That's just how it works.

If you don't know, then you need to get married.

[Dubious]

If it does, it requires sexual reproduction. And that requires an initial mating pair.

I'm not buying that. Science isn't, either.

Science doesn't believe in Adam and Eve as the initial mating pair.

Call them what you want. Call them "Oog" and "Ook," the cave people. There will still have had to be an original mating pair. That's just how it works.

If you don't know, then you need to get married.

How do you know I'm not married; why would I even have to be?

Why does it have to have an original mating pair. If that's how it works, according to you, provide some evidence which isn't bible based.

A good idea! Maybe Adam and Eve should be renamed to Oog & Ook living in a cave instead of a Garden of Eden. That would be a little closer to the truth even though they still wouldn't be the original mating pair since it begs the question, where did Oog and Ook come from.

[Immanuel Can]

Science doesn't believe in Adam and Eve as the initial mating pair.

Call them what you want. Call them "Oog" and "Ook," the cave people. There will still have had to be an original mating pair. That's just how it works.

If you don't know, then you need to get married.

How do you know I'm not married; why would I even have to be?

So as to understand reproduction.

Why does it have to have an original mating pair.

Because logic. If genetics are passed that way, then some pair must have had the first complete genetic code of the modern human. They can't have all gotten it at the same instant, magically...unless you know of some mechanism that can mutate an entire race at one shot.

[Will Bouwman]

Why does it have to have an original mating pair.

Because logic. If genetics are passed that way, then some pair must have had the first complete genetic code of the modern human. They can't have all gotten it at the same instant, magically...unless you know of some mechanism that can mutate an entire race at one shot.

If there had been an original mating pair, and their offspring only mated incestuously, as Mr Can implies, they would quickly have gone extinct because of inbreeding depression. So there cannot have been an an original mating pair. because science.