The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 3:57 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 3:39 pm

I've read about...

Just answer the question, Gary. Or say, "I can't."

Yeah, let me go get my doctorate in evolutionary biology first. Then I'll tell you.

Oh. So it's a story you don't understand, and thus have no particular reason to believe...and yet, you believe it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 3:58 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 3:40 pm

Well, seeing how the Bible contains other inaccuracies, why should I think a mortal human being from ~4000 years ago would know how many billions of years the Earth had been around before him?

A mortal being? Of course you shouldn't. How about the Immortal One?

So, if I shouldn't trust a mortal being's statement from ~4000 years ago that the universe is 7 "days" old plus whatever amount of time after Adam and Eve left Eden, should I trust that same human to tell me that there is a God, who is anything like the one portrayed in the Bible?

Don't trust humans. They're a sneaky lot. You would need a word from Somebody who would actually know. And there's only one of those.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:25 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 3:57 pm
Just answer the question, Gary. Or say, "I can't."

Yeah, let me go get my doctorate in evolutionary biology first. Then I'll tell you.

Oh. So it's a story you don't understand, and thus have no particular reason to believe...and yet, you believe it.

I don't know all the particulars, but I know the basic premise and some of the particulars. Should I not believe that the theory of evolution could be true? And if so, why not?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:25 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:19 pm

Yeah, let me go get my doctorate in evolutionary biology first. Then I'll tell you.

Oh. So it's a story you don't understand, and thus have no particular reason to believe...and yet, you believe it.

I don't know all the particulars, but I know the basic premise and some of the particulars. Should I not believe that the theory of evolution could be true? And if so, why not?

"Could be"? You "could" go with the story that the moon is made out of blue cheese. But why should you?

You need a better reason to believe.

"Could be"? You "could" go with the story that the moon is made out of blue cheese. But why should you?

You need a better reason to believe.

Says the guy who believes the talking snake story.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:23 pm

"Could be"? You "could" go with the story that the moon is made out of blue cheese. But why should you?

You need a better reason to believe.

Says the guy who believes the talking snake story.

Well, let's see. So far, we have no advance from "science" on that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:48 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:23 pm

"Could be"? You "could" go with the story that the moon is made out of blue cheese. But why should you?

You need a better reason to believe.

Says the guy who believes the talking snake story.

Well, let's see. So far, we have no advance from "science" on that.

The search is on for a snake with vocal chords—ha!

Reminds me of the story about Bertrand Russel and Ludwig Wittgenstein allegedly spending an afternoon looking for a rhinoceros in Russel's study because Wittgenstein insisted that Russell could not "know" there was no rhinoceros in the room without first carefully examining every possible location or way that a rhinoceros could be in the room.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:41 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:25 pm
Oh. So it's a story you don't understand, and thus have no particular reason to believe...and yet, you believe it.

I don't know all the particulars, but I know the basic premise and some of the particulars. Should I not believe that the theory of evolution could be true? And if so, why not?

"Could be"? You "could" go with the story that the moon is made out of blue cheese. But why should you?

You need a better reason to believe.

Is thinking that evolution could possibly be true on the same level as thinking that the moon is made of blue cheese? I mean, it seems safe for me to think that the moon is not made of blue cheese? The same may not apply to the theory of evolution, from what I've understood of it.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 8:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:48 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:23 pm Says the guy who believes the talking snake story.

Well, let's see. So far, we have no advance from "science" on that.

The search is on for a snake with vocal chords—ha!

That's assuming "snake" means the creature with which you are familiar. What's your indication that that's the case?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 8:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:41 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:28 pm

I don't know all the particulars, but I know the basic premise and some of the particulars. Should I not believe that the theory of evolution could be true? And if so, why not?

"Could be"? You "could" go with the story that the moon is made out of blue cheese. But why should you?

You need a better reason to believe.

Is thinking that evolution could possibly be true on the same level as thinking that the moon is made of blue cheese?

If it's a believe held without evidence, it is. So what's your evidence?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 9:31 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 8:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:41 pm
"Could be"? You "could" go with the story that the moon is made out of blue cheese. But why should you?

You need a better reason to believe.

Is thinking that evolution could possibly be true on the same level as thinking that the moon is made of blue cheese?

If it's a believe held without evidence, it is. So what's your evidence?

My evidence is the genetic relationship of species and how species close to one another have more in common genetically than others that are not related. The fossil records show some degree of transition between species. Are we to think that the Bible is the case, and all this happened in 7 "eras" and the one who wrote the Bible knew it was 7 "eras" ago? One person from 4000+ years ago knew the historical record of millions of years of mutations and adaptive behaviors. That seems pretty far-fetched, IC. If you believe in the literal truth of the text of the Bible, then you may as well believe the moon is made of blue cheese.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 9:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 9:31 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 8:34 pm
Is thinking that evolution could possibly be true on the same level as thinking that the moon is made of blue cheese?

If it's a believe held without evidence, it is. So what's your evidence?

My evidence is the genetic relationship of species and how species close to one another have more in common genetically than others that are not related. The fossil records show some degree of transition between species. Are we to think that the Bible is the case, and all this happened in 7 "eras" and the one who wrote the Bible knew it was 7 "eras" ago? One person from 4000+ years ago knew the historical record of millions of years of mutations and adaptive behaviors. That seems pretty far-fetched, IC. If you believe in the literal truth of the text of the Bible, then you may as well believe the moon is made of blue cheese.

Two beliefs held "without evidence" are not - as IC lazily assumes - equivalent. If one is compatible with all available evidence while the other flies in the face of all available evidence there is no need to shore up the former to avoid being equivalent to the latter.

The evolutionary explanation is entirely compatible with all the evidence thus far found in the fossil record, and all available genetic and biological knowledge for all known species today or in the past. The proposition that the moon is made of cheese is demonstrated untrue by NASA visiting the moon and finding it to be made of rock.

IC always fucks everything up, he is quite stupid.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 9:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 9:31 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 8:34 pm
Is thinking that evolution could possibly be true on the same level as thinking that the moon is made of blue cheese?

If it's a believe held without evidence, it is. So what's your evidence?

My evidence is the genetic relationship of species and how species close to one another have more in common genetically than others that are not related.

That proves nothing. Similarity doesn't make any argument for causality. That's a basic axiom of logic, actually.

The fossil records show some degree of transition between species.

Provide that.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 8:34 pm Is thinking that evolution could possibly be true on the same level as thinking that the moon is made of blue cheese?

Of course not. Thinking that something could possibly be true is completely different to believing something to be true. Apart from that, while the fossil record shows that some dinosaurs were big, you'd need a fücking emormous cow to produce enough milk to create a cheese ball the size of the moon.