Timeline for How does the theory of evolution make it less likely that the world is designed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2023 at 14:20 | comment | added | Steve Pemberton | Pushing straw man to the extreme now, of course reality is not changed by opinion. I said in public statements scientists acknowledge the possibility that there is no other life. My stated point is their actions speak what they believe, even if they are more reserved in public statements. Quoting NASA's Mars exploration site "A key objective for Perseverance’s mission on Mars is astrobiology, including the search for signs of ancient microbial life." It would not be a key objective if scientists didn't believe it is very possible. Your claim that billionaires control this process is ludicrous. | |
| Jul 14, 2023 at 8:46 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @StevePemberton You're making a claim about reality. That's not a matter of "opinion". You keep doubling down on it being true. But I've asked you to back up your claim with evidence, and you've failed to do so. | |
| Jul 14, 2023 at 2:37 | comment | added | Steve Pemberton | @NotThatGuy - This is a comments section with little room for discussion. You stated your opinion that you do not think a high percentage of scientists feel strongly that life is likely quite common in the Universe, in our galaxy, and possibly in our solar system. Surprising that this is your perception. But then because I don't accept your opinion just because you have repeated it multiple times then you accuse me of being purposely dishonest and misleading. And multiple times you made arguments that I already acknowledged. The Chat Bot says it's time to end the discussion. I fully agree. | |
| Jul 14, 2023 at 1:51 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @StevePemberton You "try to be civil" by misrepresenting scientists in comment after comment after comment, even after I've pointed this out multiple times? Assuming good intentions can only go so far. In any case, consider why you're seemingly absolutely fully and totally convinced of this thing, but the best arguments you have for it are very indirect and don't actually support your point at all, and you don't seem to have any direct references to back up any of these things you're claiming. Why are you so desperately clinging on to this insignificant thing you have no evidence for? | |
| Jul 14, 2023 at 0:44 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @StevePemberton Scientists don't fund scientists. You can't say because they get funding that this means a high percentage of scientists agree with it. That doesn't logically follow. All you can really say is that some portion of billionaires and whatnot agree with it. (You also just said "billions" with no citation.) Your entire argument is built on you jumping to unjustified conclusions about what scientists actually say. Misrepresenting people makes it easier to say you're smarter than them, but that's a hollow, unearned and dishonest sentiment when they don't actually say those things. | |
| Jul 13, 2023 at 23:35 | comment | added | Steve Pemberton | @NotThatGuy - That's why I specifically said major funding, to differentiate between examples like that and massive projects of the type that use giant radio telescopes and rovers on Mars. Regardless of how they are funded, SETI programs worldwide are evidence that a high percentage of scientists feel strongly that intelligent life very possibly exists in any random corner of any galaxy. Priorities in Mars missions is evidence they think life very possibly forms on most suitable planets. Far different than just believing that life of some type likely exists somewhere in the Universe. | |
| Jul 13, 2023 at 20:51 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @StevePemberton "Major research funding requires more than just having a theoretical question" - the government has funded freaking psychic power research. And that's the government. Private funding (which is how SETI is exclusively funded these days) has a far lower bar (in many, but not all, ways). People will fund literal scams if your sales pitch is good enough. | |
| Jul 13, 2023 at 20:14 | comment | added | Steve Pemberton | @NotThatGuy – I said that animals exhibit emotion and self-awareness. And obviously intelligence, but within the “z” part of my answer I specifically focused on these two. And I already acknowledged that love, compassion and a concept of morality could be explained by evolution, it would mean that these are just software algorithms that happen to be more advanced than similar attributes found in ants. This would mean that our perception of them as being "real", or that life has any actual meaning is illusory, as our very consciousness only exists as a software routine running at the moment. | |
| Jul 13, 2023 at 20:11 | comment | added | Steve Pemberton | @NotThatGuy – Major research funding requires more than just having a theoretical question, it requires a reason to expect a good chance of positive results. Billions has been spent on SETI since 1960. Of the billions spent on Mars exploration high priority is given to tests related to the formation of life. The peer review is clearly sided with the theory that life is likely common. Peter Schenkel of the British Interplanetary Society said Sagan and Drake "held the stance that the Milky Way is teeming with a large number of advanced civilizations". Though rhetoric nowadays is less confident. | |
| Jul 13, 2023 at 16:19 | comment | added | Tetsujin | @StevePemberton - straw man is not refuting anything at all. That's precisely what makes it, but not your argument, straw man. It attacks the person rather than the idea, so it can't refute the idea. My 'sorrow' for the Muslims was you barely deigned to even include them until right at the end. The rest of your answer is mainly just wordy nonsense I don't have the energy to argue. The best that can be said is you've let god get in the way of a rational explanation. | |
| Jul 13, 2023 at 14:36 | comment | added | Steve Pemberton | @Tetsujin - Straw man is refuting an argument that has not been made. I never said that refuting any argument is a straw man, so you just made a straw man argument. And I said that some Muslims, like some Christians and Jews, think they are more moral because of their faith. How does your unexplained statement about feeling sorry for Muslims relate to what I said? And can you be more specific than just that I “said nothing”. Perhaps a better wording is that you don’t accept the reasons that I gave in my answer. But you didn’t say why, so I’m not sure how your comment made any contribution. | |
| Jul 12, 2023 at 11:42 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | Who are these "large number of scientists" who "clearly" believe life formed elsewhere "extremely often"? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. The conditions on Earth had to be ideal for life to form, it took billions of years for intelligent life to form, and only 1 species is (so far) intelligent enough to send anything beyond Earth's orbit. At most I've heard people say that there's likely life elsewhere, given the vastness of space. Also, I've heard the idea like aliens not wanting us to know about them only a few times, so those ideas certainly don't seem "predominant". | |
| Jul 12, 2023 at 11:41 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | We've demonstrated the building blocks of life coming from non-life in a lab. And we see intelligence, emotion, and self-awareness in other animals, at varying level of complexity. We've seen what seems like love, compassion, and morality in animals, and that's fairly easy to explain with evolution. The only clear difference I see with humans is intelligence. Also, you keep using "the creation of life", which is 100% a theist position. Atheists generally don't accept that life was "created", because that implies a creator. They only believe it "formed" or "originated". | |
| Jul 12, 2023 at 11:40 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | You misrepresent theism (positively) and atheism (negatively). Atheism takes no position on the origin of life, except in not accepting the claim that a god did it. You're equating atheism with those who accept or do science (even if many of those are atheists). Atheists are fine with saying we know what we know and we don't know what we don't know, and it's theists who are inserting God into the unknown. Also, you're understating the direct evidence we have for the origin of life and the evolution of human traits, and the link between that and evolution. | |
| Jul 10, 2023 at 16:12 | comment | added | Tetsujin | This seems to take a very long time to actually say nothing. btw, refutation is not straw man, by anyone's definition. I do feel sorry for the Muslims, who you almost graciously allowed into the argument in the last paragraph. Note, the three Abrahamics were the same thing until 2,000 years ago. Bronze age explanations abound. | |
| Jul 10, 2023 at 13:52 | comment | added | barbecue | "...in the atheistic viewpoint each gap that is explained is further proof of the non-existence of God..." The most you can really say is that it's evidence for the non-necessity of God. | |
| Jul 9, 2023 at 10:33 | comment | added | CommunityBot | As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please edit to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. | |
| S Jul 8, 2023 at 21:31 | review | First answers | |||
| Jul 9, 2023 at 10:33 | |||||
| S Jul 8, 2023 at 21:31 | history | answered | Steve Pemberton | CC BY-SA 4.0 |