Still no direct answers. Just head shaking from Trevor, promises of forthcoming answers from EA, and now beastie's backhanded comment that I'm uneducated. Tarski seems to be answering a question I never asked, which is why are we less likely to change our paradigm and absorb witty analogies that explain why evolution must be true.
With the exception of Tarski, this is essentially how religious people act among themselves when they outnumber critics who dare question a presupposition they hold sacrosanct, even though it becomes perfectly obvious none of them can prove what they're saying. I see frustration within a different kind of flock, but no less religious. I don't see confidence, I see arrogance. I don't see detailed scientific proofs, I see a lot of speculation presented as a matter of fact.
This is what I suspected would happen, but nothing changes the fact that nobody here has provided an answer to my questions. And I can already see the burden is gradually being shifted as I'm now being asked questions to justify a religious position. If evolutionis true, it should stand on its own merits. It shouldn't have to win out by comparison to a weaker theory, like the account of Genesis.
Particularly since the topic here is ignorance of evolution, what I'd like to see is your explanation of the assertions you've "heard", and why they are not remotely plausible.
Why should I go through the monotonous effort of outlining what other articles have said when I have higly intelligent, well read pro-evolutionists on this forum who could just as easily answer the questions? Why the defensive reaction and sarcasm to simple questions? Just maybe the "willful ignorance" by creationists has something to do with your attitudes? From what I can sense, some people are too embarrassed to come right out with it and say, "Hey, I don't understand any of this scientific jargon and all this genetic mish mash... can someone explain to me in simple terms how evolution answers questions X,Y and Z?" And now, given the reactions by the pro-evolutionists on this forum, I understand why they'd prefer to stay in a state of ignorance. It seems the chick skit presented earlier on this thread has quickly become a reality. It is ironic because at the same time pro-evolutionists ridiculed it as a misrepresentation of reality.
Now, I said I have yet to hear a plausible explanation as to why humans evolved the way they did. I know the mechanisms behind evolution are Natural Selection and Adaptation. I know that these cannot explain the existence of all life on earth. In materialistic theory, all life came from a single cell organism that was created from nonorganic matter billions of years ago after the big bang.
I have already illustrated the logical improbability of this scenario elsewhere. Dead matter doesn't become live by natural means and to assert otherwise requires more explanation than just saying it does. A marble table will never become conscious of itself no matter what kind of chemical hurricane you put it through. If you think it will, then you are no different from a Mormon who believes that one day Zarahemla will be uncovered. It is all based on faith, not evidence.
Dawkins explains the origin of life thusly:
"The origin of life was the chemical event, or series of events, whereby the vital conditions for natural selection first came about." But this is incoherent, if for no other reason, because natural selection involves multiple organisms.
Dawkins continues: "Once the vital ingredient - some kind of genetic molecule - is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow." But how did this "vital ingredient" appear from nowhere?
According to Dawkins, "Scientists invoke the magic of large numbers... The beauty of the anthropic principle is that it tells us, against all intuition, that a chemical model need only predict that life will arise on one planet in a billion billion to give us a good and entirely satisfying explanation for the presence of life here."
Given this type of reasoning, anything we desire should exist somewhere if we just "invoke the magic of large numbers." Unicorns must also have existed at some point in time. The only requirement is a "chemical model" that "need only predict" these occurring "on one planet in a billion billion."
I would also be very interested in how you've educated yourself on the subject
By reading. On most subjects I can expect educated posters to provide educated explanations for any given position on the relevant forums. But when it comes to evolution, there remains a divide of understanding because of the contempt and arrogance demonstrated by its adherents. I mean just look at what's taking place here. I'm not too proud to admit I don't understand all of it, but you guys are more than happy to point out any "ignorance" or "miseducation" on my part simply because I don't immediately convert to your belief system at the slightest effort by your esteemed missionar, er, I mean scientists. And yes, I knew exactly what I was in for when I started to question evolution here (note, I didn't say I rejected it - I merely questioned some of its premises to show that it is not the most solid of theories). Obviously most people here don't understand much of any of this, including those who accept it for anti-religious purposes.
So to remedy that would you prefer to sit back, ignore sincere questions, and mock everyone who doesn't agree? What purpose will that serve other than to stroke your already well massaged egos? Why is it so hard to simply admit there are huge holes in the evolution theory as an explanation for all life on earth? Even Wolpert had to admit that, "the origin of life itself, the evolution of the miraculous cell from which all living things evolved, is still poorly understood." He was not referring to creationists on internet forums. He was referring to scientists in the academic community. The fact is, this is also "poorly understood" by those who uphold it. But they believe it to be true anyway. This sounds kinda like how Mormons believe in an eternal regression of gods, even though they cannot explain the soundness of it.
And, by the way, it feels like you're pulling teeth to you because the nuances in the responses being given are totally lost on you.
No, it doesn't "seem" that way at all, and the fact that you would even say this makes me think you're not nearly as educated on the subject as you would have us believe. Why can't you answer the simple question? I have understood what has been put forth on this forum, well enough to know none of you have directly answered the question.
EA has come the closest to answering this but he has not provided any specific evidence that this is actually what happened, nor has he been able to tell us what "ecological pressures" could have caused the evolution of humans.
What factors do we know of for sure? We don't. All we have is a theory that is supported with a ton of speculation as to what conditions might have caused this and that evolution. Once these conditions can be fathomed in the mind, it is then assumed that this is what must have happened simply because a scientific model says it could have. And of course, add a dash of "magic of large numbers" to the recipe and you can pretty much push any imaginable theory over on minds less willing to think critically, or too willing to bash religion. Well, I'm not so easily manipulated with rhetoric.
