Tenres
Bronze
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2025
- Posts
- 430
- Reputation
- 419
Saw this post from @yandex99 where he posted a video from a Christian trying to disprove evolution.
Ignoring the completely erroneous appeals to science, the central argument is that there is not empirical evidence of life coming from non-life. That is, even though we know life exists, there's no empirical for the exact process that is posited by scientists. Now for some reason, because we don't know exactly how life formed, we should assume that the basis is a supernatural being which is by definition empirically unprovable. If there is no evidence of life from non-life, then there is also no evidence of life from non-life being done through a teological process.
Moreover, the context is that life does exist and changes through processes of duplication, gene transfer, hybridization, and mutation, so the most reasonable induction you can make is that the way we changed in the past was also by the same / similar process as we are changing today. So we have observable evidence, as he agreed, in changes from natural selection, but none for changes from supernatural causes. If we have evidence for this, then it's immediately the more grounded hypothesis.
There are some good religious arguments, but whenever they try to make arguments like this it fails horrendously. If you're religious, rely on arguments about consciousness, first causes, whatever else but this shit is so bad.
Ignoring the completely erroneous appeals to science, the central argument is that there is not empirical evidence of life coming from non-life. That is, even though we know life exists, there's no empirical for the exact process that is posited by scientists. Now for some reason, because we don't know exactly how life formed, we should assume that the basis is a supernatural being which is by definition empirically unprovable. If there is no evidence of life from non-life, then there is also no evidence of life from non-life being done through a teological process.
Moreover, the context is that life does exist and changes through processes of duplication, gene transfer, hybridization, and mutation, so the most reasonable induction you can make is that the way we changed in the past was also by the same / similar process as we are changing today. So we have observable evidence, as he agreed, in changes from natural selection, but none for changes from supernatural causes. If we have evidence for this, then it's immediately the more grounded hypothesis.
There are some good religious arguments, but whenever they try to make arguments like this it fails horrendously. If you're religious, rely on arguments about consciousness, first causes, whatever else but this shit is so bad.
