Evolution is stupid and missing the one crucial piece of evidence that proves it can even theoretically happen; spontaneous generation of new genetic information through genetic mutation, as opposed to a reshuffling of the already present information through the genetic mutation.
I'm not sure that is correct. If it is there could be a lot of things left though. I don't think it's necessarily one thing or the other. That's a very small-minded outlook.
I'm perfectly open to an alternative, but I've as of yet seen none that make any sense and aren't just total speculation themselves.
And I find it absolutely asinine to make up some fanciful story of the 4th dimensional aliens that seeded us on Earth when the obvious answer is God did it. The aliens shit, as an example, is just cope to explain away God because you really don't want it to be God.
Like, sure, I could make up some really great movie plot line too, but how the fuck is that better than the explanation that theologians, scientists, philosopher, etc. have been pondering for thousands of years? Many of whom conclude that, yes, God did do it.
And it is, as far as I currently know, 100% correct. Whenever this question about evolution is fielded, it is dodged, in spite of the fact that it is the single most important part of the theory.
I don't appreciate this aggressive approach. I can talk all day about this stuff without getting angry. You are trying to put a lot of words in my mouth too which I do not like either.
I am not interested in how many people of what background believe something. I think we are so far from the true reality that human beliefs are bound to be wrong. I try to avoid beliefs for that reason. I am interested in...evidence and reason. I am a freethinker. At least I aspire to be.
I'm hardly angry. I was a little peeved when seeing your first comment, since I don't usually expect to see such takes here, but angry is hardly my current emotion. And I didn't mean to insinuate that you think these things. That's why I said "as an example". To try to indicate that I wasn't saying you specifically believe that, just that it's something I'd heard that I don't consider plausible, as well as show an example of the kinds of alternatives I wouldn't find reasonable.
I suppose I'm simply a little blunt when it comes to these kinds of debates.
Now, with all that said, you are describing a belief. You have no evidence to make the positive claim that our current understanding of reality is inherently flawed.
And the entire basis of human progress is shared knowledge. Throw it out at your own peril, but I'd argue that's a bit narcissistic. You must believe that you're more capable or intelligent than all these great minds of the past to simply throw out their shared conclusions based on the evidence and reason.
To be brief:
Evolution is stupid and missing the one crucial piece of evidence that proves it can even theoretically happen; spontaneous generation of new genetic information through genetic mutation, as opposed to a reshuffling of the already present information through the genetic mutation.
What is left when thing one is out the window?
I'm not sure that is correct. If it is there could be a lot of things left though. I don't think it's necessarily one thing or the other. That's a very small-minded outlook.
I'm perfectly open to an alternative, but I've as of yet seen none that make any sense and aren't just total speculation themselves.
And I find it absolutely asinine to make up some fanciful story of the 4th dimensional aliens that seeded us on Earth when the obvious answer is God did it. The aliens shit, as an example, is just cope to explain away God because you really don't want it to be God.
Like, sure, I could make up some really great movie plot line too, but how the fuck is that better than the explanation that theologians, scientists, philosopher, etc. have been pondering for thousands of years? Many of whom conclude that, yes, God did do it.
And it is, as far as I currently know, 100% correct. Whenever this question about evolution is fielded, it is dodged, in spite of the fact that it is the single most important part of the theory.
I don't appreciate this aggressive approach. I can talk all day about this stuff without getting angry. You are trying to put a lot of words in my mouth too which I do not like either.
I am not interested in how many people of what background believe something. I think we are so far from the true reality that human beliefs are bound to be wrong. I try to avoid beliefs for that reason. I am interested in...evidence and reason. I am a freethinker. At least I aspire to be.
I'm hardly angry. I was a little peeved when seeing your first comment, since I don't usually expect to see such takes here, but angry is hardly my current emotion. And I didn't mean to insinuate that you think these things. That's why I said "as an example". To try to indicate that I wasn't saying you specifically believe that, just that it's something I'd heard that I don't consider plausible, as well as show an example of the kinds of alternatives I wouldn't find reasonable.
I suppose I'm simply a little blunt when it comes to these kinds of debates.
Now, with all that said, you are describing a belief. You have no evidence to make the positive claim that our current understanding of reality is inherently flawed.
And the entire basis of human progress is shared knowledge. Throw it out at your own peril, but I'd argue that's a bit narcissistic. You must believe that you're more capable or intelligent than all these great minds of the past to simply throw out their shared conclusions based on the evidence and reason.