Rebecka said:
I didn't say "memory" I asked why don't we know?
If monkey one knew, why didn't he somehow tell monkey 2 and monkey 2 somehow tell monkey 3, and so on...but you're saying everything evolved except the WHY. Evolution forgot to find out WHY we are here. It is not even logical that evolution evolved everything we need except for one major thing...WHY? Evolution dissolves "Who, what, when, where, how and why. Evolution ignores imortant data, such as WHY?
Evolution tells us who we are, (humans evolved from monkeys) what we are, (humans evolved from monkeys) when we are, (humans made from monkeys biillions of years ago) how we are (humans made from monkeys), but no WHY we are.
WHY cannot be ignored, VictorHadin. Why is here and it must be addressed..
I am honestly unsure of what you mean by 'why' and 'where we came from'. In the context of the evolution of our species, the theory of evolution and related findings certainly
do shed light on how we came to be, while archaeology and geology have found indicators of what this planet was like in the past and cosmological studies have thrown light on the realities and distant pasts of the universe we live in.
Firstly, the theory of evolution
only looks at the origins of species, so don't try to blanket every scientific discipline which casts doubt on literal biblical interpretation as 'evolution'.
Secondly, I assume that you are referring to one of two things with your 'why':
1) 'The meaning of life' or a similar abstraction; what can be said to be our 'purpose'.
2) How in the first instance did the universe come into being.
Now if that is not the case (as the 'whys' of speciation, planetary formation and so forth have been well covered already) then say so.
Number 1) is just that; an abstraction. The 'meaning' pf existence is rather a vague question since it is philosophically up to interpretation even when we know the exact
method of eistence. I can only say that there is no direct answer to this, as reality doesn't have a plan for us tiny little creatures on a backwater dirtball of the universe. If you want a 'meaning' past genetic imperative, make up your own.
For 2), as I have been over in the first page of the 'origin of the universe' thread, it is not 100% certain yet, but invoking the god-of-the-gaps doesn't solve anything.
And this is really the issue: You can wax poetic all you like, but can you really give me an instance of how invoking god can
explain a philosophical, scientific or metaphysical conundrum, and not dodge the question by alluding to an unknown method?
Not one religious philosopher has ever managed to do this, but by all means give it a go.
By blind chance and good luck, we managed to get eyes to see and ears to hear, etc.
Well not 100% blind, as natural selection is a distinct non-chance influence, but I see what you mean.
I've been reading about some things you say and this is why I don't answer soon, but from everything I have read by evolutionists, they assume and suppose. I deliberately counted the "assumes" and "supposes" in the science books and they are there over and over and over, but never a "I know" and it is because they have no why answer.
That is because a 'proof' is an impossibility outside the realm of mathematics. Nothing, and I mean
nothing can be proven 100%, which is why scientists use that terminology.
Even the jargon is frequently misunderstood. A scientific theory, for example, is not an unbacked hypothesis. The scientific definition for 'theory' is a hypothesis which maps a plausible model for a situation, violating no major physical laws and which closely fits available data on the subject, successfully predicts empirical findings on it's subject matter, can be verified by repeatable observation and experiment and has, furthermore, passed peer review. A 'theory' in the scientific sense is quite a strong thing. Newtonian gravitation is 'just a theory' but all the equations match up to evidence regardless. The same applies for such well-known cornerstones of science as general relativity, which has also beene experimentally verified.
Evolution, likewise, is a 'theory' and not a hypothesis because it is extremely well-backed by available evidence and has predicted numerous things (such as speciation in isolated ecosystems and the existence of DNA) which have been verified later on.
So think before you say 'just a theory'. In strictly scientific terms, a theory is a lot. -And it is on scientific terms, not popular jargon, that evolution is labelled a theory.
Your thinking is influenced by what you read by evolutionists, but the evolutionists cannot be expected to see anything but their views.
As I have repeatedly stated, the scientific method is self-checking. Constant tests and observations are being taken to verify or criticise (for the theories of evolution are not constant and need refining on occasion; a good example would be the punctuated-equilibrium model for mass-extinctions). As a result, the whole lot is constantly being observed, tested and refined; it is not a static article of faith as you assume. If observations were to show that a certain facet of evolutionary theory is incorrect, then they would be taken into account.
Any scientist who says and one did, that "perhaps a baby god made the universe, and that would explain the disorder" is not thinking correctly.
Sounds to me like a scientist who is making a joke, but in any case it is irrelevant. The analytical structure of the scientific method as a whole doesn't care a jot about the ramblings of any individual professional; it is findings and observation that matter more.
Evolution says;
Who made us?
Nothing for there is no God.
Nope. It doesn't say that at all.
What made us?
Nothing for there is no God.
Nope.
Where were we made?
Nowhere and somewhere
That statement is nonsensical.
When were we made?
Billions of years ago
Nope. 'We' weren't around as a species that long ago. Self-replicating proteins/ ligases
would have been.
How were we made?
Blind chance
Once natural selection becomes an issue, it isn't even all that blind.
Why were we made?
No answer.
No answer, because the question is out of context. I could explain to you the methods by which self-replicating proteins can form (though that is abiogenesis, not evolution) or by which speciation occurs, but you are clearly not interested in the method, but in a personified 'why' that isn't necessary here.
The Bible answer all these questions.
As S4L said, it answers them incorrectly in a great many cases. Known physical laws prohibit a literal genesis (try shaking off all that gravitational potential energy from the Earth's formation in a few days. It is impossible, even if you surrounded the planet with superconductors at zero Kelvin it couldn't be done. Countless millions of years were necessary for the surface to cool down, and it would still take that. You cannot get around it without ignoring the laws of physics.
The bible also depicts a literal global flood, which is nigh-on bonkers (and if you want me to furnish you with some simple, checkable maths to that effect, then just ask. It only takes a few minutes on a calculator.)
It also alludes to a flat Earth.
It also gives pi's value as 3 (though in the interests of good narrative, I can understand this. Giving it to ten decimals would just bore the reader). ;)
It also has god flouting the first law of thermodynamics regularly.
It also contradicts geological, cosmological and archaeological findings on the age of the Earth and star systems.
To summarise, I expect you to back up your assertion that it provides answers.
What answers in particular?
:
and this is for SFL :roll: 
