Assumptions

For modern, complex life we do assume that it came about through biological reproduction. We do not assume that it came about through magical poofing by a supernatural deity because there is no evidence that this ever happens, nor any evidence that there is a supernatural deity capable of magical poofing. "We don't understand it, therefore God did it" is not common sense.

You don't need evidence to know that every person and every animal you see was brought into the world by a parent. This is not something that even the simplest mind needs to consider any evidence about, it is simple common sense and common knowledge. At what point in your life did you sit down and study every mammal in the world to be sure that they all have parents? You did not. You assume they all have parents because common sense says they do. Did you ever trace the history of your computer back to the factory where it was assembled to be sure that someone remembers that specific computer coming down the assembly line? Nope, and you certainly did not assume the computer popped into existence from nothing. You assume that Dell, Apple, HP, or some other company created it. No one has to prove that to you, you just assume it is true because common sense says so. And finally, how exactly dose creation not answer every single question about anything? It was made that way by a divine being...simple.

Of course you do. The only way we know anything at all about the world is through the evidence that we observe.Let me put it this way: suppose I were to challenge your claim that every person and every animal was brought into the world by a parent. How would you prove to me that it's true? Nope, I never did. But it's absurd to think that I have to personally research every facet of a particular subject to know anything about it. But the evidence that we see in the natural world shows that this is not the case. Either that or the divine being used a method that precisely duplicates what we would see if life evolved.What's more, the answer that it was made that way by a divine being doesn't answer every single question. How did the being do it? Why did the being do it? Why did the being make it look as though life had evolved? Those are three questions off the top of my head that are not answered by your "simple" statement.The problem you have is you believe that your own "common sense" conclusion should trump the evidence that is found in the natural world. It doesn't.

quote:

---

And finally, how exactly dose creation not answer every single question about anything? It was made that way by a divine being...simple.

---

You've just confirmed my parody.

This is definitely a simple answer. Unfortunately, simple answers, especially when dealing with the complex real world, are seldom correct."Where do babies come from?"
The "simple answer" is "A stork brings them."Unfortunately, its simplicity bears no relation to its accuracy.

I absolutely agree with that statement... but how exactly is that NOT an assumption? You take for granted that all living things have a parent, because it is such a simple concept that it requires no evidence to prove it. I don't believe that at all. I agree that common sense could never explain a humans beings genetic make-up or a cows digestive process. But the question posed by the EvC debate is actually a fairly simple one. Dose the universe have a parent or not? And I can't understand how people can over-complicate that question so much. I realize that there is plenty of evidence to support evolution, but that dose not DISPROVE creation in any way. On the other hand there is NO evidence or example of anything anywhere in nature without a parent. It is absurd to believe that something can simply exist without a "parent" of some kind. No amount of evidence can justify a ridiculous idea that itself breaks the first law of thermodynamics. I would not even try to prove that to you. I would remind you that simple common sense alone is enough to justify my claim that all living things have a parent. I have never in my life met a single person that has even considered otherwise. And I would challenge you to find any evidence to the contrary.

And this does not apply to God? And if it does not apply to God, why has it apply for the universe?

No evidence is needed huh? Oh. So now the need for parentage is based on the evidence that things have parents.Look - If rabbits and cows and aardvaarks etc. were blinking into existence fully formed ex-nihilo all the time the evidence would suggest that they don't need parents and your common sense notions that they do wouldn't be worth a pile of squirrel poo. So, whether you realise it or not your whole "parent" argument is actually derived from some notion of evidence. Having arrived at your "parent" argument on the basis of some notion of evidence (despite originally claiming that no evidence was involved) you are now seeking to extrapolate it in, I suspect, silly ways.Complex living organisms certainly have parents. But if you are going to claim that everything has parents you are going to need to tell us what exactly you mean by the term "parent". Do you effectively mean "cause"....? If you are talking about "first cause" of some sort perhaps you could explain how you get round this problem you seem to be setting up for yourself. It is worth noting that any talk of "eternity" here will A) Almost inevitably contravene the second law of thermodynamics and B) Be as un-evidenced as the un-parented things you are so fond of talking about. Then why do you keep using the word "evidence"....? That complex living organisms have parents isn't really in dispute. It is the silly extrapolations you make that are going to be your downfall here.

No. I conclude that based on the evidence, as do you, even though you don't understand that you do. Perhaps. But you certainly don't understand it... ...or you wouldn't say that... ...or that.And no amount of rhetoric can get around the fact that the ToE doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics. No, the evidence explains that. Since there's no evidence whatsoever of anything that could constitute a "parent" as that word is commonly understood, if that were the central question of the debate, the answer would be a resounding NO.

And so presumably I can write off the creationist belief that some people and animals were magicked into existence by God.Well, case closed then. Unless there is something wrong with your argument.

Oh, you're one of those.Let me ask you a couple of questions:(1) What was the first textbook of thermodynamics you learned from when you first studied thermodynamics? What's that, you have never studied thermodynamics and you know damn-all about it?(2) Why do you suppose you can't find a single professor of thermodynamics who believes in your bizarre ignorant delusions about thermodynamics? (There's a big hint there in the question in case you're stumped for an answer.)

Of course the Universe does not have a parent. And of course, that would have absolutely nothing to do with the Fact that Biological Evolution happened or that the Theory of Evolution is the ONLY model that explains the diversity of life we see today.It would be absurd to think that the Universe had a parent.

Are you indirectly implying that a "Parent" is a "Creator"?

quote:

---

But the question posed by the EvC debate is actually a fairly simple one. Dose the universe have a parent or not?

---

Common sense says no. The universe is inanimate and inanimate things don't have parents. That was easy.If you're prepared to be loose with the concept of the idea or "parentage" cosmologist Lee Smolin's ideas come close to a "yes", though. But that isn't creationism either.In fact creationism is really about how we got the variety of life we see on this planet. Creationism says that a relatively large number of disjoint groups were created, including complex modern life (various groups of birds, mammals etc.) . Current evolutionary theory says - that with maybe some early exceptions (bacteria of one sort or another) everything is descended from an original ancestor. So in fact evolution is more in tune with the idea that everything has a parent, than creationism is!So, it seems, that common sense is on the side of evolution, not creation.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Alright, I am bored explaining the same thing over and over again but I will try one last time. Simplest possible terms, YES there is evidence that everything has parent but NO people don't need to see that evidence because it is an obvious truth. Like that you can see when it is light or breath when there is air. No one needs it proved to them that a sledge hammer to the face will hurt, even a mentally challenged person would be afraid to take a hammer to the face because they simply assume it would hurt. There IS evidence that it would hurt, but no one needs that evidence because of good old common sense. Same rule applies to "parents" or causes (thought that was clear from the start). A two year could find an M&M on the floor and use simple common sense to know there could be a bag of M&M's around. No one has to present any evidence, the very existence of the M&M is all the proof you need. I know everyone thinks I am over-simplifying things, but at least consider that you may be over-complicating things.
By the way, the universe is a complex system of millions or billions of galaxies...not an inanimate object which would be incapable of sustaining and maintaining itself. Like the barrier reef, also not a product of a random POOF into existence.