mar_mar

No, sir, if you support evolution theory, you have no moral right to say that I am stupidity, (though I'm ok with this, indifferent) because evolution is a change, as I am told. And you gave me a value judgement. it's a comparison. But I am different, not better, no worse, I am above judgements, according to evolution theory. OR. Judging me, you are saying that humans are better than apes.

Common ancestor was also an ape which had descendants: chimpanzee and a human. Do i understand correctly? Common ancestor is a "parent". What comparable to those "between" changes happened to humans since they turned to homo sapiens? And if you say that is evolution is a change,i.e. mutation, you deny all those gifts and talents and knowledge of humans. Forget about consciesness. Change is an act or process through which something becomes different. Humans and apes are different. Humans are no better no worse. There's no place for comparison. Like red is not better than green But if we talk about talented people it's a comparison.

All of them? On the whole Earth ? Do you know what population was?

Thank you. May i ask what have happened to those beings between an ape and a human? If we are talking about population. If evolution is a change in gene pool, it looks like some mutation. And if chimpanzee and a human share common ancestor, why didn't chimpanzee evolve to a human? If evolution is a change. Why haven't chimpanzee evolved to a being between an ape and a human?

Sir, if you so smart, could you please answer all those open questions of science https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/01/20-big-questions-in-science And I still don't understand is evolution a change or development? So simple question, why don't you answer.

If some similar changes occurres to the large group of living creatures, for example living in the different parts of the world, how would you estimate these changes? And if they can't communicate? If these are animals? And trees? And I insist that changes are similar. If something happens to the group, happens to 1 also. You forget about individuality. Here is your question. And it's not about religion or faith. I read, that God gives a task to a man, but doesn't decide it for him, or her.

I say about large elements and large processes in small. it's a lie in YOUR opinion. what is the evidence?? and i noticed that it was incorrect example in the core.

Wikipedia doesn't know what conscience is. For me it is religious concept. "Although humanity has no generally accepted definition of conscience or universal agreement about its role in ethical decision-making" And i'm not alone with my question. There is a book with exactly the same question. -where does conscience come from? And the thought is that "conscience is generally universal and innate in all of us" It's a good thought. And i don't think it's "evolved tendency".

...not only creationists. There's a lecture of N.dG.Tyson, astrophysicist, in which he says that life on Earth made of the same elements the Universe does. And that the Universe is inside us. Now i understand it's absolutely true. But it was imaginary situation, you could think of any plot, but you've chosen this one. So you literally made your neighbors think that all swans are white. And asked me whether i would tell them that there were black ones. As if it was the most tragedy in their lives. Well, it depends whether i'm ready to ruin someone's beliefs. And it's up to a person to attach to one's beliefs or not.

Don't forget that in science you have only bag with bones. You don't have definition for consciousness either for mind, or awareness. You don't know what they are. So where does conscience come from??? Maybe...you took this concept from religion?

I explained my vision of this theory. What do you think about origin of a man? And yet. Do you operate with such concept as conscience. If you do, where does it come from for you? There is no conscience concept in the science. It's altruism here.

Even not anthropomorphism , but projections. There is a popular term in psychology. "Projection is when an individual unconsciously projects their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors onto someone else" So, this is also projection on nature. And it's very important to talk to a person, and to one's representations about this person. It's important to listen. And also to listen to nature.

It is your belief what others think. But what about a well known fact that we can see whole in small. It is also your belief what others think. * Ok, hold on. I've found another one article from The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong Something from it: Step three is Fodor's coup de grace: how, he says, can that possibly be? The whole point of Darwinian evolution is that it has no mind, no intelligence. But to "select for" certain traits – as opposed to just "selecting" them by not having them die out – wouldn't natural selection have to have some kind of mind? It might be obvious to you that being the same colour as your environment is more important than being white, if you're a polar bear, but that's because you just ran a thought-experiment about a hypothetical situation involving orange snow. Evolution can't run thought experiments, because it can't think. "Darwin has a theory that centrally turns on the notion of 'selection-for'," says Fodor. "And yet he can't give an account – nobody could give an account – of how natural selection could distinguish between correlated traits. He waffles." This evolution theory is wrong in the core, especially when it comes to origin of a human. It is written on a knee. Why don't you answer is evolution a change or development. If it is the change, what changes occurred towards common ancestor?? If science doesn't operate with such concepts as consciousness and mind, this change is some MUTATION!!! If it does operate, than this theory is comparison between a monkey and a human. And it is ugly. When i realize what some homo sapiens (???) do for others, i want to say don't offend monkeys that humans are their descendants. Animals don't do this to each other. So, what exactly process does this picture describe??????? And isn't this evolution theory a whole antropomorfizm? And something else. What if in the future AI would create similar picture , with human on the left side and AI on right, and named it "The theory of evolution"??!! Ultimately, AI is an offspring of a human.

Wait. I mentioned that this example is incorrect, but you insist on it. It is incorrect in the core. It's not religious belief, it's immaturity. Faith is not about waiting for God to do my work for me. I have another scenario for you. Are you waiting your neighbors to "evolve" from the country neighbors to respectful city neighbors? Why have you mentioned that they are from the country?

Ok It's not about God, or god. Do you know what prayer is? Have you ever prayed in your life? Prayer, first of all, is the gratitude. I can't imagine this situation. Why atheists always think that those, who believe only pray and wait for a miracle?? - this is incorrect. And i don't see a problem in this imaginary scenario , though you ask for imaginary advice. As for me i would try to make friends with those neighbors and explained about trash. If they didn't pick up the trash I would do it for them, when i notice that trash. i hope i answered your question. and i feel it will be moved to trash can...it's always about trash...

What do you mean?

no. it was my question what evidence does science need. how? is evolution a change or development?

it won't be a real faith. just entertainment. Yes, that is why God can't be proved or disproved by the science. what exactly knowledge you can verify? can you verify evolution theory? it is a theory after all, not a dogma. so you trust it.

what for? for you to believe? faith is "assurance about what we do not see." i say that you have to trust knowledge which you can't verify.

you have to trust all the knowledge except empirically obtained

No. Why are you saying this? it's so incorrect that i don't know what to say.

what do you mean saying "evidence of God"? what evidence would be appropriate? And what about finger tips? Anyway, i don't deny that a man is a part of nature.

Since it is the evidence of origin of life. Origin of nature as well It's not about magic. It's about origin of life. And i thought it is an open question in science.

No, judgement is those white spots. And it seems like one have to accept what science says without questions. Really?? I think this theory of evolution and a theory of bb are exactly matter of faith.

No, this logic makes sense. X cannot be proven, because Y by DEFAULT doesn't have instruments to prove X. And X explains Y's white spots.