In addition to being debunked, evolution doesn't disprove creation

[Nightfm]

Evolution is very easy to debunk in multiple ways.

For starters, there simply is no empirical evidence that evolution occured. The only thing that can be empirically observed is apparent genetic descent, or small-scale adaptations within species. But no one has ever observed evolution taking place over millions of years, or single-celled organisms evolving into humans. Nor has life ever been observed originating from abiogenesis. (Scientists have seen components of life originate from replicating the required conditions, but they have never seen life originate).

It is therefore possible that God merely created life with the appearance of it having evolved, but it was actually created in its present state.

The theory of evolution is merely an outdated theory from the Victorian era, which an outdated crank known as Darwin either stole from ancient cultures which were onto it before him and claimed it as his own, or merely rediscoved 1,000s of years later, which is extremely unimpressive. (Imagine if a person invented fire in the 21st century - something which cavemen were allegedly onto, and thought it was something unique or original).

It is well-documented fact that evolutionary thought dates as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ry_thought

Proposals that one type of animal, even humans, could descend from other types of animals, are known to go back to the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. Anaximander of Miletus proposed that the first animals lived in water, during a wet phase of the Earth's past, and that the first land-dwelling ancestors of mankind must have been born in water, and only spent part of their life on land. He also argued that the first human of the form known today must have been the child of a different type of animal (probably a fish), because man needs prolonged nursing to live.[8][9][7] In the late nineteenth century, Anaximander was hailed as the "first Darwinist", but this characterization is no longer commonly agreed.[10] Anaximander's hypothesis could be considered "evolution" in a sense, although not a Darwinian one.[10]

Therefore, I'm honestly not sure why atheists are obsessed with evolution, since it doesn't disprove creation or God to begin with, can be debunked, and if anything makes a stronger case for creation. Evolution merely being a mechanism by which humans were created, with their origin having been pre-destined to happen. Modern computers, for example evolved from simple calculators, and no one doubts that they had a creator.

[theantithesis]

Therefore, I'm honestly not sure why atheists are obsessed with evolution...

We aren't.

All of y'all seem to be, though.

[Hydra009]

Two posts. One about "proving" the existence of god and the other "debunking" evolution. Gee, I wonder if there might be some sort of connection.

This was kind of a dead debate before I was born (spoiler: science won) but what the hay, I'll humor it for now.

For starters, there simply is no empirical evidence that evolution occured. The only thing that can be empirically observed is apparent genetic descent, or small-scale adaptations within species. But no one has ever observed evolution taking place over millions of years, or single-celled organisms evolving into humans.

Admitting to "microevolution" while denying "macroevolution", a very common creationist talking point. But the main problem with it is that both of them are the exact same process operating on different timescales. It's like arguing that areas with trees exist but forests don't exist. If only there was some sort of handy saying about that.

Charles Darwin and lots of other people figured out some pretty basic facts about the world: species go extinct, island-dwelling species differ significantly from their mainland counterparts, there are genetic changes in a population of a species over the course of generations, etc. Naturally, they came up with models to explain these observed biological changes. Darwin's descent with modification, which was itself tweaked a bit over the years, won out as the best model - the best mechanism to explain how these changes accumulate.

That's evolution. That's the framework biologists have been using for generations - not creationism, which wasn't doing so well before Charles Darwin hit the scene and definitely didn't fare very well throughout his lifetime, let alone ours. Calling evolution "debunked" as if observed genetic changes and even speciation were merely a matter of opinion betrays a mindset very unacquainted with science while very acquainted with the proof-by-fiat methodology of religion.

Nor has life ever been observed originating from abiogenesis. (Scientists have seen components of life originate from replicating the required conditions, but they have never seen life originate).

There's a considerable amount of tension between these two statements. The first implies that abiogenesis is an impossibility (otherwise, why mention that it hasn't been directly observed - I've never seen my parents have sex but I'm pretty sure it happened). But the building blocks of life are formed all the time, which casts doubt on the former statement. (Do you know that abiogenesis is impossible or do you merely assume it to be impossible because you prefer something else?)

And fun fact: abiogenesis is a separate topic from evolution. Evolution deals with biological changes over generations. So it's not exactly applicable before life - before biology - exists. So why even bring it up? That's a bit of a red flag that one has a not-great understanding of evolution in the first place.

It is therefore possible that God merely created life with the appearance of it having evolved, but it was actually created in its present state.

This is another creationist talking point, no doubt to ease the cognitive dissonance of the observed fact of evolution with one's fervently-held religious belief in creationism. It's not an exactly a stellar argument because the obvious counter-argument is that life appears to have evolved because it actually did evolve. Shocker. It's also very fascinating to me that people who say they fervently believe in God would then make God out to be some sort of deceiver. Quite a fascinating theological position to stake out. And this is supposed to defend the faith and protect belief in God? Cause it kinda looks like it's doing the opposite.

Therefore, I'm honestly not sure why atheists are obsessed with evolution

They're not. And these discussions are always started at the behest of a creationist or part of some political kerfuffle (shameless wedge-issue politics, usually but not always in the United States) as opposed to a genuine scientific controversy.

Modern computers, for example evolved from simple calculators, and no one doubts that they had a creator.

Haven't heard that one before /sarcasm. Watchmaker analogy - or watchmaker fallacy, as it is more often called. I suppose that's mandatory on creationist rants, but that's been a dead argument for a very, very, very long time. So long that it's genuinely surprising that anyone takes it seriously anymore. For starters, we've seen people creating watches - that's how we know they're designed. I mean FFS, it doesn't even work as an analogy - it just assumes its own conclusion as a given. It's not even wrong thinking.

[Pappy]

I especially like this part

The theory of evolution is merely an outdated theory from the Victorian era, which an outdated crank known as Darwin either stole from ancient cultures which were onto it before him and claimed it as his own, or merely rediscoved 1,000s of years later, which is extremely unimpressive. (Imagine if a person invented fire in the 21st century - something which cavemen were allegedly onto, and thought it was something unique or original).

Now let's apply the same reasoning to Christianity

Christianity is merely an outdated belief system from the ancient world, developed by people with limited scientific understanding, and centered on figures like Jesus Christ whose followers either borrowed ideas from earlier religions or repackaged existing myths and claimed them as something new. Stories of virgin births, resurrections, and divine sons existed long before Christianity, so there is nothing particularly original or impressive about it.

[theantithesis]

Well, christianity is a desert religion. They should go live in the desert.

In the Middle East.

Where all that war is happening.

That's where their god is. They should stay there.