Many people supporting evolution say the origin of life is not dealt with in evolution. Do you agree that the origin of life has no relevance to the Creation-Evolution Debate?
Correct. But in the larger scope of science, every creationist argument (so far) against evolutionary origin of species diversity has no relevance to the Creation-Evolution debate. The reason is that every such argument is a logical fallacy, or simply fallacious, and therefore has no relevance in any scientific debate.The argument that “evolution” doesn’t explain the ultimate origin of life on Earth is a gaps fallacy (or “God-of-the-gaps”). This is formally called “Argument from Ignorance,” which is a term I avoid online because it is too easily misunderstood to mean that the adversary in the debate is ignorant. That’s not what that means. Rather, the nature of the fallacy is that it asserts that a theory that does not explain all possible questions must be false. That is obviously fallacious, and there are loads of analogies in answers on Quora that demonstrate why that is a fallacy.You will find answers that emphasize this gaps fallacy that evolution doesn’t explain everything, even things like abiogenesis that it isn’t meant to explain. But, even if it were meant to explain abiogenesis, the creationist argument is still a gaps fallacy.If the creationist asserts that Genesis is a better explanation, then use of the gaps fallacy is particularly ironic, since there’s obviously loads that Genesis doesn’t explain.Other common fallacies include Argument from Incredulity (for example the concept of irreducible complexity), and the Straw Man fallacy, in which the theory is described as including an absurdity that the theory doesn’t actually include. Common examples of the latter are that evolution predicts transitional species that “aren’t fully formed,” or that “we should see dogs giving birth to cats.”Of course there are plenty more, such as quote mining out of context to claim that renowned scientists in the field actually think that the scientific evidence disproves evolution, and various frauds such as ancient human footprints, or radiodating done in a blatantly improper manner.I could go on and on, but fortunately others have done so already, and posted an excellent resource at Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy.Original Question: Many people supporting evolution say the origin of life is not dealt with in evolution. Do you agree that the origin of life has no relevance to the Creation-Evolution Debate?
Dear Christians, when people talk about the theory of evolution why do you assume that they are not basing it on factual evidence?
You see a theory is a set of facts, it is not a hypothesis which basically a supposition based on limited knowledge. A theory is the basically a set of facts that have been proven by evidence. This is what the term "Theory" means, it doesn't mean "a guess" it means a set of facts. A hypothesis is a supposition based on limited knowledge, that is not a theory.
Why don’t people believe in evolution when it is not just a theory or hypothesis, but a fact with pure evidences?
Many people do “believe in” Evolution. Don’t blame me; “believe in”, is the phrase you chose.Belief in Evolution is the problem with such people; belief in it, as if Evolution were a religious doctrine. Meanwhile, I suppose that you wonder why so many religious people think that Evolutionism is a religion.Belief in, is not what interpretations of scientific evidence are for. Scientists don’t expect belief in their hypotheses and theories. They expect their interpretations of evidence to be examined and questioned, rather than being taken on faith. That’s part of the Peer Review process.Facts don’t have “evidences (sic)”. The “evidences” are the facts. What you call “a fact” is an interpretation of evidence. Calling an interpretation of evidence, “fact”, demonstrates faith in that interpretation, just as much as religiously interpreting the factual existence of the universe as demonstrating God’s factual existence, demonstrates faith in that interpretation of the evidence.Yes, many religious people put faith in one form of Creationism or another. The difference is that we recognize that we have faith, and count faith as a virtue.The reason why many people don’t “believe in” Evolution, is that they don’t “believe in” the interpretation of evidence in which you put faith.BTW, I call Poe.
Why do some people chose not to believe in evolution?
I mean, it's not like you can not believe in it. That's like saying you don't believe that an airplane flies. So much evidence. I know people like to believe that god created everything, so they simply disregard all science, but if they feel the need to believe in god, why don't they just believe that evolution is the mechanism God used to forge the diversity of lifeforms we have now? I mean, if you want to believe in god, that is an explanation without completely disregarding science.