# Creationist Attempts to Prove the Existence of God / Denial of Evolution \[merged threads\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889 "2012-02-05T20:47:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/61 "2012-02-06T14:28:13Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Wikipedia provides a good explanation: > > Causation: “where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first”. You notice that this _already assumes time_. Please provide an explanation **without time** - that’s what you are having us accept as coherent. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/62 "2012-02-06T14:30:06Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > How is that a refutation of that I said? > > To repeat: > > If something - anything - caused space, time and matter to come in to existence, then said thing must, by definition, be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. > > This time, please don’t defer to God in an attempt at refutation. I don’t get this - you refuse to accept what has been empirically validated because, as a layman, you don’t accept it. Yet you accept an explanation that makes no sense because you some how feel that a nonsensical explanation must be the default?? You keep asserting that ‘said thing’ must be X, Y, or Z and that these things make sense. Please **explain what they mean**. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/63 "2012-02-06T14:34:47Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > “IF” > > You are already begging the question towards presentism. Please demonstrate presentism is the correct metaphysics of time. Until you do, why should I believe your explanation, when mine (block universe) works just as well AND it contains no incoherencies AND makes sense out of the relativistic notions of simultaneous presents? Because I’m not smart enough. Will you accept “Because it’s what Stephen Hawking and a slew of other physicists argue is what the evidence most strongly suggests?” > [@](#): > > I’ve already given a third option - you ignore it. These two options need to be coherent and not logically contradictory - if they are, then they are both off the table. Either something caused the universe, or it didn’t. You’re saying there’s a third option? Please make it clearer? > [@](#): > > Right, I could be wrong as well, but I think the advantage my view has is that it’s not incoherent (at least it doesn’t seem to be to me, by all means, please show it is). I’m not sure why you keep repeating that your view is coherent and mine is incoherent. Can we assume that neither of us are intentionally posting incoherency? > [@](#): > > It doesn’t seem that you are willing to listen - or if you are willing to listen, you aren’t willing to take it seriously. You already seem to admit that you hold a view that makes no sense (otherwise you would resolve the problems I’ve brought up). I’m not really interested in your meta commentary on the state of this discussion. My first post in this thread actually asked if someone could explain to a layperson like me how quantum mechanics has already shown that you can have uncaused events. But yeah, you got me, what I’m actually more interested in doing is admitting that my views make no sense. … > [@](#): > > I’m a layperson as well, yet I don’t need to resort to incoherent magic to explain the existence of the universe. Further, if I didn’t have a coherent explanation, then I certainly would not prefer an incoherent one - I’d rather stick with ‘I don’t know’. > > My question is, why don’t you stick with I don’t know? Convince me that uncaused events are possible and have been demonstrated, and I will relent. For now, I’m sticking to both causation, and the subsequent inferred conclusions about the origins of space, time and matter that stem from it. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/64 "2012-02-06T14:40:34Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I don’t get this - you refuse to accept what has been empirically validated because, as a layman, you don’t accept it. > > Yet you accept an explanation that makes no sense because you some how feel that a nonsensical explanation must be the default?? > > You keep asserting that ‘said thing’ must be X, Y, or Z and that these things make sense. > > Please **explain what they mean**. You’re over thinking it. All I can do is type it out again. If **A** creates **B** , then **B** is distinct from and forms no part of **A**. It’s basic logic. Logic 101. There’s nothing to refute here, these should be taken as axioms. “_Explain **A**!!_” and “_ **A** is non-sensical!!_” both fail as a refutation. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/65 "2012-02-06T14:44:51Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Because I’m not smart enough. Will you accept “Because it’s what Stephen Hawking and a slew of other physicists argue is what the evidence most strongly suggests?” No, because it’s unclear how many physicists actually argue that. For example [Julian Barbour doesn’t hold this view](http://www.amazon.com/End-Time-Revolution-Physics-ebook/dp/B0058RTLZU/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=IXED5FCHD3P0H&colid=3M22WUS2W2ZRM). Further, if we are going by what Stephen Hawking says, then **you** have to also accept his position that the universe did not need a ‘cause’. You are being inconsistent. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Either something caused the universe, or it didn’t. You’re saying there’s a third option? Please make it clearer? The dichotomy that you now present (either something caused the universe or it didn’t) doesn’t match what you’ve said earlier. In this dichotomy, I would say that it’s clear that the universe was not caused. You would then think that I mean that the universe was the result of just popping into existence - which is clearly not what I mean, since I’ve been putting forth a block universe idea. So, what’s on the table is this: 1. Magic caused the universe (your explanation) 2. The universe popped into existence. 3. The universe always was (block universe, my preferred explanation) THAT is what I mean by three choices. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I’m not sure why you keep repeating that your view is coherent and mine is incoherent. Can we assume that neither of us are intentionally posting incoherency? I keep repeating it because I brought up the incoherency and you ignored it. I will keep repeating that your view is incoherent until you resolve the incoherency. Right now your view presupposes time while also presupposing a creation of time (which requires time). I don’t know if you are doing this intentionally or not - I’ll believe you when you say you aren’t, but that doesn’t mean that your view is suddenly coherent. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I’m not really interested in your meta commentary on the state of this discussion. My first post in this thread actually asked if someone could explain to a layperson like me how quantum mechanics has already shown you can have uncaused events. But yeah, you got me, what I’m actually more interested in doing is admitting that my views make no sense. You don’t seem interested in actually fleshing out your view either. You simply assert that it’s to be taken seriously. Well, if you want it taken seriously, then defend it. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Convince me that uncaused events are possible and have been demonstrated, and I will relent. Why exactly do I need to do that, again? My view doesn’t require uncaused events. As a side note, why do you get to simply assume your view is coherent while dismissing alternative views as incoherent? That’s inconsistent. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > For now, I’m sticking to both causation, and the subsequent inferred conclusions about the origins of space, time and matter that stem from it. Again, you can believe anything you like - but if you wish to discuss various views and have your view taken seriously, then you need to explain it. I don’t particularly care what view you take, but this attitude that your view is the default view, even though it makes no sense, is really off putting. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/66 "2012-02-06T14:47:15Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > You’re over thinking it. > > All I can do is type it out again. If **A** creates **B** , then **B** is distinct from and forms no part of **A**. It’s basic logic. Logic 101. There’s nothing to refute here, these should be taken as axioms. “_Explain **A**!!_” and “_ **A** is non-sensical!!_” both fail as a refutation. Ah, I see, so your view should just be accepted, while the alternative should be scrutinized. If “B” is time itself, then your scenario is contradictory, since A creating B presupposes B already exists! That’s basic logic. You are presupposing a metaphysics of time, as I’ve repeatedly said, AND you are then contradicting your own presuppositions. You now seem to be saying that we should take, as axiomatic, an absolute view of time - which was empirically refuted by Einstein. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/67 "2012-02-06T14:55:30Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Ah, I see, so your view should just be accepted, while the alternative should be scrutinized. > > If “B” is time itself, then your scenario is contradictory, since A creating B presupposes B already exists! > > That’s basic logic. > > You are presupposing a metaphysics of time, as I’ve repeatedly said, AND you are then contradicting your own presuppositions. > > You now seem to be saying that we should take, as axiomatic, an absolute view of time - which was empirically refuted by Einstein. Have you studied logic, **Meatros**? If **A** creates **B**. That’s the starting assumption. Then the inferences begin. Note the ‘if’. **IF** A creates B. If **A** did not create **B** , and maybe it didn’t, and that’s great, but you’re having another discussion. However, if **A** created **B** , or if **something** created **time** , then **something** is **timeless.** This is elementary logic, and requires no explanation of how **something** or how **A** works, or of how any of it is coherently possible to you. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/68 "2012-02-06T14:55:30Z")
Here’s what I don’t get, Dorsk writes this: > [@dorsk188](#): > > My understanding of Big Bang Theory is that there was no time before a certain stage of the universe’s development. If that’s the case, then asking what happened before the universe might be like asking where is the edge of the Earth. There is no edge of the Earth (because it’s a sphere) and _there may have never been a time when the universe (in some form) didn’t exist_. Okay, so there never was a time when the universe wasn’t. Kelly, you write this: > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Certainly. And if that’s true, and if something did cause the universe to exist, then said entity must exist in a timeless state. If there never was a time when the universe wasn’t, then how is it possible that a ‘said entity **must exist** ’ to create the universe? It seems that Dorsk scenario posits a universe that requires no creation, yet you are trying to smuggle one in there. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/69 "2012-02-06T15:00:16Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Have you studied logic, **Meatros**? Yes, a few different systems, which have you studied? > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > If **A** creates **B**. That’s the starting assumption. Then the inferences begin. Note the ‘if’. **IF** A creates B. Right, however in order to be valid, “A” could not presuppose “B”. Understand? To put it in other terms, you are saying: Socrates impregnates Shelly, shelly gives birth to Socrates. Yet, in order to give birth to Socrates, shelly would have had to have sex with Socrates, right? Get it? > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > If **A** did not create **B** , and maybe it didn’t, and that’s great, but you’re having another discussion. > > However, if **A** created **B** , or if **something** created **time** , then **something** is **timeless.** > > This is elementary logic, and requires no explanation of how **something** or how **A** works, or of how any of it is coherently possible to you. _sigh_ you are trying to make the impossible, possible, by simply assuming it is. You are begging the question - which makes your ‘logic’ unsound. You are essentially attempting to smuggle in this ‘timeless’ concept which you have not defined. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/70 "2012-02-06T15:02:04Z")
Kelly, please check this out: [Begging the Question](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question): > [@](#): > > Begging the question (or petitio principii, “assuming the initial point”) is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/71 "2012-02-06T15:21:55Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Kelly, please check this out: > > [Begging the Question](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question): No, you’re misusing this logical fallacy, I am not arguing If A creates B.. therefore A. I am arguing if A creates B, then B != A, and that is a perfectly valid, correct and proper example of logical inference. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/72 "2012-02-06T15:30:34Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > No, you’re misusing this logical fallacy, I am not arguing If A creates B.. therefore A. > > I am arguing if A creates B, then B != A, and that is a perfectly valid, correct and proper example of logical inference. How does A create B without presupposing B already exists? I’m not misusing the fallacy. You are doing the following: > [@](#): > > \*To put it in other terms, you are saying: > > Socrates impregnates Shelly, shelly gives birth to Socrates. > > Yet, in order to give birth to Socrates, shelly would have had to have sex with Socrates, right?\* You are **presupposing that timeless causation** makes sense. Please explain how it does. How does God (or whatever) _create time_ without using time? How do you create the succession of events without creating an event? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/73 "2012-02-06T15:32:17Z")
You need to start explaining how what you are proposing is coherent. Right now you are simply presupposing that it is. Please explain what you mean when you say: An immaterial entity that exists at no time and at no place, does nothing, yet creates everything. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/74 "2012-02-06T15:52:15Z")
To rephrase the entire thing, here is what I think you are saying - if not, please correct me: Time = succession of events Here is ‘reality’ (as I interpret you): _Timeless state -\> Creation of time/universe/everything_ What you see above is a succession of events; at one point there was timelessness at another point there was time. So timelessness preceded time. If “Time” is the succession of events, then **nothing can logically come before it** , since that would be part of the succession of events. Tell me how I’m mistaken, because I really cannot understand your view here. ---
**Author:** ![dorsk188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f05b48/32.png) [@dorsk188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorsk188)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/75 "2012-02-06T15:52:40Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > This is true in the sense that anything is theoretically possible, but this is just speculation, and is not based on evidence. My understanding is mutually creating and destroying ghost particles are observable phenomena, not just theoretical or speculation. Quantum mechanical properties of electrons are firmly established and have been for decades. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Yep, but this still isn’t shaking my undying devotion to the idea that things can’t happen without a cause. If you define cause narrowly: “intentional act by a being” then almost nothing in the universe has a cause. If you define it broadly: “the conditions were present to allow the thing to happen”, then there need not be a universal creator, just conditions that allowed the universe to exist. I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like you’ve started with conclusion that there was a timeless creator of the universe and have constructed a Goldilocks set of criteria that will result in your conclusion being the only one that fits. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I am arguing if A creates B, then B != A, and that is a perfectly valid, correct and proper example of logical inference. But it presupposes A. If B just is B, without a creator, then B can do all sorts of things (including change its properties dramatically). It seems to me you have an “A of the Gaps”. Personally, as much as I read, I’m not sure questions about the beginning of the universe are actually answerable. That’s not to say they’re mysterious, but that they are nonsensical. I can ask “Is the king of France bald?” but it’s not a question that can be answered. “What happened before there was time?” and “What existed before anything existed?” and “What exists outside of existence?” are probably words that make sense individually, but simply don’t reflect a rational question when arranged like that. Kelly, don’t feel obliged to answer this post, as I feel you’ve got your hands full. I just wanted to register some resolving thoughts. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/76 "2012-02-06T16:16:35Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > To rephrase the entire thing, here is what I think you are saying - if not, please correct me: > > Time = succession of events > > Here is ‘reality’ (as I interpret you): > > _Timeless state -\> Creation of time/universe/everything_ > What you see above is a succession of events; at one point there was timelessness at another point there was time. So timelessness preceded time. > > If “Time” is the succession of events, then **nothing can logically come before it** , since that would be part of the succession of events. > > Tell me how I’m mistaken, because I really cannot understand your view here. I think you have some assumptions here that are not shared by **KellyCriterion**. You seem to be assuming that A creates B is some kind of “begat” relationship, where A must necessarily be prior to B. This is not necessarily the case; even within our current understanding of the universe causes and effects can be simultaneous, let alone if we start theorizing about supernatural entities. That said, I am not advocating god of the gaps. As I said earlier, I don’t think the god idea answers anything here; it just pushes “Why a universe?” to “Why a god?”. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/77 "2012-02-06T16:20:37Z")
> [@GeddyClaypoolBurton](#): > > I know I’ve made several threads about creationism, but for some reason the sheer stupidity of the ideas it presents and its continuing popularity drive me insane, and I lose confidence in myself. 😕 I feel that I need other people’s help in order to fully understand how to debunk the movement. Just speaking personally- you’re not going to debunk the entire Creationist movement and you’ll probably never convince anyone to give up on Creationism. There is a saying that goes “you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.” This doesn’t have anything to do with you and you shouldn’t take it personally. Don’t let other people’s opinions bother you that much. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/78 "2012-02-06T16:32:01Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I think you have some assumptions here that are not shared by **KellyCriterion**. > You seem to be assuming that A creates B is some kind of “begat” relationship, where A must necessarily be prior to B. > > This is not necessarily the case; even within our current understanding of the universe causes and effects can be simultaneous, let alone if we start theorizing about supernatural entities. This is what WLC supports - I’m not sure it’s coherent, to be honest. I’ll grant that it’s a separate scenario than what I’m positing. In order to have it taken seriously, I need it fleshed out a bit. (Edited to add): Not that I’m the final arbiter of what should be taken serious. Just, for me, I don’t find his ‘bowling ball v pillow’ example very elucidating. > [@Mijin](#): > > That said, I am not advocating god of the gaps. As I said earlier, I don’t think the god idea answers anything here; it just pushes “Why a universe?” to “Why a god?”. Right, fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/79 "2012-02-06T16:35:17Z")
As another note, Craig, and his KCA, both require presentism to be the case. Craig has explanations with regard to simultaneous presents (I believe he denies them) and with regard to presentism v relativity. I believe that his take is that our instruments that measure time are mistaken. I could be wrong though - I haven’t read his formal defense. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/80 "2012-02-06T17:32:52Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Convince me that uncaused events are possible and have been demonstrated, and I will relent. We’ve mentioned the quantum foam several times now. It is the example of uncaused events that you’re looking for. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889.md?page=5)