Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mike the wiz

No Evidence Could Convince Me Evolution Occured

Recommended Posts

80% of the people can't be wrong

Oh, yes they can.

how can you say that when you have no evidence to support your stance?

 Agrumentum ad populum fallacy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK  what if .... let's see where we stand....

 

1) Blitz complained about legal action by evolutionists.

2) I commented the legal actions were made necessary because states were passing laws banning the teaching of evolution.

3) You remarked that if "you start forcing something like evolution by threat of lawsuit, then the evidence is either nonexistent, or so meager that it cannot withstand scrutiny."

4)  I pointed out the lawsuits were made necessary because creationi

sts were passing laws banning the mention of evolution in the classroom.

5)  You dismissed that with a "I wouldn't know anything about any of this..."

6)  I commented on your silence on the creationist mandates.

7)  You said you don't believe it.

8)  I provide 4 specific examples of cases in which the teaching evolution had been banned by law.

 

And you respond with:

 

OK .... here's the message I'm getting.....

When evolutionists sue in response to laws passed by creationists that ban the mere mention of evolution in the classroom, that's because the evidence is "either nonexistent" or "meager."

That creationists passed such laws "sounds more like propaganda than anything else."

 

In other words, if creationists ban evolution, that's fine and if evolutionists complain about it, it's because the evidence of evolution is so poor.

 

Got it.

actually, i haven't been following the "lawsuit gambit".

 

i find it curious that evolutionists didn't complain that the judge and 12 jurors "weren't qualified" in regards to evolution.

i hear that argument a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agrumentum ad populum fallacy

the very same can be said of evolution.

there is no real evidence for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 60% of natural scientists are atheist, . . .

this is utter nonsense goku.

there is no such thing as an "atheist scientist"

even richard dawkins himself, the most rabid foaming at the mouth "atheist" has no evidence there is no god.

 

the best a scientist can do in this matter is to use phrases such as "highly unlikely", but NONE of them can say "i have proof".

 

the way creationists are attacked and ridiculed goes a long way in keeping scientists from expressing their feelings along these lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is utter nonsense goku.

there is no such thing as an "atheist scientist"

even richard dawkins himself, the most rabid foaming at the mouth "atheist" has no evidence there is no god.

 

the best a scientist can do in this matter is to use phrases such as "highly unlikely", but NONE of them can say "i have proof".

 

the way creationists are attacked and ridiculed goes a long way in keeping scientists from expressing their feelings along these lines.

 

Atheism is a statement of belief, not really knowledge. Virtually all atheists are agnostic in that they don't claim proof of no God, but since they don't believe that such a being exists they call themselves atheist.

 

This page reports on a 1997 Gallup poll showing that 55% of scientists believe in evolution without God's intervention: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm

 

This is a more recent poll from 2009 by Pew Research Center showing that 33% of scientists believe in God, 18% believe in a higher power, 41% don't believe in God, and 7% had no opinion: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

 

So I was off with my 60%, probably got that figure from some other poll I found years ago, but you can get different numbers depending on how you conduct the poll. Point is there is a rather consistent 40 to 60 percent of scientists that believe/reject God depending on the poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SN requested I provide a reference for my comment that the courts had commented that if evolution is a religious belief the remedy is to stop teaching evolution, not teach another religious belief.

 

It was in the decision by the 5th Circuit Court in McLean v. Arkansas:

The defendants argue in their brief that evolution is, in effect, a religion, and that by teaching a religion which is contrary to some students' religious views, the State is infringing upon the student's free exercise rights under the First Amendment. Mr. Ellwanger's legislative findings, which were adopted as a finding of fact by the Arkansas Legislature in Act 590, provides:

Evolution-science is contrary to the religious convictions or moral values or philosophical beliefs of many students and parents, including individuals of many different religious faiths and with diverse moral and philosophical beliefs. Act 590, &7(d).

.....

Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause, Epperson v. Arkansas, supra, Willoughby v. Stever, No. 15574-75 (D.D.C. May 18, 1973); aff'd. 504 F.2d 271 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied , 420 U.S. 924 (1975); Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 366 F. Supp. 1208 (S.D. Tex 1978), aff.d. 486 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 969 (1974).

 

It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court, in Edwards v. Aguillard, cited the McLean ruling.  They're not in the habit of using precedent they disagree with as a reference.

 

Thanks, Pi.....interesting stuff.  I'm no lawyer, but I find the history of legal precedents to be very interesting.  Prior to the 14th Amendment, it was well established that the Bill of Rights did NOT apply to state and local governments, but only to the federal government.  And, eventually, the courts began inferring their application to lower levels of government (via the 14th Amendment); but, it took time....and multiple cases....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK .... here's the message I'm getting.....

When evolutionists sue in response to laws passed by creationists that ban the mere mention of evolution in the classroom, that's because the evidence is "either nonexistent" or "meager."

That creationists passed such laws "sounds more like propaganda than anything else."

 

In other words, if creationists ban evolution, that's fine and if evolutionists complain about it, it's because the evidence of evolution is so poor.

 

Got it.

actually, i haven't been following the "lawsuit gambit".

You chose to comment on it when you said the need for legal action is a sign the evidence is "nonexistent" or "meager." 

 

You doubled down when you said the specific examples of creationist laws banning evolution that lead to those lawsuits "sounds more like propaganda than anything else."

 

Now you want to cop out by claiming you "haven't been following the 'lawsuit gambit.'"

 

I can accept that the first statement was due to ignorance of the situation.  Ignorance is no big deal, it's simply a lack of knowledge.  That excuse does not exist for the second and third comments.

 

What is the correct remedy to an unconstitutional action by a government body?

 

If filing a lawsuit when your opponent violates the Constitution reflects that your evidence is "either nonexistent" or "meager," what is it when you pass a law banning the mere mention of the opposing viewpoint under penalty of professional death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 1 judge a court of 12 jurists, .....

 

i find it curious that evolutionists didn't complain that the judge and 12 jurors "weren't qualified" in regards to evolution.

i hear that argument a lot.

OK... you guys don't know how appeals courts work.

 

Unlike timed debates, usually each side gets to present its evidence to a judge, or panel of judges without time limits and with ample opportunity for fact checking.  If it's an appeal, the record of previous trial (or trials) is examined by the judge (or judges) who then make a ruling on the law. 

 

Of course, cases that reach the Supreme Court (such as Epperson and Edwards) are never conducted before a jury.  Instead, the panel of justices hears the arguments of both sides and directs any questions they may have to the respective legal representatives.  After examining the record and the arguments presented, the justices write their decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I pointed out, you were not persuaded by my arguments and I was not persuaded by yours.  In fact, as I recall, we both commented we had become more firm in our positions as a result of the discussion.  I know that from my perspective, I learned a lot more K-Ar and Ar-Ar than I had understood before.  The research I did explained a lot about how samples are properly tested and the results are interpreted.

 

That's one of the things I like about these discussions .... I continue to learn.

That's a bit sad to hear actually. We pointed out numerous problems with radiometric dating methods that we seemed to agree upon. But how these problems can make you more firm in your position seems illogical. Problems with methods should usually make people less confident of the merits of the method, not the other way around.

That depends on the problems.  In this case, there were no problems pointed out that I was not already aware of.  As a result of our discussion, I did further research and learned how these problems are being dealt with by the researchers doing the work.  I found those efforts credible and of a nature that will overcome limits due to initial assumptions and/or other problems with samples under test. 

 

Your response consisted of little more than arguments from incredulity... and one case of deliberate deception by a creationist.

 

Did you think of the possibility that the three lines of evidence don't conflict because the ages are correct? (Within measurement tolerances, of course.)

 

One thing about paradigms... while the existing one will certainly be replaced eventually, almost all of the new ones will fail.

 

Again, the lines of evidence are independent.  The data is the same regardless of paradigm. 

 

So far as objectivity is concerned, scientists are human just like the rest of us.  The best any of us can do is try to be as objective as possible.  One of the main issues I have with the scientists working for creationist ministries is they have declared they will NOT approach the evidence objectively as a condition of their employment.

 ...

Do you have a theory that fits the lines of evidence I mentioned AND a young Earth/universe?

When it comes to objectivity no scientist (regardless of who they work for) are truly objective. And in mythical science (i.e. when science tries to explain why we are here, where we come from and where we are going) the worldview of the scientist starts to seriously affect how he/she explains or interpret things.

Isn't that what I just said about objectivity?

 

The evidence I'm talking about and the branches of science I've cited aren't about trying "to explain why we are here, where we come from, and where we are going).  So, that part of your response is nothing more than a strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Storman Norman said:

Posted 07 May 2017 - 01:03 PM
piasan, on 06 May 2017 - 01:35 AM, said:

Piasan: SN requested I provide a reference for my comment that the courts had commented that if evolution is a religious belief the remedy is to stop teaching evolution, not teach another religious belief.
 
It was in the decision by the 5th Circuit Court in McLean v. Arkansas:
The defendants argue in their brief that evolution is, in effect, a religion, and that by teaching a religion which is contrary to some students' religious views, the State is infringing upon the student's free exercise rights under the First Amendment. Mr. Ellwanger's legislative findings, which were adopted as a finding of fact by the Arkansas Legislature in Act 590, provides:
Evolution-science is contrary to the religious convictions or moral values or philosophical beliefs of many students and parents, including individuals of many different religious faiths and with diverse moral and philosophical beliefs. Act 590, &7(d).
.....
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause, Epperson v. Arkansas, supra, Willoughby v. Stever, No. 15574-75 (D.D.C. May 18, 1973); aff'd. 504 F.2d 271 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied , 420 U.S. 924 (1975); Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 366 F. Supp. 1208 (S.D. Tex 1978), aff.d. 486 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 969 (1974).
 
It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court, in Edwards v. Aguillard, cited the McLean ruling.  They're not in the habit of using precedent they disagree with as a reference.
 
Thanks, Pi.....interesting stuff.  I'm no lawyer, but I find the history of legal precedents to be very interesting.  Prior to the 14th Amendment, it was well established that the Bill of Rights did NOT apply to state and local governments, but only to the federal government.  And, eventually, the courts began inferring their application to lower levels of government (via the 14th Amendment); but, it took time....and multiple cases....

Very clever argument. Education on controversial opposing issues is itself a form of religious indoctrination. When we "teach" evo as a fact we are teaching a philosophical (religious) way of viewing things. Those indoctrinated with the religion of evolution view their experiences in life through that filter. That's the essence of what religion is about--to conform people to certain beliefs. Evo is a belief and therefore a religious believe and a part of an eclectic mix of beliefs which constitutes a person's philosophy of life, worldview, religion or whatever we choose to name it.

If one already has a "strong" (philosophical) belief and then someone tries to replace it with another (Evo) opposite it will be sure to cause conflict. It is obvious that some people believe evolution is true and others don't. By contrast nobody argues about teaching the law of gravity nor physics in general. These laws are accepted as truth by all. They constitute a "religious" view we all share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you want to cop out by claiming you "haven't been following the 'lawsuit gambit.'"

i wouldn't necessarily call it a cop out, but since you insist, i shall engage you.

What is the correct remedy to an unconstitutional action by a government body?

i have no idea.

start a revolt, maybe?

but first, you need to define how a "government body" violated the constitution.

 

If filing a lawsuit when your opponent violates the Constitution reflects that your evidence is "either nonexistent" or "meager," what is it when you pass a law banning the mere mention of the opposing viewpoint under penalty of professional death?

what are you talking about here, gallileo?

 

yes, it would seem to me that if you must resort to lawsuits, then something isn't quite right.

question is, what is this "something", fear maybe?

i can see how BOTH sides would fear the truth.

evolution could very well be a fact, but science isn't even close to demonstrating it as such.

we have evidence you say?

yes, we have evidence that pigs come from pigs

we have zero evidence pigs came from something other than a pig.

don't even start the gradually fading color chart scam because it does not apply.

the above is probably why you hang on to gradualism, because you are apparently unable to understand evolution otherwise.

 

another big buzzword is macroevolution?

since phyla arrived here ready made with no detectable transitions, then i must assume the creation of a new phyla is macro evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But let's return to your three lines of evidence:

Yes, let's.....

 

The geological evidence of long ages is independent of evolution and stands whether biological evolution is true or not.

Here I think young earth creationist actually have much better theories explaining the facts than the standard old earth theories. Lyell's uniformism for explaining the geological evidence doesn't really explain the facts we see. And when we start examining geological evidence from a catastrophic events perspective we don't need millions of year anymore. Is this not more a leftover from Lyell's thinking?

I don't think there is a geologist on the planet who will not agree that catastrophic events have taken place.

 

The problem I have is that many, if not all, of the creationist ideas involve so much heat energy it would destroy all life on the planet.  I realize you don't seem to see that as a problem.  In my book, any model that results in sterilization of the planet is Dead On Arrival (DOA).  This includes (according to the respective authors): Vardiman's Vapor Canopy; Baumgardner's Runaway Subduction; and Brown's Hydroplates.

 

In addition, both Baumgardner and Brown involve continents moving along at speedboat type speeds with absolutely ZERO supporting evidence this ever took place.

 

The openly declared lack of objectivity by all of those researchers (except Brown) is also cause for concern.

 

The nuclear physics evidence of long ages is independent of evolution and stands whether biological evolution is true or not.

This have been addressed in several creationist theories. But here I would simply point out that the facts (the ratios between different isotopes) doesn't need to be interpreted as happening due to long ages. It is easy to just dismiss this line of reasoning as inconclusive.

There are only two creationist explanations I'm aware of..... the initial content of daughter isotopes and accelerated nuclear decay.

 

The most comprehensive creationist evaluation of the evidence, the RATE analysis, came to the conclusion that billions of years of radioactive decay has taken place.  If you have a different explanation for the isotope ratios you need to share it.

 

Once again, we have a similar problem shared with the flood models.  According to the RATE team, the amount of nuclear decay would melt the planet.  As before, I see that as making the whole idea DOA.  You simply ignore the problem.

 

In addition, we have the need for a mechanism that will cause a billion-fold increase in decay rates ..... one of the most stable processes known.

 

Finally, there is the same issue with the stated refusal by all of the researchers to approach the evidence objectively.

 

The astronomical evidence of long ages is independent of evolution and stands whether biological evolution is true or not.

Here I would agree with you that old earth theories are better. It's not that they haven't been addressed within theories that proposes a young earth. It's just that they aren't as good as their old earth counterpart, as far as I understand at least.

OK, since you agree the old earth explanation is better, there's not much need to go into this one.....

 

What does that leave us. One line of evidence for an old earth and one line of evidence against an old earth and one line of evidence that is just inconclusive. So from these three lines of evidence I can't really draw any conclusion.

Well, if you choose to ignore destruction of all life on the planet; absence of a mechanism to dramatically change one of the most stable processes in the universe; and the openly declared lack of objectivity on the part of the researchers, I guess you're right.

 

But of course you don't need to discuss long versus short ages in order to refute evolution (or the Grand Evolutionary Myth as Plantinga put it).

Of course, you are ignoring these lines of evidence are independent of evolution.

 

It's just another example of really lousy science that seems to be very important to a lot of people.

We clearly disagree about where the "really lousy science" is to be found.

 

Why is it so important that this theory have to be true for so many people?

I think much of it comes from the need of many that the Genesis account be literally true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something evil about the idea that humans evolved from a lower primate. No amount of evidence will allow me to accept that theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is evil about the idea that humans evolved from a lower primate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is evil about the idea that humans evolved from a lower primate?

The reason the lie of AbioDarwinism is Evil is because it allows bumans to view (Falsely and Dangerously) other humans beings as merely accidental apes that evolved from fish for no special reason instead of a special being created by God in his own image for his special purpose

 

And the Implications of such a paradign have lead to the murder of over 100 million people over the last century..

 

You see... When the worldview that Man is not worth any more than a cactus, am insect, or a fish, the moral consequences for murder should not be any different then stepping on a snail, pulling weeds, or gutting a fish...

 

Dont take MY word for it, check out the Cal State University "Evolution 101" website for your self.. It is pretty clear..

And Yes.. It is PURE EVIL

 

 

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fevolution.berkeley.edu%2Fevolibrary%2Fimages%2Fevo%2Fladdervstree.gif&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fevolution.berkeley.edu%2Fevolibrary%2Farticle%2Fevo_54&docid=xEbkVkzEGul3PM&tbnid=6rU6E-nvXNtkkM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiTspj5lp7UAhXmiVQKHdYBBLAQMwgyKAIwAg..i&w=450&h=308&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&bih=280&biw=598&q=berkeley%20evolution%20101&ved=0ahUKEwiTspj5lp7UAhXmiVQKHdYBBLAQMwgyKAIwAg&iact=mrc&uact=8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is evil about the idea that humans evolved from a lower primate?

There are evo' Christians who also believe that man descended from a lower primate, but that point of view still repulses me. I hard to put my finger on why exactly, but my spirit recoils from the idea. There is a voice coming from deep in my soul that keeps telling me evolution is not the truth. I prefer to think of my "common ancestor" as God Almighty, not some smelly ape. I think the "ape" theory is an offence against human dignity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is evil about the idea that humans evolved from a lower primate?

The reason the lie of AbioDarwinism is Evil is because it allows bumans to view (Falsely and Dangerously) other humans beings as merely accidental apes that evolved from fish for no special reason instead of a special being created by God in his own image for his special purpose

So its evil because it allows bhumans to view other humans beings as something mundane instead of something special?

Aren't you just using your emotion then? "But I'm special"

Which commandment says that should be treated as special?

 

And the Implications of such a paradign have lead to the murder of over 100 million people over the last century..

Says the pro-genocide guy.

Gravity theory also can't be used to prevent murders (and can be used to to cause them), does that make a gravity theory paradigmn, Evil because of its implications?

 

You see... When the worldview that Man is not worth any more than a cactus, am insect, or a fish, the moral consequences for murder should not be any different then stepping on a snail, pulling weeds, or gutting a fish...

Dont take MY word for it, check out the Cal State University "Evolution 101" website for your self.. It is pretty clear..

And Yes.. It is PURE EVIL

The graph provided shows how to interpret the evolutionary tree. 

It is to show that the human species is not more evolved then any other living species on the planet. It makes no statement with regard to morality, or "worth".

 

 

What is evil about the idea that humans evolved from a lower primate?

There are evo' Christians who also believe that man descended from a lower primate, but that point of view still repulses me. I hard to put my finger on why exactly, but my spirit recoils from the idea. There is a voice coming from deep in my soul that keeps telling me evolution is not the truth. I prefer to think of my "common ancestor" as God Almighty, not some smelly ape. I think the "ape" theory is an offence against human dignity.

 

I get that it repulses you. Still, what is evil about it?

What is human dignity? Is it the pretense that you're above everyone else? Or can it be that you know your place?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fjuri: So its evil because it allows bhumans to view other humans beings as something mundane instead of something special?

Aren't you just using your emotion then? "But I'm special"

Which commandment says that should be treated as special?

 

Not quite - the bible describes the true condition of humans, it describes accurately what we are in all of our peculiar traits that make us made in God's image. Apes can't write, speak, seek God, have eternal life, understand complex concepts and communicate them to others, and so forth.

 

So perhaps they're saying that evolution makes an ape out of a human being. If evolution happened, it seems more reasonable that mankind wouldn't exist and there would just be some type of upright ape which has all of the usual limitations of apes. It's easy to say now, after-the-fact, with hindsight - that evolution evolved men, but a more reasonable prediction would be that this otch botch process would only produce an upright ape rather than a sentient persona. (overkill on steroids, for evolution, why even expect it? Answer - because you have to because mankind is here, yet if you are honest, humanity doesn't fit well with evolution, it would be reasonable to expect many species identical to humans in their sentient capacities and abilities.)

 

(those red symbols that were in your post, I assume they are not there on purpose? Or am only I seeing them?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fjuri: So its evil because it allows bhumans to view other humans beings as something mundane instead of something special?

Aren't you just using your emotion then? "But I'm special"

Which commandment says that should be treated as special?

 

Not quite - the bible describes the true condition of humans, it describes accurately what we are in all of our peculiar traits that make us made in God's image. Apes can't write, speak, seek God, have eternal life, understand complex concepts and communicate them to others, and so forth.

I wanted to start of by agreeing. I can't. :)

Other apes can use sign language. (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee))

Other apes, or at least monkeys can understand complex concepts and communicate them to others (example: http://alfre.dk/monkeys-washing-potatoes/)

 

So that leaves us with apes can't write, seek God and have eternal life. And out of these 3 we can only agree on 1 being relevant. And writing is something fairly recent in our history...

 

But that's all besides the point. Let me grant you all of them. I'm sure you can create a list of relevant and correct differences between us and the other apes. That list of "supreme differences" is still valid under the theory of evolution. You're still special. ;)

 

So perhaps they're saying that evolution makes an ape out of a human being. If evolution happened, it seems more reasonable that mankind wouldn't exist and there would just be some type of upright ape which has all of the usual limitations of apes. It's easy to say now, after-the-fact, with hindsight - that evolution evolved men, but a more reasonable prediction would be that this otch botch process would only produce an upright ape rather than a sentient persona. (overkill on steroids, for evolution, why even expect it? Answer - because you have to because mankind is here, yet if you are honest, humanity doesn't fit well with evolution, it would be reasonable to expect many species identical to humans in their sentient capacities and abilities.)

So what if evolution "made an ape out of a human being"? We still have our identity. The rest of your post is trying to move the goalposts to "its improbable that humans are here" which is irrelevant.

We're here. We're unique (just as everyone else is).

 

 

(those red symbols that were in your post, I assume they are not there on purpose? Or am only I seeing them?)

They're there for a reason. I'm granting you to chance to find the purpose for yourself. Hint: If you had used the quote feature you would have understood it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fjuri: We're here. We're unique (just as everyone else is).

 

I think deep down everyone knows that humans are unique2. When we look around the place we are in, chances are we see objects all around us made by humans, our creative abilities are so great that comparing to other animals is basically irrelevant because their abilities are so rudimentary. My claim wasn't that they can't communicate but that they can't communicate complex things which requires speech. If you believe you can show a chimp understanding algebra or inductive reason, I would sure like to see your source that proves this.

 

For example I could show you a Leonardo Davinci painting, and I could argue that his ability was special, and you could counter my argument by showing me pictures drawn by small child babas, like stick men on a page, but I would argue that simply showing some rudimentary abilities in children won't mean that we don't all know what I mean when I say that Davinci was a special and talented artist. Sure, you can compare the Sistine chapel building to a dog turd on a piece of paper entitled, "my dinner" by an abstract-artist like when evolutionists compare communication in chimps to algebra and deductive reason discussions in humans, but really this is an absurd comparison, apes will never sit typing on computers, nor will they ever shape the world around us and be stewards of the earth as the bible describes.

 

If mankind wasn't standing out like a sore thumb, then perhaps evolution would explain it better but mankind should be on the same level of every other species, IMHO.

 

 

 

Fjuri: They're there for a reason. I'm granting you to chance to find the purpose for yourself. Hint: If you had used the quote feature you would have understood it.

 

They look like spelling corrections. I am guessing you hit 'b' instead of 'h' for humans then added an, 's' by accident. But it's strange I read other posts on EFF today with strange convoluted symbols from old posts and thought there might be a connection since they looked of the same type.

 

 

 

Fjuri: So what if evolution "made an ape out of a human being"?

 

Because basically this doesn't describe reality for many people, the best explanation being that our unique human sentience is more in line with us being made in God's image.

 

Nor is there some kind of desire to be special, and I think to be honest you have imported that motive yourself. Evolutionists tend to think we are hung up on being special because they haven't read the biblical psalm that says, "Lord, what is man that you are mindful of him?" We are well aware of that scripture because when we also look at the stars and the vastness of the universe, often in prayer we say similar things to God such as, "God you're so large and we are so irrelevant, just a bit of vulnerable flesh and bone, why would you care anyway?"

 

His answer to me is usually this; "for the Lord did not set His love on you because you were a great people, for you were the least of peoples, but rather because the Lord loves you." (paraphrased as I can't remember the exact words).

 

So we aren't special in and of ourselves, but rather because God made us - this is why we are special. It is the gift of human life. The transitionals are missing.  :gigglesmile: 

 

 

 

In particular, non-human primates are incapable of using ‘recursion’, the process by which concepts are contained within concepts. An example of recursion would be, ‘He saw that the chimp could not understand him’; ‘the chimp could not understand him’ is the concept within ‘he saw’. Even a child could easily understand this sentence, but it would baffle any ape. Similarly, a child aged five or over can put himself into another person’s mind, while no chimp can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What is evil about the idea that humans evolved from a lower primate?

 

The reason the lie of AbioDarwinism is Evil is because it allows bumans to view (Falsely and Dangerously) other humans beings as merely accidental apes that evolved from fish for no special reason instead of a special being created by God in his own image for his special purpose

So its evil because it allows bhumans to view other humans beings as something mundane instead of something special?

Aren't you just using your emotion then? "But I'm special"

Which commandment says that should be treated as special?

 

And the Implications of such a paradign have lead to the murder of over 100 million people over the last century..

 

Says the pro-genocide guy.

Gravity theory also can't be used to prevent murders (and can be used to to cause them), does that make a gravity theory paradigmn, Evil because of its implications?

 

You see... When the worldview that Man is not worth any more than a cactus, am insect, or a fish, the moral consequences for murder should not be any different then stepping on a snail, pulling weeds, or gutting a fish...

 

Dont take MY word for it, check out the Cal State University "Evolution 101" website for your self.. It is pretty clear..

And Yes.. It is PURE EVIL

 

The graph provided shows how to interpret the evolutionary tree. 

It is to show that the human species is not more evolved then any other living species on the planet. It makes no statement with regard to morality, or "worth".

 

 

What is evil about the idea that humans evolved from a lower primate?

 

There are evo' Christians who also believe that man descended from a lower primate, but that point of view still repulses me. I hard to put my finger on why exactly, but my spirit recoils from the idea. There is a voice coming from deep in my soul that keeps telling me evolution is not the truth. I prefer to think of my "common ancestor" as God Almighty, not some smelly ape. I think the "ape" theory is an offence against human dignity.

I get that it repulses you. Still, what is evil about it?

What is human dignity? Is it the pretense that you're above everyone else? Or can it be that you know your place?

"So its evil because it allows bhumans to view other humans beings as something mundane instead of something special?"

 

Why I do believe you are starting to catch on!

I am going to give you an upvote just for that!

YES YES AND YES AGAIN!

 

I even noticed you included my typos for extra effect!

The ones that I was unable to edit as the option was not there..

 

 

"Aren't you just using your emotion then? "But I'm special"

 

No, I am using logic derived from the fact that if God made man in his own image like he said he did in the Bible then We ARE Special..

The fact that there even exist people who think Man is NOT special is very Disturbing and Dangerous..(As I have pointed out)

 

 

"Gravity theory also can't be used to prevent murders"

 

I see you are not immune to utilizing the old desperate strawman of Gravity which is also a Non Sequitur on Steroids..

 

What on Earth does gravity, Which is Observable, repeatable, verifiable, experimental, falsifiable, etc.. (Empirical Science) have to do with the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of AbioDarwinism which has ZERO to do with Empirical Science?

 

ALSO

 

What on Earth does Gravity have to do with a fraudulent and dangerous worldview that promotes the belief that man is no more special than ladybugs, cacti, and fish??

 

NOTHING

 

 

"I get that it repulses you. Still, what is evil about it?

 

Hopefully I explained that..

 

What is human dignity?

 

Human dignity is rooted in our creation in the image and likeness of God."

 

Is it the pretense that you're above everyone else? Or can it be that you know your place?

 

If we are created in God's image for his purposes then YES WE ARE above every other living creature..

 

If we were NOT created by God, and the Myth of AbioDarwinism were to be true, then human dignity is non existent and indeed there is ZERO difference Morally between stepping on a snail and murdering young humans for convenience which is what is going on today.. If not for the dangerous myth of AbioDarwinism being shoved down ever school kids throat as if it were a scientific fact (Which it is NOT) What do you think would happen to abortion? It would be made Illegal like it SHOULD be.. Over 50 Million young humans have been murdered as a result of your polluted and vile religion that promotes the wicked and Evil belief that Man "Isnt Special"... ("Its just a clump of cells")

 

 

"Lead us, Evolution, lead us

Up the future’s endless stair:

Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us

For stagnation is despair:

Groping, guessing, yet progressing,

Lead us nobody knows where."

 

CSL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Fjuri: We're here. We're unique (just as everyone else is).

 

I think deep down everyone knows that humans are unique2. When we look around the place we are in, chances are we see objects all around us made by humans, our creative abilities are so great that comparing to other animals is basically irrelevant because their abilities are so rudimentary.

Irrelevant. The cheetah also feels he's unique². Compared to him no other creature comes even close to running as fast as him. The blue whale also feels he's unique². There is no creature as big as him.

The only thing humans excel at is intelligence (well, most humans anyway.. ;) ). Is it fair to use that as the only criterion then?

 

Because basically this doesn't describe reality for many people, the best explanation being that our unique human sentience is more in line with us being made in God's image.

Reality is the same for everyone. Sure, the look on reality might differ, but the reality is the same. Whether or not the theory of evolution is a correct or "more in line" explanation is irrelevant for this discussion.

 

 

Nor is there some kind of desire to be special, and I think to be honest you have imported that motive yourself. Evolutionists tend to think we are hung up on being special because they haven't read the biblical psalm that says, "Lord, what is man that you are mindful of him?" We are well aware of that scripture because when we also look at the stars and the vastness of the universe, often in prayer we say similar things to God such as, "God you're so large and we are so irrelevant, just a bit of vulnerable flesh and bone, why would you care anyway?"

 

His answer to me is usually this; "for the Lord did not set His love on you because you were a great people, for you were the least of peoples, but rather because the Lord loves you." (paraphrased as I can't remember the exact words).

 

So we aren't special in and of ourselves, but rather because God made us - this is why we are special. It is the gift of human life. 

= "There isn't some kind of desire to be special, we just are". LOL

 

Read the other theists posts (Dredge and Blitzking). I am not importing that motive. Here is an extract:

"So its evil because it allows bhumans to view other humans beings as something mundane instead of something special?"

Why I do believe you are starting to catch on!

I am going to give you an upvote just for that!

YES YES AND YES AGAIN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Fjuri: We're here. We're unique (just as everyone else is).

 

I think deep down everyone knows that humans are unique2. When we look around the place we are in, chances are we see objects all around us made by humans, our creative abilities are so great that comparing to other animals is basically irrelevant because their abilities are so rudimentary.

Irrelevant. The cheetah also feels he's unique². Compared to him no other creature comes even close to running as fast as him. The blue whale also feels he's unique². There is no creature as big as him.

The only thing humans excel at is intelligence (well, most humans anyway.. ;) ). Is it fair to use that as the only criterion then?

 

Because basically this doesn't describe reality for many people, the best explanation being that our unique human sentience is more in line with us being made in God's image.

 

Reality is the same for everyone. Sure, the look on reality might differ, but the reality is the same. Whether or not the theory of evolution is a correct or "more in line" explanation is irrelevant for this discussion.

 

 

Nor is there some kind of desire to be special, and I think to be honest you have imported that motive yourself. Evolutionists tend to think we are hung up on being special because they haven't read the biblical psalm that says, "Lord, what is man that you are mindful of him?" We are well aware of that scripture because when we also look at the stars and the vastness of the universe, often in prayer we say similar things to God such as, "God you're so large and we are so irrelevant, just a bit of vulnerable flesh and bone, why would you care anyway?"

 

His answer to me is usually this; "for the Lord did not set His love on you because you were a great people, for you were the least of peoples, but rather because the Lord loves you." (paraphrased as I can't remember the exact words).

 

So we aren't special in and of ourselves, but rather because God made us - this is why we are special. It is the gift of human life. 

 

= "There isn't some kind of desire to be special, we just are". LOL

 

Read the other theists posts (Dredge and Blitzking). I am not importing that motive. Here is an extract:

"So its evil because it allows bhumans to view other humans beings as something mundane instead of something special?"

 

Why I do believe you are starting to catch on!

I am going to give you an upvote just for that!

YES YES AND YES AGAIN!

 

 

MIKE SAID

 

"I think deep down everyone knows that humans are unique2"

 

 

YOU SAY

 

"Irrelevant. The cheetah also feels he's unique²"

 

SO I HAVE TO ASK..

 

So, ( According to You) a Cheetah Not only "Knows" that Man is unique, BUT ALSO "feels he is unique" as well? As does the Blue Whale?

 

So what is your name? Dr. Doolittle..??

 

 

"The only thing humans excel at is intelligence (well, most humans anyway.. ;) ).

 

Yeah most are (Except the ones who STILL believe in Fairytales like AbioDarwinism that is)

 

 

"Is it fair to use that as the only criterion then?"

 

Intelligence is not a criteria for Human Exceptionalism.. The Criteria is that we have a Spirit and a Soul that allows us to seek out God, our creator in a way that is meaningful to him AND the fact that he created Man in his own image for his Special purpose..

 

If AbioDarwinism is True, then the Judeo Christian God of the Bible is a myth and there IS NO Criteria that shows that man is any more worthy than a plant, Insect, Fish, or a Cheetah..

 

I give the Cal State University Evolution 101 promoters credit in the fact that they are consistent with their beliefs.. Here it is again for you..

 

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fevolution.berkeley.edu%2Fevolibrary%2Fimages%2Fevo%2Fladdervstree.gif&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fevolution.berkeley.edu%2Fevolibrary%2Farticle%2Fevo_54&docid=xEbkVkzEGul3PM&tbnid=6rU6E-nvXNtkkM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwi33v2a2aLUAhUmzoMKHWY_Bc0QMwgyKAIwAg..i&w=450&h=308&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&bih=280&biw=598&q=berkeley%20evolution%20101&ved=0ahUKEwi33v2a2aLUAhUmzoMKHWY_Bc0QMwgyKAIwAg&iact=mrc&uact=8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"The only thing humans excel at is intelligence (well, most humans anyway.. ;) ).

Yeah most are (Except the ones who STILL believe in Fairytales like AbioDarwinism that is)

 

You make out that it's a dwindling minority that still hangs on to evolutionary belief. Of course the reality is that all scientists do accept evolution except the small minority who sign up to statements such as this:

 

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record" -AiG

 

So scientists who do not adhere to this conclusion before any evidence are the ones who do not excel at intelligence ?

 

Do you see any issues with starting at an immovable conclusion before looking at evidence ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is human dignity? Is it the pretense that you're above everyone else? Or can it be that you know your place?

Human dignity is hard to define, I think, but it's related to being made in the image of God. If naturalistic evolution is true, I can't see how humans can have any dignity at all, as they just pointless, accidental machines that come from nothing and go back to nothing. How can dignity be extracted from meaninglessness?

 

I don't think I'm above anyone else. God loves everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms