Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Polymath257]

I believe humans are creatures. if you want to called us animals according to your classification, that's fine. But you still lack the evidence of evolution.

More specifically, we are Animals, Mammals, Primates, and Apes.

And, to the contrary, we have masses of evidence showing common ancestry (evolution), the mechanisms of such (mutation and natural selection), the remnants of such changes (genetics), etc.

The scripture contains true knowledge about what it means to be human that evolutionist can't even touch. the wisdom of Scripture far surpasses any wisdom found in evolutionist theory.

Well,now that is another claim. What evidence do you have for this one? What I find in various scriptures from different religions is a collection of stories invented by per-scientific cultures to attempt to understand their place in the scheme of things. Usually, they were simply wrong. Other times, they had a perspective that can be useful for organizing one's life.

 

[LightofTruth]

Let me turn this around. How would you determine the extent to which different species are related?

For example, even a first grader can see that foxes and dogs are related. They can see that cats and tigers are related. They can see that different hawks are related.

We'll put the 'evolution' question on the back burner for now. Just answer how we can tell when two different species are related?

According to Scripture all animals and man were created from the earth. They all breathe the same air and they all return to their native earth after death. "As one dies so dies the other".

Instead of focusing on the similarities, why not focus on the differences.

 

[LightofTruth]

More specifically, we are Animals, Mammals, Primates, and Apes.

And, to the contrary, we have masses of evidence showing common ancestry (evolution), the mechanisms of such (mutation and natural selection), the remnants of such changes (genetics), etc.



Well,now that is another claim. What evidence do you have for this one? What I find in various scriptures from different religions is a collection of stories invented by per-scientific cultures to attempt to understand their place in the scheme of things. Usually, they were simply wrong. Other times, they had a perspective that can be useful for organizing one's life.

What other creature attempts to understand their place in the scheme of things?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The only real question is why do people, even those who accept evolution as fact, still attach the word believe to it? Evangelicals need it to be a belief so they can attempt to have equal footing when launching their bogus attacks, but no one believes in gravity, no one believes in germs. Children believe in Santa Clause, adults (and children) know about magnetic fields, no belief required. It's just as bad as the term "evolutionist," because there is no such thing as a "dopplerist."

 

[Polymath257]

What other creature attempts to understand their place in the scheme of things?

What other animals have large enough brains to do so?

I really don't know what elephants contemplate. Nor, for that matter, chimps or bonobos.

Do you?

 

[Polymath257]

According to Scripture all animals and man were created from the earth. They all breathe the same air and they all return to their native earth after death. "As one dies so dies the other".

Instead of focusing on the similarities, why not focus on the differences.

Both are good to do. We find similarities to learn about relatedness. We look at differences to see the find tuning of species. We look at the past to see how things got the way they are. We look at the present to see what we need to change or what we like.

There are HUGE differences between different types of animals. And what we find is that humans, consistently, are more similar to the great apes than other animals. We even share some blood types with chimps. Think about that one.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said, only a total idiot can't see the difference between a man and an ape.

But you are an ape. That tells us that you are wrong. You might want to rethink your posts. You are currently breaking the rules here. And in front of a moderator no less.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe humans are creatures. if you want to called us animals according to your classification, that's fine. But you still lack the evidence of evolution.
The scripture contains true knowledge about what it means to be human that evolutionist can't even touch. the wisdom of Scripture far surpasses any wisdom found in evolutionist theory.

This is a false claim. I do not believe that you are a liar, I am pretty sure that you do not even understand the concept of evidence.

Until you learn the basics you will never learn why we know that you are wrong. You said that you were here to learn. Would you like to learn what is and what is not evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to Scripture all animals and man were created from the earth. They all breathe the same air and they all return to their native earth after death. "As one dies so dies the other".

Instead of focusing on the similarities, why not focus on the differences.

To what purpose? I thought that you wanted to learn how we know that we are the product of evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

The only real question is why do people, even those who accept evolution as fact, still attach the word believe to it? Evangelicals need it to be a belief so they can attempt to have equal footing when launching their bogus attacks, but no one believes in gravity, no one believes in germs. Children believe in Santa Clause, adults (and children) know about magnetic fields, no belief required. It's just as bad as the term "evolutionist," because there is no such thing as a "dopplerist."

I liken it to erosion. I don't "believe in" evolution any more than I "believe in" erosion. It's also similar in the whole micro vs. macro thing, where no one says "I accept microerosion, but I don't accept macroerosion".

But the main thing I think is important to keep in mind when interacting with creationists is that the vast majority of their behaviors are simply coping mechanisms.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's also similar in the whole micro vs. macro thing, where no one says "I accept microerosion, but I don't accept macroerosion".

It's not unusual for a Creationist to accept micro but scoff at macro.

But the main thing I think is important to keep in mind when interacting with creationists is that the vast majority of their behaviors are simply coping mechanisms.

They are not coping methods. They are genuinely held beliefs, enforced by a highly insular subculture, and allowed to live on because so very frequently they don't know the differences among hypothesis, theory, and law. This is why "it's just a theory" is so common.

 

[LightofTruth]

What other animals have large enough brains to do so?

I really don't know what elephants contemplate. Nor, for that matter, chimps or bonobos.

Do you?

Maybe elephants contemplate about their existence and then realize, because of their great intelligence, that it's not worth the while to try to explain it.

 

[Audie]

Wrong, apes are a group of species and man is a species in that group.

You claimed to want to learn. Now you are clinging to incorrect ideas.

Oh, you know, people say things like that
to try to make themselves look thoughtful
and open to ideas. As noted elsewhere,
though, talk is cheap. The only thing such
persons want to "learn" is that they were
right all along.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's not unusual for a Creationist to accept micro but scoff at macro.

That's because even they cannot deny what is readily observed, which is why it's analogous to erosion. After all, we see "microerosion", such as eroding riverbanks, all the time. But has anyone seen "macroerosion", such as a glacier carving a U-valley? Hah!! Take that you erosionists!!!

They are not coping methods. They are genuinely held beliefs, enforced by a highly insular subculture, and allowed to live on because so very frequently they don't know the differences among hypothesis, theory, and law. This is why "it's just a theory" is so common.

I wasn't calling their beliefs coping mechanisms, rather I was specifically talking about their behaviors.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe elephants contemplate about their existence and then realize, because of their great intelligence, that it's not worth the while to try to explain it.

Or they explain it to each other and we don't understand.

Again, beside the point. our intelligence is more in many ways than other animals, but not so far out of line as to make it too unusual.

And interesting book: 'Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are'? It is well worth the read if you are interested in this stuff.

 

[Audie]

It's not unusual for a Creationist to accept micro but scoff at macro.

They are not coping methods. They are genuinely held beliefs, enforced by a highly insular subculture, and allowed to live on because so very frequently they don't know the differences among hypothesis, theory, and law. This is why "it's just a theory" is so common.

Subculture, including the same creosite sources that
feed them the same lines that we see almost word for word,
over and over. Weird concepts like the one about
"fully formed".

Of course they do not understand what they are talking
about. Most of it is garbage and thus immune to
being understood, and none of it is anything
they learned the hard way, like, (shudder) study.

They prefer it predigested.

AND, of course, it has to be that way, for lo, though some
people can be educated and remain creationists
thro' sad recourse to dissonance and dishonesty,
a lot of them would not be able to manage, and
would have to give up creoism if they did know
what they are talking about.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's because even they cannot deny what is readily observed, which is why it's analogous to erosion. After all, we see "microerosion", such as eroding riverbanks, all the time. But has anyone seen "macroerosion", such as a glacier carving a U-valley? Hah!! Take that you erosionists!!!


I wasn't calling their beliefs coping mechanisms, rather I was specifically talking about their behaviors.

Their behaviors aren't coping methods either. It's entirely inaccurate to claim such, as their behaviors are rooted in their beliefs, and what they are are the results of such highly insulated and highly filtered subcultures. Prayer is how they cope. Stating fallacies and errors when it comes to science is because that subculture does control information coming in. Ken Ham isn't coping to them, it's hearing the same thing they've read in their church literature.

 

[LightofTruth]

Or they explain it to each other and we don't understand.

Again, beside the point. our intelligence is more in many ways than other animals, but not so far out of line as to make it too unusual.

And interesting book: 'Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are'? It is well worth the read if you are interested in this stuff.

Then elephants are more intelligent than man. Why would an elephant want to go into space anyway.

 

[Audie]

[QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 6234714, member: 63191"

You claimed to want to learn. Were you lying when you made that claim?[/QUOTE]

Now now I did explain that. Creos only want to
"learn" that they were right all along.

 

[Polymath257]

Then elephants are more intelligent than man. Why would an elephant want to go into space anyway.

Once again, ALL rather beside the point of whether evolution is a real phenomenon and whether humans really are a type of ape.