Question for Evolutionist

[SkepticThinker]

Not having theological problems with evolution and believing in evolution are two very different things. It is a natural concept for many people to believe humans beings were made humans beings. It is unnatural to the mind to believe that humans were once some other animal. So until a person's actually taught evolution they usually remain believing humans were created as humans.

It is totally obvious to me that we are animals and that we are related to other animals.

 

[Thanda]

It is totally obvious to me that we are animals are that we are related to other animals.

Cool

 

[Thanda]

It is totally obvious to me that we are animals are that we are related to other animals.

Just to add. Being related to other animals has got nothing to do with evolution. All Christians believe both animals and humans were created by the same God. So they all believe we are related. What is often questioned is how we are related.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just to add. Being related to other animals has got nothing to do with evolution.

What? Common ancestry is pretty-much the most significant aspect of the evolutionary model.

All Christians believe both animals and humans were created by the same God. So they all believe we are related. What is often questioned is how we are related.

That's not what "related" means in this context. A theist may argue that every animal being made by the same God makes us "related", but that is empty rthetoric. It doesn't concisely explain the how and why of how we are related like evolution does. You might as well argue that all animals were hatched from the same egg, and this is just as credible an explanation for our ancestry as the existence of a God would be, and would have just as much explanatory power.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just to add. Being related to other animals has got nothing to do with evolution. All Christians believe both animals and humans were created by the same God. So they all believe we are related. What is often questioned is how we are related.

It has everything to do with evolution.

If you are saying that god made each animal, all on their own, then I'm not sure that would mean that everything is related. At least not in the same sense in which every animal is related in evolutionary theory.

 

[metis]

It is totally obvious to me that we are animals are that we are related to other animals.

Except in the mornings I feel more like a vegetable.

 

[Thanda]

It has everything to do with evolution.

If you are saying that god made each animal, all on their own, then I'm not sure that would mean that everything is related. At least not in the same sense in which every animal is related in evolutionary theory.

That is why I said the only thing in question is how we are related. We can all see the similarities - we all have two sets of eyes, ears, arms and legs. We have hair and so do they. We have children, we communicate with each other. All those are similarities that are easily observed by everyone in the planet regardless of their religious or educational background. But while some assume these similarities are evidence of the same creator, others see it as evidence of a shared lineage.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is why I said the only thing in question is how we are related. We can all see the similarities - we all have two sets of eyes, ears, arms and legs.

Are you seriously claiming all animals have the same number of eyes, ears, arms and legs?

We have hair and so do they. We have children, we communicate with each other. All those are similarities that are easily observed by everyone in the planet regardless of their religious or educational background. But while some assume these similarities are evidence of the same creator, others see it as evidence of a shared lineage.

Except it couldn't possibly be considered evidence of a shared creator, because a creator can create life in whatever form it so desires. The only theory that adequately explains how and why we share DNA is evolution. "God made us that way" does not explain how or why, and it asserts an untestable hypothesis that we have no reason to assume. Evolution is the more rational conclusion.

 

[Thanda]

Are you seriously claiming all animals have the same number of eyes, ears, arms and legs?

Of course not. I'm simplifying to make a point

Except it couldn't possibly be considered evidence of a shared creator, because a creator can create life in whatever form it so desires. The only theory that adequately explains how and why we share DNA is evolution. "God made us that way" does not explain how or why, and it asserts an untestable hypothesis that we have no reason to assume. Evolution is the more rational conclusion.

It could, since most creators tend to make creations in a similar way. A Quentin Tarantino movie is easily identifying by certain characteristics. So is a BMW car, and a Da Vinci painting.

Whether evolution is more rational is irrelevant to my point.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It could, since most creators tend to make creations in a similar way. A Quentin Tarantino movie is easily identifying by certain characteristics. So is a BMW car, and a Da Vinci painting.

Whether evolution is more rational is irrelevant to my point.

There are a few fundamental problems with your argument here.

1) This reduces god concept to just another creator on par with human creators. I feel this is exactly counter to the claim that god is limitless and beyond human understanding. Either he is beyond human capacity or he can be predicted by humans. One or the other.

2) In order to say that we can see the similarities between things we would have to have a comparison of something created by someone other than god. Was there another god who had a different "style" of creation? If not it means we have nothing to compare it to which makes comparative arguments moot.

3) It lacks any actual explaining power. It doesn't tell us anything about the processes or how. It ends the conversation without any information being added. So it wouldn't be scientific EVEN if it were right.

There are other problems but lets keep to the main three here first.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course not. I'm simplifying to make a point

So if your point was NOT that all animals share a large set of traits, why did you say it?

It could, since most creators tend to make creations in a similar way. A Quentin Tarantino movie is easily identifying by certain characteristics. So is a BMW car, and a Da Vinci painting.

So, if all life did NOT share common characteristics, would you consider that evidence AGAINST a common designer?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course not. I'm simplifying to make a point



It could, since most creators tend to make creations in a similar way. A Quentin Tarantino movie is easily identifying by certain characteristics. So is a BMW car, and a Da Vinci painting.

Whether evolution is more rational is irrelevant to my point.

That's assuming god is human-like, isn't it?

 

[viole]

That is why I said the only thing in question is how we are related. We can all see the similarities - we all have two sets of eyes, ears, arms and legs. We have hair and so do they. We have children, we communicate with each other. All those are similarities that are easily observed by everyone in the planet regardless of their religious or educational background. But while some assume these similarities are evidence of the same creator, others see it as evidence of a shared lineage.

Would you deduce the existence of a creator also by comparing a human with a fungus? Or do you deduce the existence of a creator only by comparing a phenotype with another of the same species?

I ask because evolution thinks we and fungi are related by using evidence like molecular biology, while I do not see how theism can draw any conclusion without begging the question (e.g. They are related because they were both created by God).

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thanda]

There are a few fundamental problems with your argument here.

1) This reduces god concept to just another creator on par with human creators. I feel this is exactly counter to the claim that god is limitless and beyond human understanding. Either he is beyond human capacity or he can be predicted by humans. One or the other.

2) In order to say that we can see the similarities between things we would have to have a comparison of something created by someone other than god. Was there another god who had a different "style" of creation? If not it means we have nothing to compare it to which makes comparative arguments moot.

3) It lacks any actual explaining power. It doesn't tell us anything about the processes or how. It ends the conversation without any information being added. So it wouldn't be scientific EVEN if it were right.

There are other problems but lets keep to the main three here first.

There are no problems with my argument. Let us start from the beginning:
I said: "It is unnatural to the mind to believe that humans were once some other animal"
SkepticThinker said: "It is totally obvious to me that we are animals and that we are related to other animals."
I said: "Being related to other animals has got nothing to do with evolution. All Christians believe both animals and humans were created by the same God. So they all believe we are related. What is often questioned is how we are related."

The question is, if evolution was so obvious, why do so many cultures around the world believe in creation rather than evolution (in the absence of evolution)? Another question, if evolution is so obvious, are you sure 1000 years ago you would have believed in evolution rather than creation? Would you have been the Charles Darwin of the day 1000 years ago?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Humans weren't ever 'some other kind of animal.' Any human which ever existed was always a human. Their ancestors weren't all humans, however. And we can demonstrate this through all sorts of fields of science from microbiology and genetics to zoology and paleontology. Christian problems with common descent are about as relevant as 6,000 year old Earth models.

 

[Thanda]

Humans weren't ever 'some other kind of animal.' Any human which ever existed was always a human. Their ancestors weren't all humans, however. And we can demonstrate this through all sorts of fields of science from microbiology and genetics to zoology and paleontology. Christian problems with common descent are about as relevant as 6,000 year old Earth models.

What does that have to do with whether evolution or creation is more obvious to the uneducated mind?

 

[metis]

Evolution is today obvious on at least two levels, with one of them being the absolutely overwhelming evidence for it with literally not one shred of evidence against it. At the other level, it just makes for common sense, namely that all material items appear to change one way or another over time, and genetic material is material.

Religious attitudes towards creation undoubtedly emerged because people had questions about their origins that they couldn't answer, so there was ample opportunity for the imagination to run loose. These creation narratives vary tremendously, btw.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What does that have to do with whether evolution or creation is more obvious to the uneducated mind?

What does being obvious to the uneducated mind have to do with the value of a claim? The majority of humans for the majority of human history thought it was obvious the Earth was a flat object. But that's demonstratively wrong. As is a 'comb-like' model of descent rather than the modern phylogenetic tree of life.

 

[Thanda]

Evolution is today obvious on at least two levels, with one of them being the absolutely overwhelming evidence for it with literally not one shred of evidence against it. At the other level, it just makes for common sense, namely that all material items appear to change one way or another over time, and genetic material is material.

Religious attitudes towards creation undoubtedly emerged because people had questions about their origins that they couldn't answer, so there was ample opportunity for the imagination to run loose. These creation narratives vary tremendously, btw.

I will ask you the same question: what does "absolutely overwhelming evidence for it" (which we only have now) have to do with whether or not evolution is more natural and obvious to the uneducated (about evolution) mind?

 

[Thanda]

What does being obvious to the uneducated mind have to do with the value of a claim? The majority of humans for the majority of human history thought it was obvious the Earth was a flat object. But that's demonstratively wrong. As is a 'comb-like' rather than the modern phylogenetic tree of life.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the claim. If you are confused as what this conversation is about please read the preceding posts. I made no claim about creation having more value than evolution.