Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[MariaRegina]

They must have been thinking of Mrs Cravis

NKJV) 1 Timothy 5:13 And besides they learn [to be] idle, wandering about from house to house, and not only idle but also gossips and busybodies, saying things which they ought not.

Gregory's Favorite Bewitched Moment No. 1 - YouTube

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Its a matter of definitions.

When see the almighty as Reality, the whole cosmic environment we are born into, then pathogens are ine of those Facts-of-life that rule us.
The son of such a god is the image of Reality in our mind which we call Truth.

It is Truth that leads us to the still waters of wisdom that allow for inventing antibiotics.

No?

If you think about this idea for more than just 2 seconds it all falls apart. Why is it that God's wisdom took thousands of years to sink in? If God's wisdom told man that leprosy and plague were caused by microscopic lifeforms, why the heck did it take so long for man to catch on? How convenient that God's wisdom finally sunk in when human beings invented science.

This is a terrible argument. You can claim anything is inspired by God because it is completely unfalsifiable. It means nothing. It cheapens your theology. It cheapens the work of those who make these discoveries and inventions.

Having faith in God to handle our medical woes is a path only met with death and frustration. We must take responsibility and we must strive to treat disease as best we can. We are not getting any help from God. Otherwise our drugs would be better.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by cupid dave
Its a matter of definitions.

When see the almighty as Reality, the whole cosmic environment we are born into, then pathogens are ine of those Facts-of-life that rule us.
The son of such a god is the image of Reality in our mind which we call Truth.

It is Truth that leads us to the still waters of wisdom that allow for inventing antibiotics.

No?

If you think about this idea for more than just 2 seconds it all falls apart. Why is it that God's wisdom took thousands of years to sink in? If God's wisdom told man that leprosy and plague were caused by microscopic lifeforms, why the heck did it take so long for man to catch on? How convenient that God's wisdom finally sunk in when human beings invented science.

This is a terrible argument. You can claim anything is inspired by God because it is completely unfalsifiable. It means nothing. It cheapens your theology. It cheapens the work of those who make these discoveries and inventions.

Having faith in God to handle our medical woes is a path only met with death and frustration. We must take responsibility and we must strive to treat disease as best we can. We are not getting any help from God. Otherwise our drugs would be better.

our drugs? That's kinda a scary path, isn't it? The side effects, more times than not, are more caustic than what they are designated to treat.

 

[Belk]

If an ape is as beautiful as me, then what do you call yourself?
If I am an ape then all the beautiful people on earth are apes...
So what kind of creature do you call yourself dear?

I'm an ape, as are all humans. A rose by any other name...

 

[MariaRegina]

I'm an ape, as are all humans. A rose by any other name...

I beg to differ.

While humans fall under primates as do the apes, we are not apes.
We are not even the same species, but fall under homo sapiens.

 

[brinny]

I'm an ape, as are all humans. A rose by any other name...

quick, for a bunch o' blessin's, what's the difference between an ape and a human?

 

[Skaloop]

Even the experiments with Washoe and others proved that apes do not have an inborn human language facility. True, in some experiments female chimps were able to teach their babies a few signs, but it was not significant, and the babies were not able to "fill in the gaps in sign language" as human babies are able to do.

Chimps lack the creative ability of humans.

Interestingly there are multiple study of human twins who will develop their own language that their own mother cannot understand. These twins can then gift this special language to other babies who have close contact with them because humans have this innate/inborn language facility that enables them to ACQUIRE language easily. Second language acquisition is much harder than first language acquisition.

Another similar study I learned about was among deaf kids whose parents followed the "advice" that they not teach the kids sign language, but rather work hard to get them to learn spoken language. Of course that didn't really work, what with the kids being deaf an all. But the amazing part is that they would almost always develop their own rudimentary sign language to communicate with each other. That shows the strong innate drive of the language instinct. Also cool is that kids learning sign language from birth go through the same stages that speaking kids do; babbling, one-word phrases, two-word phrases, etc. They even make a lot of the same mistakes, such as using the sign for "you" to refer to themselves, because when others use that sign, it's to indicate the child, so it's mistakenly thought of a sign referring specifically to the child almost like a name. Is spoken languages, that sort of mistake is understandable, but it signing it seems a bit strange because the sign for "you" is to point at the person, which should be easier to understand. It just goes to show that not only is signing just as much a language as any of the spoken ones, but it also clearly shows the stages that all kids learning their first language have to go through to develop their ability.

 

[pgp_protector]

quick, for a bunch o' blessin's, what's the difference between an ape and a human?

The same difference between a Fruit and an Apple.

 

[Skaloop]

quick, for a bunch o' blessin's, what's the difference between an ape and a human?

What's the difference between a fish and a salmon?

 

[MariaRegina]

The same difference between a Fruit and an Apple.

More like a cherry and an apple. Two fruits with pits.

 

[brinny]

The same difference between a Fruit and an Apple.

Elaborate please. Thank you.

 

[Skaloop]

I beg to differ.

While humans fall under primates as do the apes, we are not apes.
We are not even the same species, but fall under homo sapiens.

"Ape" is not a species. The Ape family includes several species, one of which is Homo sapiens.

 

[MariaRegina]

Elaborate please. Thank you.

Exactly, a banana and an apple are very distinct, and not related at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm an ape, as are all humans. A rose by any other name...

... is an ape?

How romantic.

 

[Skaloop]

Exactly, a banana and an apple are very distinct, and not related at all.

But they're both fruits. And while distinct, share similarities common to all fruits.

And yes, humans and chimps (for example) are also distinct, but they share similarities with each other and with all the other apes.

 

[MariaRegina]

"Ape" is not a species. The Ape family includes several species, one of which is Homo sapiens.

How convenient.

Even though I majored in biology, I never agreed with this "family tree" to which you allude.
I think Chomsky would agree with me as the language difference alone is so infinite between apes and humans.

 

[brinny]

But they're both fruits. And while distinct, share similarities common to all fruits.

And yes, humans and chimps (for example) are also distinct, but they share similarities with each other and with all the other apes.

Well, you have a point in that we are both created, by a Creator, as in created "creatures". However, we are not both beasts.

 

[MariaRegina]

... is an ape?

How romantic.

I agree, how unpoetical.

Is outrage (Onion Dome speak).

 

[Skaloop]

How convenient.

Even though I majored in biology, I never agreed with this "family tree" to which you allude.
I think Chomsky would agree with me as the language difference alone is so infinite between apes and humans.

But language or lack thereof is not a requirement to be included in the ape family. Language may be a unique requirement for our species, but it is not relevant to our inclusion in the ape family.

If you don't agree that humans are apes, do you agree that we are mammals? That we are chordates? That we are animals?

 

[MariaRegina]

But language or lack thereof is not a requirement to be included in the ape family. Language may be a unique requirement for our species, but it is not relevant to our inclusion in the ape family.

If you don't agree that humans are apes, do you agree that we are mammals? That we are chordates? That we are animals?

Of course, but we are also created above the animals.
Our differences are so great that we deserve our own classification above the apes, but within the primates.