What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[AV1611VET]

Every existing piece of evidence, every new piece discovered shows the trend of modern man developing from non human ancestors.

And here I thought Homo habilis was taught as the first humans?

 

[AV1611VET]

Xx

ooo
xxo
x0x

I win!

 

[Oneiric1975]

I don't believe one can prove either common descent or common design. They are interpretations of the evidence based on our respective presuppositions.

This is an interesting position. Are you familiar with "empiricism"? David Hume's idea of empiricism is that we "know" things through direct experience. But there's a flaw in taking this too far. The example given in my philosophy class back in undergrad is turning on a light in a room.

You walk in the room and flip a switch and the light comes on. In fact EVERY TIME you have walked into the room and flipped the switch the light has come one, but you have no direct experience of the necessary connection between flipping the switch and the light coming on, it could just be random chance that it has always happened when you do that.

That is a real problem in epistemology at the extremes. But you and I both know that there is a connection, but philosophically you can never know this for absolute perfect certainty.

In a sense when you take a position that the data cannot be trusted to show a necessarily likely hypothesis true you have entered into a position where you are admitting we can know NOTHING. Not a thing. And that applies to what YOU believe as well.

Do you believe God created man directly? Clearly if the evolutionists position cannot be known then YOUR position is similarly hampered making it just as likely to be flawed. Do you have reason to believe in God? Or do you simply believe because someone told you to? (Presumably not the latter). If so then why do you think that is a superior position? Clearly if we cannot know anything at all then your position is equally flawed.

 

[Astrid]

This is an interesting position. Are you familiar with "empiricism"? David Hume's idea of empiricism is that we "know" things through direct experience. But there's a flaw in taking this too far. The example given in my philosophy class back in undergrad is turning on a light in a room.

You walk in the room and flip a switch and the light comes on. In fact EVERY TIME you have walked into the room and flipped the switch the light has come one, but you have no direct experience of the necessary connection between flipping the switch and the light coming on, it could just be random chance that it has always happened when you do that.

That is a real problem in epistemology at the extremes. But you and I both know that there is a connection, but philosophically you can never know this for absolute perfect certainty.

In a sense when you take a position that the data cannot be trusted to show a necessarily likely hypothesis true you have entered into a position where you are admitting we can know NOTHING. Not a thing. And that applies to what YOU believe as well.

Do you believe God created man directly? Clearly if the evolutionists position cannot be known then YOUR position is similarly hampered making it just as likely to be flawed. Do you have reason to believe in God? Or do you simply believe because someone told you to? (Presumably not the latter). If so then why do you think that is a superior position? Clearly if we cannot know anything at all then your position is equally flawed.

Similarly, comparably hampered?

The creationist position simply has zero data to
support it's main thesis, and existing data in the main
is incompatible with anything yec.

It seems as if you may be saying that the
ToE is as flawed as last Thursdayism, or,
Great Raven.

Prease exprain.

 

[renniks]

In the absence of such an explanation for our vast differences with chimps, why can't a reasonable person conclude that similarities between our species are the result of common design, rather than common descent?

A reasonable person would. An unreasonable person would be afraid that a creator might require something of them.

 

[Astrid]

This is an interesting position. Are you familiar with "empiricism"? David Hume's idea of empiricism is that we "know" things through direct experience. But there's a flaw in taking this too far. The example given in my philosophy class back in undergrad is turning on a light in a room.

You walk in the room and flip a switch and the light comes on. In fact EVERY TIME you have walked into the room and flipped the switch the light has come one, but you have no direct experience of the necessary connection between flipping the switch and the light coming on, it could just be random chance that it has always happened when you do that.

That is a real problem in epistemology at the extremes. But you and I both know that there is a connection, but philosophically you can never know this for absolute perfect certainty.

In a sense when you take a position that the data cannot be trusted to show a necessarily likely hypothesis true you have entered into a position where you are admitting we can know NOTHING. Not a thing. And that applies to what YOU believe as well.

Do you believe God created man directly? Clearly if the evolutionists position cannot be known then YOUR position is similarly hampered making it just as likely to be flawed. Do you have reason to believe in God? Or do you simply believe because someone told you to? (Presumably not the latter). If so then why do you think that is a superior position? Clearly if we cannot know anything at all then your position is equally flawed.

Another way of looking at is that SETI ( same evidence, different interpretation)
is an inherently absurd claim, the which of why is too obvious to
call for explanation - surely.

 

[AV1611VET]

The creationist position simply has zero data to support it's main thesis,

Which means you don't either.

Prease exprain.

None was genawated.

 

[Frank Robert]

A reasonable person would. An unreasonable person would be afraid that a creator might require something of them.

Perhaps you have it backwards.

Both common descent and common design mean common ancestry. The difference is common design is arbitrarily confined to "creationist kinds. Neither kinds nor common design have any scientific meaning as there are no hypotheses that support them. On the other hand there is more than sufficient scientific evidence of common descent for a reasonable person to affirm common descent as opposed to design.

 

[Astrid]

Perhaps you have it backwards.

Both common descent and common design mean common ancestry. The difference is common design is arbitrarily confined to "creationist kinds. Neither kinds nor common design have any scientific meaning as there are no hypotheses that support them. On the other hand there is more than sufficient scientific evidence of common descent for a reasonable person to affirm common descent as opposed to design.

If there had been " created kinds" the fossil record would show it.

Dog kind suddenly appears-a wolf maybe- then foxes,
coyotes etc rapidly evolve from there.

Nothing like that actually exists in the fossil
record.

 

[HitchSlap]

A reasonable person would. An unreasonable person would be afraid that a creator might require something of them.

Pure and simple projection right here.

How do I know? Because all the reasonable people have demonstrated humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

The fact you feel a need to please a creator is on you, and you alone.

 

[AV1611VET]

If there had been " created kinds" the fossil record would show it.

Keep looking.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Keep looking.

...does that apply to you or is that like hiking and only applies to others?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

This is an interesting position. Are you familiar with "empiricism"? David Hume's idea of empiricism is that we "know" things through direct experience. But there's a flaw in taking this too far. The example given in my philosophy class back in undergrad is turning on a light in a room.

You walk in the room and flip a switch and the light comes on. In fact EVERY TIME you have walked into the room and flipped the switch the light has come one, but you have no direct experience of the necessary connection between flipping the switch and the light coming on, it could just be random chance that it has always happened when you do that.

That is a real problem in epistemology at the extremes. But you and I both know that there is a connection, but philosophically you can never know this for absolute perfect certainty.

In a sense when you take a position that the data cannot be trusted to show a necessarily likely hypothesis true you have entered into a position where you are admitting we can know NOTHING. Not a thing. And that applies to what YOU believe as well.

Do you believe God created man directly? Clearly if the evolutionists position cannot be known then YOUR position is similarly hampered making it just as likely to be flawed. Do you have reason to believe in God? Or do you simply believe because someone told you to? (Presumably not the latter). If so then why do you think that is a superior position? Clearly if we cannot know anything at all then your position is equally flawed.

The origin of our species, whether by creation or evolution, cannot be tested in a laboratory, so empiricism doesn't apply. No one was around to observe and record the origin of our species.

And the only evolution we are able to observe in the present is microevolution, such as oscillations in the size of finch beaks, rather than large-scale changes like fish to amphibian or ape to man.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because all the reasonable people have demonstrated humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

Yup: Absens vinclum.

 

[AV1611VET]

...does that apply to you or is that like hiking and only applies to others?

It only applies to others.

I'm not bound by the scientific method, like others are.

It ain't my ball and chain.

 

[AV1611VET]

No one was around to observe and record the origin of our species.

* cough *

 

[Astrid]

The origin of our species, whether by creation or evolution, cannot be tested in a laboratory, so empiricism doesn't apply. No one was around to observe and record the origin of our species.

And the only evolution we are able to observe in the present is microevolution, such as oscillations in the size of finch beaks, rather than large-scale changes like fish to amphibian or ape to man.

So it's impossible to have any empirical
knowledge of the sun.

 

[Oneiric1975]

It only applies to others.

I'm not bound by the scientific method, like others are.

It ain't my ball and chain.

It must be GREAT to know all things perfectly! Does God approve of your perfected god-like knowledge?

I'm envious of your greatness. And that's a sin, I know. But you gotta admit it is an enviable thing for you to know all things perfectly.

 

[Oneiric1975]

The origin of our species, whether by creation or evolution, cannot be tested in a laboratory, so empiricism doesn't apply. No one was around to observe and record the origin of our species.

Ouch! It appears you are not particularly familiar with how science is done. Not all things in science are done "in the lab". We can't really create a volcano like Krakatoa in the lab but we sure can know a lot about how volcanoes work and their origin without making a volcanoe in the lab.

Indeed there are vast swaths of science that are done empirically in the field and by observation of what happens in nature.

Do you likewise disbelieve in astronomy since we can't make stars like the sun in the lab?

Do you think forensic scientists need to kill a person in the lab in order to understand how to solve a crime from crime-scene evidence?

And the only evolution we are able to observe in the present is microevolution, such as oscillations in the size of finch beaks, rather than large-scale changes like fish to amphibian or ape to man.

Ouch, again. Wish you were more familiar with how science was done and what empirical data looks like.

 

[Oneiric1975]

* cough *

...did Adam see his own creation? That must have been interesting. Did you see your own conception in your mom's womb?

Wow! Musta been kinda unsettling, though, watchin' your dad "on the job".