Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is nothing to suggest that over written history an animal today is anything different than yesterday in terms of the capacity to learn

Written history is a blink of the eye in the typical evolutionary timescales of the larger mammals, and a trait like a better capacity for learning is only likely to arise if it provides a significant selective advantage for that creature.

Also, an increased capacity for learning means the brain requires significantly more energy resources which is a constraint if food is not abundant. It is thought that the harnessing of fire to cook food produced a surplus of calories that released the constraints on energy-intensive brain development, while the reduction in size of the masseter & temporalis muscles (involved in chewing) allowed the skull volume to increase until it was limited by the size of the female birth canal.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

the longer we are the only example the greater the doupt is that any other creature can obtain these heights. So far no other creature has demonstrated an ability to progress as humans have. This starts to point to outside controls that may be influencing development.

Not really. It's not difficult to see why we progressed relatively rapidly - Our dexterity enabled the development of simple tools for hunting and butchering; this, together with the use of fire, vastly increased our nutritional resources, facilitating further cognitive development including language for better cooperation & coordination of activities (e.g. hunting, social, etc).

Langauge helped the development of culture and abstract thought, and so-on, to settled agriculture, trading, technology, and beyond. Many of these early changes were synergistic, and fueled by the copious amounts of megafauna available at those times.

It sufficiently answer the why it's just not a biological answer that makes us different.

Frankly, it's a lazy answer for which there is no evidence; an argument from ignorance.

 

[pitabread]

An outside influencer would have to be outside of our space-time continuum and so cannot be described using biology or science as those are limited inside our space time continuum.

Why would they necessarily have to be outside the space-time continuum? That seems a contradiction because if said influencer were influencing things within the space-time continuum, then they would need a method to interact with it.

I get that this is just a veiled attempt to argue for a supernatural deity, but it contains all sorts of unfounded assumptions about the nature of said entity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the longer we are the only example the greater the doupt is that any other creature can obtain these heights. So far no other creature has demonstrated an ability to progress as humans have. This starts to point to outside controls that may be influencing development. It sufficiently answer the why it's just not a biological answer that makes us different.

You appear to have the mistaken idea that there are goals to evolution. There are not.

Why would you expect to see other organisms get more intelligent? Intelligence was a positive trait in our evolution. It is not always a positive trait.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

An outside influencer would have to be outside of our space-time continuum and so cannot be described using biology or science as those are limited inside our space time continuum. The boundaries of space-time itself outline a negative space for outside the space-time continuum even if we can't understand it or see it. Since we are bound by our limits inside there is no way to describe the outside but the very notion of limits describe something outside those limits.

What's your evidence for an 'outside' to our spacetime continuum, or an 'influencer' being there? what about the answers to the questions I asked earlier?

If such an 'influencer' existed, it would, by definition, have an influence. If such an influence had a significant effect on our material, physical world, it would be detectable. We know how the protons, neutrons, and electrons of our everyday human-scale world interact - if there was any other significant influence we'd have found it; our best tested, most successful physical theory and the empirical tests we've done tell us there are no such unknown significant influences (for explanation, see The Higgs Boson & the Fundamental Nature of Reality @32"32').

Your suggestion is ill-defined, unsupported, untestable, inexplicable, unnecessary, and fallacious (it's an argument from incredulity). If it has no demonstrable or testable effects, no testable predictions, no suggested mechanisms, etc., not even a reasonable argument, and it further requires that our best-tested theory of how the world works is not just incomplete but entirely wrong(!), you're effectively saying, "Hey, maybe it's magic!".

Other than that, it's fine

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

An outside influencer would have to be outside of our space-time continuum and so cannot be described using biology or science as those are limited inside our space time continuum. The boundaries of space-time itself outline a negative space for outside the space-time continuum even if we can't understand it or see it. Since we are bound by our limits inside there is no way to describe the outside but the very notion of limits describe something outside those limits.

Sure - and maybe the world is run by gremlins or the invisible dragon in my garage, or maybe our brains are controlled by a zombie goldfish called Fred that lives in the Phantom Zone...

Speculation without substantive evidence, reason, or argument, is the stuff of fantasy and fiction.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is the uniqueness I am refering to where no other counterpart exist.

The mantis shrimp has uniquely sophisticated and versatile vision, no other counterpart exists - nothing comes close. It also has a punch speed no other creature can match (the acceleration of a .22 calibre bullet, underwater).

Does that mean that to explain these features we must invoke an 'influencer from outside space and time'?

Of course not.

But when it's humans being cleverer than other creatures... yeah...

 

[Speedwell]

An outside influencer would have to be outside of our space-time continuum and so cannot be described using biology or science as those are limited inside our space time continuum. The boundaries of space-time itself outline a negative space for outside the space-time continuum even if we can't understand it or see it. Since we are bound by our limits inside there is no way to describe the outside but the very notion of limits describe something outside those limits.

But if this "outside influence" actually exerted any influence within our space-time continuum it would be detectable and thus capable of being studied by science. There would be natural phenomena for which a natural explanation was demonstrably inadequate.

 

[pitabread]

But when it's humans being cleverer than other creatures... yeah...

It all seems to boil down to human egocentrism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But that's not what the OP is addressing.

I was merely correcting a false claim. I cannot even remember the OP at this point in time.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I was merely correcting a false claim. I cannot even remember the OP at this point in time.

It's basically "why do creationists object to thinking of humans as being made of the same parts and genetics as the other creatures". Ironically enough, the main driver of this discussion for the last few pages (DamianWarS) seems perfectly OK with that and instead insists that their has to be something non-biological that makes us special. (If I read is commentary right, he doesn't seem to be invoking non-natural things, which would exclude the religious ideas too.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It all seems to boil down to human egocentrism.

Yes, it's a form of human exceptionalism, which has various types, and can give rise to some quite interesting philosophical and ethical questions.

The question here is whether the particular form described by DamianWarS is scientifically justifiable; the evidence clearly indicates it's not, and the hypothesis he suggests is (unsurprisingly) very definitely not scientific.

 

[Ophiolite]

The question here is whether the particular form described by DamianWarS is scientifically justifiable; the evidence clearly indicates it's not, and the hypothesis he suggests is (unsurprisingly) very definitely not scientific.

I think it very kind of you to describe his vague, hand-waving, unfocused, wild speculation as a hypothesis. I suspect you were a Boy Scout and this is your good deed for the day.

 

[FredVB]

It's basically "why do creationists object to thinking of humans as being made of the same parts and genetics as the other creatures". Ironically enough, the main driver of this discussion for the last few pages (DamianWarS) seems perfectly OK with that and instead insists that their has to be something non-biological that makes us special. (If I read is commentary right, he doesn't seem to be invoking non-natural things, which would exclude the religious ideas too.)

I don't actually say humans are special over all creatures. With our capacity we have responsibility for only having the well being of the rest that are in this world. Beauty is as beauty does, you know. Humanity is in that position, but with failing to do that we are not special beings we say we are, taking everything as though it is all just for us. We are the problem in the world that way.

Of course we with creatures in this world would share in common designs, that is no surprise.

 

[AV1611VET]

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals?

QV please: My Snowman Challenge II

 

[Astroqualia]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

Can you show me a demonstration of rocks or chemicals turning into any form of life?

Can you show me any example of any kind of animal evolving into any other kind of animal? [IE, a dog changing or turning into a cat, over time]

The fact that these links do not exist and cannot be proven, is a very simple way to see that evolution theory is simply a religious belief for people who do not wish to believe in a Creator that will hold us morally responsible for the choices we make in life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you show me a demonstration of rocks or chemicals turning into any form of life?

How would we show you that? Find me a world that is at the right temperature with the right environment and I will give it a shot.

Can you show me any example of any kind of animal evolving into any other kind of animal? [IE, a dog changing or turning into a cat, over time]

Oh my, sixth grade science fail. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. There was no change of kind in our evolution. You are still an ape, you are still a primate, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate, you are still an eukaryote.

The fact that these links do not exist and cannot be proven, is a very simple way to see that evolution theory is simply a religious belief for people who do not wish to believe in a Creator that will hold us morally responsible for the choices we make in life.

What do you mean? Endless links have been found Of course we can't find all of them nor are they predicted. Just because you do not understand even the basics of science does not mean that accepting reality is a religion.

 

[Astroqualia]

How would we show you that? Find me a world that is at the right temperature with the right environment and I will give it a shot.



Oh my, sixth grade science fail. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. There was no change of kind in our evolution. You are still an ape, you are still a primate, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate, you are still an eukaryote.



What do you mean? Endless links have been found Of course we can't find all of them nor are they predicted. Just because you do not understand even the basics of science does not mean that accepting reality is a religion.

So satanic pseudoscience is reality? Huh, interesting. Didn't know I had to accept satanic propaganda in this world to "understand the basics of science".

Your second point doesn't at all address what I said. It's funny, they say with full force that evolution works X way, when that is proven wrong, they change the story to it working Y way, and when that is proven wrong, they change it to Z way. The evolution Iearned about involved monkeys evolving into humans, which are two entirely different species with a huge amount of genetic difference. If the DNA of monkeys changed to humans, then how did some monkeys avoid that DNA change, and not die out? If monkeys wasn't threatened to die out, then why did they allegedly evolve into humans? Also, why didn't other crcreatures, when presented to unfavorable conditions that led to extinction, evolve, and others did?

Oh, the missing links that many of were proven hoaxes, and the rest being hoaxes that haven't been found out, yet. I gotcha. I just don't buy into obvious pseudoscience hook line and sinker.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So satanic pseudoscience is reality? Huh, interesting. Didn't know I had to accept satanic propaganda in this world to "understand the basics of science".

I am sorry, you appear to be more than a bit confused. We were discussing evolution here. A rock solid science with more evidence for it than there is for gravity.

Your second point doesn't at all address what I said. It's funny, they say with full force that evolution works X way, when that is proven wrong, they change the story to it working Y way, and when that is proven wrong, they change it to Z way. The evolution Iearned about involved monkeys evolving into humans, which are two entirely different species with a huge amount of genetic difference. If the DNA of monkeys changed to humans, then how did some monkeys avoid that DNA change, and not die out? If monkeys wasn't threatened to die out, then why did they allegedly evolve into humans? Also, why didn't other crcreatures, when presented to unfavorable conditions that led to extinction, evolve, and others did?

No, you simply do not understand science or the scientific method. What occurs are almost always refinement of the theory. There have been changes since Darwin's time, but the basics are still the same.

Oh, the missing links that many of were proven hoaxes, and the rest being hoaxes that haven't been found out, yet. I gotcha. I just don't buy into obvious pseudoscience hook line and sinker.

Very very few hoaxes. The vast majority have never been shown to be a hoax. And as a Christian you should never try to disprove an idea with abuses of the evidence that support it. There have been far more Christian frauds than have occurred in the science of evolution. Most of the "relics" one finds in Europe have to be shams. Something that Mark Twain recognized over 100 years ago. Does a fake relic refute Christianity?

 

[Estrid]

So satanic pseudoscience is reality? Huh, interesting. Didn't know I had to accept satanic propaganda in this world to "understand the basics of science".

Your second point doesn't at all address what I said. It's funny, they say with full force that evolution works X way, when that is proven wrong, they change the story to it working Y way, and when that is proven wrong, they change it to Z way. The evolution Iearned about involved monkeys evolving into humans, which are two entirely different species with a huge amount of genetic difference. If the DNA of monkeys changed to humans, then how did some monkeys avoid that DNA change, and not die out? If monkeys wasn't threatened to die out, then why did they allegedly evolve into humans? Also, why didn't other crcreatures, when presented to unfavorable conditions that led to extinction, evolve, and others did?

Oh, the missing links that many of were proven hoaxes, and the rest being hoaxes that haven't been found out, yet. I gotcha. I just don't buy into obvious pseudoscience hook line and sinker.

Someone sure bought something hook line and sinker.
Your post is some ignorant nonsense picked up
somewhere, with zero understanding.
It's equivalent to saying algebra cannot be true because
letters are not numbers and multiplying fake numbers
to get a real answer is obviously impossible.
The lack of self respect in wearing
non matching shoes to a job interview
wouldn't be any more embarrsing
to witness.