Important interpretation? : does having been a monkey, help all future "evolutions" in a monkey way?

[AV1611VET]

No, but if you said you had scientifically verified evidence for it you would be.

How would you scientifically verify Jesus walking on water, even if you were there when He did it, and had the technology at your disposal that you have today?

(I may make this into a challenge thread.)

 

[Shemjaza]

How would you scientifically verify Jesus walking on water, even if you were there when He did it, and had the technology at your disposal that you have today?

(I may make this into a challenge thread.)

You couldn't and no one should expect you to... but if you claimed it you would be lying.

 

[SelfSim]

Not sure of their names, mind you:

 

[AV1611VET]

Give me a break.

I could say Jesus walked on water and be accused of "lying for Jesus."

I doubt that very much.

How would you scientifically verify Jesus walking on water, even if you were there when He did it, and had the technology at your disposal that you have today?

(I may make this into a challenge thread.)

You couldn't and no one should expect you to... but if you claimed it you would be lying.

Still doubt it, Bear?

 

[Shemjaza]

Still doubt it, Bear?

Now you are lying. Stop it.

I was explicitly talking about a hyperthetical claim that you had scientific evidence that Jessie walked on water.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Still doubt it, Bear?

Yes. You have a forked tongue.

 

[disciple Clint]

Finding material that is exclusively about CMI (or primarily) turned out to be more difficult than I'd originally considered. (The terms "creation" and "lie" are just too common and correlated.) CMI is also a bit more obscure.

I will keep you in mind if I do come across a specific example, but I have seen CMI specifically lie in the past.

so perhaps the statement that "The main creationist orgs are all notorious liars" is an unsupportable overly broad generalization. Right?

 

[Shemjaza]

so perhaps the statement that "The main creationist orgs are all notorious liars" is an unsupportable overly broad generalization. Right?

Looking at their content about transitional fossils, they absolutely misrepresent the images presented to support evolution.

The ordering of skulls is not to present a sequential order of ancestry, it's to demonstrate that the entire spectrum of form and size between chimp and human exists in the fossil record.

The also seem to omit any reference to the extensive evidence for the fact that most primate transitional species have bone structure indicating an upright gait.

There are multiple near complete examples of skulls of my two favourite transitional species, Homo habilis and Homo erectus... two species that do not fit into the idea of a fundamentally different "ape" and "man".

 

[Believer000]

Looking at their content about transitional fossils, they absolutely misrepresent the images presented to support evolution.

The ordering of skulls is not to present a sequential order of ancestry, it's to demonstrate that the entire spectrum of form and size between chimp and human exists in the fossil record.

The also seem to omit any reference to the extensive evidence for the fact that most primate transitional species have bone structure indicating an upright gait.

There are multiple near complete examples of skulls of my two favourite transitional species, Homo habilis and Homo erectus... two species that do not fit into the idea of a fundamentally different "ape" and "man".

So you believe your ancestors are apes?

Where does your morality come from? Where does your perception of right and wrong come from? Why not just act like the animal you seem to believe you are? (No offence), genuine question?

 

[Shemjaza]

So you believe your ancestors are apes?

Where does your morality come from? Where does your perception of right and wrong come from? Why not just act like the animal you seem to believe you are? (No offence), genuine question?

From a mix of my sense of empathy, a need for community and taught to me by my family and society.

There are analogous traits in the more intelligent and social animals.

Humans are extremely intelligent, socially complex and unsurpassed technologically... but we are not fundamentally different to the rest of the animal kingdom.

EDIT:
And I do act like the animal I think I am, I'm a human. It's a kind of ape that comes from Africa, but has spread over the entire planet.

 

[Believer000]

From a mix of my sense of empathy, a need for community and taught to me by my family and society.

There are analogous traits in the more intelligent and social animals.

Humans are extremely intelligent, socially complex and unsurpassed technologically... but we are not fundamentally different to the rest of the animal kingdom.

EDIT:
And I do act like the animal I think I am, I'm a human. It's a kind of ape that comes from Africa, but has spread over the entire planet.

Can animals question their existence? Can they acknowledge their creator?.

 

[Believer000]

From a mix of my sense of empathy, a need for community and taught to me by my family and society.

There are analogous traits in the more intelligent and social animals.

Humans are extremely intelligent, socially complex and unsurpassed technologically... but we are not fundamentally different to the rest of the animal kingdom.

EDIT:
And I do act like the animal I think I am, I'm a human. It's a kind of ape that comes from Africa, but has spread over the entire planet.

One more question, I'm assuming you believe this world and everything in it is the result of a random chance?. And I'm assuming you believe in no afterlife? And no God?. What is your purpose? That is a very depressing existence.

 

[Shemjaza]

Can animals question their existence? Can they acknowledge their creator?.

Nope. They just don't have the level of abstract thought we have.

That said, the way dogs react with thunder certainly seems like they think it's something they can interact with by barking.

One more question, I'm assuming you believe this world and everything in it is the result of a random chance?. And I'm assuming you believe in no afterlife? And no God?. What is your purpose? That is a very depressing existence.

Random chance is only one way of describing it. It's a build up of tiny individually insignificant events to something incomprehensibly vast and wonderful.

Not having a purpose assigned to me leaves me with the responsibility to find meaning for myself. I'd love to believe in an afterlife and all the supernatural implications, but I just don't see it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

so perhaps the statement that "The main creationist orgs are all notorious liars" is an unsupportable overly broad generalization. Right?

Perhaps the word "notorious" was incorrect as that fact does not seem to have penetrated far enough.

How about "serial and unrepentant liars"? That doesn't require any assessment of how well known their lying is.

 

[SelfSim]

Perhaps the word "notorious" was incorrect as that fact does not seem to have penetrated far enough.

How about "serial and unrepentant liars"? That doesn't require any assessment of how well known their lying is.

Perhaps knowledge of the existence of the process of renewable Absolution (aka: 'Confession') produces a false, desensitized outlook on the overall impacts of repetitive lying?
Because that process specifically excludes those impacted by the lying, the 'Absolved' person seems to go forward assuming all is ok again .. which of course, it isn't(?)

 

[DamianWarS]

Hi there,

So this is a blank slate type question, I really don't know what your position is:

You can see that the interpretation is open, at the moment: right? Like there is nothing to say that having been a monkey will help a human deal with monkey type selection pressures, even if they are not technically still a monkey?

Maybe it partially helps? Could something that used to be human, go back to a tail, if it turned out that living in trees was the only way to survive?

Not trying to let the wind out of your sails, but there is a gap between changing and making the change for a reason - if you get me?

IDK just riffing on the idea that Evolution doesn't just matter now, but matters into the future...

Or of course you could keep claiming its random, and that it's just a question of which randomness wins out in the end?

Lord, help them answer!

in an evolution model, we weren't monkeys, instead, all primates share a common ancestral primate (which isn't a monkey). evolution is also not about randomly growing tails or discarding them.

 

[gaara4158]

One more question, I'm assuming you believe this world and everything in it is the result of a random chance?. And I'm assuming you believe in no afterlife? And no God?. What is your purpose? That is a very depressing existence.

Does depression factor in to what you find more likely to be true?

 

[Shemjaza]

Does depression factor in to what you find more likely to be true?

In my experience depression isn't a good indicator of Christian or atheist. There area plenty in both camps.

Also there are those who are both comforted and upset by their own beliefs in both camps.

(Personally I think how happy it makes you is a bad metric for what you think is true).

 

[gaara4158]

In my experience depression isn't a good indicator of Christian or atheist. There area plenty in both camps.

Also there are those who are both comforted and upset by their own beliefs in both camps.

(Personally I think how happy it makes you is a bad metric for what you think is true).

I agree, which is why it was odd to see someone’s objection to an evolutionary explanation of biodiversity be “but isn’t that so depressing?”

 

[disciple Clint]

Perhaps the word "notorious" was incorrect as that fact does not seem to have penetrated far enough.

How about "serial and unrepentant liars"? That doesn't require any assessment of how well known their lying is.

but it still requires evidence, got any?