Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-_- how are the first three images connected to evolution when none but the last depict anything alive? Because they have monkey in their names? Barrels of monkeys, monkey wrench, monkey bars. Even in these forums, you'd be hard pressed to get anyone to connect those images to evolution.
This is the internet. Unless you make clear what the point of the challenge is you should expect a diverse, but accurate, set of responses.
I didn't follow what you were getting at in post 16, except that I guessed it was something to do with monkeys. Do you mean that people who accept evolution are more likely to mention monkeys, or less likely to mention monkeys, or something else?
My theory is that those who study evolution are more likely to associate images and references to monkeys sooner than the average man.
Welp, consider this evidence against that hypothesis. I didn't even notice that 3 out of the 4 images had monkey in their name until you mentioned that there was an evolution association with those images. Probably because the objects themselves have no association with biology, and even if I had noticed the monkey thing, I wouldn't have even made the evolution connection to that without knowing you.
That's not evidence against my hypothesis.
Why? The idea that man may have descended from "monkeys" is an important challenge to creationists. No doubt the image comes to mind whenever they think of evilution. But to the rest of us, monkeys--and the idea of being descended from other animals--are not of much concern.
I'm autistic, so I make associations that can differ from the norm. My prosopagnosia also impairs my ability to recognize certain facial differences, but that one isn't relevant in this case. If you compared my distinctions to the ones made by other people, you'll notice that they are pretty similar to the rest of the participants. If you wanted this to actually be scientific in any regard, you'd have had to wait for, at minimum, 30 people to respond, and had it so that we couldn't see the responses of others and had them influence us.
Wait. Image 4 is fertilizer, which has evolved over tim-OH MY GOSH EVOLUTION IS EVERYWHERE!!!
Technically, image 4 is an evolved stock photo (from alarmy.com) of ecologically controlled re-constituted soil.
That was my guess too.Image 2, since it's in black and white and the others are in color
