- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,598
- 52,508
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
And here I thought Homo habilis was taught as the first humans?Every existing piece of evidence, every new piece discovered shows the trend of modern man developing from non human ancestors.
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.
A reasonable person would. An unreasonable person would be afraid that a creator might require something of them.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?
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.
Which means you don't either.The creationist position simply has zero data to support it's main thesis,
None was genawated.Estrid said:Prease exprain.
Perhaps you have it backwards.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.
Pure and simple projection right here.A reasonable person would. An unreasonable person would be afraid that a creator might require something of them.
Keep looking.If there had been " created kinds" the fossil record would show it.
Keep looking.
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.
Yup: Absens vinclum.Because all the reasonable people have demonstrated humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
It only applies to others....does that apply to you or is that like hiking and only applies to others?
* cough *No one was around to observe and record the origin of our species.
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.
It only applies to others.
I'm not bound by the scientific method, like others are.
It ain't my ball and chain.
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.
* cough *
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?