Why is there a correlation between understanding evolution and accepting it as valid science?

[juvenissun]

Sorry, accident.

 

[46AND2]

It means, a human can say: this is wrong.

You've never seen a monkey punish a child for being bad? I have. I've also seen a monkey refuse a treat until his friend got one too.

Doesn't seem like a human only characteristic.

 

[jacknife]

You just named two. As I said, we can add a few more to it, such as wear clothes and raise fire.

Oh you don't actually have a definition nailed down yet, if I were you I'd drop the good vs evil bit. As you add more to it the good vs evil bit will become meanness anyways. For example monkeys now fit your definition so you have to add more to remove them

 

[Go Braves]

Is there a correlation between understanding & accepting something for most things?

 

[Citanul]

You just named two. As I said, we can add a few more to it, such as wear clothes and raise fire.

So naturists aren't human?

 

[Shemjaza]

I gave a few ideas. They could be refined, of course. But that is the way to do it, rather than depends on genetics and morphology.

That is my point, it is completely unrefined to the point of being meaningless.

You say you don't like divisions based on genetics or morphology... then you need to use divisions based on genetics and morphology to spread your divisions based on technology or morality to entire populations.

You have some basic ideas, but you have no ability to communicate any way to make them either useful or even consistent.

 

[juvenissun]

You've never seen a monkey punish a child for being bad? I have. I've also seen a monkey refuse a treat until his friend got one too.

Doesn't seem like a human only characteristic.

Animal fights when disagreed. Human may say no but no fight. That is what "tell" good and evil mean.

 

[juvenissun]

Oh you don't actually have a definition nailed down yet, if I were you I'd drop the good vs evil bit. As you add more to it the good vs evil bit will become meanness anyways. For example monkeys now fit your definition so you have to add more to remove them

On the contrary, knowing good and evil is the basis for everything else. Monkey is animal. They may angry, but do not know good or evil.

 

[juvenissun]

So naturists aren't human?

If they stay that way for the rest of their life.

 

[juvenissun]

That is my point, it is completely unrefined to the point of being meaningless.

You say you don't like divisions based on genetics or morphology... then you need to use divisions based on genetics and morphology to spread your divisions based on technology or morality to entire populations.

You have some basic ideas, but you have no ability to communicate any way to make them either useful or even consistent.

I like genetics and morphology as sciences. What I am saying is they are not enough as a tool to identify human. If we found skeletons in a cave with fire burning relics, I would say they were human regardless what genetics and morphology say. Practically, it is a very powerful criterion.

 

[juvenissun]

Is there a correlation between understanding & accepting something for most things?

Degree of understanding vs degree of acceptance.
I guess it would be random.

 

[Astrophile]

I, a creationist, define human according to properties given by God. For a living human: a life who can tell good from evil. For a dead human: those who are able to link to human-level intelligence.

Were Adam and Eve human before they ate the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:5-7)? Genesis 3:5 appears to imply that only the gods have the right to know good from evil and that we fell from our original state when we acquired this knowledge.

 

[pitabread]

Degree of understanding vs degree of acceptance.
I guess it would be random.

Not when it comes to the science of evolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You show me a patent that utilizes God and then we'll talk...

That didn't address my comment at all.

But ok, show me something/anything that appeared out of nothing, then we'll talk.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I've learned the hard way there is no point in trying to have a real conversation with you. Thus here we are.

I know, right? When one asks questions the opposing party needs to answer, and when that doesn't happen, it really does make the conversation go belly up..

 

[Speedwell]

That didn't address my comment at all.

But ok, show me something/anything that appeared out of nothing, then we'll talk.

An interesting statement. Creationists frequently ask to be shown that "something" can "come out of nothing" Do you know why that is? Why is it important to bring it up so often?

 

[Kenny'sID]

An interesting statement. Creationists frequently ask to be shown that "something" can "come out of nothing" Do you know why that is? Why is it important to bring it up so often?

I explained that several times.

 

[juvenissun]

Were Adam and Eve human before they ate the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:5-7)? Genesis 3:5 appears to imply that only the gods have the right to know good from evil and that we fell from our original state when we acquired this knowledge.

They are not human as we know. They did not know evil and they were not dying.

 

[juvenissun]

Not when it comes to the science of evolution.

I understand a lot, but I accept zero.

 

[Aman777]

Were Adam and Eve human before they ate the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:5-7)?

All Humankind is a descendant of Adam.

Genesis 3:5 appears to imply that only the gods have the right to know good from evil and that we fell from our original state when we acquired this knowledge.

Amen, since one of the names of God is "The Judges". Knowing both good and evil shows that only God and Humans have the superior intelligence needed to Judge. It's evidence of the literal God since mindless Nature does Not and Cannot put God's superior intelligence into Apes, no matter how much time nor how many mutations occur.