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

[Shemjaza]

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.

This definition is much better, more clear and more useful than those used by evolutionist.

How can you use "human level intelligence" as a part of your definition of human?

 

[durangodawood]

For those who are deceived, they are not trying to protect anything.
For those who are not deceived, there is no need to protect anything.
For those who are not sure about what evolution is, I attack it to show them the deception.

If you are not so faithful to evolution yet, do you want to hear some my logic/scientific attacks to it?

No. I've already decided to stop arguing this topic with people who've pre-decided that a theological commitment will trump any evidence or reasoning. Its like going down a "flat-earth" rabbit hole.

When scientists who actually work in this field find evidence to cause some re-thinking, then I'm all ears.

 

[46AND2]

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.

This definition is much better, more clear and more useful than those used by evolutionist.

So, apparently a human infant is not human. Good thing they won't be able to understand you when you tell them so.

 

[EJ M]

And that has what to do with the theory of evolution?

Renders it impossible, promoted by deluded charlatans.

 

[46AND2]

Renders it impossible, promoted by deluded charlatans.

Wow. That's amazing. Incredible that scientists haven't considered that. How did you ever figure it out?.

Oh...wait, that's right, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.

 

[jacknife]

Renders it impossible, promoted by deluded charlatans.

If something ever evolved from nothing all of us who have studied the TOE would have to give it up.

 

[durangodawood]

If something ever evolved from nothing all of us who have studied the TOE would have to give it up.

I dont think so. All the vast evidence for TOE would still be there. You would have simply identified a different type of evolution at work in whatever rare case it applies to.

 

[jacknife]

I dont think so. All the vast evidence for TOE would still be there. You would have simply identified a different type of evolution at work in whatever rare case it applies to.

Good point.

 

[juvenissun]

So like a person with severe mental issues or dementai arnt human??

I believe they still can tell good from evil to a certain degree.

 

[juvenissun]

How can you use "human level intelligence" as a part of your definition of human?

That is a good question. I can not give an inclusive definition. But I can give many examples, such as raise fire, wear clothes, drill holes, etc.

 

[juvenissun]

No. I've already decided to stop arguing this topic with people who've pre-decided that a theological commitment will trump any evidence or reasoning. Its like going down a "flat-earth" rabbit hole.

When scientists who actually work in this field find evidence to cause some re-thinking, then I'm all ears.

It is not easy to find “evidence” to show that evolution does not work. But it is pretty easy to give example on things evolution never works. An example is what I talked about the idea of “backward evolution”. It should happen, but we have never seen it.

 

[juvenissun]

So, apparently a human infant is not human. Good thing they won't be able to understand you when you tell them so.

Good thought and tricky argument. But it has logic problem.
“human infant”, why do you need the word “human” to describe it? Or the word “infant” itself has the meaning of human infant? Would you call baby dog as “infant”?

I am not sure if an infant can tell good from evil subconsciously, but all human treat infant as human. There must be a good reason to it.

 

[46AND2]

Good thought and tricky argument. But it has logic problem.
“human infant”, why do you need the word “human” to describe it? Or the word “infant” itself has the meaning of human infant? Would you call baby dog as “infant”?

I am not sure if an infant can tell good from evil subconsciously, but all human treat infant as human. There must be a good reason to it.

Science's definition of human includes infants...just sayin

 

[juvenissun]

Science's definition of human includes infants...just sayin

No definition of any life includes infant.
Not sure why.

 

[Shemjaza]

That is a good question. I can not give an inclusive definition. But I can give many examples, such as raise fire, wear clothes, drill holes, etc.

What about populations with the intelligence to utilise those techniques, but just never happened to develop them on any large scale?

No definition of any life includes infant.
Not sure why.

Seems like a serious oversight. I think your definition of human is probably non feasible if it creates situations where part of a single family is human and part is not.

 

[durangodawood]

It is not easy to find “evidence” to show that evolution does not work. But it is pretty easy to give example on things evolution never works. An example is what I talked about the idea of “backward evolution”. It should happen, but we have never seen it.

There have been examples of body component evolving toward simplicity, and complex parts going away altogether.

Or do you mean something else?

 

[juvenissun]

What about populations with the intelligence to utilise those techniques, but just never happened to develop them on any large scale?

No. It has to be the intelligence of individuals.
Any (?) animal in the animal world can do a certain amazing things. I do not call them intelligence. They are only survival functions.

Ahh, find another feature characterizes human-level intelligence: painting or drawing.

 

[juvenissun]

There have been examples of body component evolving toward simplicity, and complex parts going away altogether.

Or do you mean something else?

I mean the direction of evolution synchronized to environmental change. Applied to your example, we should see some components (functions) became simpler, then at some other times, also became more complicated.

 

[durangodawood]

I mean the direction of evolution synchronized to environmental change. Applied to your example, we should see some components (functions) became simpler, then at some other times, also became more complicated.

???

We absolutely see that. Eyes evolving away as species move to dark habitats, and so on.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

???

We absolutely see that. Eyes evolving away as species move to dark habitats, and so on.

How exactly does this happen? There are no 'holes' in the theory but plenty in the math.