2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton“Actually both of these things are true and there is no contradiction. We are BOTH related to modern apes (through a common ancestor) AND we have a “common design” with modern apes BECAUSE we are related to them. The words “common design” implies a “designer” and that “designer” is evolution which is a totally mindless process.”
[b] ….There are a several ways I'm sure we could look at the data for ape
genes and our analysis could take us a number of different places …
You are wrong. There is only one rational conclusion we can draw from this evidence.
…one being the way you are suggesting there are some things very
common between us and apes, with the focus es? Why not totally arbitrarily pick out, say, chimpanzees; and then say they are not related?
[/b]No, design requires, well design, evolution is like water flowing
down a hill it simply goes where the path takes it no forethought no
design, no personal preference involved, there isn’t any design in
evolution whatsoever, unless you want to put a will and plan in the mix
than you are crediting God not a process for it all.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…however, EITHER way requires some leap of faith don't you think?… (my emphasis)
[b] ….There are a several ways I'm sure we could look at the data for ape
genes and our analysis could take us a number of different places …
You are wrong. There is only one rational conclusion we can draw from this evidence.
…one being the way you are suggesting there are some things very
common between us and apes, with the focus es? Why not totally arbitrarily pick out, say, chimpanzees; and then say they are not related?
"How can “EITHER” way be a “leap of faith” when both ways say we are related to apes and this is based on evidence rather than faith? "
[/b]You are looking at the fossils and telling me how they are connected.
You assume humans and apes sprung from those fossils, you believe
that to be true, to the point you see it, and only it, as the one possibility
for those fossils. There is no room for those fossils to be the ancestors of
the modern apes and monkeys, and not be the ancestors of humans,
you just believe that so it must be true. To suggest otherwise to you is
purely out of bounds, but I have yet to see from you, why that is.
Both ways do not say we are related to apes, one way yes, the way you
believe in common ancestors for both ape, monkey, and humans so that
is one way, but a common design does not make them related outside
of having a common designer, that does not make them flow from the
same gene pool, so they would be completely different then, as they are
now. You suggest something new from what we see today, and that is
at one point they were the same species. You only have your beliefs to
back you up, the way things are today do not follow your beliefs.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"We do not
[b] ….Are you going to forget I was asking you about fossils…
I do not recall you asking me about fossils in this thread.
I think you may have asked me some questions about fossils a few days ago but that was in a different thread I think.
I have looked at every question you have asked me in this thread and I cannot see any mention of ‘fos ...[text shortened]... e to read your question -good one KellyJay! You say I forgot your question before you asked it![/b]
accept that modern apes and man are the same thing today, so why
do we accept it is possible we were in the past, we share many common
genes with modern apes, and we are not thought to be the same
species now, what changes when looking in the past that makes you
accept it?
Kelly"
It took me seconds to find this, and there were others.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNot at all! We could go on and on and on but I am not eager to rewrite here every piece of information about the known facts and evidence from the fields of Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, Geology and Paleoanthropology (for starters) just in order to "proove" the theory of the evolution, which today is the cornerstone of our civilisation. It's all plain to see just a click away from you -for starters:
…however, EITHER way requires some leap of faith don't you think?… (my emphasis)
"How can “EITHER” way be a “leap of faith” when both ways say we are related to apes and this is based on evidence rather than faith? "
You are looking at the fossils and telling me how they are connected.
You assume humans and apes sprung from those fossils, you be ...[text shortened]... ave your beliefs to
back you up, the way things are today do not follow your beliefs.
Kelly[/b]
A Look at Modern Human Origins (http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/) by C. David Kreger
Homo Sapiens (http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Homo_sapiens&contgroup=Homo) Tree of Life web project
Human evolution: the fossil evidence in 3D (http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/🙄 by Philip L. Walker and Edward H. Hagen, Dept of Anthropology, University of California...
Smithsonian Institution has also a thing or two to quote regarding the Human Evolution.
Originally posted by KellyJayI don’t see any mention of “fossils” there.
"We do not
accept that modern apes and man are the same thing today, so why
do we accept it is possible we were in the past, we share many common
genes with modern apes, and we are not thought to be the same
species now, what changes when looking in the past that makes you
accept it?
Kelly"
It took me seconds to find this, and there were others.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay….Really, only one? You have a very narrow mind if you honestly believe
Kelly said, [b] ….There are a several ways I'm sure we could look at the data for ape
genes and our analysis could take us a number of different places … "
Andrew said, "You are wrong. There is only one rational conclusion we can draw from this evidence."
Really, only one? You have a very narrow mind if you honestly believe
that, or you are jus ...[text shortened]... ve been different back then too? I only have
one question for that one, why is that?
Kelly[/b]
that, or you are just a true believer in the face of it all you can only
see it occurring one way. …
Sometimes it is possible to draw a conclusion from the evidence and be rational in also concluding that there is a vanishing small probability of that conclusion being wrong. This is not being “narrow minded” but “rationally minded” to see that there is only one rational conclusion you can draw from the evidence when the evidence for that conclusion is overwhelming and, at the same time, that same evidence is overwhelming against any alternative conclusions that contradict that conclusion. That’s why there is such a thing as “scientific facts”.
…So in the past you can only see one way of looking at
those fossils; the modern day counter parts are not the same we call
human different than apes and monkeys, so logically the only
rational conclusion is the fossils must prove they were the same, they
could not possibly have been different back then too? …
Why would they have been different?
…I only have one question for that one, why is that…
“why is that?” ? Why not? I don’t understand you argument here.
Originally posted by KellyJayHi AH;
This is where I do believe ‘myths/beliefs/faith’ play a major part of
evolutionary theory, you are using Dr. Geoffry Bourne as a source,
cool, but look at what you are doing here! You have a fossils of apes
and monkeys that according to your dating methods predate man,
which has nothing to do with my question, but why do you assume
these are human ance ...[text shortened]... and so on. Hard nut to crack if that
isn’t true, since it comes at us so innocently.
Kelly
this is what KJ asked;
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay….evolution is like water flowing down a hill it simply goes where the path takes it no forethought no design, no personal preference involved, . …
“Actually both of these things are true and there is no contradiction. We are BOTH related to modern apes (through a common ancestor) AND we have a “common design” with modern apes BECAUSE we are related to them. The words “common design” implies a “designer” and that “designer” is evolution which is a totally mindless process.”
No, design requires, ...[text shortened]... t to put a will and plan in the mix
than you are crediting God not a process for it all.
Kelly[/b]
A peculiar analogy with water but; Correct.
…there isn’t any design in evolution whatsoever…
How do you draw that conclusion -unless you are only talking about “conscious design” in which case I would agree. But if you are talking here not about “conscious design” but “blind design” from the mindless process of evolution, then where to you get this idea that evolution cannot perform “blind design” ?
-after all, the theory of evolution implicitly says we and all living things are “designed” by natural selection -if it didn’t, I don’t think it would even be a theory for the creation of the diversity of life.
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay….There is no room for those fossils to be the ancestors of
…however, EITHER way requires some leap of faith don't you think?… (my emphasis)
"How can “EITHER” way be a “leap of faith” when both ways say we are related to apes and this is based on evidence rather than faith? "
You are looking at the fossils and telling me how they are connected.
You assume humans and apes sprung from those fossils, you be ...[text shortened]... ave your beliefs to
back you up, the way things are today do not follow your beliefs.
Kelly[/b]
the modern apes and monkeys, and not be the ancestors of humans,
you just believe that so it must be true. To suggest otherwise to you is
purely out of bounds, but I have yet to see from you, why that is.…
“but I have yet to see from you, WHY that is.”? -I have already told you WHY; it is because there is very strong evidence that we and apes are related.
…Both ways do not say we are related to apes, one way yes, the way you
believe in common ancestors for both ape, monkey, and humans so that
is one way, but a common design does not make them related outside
of having a common designer, that does not make them flow from the
same gene pool,…
“but a common design does not make them related outside of having a common DESIGNER”?
-if they are “related” AND that “common designer” is “evolution” then it must mean they have a common ancestor because that is the only way evolution works. -of course, I can see that what you are really implying here is that this “common designer” is “god”.
…You only have your beliefs to back you up…
No. I have the mountain evidence of science behind those beliefs.
4 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton==========================================
Totally wrong! Of course there is design in Darwinism -Just not the same kind of “design” you are presumably referring to here for it is not “conscious design” or “deliberate design” but “blind design” meaning there is no intelligence behind the design and the “designer” is a totally mindless process.
Although it is a slightly odd way of putting i ...[text shortened]... it!
Totally mindless processes can “design” things and evolution is just one example of that.
Totally wrong! Of course there is design in Darwinism -Just not the same kind of “design” you are presumably referring to here for it is not “conscious design” or “deliberate design” but “blind design” meaning there is no intelligence behind the design and the “designer” is a totally mindless process.
Although it is a slightly odd way of putting it, it is never a less correct to say that the shape of a sand dune is “designed” by the wind.
But that doesn’t imply that the sand dune has a conscious designer -does it!
Totally mindless processes can “design” things and evolution is just one example of that.
======================================
There is quite a bit if difference in the "design" of a sand dune and the "design" of say the human brain, or the human reproductive system.
Now you can believe what you like Andrew. But I do not have enough faith to believe that something like the human brain or the human reproductive system could tumble out of any non-intelligent "design".
Adding a few more billion years does nothing to nullify the sense of the proposterous in this for me.
But you go ahead and believe that if you want to. I think it requires less of a leap of faith to regard an intelligent Creator somewhere behind these systems.
Originally posted by KellyJayTest 1:
You couldn't give me a dssign test for cars that you could also apply
to life could you? I doubt you could, or would even want to either, the
only thing I think you could come up with is that humans make cars
and you have to rely on that, and that alone. In other words, if you
cannot see it you cannot prove it.
Kelly
Do cars have a process of to reproduce other cars? - No = design
Test 2:
IF you can show cars are able to reproduce by themselves, Do they have a "code" which is heritable and recombines / mutates at each generation to produce variability? - No = design
Test 3:
Do the "parts" of a car show a natural affinity to each other? - No = design
I'm sure if someone could be bothered to give you more than 5 minutes of time there would be so many more tests.
We have talked abotu how pointless you analogy is many many times before KJ, so why you bring up the "car" thing again and again I'll never know.
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill[/b] ….There is quite a bit if difference in the "design" of a sand dune and the "design" of say the human brain, or the human reproductive system. .…
[b]==========================================
Totally wrong! Of course there is design in Darwinism -Just not the same kind of “design” you are presumably referring to here for it is not “conscious design” or “deliberate design” but “blind design” meaning there is no intelligence behind the design and the “designer” is a totally mindless process.
A s less of a leap of faith to regard an intelligent Creator somewhere behind these systems.
So?
…Now you can believe what you LIKE Andrew.… (my emphasis)
I don’t believe what I “LIKE” -Like virtually all atheists,
I believe whatever my logic applied to the evidence tells me.
-I have a lot of emotions but no emotions are a part of my belief forming process.
…But I do not have ENOUGH FAITH to believe that something like the human brain or the human reproductive system could tumble out of any non-intelligent "design". … (my emphasis)
You don’t have “ENOUGH” faith for this? You don’t need ANY faith for this!
…But you go ahead and believe that if you WANT to.… (my emphasis)
I don’t believe what I “WANT” .
I hope you would clarify this for me:
do you think you believe what you “WANT”? -if so, do you see any problem with that?
I guess that you will not be convinced by a single thing I say here in this post (especially the bit where I imply atheists are capable of thinking objectively and generally do -you seem to have a “DISLIKE” for that in particular) -and I also guess that the reason for this is because you don’t “WANT” any of this to be true?
…I think it requires LESS of a leap of faith to regard an intelligent Creator somewhere behind these systems.… (my emphasis)
How can it require “LESS” of a leap of faith when the alternative requires no faith?