Evolution V Creation

[solidsquid]

It seems to me that those who reject evolution with great confidence often understand it the least. OR, it is a result of having an incorrect idea of what evolution actually is. Then there's the ideology factor - when one sees a theory that appears to contradict a deeply held ideology the theory loses out each time no matter how well supported it is. Therefore, as a consequence of reactance, any presentation of support for that theory will only serve to put the person opposing the theory on the defensive as they view their very ideology as being under attack. This also goes into the maintenance of a position against evolution even with lack of empirical support for the opposing position and massive amount of support for evolutionary theory.

I encountered such behavior, again, lately when responding to a guest column written in my hometown newspaper. The argument stuck upon radiometric dating methodology and even though I addressed the criticisms the individual had, he still had no other rebuttal other than he still disagrees and presented his criticisms again as if I had not addressed them at all.

However, I think the populace at large actually would and do have no real opposition to evolutionary theory but an objection to the distorted idea of what most think evolution is. I remember being in high school and having no real mention of evolutionary theory at all. It wasn't until I entered college that I actually held a good grasp of the theory and through further education - formal and autodidactism, I've see no reason to reject the veracity of evolutionary theory.

I, like Zen Badger, would like to hear rjh4's support for their position.

[TruthWorthy]

I have conversations with theists about evolution from time to time. Most of those conversations have been identical in some respect. Firstly, they don't want to learn what evolution means, but they will ask questions. They either reject the answers instantly because, a) they don't want to learn what it is, ie' don't believe it. b) they've got something to say which is supposedly to challenge "us" at our core, because it's nearly always about "God" with them. Secondly, they tend to have some psudo theories of what evolutionary theory claims which are completely incorrect. 1) the idea that 'one creature becomes another', often with the cats and dogs analogy based on both being related; and 2) Of the varieties of distinct creatures, including mammals, fish, animals, etc, and again, clearly no understanding of population, natural selection, cross breeding, etc. And lastly, the missing links, yorn, lets not bother addressing that one again.

[Darwinian]

So I ask you rjh4 who is the greater animal, man or ape?

Man is greater....by far (because he is not an animal).

Something can either be animal, vegetable or mineral (or possible fungi), if Man is not an animal and we know he is not a vegetable or mineral either then you must think that he is a mushroom :S

[rjh4 is back]

So I ask you rjh4 who is the greater animal, man or ape?

Man is greater....by far (because he is not an animal).

Something can either be animal, vegetable or mineral (or possible fungi), if Man is not an animal and we know he is not a vegetable or mineral either then you must think that he is a mushroom :S

Think harder, Darwinian. I think you will find that there are more categories than animal, vegetable, and mineral. And besides, mankind makes up the categories anyway so I do not have a problem categorizing mankind as separate and distinct from animals.

[Darwinian]

It's because I do think harder that I can see that humans are no more or less a part of the natural world than any other species.

You've only go to pay a visit to the town centre on a friday night to see all the same sort of behaviour that's common throughout the primate world. In fact, most of it would make gentle species like the Gorilla ashamed to think that we share a common ancestor.

[rjh4 is back]

It's because I do think harder that I can see that humans are no more or less a part of the natural world than any other species.

You've only go to pay a visit to the town centre on a friday night to see all the same sort of behaviour that's common throughout the primate world. In fact, most of it would make gentle species like the Gorilla ashamed to think that we share a common ancestor.

While mankind certainly can show behavior that is common throughout the primate world, mankind also has abilities (reasoning and behavior) that are far beyond that which is common throughout the primate world.

[Tiberius]

I fail to see how abilities that go far beyond the primate world somehow mean we aren't members of the primate world. The same can be said of most animals if you study them at length. Certain monkeys have the ability to almost fly through the trees with an inordinate amount of grace. Does that mean they are far beyond the primate world? What exactly is so special about our intelligence that separates us from the animal kingdom? It's the only thing that does. In terms of other attributes, we are very far behind the animal kingdom. Our eyesight, our strength, our speed, our ability to ingest food, etc, etc.

[TruthWorthy]

There's a fanny slapper.

[Zen Badger]

Still to see evidence for a young earth Rjh4

[Edwardo Piet]

Rjh4, even if 'man' was not an animal (and we - humans - are) - how would that make us superior? You say we are superior because we're "not animals" (and of course, we are, but that's besides my additional point here) - what have you got against animals?

EvF