Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

Views: 445

Comment by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2014 at 5:09pm

Dear me.  @S. Graham, let me perhaps respond from the perspective of a fellow theist.

If science is right, and we evolved from monkeys and apes, then why are there still some monkeys and apes that didn't evolve??

The proper way to look at it is that modern apes and homo sapiens both evolved from a common ancestor.

Science is being used to prove that God doesn't exist by saying that we evolved from monkeys and apes and we are stupid enough to not only fall for it, but not even question it???

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

WHAT was bred with monkeys and apes to get humans??

Nothing.  Humans simply became differentiated from apes.  We grew apart.  If you like, God, operating through the laws of Nature which he wrote, brought into existence a new species.

Of course, if there IS documented proof from a billion years ago, please, by all means show me!!

Dear me.  Your time scales are off quite a bit.  The last common ancestor between modern apes and humans existed about 7 million years ago. 

Why are we so ready to jump on the evolution bandwagon without actual empirical proof?

Because direct empirical observation of many causal processes is very difficult, especially if those processes take hundreds of thousands of years.  So instead we operate by preponderance of the evidence.  I'm not aware that we have ever seen nicotine and tar directly cause a mutation into lung cancer, but we accept by preponderance of the evidence that smoking can cause lung cancer. 

Truly, who on this earth has that experience??? Everyone we know who has presented the so-called "facts" did not exist in the time they allegedly say these things took place.

I think you're mixing things up a bit.  The "facts" are our observations of the current, modern world. It is not necessary to have actual observers of a 10,000 year old meteor impact to look at an impact crater and ascertain that a meteor hit there. 

Comment by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2014 at 5:20pm

Truly, who on this earth has that experience??? Everyone we know who has presented the so-called "facts" did not exist in the time they allegedly say these things took place.

I think you're mixing things up a bit.  The "facts" are our observations of the current, modern world. It is not necessary to have actual observers of a 10,000 year old meteor impact to look at an impact crater and ascertain that a meteor hit there.

You are correct, however, that there is a built-in assumption there.  We assume in making that statement the existence of Natural Law - that the world works according to underlying laws, and that those laws were the same 10,000 years ago as they are now.  Natural Law is in its origins a Christian notion, based on the notion of one God as Creator and Lawgiver. 

So you see, to reject the notion of Natural Law and claim that we need actual observers 10,000 years ago because the laws of physics or chemistry might have been different back then is to reject the Christian understanding of God and Creation. 

Comment by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2014 at 8:56pm

We aren't. Laws describe how things interact.

And therein is the assumption exactly. 

Nowadays within Western culture that assumption that the way "things" interact is governed by discernible natural law seems self-evident, just as the concept of zero or negative numbers seem self-evident.  None of those, however, were at all self-evident to historical humanity, nor even to communities within modern humanity.  Animism and most forms of polytheism in fact preclude notions of natural law, because the behaviors of things are governed by their own spirits or the capricious activities of various gods.   Even modern "New Age" animists necessarily abandon scientific thought.

Thus the development of belief in natural law and consequently the emergence of science were dependent on the development of Creator-Monotheism, and emerged in cultures where such belief was pervasive. 

We're talking about well over a thousand years of history with innumerable contributions across multitudinous cultures. 'Christian origins' is a gross over-simplification.

Yes, there is considerable complexity, and new ideas generally develop in complex ways.  Nonetheless, for the purposes of @S. Graham's reasoning as a Christian theist, he must accept the Christian fundamental belief in Natural Law which is the consequence of identifying God as Creator.  In turn, he must also accept that where his statements run contrary to Natural Law they are necessarily non-Christian and mistaken. 

Comment by S. Graham on June 19, 2014 at 9:34am

@fronkey farmer. You are wrong and quite mistaken. I have studied Evolution and was a very enthusiastic student of it for many years. It was through the process of studying it, that I found the conflicts that caused me to question things. I have never been one to just accept things as they are presented. So much for your presumptions.

Comment by Strega on June 19, 2014 at 9:42am
So you have studied Evolution yet you are under the impression that it argues that man descended from monkeys? Extraordinary. Where did you carry out your studies? I think you may have a case for demanding a refund from your teaching establishment.
Comment by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on June 19, 2014 at 4:20pm

@S. Graham – So you think it presumptuous of me to have assumed you have little or no knowledge of the workings of Evolution? When you asked “If science is right, and we evolved from monkeys and apes, then why are there still some monkeys and apes that didn't evolve??” you showed your level of knowledge of the subject. This is after you had been “a very enthusiastic student of it for many years”.

I do not believe you. It is comparable to someone asking “why does ice melt” and then claiming that they have studied Chemistry for many years.

If I am mistaken as you claim and you have expertise in this area then please furnish me with some of the reasons why you do not accept that Evolution is true. I assume (or again, presume) it is because you are a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim who gets their Science from one book only. I also assume that you accept “Intelligent Design” as a valid alternative “theory” and that you only do so, not because of any academic endeavours on your behalf, but because you were told what to believe and how to think by some self-appointed preacher.

If you have actually gone “through the process of studying it” would you care to share with us what conflicts you found that led you to question it. If you don’t I will continue to assume that I am not “wrong and quite mistaken”.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Forum

Is WBC an elaborate prank?

Started by Dante in Small Talk. Last reply by _Robert_ 2 hours ago. 5 Replies

Got Milk? Throw It Away..

Started by Elli Leimone in Society. Last reply by Elli Leimone 3 hours ago. 35 Replies

On The Lighter Side...

Started by Elli Leimone in Art. Last reply by Elli Leimone 4 hours ago. 2 Replies

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service