What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[attofishpi]

Mere "change" is nowhere near "evolution." Evolutionism requires that one species...like cats, say...can become a totally different species...like dogs, eagles or lizards, say. Change within species is very routine and observable: change between species is observable nowhere.

And change between apes and humans is an absurdity, and a genetic impossibility, though Evolutionism taught it as dogma for decades, and claimed it was also "fact." It behooves us, therefore, to be a little cautious about people who tell us that "X is a fact" or "X is Science (capital "S," the dogma)."

So are you suggesting that you believe birds evolved from dinosaurs over millions of years, but GOD put humans on Earth?

How long ago did GOD put humans on Earth?

[Immanuel Can]

Mere "change" is nowhere near "evolution." Evolutionism requires that one species...like cats, say...can become a totally different species...like dogs, eagles or lizards, say. Change within species is very routine and observable: change between species is observable nowhere.

And change between apes and humans is an absurdity, and a genetic impossibility, though Evolutionism taught it as dogma for decades, and claimed it was also "fact." It behooves us, therefore, to be a little cautious about people who tell us that "X is a fact" or "X is Science (capital "S," the dogma)."

So are you suggesting that you believe birds evolved from dinosaurs over millions of years, but GOD put humans on Earth?

I am saying (hardly "suggesting") that the Biblical record tells us that mankind was a unique creation, not simply a part of the original creation. And I was pointing out that we all know that man does not fit into the creation as merely "one of the animals," and that the stories told by environmentalists and other secular moralizers happen to agree with the Biblical account on that sole point -- everybody realizes that mankind is exceptional and special, even when they don't agree on why.

How long ago did GOD put humans on Earth?

The Bible does not say. Some have tried to calculate by way of genealogies, and some by tradition. I do neither. I simply note that the record does not say. But what we do know is that man was not the product of a progressivist, evolutionary development, but of a distinct, decisive act by God. That's what makes men special: they were, as the Bible says, "made in the image of God," which is a thing never said of any other being.

[Will Bouwman]

...neither one has anything close to enough transitional forms to support it, either in the fossil record or now.

One of the things you clearly do not understand is that, according to the theory of evolution, every living organism that has ever existed, or ever will, is a transitional form.

That's actually verifiably not true. What we have, instead, are "species."

What we have are animals that would look exactly the same whether transitional or fixed. So we have two hypotheses supported by the same evidence.
We have a fossil record which might be evidence for a global conspiracy and/or spectacular incompetence based on:

...bits of jawbone and leftovers of midgets with rickets...

But since the fossil record is a bit more extensive than you are aware, it might equally be evidence for human evolution.
My point is not to prove you wrong, it is to find out whether you are secure enough in your own beliefs that you can entertain rival hypotheses without having to misrepresent them in order to make them seem foolish, thereby insulting others simply for having a different opinion to you. Simply: do you understand that evidence can support different hypotheses, and can you show respect for beliefs you don't happen to hold?

[Age]

Mere "change" is nowhere near "evolution." Evolutionism requires that one species...like cats, say...can become a totally different species...like dogs, eagles or lizards, say. Change within species is very routine and observable: change between species is observable nowhere.

And change between apes and humans is an absurdity, and a genetic impossibility, though Evolutionism taught it as dogma for decades, and claimed it was also "fact." It behooves us, therefore, to be a little cautious about people who tell us that "X is a fact" or "X is Science (capital "S," the dogma)."

So are you suggesting that you believe birds evolved from dinosaurs over millions of years, but GOD put humans on Earth?

I am saying (hardly "suggesting") that the Biblical record tells us that mankind was a unique creation,

But, NO one NEEDS a bible, NOR a so-called 'biblical record' to KNOW that human beings are a unique creation. There is NOT A single thing that is NOT A unique creation, and this goes for EVERY one of you human beings, INDIVIDUALLY, as well.

Also, the 'biblical record' ALSO STATES that "eve" came from "adam", and that the word 'adam' means or refers to 'earth', itself. Which MEANS that the first human beings/s came from earth. Which is ANOTHER WAY of SAYING and STATING that ALL things are 'created', through and by 'evolution', itself.

not simply a part of the original creation.

LOL The 'original creation' LOL

So, 'now' this 'Thing', with a penis and gonads, which you call God, created EVERY thing, in and at the so-called 'original creation', but then LATER ON created human beings, right?

And I was pointing out that we all know that man does not fit into the creation as merely "one of the animals," and that the stories told by environmentalists and other secular moralizers happen to agree with the Biblical account on that sole point -- everybody realizes that mankind is exceptional and special, even when they don't agree on why.

What are you even on ABOUT, here, "immanuel can"?

I do NOT know of ANY human being, here, who does NOT know that 'humans' ARE 'animals'. And, thus ARE 'one of the animals'. If you do NOT YET KNOW 'this Fact', then what do you consider or BELIEVE you humans ARE, EXACTLY, if you are NOT 'an animal'?

That EACH and EVERY 'thing' IS UNIQUE, and thus IS SPECIAL, is NOTHING REALLY that EXCITING in and of itself.

If EVERY 'body', SUPPOSEDLY, realizes that 'humankind" is EXCEPTIONAL and SPECIAL, then in regards to 'WHAT', EXACTLY?

Human beings ability to STAY underwater or up in the air is NOT that EXCEPTIONAL NOR that SPECIAL AT ALL, REALLY. A LOT OF OTHER animals are FAR MORE EXCEPTIONAL, and thus SPECIAL, in regards to these things.

So, AGAIN, what do you BELIEVE you human beings are EXCEPTIONAL and SPECIAL AT or IN regards TO, EXACTLY?

How long ago did GOD put humans on Earth?

The Bible does not say. Some have tried to calculate by way of genealogies, and some by tradition. I do neither. I simply note that the record does not say.

LOL 'This one' ACTUALLY USES A MULTIPLE TIMED TRANSLATED, and unsubstantiated, book as 'the record' for things and knowledge.

But what we do know is that man was not the product of a progressivist, evolutionary development, but of a distinct, decisive act by God.

you ARE an ABSOLUTELY DELUDED being "immanuel can".

And, the VERY REASON WHY you can NOT back up and support just about EVERY thing you SAY and CLAIM, here, IS BECAUSE NO one can back up and support DELUSIONS.

That's what makes men special: they were, as the Bible says, "made in the image of God," which is a thing never said of any other being.

LOL If 'this one' was 'brought up' or 'raised' in ANY 'theology' or 'religion', then it would ALSO be 'TRYING TO' CLAIM that whatever it BELIEVED WAS TRUE, IS TRUE BECAUSE 'it' is SAID and WRITTEN IN 'whatever book' that 'theology religion' USES.

LOL 'man is special for NO other reason than because it is said and written that 'man is special' in A book. LOL

[Alexiev]

[
I am saying (hardly "suggesting") that the Biblical record tells us that mankind was a unique creation, not simply a part of the original creation. And I was pointing out that we all know that man does not fit into the creation as merely "one of the animals," and that the stories told by environmentalists and other secular moralizers happen to agree with the Biblical account on that sole point -- everybody realizes that mankind is exceptional and special, even when they don't agree on why.

How long ago did GOD put humans on Earth?

The Bible does not say. Some have tried to calculate by way of genealogies, and some by tradition. I do neither. I simply note that the record does not say. But what we do know is that man was not the product of a progressivist, evolutionary development, but of a distinct, decisive act by God. That's what makes men special: they were, as the Bible says, "made in the image of God," which is a thing never said of any other being.

Actually, most reasonable people believe ("know") no such thing. Yes, humans are "exceptional". The same can be said of every other species. That's what makes them "species".

If humans are made "in the image of God", then God must be "in the image of man".

"Progessivist" implies a moral evaluation of evolution. Humans -- like all other species -- are exceptional. "Superior"? The result of "progress"? Only from a particular perspective (i.e. an egotistical human one).

[Immanuel Can]

One of the things you clearly do not understand is that, according to the theory of evolution, every living organism that has ever existed, or ever will, is a transitional form.

That's actually verifiably not true. What we have, instead, are "species."

What we have are animals that would look exactly the same whether transitional or fixed.

That's not the case at all. They wouldn't look the same: we'd have multitudinous transitional forms, especially since evolution is supposed to be gradual and long-term.

My point is not to prove you wrong,

Well, isn't that a little convenient? It saves anybody having to explain the lack of transitional forms: no point to prove, no evidence required. But I still think evolutionists owe us an explanation for that complete dearth of transitional forms that their own theory would make us expect.

Simply: do you understand that evidence can support different hypotheses,

Yes, but not equally. One can, for example, take the presence of a dead body, a suicide note and a smoking gun as evidence of a murder or suicide. But not equally, because either there will be powder burns on the man's hands, or there will not. Either the note will be in his own handwriting, or not. Either there will be evidence of someone else in the room at the time of the killing, or not. And only one explanation will be the truth.

However, that's a case where the evidence is roughly equal. In the present case, it's clearly not. The absence of the requisite evidence of human evolution, the lack of transtional forms, speaks eloquently to the effect that one theory is plausible, and the other has the earmarks of a yarn.

and can you show respect for beliefs you don't happen to hold?

Well, I prefer to show respect for persons, and I can show respect for a person who holds a belief I do not hold. That's the limit of justified "respect," especially in philosphical discussion. The point, in philosophical discussion, is not to "respect" false ideas, but to test all of them, without prejudice for or against the belief because a particular person holds it. That's a reverse form of ad hominem fallacy -- ad hom is criticizing the speaker instead of the belief, and this would be refusing to criticize the belief out of misguided concern that the speaker will be upset thereby.

It does not matter WHO holds a belief, but rather what the truth-value of his belief is. And "respect," in such a context, consists in providing vigorous and honest debate to discover which of that person's beliefs are warranted, and which should be abandoned. One is "respecting" another person's beliefs by treating it as worthy of this kind of attention, discussion and examination. And you are also showing concern for his person, and thus giving the speaker full respect. By helping him to the truth, you are respecting his value as a person. Disrespect, then, would consist in refusing to help him deliver himself from a false belief, because then we have ceased to care what happens to him. In such a case, we would have abandoned him to his error.

[Immanuel Can]

I am saying (hardly "suggesting") that the Biblical record tells us that mankind was a unique creation, not simply a part of the original creation. And I was pointing out that we all know that man does not fit into the creation as merely "one of the animals," and that the stories told by environmentalists and other secular moralizers happen to agree with the Biblical account on that sole point -- everybody realizes that mankind is exceptional and special, even when they don't agree on why.

How long ago did GOD put humans on Earth?

The Bible does not say. Some have tried to calculate by way of genealogies, and some by tradition. I do neither. I simply note that the record does not say. But what we do know is that man was not the product of a progressivist, evolutionary development, but of a distinct, decisive act by God. That's what makes men special: they were, as the Bible says, "made in the image of God," which is a thing never said of any other being.

Actually, most reasonable people believe ("know") no such thing. Yes, humans are "exceptional". The same can be said of every other species. That's what makes them "species".

Well, that's a trivial observation. Even inert objects like rocks are "exceptional" from other rocks in that sense: no two are alike. But we're talking about sea-change kinds of differences, and in this case, unique responsibility for the entire globe, and moral accountability -- things which lower animals do not possess in lesser degree, but do not possess at all.

If humans are made "in the image of God", then God must be "in the image of man".

That's not logical, actually. It mistakes the prototype for the antitype. That logic would say, "Since the statue is in the image of Caesar, Caesar must have been made in the image of a statue."

"Progessivist" implies a moral evaluation of evolution.

Well, it's true that that's exactly what Moral Evolutionists hope it is. And many naive people seem to imagine that's what's going on, too: that the human race is getting morally better. They think, so to speak, that morality develops along with the retraction of the putative "prehensile tail." But there's zero historical evidence it does. However, "progressive" is an ambiguous word: it can mean moral progress or physical progress. One can be said to make "progress" toward Boston, or "progress" toward moral perfection. It's an adjective, and applies to different nouns.

I was only using it in the latter sense: Evolutionism posits that man "progressively" developed into the physical form in which we now find him. I leave aside any question of his moral improvement as a corollary: there's certainly no evidence for that.

[Alexiev]

[
Well, that's a trivial observation. Even inert objects like rocks are "exceptional" from other rocks in that sense: no two are alike. But we're talking about sea-change kinds of differences, and in this case, unique responsibility for the entire globe, and moral accountability -- things which lower animals do not possess in lesser degree, but do not possess at all.

[]
That's not logical, actually. It mistakes the prototype for the antitype. That logic would say, "Since the statue is in the image of Caesar, Caesar must have been made in the image of a statue."

"Progessivist" implies a moral evaluation of evolution.

Well, it's true that that's exactly what Moral Evolutionists hope it is. And many naive people seem to imagine that's what's going on, too: that the human race is getting morally better. They think, so to speak, that morality develops along with the retraction of the putative "prehensile tail." But there's zero historical evidence it does. However, "progressive" is an ambiguous word: it can mean moral progress or physical progress. One can be said to make "progress" toward Boston, or "progress" toward moral perfection. It's an adjective, and applies to different nouns.

I was only using it in the latter sense: Evolutionism posits that man "progressively" developed into the physical form in which we now find him. I leave aside any question of his moral improvement as a corollary: there's certainly no evidence for that.

You are wrong on (almost) all counts. "Unique responsibility"? According to whom? "Lower" (sic) animals have no moral responsibility? Have you ever had any experience with or knowledge of non-human animals? If you had, you would know better. My pets have clearly felt moral responsibility.

Clearly, God is depicted "in the image of man". Haven't you seen the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, or any of the other paintings depicting God? Good grief! This is pretty obvious.

"Progress" is not ambiguous. It suggests movement toward a goal or destination. Using the word in discussing evolution suggests some desired end -- in your case, that end bring semi-divine humanity. That's why I dislike "liberal" morphing into "Progressive" in the political arena. "Liberal" suggests open-minded and generous in thought and deed. "Progressive" suggests marching in jack-booted lock step toward some predetermined goal.

P.s. I once had a very smart dog -- a samoyed with a little collie mixed in. My son's mother was pregnant, and we lived in Arizona, so we drove to the river at the edge of town for a swim. Ali Khan (the dog) went swimming with me, but when his pregnant mistress tried to get in the water, he grabbed the seat of her bathing suit in his teeth and pulled. He would not let her go swimming. Don't tell me he had no sense of responsibility, or duty, or that he couldn't be aware about pregnancy (he normally had no compunction about letting her swim). Lots of non- human animals practice moral volition.

[Immanuel Can]

[
Well, that's a trivial observation. Even inert objects like rocks are "exceptional" from other rocks in that sense: no two are alike. But we're talking about sea-change kinds of differences, and in this case, unique responsibility for the entire globe, and moral accountability -- things which lower animals do not possess in lesser degree, but do not possess at all.

[]
That's not logical, actually. It mistakes the prototype for the antitype. That logic would say, "Since the statue is in the image of Caesar, Caesar must have been made in the image of a statue."

"Progessivist" implies a moral evaluation of evolution.

Well, it's true that that's exactly what Moral Evolutionists hope it is. And many naive people seem to imagine that's what's going on, too: that the human race is getting morally better. They think, so to speak, that morality develops along with the retraction of the putative "prehensile tail." But there's zero historical evidence it does. However, "progressive" is an ambiguous word: it can mean moral progress or physical progress. One can be said to make "progress" toward Boston, or "progress" toward moral perfection. It's an adjective, and applies to different nouns.

I was only using it in the latter sense: Evolutionism posits that man "progressively" developed into the physical form in which we now find him. I leave aside any question of his moral improvement as a corollary: there's certainly no evidence for that.

You are wrong on (almost) all counts. "Unique responsibility"? According to whom?

According to every environmentalist and every secular moralist. Have you been reading what we've been talking about?

My pets have clearly felt moral responsibility.

Your proof, dear sir?

Clearly, God is depicted "in the image of man". Haven't you seen the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, or any of the other paintings depicting God? Good grief! This is pretty obvious.

All you mean is that man tries to depict God. That's trivial. He's always wrong.

"Progress" is not ambiguous.

Yes, the word "progressive" is ambiguous, and it's adjectival. If you don't know that, I can't help you. Get a dictionary, I guess.

[Alexiev]

My pets have clearly felt moral responsibility.

Your proof, dear sir?

I offered not proof, but evidence. I've got plenty more where that came from. You conveniently omitted it when quoting my post.

There's not much "evidence" that man was created in God's image. Just an ancient and ambiguous text -- which is clearly ambiguous because "image" refers to a visual representation, and as you say, nobody knows what God looks like. (I admit I don't know the Hebrew word translated as "image".)

[Immanuel Can]

My pets have clearly felt moral responsibility.

Your proof, dear sir?

I offered not proof, but evidence.

Hairsplitting. Just answer the question, please.

I've got plenty more where that came from. You conveniently omitted it when quoting my post.

Oh? You think your personal impression constitutes evidence? Sorry, it doesn't. It's just as capable of being interpreted as instictual or trained behaviour. What you'd need to show is that your dog has consciousness of right and wrong without you training him into it. Otherwise, it could just as easily be instinctual behavior or that which is produced by rewards-and-punishments.

So give evidence warranting your belief that when your dog cringes or begs, he does so on a moral principle.

[Alexiev]

Your proof, dear sir?

I offered not proof, but evidence.

Hairsplitting. Just answer the question, please.

I've got plenty more where that came from. You conveniently omitted it when quoting my post.

Oh? You think your personal impression constitutes evidence? Sorry, it doesn't. It's just as capable of being interpreted as instictual or trained behaviour. What you'd need to show is that your dog has consciousness of right and wrong without you training him into it. Otherwise, it could just as easily be instinctual behavior or that which is produced by rewards-and-punishments.

So give evidence warranting your belief that when your dog cringes or begs, he does so on a moral principle.

Why would I "need to show" anything? Why wouldn't you "need to show" that the simplest, most direct explanation for seeming moral volition (acc. Ockham's razor) is somehow incorrect? You're the one who is asserting unique moral status for humans, not me. I'm simply questioning your assertion. Where's your proof?

Surprise, surprise! You don't have any. You also appear to lack any reasonable argument in support of your assertion-- as I point out in my last posts.

[Immanuel Can]

I offered not proof, but evidence.

Hairsplitting. Just answer the question, please.

I've got plenty more where that came from. You conveniently omitted it when quoting my post.

Oh? You think your personal impression constitutes evidence? Sorry, it doesn't. It's just as capable of being interpreted as instictual or trained behaviour. What you'd need to show is that your dog has consciousness of right and wrong without you training him into it. Otherwise, it could just as easily be instinctual behavior or that which is produced by rewards-and-punishments.

So give evidence warranting your belief that when your dog cringes or begs, he does so on a moral principle.

Why would I "need to show" anything?

It's called, "having rational grounds to assert a claim."

[Will Bouwman]

...I still think evolutionists owe us an explanation for that complete dearth of transitional forms that their own theory would make us expect.

Well, again, according to evolutionary theory, every living thing is a transitional form.
Is this really what is you think is missing?

...chicken-to-man or banana-to-man...

[Alexiev]

[

Why would I "need to show" anything?

It's called, "having rational grounds to assert a claim."

You can't be this dense IC. You are the one asserting a claim (that humans are uniquely moral). I'm questioning your claim by providing evidence to the contrary. It's bizarre that you accuse me (incorrectly) of precisely your own behavior.