No. No evidence, just repeated claims that "my interpretation is the one true interpretation". Didn't see that coming.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution of what?
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
That's like looking at a lawyer and assuming he was born with a law degree rather than having to develop their knowledge over time throughout their life.
Why not just go with the obviously more realistic answer: that the earliest civilisations we know of probably weren't the first civilisations, and that their knowledge was very likely built on centuries and centuries of development that came before them. We already know that's literally how life, knowledge and civilisations work.
Well, that's what the evidence shows: humans are intelligent beings from the very first moment they appear...
Where is the evidence of that?
Evolutionists pretend to be very skeptics when there's no evidence... but it seems that not so much, when it is not convenient for them.
If they supposedly find links between species much older than "homo sapiens", how difficult should it be for them to find apes that know how to count or speak or plant crops or domesticate animals, etc.?
Last edited:
I wonder how there can be evidence and no evidence at the same time. Or is it that some people don't understand the evidence or ignore the evidence that doesn't support their personal views?
Where is this evidence that civilization represents the very first time that humans appear? I don't think ancient Sumerian culture started 300,000 years ago. There is no evidence for that.
What about Chinese or Australian Aborigine civilization. There is some evidence that Aboriginal civilization is the oldest at 50-70 thousand years and unlike later civilizations?
Where is this evidence that civilization represents the very first time that humans appear? I don't think ancient Sumerian culture started 300,000 years ago. There is no evidence for that.
What about Chinese or Australian Aborigine civilization. There is some evidence that Aboriginal civilization is the oldest at 50-70 thousand years and unlike later civilizations?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, it doesn't show that. In fact, it's pretty obvious that, from birth, a human being isn't very intelligent at all - we literally don't even have the intelligence to survive almost a single day on our own. So it stands to reason that any knowledge we obtain is based on knowledge that is passed down.
The existence of civilisation.
Because there's a thing called "logical inference". The evidence we have is the evidence we observe in the world around us. For what we suppose to be true, we need only assume that the world works in some way that is consistent with the observations we make; the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west, and has done for all of recorded time - therefore, it is a logical inference to assume within reason that this truism holds for at least as long as the earth has been said to be orbiting the sun. For your supposition to be true, by contrast, you must assume that at some arbitrary point in the past all the laws of nature, knowledge, development and civilisation suddenly stop working in any way that is consistent with what we observe. Like assuming that, because we have no records from 1,000,000 years ago, it is just as reasonable to assume that the sun rose in the north and set in the east.
It's the equivalent of me suggesting that because today is Monday and tomorrow will be Tuesday, it is very likely that next Monday will be followed by a Tuesday. Meanwhile, you're claiming that, even though you accept that today is Monday and tomorrow will be Tuesday, you think - because of an absence of evidence - that it is reasonable to assume that next Monday will be followed by Saturday.
About as hard as finding any other fossilised beings; that is, extremely very hard indeed. We can't really claim, in any definitive way, the level of civilizational development of our most distant ancestors. That doesn't mean it's suddenly reasonable to assume our ancestors were born with the knowledge to build huts and form societies.If they supposedly find links between species much older than "homo sapiens", how difficult should it be for them to find apes that know how to count or speak or plant crops or domesticate animals, etc.?
Common sense dictates that a society as civilized as the Sumerian, which barely existed less than 6 thousand years ago, has a previous society that gave way to its existence. At the very least we would hope that there are communities that already developed aspects that converged on it shortly after.
Evolutionists lack any evidence that there have been at least communities with some level of advancement that have given way to an advanced society like the Sumerian.
You cannot do science based on speculation.
Evolutionists lack any evidence that there have been at least communities with some level of advancement that have given way to an advanced society like the Sumerian.
You cannot do science based on speculation.
More claims without evidence. I didn't expect that.
The theory of evolution is based on the logical review of the evidence and has stood the test of time.
If humans were created fully intelligent and ready to go online right out of the box, why not just make modern civilization 5,000 years ago? Why the long learning curve?
Why are there 300,000 year old fossils of humans and then 295,000 years later, the first evidence of civilization? That doesn't reflect the claim that humans were created fully knowledgeable to start creating civilizations. And why the different civilizations in different places? All the same people with all the same knowledge right?
Creationist challenges don't seem to be on a careful study and understanding of the evidence and the offer of rational alternatives to the scientific explanations. Just empty claims based on how they feel about things.
The theory of evolution is based on the logical review of the evidence and has stood the test of time.
If humans were created fully intelligent and ready to go online right out of the box, why not just make modern civilization 5,000 years ago? Why the long learning curve?
Why are there 300,000 year old fossils of humans and then 295,000 years later, the first evidence of civilization? That doesn't reflect the claim that humans were created fully knowledgeable to start creating civilizations. And why the different civilizations in different places? All the same people with all the same knowledge right?
Creationist challenges don't seem to be on a careful study and understanding of the evidence and the offer of rational alternatives to the scientific explanations. Just empty claims based on how they feel about things.
They claim to know what happened hundreds of thousands of years ago, and they have no idea how the Sumerian civilization achieved such advancement just about 5 thousand years ago.
Göbekli Tepe is 9,500 years old. That seems like evidence. What about all the ancient tools that keep turning up that are thousands, hundreds of thousands and even millions of years old indicating the slow advance of learning and technology prior to civiliaztion?
Are these things that creationist know about or consider in making their vast, sweeping claims of sovereign knowledge?
Are these things that creationist know about or consider in making their vast, sweeping claims of sovereign knowledge?
The irony is that in denying these observations and evidence, creationists are claiming to know what happened and didn't happen hundreds of thousands of years ago all the way up to several thousand years ago while declaring that others can't know this.
From what I have seen, I conclude it to be an intellectual quicksand that just seems to get deeper and more dangerous for those sorts of limited, biased conclusions.
From what I have seen, I conclude it to be an intellectual quicksand that just seems to get deeper and more dangerous for those sorts of limited, biased conclusions.
I presume that that was your answer to my question regarding your larger point. You also wrote, "The intellect belongs exclusively to humans, and therefore, they were originally created with that capacity." There is no argument that on earth, only humanity has the intellect necessary to create civilization and use symbolic thought to communicate and calculate, so I don't see why you want to make that point over a dozen or more posts. And your final clause referring to man being created doesn't follow from the fact that only man has intellect. Naturalistic evolution remains the best explanation for that.
Why? Because we know evolution occurs naturally without divine oversight. In fact, you can't stop it unless you sterilize the earth. Your hypothesis requires the existence of an unseen supernational realm and a deity to create and perhaps to modify nature, whereas the scientific one explains what we see in the world without such unfounded assumptions.
There was no first moment when human beings appeared and human intelligence evolved over millions of years. We have evidence of that predating the advent of civilization and writing. Man tamed fire, wore clothing, built increasingly sophisticated tools, domesticated animals, and navigated the waters, none of which require permanent settlements or language.
It's very easy. This thread has several, although you probably meant non-human apes. You won't find other animals of any kind using words or rotating crops. You seem to think that that argues for divine creation, although you still haven't said so explicitly or made the argument that connects that fact to creationism.
You said that, "My comment is clear enough." I still don't know what your argument is. Can we assume that you can't elaborate it because you don't have a clear concept of how the facts you cite imply divine creation. There's nothing to rebut in any of this except the assumption that they imply a conscious creator, which is a non sequitur (an insufficiently supported claim) at this point if you can't connect your claims to your conclusions, and can be disregarded
The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. Your doubt is not based in reason, but rather, in faith, which is belief that sidesteps the reasoning and evidence part altogether.
Here's some bad news for the Abrahamic creationist: Even if the theory were falsified tomorrow, the case for a supernatural creator would be just as weak as it is now. We would have to conclude that some superhuman entity perpetrated a massive fraud on humanity by planting the mountains of evidence that we have in support of the theory, but we still have no evidence of supernaturalism or gods.
The best hypothesis would then be that a powerful race of extraterrestrials that themselves arose naturalistically were responsible for the deception. The evidence presently supporting the theory doesn't go away with falsification. It just needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying find. The claim that the god of Abraham created the world around us and the first two human beings in a week, which has been falsified empirically - we know that that never happened - remains ruled out even if the theory is also falsified.
Thus, the only logical possibilities are that the theory is correct, that a race of aliens is responsible for the tree of life, and that a supernatural creator perpetuated the fraud. It is not reasonable to believe either of the last two absent that falsifying find, hence we can say that the theory has been confirmed to be correct beyond REASONABLE doubt.
Another example: the development of spoken language.
There are currently thousands of spoken languages. In the time of Sumeria there were already several of them, not just one. But that's not all: translations were already made from one language to another. Imagine what progress for that time.
However, evolutionists have no idea how human language achieved such development. At least they should try to make the apes that exist talk and then let their imagination run wild, as they always do when they have no evidence of something.
There are currently thousands of spoken languages. In the time of Sumeria there were already several of them, not just one. But that's not all: translations were already made from one language to another. Imagine what progress for that time.
However, evolutionists have no idea how human language achieved such development. At least they should try to make the apes that exist talk and then let their imagination run wild, as they always do when they have no evidence of something.
Now it is just arguments from ignorance. If scientists don't know, then my views win by default is where the anti-science arguments always seem to end up.
Looks like my works seems to be done and effectively in my opinion. No more wasting my precious time here.
Looks like my works seems to be done and effectively in my opinion. No more wasting my precious time here.
When did humans appear according you?Well, that's what the evidence shows: humans are intelligent beings from the very first moment they appear...
Where is the evidence of that?
Evolutionists pretend to be very skeptics when there's no evidence... but it seems that not so much, when it is not convenient for them.
If they supposedly find links between species much older than "homo sapiens", how difficult should it be for them to find apes that know how to count or speak or plant crops or domesticate animals, etc.?
You do know that monkeys can work with abstract mathematical operations with relative ease?
Monkey see, monkey calculate: How are primates' brains wired for math?
Previous work has shown that monkeys and birds can count, but flexible applications of higher mathematic rules, the study authors asserted, "require the highest degree of internal structuring"—one thought largely to be the domain of only humans.
However we underestimated them
The monkeys immediately generalized the greater than and less than rules to numerosities that had not been presented previously," the two researchers, Sylvia Bongard and Andreas Nieder, wrote. "This indicates that they understood this basic mathematical principle irrespective of the absolute numerical value of the sample displays." In other words: "They had learned an abstract mathematical principle."
That is not true, and you should know it at this point. As I said: the intellect belongs exclusively to humans, and therefore, they were originally created with that capacity.
But you don't have to rebut my POV, but show evidence of yours since there's no apes developing intellect at any point of time.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
But it doesn't. Humans are not the only animals that can count. We are the only ones that learned how to write it down, and that did not occur until after cities were a thing.
For an animal to learn something, it needs a human to teach it.
Gen. 1:27 And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”
Who taught pre-human apes to count?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What make you think that thousands of languages were not spoken at the time of Samaria
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Where did you get that from? Animals can learn in all sorts of ways. Many of them can learn on their own. Have you even had a pet?For an animal to learn something, it needs a human to teach it.
Gen. 1:27 And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”
Who taught pre-human apes to count?