Seeing the Serpent [Human Evolution]

University of California, Davis ^ | 19 July 2006 | Staff (press release)

[Junior]

Non answer. While I didn't direct the original post to you, maybe you can take a crack at the questions. Be as specific as possible to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

[Coyoteman]

===> Placemarker <===

[Gritty]

What nonsense!

[onedoug]

Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay W Richards, The Privileged Planet

[bondserv]

We cannot begin the discussion until we define "evolutionary pressures".

This definition will determine if a person is a strict naturalist or if they are willing to acknowledge the supernatural. Strict naturalists seem to have a corner on Academia at the moment, which gives the appearance of credibility. However, this data point is changing rapidly.

[Junior]

Before one can acknowledge the supernatural, one must have evidence for it. Any evidence, by its nature, would be natural, obviating the need for the supernatural.

You're on your own here.

[Rudder]

"See any herps?"

Nope...too busy trying to learn how to catch flies.

[Theo]

You need to be careful on these threads. The evolutionists here are ruthless. I typically don't bother posting on these threads because no "discussion" really takes place -- just evolutionist back-patting.

[Theo]

Typicaly evolutionist hatred. Nice. Looking for a chuckle and a back-pat from a fellow evolutionist?

[Theo]

... obviating the need for the supernatural

It all comes down to that, doesn't it? Any theory other than evolution is incompatible with your worldview. So your clinging to evolution is not primarily based on evidence, but on your atheistic worldview.

Makes sense to me.

[BJClinton]

If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.

There are no transitional fossils you God-hating, Darwin worshipping arrogant jerk!

Hey, that was fun! If I ever have any spare time I'll write a little app to generate YEC troll posts automatically.

[bondserv]

Before one can acknowledge the supernatural, one must have evidence for it. Any evidence, by its nature, would be natural, obviating the need for the supernatural.

You're on your own here.

I would argue that nature does not create or possess intelligence. Therefore any evidence of intelligence we come across in nature would have originated from a supernatural intelligence.

In other words "Life was created".

[bondserv]

Long time no Post.

[Junior]

Any theory other than evolution is incompatible with your worldview.

There are no other "theories" on the diversity of life we find on this planet. Theories are based upon evidence. Evidence is something that can be observed/handled/tested by more than one person and have the same results. Because of its nature, evidence is physical, not supernatural. You can attempt to base ideas on the supernatural, but until someone else can test those ideas and come up with compatible results, your theory is so much vaporware.

To put it succinctly, a neutral third party could not be expected to accept your version of events without some corroborating evidence. "A 2500-year-old Bronze Age creation story" is not evidence.

[SaveUS]

"They try to use evolution to explain how primates use their eyes and limbs, to conceal the fact that evolution can't explain how they got eyes and limbs in the first place."

Ok, how did they get eyes and limbs?

[Junior]

Typicaly evolutionist hatred. Nice. Looking for a chuckle and a back-pat from a fellow evolutionist?

Not hatred. If someone feels qualified to comment upon the veracity of a well-accepted scientific theory, one must be prepared to back one's assertions up. Asking for a detailed explanation of that person's understanding of the theory is not hatred, but rather an effort to determine the person's level of knowledge.

[Junior]

I would argue that nature does not create or possess intelligence. Therefore any evidence of intelligence we come across in nature would have originated from a supernatural intelligence.

This is an unsupported assertion. As I said, you are going to have to supply evidence that would corroborate your claims.

[2nsdammit]

Wow, is this a new record? YECer for sure by post 5, probable in post 3....

[SaveUS]

"Any theory other than evolution is incompatible with your worldview."

ZAP and a day of rest isn't a theory. It is a faith. Faith is incompatible with scientific theory.

[js1138]

Somewhere, I've read that chimps show an inherent, unlearned fear of snakes. Fits in, if so.

Not to mention mushrooms.

Babies do not have fears of snakes and spiders. These fears reach their peak about age three, when kids are likely to wander away from their parents.