Pretty much like this. I targeted only those with an interest in Christianity, though Facebook did not honor that in the UK it would seem. I can’t figure why a Hindu would “like” it, or click on it. My working hypothesis is that people from ancient cultures don’t buy the standard version of Early Genesis or the “Table of Nations” and know in their gut that there is more to the story, while “newer” nations like the UK and America don’t question it. As someone on the ground there, I’d like to know your view on that idea. It has implications for GA too.
1 Like
Ya it’s too specific for a Hindu to like or click (if it had been about Jesus, it’s a different story).
I guess there are chances people here would be less dogmatic about other humans coexisting outside the Garden with Adam. Christianity here is a lot more experiential here than it might be in the US. As long as you don’t deny a literal Adam, you wouldn’t find people outright rejecting anything you say.
Besides, having a lower percentage of Christians makes the overall Christian identity very important… and though denominational affiliations can be strong. There is also a more common identity as Christians. For example in India, Christianity is more or less treated by outsiders as one religion.
I don’t think how old the civilisation is has much to do with this.
2 Likes
How do Indians respond to your ID arguments?
Thank you for your take on it.
2 Likes
With Christian’s I rarely have to make any arguments.
It’s either YEC or ID. Evolution is almost universally associated with athiesm/materialism. It might be more acceptable among Catholics… I am not sure.
The vast majority of the non christians are theists… or atleast believe in a"higher power… Again evolution rarely turns up. People have real life concerns.
Among athiests, A very small minority might talk about evolution… and even they don’t know much about it. Other than that “science/evolution has disproved the existence of God” or “how can you believe in this kind of superstition in this day and age” (said superstition being God).
With Athiests, I usually start with the metaphysical/philosophical reasons I believe in God and then tell them my story. Evolution only gets discussed if the athiest brings it up. People generally know very little… at best they know about chance + natural selection, or that scientists have “proven” that life arose long ago when lightning struck some pond.
Long story short… my “ID” arguments are my personal conviction. I rarely have to make them around here. People are already on board.
Mark
FWIW The Hump of the Camel got about 145 hits from India last month, which is about the same as Canada and Australia. What that means I don’t know, but unlike your ads it’s more likely to come from people interested in what we do than “hostiles” looking to see why you’ve targeted them.
2 Likes
Common Descent is the most provable. Don’t you think you should focus on the elements that are most controversial?
- speciation is the hardest to corroborate… while common descent is the easiest.
Like I have said before… I don’t see how it’s a theory. It’s an axiom emerging from base assumptions…
As to proof, it seems to me that any observation will be made to fit this assumption. It an untested assumption.
This is a weird statement. The theory of common descent is that all species arose from older pre-existing species. Common descent is about speciation.
SOME of common descent is about speciation. But the rules of common descent apply to all living systems that produce any generations of offspring.
Common Descent is the simplest with creatures that reproduce Asexually.
Speciation is the part of common descent under question, right? You don’t challenge the validity of blood types that a couple’s children might have, do you?
George I agree that common descent happens within species… everyone does… throughout history… way before Darwin was born. In fact the bible records this truth with the statement “like begets like”.
No I don’t.
And so I would ask that you exercise more care with your accusations. Common Descent is not inherently wrong… what you dispute is speciation …
Common descent covers speciation… Take @swamidass proof. It was about speciation (human to chimp). Without including speciation, you cannot have a theory of common descent!
That is only true if you are in a debate against creationists.
Technically speaking… Common Descent is about the evidence of one population coming before ANOTHER population … and tracing phenotypes… which may or may not deal with a new species.
Tigers and Lions are quite good and producing hybrids. Technically, Tigers and Lions could be treated as two sub-species. … rather than 2 species.
But common descent STILL applies to all of their offspring!
If I made arguments like this… I would be misrepresenting science. The majority position on common descent in the scientific field is that all organisms are connected Genealogically upto the first replicating proto life (i.e life before even cells came into existence).
Avoiding speciation when speaking about common descent would be deceptive.
Now you are just being pedantic. I specifically encouraged you to FOCUS your objections on SPECIATION… instead of trying to bring down the entire apparatus of Common Descent.
Common Descent is too big to bring down… and it makes detractors sound uneducated to go after the entire topic as a unified concept!
Did you get the idea from anything I said that I reject reproduction as a natural process ? (That’s common descent within species).
I am always careful to arrive at a common definition before any discussion. You should know that by now 
… I think we can avoid such misunderstandings.
You would be more convincing if you focused on the correct terminology…
Instead of copying Joe’s error by attacking all aspects of Evolution.
ALL aspects of Evolution are not really equally vulnerable!!
Point of order, the hybrids aren’t so good at producing hybrids. Only the females have been shown to be fertile and it is not known if any male offspring they produce are fertile. Therefore you can’t keep making ligers. Nature drives them one way or the other. Given their behavioral differences, its is hard to say they are the same species by any natural definition of the word.
2 Likes
I am confident I am using the correct terminology. Common descent has to do with speciation.
Do we need to go through definitions and terminology again?
This is getting ridiculous George.
What exactly does common descent claim? That animals have kids?
That’s not what I read. Produce your citation.