Great video.
It would be useful if the IDcreationists here, like @Greg, @scd, @Robert_Byers, @colewd, @Guy_Coe, and @DaleCutler, think about the following questions, then watch the video to check their answers:
- Does evolutionary biology (whether you agree with it or not) say that you are a monkey?
- Does evolutionary biology (whether you agree with it or not) say that you are a fish?
Note that you don’t have to agree with evolutionary biology in any way to answer these questions. If you don’t get them right, you aren’t really arguing against evolutionary biology/theory.
If this prevents even one of the many straw men fallacies IDcreationists routinely employ here, it is useful.
I’m curious about the answers to these questions, but not enough to watch the video. Could you help?
OK, I skimmed it. His answer is wrong, so anyone learning from it is also going to be wrong. Yes, you are, evolutionarily speaking, a fish. But in exactly the same sense, you are also a monkey. The attempt at distinguishing between these two statements is nonsensical.
Is your reasoning that because the common anthropoid ancestor (CA) of New World monkeys and Old World monkeys was more ancient than the CA of Old World monkeys and humans, that the former CA must therefore necessarily be classified as a monkey, not as a nonmonkey anthropoid?
Yes. More simply, unless you include apes, monkeys are paraphyletic. It’s exactly the same reasoning for fish. I don’t understand how or where the speaker tries to create a difference.
Not sure what you are after, but I started to watch the video to see if it would help to make sense. I could not watch very long bc it started by the speaker saying that the theory of evolution is a “fact” i thought to myself, " well that is really arrogant of him." Then i thought, “well, perhaps he is callling on adaptation forms of micro evolution of created kinds the type of evolutionary fact.” But then he continued with a picture of some dots, where he pointed to one and without any clarifying descriptions such as “as a hypothesis” or “one option of consideration,” he instead declared as if fact that all animal life evolved over billions of years from that one dot over billions of yrs. With such lacking fossil evidence, the complete absence of testable dna for tracking macro evolition etc, i had to stop the video because the arrogance of a historical scientist that thinks he can declare something that purportedly occurred 4 billion years ago with language that is so umbecomming of good science is not worthy of my time. The problems of so much time alone that is an enemy of chance evolution of species is enough to warrant much more cautious language. I personally have a belief that we were created. But without better information and in the mind of a true scientist, the possibilities of deep time could be dozens of options which should include intelligence. Just bc the nature of intelligence cannot be detected in science does not justify that science settles with decisiveness of accepting nature as the means of arrival of complex life. So the communication is as if the works of a better adapted monkey and not of a true scientist human being, especially one in the image of God.
If we evolved via the natural that includes the ingredients of chance, time and genetic mistakes, i may not feel that Im a monkey, but i definately would want to distrust the faith i cling to that demands that my kind was created in God’s image in a day. I may not feel that im an evolved ape, but it sure is a lonely, unloving place with my father-nature who scrapped me together by billions mistakes and through a lot of suffering and death over all that time too.
Should you really disbelieve science on the grounds that it doesn’t make you feel good about yourself? It would be better, in my opinion, to have enough respect for truth to be willing to face it whatever the consequences.
Genetic mutations aren’t mistakes. They are just the result of a natural process which produces genetic variations in every individual in every generation during reproduction. Some time the variations are harmful, most times they’re neutral (no effect) but sometimes they’re helpful. The helpful ones tend to accumulate.
I have seen the end of evolutionism and this was it!
This was the worst professional explanation of evolutionism i ever saw/heard!
He even got race and gender into it. does he know what Darwin said about these and OTHERS!
Are these more facts like gravity? is gravity a fact?
How did he get hired???
To the two ?'S
I think both answers are no.
No creationist ever said evolutionists said we were fish or monkeys.
They vsaid we came from fish/monkeys.
The many theories of evolution this dude mentioned make a poor case for fish becoming monkeys and then us.
Its a good job understanding evolution doesn’t affect using heavy machinery or surgery .
Otherwise chaos and damage would be the norm from listening to teachers of evolutionism.
I have a question for evolutionist fish/monkey folks here!
can you name three or one scientific biological evidence for evolutionism for important/almost important bodyplan changes??
A help: Watching TED won’t help!!
Of course I am answering in response to the line of questioning me above: “Does evolutiinary biology make you feel like a monkey?” And i personally have not a single inclination myself of ill feeling because I KNOW man was created in a single day and in the image of his Creator. I say this with as much confindence as i have that i have an index finger typing this response on my phone. But i have compassion for our youth that they are innundated with the pseudo science of naturalistic universal common decent at the expense not only the attempt to dislodge the very foundation of the only true worldview of which Jesus Christ the second person of our Triune God, through who all things are made, but additionally are thrust into a sense of hopelessness found in chance and mistakes that evolutionism promotes. And when trying to convince a teen that God is still about this chance and mutation will be interpreted by them as about as fraud as our Lord sees a person who says he has faith but without a work towards holiness.and obedience.
That wasn’t the question you were asked. Go back and read the original post for comprehension.
Woops. The question is exactly,"[quote=“Greg, post:7, topic:637”]
Does evolutionary biology ( whether you agree with it or not ) say that you are a monkey?
[/quote]
The Christian worldview is not primarily about me. It is about the Ultimate who is God and with proper view of He comes right, hope-filled understanding of self. Evolutionism debunks the truth of God in favor of nature in the formation of man.
You still didn’t answer the question asked.
Wow. If you’re attempting a full-on Byers-style rant, not bad. But I don’t think you’re actually engaging in discussion, just going off very approximately on a subject.
Yes, but as stated, you seem to know because it makes you feel good to think so and would make you feel bad not to.
I know things for certain reasons. You seem to know that universal common decent is absolutely a fact. Both are worldviews that engage faith because there is no exacting science that can clearly define either but go forth we may with the faiths we choose to uphold.
Well, that clarifies everything.
Not quite. There’s no “absolutely” in science. But yeah, it’s close enough for all practical purposes. But it doesn’t involve faith, despite your misapprehension.
For the sake of your book you may quote Greg S Rogers as answering the question, “Does evolutionary biology say that [I am] a monkey?” with this: "Evolutionary Biology does not apply the word “monkey” to a homo sapien which they say evolved from a monkey like predecessor. But words are cheap. A semantic is just a symbol. The infinitely more powerful insinuation that evolutionary biology arrogantly demands as a purported fact is that a homo sapien is indeed a higher evolved species of monkey that became such on the foundation of genetic mutations (mistakes) selected at random where the weak are discarded waste for the strong to survive. The essence of almost every bit of this worldview is like the inverse of the Christian worldview. Additionally, if the principles found within the neo darwinian evolutionary worldview were to be taken and applied to the evolution of a human culture (reliance on chance, mistakes, and disposal of the weak and empowerment of the strong) then i cannot see a lot of good resulting.
Not only did you dodge the question again you replied with a number of ignorance based falsehoods concerning actual evolutionary biology. Is that the best Greg S Rogers is capable of?
What do mean by “your book”??
At least i really am Greg S Rogers, a lover of God first, my family and others second and one who understands the dynamics of why one would be asking such a question that demands a more complex answer that the average evolutionist wont want to hear as response quite well.