You're talking to a wall. Mo arguably does believe he doesnt exist. The rest of us can only wish.
From: [address removed]
To: humanism-174 <[address removed]>
Sent: Sat, Jan 26,[masked]:49 pm
Subject: Re: Re: [humanism-174] Fwd: Bogus Louisiana Teacher Survey Used to Support Centr...
I'm baffled that you still seem resistant to accepting human evolution, even tho
you accept it for other organisms. As several of us have tried to explain, the
evidence is of a similar kind and degree. In fact, if anything, is somewhat
better for humans, in terms of identifying at least some likely ancestors to a
species or genus levels. For many modern species, it's hard to pinpoint those,
even tho the general patterns of change in the fossil record and DNA studies are
apparent at higher taxonomic levels. For humans, in contrast, the fossil and DNA
evidence indicates that a least one prior Homo species was our ancestor (Homo
erectus) and before that, the genus Australopithicus was in our line.
On top of that, we share a number of unique genes with other primates, which
make no sense outside of evolution.
You say you don't know what the alternative explanation would be, and suggest
that maybe God did create us separately. But you've still not answered how that
jives with the above evidence. It would seem to imply a God who enjoys screwing
with our heads - making it appear from several lines of evidence that we
evolved, even tho we didn't. Do you think that's plausible, even in your
"postmodern" view? I'm not even asking for a percentage of certainty, I'm
asking just if you think it's as plausible as the conclusion that we evolved?
Speaking of postmodernism, were you serious when you said you were not even sure
that you exist? If you're going to question even things like that, how can you
ever be sure or reasonably sure of anything? And no matter what philosophical
approach one takes, isn't it important to be consistent? That's why I don't
understand your still questioning human evolution while accepting it for other
organisms, when the evidence is at least as strong for humans.
You say we "forced" evolution on other creatures. However, humans have the
same genetic code as they do, as you yourself acknowledged. We also could
selectively breed ourselves in ways similar to domestic animals if we chose to
(I can get into that more if you like). Regardless of that tho, since the fossil
and DNA evidence for evolution is at least as strong for humans as for other
organisms, your position doesn't seem very consistent or scientific. This leads
me to ask whether you like many others have some non-scientific reason? Do you
just not like the idea that we're related to apes, and more distantly, to
amphibians, fish, marine invertebrates, and ultimately, microbes?
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this
mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Glen ([address removed]) from The Cleveland
To learn more about Glen, visit his/her member profile: http://www.meetup.com/clevelandfreethinkers/members/8211763/
Set my mailing list to email me
As they are sent
In one daily email
Don't send me mailing list messages
Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]