More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, July 22, 2015, 01:20 (3203 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: I don't see the relevance of this to the issue under discussion, which is the theory of common descent.-The relevance is thus:-5 Skulls, from the same location and time period display the same degree of variation found in almost ALL hominid fossil remains ever found. -Two possible explanations:-a)Time travelling hominids of different species converged in the same location for a pow-wow during which all died and were simultaneously fossilized. -b)What we consider different species are all simply humans. -Occam's razor says B is the most likely correct answer.- 
>DHW: Not a problem, if one set is known to be human and the other ape. But I might have a problem if the skeleton indicated features that made it difficult to classify the creature as ape or human, e.g. bipedalism (the Australopithecines). You yourself later mention the difficulty of “a unified classification”, but I take blurred borderlines as evidence FOR common descent, not against.-Similarity does not indicate common descent, that is purely an assumption. Yes, I mentioned the problem with a unified classification because our classification systems do not even agree with themselves!! Morphologically we are supposed former apes, genetically, we were once bananas or fruit flies or something. Given the disparity between our classification systems, it should be obvious that they are not a sound basis for rational judgement.-
> 
> You criticize the assumption that “speciation can even occur, though it has NEVER been observed.” But that is the problem. Species exist, and nobody knows how. -The existence of species is not the issue. The assumption that they CAN change between species is the issue, because it has never been observed. Your comment here is akin to saying it would be rational for me to believe in unicorns because horses and narwhals exist.->DHW: Of course the findings are open to interpretation, methods of dating are suspect, and we can't always trust science or scientists. But fortunately nowadays we are aware of different interpretations, and there are scientists prepared to challenge other scientists. Equally fortunately, there are similar safeguards in religion and philosophy. The man in the pulpit can no longer proclaim without fear of contradiction that his God created Adam out of dust, and Eve out of Adam's rib.... Ultimately, it all boils down to faith, doesn't it? Who can we trust? As I see it, there is currently no reason for me as a layman to challenge the general consensus among scientists that humans came late on the scene, that the genetic similarities between humans and apes and the admittedly sparse but not non-existent fossil record suggest descent from a common ancestor, and that the patterns David talks of are also evidence that organisms derive from earlier organisms. What I do challenge are what seem to me far more contentious claims about how that descent took place, and how its mechanisms came into existence. (I accept that they MAY have been designed by a Creator.) Again as I see it, you prefer to trust ancient books (mostly anonymous) written, chosen and translated by fallible humans, and which other fallible humans claim to have been inspired by a power for whose existence we have no evidence other than what you have called speculation and conjecture. David is also sceptical about the books, and believes in common descent, but only if the process was organized by a Creator (as allowed for by Darwin). David is certainly more qualified to deal with the science than I am, just as you are more qualified to deal with the theology. But many scientists would disagree with him, and many theologians would disagree with you. All part of life's wonderful diversity! That's why it boils down to who we think we can trust.-
You know, the irony of this bit here is that, according to that old book that you seem to think is so misguided and untrustworthy, we aren't really supposed to take everything on faith. Imagine that. The bible actually tells people to seek evidence. -"Romans 1:19-21 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.