Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When did Homo Sapiens become 'in the image of God' ?
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 52 (513276)
06-27-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2009 7:59 AM


Graphs??
DrA writes:
I leave you with this image:
What a croc. Man evolved thousands of years before women.
Who writes this shit? Who believes it?

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2009 7:59 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 06-27-2009 9:49 AM LucyTheApe has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 32 of 52 (513277)
06-27-2009 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by LucyTheApe
06-27-2009 9:38 AM


Re: Graphs??
What a croc. Man evolved thousands of years before women.
Who writes this shit? Who believes it?
You are misreading the graph. The modern man/women on the graph is for comparison to the previous hominids, simply showing the brain size of the modern Homo sapiens

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-27-2009 9:38 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-27-2009 10:01 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 52 (513281)
06-27-2009 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by bluescat48
06-27-2009 9:49 AM


Re: Graphs??
bluescat writes:
You are misreading the graph. The modern man/women on the graph is for comparison to the previous hominids, simply showing the brain size of the modern Homo sapiens
Bluescat, the graph clearly shows that Man appeared before Woman, by thousands of years, regardless of cranium capacity. It's just simply ridiculous. Why can't scientists these days, do science?

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 06-27-2009 9:49 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by bluescat48, posted 06-27-2009 10:42 AM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 35 by NosyNed, posted 06-27-2009 10:43 AM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-27-2009 9:18 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 34 of 52 (513286)
06-27-2009 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by LucyTheApe
06-27-2009 10:01 AM


Re: Graphs??
You still don't get it. The line before modern males is Homo sapiens, what do you think modern men/women are? To be blunt Homo sapiens

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-27-2009 10:01 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-27-2009 11:43 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 35 of 52 (513287)
06-27-2009 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by LucyTheApe
06-27-2009 10:01 AM


Astonishing!
Bluescat, the graph clearly shows that Man appeared before Woman, by thousands of years, regardless of cranium capacity. It's just simply ridiculous. Why can't scientists these days, do science?
If that is your understanding of that chart then you should retire from the science forums here. You are not equipped with the knowledge necessary to carry on any discussions at all. I am thunderstruck by your conclusion!
The chart shows fossils that have been found. There are periods when the only fossils found have been male. That is all it means.
You are hopelessly out of your depth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-27-2009 10:01 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-27-2009 11:13 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 52 (513288)
06-27-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by NosyNed
06-27-2009 10:43 AM


Re: Astonishing!
NosyNed writes:
If that is your understanding of that chart then you should retire from the science forums here.
It's a faith and belief forum.
You are not equipped with the knowledge necessary to carry on any discussions at all.
knowledge is not enough to carry on a discussion Nosy, you also need to be able to reason.
I am thunderstruck by your conclusion! The chart shows fossils that have been found. There are periods when the only fossils found have been male. That is all it means.
What, for thousands of years only male human fossils have been found and no female human fossils. Why draw a graph? Why not just say we don't have enough information?
You are hopelessly out of your depth.
Bit of advice; never underestimate your enemy.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : Hopelessly out of your depth.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NosyNed, posted 06-27-2009 10:43 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by lyx2no, posted 06-27-2009 2:59 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 52 (513293)
06-27-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by bluescat48
06-27-2009 10:42 AM


Re: Graphs??
Bluescat writes:
You still don't get it. The line before modern males is Homo sapiens, what do you think modern men/women are? To be blunt Homo sapiens
Please Bluescat, in your own words, explain what this graph is means.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by bluescat48, posted 06-27-2009 10:42 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by bluescat48, posted 06-27-2009 8:25 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 52 (513294)
06-27-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by greentwiga
06-27-2009 2:56 AM


cranial capacity, mental capacity, not the same.
Hi greentwiga, welcome to the fray, belatedly.
I found this in Wikipedia:
Until about 50,000—40,000 years ago the use of stone tools seems to have progressed stepwise. Each phase (H. habilis, H. ergaster, H. neanderthalensis) started at a higher level than the previous one, but once that phase started further development was slow. These Homo species were culturally conservative, but after 50,000 BP modern human culture started to change at a much greater speed. Jared Diamond, author of The Third Chimpanzee, and other anthropologists characterize this as a "Great Leap Forward." ...
An easy way to distinguish your posts from other people you are quoting and from material you are quoting is to use the easy quote format provided by this forum:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
Human evolution - Wikipedia
quote:
Modern humans started burying their dead, making clothing out of hides, developing sophisticated hunting techniques (such as using trapping pits or driving animals off cliffs), and engaging in cave painting.[39] As human culture advanced, different populations of humans introduced novelty to existing technologies: artifacts such as fish hooks, buttons and bone needles show signs of variation among different populations of humans, something that had not been seen in human cultures prior to 50,000 BP. Typically, H. neanderthalensis populations do not vary in their technologies.
It sounds like some scientists think that there was a relatively quick change. There is nothing to say that there was not some sudden brain change and then use of the new brain to invent new tools etc over a relatively short period.
If steady evolution over thousands of years is "quick change" ...
What you are seeing is the effect of a cultural revolution. This is similar to the cultural revolutions associated with tool making, metal use, agriculture, and the industrial revolution, where an idea spreads through a population, changing behavior.
Note that no evolutionary feature was necessary to evolve to start these revolutions, just an accumulation of knowledge. Certainly there is no evolutionary difference between pre-industrial man and post-industrial man, and similarly there is no fossil evidence of any evolutionary difference between pre-agricultural man and post-agricultural man, nor is there a significant difference between pre-stone to post stone using man or pre-metal to post-metal using man. What these cultural revolutions do accomplish is an increased ability to survive and reproduce, and loss of the knowledge would mean the benefits would also be lost.
Now it may be that there is a certain threshold of mental ability before certain behaviors and understanding are possible, and we certainly see an increase in cranial capacity in the fossil record. As Dr Adequate noted in Message 3
What criterion are you going to use? Cranial capacity? What?
I leave you with this image:
(used [thumb] instead of [img] to save space)
You can see a steady trend for increasing cranial capacity in this graph, a smooth curve with no apparent leaps or changes in slope.
You can easily see a variation in cranial capacity at any time, in all the fossil, skeletal, historic and modern population records. Some of this variation is due to male\female dichotomy, and some is due to adult\child fossils\skeletons being included, however there is also variation within the populations in addition to those factors. We see the same kind of variations in cranial capacity in living humans today.
We also see that mental capacity in modern humans is not strictly related to cranial capacity - just having a bigger brain case does not mean having a smarter brain. Mental activity takes place on the surface of the brain, so mass\volume is not the critical measure, and we see that the human brain - the modern human brain - is typically much more convoluted than other brains. These convolutions increase the surface area for the same mass\volume and this surface area does correlate with mental capacity.
What we have seen is the effect, imho, of the sexual selection for greater creativity in humans, as part of the mating process, and leading to increased mental capacity as a by-product. This selection for increased mental creative capacity results in increased survival and reproduction, and it has resulted in both increased cranial capacity and increased brain surface area, but nowhere is there evidence of a sudden increase in either.
A by-product is the ability to develop new cultural behaviors based on accumulated knowledge. So cave art is just another cultural revolution in a long string of cultural revolutions.
Sticks
Stones
Arts&Crafts
Metals
Agriculture
Industry
Information
It all comes down to what you define as "human" - is it behavior or is it bones?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by greentwiga, posted 06-27-2009 2:56 AM greentwiga has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 39 of 52 (513308)
06-27-2009 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by LucyTheApe
06-27-2009 11:13 AM


In the Future
Bit of advice; never underestimate your enemy.
It does not appear to be an estimate, but rather an empirical measure. You might want to consider where on the graph the "male" and "female" symbols are relative to the time line. They are in the future. Clearly the range bars for capacity is the only relevant information that was expressed regarding the modern men and women.
Edited by lyx2no, : Speaking too quickly mistakenly referred to them as error bars.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-27-2009 11:13 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 40 of 52 (513317)
06-27-2009 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
06-26-2009 9:51 PM


No, I think you'll find that atheists can tell the difference ...
Maybe my idea was not clear, but by 'not any different' I meant that humans, from an atheist point of view, are just another type of animal.
I don't see that they have more of a dilemma than you do: as I have pointed out, the intermediate forms exist whether or not you admit that they are evidence of descent. And why can't they get out of it the same way you did, by saying: "I also think his whole creation is somewhat also 'in God's image'"?
Bblically, humans have a soul, and animals do not. Thus why humans are 'in God's image'. (I checked this out since starting this thread, and it seems this is the most common view amongst theologians in regards to what 'in God's image' means.)
So from a YEC point of view: the answer is simple: humans were created fully humans from the beginning, and so had a soul right at the start.
from an atheist point of view: humans have no soul
but from a theistic evolutionist point of view, it is more difficult: where along the humans ancestry lineages did they get a soul ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-26-2009 9:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 41 of 52 (513318)
06-27-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by LucyTheApe
06-27-2009 9:22 AM


Re: In the image of GOD
this thread poses no problem for atheists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-27-2009 9:22 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 42 of 52 (513330)
06-27-2009 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by LucyTheApe
06-27-2009 11:43 AM


Re: Graphs??
The graph is a comparison of cranial size of hominids and as it says older than 10000 years. As far as I can see the 2 columns modern males & modern females, which would be newer that 10000 years are a comparison of the modern cranium with the earlier hominids. The bands show a range of sizes of modern Homo sapiens and compares with the fossil Homo sapiens in the previous column. 2 columns earlier is archaic Homo sapiens.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-27-2009 11:43 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 52 (513335)
06-27-2009 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by LucyTheApe
06-27-2009 10:01 AM


Re: Graphs??
Bluescat, the graph clearly shows that Man appeared before Woman, by thousands of years, regardless of cranium capacity.
That might be the dumbest single mistake I've ever seen a creationist make.
It's just simply ridiculous. Why can't scientists these days, do science?
Scientists can do science. Why can't you read a simple graph?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-27-2009 10:01 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 44 of 52 (513337)
06-27-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by LucyTheApe
06-27-2009 9:22 AM


Re: In the image of GOD
G'day Slevesque, I couldn't help myself from responding to your topic, sorry.
Man was made in the image of God from the beginning of Creation. Any Christian must agree with Jesus who says "6 But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female. "(Mark 10:6 NJB)
He made man in the beginning. Man didn't evolve from any ape. Evolutionists are clawing onto a theory which is laughable. If they don't like a God then they have to find some other theory because evolution just doesn't cut it. I can't believe we are still having this debate.
You can lead an athiest to water but you can't make him think.
I notice that you are pretending that everyone who accepts the results of scientific inqury is an atheist.
I think it is fair to say that everyone participating on this thread knows that you are lying. The effort is therefore superfluous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-27-2009 9:22 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-27-2009 9:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 45 of 52 (513339)
06-27-2009 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dr Adequate
06-27-2009 9:21 PM


Re: In the image of GOD
I notice that you are pretending that everyone who accepts the results of scientific inqury is an atheist.
I think it is fair to say that everyone participating on this thread knows that you are lying. The effort is therefore superfluous.
I wonder if he has ever heard of an evolutionist theist?

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-27-2009 9:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2009 7:24 AM Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024