Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 181 of 376 (709945)
10-31-2013 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by jaywill
10-31-2013 8:41 AM


Re: First man?
This one is ridiculous:
jaywill writes:
Evolutionists believe we are looking at the effect of long TIME to fade one species into another.
Please don't tell untruths about what biologists actually can demonstrate. You telling untruths certainly does not do your religion any favours.
Hope you do know that the theory of evolution involves genetic variation and natural selection. And that new species have evolved, both in the field, as well as in numerous labs. Right in front of our own eyes. By way of those mechanisms.
Please stop telling untruths, jaywill. Lots of people posting here are not as stupid as you think they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by jaywill, posted 10-31-2013 8:41 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2013 1:16 AM Pressie has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 182 of 376 (709946)
10-31-2013 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by AZPaul3
10-30-2013 11:25 PM


Re: First man?
Purpose? Is that what you are asking? What is my purpose?
First, my destiny is to die, just like everything else that has ever lived on this planet. Before the end of this century I will be dead and forgotten. In 20,000 years even our most beloved heroes down the millennia will have all been forgotten. In two million years all humanity will have been forgotten. In 5 billion (english or american, it doesn't matter) years the earth will have been forgotten.
As for my purpose? Purpose is a human conception. Your dog, the dandelion in your neighbor's front lawn, the sun, some asteroid out in the Kuiper belt, the whole rest of the universe, doesn't know nor care about your purpose. You and I, this planet, this galaxy are of no significance in this universe whatsoever. Your purpose is your own vain attempt to impose your will upon an anthropomorphic view of a universe that just doesn't care one damn bit whether you're here or not.
Since no one gives a damn you can adopt whatever purpose floats your boat.
Mine was to survive childhood, fuck Diane in high school, survive the army, get laid as often as possible in college, get married, have some kids and eat lots and lots of Hagen-Dazs chocolate ice cream.
I think you were made for better than just that.
For starters, I think when I look at your face something difficult to define there would remind me of God.
But people who are groping in the spiritual darkness do at times decide that they might as well embrace to void and even brag about it. There is a certain defiant pleasure in reasoning -
"Well since I can't do anything about my impending death and decay, I might as well cling to it with a defiant boasting on the way down."
There is a whole book in the Bible with something of this flavor called Ecclesiastes.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by AZPaul3, posted 10-30-2013 11:25 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by AZPaul3, posted 10-31-2013 2:35 PM jaywill has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 183 of 376 (709953)
10-31-2013 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by jaywill
10-31-2013 8:41 AM


Re: First man?
jaywill writes:
The matter of the Gulls I will look into. But different breeds of dogs differing in size, appearance, hair length, volume of bark, etc. have been observed through human breeding methods.
They have not though bred a dog into a pony or a monkey, which is more of what you are proposing, I think.
What you say we observed seems to remain in the realm of gulls.
Is that the macro evolution you propose equaling apes fading into humans?
Don't bother looking into gulls; the gulls are still gulls and the gulls are still birds. That example of a ring species is simply to show that change is gradual and shows that there is NEVER a distinct change from one species into another.
That's why dogs are still dogs. But in a million years who knows what will have branched off - we only have to look back on the origin of dogs over time to see that.
"Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor."
Do you think this comment has been proved false since 1982 ?
If you're actually interested in what science currently understands about human evolution, you'll find a summary here:
Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia
This problem could be the reason why it is proposed by some that we can only guess now where a separate species of pre-humans begins -
You're still not getting it. There can not be any definitive point at which there is a separate species. That is not how evolution works - there is never a point where a dog becomes a horse, that's a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works.
My comments now are going to be related to the Bible and how I view the Chimpanzee / Human closeness - appearance or genome or otherwise.
I'm afraid the bible is silent on these issues.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by jaywill, posted 10-31-2013 8:41 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 184 of 376 (709959)
10-31-2013 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by jaywill
10-30-2013 2:32 PM


Re: First man?
If I meant that I thoughly digested it in all its detail I would not have said that I took a "quick look." A "quick look" means a rather casual cursory browse through.
And right there is exactly where your problem lies. You take a "quick look" at something, and then somehow imagine that this leaves you qualified to start making theories about it. Sorry, but the world just isn't that simple. Your "quick look" isn't worth jack. As long as your willing to weave half-comprehended nuggets of info into grandiose pseudo-Bible stories, you will never understand anything.
Not everything is about the Bible. Some myths are just myths. There's no need for you to drag them into your silly fantasy world.
But I do see now that there is a difference between Tethys and Tethys Ocean.
Point taken.
Great. Now try and work out the difference between a plural and a personal name that just happens to end in an "s".
jaywill writes:
These Tethys you speak of are probably related to the Nephilim of Genesis chapter 6.
These? Do you actually think that there was more than one? That's moronic. Tethys was a goddess, an individual, not a race or group.
This is what I mean when I say that you aren't paying enough attention before diving in with your crackpot theories. If you taken any more than the most cursory look at the Wiki article, you would have known this. Instead, you put in minimum effort, skimmed it, totally misunderstood it and then decided that these "Tethys" must have been Nephilim. On the basis of what? Something you're only dimly aware of? Do you really think that that's enough of a basis to make judgements on? A single Wiki page that you couldn't even be bothered to read? Well it's not.
You need to try using real evidence for your theories, rather than grabbing any half-assed factoid you can find and just chucking it in there whether you understand it or not.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by jaywill, posted 10-30-2013 2:32 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 185 of 376 (709962)
10-31-2013 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by jaywill
10-30-2013 2:46 PM


Re: First man?
Okay, for starters, please don't split messages up into two for no reason. You know where the edit button is, you use it often enough. If you have something to add, just edit it in.
If you want to fully bake your own theory of humans fading into existence
No theory of mine would include such a clumsy and misleading phrase thanks very much.
where is your missing link between the pre-human and the human ?
You know perfectly well where they are. That you don't like them is your problem.
They all seemed to be discarded and not be able to stand the test of time.
Utter drivel.
What happened to Lucy ?
Apparently she got added to the list of things you don't understand.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jaywill, posted 10-30-2013 2:46 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 10-31-2013 11:24 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 186 of 376 (709965)
10-31-2013 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Granny Magda
10-31-2013 10:53 AM


Re: First man?
Granny Magda writes:
jaywill writes:
What happened to Lucy ?
Apparently she got added to the list of things you don't understand.
And became bejeweled and bemused as she looks benignly down on all of us.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Granny Magda, posted 10-31-2013 10:53 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2013 1:05 AM jar has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 187 of 376 (709992)
10-31-2013 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by jaywill
10-31-2013 8:41 AM


Re: First man?
jaywill,
You have many of the same misunderstandings of evolution and biology that other creationists have. We will see if I can help clear these up for you.
What you say we observed seems to remain in the realm of gulls.
Is that the macro evolution you propose equaling apes fading into humans?
Your first misunderstanding is how taxonomy works, or more precisely how cladistics works. You are under the impression that if gulls undergo macroevolution that they will become something other than gulls. YOU ARE WRONG. That's not how macroevolution works. You never evolve out of your ancestry. Let me say that again. You never evolve out of your ancestry. This is a vital concept that you need to understand. This is echoed in Darwin's own writings were he described evolution as "descent with modification".
So what does this mean in the case of our gulls? It means that through time the biodiversity amongst gulls will increase. They will remain gulls because their ancestors were gulls. However, the gulls of the future will look different than modern gulls. They will be modified versions of their ancestors. However, they never stop being gulls.
The same applies to our own lineage. We are still apes, as was our common ancestor with other apes. Through time, the variety of ape species increased, but they never stopped being apes. The same applies to our common ancestor with other primates, other mammals, other vertebrats, and other eukaryotes. We are what our ancestors were plus modifications.
When you say that "they are still gulls" you have not refuted anything since if macroevolution is true, they should still be gulls.
Comment on Evolutionists Richard Lowentin a geneticist at Harvard wrote in 1982 in a book called Human Diversity -
Before we continue, just one note. In an earlier post you claimed that you were once skeptical of the whole creationist thing. I kind of laughed to myself because usually when a creationist says this they are not being truthful. They say this to try and give their posts authenticity. I think this is the case here. Why do I say this?
Quite simple. Did you come across the Lewontin quote during your reading of his books or papers? My guess is that you didn't. Am I right? I would also guess that you pulled that quote from a creationist site. Am I right again? The truth of the matter is that you swallow everything from the creationist sites whole without one ounce of skepticism. If you were skeptical you would have learned a very important lesson.
That lesson is this. Transitional and direct ancestor are not the same thing. A fossil or living species can be transitional without needing to be the direct ancestor of another species. For example, the platypus is transitional between reptiles and placental mammals even though the platypus is not the direct ancestor of a single placental mammal species. What makes a fossil transitional is that it contains a mixture of features from two other taxa. In the case of the platypus, it has a mixture of features from reptiles and placental mammals. That is what makes it transitional.
So Lewontin is correct. There is no way that we can determine if a fossil has any living descendants. However, that has nothing to do with determining if the fossil is transitional.
To extend this concept even further, it is possible that a transitional fossil would FALSIFY evolution. If we found a bird/mammal transitional fossil this would actually cast doubt on the theory of evolution. Why is that? The theory of evolution predicts which transitionals you should see, and which you should NOT see. The theory of evolution predicts that we should see a nested hierarchy, and deviations from that nested hierarchy would be evidence against the theory. A bird/mammal transitional would violate that nested hierarchy, and would falsify the theory of evolution.
My comments now are going to be related to the Bible and how I view the Chimpanzee / Human closeness - appearance or genome or otherwise.
From what I have seen, your view is not based on evidence, nor will you change your mind based on evidence. You have a dogmatic belief. From what I can see, there is no evidence that you would ever accept as supporting evolution. Am I right?
Evolutionists believe we are looking at the effect of long TIME to fade one species into another.
It has nothing to do with belief. The facts are that the youngest hominid fossils more closely resemble modern humans that the older hominid fossils, which more closely resemble a basal ape. This isn't based on belief. This is based on empirical fact.
We also have genetic evidence demonstrating that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. These include shared pseudogenes and shared retroviral insertions. Again, these are empirical facts, not beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by jaywill, posted 10-31-2013 8:41 AM jaywill has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 188 of 376 (710000)
10-31-2013 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by jaywill
10-31-2013 9:00 AM


Verbose R Us
Ecclesiastes
A time to every purpose under heaven.
Now I'll get that song stuck in my head and won't be able to shake it until the next compelling meme comes along.
Have you read Ecclesiastes? Did you understand it or did you misunderstand it like you seem to misunderstand so many other things?
Kohelet, the preacher, king of Jerusalem, was right wasn't he? As he went out to study the world looking for purpose what did he find? He found none.
Everywhere he looked he saw that all was pointless. All was in vain, useless and meaningless.
Everything is wearisome,
more than one can express;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
the ear not filled up with hearing.
What has been is what will be,
what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new
under the sun.
He looked throughout his kingdom and found toil for naught.
He found growing food to satisfy hunger but hunger never abated. It always returned. His accumulation of knowledge is ultimately left to someone after him. And the only gain from man's efforts is a life filled with pain and the strain of his toils.
He found that man was no better off than the animals. They breathe the same air, eat the same food, make children and, like animals must, men die. From dust man and animal came and to dust each will return to be forgotten in time.
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other. Yea, they have all one breath, so that man hath no preeminence above a beast, for all is vanity.
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
He was almost there. Reality was just beyond his grasp, beyond his knowledge. He knew nothing about evolution. He did not know that man was, and was descended from, a lineage of apes. He knew nothing of the universe. He did not know the stars as suns with their own planets. He did not know the vast reaches of our galaxy, the immensity of a universe full of hundreds of billions of galaxies. He had no way to discern the great probability of other life in the magnitude of the cosmos.
But Kohelet was a religious man. There were no options for him as king. There was nothing to challenge his training that god had made man and god must have had a reason, right? God would have had to make man with a purpose and yet everywhere he looked he found none.
True to his ignorance and to the only "reality" in which he had been acculturated, Kohelet could only conclude that man's purpose was to fear and obey god.
But today we have the knowledge that Kohelet lacked. We understand the universe in ways he could not have imagined. We understand the self-serving predatory nature of religion and the psychological stranglehold it puts on men.
With this knowledge we know the concept of "purpose" in our existence as religions would have us believe falls away.
If we are lucky, we come into this world adapted to survive. You do know that about half of all human conceptus never get that chance, don't you? A science thing.
Things are much better now (another science thing) but at the time your bible myths were being developed up to 2/3's of all humans born never made it out of childhood.
We are the lucky ones. We get to experience life. We get to have babies that with any luck will survive to have babies of their own. And in this journey through survival and procreation some of us get to have some fun along the way (think Hagen-Dazs).
Regardless of which biology textbook you care to read, this thing we call life started as a short simple self-replicating chain of molecules. Those chains evolved, not "created" or "built" or "devised" as in the pop-culture sense, but blindly slowly evolved more fitness to survive and procreate. Some strains grew more and more complex enhancing their ability to survive in concert with other groups of self-replicating chains forming first cells then colonies then bodies. All of it under the sole control of physics. No magic, no nostrils, no poofing of anything anywhere along the way.
If you really need some purpose in life then know that you are the survival vessel for a complex contingent of self-replicating molecules with the job of surviving the world just long enough to pass along the chemistry.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : Hey, this thing is long. Lots of room for error.
Edited by AZPaul3, : more of the same

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by jaywill, posted 10-31-2013 9:00 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2013 2:06 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 189 of 376 (710011)
11-01-2013 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by jaywill
10-30-2013 3:19 PM


Re: First man?
jaywill writes:
I have no particular comment on the Tethys Ocean besides this. Eternal life is not like this Tethys Ocean geological feature.
That's true. They're not the same at all.
Eternal life is wishful thinking. No evidence for it. That's one of the reasons humanity invented thousands of Gods. Your particular God is just one of those invented by humans.
On the other side; there's plenty of evidence that the Tethys Sea existed. No wishful thinking involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by jaywill, posted 10-30-2013 3:19 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2013 1:01 AM Pressie has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 190 of 376 (710012)
11-01-2013 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Pressie
11-01-2013 12:51 AM


Re: First man?
Eternal life is wishful thinking. No evidence for it. That's one of the reasons humanity invented thousands of Gods. Your particular God is just one of those invented by humans.
The resurrection of Christ demonstrates that as He spoke, He overcame death.
How come the Romans or the unbelieving Jews simply did not parade the corpse of Jesus around to settle the matter that He had not risen as His disciples were now proclaiming ? That would have greatly weakened His teachings about His predictions concerning His conquering death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Pressie, posted 11-01-2013 12:51 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Theodoric, posted 11-01-2013 9:05 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 191 of 376 (710013)
11-01-2013 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by jar
10-31-2013 11:24 AM


Re: First man?
And became bejeweled and bemused as she looks benignly down on all of us.
She's probably bemused mostly about how evos doctored up her bones to make their theory look valid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6RfIEVO6YQ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 10-31-2013 11:24 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Pressie, posted 11-01-2013 2:07 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 209 by jar, posted 11-01-2013 8:38 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 192 of 376 (710014)
11-01-2013 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Pressie
10-31-2013 8:59 AM


Re: First man?
Please don't tell untruths about what biologists actually can demonstrate. You telling untruths certainly does not do your religion any favours.
I stand by the statement. That's what gradualism is all about.
Hope you do know that the theory of evolution involves genetic variation and natural selection. And that new species have evolved, both in the field, as well as in numerous labs. Right in front of our own eyes. By way of those mechanisms.
I don't think we have observed the kind of macro evolution that allows gulls to change drastically enough to arrive at a new species. We have observed insects mutate with change in number of wings or bacteria adopt and change.
The fruit flies remained fruit flies.
The bacteria remained bacteria.
The gulls remained gulls.
The finches remained finches.
And to explain the failure the reasoning of "not enough time has passed" is often the response.
Please stop telling untruths, jaywill. Lots of people posting here are not as stupid as you think they are.
I don't think posters here are stupid. I think some are deceived. Others are very religious about their science theories and don't know it. People of faith can often recognize other people of faith.
On the other side; there's plenty of evidence that the Tethys Sea existed. No wishful thinking involved.
I didn't make any argument for or against it.
There is historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ . And if He rose His other words I should take seriously.
Dr. Gary Habermas on evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and critical scholarship - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pV5XxZQDLs
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Pressie, posted 10-31-2013 8:59 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Pressie, posted 11-01-2013 1:27 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 194 by Pressie, posted 11-01-2013 1:46 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 11-01-2013 10:50 AM jaywill has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 193 of 376 (710015)
11-01-2013 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by jaywill
11-01-2013 1:16 AM


Re: First man?
jaywill writes:
I stand by the statement. That's what gradualism is all about.
Your statement remains incorrect and untrue. It will always be. No matter how many times you repeat an untruth; it will always remain an untruth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2013 1:16 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 194 of 376 (710016)
11-01-2013 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by jaywill
11-01-2013 1:16 AM


Re: First man?
jaywill writes:
I don't think we have observed the kind of macro evolution that allows gulls to change drastically enough to arrive at a new species.
Actually, the theory of evolution perdicts that gulls will remain gulls.
Do you even know that there's quite a few different species of gulls around? Do you even know what the word 'species' means? Did you get a strawman of the word 'species' from creationist websites?
Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2013 1:16 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2013 2:09 AM Pressie has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 195 of 376 (710017)
11-01-2013 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by AZPaul3
10-31-2013 2:35 PM


Re: Verbose R Us
A time to every purpose under heaven.
Now I'll get that song stuck in my head and won't be able to shake it until the next compelling meme comes along.
Have you read Ecclesiastes? Did you understand it or did you misunderstand it like you seem to misunderstand so many other things?
Kohelet, the preacher, king of Jerusalem, was right wasn't he? As he went out to study the world looking for purpose what did he find? He found none.
Everywhere he looked he saw that all was pointless. All was in vain, useless and meaningless.
Everything is wearisome,
more than one can express;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
the ear not filled up with hearing.
What has been is what will be,
what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new
under the sun.
He looked throughout his kingdom and found toil for naught.
He found growing food to satisfy hunger but hunger never abated. It always returned. His accumulation of knowledge is ultimately left to someone after him. And the only gain from man's efforts is a life filled with pain and the strain of his toils.
He found that man was no better off than the animals. They breathe the same air, eat the same food, make children and, like animals must, men die. From dust man and animal came and to dust each will return to be forgotten in time.
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other. Yea, they have all one breath, so that man hath no preeminence above a beast, for all is vanity.
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
That's pretty summary of the some of the thoughts there.
He was almost there. Reality was just beyond his grasp, beyond his knowledge. He knew nothing about evolution.
The purposeless, mindless, goal-less revolutionary process, I am sure he would have also said was "vanity of vanities."
Then I wonder how he would have fit it into his observation that man cannot on his own find out what God has done from the beginning -
"He made everything beautiful in its own time; also He has put eternity in their heart, yet so that man does not find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." ( Ecc. 3:11)
He did not know that man was, and was descended from, a lineage of apes.
I think probably men of ancient times looked at human like apes and wondered if there was a relationship. Modern hubris assumes no one too much before Darwin ever had the idea cross their mind.
He knew nothing of the universe. He did not know the stars as suns with their own planets. He did not know the vast reaches of our galaxy, the immensity of a universe full of hundreds of billions of galaxies. He had no way to discern the great probability of other life in the magnitude of the cosmos.
In a sense your suggesting that as he looks naive to us today so also should time continue, 1000 years from now people will consider us naive with all our knowledge of microwave, black holes, etc.
But your point is ?
But Kohelet was a religious man. There were no options for him as king. There was nothing to challenge his training that god had made man and god must have had a reason, right? God would have had to make man with a purpose and yet everywhere he looked he found none.
When he says "Who knows?" about the destiny of animals as opposed to those of humans, I think he is challenging some spiritual ideas of the day.
True to his ignorance and to the only "reality" in which he had been acculturated, Kohelet could only conclude that man's purpose was to fear and obey god.
But today we have the knowledge that Kohelet lacked. We understand the universe in ways he could not have imagined. We understand the self-serving predatory nature of religion and the psychological stranglehold it puts on men.
I think we underestimate the sophistication of ancient minds on one hand somewhat. We have lost some of the wisdom they had. And the rediscovery of forgotten wisdom is often argued.
But aside from this I think that the following teaching of Paul is true regardless of what millennium we are in.
"Because that which is known of God is manifested within them, for God manifested it to them. For the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine characteristics, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being perceived by the things made, so that they would be without escuse." (Rom. 1:19-21)
Though they knew nothing about the big bang they also knew nothing about the fine tuning and the astounding anthropological like constants that were in place to make life possible in the universe.
Though we have accumulated more knowledge about more things, the wise person will still perceive the "eternal power and divine characteristics" of the Creator.
The amount of knowledge has not changed this to the realistic mind.
He says that God has made it known to mankind within His creation and that no one has an excuse to not believe in a Creator.
With this knowledge we know the concept of "purpose" in our existence as religions would have us believe falls away.
Absolutely disagree. The fine tuning of the constants permitting life and man to exist since the creation event, argue for purposefulness. We should look in the direction of having somehow lost our way.
If we are lucky, we come into this world adapted to survive. You do know that about half of all human conceptus never get that chance, don't you? A science thing.
Though some survive longer than others, God seems to take into account the quality of what they lived and not just their longevity.
Things are much better now (another science thing) but at the time your bible myths were being developed up to 2/3's of all humans born never made it out of childhood.
You are arguing the only longevity counts in the matter.
As for myths, I think you should turn some of the skepticism towards your own ideas about a mindless, random, goal-less, non-intelligent "selection" bringing about from non living material the beautiful diversity of the living things we see around us today.
I think you are not skeptical enough. I think you should turn some of that suspicion towards what you have been taught about the the process of macro evolution.
We are the lucky ones. We get to experience life. We get to have babies that with any luck will survive to have babies of their own. And in this journey through survival and procreation some of us get to have some fun along the way (think Hagen-Dazs).
My view is that God is way, way, WAY ahead of us. He has timed our arrival in the universe and the place in it so that man, at the high point of his science knowledge, can see the most of His creation.
The window of time in which we find ourselves and our very place in the galaxy maximize the vantage point from which modern science can observe the environoment. We can look back in time with telescopes peering light years away. And we are in the proper location where too many suns do not so brighten our sky that we cannot observe the stars at night.
None of this should be taken for granted. We are in the right place at the right time with the right instruments to see the largest scope of His handiwork. And to many of us the result is the same as two thousand years ago if not more so - we surmise the eternal power of God and His divine characteristic through the things which are made.
I would refer you to Astrophysicist Hugh Ross's book "Why the Universe is the Way it Is." .
And this scienctist has a creation model which makes predictions. The book More Than A Theory compares his model to other models to score them as the years go by.
I have to stop writing now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by AZPaul3, posted 10-31-2013 2:35 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Pressie, posted 11-01-2013 2:12 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 208 by AZPaul3, posted 11-01-2013 7:48 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 216 by Taq, posted 11-01-2013 10:56 AM jaywill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024