T
Techno2000
Guest
It might go on for Billions and Billions and Billions of posts… I’m just speculating.
Last edited:
- Status
E
edwest21
Guest
The answers are “out of the blue” and “for no particular reason.” We have apes today which are referred to as our “evolutionary cousins.” In fact, insanity on top of insanity - which appears to be on the rise - has resulted in the following:
"November 2016, Judge María Alejandra Maurico of Argentina ruled that a chimpanzee named Cecilia was a “nonhuman legal person” and agreed that the ape had “inherent rights.”
"Two years earlier, the same judge deemed an orangutan named Sandra also deserved “personhood.”
“Both apes were transferred to a sanctuary in Brazil to live as autonomously as possible with other animals in their species for the rest of their lives.”
Apes don’t need personhood, they just don’t deserve being put into cages, or being abused, and left in their usual habitats. But creating something “new” is the driving force of some. “Look, it’s the 21st Century! And we worship the god Change, which demands… change.”
Pathetic. As if the proper care and treatment of animals became an issue only a few years ago.
Ed
"November 2016, Judge María Alejandra Maurico of Argentina ruled that a chimpanzee named Cecilia was a “nonhuman legal person” and agreed that the ape had “inherent rights.”
"Two years earlier, the same judge deemed an orangutan named Sandra also deserved “personhood.”
“Both apes were transferred to a sanctuary in Brazil to live as autonomously as possible with other animals in their species for the rest of their lives.”
Apes don’t need personhood, they just don’t deserve being put into cages, or being abused, and left in their usual habitats. But creating something “new” is the driving force of some. “Look, it’s the 21st Century! And we worship the god Change, which demands… change.”
Pathetic. As if the proper care and treatment of animals became an issue only a few years ago.
Ed
E
edwest21
Guest
Billy-uns and billy-uns.
R
Rau
Guest
Joe, did your high school science classes not discuss evolution at least in general terms?
Another question to ask: What was the natural environment of this planet like several million years ago? How did it come to its present state?
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Maybe I don’t remember sadly. It could have been taught, but only for one lesson, or else I would remember it being on a test.
I see where your going with this, I just wanted to know if there was any scientific reason why a new species emerges from a different species. I’d like to think it has to do with adapting to an environment but that’s unlikely
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Reason? Is there a reason a cancer develops in an otherwise perfectly healthy person? Or a reason a person develops an inheritable genetic disease? These things are no help and may see the animal die early. The change from one species to another is sometimes very slight - to the point where that they are a different species is not recognised by those observing these things. Changes don’t have a “reason”, but they tend to become established if they do no harm, or particularly, if they confer some benefit - which relates to the environment as your question suggested.
E
edwest21
Guest
Adaptation is one thing. Species separation is entirely different and very highly unlikely.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Yes there are reasons. It could be environmental (i.e. Chemicals that you come into contact on a regular bases could cause lung cancer. Also, many doctors say that food also plays a factor in causing cancer. Look up Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn and he can show you.
I agree but when we are talking about humanity, how did we go from simple apes that never created anything, that would show some form of high intelligence, to homo sapiens that have managed to discover, invent, and have created wonders that would never be thought possible. (I don’t rule out evolution but I would like to see and answer)
My final question is this, do we have a somewhat similar brain to monkeys and apes?
R
Rau
Guest
Because…?
R
Rau
Guest
Ahhh… you refer here to a cause, or trigger. Certainly this can be the case. But it does not explain all cancers, let alone all genetic heritable conditions. In some cases, genetic information simply fails to replicate faithfully. I don’t think anyone can point to the reason, or the cause.
First, there is no reason to assume that what happens in birds doesn’t happen in primates. But I certainly can’t suggest to you the definitive sequence of events leading to Adam and Eve. I don’t believe anyone can.
Last edited:
E
edwest21
Guest
I write fiction but my readers would not see the following as anything plausible. Yet we are told we somehow diverged from another alleged common ancestor.
Bag-like sea creature was humans' oldest known ancestor
Researchers have identified traces of what they believe is the earliest known prehistoric ancestor of humans -- a microscopic, bag-like sea creature, which lived about 540 million years ago.
www.sciencedaily.com
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Is that for real?
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
You are a student of the media Ed. Sensationalism is routine - it grabs attention. Usually, there is a grain of truth. Or in some cases, more than a grain - such as in the assertion that we are all made from the remnants of exploding stars (=stardust).
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
This well-known passage (kindly supplied by rossum in post 625) from Augustine is often trotted out by theist evolutionists and atheists alike as some kind of rebuttal to creation literalists. I agree with the point it makes, but unfortunately it doesn’t support your claim and neither can it be directed against Christians who hold to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.
You said, “Augustine, who claimed that an historical reading of Genesis that flies in the face of scientific evidence just makes us Christians look silly”. This is patently false. Not only doesn’t Augustine mention anything about “an historical reading of Genesis” in this passage, it can easily be demonstrated that he could not possibly have ever claimed such a thing.
Please consider the following points:
Not your best work, is it?
You said, “Augustine, who claimed that an historical reading of Genesis that flies in the face of scientific evidence just makes us Christians look silly”. This is patently false. Not only doesn’t Augustine mention anything about “an historical reading of Genesis” in this passage, it can easily be demonstrated that he could not possibly have ever claimed such a thing.
Please consider the following points:
- the theory of billions of years of evolution is untestable, so it will never be established as an indisputable scientific fact. In which case, ToE will never prove that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is erroneous and that it is a source of embarrassment.
- In said passage, the Augustine refers to demonstrable scientific facts as “knowledge he hold as to being certain from reason and experience”. The theory that all life on earth evolved from a unicellular organism over billions of years can hardly be described as “knowledge” that is “certain”.
- Augustine refers to the erroneous interpretations of Scripture that are open to ridicule by demonstrable, scientific facts as “nonsense”, mischievous false opinions" and “utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements”. The Church teaches that the faithful may believe a literal interpretation of Genesis, so how do you suppose said literal interpretation qualifies as the “nonsense”, “mischievous false opinion” and an “utterly foolish and obviously untrue statement” that Augustine refers to?
Not your best work, is it?
G
Glark
Guest
You’re both wrong. Read my post to Gorgias above (#721).
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
By using the generic word “life,” you are burying the implications of your claim within your imprecise choice of words.
To assert, for example, that consciousness and personal identity as phenomena are analogous to the “emergent” property changes that arise when a gas transforms into a liquid would be to completely misrepresent and absurdly reduce the profound significance of what it means to have consciousness and subjective identity in the first place.
For one thing, first person identity and subject perspective are left completely unexplained. Why, for example, is my personal identity and subject perspective found in the here and now, and not five hundred years ago or in some other space-time location, given that the biochemical material constructs from which consciousness, in general, is claimed to have emerged are, roughly speaking, the same?
How do biochemical material properties explain the difference between the first person perspective I have here in this time and in this place and that which is yours in your time and place?
Water, as an “emergent” phenomenon has identical properties wherever it arises. Consciousness not so much, especially when the requirement to explain each individual loci of consciousness is properly addressed.
E
edwest21
Guest
Back to the stardust thing again? God created ex nihilo. That explanation is a better one. Besides, I don’t buy the order out of chaos thing.
On a side note, a tree that has gone missing for 150 million years has been found. You can buy cuttings if you like. Somehow it survived all those interglacial periods.
On a side note, a tree that has gone missing for 150 million years has been found. You can buy cuttings if you like. Somehow it survived all those interglacial periods.
E
edwest21
Guest
Well said. It puts things into their proper perspective.
G
Glark
Guest
It says Adam was made from INANIMATE physical stuff, not from a living creature.
E
edwest21
Guest
Well done. But some treat science as the only way of knowing and the ultimate explanatory tool. Without any reason at all, the proposal is that our minds, our self-awareness, are self-upgrading and are the same as the alleged self-upgrading of our bodies - for no particular reason, during our so-called “evolution.”
As bio-mechanical robots that respond to outside stimuli in a finite number of ways, we only live, reproduce or not, and die. Full stop. Just a bag of chemicals that will rot away. To quote a well-known writer who clearly had an anarchist side: “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” Macbeth
Cheery fellow who I’d never want to meet. But back to the topic. When man becomes the measure of all things, when man is the source of all knowledge, only man (scientists in particular) can judge the behavior of man. With man as god, there is no need for the true God.
Evolutionary psychology is ALL you need. Trust me, says the con-man. It’s all in the journal, Evolution & Human Behavior. Yeah, right. The Ten Commandments - that works.
As bio-mechanical robots that respond to outside stimuli in a finite number of ways, we only live, reproduce or not, and die. Full stop. Just a bag of chemicals that will rot away. To quote a well-known writer who clearly had an anarchist side: “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” Macbeth
Cheery fellow who I’d never want to meet. But back to the topic. When man becomes the measure of all things, when man is the source of all knowledge, only man (scientists in particular) can judge the behavior of man. With man as god, there is no need for the true God.
Evolutionary psychology is ALL you need. Trust me, says the con-man. It’s all in the journal, Evolution & Human Behavior. Yeah, right. The Ten Commandments - that works.
- Status