TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I think a translation into more direct creationist terms would be something like:
"The human mind is too complex to have come from a monkey!"
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution theory as a parable inspired by God?
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
I think a translation into more direct creationist terms would be something like:
"The human mind is too complex to have come from a monkey!"
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
But that's demonstrable not the case.
We are great ape / primate, just like chimps and gorilla's.
We are mammals, just like cats and rabbits and bears and pigs and cows and dolphins and bats and whales.
We are vertebrates, just like crockodiles, birds and fish.
We are eukaryotes, just like apple trees.
No, we definatly live on the same tree and are part of the same nested hierarchical structure like all other living things.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why would a dog have a human consciousness instead of a dog consciousness?
ps: "too complex" = nothing but an argument of ignorance / incredulity
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No. You believe.
You don't know.
Becaue you don't know it, if you can't show it.
And surely, you can't show it, can you?
Multiple abiogenetic origins are certainly possible, but the weight of current evidence points to a single genetic and biochemical model from which currently known lifeforms developed. This, of course, does not preclude different forms of self-replicating megamolecules originating separately, but if these proto-lifeforms did/do form, they do not seem to persist for long in a world already populated by well established microbes they cannot compete with.
As for humans being a monophyletic or entirely unique branch of life, there is no evidence of this and a massive amount of evidence militating against the idea. We are very clearly eukaryotes, animals, chordates and mammals. There is nothing biologically, chemically or genetically unique about us.
But how does the usage of a theory affect its validity?
The goddidit crowd, with their parables and folklore are all well and good, except that this epistemic approach precludes critical analysis, scientific understanding and comfortable integration into a modern, scientific and technological world. It is a comfortable but delusional form of magical thinking
Jim
Nets of Wonder
I don’t know enough about the Kaballa to say. That isn’t what I have in mind.
Modern taxonomy has always been defined by lineage; by reproductive relatedness. Even the pre-Darwinian Linnaeus based his classifications on relatedness, though he could not have understood the mechanisms thereof.
Modern cladistics is entirely based on genetic descent, with DNA being a much more useful tool than form. Forms are largely determined by ecological niche, with organisms exhibiting very similar forms even when they're very distantly related biologically.
Last edited:
Jim
Nets of Wonder
I’m not saying that it does. What I’m thinking is that it’s a misuse of the theories to use them as reasons for denouncing and ridiculing people’s beliefs, and for disparaging their character and capacities.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
I’m not saying that my God exists. I don’t think that He does.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
To avoid confusion, I’m retracting this statement:
What I’m saying now is that humans might be on a tree of life that has always been separate from other trees.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
That’s what I’ve been trying to do in these threads:
- Histories of life: tree, web and ring models
- Evolution theories with no universal common ancestor
- Example of models, metaphors and analogies in the sciences
Sorry, but I can't see that under a good light.
Because you are inviting us to rise dogma - chauvinist dogma at that - to a level of prestige comparable to hard earned actual biological knowledge.
To the best of my understanding, your tools for that goal are selective sampling and creative reinterpretation of bits and pieces that have or appear to be biological origin.
That... is not very defensable, I must say.
idea
Question Everything
I love this ↑↑ ... I'm going to an ornament and cookie exchange tonight with a bunch of ex-Mormons, and I'm bringing a dinosaur ornament - for the card: "Once upon a time, in the beginning of an era, the earth was formless and void... life climbed out of the darkness"... I believe in dinosaurs. we all have a dinosaur within us trying to get out. Dinosaurs are our fierce and powerful Early Father and Mothers. It is an amazing thing, our incredible natural heritage, this thing called nature...
Jim
Nets of Wonder
I don’t understand. You’re saying that a good way of using theories is for denouncing and ridiculing people’s beliefs, and for disparaging their character and capacities?
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
History books say that Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492, even though America was discovered and settled by indigenous peoples way before then. It was also occupied by animals even before the indigenous peoples walked the earth. Why so many dates?
The discrepancy between these various discovery dates, is based on different shades of significance. The year 1492 is the starting date for eastern and western European civilizations migrating and settling the new land. This was followed by world wide migration, which led to the modern Americas. The Indigenous people discovery dating, leads to another place in time, that is also true. People chose the date that has most significance to them, even if both are true in their own way.
Something similar is at work in terms of Creation and Evolution.There are two sets of dates, with each data define a starting point for a particular movement. Evolution is more connected to biology. The Creation dating is more connected to the formation of civilization and an important invention; written language. These two changes had a huge impact on the natural human brain of evolution, which would lead to modern humans. With changes like civilization, humans were forced to evolve in a new and unprecedented type of social and physical environment. The selection process shifted humans to a new place that was not natural. The speed of change was fast.
Before written language, people could communicate and transfer meaning. However, there was no good way for everyone to remember in the long term, except with oral traditions. Picture going to school and there is no written language and no recording devices. You have to hear it and remember it. There is no way to review what you heard, so you can study. You had to depend on your own memory or a consensus of memories. Over time things would become embellished, exaggerated and lost. Evidenced shows that civilization had a few startups, before written language, but all aborted. One generation created the traditions, but this soon was lost to memory. Human returned to natural living.
When written language appeared, this changed everything. It provided a way to carve things into stone, so one could review a repeatable past for constant memory reinforcement. This could last for generations and allowed civilizations to form and last. Genesis was the first published theory of everything in science. Even in science, being published is when it is made special and timeless.
The timeless nature of written records, had the impact of repressing the natural brain, gradually leading to a new type of human. Spirituality is based on connections that are not necessarily based on sensory reality. It makes more use of the frontal lobe. These changes became the new environment for the selection process of human evolution. Humans no longer have conscious natural instinct due to the environmental pressures of civilization.
Genesis is the 1492 of this new world order for modern humans. This does not diminish Evolution, but evolution does not fully include how humans created unnatural environmental potentials, which altered the natural selection process, leading to a new type of human. This new human would learn to control nature ofter to its own detriment.
When the shoe fits, sure.
Not everything that claims to be a religious teaching is worth standing over its own weight. Denouncing the poison in doctrines is as much a part of caring for their quality as anything else.
If it turns out that reliable theories can be used for that much necessary goal, then so be it.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
All similarities of any kind could be a result of convergent evolution.