I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Was reading 1 Corinthians 1:17-31 and Chapter 2.
This is like banging your head against a wall.

Isn't it though.

 

[YoursTrue]

Isn't it though.

Me, too, I think it's funny. I hope no one will get upset if I'm smiling...and now lol...

 

[joelr]

Ok since I have an issue with humans classified as apes, I will no longer go along with the classification. But thanks anyway for your reply. If I were to take a test on the current teaching in school I would go along with the current responses and not consider it improper to do so. But I no longer agree that humans are great apes.

Based on what evidence? Why would you not go along with taxonomy? Even if one were religious why wouldn't they say God took Mammals, moved them through the various groups to get to human. We can still be genetically related to apes, be mammals (do you not think we are mammals?) but be the final product of some God. In fiction, but you could think that and at least it would make sense?
The other option is we were created special BUT we have 98% of the same DNA? We have endocrine systems that match cattle? Trenbolone is a drug for cattle to build muscle. It's now used by all top bodybuilders. Our endocrine system recognizes it and even converts it to progesterone (like all 19-nor androgens).

 

[gnostic]

No sorry. You did not write Genesis. If you did, you would be in a position to say what it should have been, but you are in no such position.

You are the one reinterpreting Genesis 1, by taking the verses out-of-context, through adding things that weren’t written into Genesis creation.

I have made no changes to Genesis 1...at all, and I didn’t take any of the verses out-of-context as you did. And I didn’t change the order of the creation timeline, more specifically chapter 1 of Genesis.

Lastly, you didn’t write Genesis too, so you are in no position to make changes to creation narrative to suit your creationist’s agenda/indoctrination.

Btw, speaking of chapter 1 and order of events:

Chapter 1, parts of creation 6 day creation, in the order they were written differed to chapter 2.

Genesis 1, humans were created last; vegetation (3rd day) and animals (5th & 6th day’s) were created before humans (later in 6th day).

But in Genesis 2, this order of creation contradict Genesis 1’s order, having Adam created before vegetation (Eden) and animals.

These orders of events in these 2 chapters, are sources of contradictions, meaning different two different groups of people wrote 2 different versions of creation, before they were combined together in one book, when compiling.

Such contradictions exist elsewhere in Genesis.

Such contradictions usually happen when there are more than one author. And it is very common in myths and legends, where people wrote in different time periods.

Even the NT gospels contradict each other in certain events.

 

[YoursTrue]

Based on what evidence? Why would you not go along with taxonomy? Even if one were religious why wouldn't they say God took Mammals, moved them through the various groups to get to human. We can still be genetically related to apes, be mammals (do you not think we are mammals?) but be the final product of some God. In fiction, but you could think that and at least it would make sense?
The other option is we were created special BUT we have 98% of the same DNA? We have endocrine systems that match cattle? Trenbolone is a drug for cattle to build muscle. It's now used by all top bodybuilders. Our endocrine system recognizes it and even converts it to progesterone (like all 19-nor androgens).

I can understand taxonomy even though I don't agree that humans are "great apes." Yes, I believe God made us as a structure with reason. But man was different from the animals. He said let us make man in our image. So similar organs and DNA are certainly readily available. How He explicitly did it is not explained in the Bible.

 

[metis]

But man was different from the animals.

Actually, it's just a matter of degrees. And this in no way means that we're exactly the same or that God looks at us in exactly the same way. Frankly, maybe He thinks that the other apes are much smarter as at least they are not hell-bend to destroy life on Earth through war or polluting their own "nest".

 

[nPeace]

Yup. I'm stopping methinks.

You are the one reinterpreting Genesis 1, by taking the verses out-of-context, through adding things that weren’t written into Genesis creation.

I have made no changes to Genesis 1...at all, and I didn’t take any of the verses out-of-context as you did. And I didn’t change the order of the creation timeline, more specifically chapter 1 of Genesis.

Lastly, you didn’t write Genesis too, so you are in no position to make changes to creation narrative to suit your creationist’s agenda/indoctrination.

Btw, speaking of chapter 1 and order of events:

Chapter 1, parts of creation 6 day creation, in the order they were written differed to chapter 2.

Genesis 1, humans were created last; vegetation (3rd day) and animals (5th & 6th day’s) were created before humans (later in 6th day).

But in Genesis 2, this order of creation contradict Genesis 1’s order, having Adam created before vegetation (Eden) and animals.

These orders of events in these 2 chapters, are sources of contradictions, meaning different two different groups of people wrote 2 different versions of creation, before they were combined together in one book, when compiling.

Such contradictions exist elsewhere in Genesis.

Such contradictions usually happen when there are more than one author. And it is very common in myths and legends, where people wrote in different time periods.

Even the NT gospels contradict each other in certain events.

Genesis 1 gives a brief overview. Genesis 2 gives a few details as history. They do not contradict each other... only to those who don't understand.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, it's just a matter of degrees. And this in no way means that we're exactly the same or that God looks at us in exactly the same way. Frankly, maybe He thinks that the other apes are much smarter as at least they are not hell-bend to destroy life on Earth through war or polluting their own "nest".

See, that's a difference between you and me. I believe God will intervene before man destroys the earth.

 

[joelr]

I can understand taxonomy even though I don't agree that humans are "great apes." Yes, I believe God made us as a structure with reason. But man was different from the animals. He said let us make man in our image. So similar organs and DNA are certainly readily available. How He explicitly did it is not explained in the Bible.

I don't understand what you are saying? Do you think humans are mammals? Animals? Hominid? Why is man different from animals? We have the same chemicals, cells, systems, DNA, RNA and so on?
We look different because the obvious line of hominids slowly evolved from "ape" looking to slowly standing more upright, losing body hair (to sweat) and growing larger brains (from meat eating).
What is so important about a literal reading of a text that was clearly sourcing Mesopotamian stories? Every nation had these creation myths. A God of reality happens to pick one tribe out of thousands but he can't give out some fresh stories? Most Christians consider those text to be myth, haven't you ever considered maybe an Israelite writer (the one who copied the Gilamesh Flood?) just wrote "make man in our image".?
In what way is a human not an ape?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Me, too, I think it's funny. I hope no one will get upset if I'm smiling...and now lol...

I too am often amused by irony.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, it's just a matter of degrees. And this in no way means that we're exactly the same or that God looks at us in exactly the same way. Frankly, maybe He thinks that the other apes are much smarter as at least they are not hell-bend to destroy life on Earth through war or polluting their own "nest".

The degree of difference is enormous except perhaps as some might imagine, in a side-by-side examination of genes, including those gaps, or missing genes. It doesn't matter if there are few genetic differences, the differences (and I won't explain them now) are tremendous. I have great respect for Richard Feynman. I have his tapes and you can listen to him on youtube. He is dead, but he made some outstanding comments. I sympathize with him and his viewpoints. He is an atheist. I am not. I have respect for him though. There is a reason particularly as to why I appreciate his comments. Anyway -- have a nice day, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't understand what you are saying? Do you think humans are mammals? Animals? Hominid? Why is man different from animals? We have the same chemicals, cells, systems, DNA, RNA and so on?
We look different because the obvious line of hominids slowly evolved from "ape" looking to slowly standing more upright, losing body hair (to sweat) and growing larger brains (from meat eating).
What is so important about a literal reading of a text that was clearly sourcing Mesopotamian stories? Every nation had these creation myths. A God of reality happens to pick one tribe out of thousands but he can't give out some fresh stories? Most Christians consider those text to be myth, haven't you ever considered maybe an Israelite writer (the one who copied the Gilamesh Flood?) just wrote "make man in our image".?
In what way is a human not an ape?

OK, I have currently given up on classifying man (humans) in the rules of taxonomy. Henceforth, and you have helped me change my mind among other commenters, I will simply mention that man is not an animal as far as "I" am concerned. Animals may be classified by scientists, but that is their terminology. And here is where, I believe (and hope) the conversation or "debate"(?) stops about this. I have feet. Ducks have feet. I am not a duck. And a duck is not a human. Unless, of course, a human walks and talks like a duck? Or the reverse.
By the way, do believers in evolution say ducks are in the same branch leading to humans? Maybe you know offhand. I can always look it up for interest when I have a chance. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't understand what you are saying? Do you think humans are mammals? Animals? Hominid? Why is man different from animals? We have the same chemicals, cells, systems, DNA, RNA and so on?
We look different because the obvious line of hominids slowly evolved from "ape" looking to slowly standing more upright, losing body hair (to sweat) and growing larger brains (from meat eating).
What is so important about a literal reading of a text that was clearly sourcing Mesopotamian stories? Every nation had these creation myths. A God of reality happens to pick one tribe out of thousands but he can't give out some fresh stories? Most Christians consider those text to be myth, haven't you ever considered maybe an Israelite writer (the one who copied the Gilamesh Flood?) just wrote "make man in our image".?
In what way is a human not an ape?

If after all this time I have to explain, at this point I suggest you try to think how humans are NOT gorillas, chimpanzees, or monkeys, etc. Yesss, scientists can classify humans in the same category as gorillas, etc. I no longer do. I used to believe the theory of evolution as well as the classifications thereby. I no longer do. And it's ok. If you believe humans are animals having evolved from whatever the "Unknown Common Ancestor" is, at this point, enjoy whatever. Bye for now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, I have currently given up on classifying man (humans) in the rules of taxonomy. Henceforth, and you have helped me change my mind among other commenters, I will simply mention that man is not an animal as far as "I" am concerned. Animals may be classified by scientists, but that is their terminology. And here is where, I believe (and hope) the conversation or "debate"(?) stops about this. I have feet. Ducks have feet. I am not a duck. And a duck is not a human. Unless, of course, a human walks and talks like a duck? Or the reverse.
By the way, do believers in evolution say ducks are in the same branch leading to humans? Maybe you know offhand. I can always look it up for interest when I have a chance. Thanks.

It isn't really what you choose to accept or believe, but that you understand the reason for classification and the reasons why man and other organisms are classified as they are within science. It isn't based on beliefs about that status of man and animals in some greater spiritual pantheon but based on the evidence that is available to be examined.

You can choose not to believe it based on reasons other than evidence, but that does not alter the value of evidence-based classification or the reasoning for that approach.

Certainly there are traits that have value in classifying organisms at different levels of taxonomy. That you have four limbs and ducks have four limbs means that we are related in a much larger group above the level of genus or species. Ducks have feathers and we have hair. We are mammals based on that and not birds.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, I have currently given up on classifying man (humans) in the rules of taxonomy. Henceforth, and you have helped me change my mind among other commenters, I will simply mention that man is not an animal as far as "I" am concerned. Animals may be classified by scientists, but that is their terminology. And here is where, I believe (and hope) the conversation or "debate"(?) stops about this. I have feet. Ducks have feet. I am not a duck. And a duck is not a human. Unless, of course, a human walks and talks like a duck? Or the reverse.
By the way, do believers in evolution say ducks are in the same branch leading to humans? Maybe you know offhand. I can always look it up for interest when I have a chance. Thanks.

Birds and humans are not on the same branch, but are related far back in history with a shared common ancestry. No one understanding and accepting the theory of evolution as an explanation thinks or states that we are descended from ducks or any other bird.

A person walking and quacking like a duck is not enough information to overturn classification, but it might be enough to consider further evaluation of that person doing the walking and quacking by members of another field of science. Again, trivial characters or characters trivial at different hierarchies is not how classification is applied.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Genesis 1 gives a brief overview. Genesis 2 gives a few details as history. They do not contradict each other... only to those who don't understand.

In your personal opinion. I know of no information that you fully understand scriptures or do not have bias.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your personal opinion. I know of no information that you fully understand scriptures or do not have bias.

People that try to read Genesis literally cannot do so for the reasons you gave. The book contradicts itself too often. I wish I still had it, but there was a Bible scholar that argued much of Genesis was an amalgam of two or more writers. He made two separate creation accounts by separating verses.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

People that try to read Genesis literally cannot do so for the reasons you gave. The book contradicts itself too often. I wish I still had it, but there was a Bible scholar that argued much of Genesis was an amalgam of two or more writers. He made two separate creation accounts by separating verses.

It has been widely recognized by scholars for some time that Genesis is an amalgam of multiple oral traditions. I'm not sure who the primary sources for that are, but I studied it as part of world lit course I took many moons ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

Birds and humans are not on the same branch, but are related far back in history with a shared common ancestry. No one understanding and accepting the theory of evolution as an explanation thinks or states that we are descended from ducks or any other bird.

A person walking and quacking like a duck is not enough information to overturn classification, but it might be enough to consider further evaluation of that person doing the walking and quacking by members of another field of science. Again, trivial characters or characters trivial at different hierarchies is not how classification is applied.

Maybe genes shifted. ok be that as it may or may not be, I believe the discussion is basically over. Bye for now, thanks for your effort

 

[YoursTrue]

It has been widely recognized by scholars for some time that Genesis is an amalgam of multiple oral traditions. I'm not sure who the primary sources for that are, but I studied it as part of world lit course I took many moons ago.

People say different things about it. So do religions which is why someone like intellectual scientists may be atheists.