|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Molecules to Man Evolution
« Back to club forum
| |||||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Viuc 23:52That's exactly what I've been trying to do. I've suggested the combination of intelligence, language, domestication of crops and animals (i.e., the Neolithic Revolution) and time for these factors to interact and build on each other. You have suggested 'special creation'; which is another way of saying (quite literally) "God only knows!" So follow your own advice, and come up with a few ideas that are not the equivalent of shrugging your shoulders. You still haven't defined the division between 'human' and 'animal'. I've asked three times, and each time you have ignored the question. Since your whole case rests on that distinction, it seems to a casual observer that not even you have a good grip on your argument. Meanwhile, you can decide whether or not Neanderthals were part of the human 'special creation' or not. Or perhaps they were a completely separate 'special creation' because they were also capable of things that no animal before them had ever achieved, in the same sense that modern humans have hit that same target. Or you could even decide that ALL of Creation is special, unfolding as planned. Seriously, Vic; you are not stupid. I know that! So why do you crouch behind a wall of self-inflicted ignorance? You could do so much better and learn so much more if you had the courage to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it means going outside your comfort zone. It doesn't mean 'throwing away your faith'; after all, don't you believe that 'once saved, always saved'? Instead, you should have the courage that comes of being secure in your faith, to seek a mature understanding instead of settling for the Sunday School version. I've told you before that I can see you WANT to understand, so get yourself enrolled in a reputable part-time course, doing just one or two subjects at a time if that's all you have time and funds for. Learn what REAL Bible study is! I found my time doing the B.Th. thrilling, a word that comes to the lips of a geriatric like me less often than it once did. Until you can do that, perhaps it IS pointless arguing. In the meantime, I'll be waiting. |
||||||||||||||
|
Proof of God's wonder www.sciencefocus.com |
||||||||||||||
|
More proof science.nasa.gov |
||||||||||||||
|
And more proof www.nationalgeographic.com www.biography.com |
||||||||||||||
|
@Bob Seriously. As I said twice before, whatever you come up with to explain the vast differences in abilities, capabilities and accomplishments between humans and the most advanced animal species is going to be evidence humans are a special creation because humans have something very significant that animals do not. You have mentioned a few possible reasons for the superiority of humans in this regard but haven’t gone beneath the surface to ask the question “Why?” That’s the important question. Why are humans more intelligent? Why did they develop language when animals didn’t? I don’t need to define the difference between humans and animals when science has already done it. This is just another red herring designed to satiate your need to argue. The question of whether and why humans are a special creation has nothing to do with my faith. It’s obvious humans are a special creation. The only question is why (i.e. what makes them a special creation.) What I believe is mainstream and Bible-based Christianity, and I certainly don’t appreciate your denigrating it, especially when you have said several times that you don’t know what you believe beyond God is sovereign, omnipotent, incomprehensible and love. That’s what they teach the youngest students in Sunday School, Bob, and it doesn’t make you a Christian. Your denigrating my faith as a “Sunday School” faith is clearly psychological projection on your part, and saying you don’t know what you believe is not a sign of theological sophistication. It’s a sign of confusion and the result of trying to know a spiritual being through carnal means. You might meditate on this verse written by the Apostle Paul… “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtility, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:3) Knowing God isn’t some esoteric pursuit through dusty volumes of theological essays or a complicated puzzle to be solved through endless study. But it requires humility and an open heart and your self-admitted arrogance (which you’ve even boasted about) isn’t helping you. |
||||||||||||||
|
@Bob <<AI Overview The "simplicity that is in Christ," as referenced in 2 Corinthians 11:3, refers to a pure, unadulterated devotion to Christ, free from deception and worldly distractions, emphasizing a sincere and genuine faith. Here's a more detailed explanation: Biblical Context: The apostle Paul uses this phrase in 2 Corinthians 11:3, expressing his concern that the Corinthian believers might be misled, just as Eve was deceived by the serpent. Meaning of "Simplicity": The Greek word translated as "simplicity" (haplotes) in this verse carries the meaning of singleness, purity, and straightforwardness. It's not about foolishness or ignorance, but about a focus on the core truth of Christ. What it's NOT: The "simplicity that is in Christ" is not about rejecting knowledge or intellectual pursuits, but rather about avoiding being swayed by false teachings or worldly philosophies that distract from the true gospel. Paul's Fear: Paul feared that the Corinthians might be corrupted from this pure devotion to Christ, potentially by false teachers or by embracing a different gospel or a different understanding of Jesus. Maintaining Simplicity: To maintain this simplicity, Christians are encouraged to remain focused on Christ, resist deception, and cling to the core truths of the gospel. Examples in the Bible: Jesus' teachings often emphasized simplicity and trust in God, such as when he told his disciples to not worry about what they would eat or wear, but to seek first God's kingdom.>> |
||||||||||||||
|
@Bob Is this an example of your “mature understanding” and mature faith? You had the following exchange with stalhandske around the same time you denigrated my faith (which you’ve been doing for years) and boasted of having a “mature faith…” stalhandske: <<No, I don't lose patience I understand what you are saying. I just find it remarkable that one can have a belief, a faith, in something one doesn't know what it is. If I would dare a counter argument, I would say that humans have a tendency to believe in 'a higher force' in their wish to have an explanation for it all. Apparently, it is not satisfactory to the majority of us to just admit that we don't know what the origins of everything is; we somehow need to give it a 'face' and a 'reason'.>> You: << <I understand what you are saying.> That's comforting, because I don't. I only have hints, whispers, flashes, and I know I'll still be puzzling over it when I die. I think I have barely enough to guess which direction to take.>> Exchange at the bottom of this page… m.gameknot.com I really wish you could stick to the subject of this thread and not denigrate my faith with your cheap and false insults. But as long as you do, I’ll be happy to remind you of your hypocrisy in questioning anyone else’s faith. Oh, and it appears (from that same page) you believe only that God is sovereign, omnipresent (not omnipotent,) incomprehensible and love. That’s the “mature understanding” and “mature faith” you obtained by sitting in a classroom and reading theological textbooks for years? No thanks. I’ll stick to the Bible and prayer. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vast Gulf 6:21 I’m uncertain what that vast gulf is supposed to be. Apes use sticks to pull ants out of piles, and will beat things with rocks. Apes make their squatting quarters more comfortable by removing debris, flattening grass, and so on. When I think about early humans, 400,000 year old archaic sapiens in Morocco, their tools were only marginally more advanced. The chief difference between apes and humans at that stage was in representational art. Wild chimps are not known for artistic creation, decorating their bodies, or making fire. Early hominids could make stuff burn. That difference doesn’t appear to be all that big. Just baby steps. And the differences between Miocene ape and early hominids of the same period seem even smaller yet. |
||||||||||||||
|
20,000 Years But humans existed more than 200 years ago. Pretty sure we can show we were not created more recently than the United States became a nation. I believe the founding fathers had souls too, even f they lived more than 200 years ago. 20,000 years back humans began agriculture in the Fertile Crescent. By 12,000 years we were building things like Gobleke Tepe. But we didn’t achieve orbit until 1957. We didn’t land spacecraft on other worlds until 1966. Humans did not tread upon the lunar surface until 1969. These antics required a well developed technology and cooperation between vast groups. You’re not suggesting God gave the Nazi’s rocket technology the atheist communists developed into space capability. Our technology has certainly evolved by people getting creative, not by God divulging the formula for Zyklon B to German chemists. |
||||||||||||||
|
Fiat Phone <<If you're only talking about humans that lived in the last 200 years, then does that mean all those people who died before 1800 were not human? The people who wrote the Bible, for example? Does it also mean that 'accomplishments' before 1800 are also not included in Humanity's highlights? Such as the invention of calculus, music, writing, etc?>> I see Bob beat me to it. Did not mean to gang up, but I hope I’ve at least offered the same insight from a different perspective. If our technological achievements are what mark us as a special creation it strikes me as odd Prometheus didn’t simply bequeath fire. The will of the Gods was defied by human technology. Our tools revealed there is no firmament, and that our cosmos vastly exceeds the 6000 year creation date calculated by Ussher. In other words, why didn’t Cro Magnon have ICBMs and mRNA vaccines? I think it is a mistake to disconnect the present from the past, instead of viewing the evolution of our biological and technological development as a continuum. I mean, if you look at a cell phone without regard to telegraph machines, it is easy to imagine there is no connection or common thread. No evolutionary pathway from dit dot dit to video conference. |
||||||||||||||
|
Intelligent: Darwin. Newton. Einstein. Not so much: Duck Dynasty. Jersey Shore. Donald Trump. Gomer Pyle. Sarah Palin. Tommy Tuberville. Louie Gohmert. <<It appears you disagree on the cause of the vast gulf between the abilities, capabilities and accomplishments of humans vs. animals.>> Did our species exist before the Neolithic? Aside from other primates, do animals have opposable thumbs? Is technology a consequence of biological evolution? Does evolution possess goals beyond survival and propagation? |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
jonheck 24-Mar-25, 09:21 |
lord_shiva |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic I'll share it here. With the caviat that I'm not on any side note am I judging anyone in this conversation. A vast gulf exists between modern humans and modern apes in terms of abilities, capabilities, and accomplishments due to several key factors: Biological and Cognitive Differences Brain Size and Complexity: Humans have brains three times larger than apes, enabling advanced problem-solving, abstract thinking, and language development. While apes exhibit intelligence comparable to a 3-4-year-old human, they lack the capacity for intentional teaching and cumulative cultural evolution. Bipedalism: Human anatomy supports walking upright, freeing hands for tool use and manipulation. This adaptation allowed early humans to develop more complex tools and technologies over time. Cultural and Technological Advancements Cumulative Culture: Humans build on previous generations' knowledge, leading to exponential growth in technology, science, and societal structures. Apes show cultural behaviors but lack the mechanisms for such cumulative progress. Language: Humans use complex language to share ideas, collaborate in large groups, and innovate. Apes communicate but do not possess the same linguistic capabilities. Evolutionary Feedback Loops Energy Allocation: Humans evolved to overcome the energy constraints of large brains through cooperative breeding, efficient bipedal locomotion, and dietary shifts. These changes created a positive feedback loop for brain expansion. Tool Use: Early humans' reliance on tools drove further cognitive development, while apes' simpler tool use did not necessitate similar advancements. In summary, the vast gulf arises from unique human adaptations—larger brains, cultural transmission, and complex social structures—that allowed for unparalleled advancements in technology and society. Apes remain highly intelligent but are constrained by biological and cultural limitations. |
||||||||||||||
|
Close Your Eyes Cell phones, maybe. Let’s see, 1825. Sturgeon invents the electromagnet. That is a pretty critical juncture. So hominids prior to electromagnetism weren’t truly human, but subsequent humans are? I understand you’re not singling out one single significant thing, like if humans in Mongolia aren’t using electromagnets they aren’t truly special creations, as opposed to ripen-of-the-mill evolved animals. But if you put humans Naked and Afraid in an arboreal jungle (are there any other kinds?) the chimps (or non human apes) have significant advantage. They live out their entire lives Tarzan style. You should watch some episodes. They blur all the naughty bits. It is amazing how fast the weight loss commences. I forget what the usual session is, two weeks maybe? And they get a knife and water bottle. Be far more interesting if they had to forego those. Speaking of Prometheus, I have never built a fire from scratch. I feel like I’m not really fully human until I’ve done this most rudimentary of things. I know it will require time and effort, rubbing sticks until flame occurs. But until I do that one small thing without striking a match I don’t feel like I’m really qualified to claim to be human. Making fire is the green card to humanness. Writing is pretty cool, and I know you’ve done your fair share of that. But have you ever made fire from raw material, as our species has for four hundred thousand years, and our sister species even longer? Fire trumps electromagnetism for distinguishing human from all other species, in my opinion. We’ve done that our side of eternity, and beyond cousin primates no other species has. Fire is the foundation for all subsequent tech. No refining or isolating elements absent that very basic thing. Even the Greeks recognized this, hence the near hero worship of Prometheus. |
||||||||||||||
|
@apatzer To go a bit further, I guess the questions then become… • How does the theory of molecules-to-man evolution explain humans having a brain three times larger and a brain that enables advanced problem solving, abstract thinking and language development? • Why do apes lack the ability to build on previous generations’ knowledge? Why do they lack mechanisms for cumulative knowledge? Is that solely due to their brains being different? • Why do apes not possess the ability for complex language? Is that due to their brains being different or do they lack the anatomy to speak a variety of different words? Similar questions arise for tool use, bipedalism, breeding, etc. I honestly don’t see how the theory of molecules-to-man evolution explains the differences between the abilities, capabilities and accomplishments of humans and apes. I appreciate and thank you for those reasons and think it mostly comes down to differences in the size and abilities of the human brain vs. the brain of an ape. Seems odd to me that a blind-chance process of random mutations and natural selection would confer such an enormous advantage on one species, unless, for example, apes have the intellectual ability to communicate in language like humans but lack the necessary anatomy to do so. That would really be tragic and akin to a human losing the ability to speak and write. |
||||||||||||||
|
Large Language Model Vic quotes the Perplexity Oracle: Evolutionary Feedback Loops <<Energy Allocation: Humans evolved to overcome the energy constraints of large brains through cooperative breeding, efficient bipedal locomotion, and dietary shifts. These changes created a positive feedback loop for brain expansion.>> I do not disagree with this. Bob notes Neanderthal had bigger brains. They did. They could easily have been smarter than us, which may have been part of their downfall. Our own big brains didn’t help Germans avoid electing Hitler, or us putting Groper back into office. I am enthralled by the story of Sacajawea. Her parents described a mountain range to her at about age ten which she had never seen herself, in the Shoshone tongues-a rich language for which we have lost much vocabulary since 1800. She was then taken across North America to the east coast. A few years after that she hooked up with the Lewis and Clark troupe, giving birth to a son along the way back to her native land in southern Idaho and northern Nevada (my old stomping grounds). Despite these major life changing events, she possessed the clarity of mind to recognize a mountain range from a description her parents had given her several years earlier OF THE OTHER SIDE. In contrast I have gotten lost a mere mile from my vehicle on cursorial deer hunting trips. And Neanderthal mental capabilities likely exceeded those of the Shoshone/Paiute, minus the latter’s tech. <<Tool Use: Early humans' reliance on tools drove further cognitive development, while apes' simpler tool use did not necessitate similar advancements.>> Our technology evolved with incredible speed over the past twelve thousand years. That is a mere eye-blink in geologic time. Maxwell didn’t invent the electromagnet and think, “l bet some day soon I could turn this into an internet connected cell phone…” That outgrowth required two centuries of people tinkering with current flow and integrated circuitry. <<In summary, the vast gulf arises from unique human adaptations—larger brains, cultural transmission, and complex social structures—that allowed for unparalleled advancements in technology and society. Apes remain highly intelligent but are constrained by biological and cultural limitations.>> Indeed. |
||||||||||||||
|
This is (obviously) a faulty comparison because the differences in abilities, capabilities and accomplishments between humans and apes hadn’t been manifested to anywhere near the extent they have been today. It’d be like trying to compare two sprinters in the first three yards of a 100-yard race. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic What I find very interesting is that the Bible says that there were "other" Humans in the world at that time (Adam and Eve in the garden) If it were just a simple explanation for the birth of humanity, (meaning a story from man) I don't think that fact would be included because it would be man explaining why humans exist aso why say there were other humans? because there were other species of humanoids! I don't think that if it was a made ups story by some guy ( so to speak) I do not think that detail would have been included. Also the garden of eden as set apart from the rest of the world. That sounds very much like a controlled environment. I don't see any of this information as refuting the Bible. |
||||||||||||||
|
If there was direct evidence that God created humans, then there is direct evidence of God. Then what choice would anyone have? God IMHO designed humans and gave them a free will to choose. If we are given no logical choice how does faith exist? So there will always be disagreements and the two camps can actually learn from one another. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 7:48 1. <@Bob Are you capable of a discussion without insults and trolling?> Yes. If you think I'm insulting and trolling, just list the posts where I have done that and I'll either apologise and retract if your complaint has merit, or submit to the judgment of two moderators if there remains a dispute. 2. <As I said twice before, whatever you come up with to explain the vast differences in abilities, capabilities and accomplishments between humans and the most advanced animal species is going to be evidence humans are a special creation> You have given away your false assumption in that one sentence. You have already decide that ANY evidence of 'vast difference' is evidence of 'special creation. That is precisely what I dispute. Evidence of a 'vast difference' might well be the result of a radically different evolutionary pathway, followed by the extinction of the intermediate steps. I have also pointed out that MANY critters have 'vast differences' from others. Does that mean they are all 'special creations'? Seriously, Vic; you continue to make assertions founded on assumptions rather than evidence and logic, and fail to address any critique with a reasoned reply. 3. <The question of whether and why humans are a special creation has nothing to do with my faith. It’s obvious humans are a special creation. The only question is why (i.e. what makes them a special creation.) What I believe is mainstream and Bible-based Christianity> Am I the only person here who sees another internal contradiction? Or even a couple? Doesn't the term 'special creation' imply a creator? Isn't that a religious concept? And if your answer to the 'question' ("whether and why humans are a special creation") has nothing to do with your faith, then why mention your faith? 4. <Your denigrating my faith as a “Sunday School” faith is clearly psychological projection on your part, and saying you don’t know what you believe is not a sign of theological sophistication.> Again you confuse two different things. But don't worry; this often happens and can be corrected with a bit of intellectual discipline. I did NOT denigrate your faith. I said that your UNDERSTANDING is simplistic, at Sunday-school level. As Paul tells his readers (though I am certainly no Paul!) "Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready." I am not 'denigrating your faith', but urging you to grow into a more mature faith. <Why are humans more intelligent?> Please, exactly WHAT is 'the question'? You seem to skip between 'intelligence' of individuals, to achievements of communities over many lifetimes, while arguing (without any connecting reasoning) that these are proof of 'special creation'. It seems you don't even understand the question you posed yourself! So why don't you take a few minutes of reflection, and then ask EXACTLY what you want to discuss. But in passing, one answer to this sub-question of intelligence has already been given; that intelligence imposes a large metabolic burden. The average human at rest spends about 17% of his energy just supporting the brain. Other animals didn't need more intelligence, so any that happened to develop it would be the first to die out when food became scarce. But humans (primates generally) had less physical advantages going for them so they needed to form social groups to survive. Mammals in social groups need to co-ordinate, to know who allies and opponents are (rudimentary politics) and other aspects where brainpower is more important than muscle power. So humans are one genus in which intelligence confers a significant benefit, so it was retained. Now, what's your answer? Why do you think humans tend to be more intelligent than other animals? Remember your words "The question of whether and why humans are a special creation has nothing to do with my faith." 5. <But it requires humility and an open heart and your self-admitted arrogance (which you’ve even boasted about) isn’t helping you.> Quite right. It needs humility, and it also needs the courage to think new thoughts, to test them. Just like a baby has to let go of the furniture if it is going to walk by himself. And my self-confessed arrogance was a confession, not a boast. I'm well aware of that fault, which is why I welcome criticism that shows me a better way. But not criticism that provides no advice for improvement or is supported by assumptions which are palpably false. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 8:20 So why don't you heed it? As the post says, <The Greek word translated as "simplicity" (haplotes) in this verse carries the meaning of singleness, purity, and straightforwardness. It's not about foolishness or ignorance, but about a focus on the core truth of Christ. What it's NOT: The "simplicity that is in Christ" is not about rejecting knowledge or intellectual pursuits, but rather about avoiding being swayed by false teachings or worldly philosophies that distract from the true gospel.> So why do you reject knowledge and intellectual pursuits, calling disciplined learning 'carnal'? You know the words, but you don't grasp their meaning! Anyway, I'll be back in a few hours. |
||||||||||||||
|
@Bob And you once again, in almost knee-jerk fashion, throw in your little put-down. Didn’t you months ago tell everyone on here you suffer from a medical condition that causes you to behave obnoxiously and anti-socially? I’m just asking so I can know whether I should expect your behavior toward me to change or whether it’s something I just have to accept if and when I choose to converse with you. |
||||||||||||||
|
<<I am not 'denigrating your faith', but urging you to grow into a more mature faith.>> Do you think you have a mature faith when you wrote this to stalhandske? You (quoting stalhandske.) I understand what you are saying. You (responding to stalhandske’s quote.) That's comforting, because I don't. I only have hints, whispers, flashes, and I know I'll still be puzzling over it when I die. I think I have barely enough to guess which direction to take. Not knowing what you believe (beyond God is sovereign, omnipresent, incomprehensible and love, which you stated earlier on this page m.gameknot.com ) is not a sign of a mature faith, Bob. And it’s certainly not a sign of someone who understands the Bible. And all of that’s fine – you don’t have to know what you believe and don’t have to understand the Bible. But stop projecting your own theological deficiencies and spiritual deficiencies onto me. I know what I believe, what I believe is Biblical and I understand the Bible. I’m in no need of advice from you. And no, you’re not a Christian by the Biblical definition (which is the only definition that counts.) Look up what the Gospel is and ask yourself if you believe it. If you don’t, you’re not a Christian. “And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” (John 8:23-24) |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 19:02 You (quoting stalhandske.) I understand what you are saying. You (responding to stalhandske’s quote.) That's comforting, because I don't. I only have hints, whispers, flashes, and I know I'll still be puzzling over it when I die. I think I have barely enough to guess which direction to take.> The short answer is 'yes'. At least mature enough to realise that I don't understand everything and still need to learn. Unlike some who say things like "I know what I believe, what I believe is Biblical and I understand the Bible." It must be comforting to understand so much so well. That level of understanding would make me even more arrogant. |
||||||||||||||
|
There’s a difference between knowing very little and knowing everything, and numerous gradations exist between those two extremes. I never said I knew everything. But I do know the way of salvation, the Gospel, what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, the identity of Jesus Christ and how the New Testament is a logical progression and fulfillment of the Old Testament.. <<Unlike some who say things like "I know what I believe, what I believe is Biblical and I understand the Bible.">> Sure, I know what I believe (as far as salvation, what God values and the purpose of a Christian’s life) and I know what I believe is Biblical because it’s based on and came from the Bible. And I understand the major themes of the Bible, but that doesn’t mean I understand everything in the Bible. <<It must be comforting to understand so much so well.>> Yes, it is. When you know who God is and His nature, character, dependability and love, it is very comforting. <<That level of understanding would make me even more arrogant.>> I think it’d have the opposite effect. It would make you humble to realize and understand what God went through to save mankind and how we can’t earn our salvation. When someone realizes the grandeur, scope and love of God and who humans are in relation to Him, humility is really the only response. |
||||||||||||||
|
Back to clarifying the main question... 1. Are more intelligent than other animals? Answer = yes. An average human individual is more intelligent than an average individual of any other species I know about. I think we agree there. 2. Are human achievements 'vastly superior' to those of animals? This requires more careful definition. I would suggest that the achievements of an average human individual is NOT 'vastly superior' to those of an average (say) Mountain Gorilla. You might be able to correct me here by naming even ONE significant achievement which an INDIVIDUAL human has managed without assistance by some other humans. By 'significant', I mean something that is 'vastly superior' to what has been achieved by countless Mountain Gorillas over time. But if you mean achievements of human communities, I would agree. But that change of definition from the individual to the collective needs to be carried into the next step of your logic; by saying that Humanity as a whole is a 'special creation', but individual humans are no more than components. After all, there were humans around on this planet long before any of the 'vastly superior' achievements you might like to list. Are you saying that Humanity, not individual humans, are what is important? I hope not, because that sounds rather Fascist. This is why I say that you are confusing individuals with the collective. 3. You talk about 'modern humans'. In one place to define these as people who have lived withing the last two centuries or so. I asked 'what about people who lived before that time, and you have been silent on that point. Rather strange, since it is a key part of your thesis. Let me point out the options:- a) People before 200 years ago were not part of 'special creation'; which would imply they are not humans in the same sense we are. That disturbs me, because it would necessarily mean that Jesus and the writers of the Bible were not 'human' as we are. I'm sure you don't mean that, but it would be good if you could confirm. b) People were human before 200 years ago but only became 'human' (i.e., a 'special creation') at a certain point in time, before which their antecedents were either not human or perhaps didn't even exist (e.g., were dust in the Garden, waiting to be formed into Adam). In this case, I would appreciate WHEN this 'special creation' took place. I'm not looking for a date, but only an indication that would clarify roughly when in the timeline. Was it the Neolithic Revolution? Were Neanderthals human'? Homo Antecessor? Homo Habilis? c) Perhaps I have misunderstood your words. If so, then please provide a clear and explicit definition of what you mean by 'human' in the sense of 'special creation', and when this 'special creation' happened. If that means dismissing all reference to '200 years ago' as being no more than an obiter dictum, then that's fine; it removes a barrier to my understanding of what you mean. 4. On what evidential basis do you decide these points? To be more specific, how can you determine 'X' is human, but 'Y' is not? I know that Evolutionists themselves argue over these definitions, so please solve all those arguments by telling us the correct answer. Or at least some guidelines for consideration. Shiva's recent contributions might be of use to you in thinking through these points. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic Yes, humility is the only response. I won't make a long post here with this story. I'll just keep it simple. During the late 90's one night before I went to bed. I was extremely upset about something to the point of almost being hysterical. I cried out to God, I want to know why this is, you can do anything, and AI proceeded to demand he talk to me on my dream. (Which I was wrong and arrogant to do) However That very night I had a dream. I remember looking around, being able to see into the distance. (All my questions to myself about dream were practically answered. I saw a nice path and a gazebo. My mother was standing there looking at me. I asked "Mom what are you doing here's? " But when she opened her mouth and spoke. I knew it wasn't my mom. I Knew it was God. And when God is speaking I was not. I felt that feeling that s very small child feels when their parent is correcting them and telling them something important. It is difficult to describe but humility is a good word. I know that I got a chance to talk. However I can't remember a single syllable of what was said. The next morning whatever I was upset about. Was taken from me completely. I have absolutely no Idea what I was upset about. And I could remember everything about that dream but not a single syllable or word. This was just another incident that was just for me. and humility is how I felt when I woke up. I don't discount that this could have been my imagination or me willing a dream. However I tend to rule that out because I couldn't remember a single syllable of what God said or what I said when it was my tern. At first that frustrated me a little but AI can to the understanding that if God doesn't want me to know what was said. Then it is in my best interest that I don't. You post reminded me of this incident in my life. |
||||||||||||||
|
Correction |
||||||||||||||
|
@Bob 2. I’m talking about the achievements of human beings who participated in those achievements, whether indirectly or in the past or directly or in the present. Think of what had to be known for the Internet to exist. Did everyone human have a role in the creation of the Internet? Obviously not. Were many people involved? Yes. And they were all humans. The Internet is one example of an achievement that far surpasses the achievements of the most advanced animals. Obviously, I could cite many other achievements in which other humans were involved 3. I chose 200 years because the scope of human achievements really seemed to take off in the last two centuries. I’m not wedded to 200 years. I believe God created humans so the “special creation” took place from the first human. But just as a human baby may seem indistinguishable from the standpoint of ability, capability and accomplishments from a baby puppy, time is required for those differences to become apparent. The human race as a whole needed time to learn and develop and once it had learned and developed, its status as a special creation became more and more apparent. 4. If you don’t know the difference between a human being and an animal, I can’t help you. This seems like an irrelevant and meaningless question designed solely to bicker and argue. I don’t buy that humans evolved from another species. You and other evolutionists do. That may explain your interest in muddling around that definition, but it doesn’t interest me. |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
