Evolution - A serious question.

[♪alt13]

It's funny you brought up species. Originally I included it in my post but I didn't want to expand too far. I agree that categories are useful thinking tools but I don't think enough people understand them that way. A lot of people, maybe even most, view categories as reality instead of as a representation of it.

I have had multiple conversations with people about evolution where a statement along the lines "You know what I don't get, if we are descended from something that is extinct, Neanderthals or whatever, how are we still here? I don't know do you get what I'm trying to say?" comes up.

I've also often heard "If we came from monkeys why are monkeys still here?"

The only times it seems that I have sufficiently answered their question is by 'breaking' their categorical idea of species and extinction.

So in answer to your queery; Yes, I am touching upon reification.

 

[One Brow]

Apes are a different line of homonids, while humans descended from some other form of hominid. There were also other lines of homonids, (e.g., Neanderthals), which have gone extinct from which humans also did not descend.

There is no clearer signal that they hav absolutely no idea what they're talking about and it is safe to disregard anything else they might say, than a post like this.

If one is talking about any group of distinct ape species larger than chimpanzees/bonobos, any common ancestors they have would include our ancestors. We are more recently related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas, we are more recently related to gorillas than gorillas are to orangutans, and we are more recently related to orangutans than orangutans are to gibbons.

It is as correct, and as incorrect, to say humans descended from apes as it is to say chimpanzees descended from apes. We are apes, present tense.

 

[Siro]

There is no clearer signal that they hav absolutely no idea what they're talking about and it is safe to disregard anything else they might say, than a post like this.

If one is talking about any group of distinct ape species larger than chimpanzees/bonobos, any common ancestors they have would include our ancestors. We are more recently related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas, we are more recently related to gorillas than gorillas are to orangutans, and we are more recently related to orangutans than orangutans are to gibbons.

It is as correct, and as incorrect, to say humans descended from apes as it is to say chimpanzees descended from apes. We are apes, present tense.

Holy ****! Welcome back!

 

[TroutBum]

Sorry replying to this so much later...

Hopefully, people are smarter than that. Is God afraid of heights? Does he like spicy food? Does he prefer blondes or brunettes? Does he find farts funny? Maybe being created "in his image" doesn't mean "exactly like him".

Again, hopefully people are smart enough to get it.

But many aren't.

Let me just clear this up right now: Farts are hilarious.

Holy ****! Welcome back!

Yes!!!

I thought it would take another shooting of an "unarmed" black person to get him back. Hooray -- #OneBrowMatters

 

[babe]

There is no clearer signal that they hav absolutely no idea what they're talking about and it is safe to disregard anything else they might say, than a post like this.

If one is talking about any group of distinct ape species larger than chimpanzees/bonobos, any common ancestors they have would include our ancestors. We are more recently related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas, we are more recently related to gorillas than gorillas are to orangutans, and we are more recently related to orangutans than orangutans are to gibbons.

It is as correct, and as incorrect, to say humans descended from apes as it is to say chimpanzees descended from apes. We are apes, present tense.

Ever just sit and watch animals?

Cows are the true Gods. It might take science a thousand years to catch up with our earliest and most successful human religion, but catch up it will.

Apes are idiots uttering unintelligible "white noise", cackles, hoots, hollers, and grunts.

Cows speak clearly, and with purpose.

Moooooo. . . . .

I rest my case.

 

[One Brow]

I thought it would take another shooting of an "unarmed" black person to get him back. Hooray -- #OneBrowMatters

Most black people who are shot have both arms.

I will not be posting regularly, but will do so occaxsionally. Meatspace has gotten very busy.

 

[moevillini]

Meatspace???


...something tells me it's all happening at the zoo, I do believe, I do believe it's true...
Monkeys stand for honesty, giraffes are insincere, and elephants are kindly but they're dumb...


^ that's for Babe

 

[carolinajazz]

i wanna be absolutely sure about how and what i say.
only thing i can say with absolute certainty for now is:
1.the 1000 generations meaning 974 lost onese.
2.dinosaur's are mentioned in old testament.
in genesis 1:21 there is stated that the giant "tanin" where created. we dont hear the hebrew word tanin anymore until exodus something something about Moses/pharaohs henchmen staf turning into "tanin" which by now is accepted as snake/reptiles. so giant "tanin" refers to giant reptiles. thats old testament alone. in the talmud there is some more elaboration on what they where and where they "disappeared" too.
3.if you look at order of which things came first in genesis i think it was aquatic animals, land animals, mammals and humans
(might have forgotten a step in there) it is the same sequence as described by evolution. maybe i was a well informed guess or just plain luck.

#dontwannahearaboutdammemails

Since you want to "be absolutely sure about how and what you say", then let's get started! First of all, it's not the "Old Testament" it's the Hebrew scriptures! Why that "correction?" The Sacred Scriptures, as a collection from Genesis to Revelation, form one complete book, one complete library, all inspired by the one Supreme Author. They should not be divided into two parts, so that one part is given less value. The Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures are essential to each other. The latter supplements the former to make the one complete book of divine truth. The 66 Bible books, all together, form the one library of the Holy Scriptures.—Rom. 15:4.
Hence, there is no valid basis for the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures to be called the “Old Testament” and for the Christian Greek Scriptures to be called the “New Testament.” Jesus Christ himself referred to the collection of sacred writings as “the Scriptures.” (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Joh 5:39) The apostle Paul referred to them as “the holy Scriptures,” “the Scriptures,” and “the holy writings.”—Ro 1:2; 15:4; 2Ti 3:15.
Therefore, in harmony with these inspired utterances, if you want to be "absolutely correct" you should refer to the Old Testament as the Hebrew Scriptures because that portion of the Bible was originally written mainly in Hebrew....and you should refer to the so-called New Testament as the Greek Scriptures, for the Greek language was used by men who were inspired by God to write that part of the Bible.

Point #2) Some dinosaurs (and pterosaurs) may indeed have been created in the fifth era listed in Genesis, when the Bible says that God made “flying creatures” and “great sea monsters.” Perhaps other types of dinosaurs were created in the sixth epoch. The vast array of dinosaurs with their huge appetites would have been appropriate considering the abundant vegetation that evidently existed in their time.—Genesis 1:20-24.

When the dinosaurs had fulfilled their purpose, God ended their life. But the Bible is silent on how he did that or when. We can be sure that dinosaurs were created for a purpose, even if we do not fully understand that purpose at this time. They were no mistake, no product of evolution. That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time. Thus, the fossil record does not support the evolution theory. Instead, it harmonizes with the Bible’s view of creative acts of God.

Point 3) Modern genetic research is moving toward the conclusion stated in the Bible long ago. The "order" of which things first came into existence, scientists have taken note of as presented in Genesis. For example, noted geologist Wallace Pratt commented: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” He also observed that the order as described in Genesis for the origin of the oceans and the emergence of land, as well as for the appearance of marine life, birds, and mammals, is in essence the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

So, Dutchman....I hope this helps clarify some things further in your mind!

 

[♪alt13]

Since you want to "be absolutely sure about how and what you say", then let's get started! First of all, it's not the "Old Testament" it's the Hebrew scriptures! Why that "correction?" The Sacred Scriptures, as a collection from Genesis to Revelation, form one complete book, one complete library, all inspired by the one Supreme Author.

The "Supreme Author" sure does have a weak *** library. I've got more books than that in my window sill. **** my library card grants me access to a rather impressive collection for free. If I had access to just 66 books and had to tithe after I read them I'd be like "umm, rip off". Srsly the SLC Mayor has pwned your god. Way more books, way less hassle.

 

[Red]

"When the dinosaurs had fulfilled their purpose, God ended their life. But the Bible is silent on how he did that or when. We can be sure that dinosaurs were created for a purpose, even if we do not fully understand that purpose at this time. They were no mistake, no product of evolution. That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time. Thus, the fossil record does not support the evolution theory. Instead, it harmonizes with the Bible’s view of creative acts of God."

Huh?? Not all dinosaurs went extinct. Some dinosaurs still exist. I had a flock of them on my lawn this afternoon. They're known as birds, and they are a branch of dinosaurs, basically. Here is one of the more recently discovered feathered dinosaurs from China:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/feathered-dinosaur-bird-wings-discovered-china/story?id=32517806

The connection between dinosaurs and avians is pretty clear by now. Dinosaurs did not disappear "leaving no connecting fossil links".

No link?? Birds are avian dinosaurs:

https://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

 

[Bronco70]

The Sacred Scriptures, as a collection from Genesis to Revelation, form one complete book, one complete library, all inspired by the one Supreme Author.

Is God the inspiration, or the author? For the record, I believe the Old Testament (yep) to be true, in the sense that I believe it to be an authentic written record of the oral traditions of ancient Hebrews.

Lots of good stuff in there, but it has man's fingerprints all over it.

Point 3) Modern genetic research is moving toward the conclusion stated in the Bible long ago. The "order" of which things first came into existence, scientists have taken note of as presented in Genesis. For example, noted geologist Wallace Pratt commented: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” He also observed that the order as described in Genesis for the origin of the oceans and the emergence of land, as well as for the appearance of marine life, birds, and mammals, is in essence the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

What I read: If I took what science knows, and presented it in the simplest terms, so that anyone could understand, it could pretty much sound like the Biblical account of creation.

So science is right. Awesome.

My .02, and not even worth that.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Is God the inspiration, or the author? For the record, I believe the Old Testament (yep) to be true, in the sense that I believe it to be an authentic written record of the oral traditions of ancient Hebrews.

Lots of good stuff in there, but it has man's fingerprints all over it.



What I read: If I took what science knows, and presented it in the simplest terms, so that anyone could understand, it could pretty much sound like the Biblical account of creation.

So science is right. Awesome.

My .02, and not even worth that.

for once i almost agree. but i think translating it over the years is what mans fingerprints are. in the original language it is pure and more inline with science.
for example it does not state 2nd day 3rd day etc.
translators put that in.
also the talmud is the "oral torah"