|
|
| |||||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 You’re comparing swinging from trees and strength to putting a man on the moon? You think those are comparable accomplishments? |
||||||||||||||
|
Would it offend you if I said I rarely read what you post (at best I skim it) because of how cute and clever you think you are when the reality is you’re superficial, disingenuous and boring? I enjoy substantive posts but don’t like searching through a pile of horse manure to find something worthwhile. No offense intended. My apologies to all concerned. |
||||||||||||||
|
Lord Shiva |
||||||||||||||
|
So much can be misinterpreted in the written word. Reminds me of this great Key & Peele video… “When a Text Conversation Goes Very Wrong - Key & Peele” youtu.be Video is 2:42 (I think this is the censored version. The uncensored version is even funnier.) |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 18:38 First, can we agree what we mean by 'humans'? Do you mean humans only as they exist NOW, in the year 2025? Do you include people from three thousand years ago? People from 10,000 years ago? Do you include Neanderthals? Ergaster? Erectus? Habilis? I know you said in your 14:40 post that "I don’t answer questions that have nothing to do with the basic point I’m making", but surely this IS central to the point you are making. Are you comparing the achievements of ALL humans, or only the achievements of a very small subset of them? < I’m sure science has defined humans as distinct from animals. I’m content with whatever that distinction is.> Yes, there is a general scientific consensus, withing a small range of detail, on who were the first 'humans'. Here is a short summary; perhaps not as short as it could be, but since it is core to the issue, I feel you should be given the opportunity to say if you are sticking to "I'm content" or if you want to modify it... The generic name Homo is a learned 18th-century derivation from Latin homō, which refers to humans of either sex. The word human can refer to all members of the Homo genus. The name Homo sapiens means 'wise man' or 'knowledgeable man'. There is disagreement if certain extinct members of the genus, namely Neanderthals, should be included as a separate species of humans or as a subspecies of H. sapiens. That disagreement about Neanderthals is whether or not they were a subspecies or a separate species, but there is no disagreement that they were 'Homo', or 'human'. Europeans typically carry a few percent of Neanderthal genes, so interbreeding to produce fertile offspring was obviously possible. Homo Erectus is considered an archaic human, but human nonetheless. Before H. Erectus was Homo Habilis, again 'human'; as the praenomen suggests. Some see H. Rudolfensis as parallel to Habilis, others see it as a variant within Habilis. Here are some interesting graphs concerning brain size. The scale is logarithmic, so the actual changes are much greater than if they were shown in linear scale:- en.wikipedia.org Note these points:- 1. Rate of change of brain size was relatively slow up until H. Erectus. The difference between log 2.4 and log 2.65 is less than a factor of 2, and that took 7.5 million years. But in the 2.3 million years since Erectus to moderns (only a third as long) brain size trebled. At a rate more than 4 times faster than pre-Erectus. 2. Over the most recent period (roughly 3,000 years) brain size has nose-dived. So Vic; are you still content to go with the broad consensus that 'human' includes Habilis (brain size approx 500 ccs)? Or would you prefer to take H. Erectus as the first human? Or perhaps some later version? The thesis is yours, so you have the right to define the parameters; but you also have the duty to stay within those parameters as you argue it. Then we will know what 'achievements' we can include in 'human' achievements compared to the achievements of pre-humans. That will then give us a clearer basis for discussing whether the gap is 'vast' or not, and also speak meaningfully to your point that "You guys are identifying reasons without identifying their cause." Yes, this is a laborious plod, getting the data lined up and agreed. But a rational discussion requires the data to be assessed and analysed. Anything less is just throwing opinions at each other. By-the-way, I advise that your thesis has made me think seriously about the whole concept of 'special creation' based on the criteria you have already posted. I'll start a new thread for that specific. |
||||||||||||||
|
I thought we were off that. Because the cultural accomplishments of tens of thousands of people working in concert on one project in no way compares to the physiological differences between one human and one chimp. Yes, again if you compare ants on a blade of grass—a chimp tool—against the Large Hadron Collider, the difference appears astonishing. I see you ignored my answers to your questions, so I assume you will claim I just ignore your questions. |
||||||||||||||
|
@Bob |
||||||||||||||
|
@L_S You’re still clinging to the idea that building a bird’s nest is similar to landing a man on the moon? And you wonder why I don’t take you seriously. |
||||||||||||||
|
Misrepresentation? Pretty sure I never even remotely insinuated anything of that nature. The nest comment followed internet development, but the comment itself was stand alone—hence its own paragraph. The moon wasn’t even mentioned. The point was that birds build nests. That is a rudimentary technology, which elevates birds to the level of creatures God blessed with the ability to manufacture jigsaw puzzles, the way the strands all weave together. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 22:14 We've already done that. It would be perfectly valid if you want to say that 'special creation' happened 200 years ago. But you haven't made that clarification. The problem is that it would limit 'human-ness' to those who have lived in the last 200 years. But if you want to hold that 'special creation' was more than 200 years ago, and your thesis is that this 'special creation' made humans 'vastly superior', then that implies that the generality (if not all) of humans since that 'special creation' should be considered. Not just the 'achievements' of the last two hundred years, but the achievements throughout the existence of humans since the first humans (whenever that might have been, depending on your scope of when this 'special creation' happened). I remind you that this is YOUR assertion, so you are free to nominate whatever criteria you choose for 'human-ness' and 'special creation', so long as you are consistent within your defined framework. You need to nominate a date or other criterion that marks this 'special creation' of humans, and keep to that same criterion when discussing the 'achievements' of those same humans. It can't be THAT hard to understand that using one scale for one half of the discussion but a different scale for the other half is intellectually dishonest. By-the-way:- 1. This is YET ANOTHER time when you have refused to answer the question "What do you mean by 'human' in the context of this claim?" 2. You said that you would accept the scientific consensus on what 'human' means. So I have given you a summary of that consensus, to ensure we were talking about the same thing, with you having the right to define the blurry edge as you thought best or even throw it out and replace it completely. You have completely ignored that, not even giving any hint that you read it, much less agreed/disagreed with it. You simply reverted back to a 'definition' that you proposed some time ago, then abandoned saying that it was of no consequence, but have now hinted at again. But still without any definite confirmation. (Are you THAT unsure of what you mean?) So how can you dare accuse anyone of not answering your questions or ignoring what you say? You are foremost among sinners in that regard. 3. I refer you to club rules 3 and 5. Rule 3. Expect others to challenge your position. Be prepared to defend it, clarify it, explain it or modify it as the discussion unfolds. Rule 5. Objections raised by respondents should be addressed courteously and promptly. Simply ignoring adverse comment is contrary to the intention of this club. We seek to discuss, not to hit-and-run. Your ongoing refusal to clarify what you mean in your assertion is in breach of Rule 3; and your continuing refusal to answer reasonable questions relevant to your assertions is in breach of Rule 5. Please make good these deficiencies as soon as you find the time to do so. |
||||||||||||||
|
Shiva 23:00 I refer both you and Vic to the 'Special Creation?' thread and seek your comments. Just as a semi-cheat, I believe that humans are indeed a 'special creation'; but not in the way Vic uses the term. |
||||||||||||||
|
@Bob There’s a difference between possessing abilities and capabilities that would qualify as a special creation and those abilities and capabilities being manifested. I used the analogy of sprinters in a race and taking a photograph of them three yards into a 100-yard race. One sprinter could be vastly superior to the others, but you’re not going to be able to tell that three yards into the race. His abilities and capabilities need time to develop and manifest themselves in an observable way. I’ve answered your other points as well. I don’t know when God created humans but I believe He created humans directly and separately from animals. What you’ve presented as options for the first humans appears to be from an evolutionary timetable and I don’t believe humans evolved from another species. It appears you’re getting ready to throw me out of your club and seeking justification to do it. Your questions have been answered. You just don’t like the answers because they don’t give you material upon which to further argue. On a side note, I have asked you numerous times… • How is one saved in Christianity? • What if anything did Jesus Christ accomplish on the cross? • Was Jesus only a man, a divine created being (angel) or God incarnate? • What supernatural accounts (if any) in the Gospels do you believe happened? You have consistently refused *for years* to answer these questions so don’t lecture me about not answering questions. I have answered your questions. I simply can’t give you a date or timeframe for when God created the first humans because I don’t know. My reference to 200 years was solely based on the fact human achievements really seemed to take off in the last 200 years *not that humans were special creations only 200 years ago.* BTW, I also used the analogy of a baby human and newborn puppy and said their abilities and capabilities might appear similar at that age. But as time passes, it becomes apparent the abilities and capabilities of the human are very different and one might say vastly superior to those of that now older puppy/young dog. It’s the same as the example of the sprinters in a 100-yard race. One sprinter may be vastly superior to the others, but it takes time for that superiority to be manifested. So, yes, humans were “special creations” from the moment God created them. When He created them, I don’t know, but I reject trying to date that based on evolutionary options. |
||||||||||||||
|
Give me an example of this, Bob. Your club is supposed to be a club of discussion and not hit-and-run attacks. I refer you to rule 5… <<5. Objections raised by respondents should be addressed courteously and promptly. Simply ignoring adverse comment is contrary to the intention of this club. We seek to discuss, not to hit-and-run.>> So give me an example of what I believe that contradicts something else I believe. One example. I’m objecting to that statement of yours and expect my objection to be “addressed courteously and promptly” per rule 5. <<I believe that humans are indeed a 'special creation'; but not in the way Vic uses the term.>> So in what way do you think humans are a special creation? Is the reader supposed to guess? I’m asking you to elaborate on that statement of yours and identify the way in which you think humans are a special creation. At what point did they become a special creation? |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 03:36 Your analogy is flawed. I could explain why, but you don't seem to be reading what I post except to find ways of avoiding answering any questions. In particular, you STILL haven't even attempted to answer the simple question "What do you consider the be 'human'?" Instead you have thrown up excuses for not answering it. <I don’t know when God created humans but I believe He created humans directly and separately from animals. What you’ve presented as options for the first humans appears to be from an evolutionary timetable and I don’t believe humans evolved from another species.> Obviously you don't know when God created humans, because you can't even offer an answer to "Which of these fossil species are humans?" I have NOT listed species or fossils 'from an evolutionary timetable', but from a record of species actually found as fossils. Whether or not they 'evolved' or were completely independent is neither assumed nor ruled out; the only relevant point is that they are known to have existed. <It appears you’re getting ready to throw me out of your club and seeking justification to do it.> Were I aiming to throw you out of the club I would have already done it for your continuing refusal to abide by Club rules even after being directed to them. The truth is that I am providing you with ample opportunities to satisfy the Rules. <Your questions have been answered.> Oh? I must have missed that answer, despite searching for it. So please tell me the date and time of the post in which you answered the core question, or even summmarise it now. Were ALL H. Sapiens 'special creations? Were Neanderthals? Were Erectus? Were Habilis? I'm not asking or implying any evolutionary links, but quite the opposite. When did this 'special creation' establish 'humans' as a new creation? <On a side note...> To be blunt, your side note has nothing to do with the main question, nor the topic of this thread. I will gladly answer your questions in a separate thread if you care to start one, but don't play the Red Herring Game in this thread. <So, yes, humans were “special creations” from the moment God created them. When He created them, I don’t know, but I reject trying to date that based on evolutionary options.> I have understood that much for some time now, but it doesn't answer the question. You haver made it veery clear you don't know when in terms of time-by-the-calendar, so I have offered you the option of giving me your best estimate in terms of which species (as recognised by paleoanthropology, including Creationists) are 'in' or 'out' of the 'special creation' category. But if you reject the whole taxonomy of Genus Homo, then tell me what you have in mind when you talk about 'human', because you clearly mean something that differs from most people's ideas. If you can't answer that, does it mean that you don't know if H. Erectus was 'human'? That you don't know even if the early H. Sapiens Sapiens were 'human'? No evolution involved, just creation. So answer the question; "Which species (as recognised by paleoanthropology, including Creationists) are 'in' or 'out' of the 'special creation' category, or define who is 'human' by whatever other means will make your thesis clear. Perhaps you might suggest that ALL of Genus Homo are really different clades of the one sole species; that would be an answer to the question, too. Then, when you have tidied up this thread's debate, I promise you I will answer any theological question to the best of my ability and as fully and frankly as I can in the space allowed. But first, let's get this settled. |
||||||||||||||
|
How so? You understand the sprinters in my analogy represent the human species and animal species, right? <<I could explain why, but you don't seem to be reading what I post except to find ways of avoiding answering any questions.>> So you’re blaming me for not saying why you think my analogy is flawed? <<In particular, you STILL haven't even attempted to answer the simple question "What do you consider the be 'human'?" Instead you have thrown up excuses for not answering it.>> I said I accept however science defines it. But it’s really not important to me. I can tell the difference between humans and animals today and believe God created humans directly and separately from animals. If you need this question answered as it relates to humans being a “special creation” then it’s really pointless because the abilities and capabilities that make humans a special creation were largely latent among early humans and their manifestation in the form of accomplishments took time to develop and build upon one another. The rest of your post seems to be your insisting I tell you when God created the first humans when I’ve already told you I don’t know and what taxonomic classification the earliest humans fell into when I neither know nor care and think it’s irrelevant because the status of humans as a “special creation” took time to manifest (see the analogy of the sprinters and analogy of the human baby and newborn puppy.) |
||||||||||||||
|
@Bob You made a direct and insulting accusation against me and have an obligation per rule 5 to address it courteously and promptly. Here again is your accusation… <<Vic knows what he believes, and what he believes quite often contradicts something else he believes. But he knows both are true, or he wouldn't believe them; so anyone who points out the contradiction between them must be misrepresenting him. Logical, eh? Reminiscent of Orwell's 'doublethink'.>> Give me an example of this, Bob. Your club is supposed to be a club of discussion and not hit-and-run attacks. I refer you to rule 5… <<5. Objections raised by respondents should be addressed courteously and promptly. Simply ignoring adverse comment is contrary to the intention of this club. We seek to discuss, not to hit-and-run.>> So give me an example of what I believe that contradicts something else I believe. One example. I’m objecting to that statement of yours and expect my objection to be “addressed courteously and promptly” per rule 5. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 3:47 <So give me an example of what I believe that contradicts something else I believe.> I'll play your game this once. You ask for one example. You have said that the Bible should be read literally unless it is obviously meant to be taken non-literally. But you have NEVER suggested an objective hermeneutic that would help decide when something is 'obviously meant to be taken non-literally'. The best you have come up with is that 'The Spirit speaks to me', and you have suggested that listening to the opinions of others is 'carnal'. This is itself a HUGE self-contradiction! If your personal, individual 'Spirit told me so!' is the yardstick of Biblical Truth, then there IS no 'Biblical Truth'; there is only 'Vic's Truth' or 'Bob's Truth' or 'Fred's Truth', because each of us just might hear the Spirit differently. Who is to decide which of us hears correctly? This is why a sound ecclesiology is important; but you don't have one. You are too individualist for that! You dismiss the advice of learned doctors who have undoubted intelligence and a lifetime of diligent study; they are 'carnal'. But you, with very little understanding of either context or language, know better than all of them. You even dare to say of some "He's not a Real Christian!" because what he says is beyond your comprehension! So in summary, the self-contradiction is this; that you say you believe the Bible should be read literally with a few 'obvious' exceptions', but you can't give an objective reason for making these exceptions. So you end up setting aside the literal meaning at some times and retaining it at other times for no objective reason except your gut instinct. You say you 'follow Biblical teaching', but in fact there are points at which you have made up an imaginary 'Biblical teaching' to fit your preferences. This is why I have urged you several times to get yourself enrolled in a good, multi-denominational college on a part-time basis, perhaps one subject at a time. Just one subject, properly taught, will open your eyes to depths that you currently can't imagine. It will teach you the basic intellectual disciplines needed not only for all other subjects but also for profitable private reading. You obviously want to learn, so why don't you? Is it fear that what you have always believed might need to be adjusted? That's what happened to me several times, and I came out the other end immensely richer. But it's the nature of learning that the new idea can create fear. Take up the promise that God supports those who step out in faith! Grab that new idea, shake it to see if it rattles, open it up to see what's inside, turn it inside out! Even if you decide you don't want it, you will have learnt how to examine something new so you will be better equipped for the next new idea. Don't let fear confine your mind! Sorry to be so blunt, Vic; but you demanded it from me, so I gave it. <I’m asking you to elaborate on that statement of yours and identify the way in which you think humans are a special creation. At what point did they become a special creation?> No spoilers, Vic. Exercise your own mind creatively first. You introduced this idea of 'special creation', so I assume you've thought about it. Give us your thoughts! |
||||||||||||||
|
I agree it’s getting tedious. I’ve answered your questions, just not in ways you want. Some things I neither know nor care about (such as when God created the first humans and what taxonomic classification they fall into) and I’m not going to speculate. <<I'll play your game this once. You ask for one example.>> It’s not a game and yes, I asked for one example, despite your claim what I believe “quite often” contradicts something else I believe. <<You have said that the Bible should be read literally unless it is obviously meant to be taken non-literally.>> Correct. <<But you have NEVER suggested an objective hermeneutic that would help decide when something is 'obviously meant to be taken non-literally'.>> It’s discernment and common sense, Bob. Do you think what Jesus said in these verses should be taken literally? “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:29-30) When Jesus says in John 10:9 that He is a door, should that be taken literally? When Jesus says His disciples should eat His flesh and drink His blood, should that be taken literally? “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” (John 6:54-58) Should the imagery in Revelation be taken literally? You have to have some level of discernment, Bob, and there’s no pat, hard-and-fast rule for when something in the Bible should be read literally or figuratively. You have to rely on common sense, discernment and guidance from God’s Holy Spirit. <<The best you have come up with is that 'The Spirit speaks to me',>> I never said, “The Spirit speaks to me” and the fact you put that in quotes when I never said it obviously does not speak well of you. The Holy Spirit does not speak to me in an audible voice but guides me in far more subtle and tangential ways. <<and you have suggested that listening to the opinions of others is 'carnal'.>> The Bible speaks (not literally) to different people in different ways, depending on their circumstances and relationship with Christ. That’s the main reason attempting to gain wisdom from the opinions of others is inferior and carnal compared to reading the Bible on a spiritual level. Yes, there are universal truths in the Bible (the way of salvation being among them) but often how those truths relate to an individual is not universal. That is why the Apostle Paul describes the Bible this way… “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12) The Bible is a supernatural book (collection of books) because it was written by men under the guidance, inspiration and control of God’s Holy Spirit. It’s not a textbook written by carnal men to be read and understood carnally. <<This is itself a HUGE self-contradiction! If your personal, individual 'Spirit told me so!'>> Your again putting in quotes something I never said, which is indicative of how dishonest and obnoxious you can be. <<is the yardstick of Biblical Truth, then there IS no 'Biblical Truth'; there is only 'Vic's Truth' or 'Bob's Truth' or 'Fred's Truth', because each of us just might hear the Spirit differently.>> Sure, the Bible impacts people personally, depending on their circumstances and their relationship with Christ. I have read verses and passages that had enormous meaning to me in the past that don’t have that same meaning today. The Bible and God’s Holy Spirit speak to individuals – not to a collective mass of people. Once again, there are universal truths in the Bible (such as the way of salvation) but much of the Bible is to be understood by individuals with the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit. We all face unique circumstances and challenges and have unique hearts so it’s foolish imo to treat the opinion of a 17th century theologian as applicable to me. People should read the Bible themselves and, along with prayer, let God speak to them through the Bible. In short, seek wisdom and understanding from God and not men. <<Who is to decide which of us hears correctly?>> You seem to be assuming the Bible should speak (not literally) to everyone in the same way. It doesn’t and was never meant to. <<This is why a sound ecclesiology is important; but you don't have one. You are too individualist for that!>> I rely on God’s Holy Spirit – not men – to recall, understand and apply the Scriptures. <<You dismiss the advice of learned doctors who have undoubted intelligence and a lifetime of diligent study; they are 'carnal'. But you, with very little understanding of either context or language, know better than all of them.>> I would take views on the Bible from an uneducated farmhand who is filled with God’s Holy Spirit over the views of a highly-educated Biblical scholar who lacks God’s Holy Spirit or does not think he needs to rely on God’s Holy Spirit. You don’t seem to understand the role of God’s Holy Spirit in a believer’s life or that God’s Holy Spirit indwells believers. <<You even dare to say of some "He's not a Real Christian!" because what he says is beyond your comprehension!>> I never said that, and you’re once again putting in quotes something I never said, which, once again, is indicative of how dishonest and obnoxious you can be. What I have said is you’re not a Christian *by the Biblical definition* and that the Biblical definition is all that counts. And I’ve demonstrated *using your own words* why you’re not a Christian *by the Biblical definition.* <<So in summary, the self-contradiction is this; that you say you believe the Bible should be read literally with a few 'obvious' exceptions', but you can't give an objective reason for making these exceptions.>> I addressed this above. You’re looking for a universal rule for a book (collection of books) that speak (not literally) to believers as individuals and you’re neglecting the importance of common sense, discernment and God’s Holy Spirit when a believer reads the Bible. <<So you end up setting aside the literal meaning at some times and retaining it at other times for no objective reason except your gut instinct.>> Wrong. Discernment, common sense and guidance from God’s Holy Spirit do not constitute a “gut instinct.” <<You say you 'follow Biblical teaching', but in fact there are points at which you have made up an imaginary 'Biblical teaching' to fit your preferences.>> Huh? Give me an example of my making up an imaginary Biblical teaching. You’re lying, Bob. <<This is why I have urged you several times to get yourself enrolled in a good, multi-denominational college on a part-time basis, perhaps one subject at a time. Just one subject, properly taught, will open your eyes to depths that you currently can't imagine.>> Bob, you have a bachelor’s of theology degree and by your own admission you don’t know what you believe. Do I need to post your response to stalhandske yet again? <<It will teach you the basic intellectual disciplines needed not only for all other subjects but also for profitable private reading. You obviously want to learn, so why don't you?>> I do learn. I learn from the Bible and know the Bible reasonably well. I certainly understand the Gospel, what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, who Jesus Christ was/is and how the New Testament is a logical progression and fulfillment of the Old Testament. Do you understand any of that? <<Is it fear that what you have always believed might need to be adjusted?>> I only became a Christian and came to believe what I believe in my late 40s. I haven’t always believed it. I’ve said this several times but because you don’t listen and apparently can’t think outside stereotypes, it doesn’t register with you. You spent four years getting a bachelor of theology degree and only came away with God is sovereign, omnipresent, incomprehensible and love. I knew that when I was in elementary school, Bob. I don’t need to go to a theology college to learn that. <<That's what happened to me several times, and I came out the other end immensely richer.>> Then why don’t you know what you believe? Why hasn’t your heart and mind been opened to the Gospel? Why can’t you say what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross? Why can’t you identify the way of salvation? Why can’t you say who Jesus Christ was/is? Why don’t you understand the Holy Spirit’s role in a believer’s life? Why can’t you see the obvious connections between the Old Testament and New Testament? <<But it's the nature of learning that the new idea can create fear.>> I’m not afraid of anything, Bob. <<Take up the promise that God supports those who step out in faith!>> Stepping out in faith doesn’t mean abandoning truths in the Bible for an ambiguous, muddled theology. <<Grab that new idea, shake it to see if it rattles, open it up to see what's inside, turn it inside out! Even if you decide you don't want it, you will have learnt how to examine something new so you will be better equipped for the next new idea. Don't let fear confine your mind!>> I think this is psychological projection, Bob. It’s you who are hiding from God in textbooks and classrooms, in theological essays and carnality. It’s you who are afraid to encounter God on a spiritual level. <<Sorry to be so blunt, Vic; but you demanded it from me, so I gave it.>> I don’t mind bluntness, Bob. But I do object to you putting in quotes things I never said and drawing conclusions about me when you neither know me nor understand Christianity and, in fact, are not a Christian *by the Biblical definition.* |
||||||||||||||
|
Sprinters So God embues one of the sprinters with the gift of greater speed? Or are there just natural differences between humans based on physiology and training? |
||||||||||||||
|
Non Human Sprinters So God gifted dogs greater speed than humans? I am unclear of the intention behind this statement. |
||||||||||||||
|
In the analogy, the sprinters represent the human species and animal species, and the 100-yard dash represents their development over time, with the starting line being creation and the finish line being now or in the near future. Just like a vastly superior sprinter will not appear to be vastly superior in the first three yards of the race, so the earliest humans did not appear to be vastly superior to animal species in terms of abilities, capabilities and accomplishments. But as the race progresses, the vastly superior sprinter will become apparent, just as the superiority of the human species (in terms of abilities, capabilities and accomplishments) will become (and has become) apparent the further we and animal species travel through time. But humans did not become a “special creation” only after the gap in abilities, capabilities and accomplishments was apparent. They were a special creation from the beginning; it just took time for that to manifest. |
||||||||||||||
|
Transubstantiation Apparently so. |
||||||||||||||
|
But it’s apparent from the Gospels, not to mention apparent from common sense, that Jesus did not literally mean His flesh should be eaten and His blood should be drank. |
||||||||||||||
|
Goal of Evolution Evolution has two priorities: Survival and reproduction. To the extent bigger brains abet that process, they grow. There are natural limits, of course, such as the width of the birth canal. So enormous brains might suffer passage through a tight squeeze. Monkey environments are not substantially different now than they were millions of years ago. So while monkeys have clearly continued evolving (fossil monkeys vary from modern varieties), there hasn’t been evolutionary pressure on brain development. As Bob pointed out, climate change drove a need for increased capacity in human species. Bob referenced the ice age, but the desertification of the eastern rift valley was another factor. As the jungle receded, giving way to Savannah, hominids needed to adapt to their changing circumstances. We now understand the earliest (archaic) sapiens have been found in Morocco, dating to four hundred thousand years. Just two decades ago we thought the oldest sapiens were a mere two hundred thousand years old, so the new findings have doubled the age of the oldest sapiens. The oldest sapien remains in Europe date back only 50,000 years. So for 350,000 years we could see Europe across the Strait of Gibraltar, we just couldn’t ever get there. Ultimately our species bridged that gap, most likely via the levant, on the eastern side of Africa. Within thirty thousand years we spread across Asia, down North America to South America, and had even crossed the ocean to Australia. Actually, the human presence in Australia also dates back 50,000 years, so the dispersal at 50,000 years was quite rapid. Were Australian aborigines fully human? Their technology did not advance very much over a span of fifty thousand years. Had Europeans not invaded their land there is little reason to think the aborigines would have landed on the moon even after another fifty thousand years. |
||||||||||||||
|
From Günter Dantrimont on RFK Jr. While epigenetics is important, the abuse by creationists was debunked often in other postings. But here I want to reject the false claim of evolution as a "political agenda" and rather debunk anti-evolution as a political agenda - and with the serious real threat of millions of potential deaths in the near future by just one example of what RFK Jr. proposes regarding chicken farms, obviously ignoring the top expert advice from evolution science. RFK Jr.'s suggestion to let bird flu spread through poultry flocks is not just misguided - it's potentially catastrophic. This proposal demonstrates a dangerous disregard for evolutionary science and epidemiology. Here's why this is so alarming: Chicken farms as viral laboratories: Allowing H5N1 to spread unchecked through millions of birds essentially turns poultry farms into massive biological laboratories for the virus. This gives the virus countless opportunities to mutate and potentially become more dangerous, including developing the ability to spread efficiently between humans. Accelerated evolution: The sheer number of viral replications in millions of birds dramatically increases the chances of harmful mutations. This is basic evolutionary science - more replications mean more opportunities for genetic changes. Zoonotic potential: H5N1 has already shown the ability to infect humans. Increasing its prevalence in poultry populations raises the risk of human infections and the potential for the virus to adapt to human-to-human transmission. Lessons from COVID-19: We've recently experienced how quickly a novel virus can spread globally. Ignoring the potential for H5N1 to evolve into a human pandemic strain repeats the mistakes that led to the COVID-19 crisis. Expert consensus: Virologists, epidemiologists, and poultry experts overwhelmingly oppose this idea, recognizing the immense risks it poses. This proposal isn't just bad policy - it's a stark example of how disregarding evolutionary science can have dire real-world consequences. It underscores why defending and teaching evolutionary theory is crucial for public health and safety. Ignoring evolution doesn't make it go away; it only leaves us vulnerable to its effects, potentially at the cost of millions of lives. Talking about human lives of course, not just chicken lives! |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 06:25 But thanks anyway. |
||||||||||||||
|
Bob I didn't take the time to read it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 09:08 Yes. Within an Aristotelian paradigm. So please explain to me precisely WHAT that means in Aristotle's system, preferably providing examples you don't cut-and-paste from wiki or other net sources. Show us that you actually UNDERSTAND what you're talking about. <But it’s apparent from the Gospels, not to mention apparent from common sense> I'm looking at Luke 22:19, in the original Greek to make sure there is no translation slippage. It says ""This is the body of me". Just to make sure this isn't just Luke being fancy, I turned to John 6:53. this is (literally) "Jesus said to them "Truly, truly I tell you, {Note the repeated 'truly' for emphasis!} Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. The one eating my flesh and drinking my blood has life eternal..." I also point towards Paul (1 Cor,.11:19) saying "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." Why would you not read this literally, since Jesus emphasises it with a repeated 'amen' (= 'truly'?) The only reason I can identify is that you CHOOSE to not take it literally. Why? Again I say, you have no hermeneutic except to go with whatever you WANT to believe. And as I've said in other threads, 'common sense' is shorthand for 'what you accept without thinking about it.' Now, I don't go along with the literal meaning myself; but I know WHY I don't. You claim to uphold the literal meaning, but back away whenever it doesn't suit you for reasons you DON'T know. You just spout 'common sense!' as an excuse, as though your instinct is an irrefutable answer. Understanding is more than memorising proof-texts. |
||||||||||||||
|
You’re once again not listening. But I am curious how you spent four years in a theology college and only came away with God is sovereign, omnipresent, incomprehensible and love. I know the answer but am wondering if you do. And why do you criticize my faith when you paradoxically say you don’t know what you believe and claim to have a mature faith? I know the answer to that too but am wondering if you do. I don’t think it’s appropriate or within your club rules to behave the way you have on GK for years, but I understand you have a medical condition that causes you to behave obnoxiously and anti-socially. Am I wrong about that? If not, may I suggest you yell at and punch your pillow instead of picking fights on the Internet? |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
