Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God's Place In Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 4 of 190 (604666)
02-14-2011 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-13-2011 10:31 AM


It has been shown that if a modern human is not taught human language, and has void or very limited human contact/interaction (except for feeding) he will fail to speak, mature, and act more or less barbaric. Nurture has a lot to do with behavior considered civilized or "human". "Evolved", "higher" brains have little to do with what makes us human. Whatever natural "human" inclinations or potential we may be born with fail to develop if not nurtured. If evolution is true, where did the very first man get his knowledge and instruction? Where did he receive his language, and what enabled him to develop his sense of morality and values?
Let me refer you to the point in bold.
Given human interaction, people do develop languages. For example, when deaf-and-dumb people were assembled into schools and other commmunities, they spontaneously produced sign languages --- which began as a mere code of gestures, and which developed by the second generation into true languages with specific rules of grammar. (We know that this was not done by copying the languages of hearing people, because the grammar is very different: for example, compare ASL with English.)
An analogue to the second phase of this process is seen in creolization. If you throw together people with different languages, then they may be able to agree to pick words from their languages to form a pidgin --- they may agree to use the English word for "banana" and the Portuguese word for "food", and so forth, but it is primitive and lacks grammar; the second generation will spontaneously form a true language, known as a creole.
If it all came from animals, why don't we all still use identical language and behavior of animals? Why aren't we all like Tarzan? Monkey see, monkey do, right?
If we are all descended from people who lived two hundred years ago, why do we have a word for "television"?
Obviously, God gave the first man language, spoke to him, and instructed him.
Aren't you a Christian? Only the Bible presents a very different picture --- God brings the animals before Adam, who names them (Genesis 2:20). God didn't need to tell Adam what they were called, because Adam had the capacity to make up names for them, just as we have the capacity to invent the word "television", and deaf-and-dumb people had the capacity to invent sign language. Even the author of Genesis, then, doesn't seem to have swallowed your thesis.
---
If evolution were true, why would the inquiring minds of early humans, (whose brains had developed logic enough to write and create tools) create an imaginary God to teach and guide them? An imaginary God could not be seen or heard, nor could it help man at all to be anything more than animal-like. A mere figment could never fulfill humans' pursuit of and need for knowledge. A fresh, inquiring, new species that realizes that it is unsure of things would not "invent" a God to instruct it. This is silly. Little children don't even do this. Children leave their endless stream of questions to real humans, not their imaginary friends. Obviously, God gave the first man language, spoke to him, and instructed him. Early humans spoke about God because they knew of God first hand. They did not invent Him.
This appears to be a completely different question, and in my view requires a completely different topic.
However, since you ask, I would advise you to try applying your own reasoning to leprechauns, fairies, kobolds, unicorns, dragons, griffins, et cetera. Did people believe in kobolds because early humans had met them first hand?
Or take gods that you don't believe in; i.e. almost all of them.
Why would anyone invent a love-god who flew around making people fall in love by shooting them with invisible arrows*? They wouldn't, right? Someone must have actually met him, or where would the idea have come from?
Either that or people are capable of making mistakes, something which I think you'll find does not contradict the theory of evolution.
* Interestingly, the Indian love god Kama is also armed with a bow. Explain that away, monotheists!
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-13-2011 10:31 AM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by goldrush, posted 02-14-2011 11:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 190 (604796)
02-14-2011 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by goldrush
02-14-2011 10:55 PM


It seems to me, that your reasoning is that knowlege and language goes from simple to complex ...
It seems to me that that is not his reasoning, because that is not what he said.
So according to your theory, English should have come before Hebrew ...
His theory may well be different from the stuff that you have made up in your head and attributed to him for no particular reason.
But even if his theory was your nonsense, the proposition that English came before Hebrew would not follow from it.
Also, who is the common ancestor between man and apes? If he is only a theory, what is the evidence for him? All creatures differ a little from their parents, but what hard evidence do we have that one species or kind became another? What evidence do we have that over time mutations create new species altogether?
Well, that would be genetics, morphology, embryology, biogeography, the fossil record, behavioral ecology ... pretty much all of biology, in fact.
If you aren't familiar with any of this stuff, perhaps your participation on these forums is somewhat precipitate.
But these are questions for a different thread. Aren't you meant to be being wrong about linguistics?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by goldrush, posted 02-14-2011 10:55 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 190 (604797)
02-14-2011 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by goldrush
02-14-2011 9:31 PM


I feel the real reasons for our positions on whether are not there is a creator goes beyond the purely rational or intellectual sphere.
Speak for yourself.
If someone thinks (for example) that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, his real reasons for thinking that may indeed "go beyond the purely rational or intellectual sphere". But if he doesn't, then there is no need for such a hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by goldrush, posted 02-14-2011 9:31 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 190 (604798)
02-14-2011 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by goldrush
02-14-2011 11:25 PM


No, my thesis actually does not dispute the Genesis account. Evidently, according to the account, God spoke to Adam before having him name the animals. He gave him commands. Hence language came from God to begin with. So Adam's naming the animals was an extension of the language he received from God from the time he was created by God.
So Adam, having heard some language, was able to add to the language, making it more complex and expressive?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by goldrush, posted 02-14-2011 11:25 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 190 (604877)
02-15-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by goldrush
02-15-2011 4:24 PM


Through science, we have been able to discover many things about the earth, our bodies, and our health. How does the Bible compare?
It's a laughing-stock.
However, this seems to have little to do with the subjects raised in the OP, which you seem averse to pursuing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by goldrush, posted 02-15-2011 4:24 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by goldrush, posted 02-15-2011 7:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 54 of 190 (604878)
02-15-2011 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by goldrush
02-15-2011 4:42 PM


Re: No Science there
Is this the best you can come up with? So predictable...
Well of course it's predictable. That's because it's true.
If you went around claiming that two plus two was five, it's highly predictable that you'd hear the word "four" quite a lot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by goldrush, posted 02-15-2011 4:42 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by goldrush, posted 02-15-2011 7:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 190 (604914)
02-15-2011 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Buzsaw
02-15-2011 11:35 PM


Re: Animal & Human Knowledge Gap
That's a no brainer, Taq. Of all of the animal species, none have begun to advance to the level of brain capabilities as humans. The social, cultural, mechanical, industrial and scientific capabilities of humans is unique; immensely greater than that of any of the other species. All other species think and do in a simple and limited framework of capabilities.
But you have not explained or even indicated why the "logical" explanation for this should involve God doing magic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 02-15-2011 11:35 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 190 (604915)
02-16-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by goldrush
02-15-2011 10:21 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
In many nations today there are reminders of that destruction. For example, the precise date as recorded in the scriptures "in the 2nd month, on the 17th day of the month" of the ancient calendar corresponds approximately to our present day November 1 (Gen. 7:11). It may not be a coincidence, then, that in many lands, festivals of the dead are celebrated at that time of year. Two celebrations that come to mind are Halloween and Celtic Samhain.
Halloween is meant to be a "reminder" of a global flood? Are the pumpkins meant to represent the Ark, or something?
If it is meant to be a reminder of a flood, why was this fact not known to the Church that instituted it --- a Church whose priesthood believed in the Flood, but somehow forgot to mention to anyone that Halloween was a commemoration of it.
Even though over time the legends have been embellished, they all share several details in common, indicating a common source narrative: God was angered by mankind's wickedness. He brought a great flood. Mankind as a whole was destroyed. A few righteous ones, however, were preserved. These built a vessel in which humans and animals were saved. In time, birds were sent out to search for dry land. Finally, the vessel came to rest on a mountain. Upon disembarking, the survivors offered a sacrifice.
What does this show? The similarities cannot possibly be coincidental.
They're not so much coincidental as imaginary, as you would know if, like me, you had bothered to read some of these flood myths.
It is true that everyone with a myth of a magic flood attributes it to a magical being. Apart from that, the legends are very disparate.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by goldrush, posted 02-15-2011 10:21 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 190 (605082)
02-16-2011 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by goldrush
02-16-2011 12:12 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
The "no brainer" common evidence you cited is actually just bits and pieces of the major common theme and message of the flood legends I cited in my original post.
(1) Yes, but the "common theme and message" doesn't actually exist. The flood legends are as disparate as can be. The gods send the flood because of the wickedness of mankind, or simply because of overpopulation --- or even by accident. The flood is local or global. People survive by means of a boat or climbing up a high mountain or clinging to driftwood or by the intervention of a giant fish; or there are no survivors and the gods repopulate the world by magic.
What they have in common is that they are flood legends --- and that almost always the flood is attributed to supernatural beings, which is no surprise because primitive people attribute all meteorological events and all remarkable events to supernatural beings, and this was both.
The legends most similar to the Biblical one are all found in the same region, and there is a fairly obvious non-magical explanation for that.
(2) You have generally ignored the possibility of cultural transmission. In most cultures, the missionaries have turned up before the anthropologists. Many flood myths may have been seeded by missionaries, and this needs to be taken into account.
Does the widespread myth of Santa Claus show that he really exists, or just that it's an appealing myth which has spread easily?
(3) You have also not considered the possibility that these myths have sprung from common errors. What I mean is that people all over the world have been able to observe marine fossils in mountains. What could be more natural than to assume that at some time the water level was higher rather than the rock constituting the mountains being lower? (To witness a small flood is after all commonplace, whereas most people will not observe geological uplift, which is less dramatic.)
(4) You do not say how your reasoning applies to other legends found all over the world. Stories of talking animals are very widespread; so are stories of fairy-like beings.
Or take the legend of stealing fire from the gods. Some common (though not quite universal) features:
* What is stolen is fire itself, not the secret of making it. This is odd when you think about it, because the cultures having such legends did in fact have the secret of making fire. (I know of no exceptions to this.)
* The thief steals fire out of compassion for humanity, because they need fire to keep warm and cook.
* The thief steals without fee or reward; the gesture is purely altruistic.
* The thief is male (I know of one exception, in Hawai'i).
* The thief usually is not himself human, and often would not qualify as a god either, but is a third class of being.
* The thief is not subsequently caught and punished by the gods (I know of one exception, the Greek legend of Prometheus.)
* The gods do not, of course, take fire back from humanity, explaining why we still have it.
* The thief is sometimes marked by the fire; if this is the case, the marking is hereditary.
I have found examples of the myth from India, South Africa, North America, Central America, Europe, Australia, and various Pacific islands. So, did it actually happen?
Also the flood date recorded in the Bible coincides with celebrations of the dead held in many lands. The date of the biblical flood and the massive loss of life resulting from it connects it with these celebrations and the common flood legends that share its theme.
Where are you getting this from? The only thing I can find supporting this is this three-paragraph wikipedia article, which, instead of giving references to the various alleged festivals of the dead, has a single reference to a book by Charles Piazzi Smith, the well-known pyramidologist, numerologist, and all-round crackpot.
Halloween, to be sure, is a day of the dead, but as I have pointed out, the Church that instituted it never said anything about it commemorating the Flood.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by goldrush, posted 02-16-2011 12:12 PM goldrush has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by RCS, posted 02-28-2011 6:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 105 of 190 (605083)
02-16-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Buzsaw
02-16-2011 8:09 PM


Re: Lo And Behold The Legends
LoL, Taq. You've learned nothing from the misgivings of the 19th skeptics who, one by one, have had to eat crow.
I think you'll find that the nineteenth century skeptics are dead. What we have now are twenty-first century skeptics who are still laughing at you for believing something as unhistorical as the flood. Do you suppose that their numbers have decreased since the nineteenth century?
Meanwhile you have apparently learned nothing from the rise of local-floodism and old-earthism amongst Christians defeated by the weight of the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2011 8:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2011 11:10 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 112 of 190 (605096)
02-17-2011 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
02-16-2011 11:10 PM


Re: Lo And Behold The Legends
LoL. The skeptics who laughed at Noah for predicting the flood as the first rain & building the monster ark are all dead. The skeptics who laugh today, alleging Noah didn't do it and that what's soon predicted ahead for our times is mythical, will see end time predictions continuing to escalate, emerging to fruition, as the wrath cup of Jehovah spills out upon planet earth.
You sure find imaginary genocide amusing.
Of course, so do I, but it amuses me because it's imaginary; whereas it appears to tickle you because it's genocide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2011 11:10 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2011 9:42 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 122 of 190 (605155)
02-17-2011 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Buzsaw
02-17-2011 9:22 AM


Re: Lo And Behold The Legends and other nonsense
How do plate tectonics explain all of the inland sea fossils in non-mountainous regions?
Plate tectonics doesn't need to, since such fossils were not uplifted, unlike the fossils in mountains.
Why would you even ask such a question?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2011 9:22 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 132 of 190 (605236)
02-17-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Buzsaw
02-17-2011 6:42 PM


Re: Speaking Of Myth
Speaking of myth, there is more here and now evidence for the Biblical myth than for the evolutionist myth, as depicted by your mythical map.
That's not what geologists say. You know ... geologists? Those guys who actually study the geological evidence, rather than reciting discredited religious dogma while knowing fuck-all about geology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2011 6:42 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 144 of 190 (605369)
02-18-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by goldrush
02-18-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
If "bottlenecking" is in reference to species, then not knowing exactly what the Bible means by "kinds", and the animals preserved representing these "kinds" is going to render references to "species" as invalid proof.
No, hold on. If "kind" can include several species1 (as creationists usually claim) then we'd still see bottlenecking in the species --- if anything, more so. Each species within the kind would still have had only two ancestors (or seven for kosher species) a few thousand years ago. The fact that some of them had the same two ancestors would be neither here nor there as far as bottlenecking goes2.
1 The only way your get-out would work is if kinds were varieties, so that there were more "kinds" than species. And it would have to be a lot more to avoid a bottleneck. But since the whole point of the "kinds" concept is to get round the problem of space on the Ark, then if kinds are varieties you'd have defeated the original purpose of the concept.
2 Though this could be disproved by other techniques in genetic analysis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by goldrush, posted 02-18-2011 7:27 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 146 of 190 (605379)
02-18-2011 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by goldrush
02-18-2011 7:05 PM


Kinds II
The Bible doesn't even say specifically which animals were taken. Also what is meant by "kind" is not explained ...
The Bible says two of every kind (seven of clean kinds).
Now the meaning of kind is not explained, true, but it is illustrated.
The word "kind" ( מין ) as used in Genesis is also used in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, where the Bible refers to various kinds of black kites, ravens, hawks, herons, "great lizards" (distinct from the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon), locusts, bald locusts, beetles, grasshoppers, tortoises and vultures.
So, for example, we know that ravens cannot constitute a "kind", since there are distinct "kinds" of ravens.
This suggests that "kind" actually slices the animal kingdom fairly thin, since ravens are various species within the genus Corvus.
However, this is by-the-by. As I pointed out in my previous post on this subject, kinds can be as big as you like and the species within them would still show a genetic bottleneck.
... so the genetic markings you refer to are not fully reliable.
See my previous post on this subject.
Until we know enough about genes and life to produce even a single cell, I wouldn't consider our current understanding of DNA as solid proof.
Why not? That's a complete non sequitur.
Would you listen to an attorney who tried that sort of argument in a paternity case? Or in a murder case? "Yes, DNA analysis apparently shows that the skin found under the victim's fingernails came from my client --- but we don't know enough about genes and life to produce even a single cell, so we shouldn't consider our current understanding of DNA as proof".
The things we can't do don't even tend to discredit the things that we do know. And, I might add, it isn't lack of knowledge of life or DNA that stops us from building a cell from scratch, it's lack of technology. You can know all about a thing and lack the technology to make one. Would you say that we don't understand why stars shine until we can make a star?
To look at it another way --- suppose scientists did make a cell from scratch. Suppose they do it tomorrow. Would you then feel obliged to say: "Oh well then, geneticists must be right about the non-occurrence of the Flood"? Or would you be the first to say that the question of whether scientists can make cells and the question of whether the Flood occurred are completely unrelated?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by goldrush, posted 02-18-2011 7:05 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by goldrush, posted 02-20-2011 6:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024