This is proving to be a interesting subject.
Printable View
This is proving to be a interesting subject.
Thanks for answering me and I am glad you are adding to the discussion. I feeling that evolving from apes can be possible but there is no direct proof out there to make be believe it a 100%. But it would be fascinating to see that proof though. Again thanks for your honesty it is so refreshing to see how many honest opinions here. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
There is no proof as such that we are evolved directly out of apes. However, there is proof that we share a common ancestor. We are, after all, more closely related to the chimpanzee than the chimpanzee itself is related to the other Great Apes (gorilla, etc.). We share 94.4 % of our DNA with the chimp: scientists estimate that the the common ancestor of chimps and humans branched off from the gorilla approximately 7 million years ago; the two species themselves diverged only between 5 million and 6 million years ago. Scientists are debating whether we should perhaps, after all, be classed along with the chimpanzee as "Great Apes". Or whether the chimpanzee should be classed as a "Homo" species. (Homo trogladytes instead of Pan trogladytes.)
Why would I? It's just a story in a book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancestor
All the scientific evidence contradicts it. And even if I wanted to believe a creation myth rather than the science, there are numerous others to choose from. With no empirical criteria to go on, why would I choose this one in particular?
Man had to originate from somewhere and I wonder if we can prove where our origins came due the evidence by now might not be around anymore. I have not heard of anyone other then Adam and Eve being the first humans. Of it is like answering the old question which came first the egg or the chicken. Thanks for answering me and I was curious about what you thought on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
The story of Adam and Eve, if taken literally is fiction. Therefore creationism in the common definition is indeed unlikely to be true.
The symbolism it could represent however isn't as that is an integral part of Christian religion. Something that has been part and has influenced western civilization for the last two millennia. Whether you belief the symbolism is irrelevant. This symbolism is not confined to Christian religions. It is everywhere.
Evolution theory only works to a certain extent. Most of the knowledge we have now is based on deductive reasoning. It is al estimates, and the proof that we have is not definitive proof. An important rule in research is to question your results. Every new finding refines a theory, whether it is evolution or space technology.
The point is, the bible is thousands of years old. At the time people didn't have the knowledge we have now. They did not understand DNA, or RNA, or knew what a light bulb was. The story of Adam and Eve was their way of explaining their existence. There must have been a thousand and one different interpretations as to where humans come from. Most of them have died with the people that told them. But those that survived tell an interesting tale that spans thousands of years and chronicles mankind’s attempt to understand their existence. The tale is far from finished, but religion is no longer at the forefront and science has taken over this search.
Does this mean religion is no longer necessary? No, religion takes on a different mission today, but the major religions are only slowly becoming aware of this mission. Religion can provide great comfort for people. It can be a binding factor in a culture where everyone is becoming more detached. But that is not something for this topic.
Just my two (not so coherent) cent.
I totally agree with you there because there are thousands of new information being discovered every day. I think with anything in life you should take time out to re-examine it you may be surprised at what you find. Adam and Eve may be fiction or not which is something we may never know for sure but it is worth investigating.Quote:
Originally Posted by AimusSage
All Biblical scholars worth their salt know full well that the very first creature God created was this small, white, grumpy mouse with large ears and an evil grin, head tilted to one side. Then gradually over eons, all other life froms evolved from that primordial mouse creature.
(Dyrwen... this is what as known as comic relief)
:lol:
:wave:
:nod:
Fortunately, that grumpy, evil mouse possess a sense of humor.
Just last week, scientists at the famous Genome project annouced that they have detected traces of mouse DNA in all life forms.
We have squandered centuries discussing Adam and Eve, when all along, it was Mickey and Minnie, right under our noses!
It's been investigated pretty well since genetics was introduced. There has been no genetic similarity found in mankind's DNA that would make it partially related to everyone else on earth. That's basically all we have to look for, as far as Adam & Eve are concerned. We've mapped the human genome and know we're not all related, at least not to two people. Not to mention the whole carbon dating and radiometric dating discussion that happened awhile back pretty much also demonstrates our investigation into the amount of time mankind might've existed for Adam & Eve to work out plausibly.
I'm all for investigating things thoroughly, but when it comes to the "science" of the Bible, the most basic tenents of biology, geology, and physics took the Bible to school with their investigations once the teachings for popped up. Evolution continues to be fine tuned into a more and more probable theory, so much so that there isn't much disagreement over it in the scientific community outside of minor details that mean a lot. I really can't see how anyone is waiting for evidence of Adam & Eve, outside of the fact that they just want to wait for something that may never be found, therefore they won't ever have their beliefs proven wrong because there isn't any proof to be found. It's a circular thing, but I suppose when it's an important part of creation, it has to be held onto.
Personally, I tend to think like AimusSage with regards to religion in today's world. Just think of it this way: We weren't any smarter biologically 2000 years ago, but we've certainly become more aware of our surroundings, so the psychological intelligence over our collective society has increased a great deal more. I mean, really, they thought the earth was flat, that lightening was from Zeus (later, God), and floods happened because they did something wrong. A five year old in modern society has more intelligence than that line of reasoning, and considering that mindset wrote the holy text itself, some revision and sidesteps on what needs to be held onto is a good thing, as far as I can tell.
Just sort of ran aground on that thought process, since sage mentioned their ignorance to dna above.
Edit: Sitar, [Brain]Yes![/Brain] hehe
Since there were batteries along with indoor pluming during the time of Cesar I think we were not as ignorant was we think humans were back then. How can we judge intelligence based on today's technology? Evolution is not based on what we our mind is capable of doing in a certain time period. Human beings are constitantly changing and evolving every day whether we see it or not in ourselves. Isn't evolution physical, environmental, and mental changes within our world? If I have misunderstood do forgive me but it sounds like we are saying that evolution is defined as how intelligent we were back then.
You misunderstood, Technology evolves too. That does not mean that people were ignorant a thousand years ago. It simply means they were less technologically advanced. The level of technology does not define the intelligence. Do you know exactly how a computer works, down to the specifics? The fact that technology is here doesn't mean everyone understands it.
However, a lack of certain technology, that has given us a better insight in so many fields, means the explainations will be different. This has nothing to do with ignorance or lack of intelligence. It means the tools were not there to explain many things.
Sorry about misunderstanding you. It still makes me wonder what evolutional theories they had a thousand years ago. I cannot help but think we might not have had the need to explain things back then. I wish time travel were possible so I could just observe what really happened back then. Thanks for setting me straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by AimusSage
Has anyone here read the Science of Discworld, by Terry Pratchett and Co? IT actually gives a nice form of explanation/summarisation of earths creation, with added wit.
Just out of curiosity, but if each religion has their own theory about the creation of earth (and more) then how can it apply?
If i don't beleive in God, then how can he have been responsible for my creation?
Not to mention someone who beleives in a different creation theory. I think it's to simple to say, that some omnious force decided to create an earth with creatures on it, and i think it seems arrogant to believe that humans were created seperately from animals, and on the their own seperate day.
It is such a domineering concept, and i don't find it sufficiently plausible.
Yes Chava, that is one of the more pressing matters of creation, seeing as there are so many different creation myths and some of the more Judeo-roots of many of them make humanity out to be something special that is to be held above mere animals. Although I'm fairly sure a few of the eastern religions are more judicious in how we're "all" created at once, not just animals, then humans.
On your line of thought about arrogance, I always had a feeling that if there were a god, no one actually believes in that particular one. Everyone made up their own gods to fit their own needs, but the real god isn't needed for anything, because no one knows it existed. Basically taking a line from Futurama when God says, " If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." It's a simple concept that god doesn't care about the world below in terms of whether we believe in it or not, because it still made everything in any case, but meanwhile everyone tries to follow a god they think actually did it, only to end up knowing it was always the wrong one. Sure there's an idea of god being believed in that fits the original's description, but they didn't know for sure it was this one in particular.
So from a probability standpoint, if there was a god out there, no one is actually believing in him, because there's a higher chance that they'd make up their own according to their needs and traditions, rather than be able to notice the real god just watching things happen. Although I suppose deists could fit under this belief concept in some manner. In any case, to your second question: Just because you don't believe in god doesn't mean there isn't a god responsible for your creation. I'm an atheist, mind you, but from a hypothetical standpoint that's the plain truth. From a silly casuality standpoint: Just because you were born and your parents weren't around, or you aren't even sure your parents were ever there, doesn't mean that they didn't still create you. (another hypothetical in the same theistic vein of creation, although obviously there is a big difference between parents and deities when things go back far enough, heh)