If/an you were a God, at what point in evolution would you consider man, "man" separate from animal?

[Neogaia777]

If/an you were a God, at what point in evolution would you consider man, "man" separate from animal?

Comments?

God Bless!

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm not God, and I am never likely to be responsible for ordaining a process like Evolution, so I don't know.

 

[Neogaia777]

If/an you were a God, at what point in evolution would you consider man, "man" separate from animal?

Comments?

God Bless!

I believe God didn't consider what resembled human/man that existed at that time to be "man" yet, "man" is descendant from Adam who was created and placed in an isolated garden, cut-off from the pockets of other humanoid-like creatures who were not considered a part to be the race of what we consider "man" separate from animal by God, and they were all wiped out in the flood anyhow, so that race, whatever they were, were anihilated before God, and from the human line...

God Bless!

 

[Gene2memE]

First of all, man IS an animal.
Second, the question shows a misunderstanding of the process. What you're asking is akin to saying: at what point does day become night? Or, when did Latin become Italian?
Paleontology shows us that hominids diverged with our last common ancestor between 6 and 8 million years ago, and anatomically modern humans emerged about 200,000 to 300,000 years ago.

 

[pgp_protector]

" at what point in evolution would you consider man, "man" separate from animal?"

Never.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I believe God didn't consider what resembled human/man that existed at that time to be "man" yet, "man" is descendant from Adam who was created and placed in an isolated garden, cut-off from the pockets of other humanoid-like creatures who were not considered a part to be the race of what we consider "man" separate from animal by God, and they were all wiped out in the flood anyhow, so that race, whatever they were, were anihilated before God, and from the human line...

Cool story.

All evidence (aka "reality") does not align with your story though. I think our knowledge of genetics is perhaps the strongest evidence against your story. We share lots of DNA with things which you would consider an "animal" (such as chimpanzees and other apes). How was it that we were isolated from everything else and yet have so much similar biochemistry and genetics?

 

[eclipsenow]

Theologian J I Packer sort of addresses this point here: very interesting audio download! Also asks questions about the potential for death & disease from evolution, and Adam and Eve's immortality granted by whatever the Tree of Life was.
http://sydneyanglicans.net/media/audio/creation_evolution_problems/

 

[lesliedellow]

First of all, man IS an animal.
Second, the question shows a misunderstanding of the process. What you're asking is akin to saying: at what point does day become night? Or, when did Latin become Italian?
Paleontology shows us that hominids diverged with our last common ancestor between 6 and 8 million years ago, and anatomically modern humans emerged about 200,000 to 300,000 years ago.

Perhaps unsurprisingly for an atheist, you misunderstand the question. The question is not when a biologist would have considered the first human to have appeared, but when did God nominate some hominid to be the first human. The second is not a biological question.

 

[Gene2memE]

Perhaps unsurprisingly for an atheist, you misunderstand the question. The question is not when a biologist would have considered the first human to have appeared, but when did God nominate some hominid to be the first human. The second is not a biological question.

Then what is being asked is a theological question, not a question of biology.

As this is the 'Physical and Life Sciences' sub-forum, I provided the correct answer on the basis of the scientific evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

If/an you were a God, at what point in evolution would you consider man, "man" separate from animal? Comments? God Bless!

It's the perfect question.
Jesus gave us the impression that Men and animals were created separately.
I have no reason to believe that story,
except on faith.

It seem that Jesus bought the story hook, line, and sinker....

and that's good enough for me.

 

[eclipsenow]

It's the perfect question.
Jesus gave us the impression that Men and animals were created separately.
I have no reason to believe that story,
except on faith.

It seem that Jesus bought the story hook, line, and sinker....

and that's good enough for me.

He also bought the bit from Isaiah about the "trees of the field will clap their hands", and that's good enough for me.
Trees have hands, and muscles, and can clap!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If I were God I would know, but I dont know, so A - I am not God, and B - I dont really know what it would be like to "be God"....


Traditionally...

Man has an "animal soul" in traditional parlance, which means he moves and has drives and passions. Like other animals. But he also has an "human soul" and an "divine soul" (apparently) - meaning he has the propensity towards reason, morality and religion.

I was told recently that the "spirit" or breath of life - and rthe highest most noble part of us - contains all the 'names of Allah' (God), and we may have excess or deficit of the related properties, for instance forgiveness in excess would make one weak, peace in ecess and one might not get things done etc.

I think anthropologically ione may believe faith based versions of man or not. Just like we may belieeve in God, or not. If I were God I would know the absolute truth, everything there is to know. Man on the other hand is limited and free therefore to some degree to believe in this or that construct of "what it is to be human".

Up to date...

its all modern psychology and the brain etc, and they - scientists - dont seem to be too concerned with neat and tidy ontological divisions (dfferent partds of the mind with ddifferent natures), as the Scholastics (medieval philosophers) did.

 

[timewerx]

If/an you were a God, at what point in evolution would you consider man, "man" separate from animal?

I could consider man as being self-aware once they begin treating animals as people like themselves.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If/an you were a God, at what point in evolution would you consider man, "man" separate from animal?

Comments?

God Bless!

Well....

For starters, I wouldn't look at man as "separate" from animals, since humans ARE animals.

As to when I would consider them to be "human"?
I don't really know.... I guess I'ld build some criteria of unique "human" behaviour and call the primates "humans" whenever all those criteria are met and widespread throughout the population.

Off the top of my mind, and without thinking to hard about it, I guess such criteria would be traits like:
- empathy
- some form of social structure
- toolmaking and / or working/shaping the land
- some type of "advanced" communication.
- ...


However, this is all hindsight shenannigans.
It would mean that the criteria of what "humans" are, would be defined before humans actually evolved.
Which is an idea that doesn't make much sense in my mind.

 

[DogmaHunter]

. The second is not a biological question.

I disagree. It is a question about evolution and the criteria by which the homo sapiens species is defined. Seems very much like a biological question to me.

 

[lesliedellow]

I disagree. It is a question about evolution and the criteria by which the homo sapiens species is defined. Seems very much like a biological question to me.

A biologist can define what he means by homo-sapien, and a theologian can define what he means by "man". Although the two concepts are clearly closely related, they are not the same thing.

Something frequently heard from atheists is, "The Bible says that bats are birds, ha, ha, ha." That ha, ha, ha presupposes that people living millennia ago were, or could even have been, under some sort of obligation to classify species in precisely the same way that present day biologists classify them. In reality, they were free to adopt whatever system of classification was convenient for themselves.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A biologist can define what he means by homo-sapien, and a theologian can define what he means by "man". Although the two concepts are clearly closely related, they are not the same thing.

Sure, but the question literally mentions the biological evolution of humans. ie, homo sapiens. And the question is being asked in the "life sciences" sub forum.

Something frequently heard from atheists is, "The Bible says that bats are birds, ha, ha, ha." That ha, ha, ha presupposes that people living millennia ago were, or could even have been, under some sort of obligation to classify species in precisely the same way that present day biologists classify them.

Not really.
Whenever that point is being brought up, it seems to me, is when people are responding to literalists. These people don't consider the bible to be a collection of ideas from humans living millenia ago. They consider the bible to be the unquestionable truth of a god.

One could reasonably expect that a god would know better then to classify bats in the same category as birds.

This actually is a point being made specifically to point out that the bible indeed is a collection of ideas from ancient humans, because we could expect those humans to mistakenly consider bats to be "the same kind of animal" as birds.

It is, however, not the type of mistake one expects a god to make. Because bats and birds are very, very, VERY different creatures.

Biologically, bats are much more similar to humans then to birds. That's the gravity of the error we deal with here... A god, or humans in communication with this god, would be expected to know that.

In reality, they were free to adopt whatever system of classification was convenient for themselves.

Indeed, and the point exactly.

 

[Larniavc]

If/an you were a God, at what point in evolution would you consider man, "man" separate from animal?

Comments?

God Bless!

At no point.

 

[lesliedellow]

This actually is a point being made specifically to point out that the bible indeed is a collection of ideas from ancient humans, because we could expect those humans to mistakenly consider bats to be "the same kind of animal" as birds.

Why "mistakenly"? You are again assuming that the system of classification used by present day biologists is somehow superior to every other, rather than just being something which is convenient for themselves. If an ancient people chose to classify a bird as being any animal with wings, then, by definition, and in that system of classification, a bat was a bird. No mistake made.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why "mistakenly"? You are again assuming that the system of classification used by present day biologists is somehow superior to every other

Well... it is.

, rather than just being something which is convenient for themselves.

Sure. But over time, we learn new things.

It was logical for them to group bats with birds, for the same reason that it was logical for them to say that the sun orbits the earth.

With the information at their disposal, it made sense.