Why are there still apes?

Gottservant said:

The question was "can you believe in God and not grow confused about who God is in the process?"

Click to expand...

No, that question has not been asked in this forum; this was the question you asked:
Try again.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

No, that question has not been asked in this forum; this was the question you asked:

​

Try again.

Click to expand...

Listening to something you can't see, is what we do when we sin; being something we can't understand, is what we do when we try to be God.

When I said "can you believe in God and not grow confused about who God is in the process?" I was putting the chasm between sin and God in sharp focus.

If you confess your sin and trust God, you are not snared by these things.

The point being when we try to reach perfection without God, we can't do it (I said there was a relationship between the rationality of one and the rationality of the other, because without confession you can't be rational about either and therefore you can't perfect "either")

This is not meant to confuse you, but rather to bring into focus: what is it, that I am trying to perfect? Am I trying to perfect sin? Or am I trying to perfect Godlessness? (they are not the same thing)

Gottservant said:

Listening to something you can't see, is what we do when we sin; being something we can't understand, is what we do when we try to be God.

When I said "can you believe in God and not grow confused about who God is in the process?" I was putting the chasm between sin and God in sharp focus.

If you confess your sin and trust God, you are not snared by these things.

Click to expand...

Since I believe in neither God nor sin (except as conceptual abstractions), I don't find myself ensnared by them.

The point being when we try to reach perfection without God, we can't do it (I said there was a relationship between the rationality of one and the rationality of the other, because without confession you can't be rational about either and therefore you can't perfect "either")

This is not meant to confuse you, but rather to bring into focus: what is it, that I am trying to perfect? Am I trying to perfect sin? Or am I trying to perfect Godlessness? (they are not the same thing)

Click to expand...

I don't believe in literal perfection either, so your proposed questions are just dull theological abstractions.

Having said that, I do think one can try to be a better person by one's own measure.

doubtingmerle said:

And that is why there are humans, and there are still apes.

Click to expand...

Also, apes don't taste very good.

Speedwell said:

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean the first species to have some cells specialized for more light more sensitivity than the rest of the cells in its body? More sensitive to sound?

Click to expand...

Let me rephrase this.

Animals have two eyes and two ears located at the right positions to estimate the distance of the source (of sound and light/image they perceive). If it were some natural, unintelligent agents which caused the eyes and ears to appear then, the first species to have the eyes and ears should have them at random places on the body. As far as I am aware of, fossil records show the eyes and ears at the right places from the first generation of species to have them so, involvement of the intelligent designer is certain.

Speedwell said:

It would be hard to tell when a species began to develop a concentrated area of peristalsis in its circulatory system to the degree that you could call it a "heart."

Click to expand...

My post was not about "when" but "how", referring to the the cause - whether the cause was intelligent or unintelligent

Speedwell said:

The clock, because it shows evidence of intentional human manufacture--tool marks, mold lines, the use of non-natural or refined materials, etc.--from which intentional human design may be inferred. If those evidences are absent then design may be present but there is no basis for an inference. I would have no way of concluding whether the wood was designed or not.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

The mutation that led to the diversification of the life is far more complex than the design behind the clock. Let me state two reasons

a) The agents that (allegedly) mutated say, the early fish into lizard worked for millions of years, in sequence. For example, it was one sort of agents that transformed the fish to walk on its fins; another set mutated it to develop air-breathing lungs; third set to transformed the fish skin to land animal skin etc.

b) Some organs evolved for one purpose but later used for another. E.g. early fishes developed (external) bladders for floating purpose but later the bladder was transformed to (internal) air breathing lungs. Feathers appeared on those dinosaurs to maintain body temperature but later used for the flight when the became birds.

If it is obvious that a clock has (pre) design, it is a million times more obvious that the species we see today are result of i(I)ntelliegent design

Bungle_Bear said:

That is not a basis for assuming God, or any other supernatural being. Those principles have also been shown to be tenuous, if not actually false.

Click to expand...

The principles we are talking about are the ones upon which Science is based on - we cannot establish any Scientific formulae in Alice's Wonderland, correct? You sure you want to call the principles "tenous" ?

Bungle_Bear said:

As I said last time - yeah, no.

Click to expand...

Why would someone disagree with a deductive conclusion?

Hans Blaster said:

Please don't use your misunderstandings of physics to "challenge" evolution. Quantum mechanics doesn't "say" any such thing about people (and has absolutely no relevance to legal proceedings). I could try to explain why the relative motion of two points on the Earth at no more than a few cm per year isn't going to invoke any "simultaneity" issues, but it wouldn't be useful.

None of this impacts evolution, including the evolution of apes.

Click to expand...

Replied to soon, huh?

This is what you missed in my previous post (#653) in italics.

-------------
Quantum mechanics says a person could be present at different places at the same time but "alibi" is still valid in judicial courts. Theory of Relativity says there is no absolute simultaneity but we know Homo Sapience arrived after Apes, correct?

Let us stick to the classical understanding - an object cannot escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent so, the order in the diversification of life posits (pre) design because it is the disorder that increases with time.
---------------------

I don't deny (theistic) Evolution, certainly based on Quantum mechanics or Relativity.

Hans Blaster said:

Evolution, and the evidence for it, aren't dependent on these sorts of metaphysical arguments. Period. This is veering far from ape evolution and into forbidden apologetics.

Click to expand...

It was not the "operation" or "timeline" of the diversification of life that I was talking about.

@Shemjaza @FrumiousBandersnatch

Many Christians are comfortable with Theistic Evolution. What I am trying to prove is that there is Intelligent Design behind the origin and diversification of life.

doubtingmerle said:

How did snakes develop those glands, fangs, mechanisms, and "cocktails of venom" that work together to kill their prey, but don't kill the snake itself? Simple. There were a whole "cocktail" of different mutations spread out over many years.

Click to expand...

That is "operation" but we are interested in possible cause - was there an intelligent mind behind the mutations to work in harmony toward a common functionality?

doubtingmerle said:

Oh, you found a quote? I suppose you would like us to be impressed, huh?

Were you aware that science is based on finding evidence, not on mining quotes?

Click to expand...

The quote was from a link pasted by "Gene2memE" #634.

I do believe in Science and I know we are not living in Alice's Wonderland. That's why I am having hard time agreeing with (some) Evolutionists that environmental changes like fire, thunderstorm, flood, "survival of the fittest" etc. transformed mud (inorganic matter) to Amino acids and diversified it into thousands of millions of complex species !!

doubtingmerle said:

Non sequitur.

Even if you were to demonstrate that God was the cause of the first life form--which you have not yet done--that would not prove that all future life forms were caused by the same God.

Click to expand...

Let me give this another try.

a) Primitive life surviving the hostile environment of early Earth and progressing to higher form implies the involvement of an intelligent mind.

b) The primitive bacteria, presumably unisex, split into complex male and female species with the instinct to live together and multiply shows the involvement of an intelligent mind.

c) Physical beings having metaphysical properties like life, instinct to protect their children, consciousness, free will etc. of humans shows the involvement of an intelligent mind.

if you are still not convinced, out of curiosity, what would it take you to believe Intelligent Design? If there is nothing - even in theory - that can convince you about the the involvement of an intelligent mind, I am not going to waste anyone's time.

doubtingmerle said:

Why cannot mutation and natural selection be the cause of the origin of species?

Click to expand...

From #628

Origin of life is arguably the most complex event known to humans. It is so complex that some scholars believe the early forms of life like Amino acids or Protein molecule came from outer space. The life originated at the time when Earth was hostile to living forms, with harmful radiations, devastating tornadoes, earthquakes etc. For most part of Earth's existence, Moon's gravitational field caused frequent tsunami's. Yet, the primitive life not only thrived but it advanced to more complex forms. Doesn't this prove the involvement of an intelligent mind?

From #653

..an object cannot escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent so, the order in the diversification of life posits (pre) design because it is the disorder that increases with time.

doubtingmerle said:

Ah, your reference to "the Fall" was a dog whistle for Bible thumpers? You yourself don't actually believe there was an Adam and Eve who were created from scratch several thousand years ago that fell when they ate an apple they were told not to eat?

Click to expand...

I believe Adam and Eve were the first Christians; first humans were created long before Adam and Eve , in Gen 1:27. In order to keep this thread on the intended context, I respectfully decline to discuss this any further.

Gene2memE said:

There can be. It depends on what the tenets of the accompanying religion are.

Click to expand...

I was talking in the context of a-posteriori study

Gene2memE said:

Then there is insufficient evidence to accept any claim of their existence.

Click to expand...

What if I claim that there is insufficient evidence for fish because I have not seen any on the dry land? Fish by definition don't live on dry land so, this claim will be rejected by definition. Similarly, God is not demonstrable by definition.

Gene2memE said:

Evolutionary origin of venom is still up for debate, but the prevailing hypothesis is that venom was the result of mutations to existing salivary ducts. Like a lot of things in evolution, it was most likely a modification/re-purposing of existing biological structure.

Click to expand...

That explains the "operation". What I am interested is the "cause"

Gene2memE said:

And again, your personal incredulity or the ability of biology to explain a particular aspect of evolutionary history does nothing to actually invalidate the ToE.

Click to expand...

And you have not realized that is the "cause" behind the diversification of life we are discussing, correct?

James A said:

Replied to soon, huh?

This is what you missed in my previous post (#653) in italics.

-------------
Quantum mechanics says a person could be present at different places at the same time but "alibi" is still valid in judicial courts. Theory of Relativity says there is no absolute simultaneity but we know Homo Sapience arrived after Apes, correct?

Let us stick to the classical understanding - an object cannot escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent so, the order in the diversification of life posits (pre) design because it is the disorder that increases with time.
---------------------

I don't deny (theistic) Evolution, certainly based on Quantum mechanics or Relativity.

Click to expand...

Well your failure to understand classical physics isn't relevant to the continuing existence of non-human apes, either.

James A said:

I believe Adam and Eve were the first Christians; first humans were created long before Adam and Eve , in Gen 1:27. In order to keep this thread on the intended context, I respectfully decline to discuss this any further.

Click to expand...

Thousands of years before Christ? That computes.

James A said:

For most part of Earth's existence, Moon's gravitational field caused frequent tsunami's.

Click to expand...

Citation needed.

James A said:

@Shemjaza @FrumiousBandersnatch

Many Christians are comfortable with Theistic Evolution. What I am trying to prove is that there is Intelligent Design behind the origin and diversification of life.

Click to expand...

Not being a Christian this isn't my position to defend.

But there is a kind of science accepting position of Theistic Evolution proponent Christians where the natural world is understandable and examinable by science... but nether the less follows the will of God from outside time.

Intelligent Design however is a position that evolution and diversification is impossible and so a form of Creationism is necessary as an explanation.

These are not the same position.

James A said:

The quote was from a link pasted by "Gene2memE" #634.

I do believe in Science and I know we are not living in Alice's Wonderland. That's why I am having hard time agreeing with (some) Evolutionists that environmental changes like fire, thunderstorm, flood, "survival of the fittest" etc. transformed mud (inorganic matter) to Amino acids and diversified it into thousands of millions of complex species !!

Click to expand...

We see the small scale changes all the time. We have clear physical explanations for small changes. We've even seen single celled organisms operate as colony organisms... a necessary step to increased complexity.

James A said:

Let me give this another try.

a) Primitive life surviving the hostile environment of early Earth and progressing to higher form implies the involvement of an intelligent mind.

Click to expand...

How? Why?

Explain the implication.

James A said:

b) The primitive bacteria, presumably unisex, split into complex male and female species with the instinct to live together and multiply shows the involvement of an intelligent mind.

Click to expand...

Across the range of life there's more then just asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction with two sexes. There are also species who sexually reproduce, but are all effectively both sexes. There are species who reproduce in different ways in different circumstances.

What I'm saying is that there are clear transitional stages from the two seemingly different positions you describe.

Also, can you explain how it shows the involvement of an intelligent mind?

James A said:

c) Physical beings having metaphysical properties like life, instinct to protect their children, consciousness, free will etc. of humans shows the involvement of an intelligent mind.

Click to expand...

All traits that can be described as a sliding scale from mindlessly self oriented and chemically reactive simple life to progressively more cooperative, intelligent and abstract species.

Humans are the smartest, most technological species to ever walk the Earth, but I know of no demonstrable trait that doesn't have an analogue in the animal kingdom.

James A said:

if you are still not convinced, out of curiosity, what would it take you to believe Intelligent Design? If there is nothing - even in theory - that can convince you about the the involvement of an intelligent mind, I am not going to waste anyone's time.

Click to expand...

An important start point would be evidence of an Intelligent Designer the mechanism by which it operates.

It strikes me as incredibly disingenuous to use your personal incredulity about the effectiveness of evolution or chemistry to abandon them as explanations... they to accept an entity with unknown or unknowable ability as any kind of explanation.

James A said:

From #628

Origin of life is arguably the most complex event known to humans. It is so complex that some scholars believe the early forms of life like Amino acids or Protein molecule came from outer space. The life originated at the time when Earth was hostile to living forms, with harmful radiations, devastating tornadoes, earthquakes etc. For most part of Earth's existence, Moon's gravitational field caused frequent tsunami's. Yet, the primitive life not only thrived but it advanced to more complex forms. Doesn't this prove the involvement of an intelligent mind?

From #653

..an object cannot escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent so, the order in the diversification of life posits (pre) design because it is the disorder that increases with time.

Click to expand...

Simple life is far hardier then complicated life.

All temperatures and environments of the Earth has life in it... the dark depths of the ocean, inside the rocks of the mantle, it even survived on the outside of our space craft.

Life grows and replaces itself... especially when there aren't any competitors.

James A said:

The principles we are talking about are the ones upon which Science is based on - we cannot establish any Scientific formulae in Alice's Wonderland, correct? You sure you want to call the principles "tenous" ?

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Scientific formulae are not based on infinities, cause/effect or any of the metaphysical ideas you claim. And yes, I am sure I want to call some of them tenuous - you do know, for instance, that causality has been violated?

But that's beside the point - your claim is that God is the default position, but you have failed to explain why. Even if causality, infinities etc were definitive, that would still not require God.

Why would someone disagree with a deductive conclusion?

Click to expand...

What metaphysical object interacted with the grass outside my window to make it green?