1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Human Evolution

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by doubtingmerle, Jul 18, 2022.

  1. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,789
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    ^_^
     
  2. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    So, if you have a job that takes 12 man-days, you could hire 4 people and get it done in 3 days. Or hire 12 people and get it done tomorrow. Or hire -12 people and get it done yesterday? ;)
     
  3. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    The question isn't whether God wants 2 + 2 to equal 10. The question is whether God has the power to make 2 + 2 =10. I see you evaded the question.
     
  4. BPPLEE

    BPPLEE Well-Known Member

    +1,063
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Could he? He could. ,but he won't.
     
  5. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Your question is bogus. We've gone far enough with this silliness.
     
  6. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    It's amazing to me that you would think this line of reasoning valid. You propose a logical self-contradiction and assume that it is a question of power or ability that is or is not limited by the impossibility. Enough already!
     
  7. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    We need to draw this to a close. Here is my summary.

    Leading physicists have concluded that our universe likely began by the Big Bang that was caused by cosmic inflation and quantum effects. What caused cosmic inflation and quantum effects? I contend that there are 3 possibilities, which I have somewhat facetiously named God, Hod, and Nod. God has a mind. Hod is the set of all phenomena that intrinsically exist that together caused the inflation and other effects that caused the universe. And Nod is just a special case of Hod, where Nod is as close to nothing as it is possible to get. I will confine the options here to Hod or God.

    Hod consists of things like innate physics and innate mathematics that just are. God consists of anything innate that just always is, plus mind, and possibly plus other things such as omnipotence.

    You have argued that the only possible creator is God, that this God is the "inventor" of math, and is omnipotent. (The scare quotes on the word inventor are yours. You specifically quibble with calling God the inventor without the scare quotes, but you do state that he is the "inventor" of math if you use scare quote. This quibble, in my mind, shows the utter obfuscation and futility in your position.)

    So is 2 + 2 = 4 a fact that just is and could not possibly be changed? You seem to argue that God had the power to invent this to be otherwise, such as 2 + 2 =10, but then you also seem to argue that God did not have the power to invent this to be otherwise. When I ask for clarification as to whether you think God had the power to change 2 + 2 to equal something else, you evade the question.

    Hod could simply be the sum of all phenomena that somehow exist, including the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. Hod could conceivably create universes. What are the odds? Suppose there is one chance in a billion billion that Hod, operating over a space a billion billion times the size of our universe for a billion billion years, could create a universe with life. Fine. Hod has infinite amount of time to act. And a miniscule number times infinity is still infinity. So however remote the odds are that Hod could do it, given eternity, Hod could create an infinite number of universes.

    We are in one of those universes. I can (and often do) look at myself as a conscious being in that universe and say, "Wow! How did that happen?" Perhaps the answer is that Hod acted for eternity.

    You may think that God is more likely than Hod as the creator, for God has a mind. Understood, but having a mind adds another complexity. How can a mind possibly store memories if there is no substance to arrange to store those memories? That is how all memories we know of are stored: by arranging some substance to store those memories.

    So, does the source of creation really need a mind if an infinite number of years will work just as well?

    You have tried to argue that God is more likely than Hod, for God as you define him is all powerful, and the creator needs to be all powerful. But why does a being need to be all powerful to create our universe? All such a being would need is the power to create this universe. It is totally logical to postulate that a God or Hod created our universe, while in the meantime, other Gods or Hods were creating other universes in a totally different realm that had no possible interaction with our universe. Such a creator would not be all powerful. There is no logical necessity that the creator of our universe was omnipotent.

    So I conclude that it could have been God or Hod. God is more complicated, and needs to somehow have a mind without a physical substance available. Hod is just a simplified version of God that would have all the power to create our universe. Either is possible.

    With that, I draw our discussion to a close. Thanks for your input.
     
  8. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +2,165
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    The end
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  9. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    The God I speak of is not the god you define as "possibly plus other things such as omnipotence". Nor does he "consist of" his attributes. He IS omnipotent, and his attributes are our mental constructions of what he is like; they are what we attribute to him. He does not consist of them.

    The scare quotes around 'inventor' [of math, etc] does not demonstrate anything expect the inability of human words to represent the facts concerning God.

    I hit that bogus question square on its fake head.

    God is not a summation of his parts nor of his abilities. Hod is. Hod is not omnipotent, self-existent, nor the source of all other things besides himself. Hod is a silly notion, at best. You make up something bogus and expect it to be taken seriously as a proposition.

    Your underskirting of dependence on materialism is showing. Why would God, of whose substance I hope you can admit to no comprehension, need material substance to store memories? It is as ludicrous a notion as to say that first cause is subject to anything else from outside itself.

    If there are multiple universes, or anything else that is, besides God himself, God made it. If there are multiple universes he is not just the god of this one. You really have a silly notion you keep trying to promote, and trying to represent God, omnipotent first cause, as a lesser being. Again, you are beating a strawman, to make all these claims supposedly about God.

    But ok, I'm just as happy as you to quit haggling over nonsense propositions.
     
  10. JosephZ

    JosephZ Well-Known Member

    +1,984
    Philippines
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Others
    You're correct, missionaries that go to Arab countries or to people groups that speak Arabic use the word "Allah" when talking about God. Allah is used by Arabic speaking Jews and Christians to refer to the God of Israel and they have been since before Islam ever existed.
    John 3 16 arabic 2.jpg
    God is known as "Tuhan" among the people group I work with and Jesus is known as "Isa." These are also the terms I also use when speaking to them in their language.

    “If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9) English

    "Bang kam magpasab'nnal in si Isa Panghulu'bi maka magkahagad toongan min deyom ataybi in iya bai pinakallum min kamatana e' Tuhan tantu kam lappasan sampay pinasodni deyom sulga." (Roma 10:9) Sinama

    If a Sinama speaking person declares "si Isa Panghulu'bi" and believes in their heart that "Tuhan" raised Him from the dead would God reject them? Of course not; just as wouldn't with Arabic speakers calling Him Allah. God will approve of whatever name someone calls Him in their native tongue.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  11. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,623
    Humanist
    Private
    Bunkum!:
    Did the transition to complex societies in the Holocene drive a reduction in brain size? A reassessment of the DeSilva et al. (2021) hypothesis, Villmoare and Grabowski, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, July 2022:
    The notion of intelligence and social communication allowing 'these humans to develop as a team, caring for each other and for the young .. leading to larger brains .. upward spirals, {etc}', is not founded on the available evidence:
    The same rationale therefore applies for the belief in increased brain sizes, (therefore birth canal changes), over the last 300k years, (look at the data trend shown in the study), for which there is no evidence, as follows:
    This thread was over, following the non-evidence based claims (beliefs) in post #1 and the narrative of your website story-telling.
     
  12. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +2,165
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2022
  13. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    First, can you tell me, please, if you think humans evolved from a common ancestor with the chimp, or if you think that humans were created separately? Your post sure looks creationist, but, as usual, it is hard to understand your own views. You are quick to attack mainstream science, humanism, and atheism every chance you get, but it is not clear what you put in its place. What is your position?

    The OP is based on a mainstream NOVA documentary which references the work of numerous leading scientists. If you agree that humans evolved, then you must admit that brain sizes in hominids have tripled. So I don't understand how you can erupt with cries of "Bunkum!" when I discuss that increase.

    The article you quote involves a debate about changes of brain sizes during the Holocene, that is, the last 12,000 years. By contrast, the OP is dealing with the early hominids, a period that lasted 4 million years. Specifically, much of the relevant discussion of brain size in the NOVA documentary revolves around the fossil known as Turkana Boy, who lived about 1.5 million years ago. So why would you cite a study about brain size changes in the Holocene to refute a claim about hominids millions of years ago?

    Regarding the discussion of the lack of brain size increases in later humans, that should come as no surprise. Pardon the pun, but the benefit of larger brains is not a no-brainer. Brains require huge resources in protein and calories. And in hominids, large brains necessitate extended childhoods for the brain to grow. So bigger is not necessarily better. The articles you mention suggest that, in the Holocene, increased use of language and civilization allowed for much greater usage of the shared brainpower of other humans, so, there was less need to use ever greater resources to grow ever bigger brains.

    In conclusion, your studies certainly say nothing about hominid brains not increasing in size over millions of years. So no, you have not shown that this transition did not occur.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2022
  14. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Why do you continue to attack my site as a story-telling site? I cite numerous quality scientific sites and the primary literature. I emphasize that I am basing conclusions on observation and reason, which is the essence of science.

    I tell some personal stories of things that happened in my life, yes, but how does that negate everything I say? Are all scientists who give a little biographical information nothing more than narrative story-tellers?

    Where I do tell the story of my religious life, I emphasize that, "I am not asking you to follow me. You have a mind of your own. You can decide for yourself. But perhaps you could learn from me." So no, my site is not simply a bunch of anecdotal stories as my primary evidence.

    And no, you cannot just ignore the science discussed in the OP and the NOVA documentary just because I tell some biographical background at my site.

    If you would rather discuss the content of my site, it might be best if you left a comment there rather than turning this thread into a discussion of my site.
     
  15. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +2,165
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    [Q.
     
  16. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,623
    Humanist
    Private
    Shifting the goalposts. The section of your post, which I cited, used the term humans and not Hominids. (The term 'human' is a colloquial term used to refer to ourselves, ie: Homo Sapiens, which is exactly how you used it in the relevant opening sections of your story).
    If you'd read the introduction of the Villmoare etal paper I refer to however, you'd see their explicitly stated, evidenced, context, in the very first paragraph. (Also note my underlines):
    And then in the second paragraph, their demonstrated and generalised point, is that speculative arguments asserting that the distribution of complex information amongst communicating humans in social settings, (ie: group level cognition), necessarily drives brain size changes, as a selection force, lacks evidence:
    ... (which they then go on to demonstrate).

    You repeat your theme in your specific text which I originally quoted, (the content of which is unevidenced), and are now relying on using different terms to change what you originally said .. which is yet just more evidence of intellectually dishonest behaviour.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2022
  17. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    My mistake. I see I repeatedly called them humans when I meant to say hominids. I have gone back and corrected the OP, and made a note at the bottom of the post indicating it was changed.

    It should have been obvious from the context that I was talking about hominids, but if this confused you, I apologize for that. I fixed my mistake.

    Hominids (our ancestors) underwent huge brain growth over about 3 million years. Homo Sapiens (humans) have had little change in brain size.

    Now back to the question I asked you. I see that you did not tell us if you think humans evolved from a common ancestor with the chimp, or if you think that humans were created separately. Can you please answer this?
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2022
  18. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    (duplicate post)
     
  19. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,623
    Humanist
    Private
    Accepted.
    The context is the issue at hand. Its up to you to express it accurately in order to get your meaning across, regardless of what I think it is. Its not my meaning that's being communicated .. its yours.
    Accepted on the basis of the evidence consistent with that, provided in the Villmoare etal paper and elsewhere.
    The ToE, along with LUCA, are science's best tested theories explaining how biology developed on this planet.

    Expressing what I think would be completely inconsistent with the point I've been making throughout this thread, which is: What I think, or anybody else thinks, is completely irrelevant to the conclusions science draws from objective data. They're not stories, beliefs, or feelings.. they're inferences. Your question is simply the wrong question to be asking when it comes to science's position (especially when its about Objective Reality).
    I even just demonstrated where this principle leads, using the Villmoare etal paper .. and you (appropriately) conceded because of what it showed.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2022
  20. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Ok, so we both think evolution explains how biology developed. But my question was more specific. I asked if you agree with me that humans evolved from a common ancestor with the chimp. But I am not going to guess. (You hate when people guess what you are saying, yes? ;) ) Can you please answer directly?



    I am not asking what conclusion science draws. I know that answer. I would like to know what conclusions you draw.

    If it make you feel good that you convinced me that the human brain did not evolve in the last 12,000 years, fine, but I knew that all along. I am well aware that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimps over millions of years. See, for instance, this thread-- Why are there still apes? and the link I mentioned several times here .
     
Loading...