Minor correction - some non-coding DNA is functional, it just doesn't code for proteins, but may have regulatory functions in genome expression.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?
- Thread starter Warden_of_the_Storm
- Start date
- Nov 13, 2017
- 12,212
- 12,468
- Country
- Romania
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Quick reply as I’m dead tired.
Yes, I should have been clearer my point was in relation to creation stories of the Ancient Near East, as these are part of the relevant context (when discussing Genesis) that provides clues to what creation meant to people at that time, along with contemporaneous literature etc. That said, many (not all - as far as I know) of the other types of myth contain motifs, e.g. deep water or an abyss, that are commonly used to denote some state of ‘unbeing’ in the sense of not having been brought into order, not purposeful or civilised. Deep places and deep water often signify in ancient literature things that contrast with the order and purpose of community life etc. Nb I’m not just plucking that out of the air but there’s just to much info on this to try and support it with quotes.
It’s just an explanation. I’m not sure how much to write about this as it’s all just summaries of much wider issues.
That’s an approach that assumes similarity in thought between different eras. A copy of a belief system or something that imitates or co-opts some features of such a system is more likely to be based in later perception of the original and its affects than on a proper understanding of it’s origins. All belief systems reflect different aspects of basic human functioning and needs but what priorities and overall mindsets give birth to what expression of those things at what point in history is much more complicated. But that’s a very layered argument. The best I can offer you in a few words as a starting point is to suggest reading Auerbach’s Mimesis (if you haven’t already). It’s a complex book but basically outlines how the literature and sacred writings of different eras both reflects and helped to define those cultures in ways that are pretty comprehensive. This is a good book to provide an initial layer from which the writings of e.g. David Rosenberg on Abraham can be appreciated and understood.
That’s without getting into what makes Judaism, Christianity stand out.
That seems a bit blinkered - ? It’s not a ‘this will lead you to believe in God book’, it’s an interpretation of the genesis creation narrative based in a technical examination of the Hebrew, other relevant parts of the bible and analysis of the religious and literary writings of contemporary cultures regarding their overall thinking about ‘creation’ and what that means.
Yes - insofar as those things have a bearing on God’s relationship to man, man’s relationship to God and people to each other etc etc. I’m not suggesting it’s 100% relationships, but that’s what most of it is given significance by. Given that we’re off topic and all the points raised here could fill a book, it might be worth narrowing it down to that, as it’s maybe the easiest one to address just using the bible.
There wasn’t an argument, it’s just a very brief partial summary. I didn’t have any expectation that you would accept that as something to believe, I was just summarising a wider issue. I would say it’s a question that needs to be considered from the perspective of what makes up a culture, what are the different areas of study that inform that, what are the driving forces of a given culture and how is that expressed and so on, what is it that made Israel potentially distinct. For starters anyway.
Yes, I should have been clearer my point was in relation to creation stories of the Ancient Near East, as these are part of the relevant context (when discussing Genesis) that provides clues to what creation meant to people at that time, along with contemporaneous literature etc. That said, many (not all - as far as I know) of the other types of myth contain motifs, e.g. deep water or an abyss, that are commonly used to denote some state of ‘unbeing’ in the sense of not having been brought into order, not purposeful or civilised. Deep places and deep water often signify in ancient literature things that contrast with the order and purpose of community life etc. Nb I’m not just plucking that out of the air but there’s just to much info on this to try and support it with quotes.
It’s just an explanation. I’m not sure how much to write about this as it’s all just summaries of much wider issues.
That’s an approach that assumes similarity in thought between different eras. A copy of a belief system or something that imitates or co-opts some features of such a system is more likely to be based in later perception of the original and its affects than on a proper understanding of it’s origins. All belief systems reflect different aspects of basic human functioning and needs but what priorities and overall mindsets give birth to what expression of those things at what point in history is much more complicated. But that’s a very layered argument. The best I can offer you in a few words as a starting point is to suggest reading Auerbach’s Mimesis (if you haven’t already). It’s a complex book but basically outlines how the literature and sacred writings of different eras both reflects and helped to define those cultures in ways that are pretty comprehensive. This is a good book to provide an initial layer from which the writings of e.g. David Rosenberg on Abraham can be appreciated and understood.
That’s without getting into what makes Judaism, Christianity stand out.
That seems a bit blinkered - ? It’s not a ‘this will lead you to believe in God book’, it’s an interpretation of the genesis creation narrative based in a technical examination of the Hebrew, other relevant parts of the bible and analysis of the religious and literary writings of contemporary cultures regarding their overall thinking about ‘creation’ and what that means.
Yes - insofar as those things have a bearing on God’s relationship to man, man’s relationship to God and people to each other etc etc. I’m not suggesting it’s 100% relationships, but that’s what most of it is given significance by. Given that we’re off topic and all the points raised here could fill a book, it might be worth narrowing it down to that, as it’s maybe the easiest one to address just using the bible.
There wasn’t an argument, it’s just a very brief partial summary. I didn’t have any expectation that you would accept that as something to believe, I was just summarising a wider issue. I would say it’s a question that needs to be considered from the perspective of what makes up a culture, what are the different areas of study that inform that, what are the driving forces of a given culture and how is that expressed and so on, what is it that made Israel potentially distinct. For starters anyway.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
xianghua
Well-Known Member
actually there is. creation model for instance predict that we should find evidence for design. and we indeed find such evidence. or as prof dawkins put it:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"
Upvote
0
klutedavid
Well-Known Member
- Dec 7, 2013
- 9,346
- 4,337
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Humans are apes, thats a fact. Your religious beliefs cant change reality.
Upvote
0
- Nov 13, 2017
- 12,212
- 12,468
- Country
- Romania
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
I gave you a lot before. But as a more specific answer, broken genes that aren't fixed even in whole clades, such as the simian inability to synthesise vitamin C. It would be like one Ferrari car having a non-working tachometer, but the Ferrari designers copying the broken tachometer and putting a non-functioning one in later models of cars too.
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,626
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
No, I mean scientists who understand how a scientific theory can be falsified.
But since you raise the point, all scientists who are also theists believe in creation.
Upvote
0
No, I'm saying that it makes no sense at all if we posit an intelligent and competent designer. As even the human and fallible Ferrari designers wouldn't do anything that stupid.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
