What Evolutionists Deny

Strivax · Feb 18, 2017

Ophiolite said:
As for me, I am proud to be an ape, a primate, a mammal, a vertebrate, a eukaryote and a living organism. I delight in the shared ancestry of the biosphere.

I understand your point of view. I am proud to be a Bristolian, a west-countryman, an Englishman, a European, and a global citizen. Nevertheless, there is a fault in the analogy. Whereas I must reluctantly admit Bristolians are probably no higher in the evolutionary tree than any other Englishman, Schumacher was trying to draw attention to an essential difference between us and other animals. He called this difference self-awareness, which is how the tradition terms it.

But it is a slightly misleading term. Some apes, notably chimpanzees and gorillas, demonstrate some elements of self-awareness, as do (allegedly) elephants, dolphins and whales.

No, what Schumacher was getting at was our recursive consciousness: the ability to think, sure, but especially the ability to think about our thinking, and assess it's quality, and judge it on disparate grounds such as accuracy, consistency, coherency, social acceptability and morality. For Schumacher, this makes the human mind definitively superior to all other animals, capax universi, capable of anything, and provides the ontological discontinuity that the ancients instinctively felt distinguished them from the rest of creation. And, to be sure, as evidence and so far, humanity has been relatively effective at consciously modifying his environment to suit himself, certainly more so than the other 'high' mammals.

Without in any way implying we are not also apes, primates, mammals, etc.

Best wishes, Strivax.

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

Strivax said:
I understand your point of view. I am proud to be a Bristolian, a west-countryman, an Englishman, a European, and a global citizen. Nevertheless, there is a fault in the analogy. Whereas I must reluctantly admit Bristolians are probably no higher in the evolutionary tree than any other Englishman, Schumacher was trying to draw attention to an essential difference between us and most animals. He called this difference self-awareness, which is how the tradition terms it.

But it is a slightly misleading term. Some apes, notably chimpanzees and gorillas, demonstrate some elements of self-awareness, as do (allegedly) elephants, dolphins and whales.

No, what Schumacher was getting at was our recursive consciousness: the ability to think, sure, but especially the ability to think about our thinking, and assess it's quality, and judge it on disparate grounds such as accuracy, consistency, coherency, social acceptability and morality. For Schumacher, this makes the human mind definitively superior to all other animals, capax universi, capable of anything, and provides the ontological discontinuity that the ancients instinctively felt distinguished them from the rest of creation. And, to be sure, as evidence and so far, humanity has been relatively effective at consciously modifying his environment to suit himself, certainly more so than the other 'high' mammals.

Without in any way implying we are not also apes, primates, mammals, etc.

Best wishes, Strivax.

What is the universal never changing measuring stick by which humanity judges its actions and their right and righteous outcome in regards not only by what is right for themselves personally but what is right for all

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

Speedwell said:
I meant that, as a creationist, you would be tempted to deny my faith. But in a way you are right--the hostility of creationists towards Christians like me who are not "Bible-believing" has indeed strengthened my faith.

Deny your faith?
Or deny you your faith?

Speedwell · Feb 18, 2017

miknik5 said:
Deny your faith?
Or deny you your faith?

You are powerless to deny me my faith.

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

Speedwell said:
You are powerless to deny me my faith.

Well then that is clear
So what is the problem?

You'll have to clarify what you meant that going over Genesis 1 will deny you the faith and cause me to sin

Speaking THE TRUTH is not a sin
And you as well have no power over me to remove my feet from
The Foundatoon

Strathos · Feb 18, 2017

I don't get the whole hangup about Jesus being a primate. Yes, His body was - but that was the vessel God was using at the time. God could incarnate Himself as rock if He wanted to - who are you to say He couldn't? The physical body is much less important than the spirit. God will manifest Himself in whatever form He desires, and it just so happens that, to be the saviour of humankind, He manifested as a human being. It's no more significant that His body was the result of evolution than that it was made of atoms, yet I don't see anyone arguing that it's offensive to claim that Jesus was made of atoms like ordinary matter.

Speedwell · Feb 18, 2017

miknik5 said:
Well then that is clear
So what is the problem?

You'll have to clarify what you meant that going over Genesis 1 will deny you the faith and cause me to sin

Speaking THE TRUTH is not a sin
And you as well have no power over me to remove my feet from
The Foundatoon

Because I think it is sinful to deny the faith of another Christian just because he or she may differ from you about interpreting Genesis. Not that you would necessarily do such a thing, but there are plenty of creationists around who would jump at the chance.

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

Strathos said:
I don't get the whole hangup about Jesus being a primate. Yes, His body was - but that was the vessel God was using at the time. God could incarnate Himself as rock if He wanted to - who are you to say He couldn't? The physical body is much less important than the spirit. God will manifest Himself in whatever form He desires, and it just so happens that, to be the saviour of humankind, He manifested as a human being. It's no more significant that His body was the result of evolution than that it was made of atoms, yet I don't see anyone arguing that it's offensive to claim that Jesus was made of atoms like ordinary matter.

HE didn't come to redeem a rock

All of lower creation recognizes HIM except what was HIS OWN

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

Speedwell said:
Because I think it is sinful to deny the faith of another Christian just because he or she may differ from you about interpreting Genesis. Not that you would necessarily do such a thing, but there are plenty of creationists around who would jump at the chance.

I don't think I'm a creationist
I Think I'm a Christian

Speedwell · Feb 18, 2017

miknik5 said:
I don't think I'm a creationist
I Think I'm a Christian

I'm sure you are. The point is, you would very likely not think I was one if you knew what I think about Genesis.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Feb 18, 2017

Strivax said:
... what Schumacher was getting at was our recursive consciousness: the ability to think, sure, but especially the ability to think about our thinking, and assess it's quality, and judge it on disparate grounds such as accuracy, consistency, coherency, social acceptability and morality. For Schumacher, this makes the human mind definitively superior to all other animals, capax universi, capable of anything, and provides the ontological discontinuity that the ancients instinctively felt distinguished them from the rest of creation...

The history of assertions of uniquely human cognitive capacity is a history of repeated refutations.

Schumacher may be right that humans have superior metacognition, but the ability to think about our thinking isn't uniquely human. Rhesus monkeys have been shown to be aware of, and act on, the level of confidence they have in their knowledge (Spontaneous Metacognition in Rhesus Monkeys). Dolphins also show evidence of this (Uncertainty Monitoring and Metacognition by Animals).

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

Speedwell said:
I'm sure you are. The point is, you would very likely not think I was one if you knew what I think about Genesis.

If your faith is in CHRIST then you're a CHRISTIAN
all these other little things that divide us will be burned away as just nothings....things....
temporal and passing

USincognito · Feb 18, 2017

miknik5 said:
Can you give an example of 5 where a catastrophic event created uniformitarianism (in humans) immediately and instantly

Huh?

Strivax · Feb 18, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
The history of assertions of uniquely human cognitive capacity is a history of repeated refutations.

Schumacher may be right that humans have superior metacognition, but the ability to think about our thinking isn't uniquely human. Rhesus monkeys have been shown to be aware of, and act on, the level of confidence they have in their knowledge (Spontaneous Metacognition in Rhesus Monkeys). Dolphins also show evidence of this (Uncertainty Monitoring and Metacognition by Animals).

Neither of these, in my opinion, amount to 'thinking about thinking'. Being 'confident' does not suppose this, only that some 'conclusions' may be cognitatively 'stronger' and more urgent than others, and in the absence of certainty, there is a tendency to find a way towards it. This does not require conscious thought, let alone recursively conscious thought, only a sensation of mental dissonance.

I still think therefore, there is a qualitative, not merely quantitative, difference between human consciousness and that of any other animal.

Best wishes, Strivax.

USincognito · Feb 18, 2017

miknik5 said:
We are humans
Are you a vegetable or a mineral?
Would anyone "by into" that?

Your response is akin to answering, "Is it a truck or an SUV" with "It's an Ford".

Speedwell said:
Well, we're either animal, vegetable or mineral. Take your choice.

Point of pedantry - that's Linneaus' system. In actuality, it would be - protists (which would include bacteria and archaea), Opisthokonts (fungi and animals), plants and minerals.

USincognito · Feb 18, 2017

miknik5 said:
You're being difficult. You can't confuse Hunan in with the other classes sir
And you know we aren't discussing the other classes

There is no confusion except for those who don't understand taxonomy or cladistics. Humans are a member of:
Homidae (apes)
Catarrhini (Old world monkeys)
Simiformes (monkeys)
Primata (primates)
Euarchontoglires (primates and rodents)
Eutheria (placental mammals)
Gnathostomata (jawed vertebrates)
Craniata (vertebrates with heads)
Vertebrata (animals with backbones)
Deuterostimia (animals where the mouth form after the anus)
Bilataria (animals with two sides)
Animalia (animals)

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

USincognito said:
Huh?

Don't worry about it

Strivax · Feb 18, 2017

miknik5 said:
What is the universal never changing measuring stick by which humanity judges its actions and their right and righteous outcome in regards not only by what is right for themselves personally but what is right for all

I agree that 'the common good' has a lot to do with what is ultimately moral.

Best wishes, Strivax.

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

USincognito said:
Your response is akin to answering, "Is it a truck or an SUV" with "It's an Ford".

Point of pedantry - that's Linneaus' system. In actuality, it would be - protists (which would include bacteria and archaea), Opisthokonts (fungi and animals), plants and minerals.

Yes you're right
So many different variations of the one.
And I'm not talking about the outward image either

It's a car period
It does what a car is supposed to do

It's A bird it does what a bird is supposed to do
It's a dog it does what a dog is supposed to do

It's man
He doesn't ALWAYS do what he is supposed to do

USincognito · Feb 18, 2017

Strivax said:
'To call a man a naked ape', EF Schumacher* once observed, 'is as useful as calling a dog a running cabbage'.

I'm not sure an economist is the best guide to consult on biology, but that said, it's a poor analogy. Humans actually are apes and thus describing us as apes is generally accurate. Dog, on the other hand, are mammals and animals and not plants like cabbage. The last common ancestor between a human and an ape is their parents. The last common ancestor between a dog and cabbage lived about 1.5 billion years ago.

What Evolutionists Deny

Pilgrim on another way

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Well-Known Member

"Let not your heart be troubled"

No one important

Well-Known Member

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Let not your heart be troubled"

a post by Alan Smithee

Pilgrim on another way

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Pilgrim on another way

"Let not your heart be troubled"

a post by Alan Smithee

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency