What Makes us Human?

[Assyrian]

Most science isn't observable. Have you ever seen an electron? Or gravity? That is why science tests its 'imaginary scenarios' (they are called hypotheses) and only bothers with scenarios that are testable, an untestable scenario is worthless in science. Science only accepts as scientific theory the scenarios, or hypotheses, that pass the tests.

That is the difference between science and science fiction.

 

[peace4ever]

Most science isn't observable. Have you ever seen an electron? Or gravity? That is why science tests its 'imaginary scenarios' (they are called hypotheses) and only bothers with scenarios that are testable, an untestable scenario is worthless in science. Science only accepts as scientific theory the scenarios, or hypotheses, that pass the tests.

That is the difference between science and science fiction.

Wrong again. Before scientists could see bacteria through a microscope they didn't know that bacteria existed. So the only reason that they know that electrons exist is because they can see them through microscopes.

But an animal turning into a human being hasn't been observed because animals can't produce human descendants as reality has shown. So the story of evolution hasn't been tested; it's still an imaginary scenario that has become an accepted myth.

 

[Mallon]

Wrong again. Before scientists could see bacteria through a microscope they didn't know that bacteria existed. So the only reason that they know that electrons exist is because they can see them through microscopes.

peace4ever, before you go on continually telling people that they are "wrong again", you should really do a modicum of research because you're obviously way out of your league here. We can't actually observe elections with a microscope. We can only visualize the energy they give off. And the first time this was ever done was last year! By contrast, the existence of electrons was first inferred on the basis of experimentation back in the late 1880s.

You might heed the words of Saint Augustine because I think they are applicable here:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

 

[peace4ever]

Well all I can say is that if you think it's nonsense that humans breed humans, apes breed apes and each animal breeds its own kind, that the sun gives light by day, the moon and stars give light by night and mark the months, seasons and years, then evolutionists and I live on different planets.

On their planet:

1) Fictitious beasts can turn into humans
2) Animals can breed human descendants
3) The clay forms the potter
4) God is fallible and scientists are infallible
5) Contradiction can be true

I don't know where your planet is but it's not earth. Thus, you and I can never agree.

 

[herev]

you keep bearing false witness against your Christian brothers and sisters--not very biblical of you, is it?

Well all I can say is that if you think it's nonsense that humans breed humans, apes breed apes and each animal breeds its own kind, that the sun gives light by day, the moon and stars give light by night and mark the months, seasons and years, then evolutionists and I live on different planets.

That would make it a lot easier for both of us, huh?

On their planet:

1) Fictitious beasts can turn into humans

Evolution does not support this claim

2) Animals can breed human descendants

Evolution does not support this as you present it

3) The clay forms the potter

Evolution does not support this

4) God is fallible and scientists are infallible

Evolution has nothing to say about God. ALL Science is based on the fallibility of scientists

5) Contradiction can be true

well, seeing as how you probably believe there are no contradictions between the two creation accounts, I'd say this is more fitting for your particular line of thought

I don't know where your planet is but it's not earth.

might be convenient for you if it were true, but it's not--Earth is part of the creation--part of God's handiwork, hence when we see what the Earth says about its own past, we take notice and see it as God's leaving us little messages

Thus, you and I can never agree.

sad, isn't it?

 

[Mallon]

Well all I can say is that if you think it's nonsense that humans breed humans, apes breed apes and each animal breeds its own kind, that the sun gives light by day, the moon and stars give light by night and mark the months, seasons and years, then evolutionists and I live on different planets.

Technically, if you insist on reading Genesis literally, the sun isn't what gives light by day since there was daylight before God ever created the sun.

 

[peace4ever]

Technically, if you insist on reading Genesis literally, the sun isn't what gives light by day since there was daylight before God ever created the sun.

So when the sun goes down, it's light outside. Is that correct? If so, then we live on different planets.

God said He created light and darkness before he created the sun. So as usual, you are omitting verses.

 

[herev]

So when the sun goes down, it's light outside. Is that correct? If so, then we live on different planets.

God said He created light and darkness before he created the sun. So as usual, you are omitting verses.

hmm, how to say this.
Your logic is....
Not

 

[Mallon]

So when the sun goes down, it's light outside. Is that correct? If so, then we live on different planets.

God said He created light and darkness before he created the sun. So as usual, you are omitting verses.

That didn't make any sense.

 

[Assyrian]

Wrong again. Before scientists could see bacteria through a microscope they didn't know that bacteria existed. So the only reason that they know that electrons exist is because they can see them through microscopes.

I think Mallon answered that pretty well. I notice you weren't able to reply to his point.

But an animal turning into a human being hasn't been observed because animals can't produce human descendants as reality has shown.

How has reality shown that? Evolution does not say all animals can produce human descendants, so no amount of observing animal today giving birth to non human offspring today is going to be evidence against evolution because evolution does not say that they should. Instead evolution says there was a particular line of ape species living millions of years ago that gradually changed into humans and African great apes.

That is what needed to be tested, and was tested, not watching you cat give birth to kittens and thinking you have somehow disproved evolution.

So the story of evolution hasn't been tested; it's still an imaginary scenario that has become an accepted myth.

Darwin proposed a test, that if humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor that it should be possible to find fossil remains that have characteristics intermediate between modern humans and apes and that they should probably be found in Africa. We have found fossils like that. And the older the hominid fossils, the more apelike the remains. Science has also been able to test our DNA, if we evolved from a common ancestor with Chimps and gorillas, then our DNA should show signs of that relationship, it should be most similar to chimps and then gorillas. They tested it. It is. They also compared the amount of difference to the rate at which DNA is changing today, the divergence in DNA between humans and chimps is what you would find if we shared a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. These are all test science can carry out. It is the tests that can be carried out that matter in science, not the ones that are not possible or are simply irrelevant. Not matter how much you wish it were otherwise, evolution has passed all the tests that can be carried out, which is why evolution is science not myth.

 

[juvenissun]

I am a theistic evolutionist - although I believe we evolved from ape-like ancesors, I also believe humans to be above nature and evolution.
I believe that what makes us human is our "plastic brain":
Neuroplasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Put bluntly (very blunty), having a 'plastic brain' means that our thoughts and actions physically change the way our brains work.
Having only recently heard of this myself, there are undoubtedly many questions that need to be answered.

What do other people think of this idea, or of what makes us human?

I have tried this. The conclusion is: we can not prove that we are human. We are still apes. In other words, humans are apes. So your OP is void.

As a TE, are you happy about this conclusion?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

And why do you think humans are "above evolution"?

Natural selection is harsh - the basis of natural selection is that the stronger members pass on their genes by eliminating the weaker ones. When our current concept of evolution was published it lead to "Social Darwinism":
Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although we are not totally above and removed from evolution, we are not (or rather, should not be) completly ruled by the laws of natural selection. One of the arguments against eugentics, and occassionally abortion, is that we don't have the right to decide which traits are desireable and which are not.

I believe that the "image of God" is a reference to man's spiritual nature alone.

Same here.

I see that a considerable amount of the research is done using monkeys. Would not neuroplasticity apply to any animal that learns?

That's a very good point. Possibly the reason I missed such an obvious conclusion was because some of the evidence and arguments for the 'plastic brain' (that I discovered) were based on therapies used on brain-damaged patients.

Although I haven't fully-explored the 'plastic brain' yet, a trait which could further seperate us from other animals capable of learning is that our own thoughts (rather than instructions from others) are what change the way our brains work.

I have tried this. The conclusion is: we can not prove that we are human. We are still apes. In other words, humans are apes. So your OP is void.

That's like saying "All humans are animals therefore there is no difference between the animal brain and the human brain." Humans are animals (in that we are not rocks or plants) but we are a special animal, as we are "made in God's image".

Also, thanks to the ironically-named "Peace4ever" for screwing up every post on Origins Theology.

 

[Mallon]

Natural selection is harsh - the basis of natural selection is that the stronger members pass on their genes by eliminating the weaker ones.

Not quite. Natural selection simply means that the "more fit" individuals will tend to out-compete "less fit" individuals for resources. But being fit doesn't necessarily mean being strong or aggressive. Increased fitness can result from cooperation between individuals. Thus, social darwinism is a misappropriation of natural selection. Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive.

 

[gluadys]

Natural selection is harsh - the basis of natural selection is that the stronger members pass on their genes by eliminating the weaker ones. When our current concept of evolution was published it lead to "Social Darwinism":
Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, that is not the basis of natural selection. And it is not actually a current conception of evolution but a much outdated one. Fitness is measured by reproductivity, not by strength or any other such quality. The genes that account for a better adaptation to one's ecological niche are the ones that will, on average (there are always individual exceptions) be passed on to the next generation, because better adapted individuals are more likely to reproduce.

When we confuse this meaning of fitness with being physically fit, we get the incorrect picture that a plant or animal has to challenge other members of its species and win contests of some sort to evolve. But evolution does not happen because one fights to evolve or desires to evolve. It happens automatically without any action on the part of individuals.

That confusion was part of what was wrong with Social Darwinism. Another part of what was wrong with it was the assumption that poverty is genetically based instead of a function of an unjust social distribution of resources. That is why the eugenicists mistakenly thought you could get rid of poverty by sterilizing the poor.

 

[juvenissun]

I am a theistic evolutionist - although I believe we evolved from ape-like ancesors, I also believe humans to be above nature and evolution.
I believe that what makes us human is our "plastic brain":
Neuroplasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Put bluntly (very blunty), having a 'plastic brain' means that our thoughts and actions physically change the way our brains work.
Having only recently heard of this myself, there are undoubtedly many questions that need to be answered.

What do other people think of this idea, or of what makes us human?

In another thread, I said: human knows how to make a fire.
I still think it is a very good answer.

 

[peace4ever]

I have tried this. The conclusion is: we can not prove that we are human. We are still apes. In other words, humans are apes. So your OP is void.

As a TE, are you happy about this conclusion?

That's like saying; "turtles are humans" so your OP is void. Sorry but semantics can't determine reality.

 

[LightSeaker]

I am a theistic evolutionist - although I believe we evolved from ape-like ancesors, I also believe humans to be above nature and evolution.
I believe that what makes us human is our "plastic brain":
Neuroplasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Put bluntly (very blunty), having a 'plastic brain' means that our thoughts and actions physically change the way our brains work.
Having only recently heard of this myself, there are undoubtedly many questions that need to be answered.

What do other people think of this idea, or of what makes us human?

I feel that as long as we have breath and live in this Creation, it's impossible to separate us out from Nature and Evolution in any way, shape or form.

.

 

[sawdust]

I am a theistic evolutionist - although I believe we evolved from ape-like ancesors, I also believe humans to be above nature and evolution.
I believe that what makes us human is our "plastic brain":
Neuroplasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Put bluntly (very blunty), having a 'plastic brain' means that our thoughts and actions physically change the way our brains work.
Having only recently heard of this myself, there are undoubtedly many questions that need to be answered.

What do other people think of this idea, or of what makes us human?

Our soul is what makes us human. It is uniquely created in the "image and likeness" of God. (Gen.1:26&27)

The image refers to shadow image. Just as God is unseen, so is our soul. The likeness refers to personhood. It is from our soul that our personalities are formed. There are both male and female souls.

It was this soul (Adam) created in Gen.1:27 that God breathed into the body He formed in Gen.2:7. In this way Adam (unseen soul) became a "living soul", ie. alive to space and time and visible.

Animals also have "soul" but it is not like people. The word generally translated soul is "nephesh". It has a basic root meaning of "breath (of life)". The "nephesh" in animals is in the blood (Deut.12:23). It is not created separate in the image or likeness of God but is formed from the earth as part of their biology. (Gen.2:19)

Humans are not related to animals except by virtue of both being created by God. Although it should be noted that we have a biological affiliation with land animals as both Adam's body and land animals came from the earth, but our humanity is not in our biological life but in our soul life.

peace

 

[gluadys]

Our soul is what makes us human. It is uniquely created in the "image and likeness" of God. (Gen.1:26&27)

The image refers to shadow image. Just as God is unseen, so is our soul. The likeness refers to personhood. It is from our soul that our personalities are formed. There are both male and female souls.

It was this soul (Adam) created in Gen.1:27 that God breathed into the body He formed in Gen.2:7. In this way Adam (unseen soul) became a "living soul", ie. alive to space and time and visible.

peace

What astonishes me is that some people can present a far-fetched interpretation of the text like this and still insist it is a literal reading and not an interpretation.

I know this particular poster has not made that claim, so I am not trying to put words into her mouth. But I do ask those who claim to adhere to a literal hermeneutic to really look at what they present. If it looks like this, it is NOT a literal reading.

 

[sawdust]

What astonishes me is that some people can present a far-fetched interpretation of the text like this and still insist it is a literal reading and not an interpretation.

I know this particular poster has not made that claim, so I am not trying to put words into her mouth. But I do ask those who claim to adhere to a literal hermeneutic to really look at what they present. If it looks like this, it is NOT a literal reading.

There is nothing far fetched about what I said. It is based upon teaching received from those who know the original languages. Unless one knows the original language, one cannot determine what it literally means.

peace