Where Did Humans Come From?

FaithT said:

From what I’ve seen on this thread, you’d rather use ad hominem attacks rather than discuss and, hopefully, learn something,

Click to expand...

I supplied REASONS for my beliefs. If any ad hominem occurred, it was only in response to the same.

FaithT said:

Pfffft.

Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly.

You talk about teachability - and yet I've seen no indication that you are open-minded. You might want to take your own advice.

FaithT said:

Every time I have a problem regarding my faith, it’s over stuff like this. Pre hominids, age of the earth, science related subjects.

Click to expand...

I think at times I perhaps felt the way you did. And that's why I opened my mind to a non-traditional position.

A while back I had a Christian coworker so overwhelmed by the Problem of Evil that she tried to commit suicide. She couldn't reconcile a supposedly good God permitting a dark world.

Yet when I tried to open her mind to a solution, she didn't seem interested in what I had to say. It almost felt like she was so used to blaming God for bad stuff that she didn't want to lose Him as her favorite scapegoat.

The Barbarian said:

I think you're relying way too much on your own reasoning for something you don't seem to know very much about.

Click to expand...

I think you've overestimated the level of difficulty facing me. If choice A is incoherent, go with B, thereby eliminating about 15 charges of incoherence. This isn't rocket science.

Everything seems simple if one doesn't know anything about it.

The Barbarian said:

Everything seems simple if one doesn't know anything about it.

Click to expand...

Between the two of us, it seems odd that somebody indicted me as the one guilty of ad hominem.

FaithT said:

How do you interpret the evidence? Science is very clear in its belief that there was never a human bottle neck of two people. I think the fewest number of people in the world was something like 10,000 or maybe I’m mistaken on the number but it was far greater than two.

Click to expand...

How did we get from Zero to 10k?

The Barbarian said:

Genesis seems to differentiate between the souls of animals and the souls that God gives to humans directly.

Click to expand...

That's not very clear. Animal souls are not God-given? Where do animals get their souls?

Anyway, since you haven't shown much appreciation for the philosophical issues raised, maybe we can briefly shift to your turf?

Here's my take: I have a LOT more faith in devolution than evolution. Examples:

- Consider a computer program stored on a floppy disc. Somebody steps on the disc. What's the reaction? "Great news! At least one line of code probably got warped - likely you have now evolved a better program."

- Similarly, consider a pregnant women informed of an infant mutation. What's her reaction? "Great news! Very likely it will confer a selective advantage, allowing him to surpass his peers."

- Similarly, consider a truck-driver who slams his vehicle into a nuclear power plant. What's the reaction? "Great news! Chances are the radiation made random improvements to his DNA, and any sustained injuries/mutilations/mutations will likely prove beneficial as well."

You'll likely reply, "In nature we observe beneficial evolutions all the time." I doubt it. I think what you're seeing is the ingenuity of the Creator in designing highly adaptive genetic material.

Moving on. A body is just a machine. Therefore pain is an experience of the soul. Since many species exhibit signs of pain, it seems reasonable to conclude that all animals have souls. This entails a Creator intimately involved with every birth, and every speciation, and thus casts a bit of doubt on the relatively hands-off approach suggested by evolution.

One of my biggest doubts about evolution is heterosexuality. In humans, for example, the physiological differences between male and female are dramatic. After all:
- Evolutionary mutations are supposed to occur slowly over time.
- Only those that confer a selective advantage should persist.
- Here we're talking about a HUGE number of changes.

Am I to entertain seriously the notion that each of these minute changes conferred a selective advantage? Sorry but I don't have that much faith. I remind you again of the dented floppy disk. Random changes to code are NOT beneficial but, on the contrary, highly destructive. This favors devolution over evolution.

If you have enough faith to believe this evolutionary stuff, kudos to you. Meanwhile I'll stick with the OEC model for the moment.

FaithT said:

Every time I have a problem regarding my faith, it’s over stuff like this. Pre hominids, age of the earth, science related subjects.

Click to expand...

...meh! I wouldn't even worry about it all, Sis.

I know. It's complicated but, seriously, it's not that serious. Really, it's not.

2PhiloVoid said:

I know. It's complicated but, seriously, it's not that serious. Really, it's not.

Click to expand...

Today's winner.

BTW, there is no "devolution''; that was a one-joke new wave group. There is only evolution. And natural selection is why it tends to improve fitness in a population. (Details available for anyone slept through biology class in high school)

FaithT said:

I guess evolution

Click to expand...

Then how can you say there was never only two? Did 10000 just pop into existence from nothing?

FaithT said:

No, they probably evolved from other life forms. I guess.

Click to expand...

And this is why evolution never makes sense.