|
|
|
Bongorider
New Member
Cuba
7 Posts |
 Posted - 07/19/2010 : 04:18:44
|
The big questions that men pose and religion "answers" seem to revolve around Afterlife and Creation. I feel that people get hung up on these questions and forget to ask or answer the more interesting ones.
For me afterlife is a cut and dry topic. Absence of proof suggests absence of afterlife.
Creation is a little more esoteric, no one knows for sure how the universe was created, we can speculate, but I don't think that is even necessary. We simply remove the question, why postulate that a supreme being created the universe as that poses the further question of who created the supreme being? If a God can be eternal or come into existence from nothing, then why can't the universe. The question remains unanswered but it is shown that God is not a necessity and actually complicates the issue.
A more interesting question to me, and one far harder to answer due to lack of knowledge on my part, usually goes something like this:
If Man and ape and all other creatures and plants are related, if man is merely an animal, if we all evolved from a single source and continued to evolve via the same mechanism, then why is man so far above and beyond anything which has come before or since?
On the surface this argument seems valid, which is probably why so many cultures have some kind of creation myth involving Deities imparting wisdom. Why is mankind unique in it's intelligence, it's scientific accomplishments, art, music and even it's gamete of emotions? Human behavior doesn't just seem slightly more complex than that of our primate cousins, it seems more complex by orders of magnitude. We are separated from creatures who rely solely on instinct by the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.
Confirming the validity of evolution alone doesn't put this topic to rest, as I have encountered many people who accept evolution, but still believe a God or Gods played a part in the "Rise of Man".
Any true explanation draws heavily on anthropology, archaeology, history, paleontology, genetics, and probably many other things which makes the subject rather inaccessible, and without the required expertise from both parties in the debate, any explanation no matter how rigorous seems to fall short.
This has always been the hardest question for me to answer, and I have found it is one of the few threads a theist can still cling on to. When all else is lost to them, if they still have that one thing that requires divinity, it can be enough. A major stumbling block for me personally.
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
 Posted - 07/19/2010 : 05:58:17 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to the board Bongorider.
Originally posted by Bongorider
If Man and ape and all other creatures and plants are related, if man is merely an animal, if we all evolved from a single source and continued to evolve via the same mechanism, then why is man so far above and beyond anything which has come before or since? |
I'm not worried about being a 'mere' animal, in fact I revel in it because it lets me know that I am actually a part of this wonderful world around me. And we're only 'far above and beyond' in our own estimation, if boll weevils had thoughts they would probably think that they are the be all and end all of life.
| Originally posted by BongoriderWhy is mankind unique in it's intelligence, it's scientific accomplishments, art, music and even it's gamete of emotions? |
Why is the giraffe unique with its long neck, or the narwhal with its singular curled tusk? Every animal and plant on Earth has something which makes it unique, that is why it is a species distinct from every other. We are probably the most intelligent animal, and our ability to communicate complex and abstract ideas is probably unique, but it is simply a survival trait like camouflage or the ability to pick mosquitoes out of the air while flying. Natural selection favoured our early ancestors who used their intelligence to survive, and our ability to use technology (primitive things like spears to start with) secured our survival.
But our long-term survival is by no means guaranteed, in fact we could easily cause our own extinction if we're not careful. We have come to rely on our technology so much that if we were forced to survive without it we might disappear. Like many other species we have locked ourselves in to a mode of existence that could be too rigid to allow for the adaptability that evolution demands. We could be viewed in a similar fashion to the many parasitic organisms that are unique to certain species - if the host goes extinct then all the endo and ecto-parasites associatied with it also leave the world forever. Specialization can help you survive, it can also doom you. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 06:54:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bongorider
The big questions that men pose and religion "answers" seem to revolve around Afterlife and Creation. |
If by questions revolving around creation, you mean "Where are all the good-looking big-chested young women who wants to bonk me silly?" then I agree: it is a big question. 
Otherwise I disagee that afterlife and creation hold any special position as a big question, generally speaking. I think that what constitutes "big questions" are more related to the Maslow'w hierarchy of needs, and which of those needs you're currently struggeling to fulfil.
| If Man and ape and all other creatures and plants are related, if man is merely an animal, if we all evolved from a single source and continued to evolve via the same mechanism, then why is man so far above and beyond anything which has come before or since? |
This question, and the presumptions it contains, exposes a lack of fundamental understanding of evolution.
Man is not far and beyond any other animal. Look at the dolphin, it can hold it's breath at least ten times longer than man. Almost every single insect can lift and carry many more times its weight as any normal man. Birds, insects, and even some mammals(!) achieved flight without technological aid.
It all depends on your perspective and point of view.
Man is a product of evolution, just as all other living things. Evolution have given us the ability of imagination, which seems to set us apart. We imagine ourselves to be the peak of creation, but it is an arrogant point of view. We are just as good as we need to be to survive. Other animals are too, but in other aspects and other circumstances, and other ecological nishes. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 07:53:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bongorider
Human behavior doesn't just seem slightly more complex than that of our primate cousins, it seems more complex by orders of magnitude. |
"Seems" being the operative term. The more we study our closest relatives, the more complex they become. Chimps and bonobos have a sense of fairness, perform acts of altruism and exhibit jealousy. They manufacture tools with which to hunt. They engage in abstract reasoning, and teach learned skills to others. They have wars, and even use sex to manipulate others.
The biggest difference between they and we is that they don't seem to grok grammar, and thus don't have any languages. Given that their vocal chords aren't built for complex speech (at least, not yet), this shouldn't be surprising. But since language is so useful for storing and passing on acquired wisdom, this is probably the biggest single factor holding them back from being space travelers. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 07:59:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bongorider
A more interesting question to me, and one far harder to answer due to lack of knowledge on my part, usually goes something like this:
If Man and ape and all other creatures and plants are related, if man is merely an animal, if we all evolved from a single source and continued to evolve via the same mechanism, then why is man so far above and beyond anything which has come before or since?
|
The same question can still be asked if humans and everything else was separately created. The only answer you will get from that question is: because God wanted it so (or something similar). I.e. there is no reason why humans should be more intelligent than, say, sponges.
| Confirming the validity of evolution alone doesn't put this topic to rest, |
I doesn't put the topic to rest, but it makes evolution a more liekly explanation than special creation. Mammals on the whole are smarter than other life-forms, so it is not that surprising that a mammal (humans) should be smarter than most. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 08:04:16 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to SFN Bongorider. Would it be safe to assume by your OP that you are a theist? I'm not asking like it matters because it doesn't. I'm asking because one's own position affects how they view the topic. It's fine with me if you choose not to specify. For myself I am an Atheist. When it comes to believing in any God that can be imagined, without any evidence, I'm not buying it. Others saying there is a God and believing based on faith doesn't cut it in my book. Especially on something so important. If I'm going accept something that effects every aspect of my life like believing in Yahweh or Ra, I need more than others opinion's and beliefs based on 'scriptures' written by other men. Scriptures that have factual errors, are convoluted, and contradictory.
Originally posted by Bongorider
A more interesting question to me, and one far harder to answer due to lack of knowledge on my part, usually goes something like this:
If Man and ape and all other creatures and plants are related, if man is merely an animal, if we all evolved from a single source and continued to evolve via the same mechanism, then why is man so far above and beyond anything which has come before or since? |
These are my thoughts on what you brought up.
Some specie has to be superior when generally compared to all the others. How does that indicate any specialness in the one specie. Surely it's no evidence of a God or divine position.
I don't believe we are that superior or that "man is so far above and beyond anything which has come before or since?" as you phrased it. The more we study the abilities of other species, which we haven't been doing for very long, the more the evidence shows that they are way less inferior to us than commonly assumed, with simular talents. The belief that we are so superior might be completely erroneous. Specifically when the yardstick is man's abilities and all other animals are judged by how they compare to them and not how close we compare to theirs. Here is one example, I believe this 7 year old chimpanzee would out perform many "superior" humans walking the streets, at this task, even if they had time to practice and get up to speed.
I remember being told when I was a young in school that Human's are special to other animals because they make and use tools, and can talk to communicate. That concept is laughable now becausewe now know there are other animals can make and use tools and are known to have extensive 'vocabularies'.
Elephants and other animals have been proven to be "self aware" once thought to be only a human trait.
There are a whole lot of abilities that were evolved that other animals have that humans don't have and are not able to accomplish, making us inferior when these talents are used as the yardstick. Do these not count as superior evolution advancement. For example, how much more advanced is dolphins abilities to detect whether an object is hollow or solid, when blindfolded and from a distance. There are animals that can stun or kill their prey without a tool but with what they were born with and without touching the prey. An evolutionary talent not possessed by humans.
Are humans special? For sure. Are other animals special? I say yes. I could never in my ignorance judge any one 'universally superior'. Wouldn't that be subjective anyway, which changes with the criteria used and the evaluator? Cheers. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 08:43:13 [Permalink]
|
There has been a lot of work done in understanding the development of human intelligence. All in all, several things contributed. A bipedal stance, which freed up our hands, and with them the opposable thumbs that had already developed for clinging, for other tasks. Also, the ability to convey complicated and abstract ideas through speech. Socialization. All of these adaptations were beneficial. Without these developments our ancestors would have been food for stronger and faster predator species. Whatever it was that caused us to move out onto the savanna made these adaptations necessary for survival.
Here are a couple of links that further link to studies that may shed more light on what you are after, Bongorider. And welcome to SFN!!!
The evolution of human intelligence
There is no universally accepted definition of intelligence, one definition is "the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn." The evolution of hominid intelligence can be traced over its course for the past 10 million years, and attributed to specific environmental challenges.
It is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, however, to see this as a necessary process, and an even greater misunderstanding to see it as one directed to a particular outcome
There are primate species which have not evolved any greater degree of intelligence than they had 10 million years ago: this is because their particular environment has not demanded this particular adaptation of them.
Intelligence as an adaptation to the challenge of natural selection is no better or worse than any other adaptation, such as the speed of the cheetah or the venomous bite of the cobra.
It is, however, the only adaptation which has allowed a species to establish complete domination over the rest of the natural world… |
Evolution of human intelligence Wiki
Hominina
Around 10 million years ago, the Earth's climate entered a cooler and drier phase, which led eventually to the ice ages beginning some 2.6 million years ago. One consequence of this was that the north African tropical forest began to retreat, being replaced first by open grasslands and eventually by desert (the modern Sahara). This forced tree-dwelling animals to adapt to their new environment or die out. As their environment changed from continuous forest to patches of forest separated by expanses of grassland, some primates adapted to a partly or fully ground-dwelling life. Here they were exposed to predators, such as the big cats, from whom they had previously been safe.
Some Hominina (Australopithecines) adapted to this challenge by adopting bipedalism: walking on their hind legs. This gave their eyes greater elevation and the ability to see approaching danger further off[citation needed]. It also freed the forelimbs (arms) from the task of walking and made the hands available for tasks such as gathering food. At some point the bipedal primates developed handedness, giving them the ability to pick up sticks, bones and stones and use them as weapons, or as tools for tasks such as killing smaller animals, cracking nuts, or cutting up carcasses. In other words, these primates developed the use of technology. Bipedal tool-using primates form the Hominina subtribe, of which the earliest species, such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, date to about 7 to 5 million years ago.
From about 5 million years ago, the Hominin brain began to develop rapidly in both size and differentiation of function… |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 08:50:39 [Permalink]
|
Bongo said:
If Man and ape and all other creatures and plants are related, if man is merely an animal, if we all evolved from a single source and continued to evolve via the same mechanism, then why is man so far above and beyond anything which has come before or since?
|
By what standard do you measure "far and above"?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Bongorider
New Member
Cuba
7 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 09:06:59 [Permalink]
|
Sailingsoul, I don't know how you gather I'm a thiest from my OP. Maybe you should re-read it.
Dude, I see what you are getting at, there is an argument that humans aren't above or beyond anything else and merely another variation. But the overwhelming perception is that we are. I can see a case for arguing that humans aren't unique as an alternative to WHY we are unique. But for me, the latter is the more convincing.
The Rat, I don't think Human intelligence can be compared to a giraffes long neck. Animals for the most part play the hand they have been dealt, human beings rise above their physical limitations. A human can find 100 different ways to reach the leaves of a tall tree if he or she so wanted. Then there are all the human behaviors that seem unnecessary to survival and even counter-productive, and also other human traits such as self awareness, conciousness etc. which debateabely exist in very few other animals. I don't think all these things are comparable to a narwhal's tusk.
Kil, thanks for your reply I found it informative and interesting.
|
| Edited by - Bongorider on 07/19/2010 09:14:58 |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 10:06:51 [Permalink]
|
Well there is a theory that Homo Sapiens experienced a "Great leap forward".
There are two main theories regarding when modern human behavior emerged.[2] One theory holds that behavioral modernity occurred as a sudden event some 50 kya (50,000 years ago), possibly as a result of a major genetic mutation or as a result of a biological reorganization of the brain that led to the emergence of modern human natural languages.[3] Proponents of this theory refer to this event as the Great Leap Forward[4] or the Upper Paleolithic Revolution.
The second theory holds that there was never any single technological or cognitive revolution. Proponents of this view argue that modern human behavior is basically the result of the gradual accumulation of knowledge, skills and culture occurring over hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution.[5] Proponents of this view include Stephen Oppenheimer in his book Out of Eden, and John Skoyles and Dorion Sagan in their book Up from Dragons: The evolution of human intelligence. |
source: wikipedia.org
Did humans encounter a large black monolith in Africa some 50kya? Was a mutation responsible? Was a man born of such intelligence to make him a God among men? (or a man amongst apes) Was this the moment Eve ate of the forbidden fruit? |
 |
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 07/19/2010 10:07:25 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 14:00:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Well there is a theory that Homo Sapiens experienced a "Great leap forward".
There are two main theories regarding when modern human behavior emerged.[2] One theory holds that behavioral modernity occurred as a sudden event some 50 kya (50,000 years ago), possibly as a result of a major genetic mutation or as a result of a biological reorganization of the brain that led to the emergence of modern human natural languages.[3] Proponents of this theory refer to this event as the Great Leap Forward[4] or the Upper Paleolithic Revolution.
The second theory holds that there was never any single technological or cognitive revolution. Proponents of this view argue that modern human behavior is basically the result of the gradual accumulation of knowledge, skills and culture occurring over hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution.[5] Proponents of this view include Stephen Oppenheimer in his book Out of Eden, and John Skoyles and Dorion Sagan in their book Up from Dragons: The evolution of human intelligence. |
source: wikipedia.org
Did humans encounter a large black monolith in Africa some 50kya? Was a mutation responsible? Was a man born of such intelligence to make him a God among men? (or a man amongst apes) Was this the moment Eve ate of the forbidden fruit?
|
You're source is Behavioral modernity. Wiki
I'm not a fan of the "The Great Leap Forward" hypothesis. That hypothesis ignores advancements that were made well before 50,000 years.
Proponents of the continuity hypothesis hold that no single genetic or biological change is responsible for the appearance of modern behavior. They contend that modern human behavior is the result of sociocultural and sociobiological evolution occurring over hundreds of thousands of years.
Continuity theorists base their assertions on evidence of modern behavior that can be seen in the Middle Stone Age (approximately 250 - 50 kya) at a number of sites in Africa and the Levant. For example, a ritual burial with grave goods at Qafzeh is Middle Stone Age (MSA) having been dated to 90 kya. The use of pigment is noted at several MSA sites in Africa dating back more than 100 kya.
Continuity theorists believe that what appears to be a technological revolution at the onset of the Upper Paleolithic is most likely a result of increased cultural exchange resulting from a growing human population. Some continuity theorists also argue that the rapid pace of cultural evolution during the Upper Paleolithic transition may have been triggered by adverse environmental conditions such as aridity arising from glacial maxima.[1] They further dispute that anatomical modernity predates behavioral modernity, stating that changes in human anatomy and behavioral changes occurred stepwise.[5] The findings of Curtis Marean and his colleagues of fishing and symbolic behavior dating to 164,000 years ago on the southern African coast strongly support this analysis. |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 16:28:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Did humans encounter a large black monolith in Africa some 50kya? Was a mutation responsible? Was a man born of such intelligence to make him a God among men? (or a man amongst apes) Was this the moment Eve ate of the forbidden fruit?
|
I doubt that there is any good evidence for either of the above propositions. Saying that, at least we know that mutations happen. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 16:52:09 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by BongoriderThe Rat, I don't think Human intelligence can be compared to a giraffes long neck. Animals for the most part play the hand they have been dealt, human beings rise above their physical limitations. A human can find 100 different ways to reach the leaves of a tall tree if he or she so wanted. Then there are all the human behaviors that seem unnecessary to survival and even counter-productive, and also other human traits such as self awareness, conciousness etc. which debateabely exist in very few other animals. I don't think all these things are comparable to a narwhal's tusk. |
Yes, we can do all those things because of our intelligence. But all that means is that our intelligence is a more versatile trait than a long neck or a tusk, but it's still the hand (or in this case, the brain) we were dealt. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 17:50:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Originally posted by Bongorider
Sailingsoul, I don't know how you gather I'm a thiest from my OP. Maybe you should re-read it.
|
I never said that I think your a theist or anything that definitive. I asked " Would it be safe to assume by your OP that you are a theist?" I could have just as easily asked "Would it be safe to assume by your OP that you are a Atheist?" You chose not to answer the question, which is still undetermined. Which is you choice. SS
|
The fact that Bongorider considers god to be an unnecessary hypothesis and the fact that he put religious "answers" in sarcasm quotes was evidence to me that he's probably an atheist, SS.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 17:54:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bongorider
Sailingsoul, I don't know how you gather I'm a thiest from my OP. Maybe you should re-read it.
|
I never said that I think your a theist or anything that definitive because I don't know. I asked " Would it be safe to assume by your OP that you are a theist?" I could have just as easily asked "Would it be safe to assume by your OP that you are a Atheist?" You chose not to answer the question, which is still undetermined and as is you choice. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 15:54:24 [Permalink]
|
I rather like Mark Twain's take on it:
| According to Kelvin's figures it took 99,968,000 years to prepare the world for man, impatient as the Creator doubtless was to see him and admire him. But a large enterprise like this has to be conducted warily, painstakingly, logically. It was foreseen that man would have to have the oyster. Therefore the first preparation was made for the oyster. Very well, you cannot make an oyster out of whole cloth, you must make the oyster's ancestor first. This is not done in a day. You must make a vast variety of invertebrates, to start with -- belemnites, trilobites, jebusites, amalekites, and that sort of fry, and put them to soak in a primary sea, and wait and see what will happen. Some will be a disappointments - the belemnites, the ammonites and such; they will be failures, they will die out and become extinct, in the course of the 19,000,000 years covered by the experiment, but all is not lost, for the amalekites will fetch the home-stake; they will develop gradually into encrinites, and stalactites, and blatherskites, and one thing and another as the mighty ages creep on and the Archaean and the Cambrian Periods pile their lofty crags in the primordial seas, and at last the first grand stage in the preparation of the world for man stands completed, the Oyster is done. An oyster has hardly any more reasoning power than a scientist has; and so it is reason ably certain that this one jumped to the conclusion that the nineteen-million years was a preparation for him; but that would be just like an oyster, which is the most conceited animal there is, except man. And anyway, this one could not know, at that early date, that he was only an incident in a scheme, and that there was some more to the scheme, yet. |
I recommend reading the whole essay.
My other thought was that if you think you're the pinnacle of evolution, try a cage match with a pissed-off grizzly bear.
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The biggest question?
