The Bible and Us!?

[The Troquelet]

TedG is arguing that humans are smarter than animals because we possess the techonology to destroy ourselves? Cute, Ted, cute....

Starlifter, if "holy books" with similarities to the Bible were found in different places on earth, isn't that not a confirmation of the worldwide influence of Christ, but rather a confirmation of the theory that the Bible is a human creation with laws and tenets created by humans?

 

[TedG]

TedG is arguing that humans are smarter than animals because we possess the techonology to destroy ourselves? Cute, Ted, cute....

No, because we're able to invent any technology at all (choose any example you want), regardless of what it's used for.

 

[The Troquelet]

All that sets man above the animal is his ability to create tools. And of course primates do that as well sometimes...

 

[TedG]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
All that sets man above the animal is his ability to create tools. And of course primates do that as well sometimes...

No, that's not all. I already explained the most significant difference between humans and animals in previous posts.

 

[wellmeaning]

A few minor things that have been niggling


TedG (sorry to get on your back now too): You stated a fundamental difference between a human and an animal is that a human knows the difference between right and wrong. Do you think that could have come about by psychological conditioning? I was watching a group of toddlers the other day as they were running around, smacking each other and just being general brats. If their parents had never stepped in to stop them I don't think they would have changed their ways, and suddenly know the difference between right and wrong.

Also someone mentioned some examples of Christian values (whatever they are) being seen throughout different parts of the world. Does anyone have any examples of links to this? It sounds interesting (from an anthropoligical PoV)


eek, im rambling. *NB to self get some sleep*

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by TedG
The way it's told in the Bible makes perfect sense; well, a lot more sense than coming from apes: When God created Adam and Eve (and He created man in His image), He gave them free will. When they chose to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit, they (and every human since) gained the knowledge of good and evil (hence the name of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). Before that, they were naked and didn't know it - just like animals! Afterwards, they knew what they were doing, so to speak, and since then people are aware of what they're doing, and know when something's right and wrong, which is the basis of the decisions we make each and every day. That's the critical difference between people and animals. There are more differences, scientifically, but that's the one that really matters. Whether you believe that we were created by God or not, at least don't say we came from another animal. It's just plain silly.

WOW, it took me almost the whole day to get back to this discussion because I was celebrating Brazil's victory in the World Cup.

Man, i won't argue about people coming from apes or not, and if looks or genetical resemblance proves that it happened or not. We did it a lot.

But the reading of all your arguments have showed a MAJOR contradiction.

You say that the crucial difference between man and animal is the knowledge of good and evil. You also say that God created man by his image.

Than, you say that man only acquired the knowledge of Good and Evil after eating the forbbiden fruit.

Therefore, man, only became man after he sinned. Before, it was a animal, baceuase, like the other animals, had no such knowledge.

If God created the man exactly like his image, than God had no such knowledge too. If God had, than he didn't created us at his image.

Oh, by the way, i assume that if a cow had eaten the fruit, it would be human too...

Ok, intervention is over. Now back to party .

 

[TedG]

TedG (sorry to get on your back now too): You stated a fundamental difference between a human and an animal is that a human knows the difference between right and wrong. Do you think that could have come about by psychological conditioning? I was watching a group of toddlers the other day as they were running around, smacking each other and just being general brats. If their parents had never stepped in to stop them I don't think they would have changed their ways, and suddenly know the difference between right and wrong.

When a child is born, he/she is about as innocent as Adam and Eve were before the fall of man. Children are taught by their parents, so if they were, for example, never taught and never exposed to other people, it's no telling what they'd be like. It's the job of the parents to teach their kids right from wrong. When a child becomes old enough, they'll start thinking for themselves and questioning their parents (of course, that doesn't mean the parents are wrong). The knowledge of good and evil has been passed down ever since the beginning of the human race (however you decide it to be).

 

[TedG]

You say that the crucial difference between man and animal is the knowledge of good and evil. You also say that God created man by his image.

Yes.

Than, you say that man only acquired the knowledge of Good and Evil after eating the forbbiden fruit.

Yes.

Therefore, man, only became man after he sinned. Before, it was a animal, baceuase, like the other animals, had no such knowledge.

Man only became man as we know him today after the fall of man. Adam and Eve were, for all practical purposes, gardeners. God created Adam to tend to the Garden of Eden, and He created Eve as a companion to Adam. However, God created Adam and Eve in His own image and actually superior to all other animals.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." -- Genesis 1:26

So humans were superior to animals right from the start. The knowledge of good and evil made us much more unique.

If God created the man exactly like his image, than God had no such knowledge too. If God had, than he didn't created us at his image.

That's just semantics. "In His image" does not have to mean "knows everything God knows."

Oh, by the way, i assume that if a cow had eaten the fruit, it would be human too...

I seriously doubt that, but I honestly can't say that for sure.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Humans share more than 98% of our genetic code with primates. And more than 85% with all mammals..

Given that apes and men are both Carbon-based life, and that so far as we know, all carbon-based life on earth uses DNA or RNA to store its traits and protein formulas, why do you find it in any way significant that two such life-forms with similar structures, physiologies, and metabolisms, have similar DNA?

Time and again I have heard this little factoid bandied about as if it were somehow significant. It is not. Question: how much of our DNA matches up with horses? Cats? Frogs? Mealworms? I'm willing to bet that the farther you get from human physiology and shape, the less and less common our DNA is to the compared life form. If that bet strikes you as somewhat rigged, silly, or loaded, then you're getting the idea...

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by TedG
Man only became man as we know him today after the fall of man. Adam and Eve were, for all practical purposes, gardeners. God created Adam to tend to the Garden of Eden, and He created Eve as a companion to Adam. However, God created Adam and Eve in His own image and actually superior to all other animals.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." -- Genesis 1:26

So humans were superior to animals right from the start. The knowledge of good and evil made us much more unique.

This is pretty much the answer I expected. And it raises another questions even MORE interesting about your line of thinking.

For example, you strongly defend that humans are unique. That evolution is wrong because you cannot accept a class of man inferior to the present.

But you have just admitted a inferior class of man – one with no free will or knowledge of good and evil, mere gardeners, mans not like we know him today. Therefore, the point you try to use to display the “absurdity” of evolution, is not absurd in creation. Very coherent.

By the way, I find the idea of man being emancipated by sinning very amusing.

Originally posted by TedG
That's just semantics. "In His image" does not have to mean "knows everything God knows."

Indeed. But this makes your so-cherished “resemblance to God’s image” something superficial. Nothing but a shell, a skin.

If the “God’s image” had to do with our mentality – what would require giving us the mental ability to question matters like him, even if at a far less developed degree, I could at least acknowledge your view.

However, when you put things like this, you make me ask… does God look more like Wood Allen, Mike Tyson or Bruce Lee?

So, as you can see, there is far more in that point than semantics. It goes to the heart of the question.

It’s very comfortable to disregard the display of your own contradictions by simply painting them as “semantics”. This way, you can say whatever senseless thing you wish, and every time interpret it the more convenient way.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

Given that apes and men are both Carbon-based life, and that so far as we know, all carbon-based life on earth uses DNA or RNA to store its traits and protein formulas, why do you find it in any way significant that two such life-forms with similar structures, physiologies, and metabolisms, have similar DNA?

Time and again I have heard this little factoid bandied about as if it were somehow significant. It is not. Question: how much of our DNA matches up with horses? Cats? Frogs? Mealworms? I'm willing to bet that the farther you get from human physiology and shape, the less and less common our DNA is to the compared life form. If that bet strikes you as somewhat rigged, silly, or loaded, then you're getting the idea...

This is also amusing.

You guys decided that the difference lies in something that cannot be expressed by DNA, right?

So, showing similarities, compatibilities and resemblances of whatever degree won’t convince you, because you decided that evidence does not imply anything.

I would like to know if it is possible to even convince you of anything regarding any subject, if you choose to acknowledge only the data that benefits the believe you decided that is the best.

 

[TedG]

...evolution is wrong because you cannot accept a class of man inferior to the present.

The word "inferior" could mean many things. I can accept a class of MAN (pure man, not part-ape) inferior to us (either physically or mentally). Not a class of man that is part ape.

But you have just admitted a inferior class of man – one with no free will...

Incorrect. Adam and Eve had free will. That's one of the things that made them special even before they became aware of good and evil.

...or knowledge of good and evil, mere gardeners, mans not like we know it. Therefore, the point you try to use to display the “absurdity” of evolution, is not absurd in creation. Very coherent.

You're still missing my point. Adam and Eve were not simple animals. Genesis 1:26 explains that loud and clear.

By the way, I find the idea of man being emancipated by sinning very amusing.

To each his own.

Indeed. But this makes your so-cherished “resemblance to God’s image” something superficial. Nothing but a shell, a skin.

If the “God’s image” had to do with our mentality – what would require giving us the mental ability to question matters like him, even if at a far less developed degree, I could at least acknowledge your view.

However, when you put things like this, you make me ask… does God look more like Wood Allen, Mike Tyson or Bruce Lee?

So, as you can see, there is far more in that point than semantics. It goes to the heart of the question.

Again, you're taking "in God's image" too literally.

It’s very comfortable to disregard the display of your own contradictions by simply painting them as “semantics”.

I've not contradicted myself, and it is semantics.

This way, you can say whatever senseless thing you wish, and every time interpret it the more convenient way.

If you disagree with me, fine. But don't say I'm contradicting myself and all my views make no sense, just because you don't agree with them.

So, showing similarities, compatibilities and resemblances of whatever degree won’t convince you, because you decided that evidence does not imply anything.

Similarities are not unusual and don't prove anything. So what if we and apes alike have a natural fear of snakes and spiders? That doesn't make ape-human evolution more acceptable. You can't say that it isn't possibly just a coincidence.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by TedG
The word "inferior" could mean many things. I can accept a class of MAN (pure man, not part-ape) inferior to us (either physically or mentally). Not a class of man that is part ape

Well, this shows that you do not fully understand evolution. Darwin didn’t say that monkeys became humans. He said that we had a common ancestor. A creature that were not human or ape, but that originated both species.

Lucy, despite ape-like features, was a fully human creature, but of an inferior class.

Originally posted by TedG
Incorrect. Adam and Eve had free will. That's one of the things that made them special even before they became aware of good and evil.

I stand corrected in that matter, but the point is still valid about all the other things.

Originally posted by TedG
You're still missing my point. Adam and Eve were not simple animals. Genesis 1:26 explains that loud and clear.

This again. You defended that the difference between man and animal is the knowledge of Good and Evil. You admitted that they didn’t have it. Will you please decide a concept to separate man from animal?

Originally posted by TedG
To each his own.

Oh, yeah, that is very emphatic.

Originally posted by TedG
Again, you're taking "in God's image" too literally.

Am I? So please, tell me how you understand “God’s image”, if it’s not the physical or spiritual aspects. Because you may argue that God is not bound to body and spirit, but we humans are (to me, only to body, actually).

In what aspect we “resemble” God?

Originally posted by TedG
I've not contradicted myself, and it is semantics.

I’ll repeat the sentence:

***
“Than, you say that man only acquired the knowledge of Good and Evil after eating the forbidden fruit.

Therefore, man, only became man after he sinned. Before, it was an animal, because, like the other animals, had no such knowledge.

If God created the man exactly like his image, than God had no such knowledge too. If God had, than he didn't created us at his image.” (I only edited to correct the spelling, but the sentence is exactly the same).

***

Please explain me why it’s down to semantics? I have just demonstrated a contradiction.

SO: God created man at his image.
AND: Man had no knowledge of good and evil.
THUS: either God have no knowledge of good and evil, or man is not like him. You simply can’t have both (and I refer back to how to interpret “God’s image”).

If original man was mentally different than present man, and was God-alike, than the present man is not God alike, unless the resemblance goes down to the other human aspect, the physical.

It only stays in semantics if you think that it’s right and the contradiction involved contradicts nothing because the sentence is correct no matter what. This makes it a sentence of absolute value… but hey, what am I complaining about? This sort of thing is what religion is all about.

This goes down to the point about how you choose to acknowledge only what appeals to you.

Originally posted by TedG
If you disagree with me, fine. But don't say I'm contradicting myself and all my views make no sense, just because you don't agree with them.

Hold your horses, man… I didn’t say that what you said was senseless. I said that this line of thinking allow you to say to say senseless things and stick to them.

No need to be inflamed, I’m engaged in a healthy discussion, not in a flamed arguing.

Peace brother.

Originally posted by TedG
Similarities are not unusual and don't prove anything. So what if we and apes alike have a natural fear of snakes and spiders? That doesn't make ape-human evolution more acceptable. You can't say that it isn't possibly just a coincidence.

They don’t prove, but they imply. They fit the evolution’s idea that every life form came from the same genetic material, and thus, are alike. Man, God could have made those animals alike us or different from us. You would say “He simply decided to do them alike”.

I think that I already mentioned something about acknowledging only what fits your notion…

About the snakes and spiders thing… That behavior does have a common origin. The fact that spiders and snakes are dangerous. In that example, it’s possible to identify the source. Through the generations, that innate behavior was added to their instincts.

Oh, well, here I am talking evolution again…

 

[Brad]

Curtsibling
"No-one here is EVER going to prove where we came from!

Just get over it!

The faithful have their hope that thier god created us.
The Scientists have the conviction that we evolved."

The reason why scientists have such a conviction is because a lot of mankind doesn't want to have to answer to a superior being judging them. Scientists are seeking this so much because they don't WANT to find God.

The chances of man evolving are about as remote as smashing a watch, putting it in a bag, shaking that bag, and having the watch reassemble itself.

If we evolved from monkeys... what created them, if not created, what did THEY evolve from... Goo? that's a further streach then us evolving from them. We may be close to them genetically... but how come there are still monkeys and apes running around? Why aren't they evolving still? Wouldn't there be "missing Links" running around?

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by Brad

If we evolved from monkeys... what created them, if not created, what did THEY evolve from... Goo? that's a further streach then us evolving from them. We may be close to them genetically... but how come there are still monkeys and apes running around? Why aren't they evolving still? Wouldn't there be "missing Links" running around?

I believe the argument goes that we evolved from a common ancestor.
This ancestor evolved from less complex lifeforms, and these life forms came from, wel, I don't know.

But...that is what I know.

 

[TedG]

Well, this shows that you do not fully understand evolution. Darwin didn’t say that monkeys became humans. He said that we had a common ancestor. A creature that were not human or ape, but that originated both species.

GOD originated both species, not a "common ancestor." Go back and read my posts. I explained why the concept of a common ancestor is illogical to me.

Lucy, despite ape-like features, was a fully human creature, but of an inferior class.

It was an ape, not a human.

This again. You defended that the difference between man and animal is the knowledge of Good and Evil. You admitted that they didn’t have it. Will you please decide a concept to separate man from animal?

I never said "the" difference. And "didn't have it" is irrelevant. We do now, so we're separated from animals. We were above animals from the beginning and the knowledge of good and evil only adds to the difference.

Oh, yeah, that is very emphatic.

More emphatic than arguing semantics, which you continue to do.

Am I? So please, tell me how you understand “God’s image”, if it’s not the physical or spiritual aspects. Because you may argue that God is not bound to body and spirit, but we humans are (to me, only to body, actually).

In what aspect we “resemble” God?

God created man in His image. Adam and Eve knew no sin and were like God in nearly every respect. Adam and Eve misused the freedom that God gave them, and that's why you don't see everyone resembling God in today's society.

Please explain me why it’s down to semantics? I have just demonstrated a contradiction.

SO: God created man at his image.
AND: Man had no knowledge of good and evil.
THUS: either God have no knowledge of good and evil, or man is not like him. You simply can’t have both (and I refer back to how to interpret “God’s image”).

See my previous response.

If original man was mentally different than present man, and was God-alike, than the present man is not God alike, unless the resemblance goes down to the other human aspect, the physical.

Present man is not God-like by nature. It's a choice - a matter of free will (otherwise known as "a religion"), to try and be like God. Notice the word "try." No human is ever perfect.

It only stays in semantics if you think that it’s right and the contradiction involved contradicts nothing because the sentence is correct no matter what. This makes it a sentence of absolute value… but hey, what am I complaining about? This sort of thing is what religion is all about.

Again, I've not contradicted myself.

This goes down to the point about how you choose to acknowledge only what appeals to you.

I'll acknowledge the evidence when it proves me wrong. I'm not totally dismissive of the other evidence - I'm simply explaining why it doesn't do enough to contradict my beliefs.

Hold your horses, man… I didn’t say that what you said was senseless.

You sure made it sound that way.

They don’t prove, but they imply. They fit the evolution’s idea that every life form came from the same genetic material, and thus, are alike.

Implication is not enough to cause me to lose my faith.

Man, God could have made those animals alike us or different from us. You would say “He simply decided to do them alike”.

Physical similarities between humans and non-human-animals are not important. I've already said what the most important difference is.

About the snakes and spiders thing… That behavior does have a common origin. The fact that spiders and snakes are dangerous. In that example, it’s possible to identify the source. Through the generations, that innate behavior was added to their instincts.

Either species could have developed the behavior independently of one another.

 

[Brad]

I thought the evolution theory was that we evolved from monkeys and apes... at least that is the main theory in this topic....

 

[TedG]

Originally posted by Brad
I thought the evolution theory was that we evolved from monkeys and apes... at least that is the main theory in this topic....

Nope. They also have the "common ancestor" theory which is equally illogical.

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by Brad
I thought the evolution theory was that we evolved from monkeys and apes... at least that is the main theory in this topic....

Well, that's what I learned in Biology class. (But be forewarned- it was a Biology class in a Christian school.)

 

[Brad]

Becka

"Well, that's what I learned in Biology class. (But be forewarned- it was a Biology class in a Christian school.) "
They actually taught evolution in a christian school. I don't believe this.

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by Brad
Becka

"Well, that's what I learned in Biology class. (But be forewarned- it was a Biology class in a Christian school.) "
They actually taught evolution in a christian school. I don't believe this. :rolleyes

We learned about it because we are a prep school and many of our students aren't always going to go to Christian colleges, so we need to be well-versed even in things we don't believe in. We also looked at several different theories of Christian Creationism and learned their strong points and drawbacks.