.
Are humans related to apes?
Geneticists (people who study such things) tell us that H. sapiens have great genetic similarity to members of the taxonomic group Family: Hominidae (great apes).
This seems to offend some people or to contradict their religious beliefs.
On what basis can argument be made that the classification is in error?
Are humans related to apes?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Are humans related to apes?
Post #1.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
- Diagoras
- Guru
- Posts: 1392
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
- Has thanked: 170 times
- Been thanked: 579 times
Post #91
<only partially quoted>EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 85 by SallyF]
Your world-viewStill not a shred of evidence of any sort whatsoever for anything to do with the biblical mythology regarding the mud-man.
AND
SIGNIFICANTLY …
Again not a mention of the rib-woman
has no evidence <...>
All you are doing here is avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on your accuser - you answer criticism with criticism. This is the classic logical fallacy known as tu quoque.
For the sake of argument, even if we did allow that SallyF’s world-view is as bereft of evidence as you claim, all that would show is that both of you lack evidence. Then the only difference is that you are happy to fill your knowledge gap with a mythological, unprovable story, whilst others are not.
Claiming to have all the answers while being in possession of no evidence at all shows you up as standing on the flimsiest of foundations.
Christianity has not changed its belief system to accommodate scientific thought.
- FarWanderer
- Guru
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:47 am
- Location: California
Post #92
A point of order.Diagoras wrote:For the sake of argument, even if we did allow that SallyF’s world-view is as bereft of evidence as you claim, all that would show is that both of you lack evidence.
The topic of the thread is "Are humans related to apes?" not "Did God create Adam out of mud?"
EarthScienceGuy is not obligated to prove the latter in order to argue against the former.
Post #93
If we could establish that Jehovah created Adam the Australopithecine out of mud …FarWanderer wrote:A point of order.Diagoras wrote:For the sake of argument, even if we did allow that SallyF’s world-view is as bereft of evidence as you claim, all that would show is that both of you lack evidence.
The topic of the thread is "Are humans related to apes?" not "Did God create Adam out of mud?"
EarthScienceGuy is not obligated to prove the latter in order to argue against the former.
And then created sheep and wombats and apes and such in a failed attempt to find a suitable good servant for Adam the Australopithecine …
We could perhaps THEN claim that humans are NOT related to apes …
Except perhaps through mud and mythology.
By pointing out that the mud-man and the rib-woman are NEVER shown to be anything other than ancient make-believe …
We further bolster the facts that science is fact and biblical mythology is mythology …
And humans ARE related to apes in in a very direct way.
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.
"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.
"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.
- Diagoras
- Guru
- Posts: 1392
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
- Has thanked: 170 times
- Been thanked: 579 times
Post #94
[Replying to post 92 by FarWanderer]
Addressing the point of order: my pointing out of a logical fallacy in no way burdened the poster with any obligation to wander from, or stick to the topic of the OP. However, there are several posts of his here which bring up tangential topics, e.g. petrified wood.
I feel it’s therefore reasonable to expect in a debate forum that a person’s demonstrable willingness to make claims within a thread that are unrelated to the OP should be matched with an equal willingness to support them with evidence as those claims which stick more closely to it.
Addressing the point of order: my pointing out of a logical fallacy in no way burdened the poster with any obligation to wander from, or stick to the topic of the OP. However, there are several posts of his here which bring up tangential topics, e.g. petrified wood.
I feel it’s therefore reasonable to expect in a debate forum that a person’s demonstrable willingness to make claims within a thread that are unrelated to the OP should be matched with an equal willingness to support them with evidence as those claims which stick more closely to it.
- FarWanderer
- Guru
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:47 am
- Location: California
Post #95
Abiogenesis has never been shown to be anything other than make-believe, either.SallyF wrote:By pointing out that the mud-man and the rib-woman are NEVER shown to be anything other than ancient make-believe …
We further bolster the facts that science is fact and biblical mythology is mythology …
Does that bolster the case for Yahweh as the explanation for the existence of life? EarthScienceGuy certainly seems to think so.
Post #96
Then the Lord God/Yahweh Elohim formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.FarWanderer wrote:Abiogenesis has never been shown to be anything other than make-believe, either.SallyF wrote:By pointing out that the mud-man and the rib-woman are NEVER shown to be anything other than ancient make-believe …
We further bolster the facts that science is fact and biblical mythology is mythology …
Does that bolster the case for Yahweh as the explanation for the existence of life? EarthScienceGuy certainly seems to think so.
No relation apes in the biblical mythology right there …
Because there WERE no apes in the biblical mythology at this point.
In (biblical) fact, there were NO other critters in this contradictory second creation myth … depending on WHICH "understanding" of the "Word of God" one chooses.
Then …
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.�
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found.
Hmm ... the "I will make" and the "had formed" are a contradiction that looks to me like a mistake naughty Christian re-translators have made when covering up the myth-fact that in Genesis 1 the Elohim had already created creatures BEFORE the special creation.
Oooops.
But perhaps we CAN say that humans are related to apes ...!
Because, as I've mentioned, the mythology has the god create all the wild animals and birds out of mud.
And - as I mention time and time and time again - folks who believe in biblical creation seem to be very reluctant to discuss the details of biblical creation. They would MUCH rather divert the attention away from the mythology and on to the ever-evolving advancement of scientific knowledge and evidence and theory.
Looks VERY much to me that that is what has happened in this thread.
Perhaps we could fix that by discussing the details of …
So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
And seeing how the biblical rib-woman is or is not related to the biblical mud-apes ...?
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.
"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.
"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.
- FarWanderer
- Guru
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:47 am
- Location: California
Post #97
[Replying to post 96 by SallyF]
I see a lot of text but no answer to the rather simple yes or no question I asked.
I see a lot of text but no answer to the rather simple yes or no question I asked.
For them, there is nothing there to discuss. When you believe in magic, magical events aren't absurd. No way to explain them because they are magic, and no need to explain them, either.SallyF wrote:And - as I mention time and time and time again - folks who believe in biblical creation seem to be very reluctant to discuss the details of biblical creation.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6607 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Post #98
[Replying to post 95 by FarWanderer]
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred."
That seems to me to be a misrepresentation of the current status of abiogenesis. How does it qualify as make-believe? It is not as if the concept has simply been plucked out of the air and constructed from whole cloth.Abiogenesis has never been shown to be anything other than make-believe, either.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred."
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- FarWanderer
- Guru
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:47 am
- Location: California
Post #99
Nowhere does this quote show abiogenesis to be anything but an idea. It's an unverified, yet believed, idea. Is that not "make-believe"?brunumb wrote: [Replying to post 95 by FarWanderer]
That seems to me to be a misrepresentation of the current status of abiogenesis. How does it qualify as make-believe? It is not as if the concept has simply been plucked out of the air and constructed from whole cloth.Abiogenesis has never been shown to be anything other than make-believe, either.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred."
I realize the term "make-believe" sounds pejorative. I only used it to mirror the original quote.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9342
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 883 times
- Been thanked: 1240 times
Post #100
"Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood."FarWanderer wrote:Nowhere does this quote show abiogenesis to be anything but an idea. It's an unverified, yet believed, idea. Is that not "make-believe"?brunumb wrote: [Replying to post 95 by FarWanderer]
That seems to me to be a misrepresentation of the current status of abiogenesis. How does it qualify as make-believe? It is not as if the concept has simply been plucked out of the air and constructed from whole cloth.Abiogenesis has never been shown to be anything other than make-believe, either.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred."
I realize the term "make-believe" sounds pejorative. I only used it to mirror the original quote.
To call this "just an idea" seems like an attempt to down play it.
If we are to be accurate, it is an uncontroversial idea. Not 'just some idea' as you seem to be trying to portray it.
If we are to call it an idea, we need to acknowledge that ideas come in varying forms and not all ideas are equal.
"Researchers study abiogenesis through a combination of molecular biology, paleontology, astrobiology, oceanography, biophysics, geochemistry and biochemistry, and aim to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life."
Just an idea? Is that the best and most accurate way to describe it?
God concepts would be 'just ideas'. Researchers have nothing to study that points to any god concepts that I'm aware of. No mechanisms to point to that I'm aware of, unlike abiogenesis. If you are to define them both as ideas, it is obvious that they are not equal.
(Further differences in these 'ideas')
Anyone can study abiogenesis and see that it could be valid. It us uncontroversial among scientists.
Only Christians find the Jehovah god to be a valid idea. Only Muslims find Allah to be a valid idea. Only.... you get the idea I'm sure.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb