Was your great several times grandfather an ape?

Post Reply New Topic

While I personally do believe in a divine creator, in my humble opinion, the job of a minister is to teach God's grace earned for us by Christ's death and resurrection, not to rant about evolution.
By the way, as a high church Protestant (Lutheran), I'm suspicious of any clergyman who teaches a sermon without a white collar, and dressed as if he's going out to eat at Burger King.
And if you're wondering, yes, I do believe in a divinely guided evolution.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Hominids (humans) are, by definition one of the Great Apes.

But they don't need to 'will' themselves to life. It happens by accident.

Non human to human is gradual. Not two apes create Homo Sapien.

Well, we're still apes, from what I gather.

I do wonder what was between apes and a bacteria somewhere at sea though.

My several times grandfather was an ape. My grandfather and grandmother were also apes. By father an mother - Also apes!. With that considered, it is a remarkable coincidence that I, also am an ape.

If you happen to be human, then your story is the same, you are also an ape.

I respect your opinion, however, are you familiar with Calvary Chapel and the Evangelical movement in America in general? CC churches and most Charismatic/Evangelical/Non-Denominationals teach from a very conservative Biblical standpoint. The trend over the past 30 years has also been away from the robes and collars, that does not mean the teaching has gotten any softer. I invite you to look into the teachings of Pastor Ken Graves, you would find that his "rants" are directly relevant to grace and repentance. That excerpt being a prime example. That video is the final 7 minutes of his teaching on Romans 1. If ever you're curious and can get past your pre-conceived notions about how a pastor should dress, I invite you to check out the audio archives on his website www.ccbangor.org.

Last edited by thechadmaster on 26 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No matter how "gradual" there has to be a dividing line somewhere. Where along the evolutionary line does "not human" turn into "human"?

And life cannot happen by accident. For something to be created from nothing, there needs to be action on the part of an outside force. Try my experiment: Put two sterile rocks in the same room, (remember, there is not a single living cell yet), let them sit for 14 billion years and see if suddenly there is life.

Life has to have been created, life does not spontaneously create itself. The first living cell didnt wake up one morning and say "Im going to live now"

People have told me that at least one of my ancestors was a jackass...



... but I just don't see the resemblance.

I was being facetious regarding the way a minister should dress, but I'm afraid I'm not always a fan of evangelical Christianity, especially in terms of Biblical legalism and literalism, along with the emphasis on personal experience, and becoming enmeshed in secular politics. I specifically belong to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which for a mainline denomination is considered to be on the conservative side, though there are plenty of members like myself who don't tow the line regarding every issue.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

When did you turn into an adult? I mean, physically, not legally? You're a child. At some point you start puberty, but in most cases you would still call yourself a child. But at some point, you became an adult.

'Human' and 'non human' are categories. Define the categories, match fossil etc records as best you can to those categories, and you'll have your answer. It may not be an answer that satisfies, because you may be asking a question that cannot be answered in that way.

Life does not have to have been created. I wasn't there when it came to be, and I don't read enough of the varying theories to give a thorough account - I'm sure there must be some on this board who could. But I disagree that for life to come about it is a necessary condition that it has to be created.

Anyway, I don't know about my greatx10 to the power of ahellofalot grandfather being an ape...



But my great-grandmother sure was a fox!

I am an ape, but I'd rather be a robot.

Which I would argue is not impossible, especially when you take into account that all our describing language and concepts-- concepts like "human"-- are arbitrary classifiers which we made up to refer to specific objects in the universe around us. It is easier to understand the universe if we classify things according to their ability to fit into our criteria. Thus, even though a diamond and a human being both contain carbon, we see them as two different things.

But anyway, that's a purely semantic argument, and I want to get down to brass tacks here. Evolutionary scientists believe anatomically modern human beings appeared on Earth around 200,000 years ago. Modern Homo sapiens didn't just appear from chimpanzees or gorillas; anti-evolutionists try to discredit evolution on the claim that this is the argument evolutionists use, but anyone who truly understands how evolution works would think that concept is ridiculous too. There is a long line of other hominids above us on the family tree-- Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo antecessor, etc.-- and each of these species was closer along the line to becoming what we now recognize as Homo sapiens. The point is that evolution is the end result of a very very long period of time-- over many, many, many generations-- with natural selection at play.



Viruses are seen by many as not being forms of life as we know it. They do possess genes, and they do adapt to their surroundings-- but they are not cell-based, and they require host organic tissue to reproduce.

Scientists aren't sure how exactly life originated. There are many theories. But all of the tissue and amino acids in our bodies are comprised of very basic building blocks which also comprise inorganic matter as well, so theoretically, I see no reason life wouldn't have originated from natural chemical processes.



0:00-1:00 - I know of no one who would argue that a guitar was a tree that evolved. This analogy is flawed, and one of the reasons is because it only takes into account one object. Evolution doesn't manifest in a single generation anyway. Now, if you want to talk about how stringed instruments have changed to suit musical tastes over the years, from lutes and mandolins to violins and cellos, to acoustic guitars, to electric guitars, you may have a closer analogy. Even so, the implication of organisms being created just like inanimate objects is flawed because we have proof of people making guitars. Hypothetically, I can go to a guitar factory and watch them being made. Give me hard empirical evidence of God creating humanity (or even existing) and I may change my tune.

1:00-1:40 - I agree, it is ridiculous to believe that thing which I just explained evolutionists don't believe. Moving on.

1:40-4:30 - First of all, his account of the bombardier beetle is factually inaccurate. This site does a good job of explaining what he got wrong. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

Moreover, he mentions trial and error. That is what natural selection is about (although not phrased as eloquently). The idea is that maladapted members of the species don't survive long enough to procreate, while the ones that are better adapted stick around longer because their adaptations give them an advantage. That isn't all that difficult a concept to grasp. So for argument's sake, any member of species that is maladapted to blow itself up isn't going to be around long enough to define that species. The ones that do are the ones who have adapted to direct that ability defensively at predators and offensively at prey. And since traits of the parents generally manifest in offspring, the offspring are more likely to be well adapted too.

4:30-5:10 - The similarity of anatomical structures from species to species is one of the best indicators that evolution isn't a theory. You could argue that an intelligent designer came up with it and said "If it works, it works". But why does that argument require an intelligent designer? "If it works, it works" is the principle behind natural selection. No intelligence is necessarily required to explain why a specific design endures if it is successful or disappears if it isn't.

5:10-5:45 - And herein lies my fundamental problem with the opinions espoused here. The most basic principle of science is the scientific theory-- test a hypothesis, and if it satisfies Occam's Razor consistently, accept it as a currently accurate model of our understanding until something comes along that fits better. No self-respecting scientist claims to know, with 100% certainty, how the world works. The point of science is, it's the best estimates we have for any subject, given the empirical evidence with which we've been presented. I would much rather follow a train of thought that allows for error and humility than one that insists it knows everything and claims anyone who believes otherwise is "bigoted".

And anyway, if what I believe brings me happiness and comfort, what business is it of anyone else's? What right has anyone to impose some other beliefs on me? I hear it argued that the point of religion is to bring comfort to the faithful, and make the world an easier place to live in. But for anyone who isn't among the faithful, it seems comfort and happiness do not matter. I don't like being called a "bigot" for believing in evolution anymore than you do for believing in creationism.

5:45-6:00 - I would need a citation to believe Einstein said this. Einstein described himself as an agnostic, and the idea of an anthropomorphic Creator to be "childish" and the result of humanity's insecurities.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954

In fact, if Einstein recognized any organized belief system at all as providing a sound basis for humanity's spiritual side, it wasn't Christianity, or any of the other Abrahmic religions-- it was Buddhism.

Last edited by Chevand on 26 Aug 2012, 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

GGILF?

I should fess up - it's Dorothy Parker. Were she my great-grandmother, I'd be a little confused about my feelings. I want to invent a time machine and visit her, so she can write a caustic poem about my farcical, failed attempt at seduction.

No matter how gradual the transition from warm to hot, where along the line does water turn from "warm water" to "hot water"?

You can't make an objective statement on it. You can't just say, "The water is hot at 100 degrees, and if it's 1/1000000000000000000th of a degree colder, it is not hot".

"Human" is a word made up by humans, just like "hot" and "warm". There are some extinct animals that some scientists might consider worthy of being called "human", and other scientists might say, "not quite". Just like water temperature.