6,000 year old Earth theory...?

reply to post by Astyanax


Misunderstanding...It happens.

As it is, I'm referring to all three choices.

Perhaps you won't mind answering a question for me. Underlying all that you have posted in this thread is an insistence that human beings are somehow set apart from the animals. I have never been able to understand why this is so important to some people, and I'm curious about it. Would you care to explain?

I'm not by any means insisting that human beings are set apart from animalia....Just that is my opinion on the matter. I see myself, my wife, my child, my coworkers, fellow ATS members including yourself.....we're all much more than just animals(IMHO)....Imagination, free-will, cognition, potential....These are all things that I think set humans apart....

I mean.... (I don't know if this is an out of context scenario or what....correct me if I'm wrong please)

But consider it....
You see an infant child and an infant (insert animal here) laying in the middle of nowhere...You can only save one. Which one? Does this not imply anything? Or does it simply imply that we're more empathetic towards our own species(and if so, can this be proven scientifically? I know that animals show empathy as well...that's not in question....I just don't know whether or not they would favor their own species[but not of their own "family" if u get what im saying] over another or not ..anything you know about this? )

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Science is tentative.

It is true that science does not deal with absolutes, but that does not mean that scientific conclusions are untrustworthy.

Barring any further discoveries...

They would have to be discoveries, not only in geology or biology, but also in basic physics, chemistry and so on, that utterly destroy our current understanding of the world. That isn't going to happen.

Impossible is not a word I use....ever.

As you please, so long as you keep in mind what is said above – and also realise that clinging to the belief that what the Bible says is true will force you to come up with ever more far-fetched explanations and interpretations of both its text and physical reality.

I respect you for trying to keep an open mind, as well as your temper. Such a refreshing contrast to the sort of intellect that usually haunts these forums.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Misunderstanding...It happens.

True enough, but each of us is still responsible for making clear exactly what he means.

Imagination, free-will, cognition, potential....These are all things that I think set humans apart...

If animals can achieve their intentions through the use of self-invented tools and techniques (as has been seen amongst apes, monkeys, corvid birds and several other species), can we deny that they possess imagination? They could obviously visualise the solution to the problem they faced before actually seeing it.

As for free will, it's debatable whether anyone has it – but if I do, my dog certainly does too, if not necessarily to the same extent as I. In fact, she is exercising her free will round my ankles even as I type this.

Cognition is something common to all the higher animals, and potential is really too fuzzy a word to bring into this discussion at all.

You see an infant child and an infant (insert animal here) laying in the middle of nowhere...You can only save one. Which one?

It hardly needs to be said that one would save the child.

Does this not imply anything?

Of course it does. It implies that – again, like apes, monkeys, corvid birds and (many, many) other species – we have evolved to survive and propagate best in societies. Social and altruistic instincts are part of this evolution. They include, yes, being 'more empathetic towards our own species'.

Let's take this one step further. There's no monkey, but there are two children lying unconscious in the middle of nowhere. You can still only save one. Which will you save?

Would it make a difference to your answer if one child was your daughter and the other a perfect stranger?

Because, you see, that's an evolved instinct too. In fact, it's the same instinct. We are more inclined to be sympathetic and helpful towards kin, and the closer the kin the greater the sympathy and helpfulness. The same instinct that impels you to save your son in preference to a stranger also impels you to save a baby in preference to a monkey.

can this be proven scientifically?

It can indeed. The proof is known as Hamilton's Rule It was purely theoretical for a long time, but that has changed.

For a more detailed discussion of Hamilton's Rule, see here.

reply to post by Astyanax

Of course it does. It implies that – again, like apes, monkeys, corvid birds and (many, many) other species – we have evolved to survive and propagate best in societies. Social and altruistic instincts are part of this evolution. They include, yes, being 'more empathetic towards our own species'.

Let's take this one step further. There's no monkey, but there are two children lying unconscious in the middle of nowhere. You can still only save one. Which will you save?

Would it make a difference to your answer if one child was your daughter and the other a perfect stranger?

Because, you see, that's an evolved instinct too. In fact, it's the same instinct. We are more inclined to be sympathetic and helpful towards kin, and the closer the kin the greater the sympathy and helpfulness. The same instinct that impels you to save your son in preference to a stranger also impels you to save a baby in preference to a monkey.

It can indeed. The proof is known as Hamilton's Rule It was purely theoretical for a long time, but that has changed.

For a more detailed discussion of Hamilton's Rule, see here.

hehe sorry I must not have been all that clear....
I meant if both subjects are not kin....

To clarify: 3 Great Apes....no relation(bear with me, no need to get technical)....2 are [insert perilous events and circumstances here]...Does the 3rd ape even show empathy? How does this scenario play out? Same deal with humans...you can only save one....What kind of factors play into this sort of equation(minus the kin factor, remember, unrelated) and is it the same equation for animals as it is for humans?

A2D

(BTW, if I ask a lot of questions I'm sorry... My curiosity gets the best of me, especially when it comes to broadening my understanding.....)

Originally posted by Astyanax

It is true that science does not deal with absolutes, but that does not mean that scientific conclusions are untrustworthy.

I rarely consider scientific conclusions untrustworthy....in fact, I can't think of anything right off the top of my head(that I completely disagree with, there are partials here and there) other than the ape-to-man theory.....which....to me is only a partial as is....seeing as how I do believe evolution to be a scientific 'certainty'...I just think there's a few loose screws here and there....

They would have to be discoveries, not only in geology or biology, but also in basic physics, chemistry and so on, that utterly destroy our current understanding of the world. That isn't going to happen.

Ah well, history says otherwise....There is always something new to learn....and inevitably it changes our current perspective on reality....

As you please, so long as you keep in mind what is said above – and also realise that clinging to the belief that what the Bible says is true will force you to come up with ever more far-fetched explanations and interpretations of both its text and physical reality.

Like I said earlier, I don't cling to my belief. If I were face to face with real answers that weren't tentative and based on assumptions(regardless how many or how few, there are almost always assumptions) then I can truthfully say that I would drop my belief altogether. I have no quarrels with being wrong. I just want to know the truth.

I respect you for trying to keep an open mind, as well as your temper. Such a refreshing contrast to the sort of intellect that usually haunts these forums.

Back'atchya

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Misunderstanding...It happens.

As it is, I'm referring to all three choices.

Perhaps you won't mind answering a question for me. Underlying all that you have posted in this thread is an insistence that human beings are somehow set apart from the animals. I have never been able to understand why this is so important to some people, and I'm curious about it. Would you care to explain?

I'm not by any means insisting that human beings are set apart from animalia....Just that is my opinion on the matter. I see myself, my wife, my child, my coworkers, fellow ATS members including yourself.....we're all much more than just animals(IMHO)....Imagination, free-will, cognition, potential....These are all things that I think set humans apart....

I mean.... (I don't know if this is an out of context scenario or what....correct me if I'm wrong please)

But consider it....
You see an infant child and an infant (insert animal here) laying in the middle of nowhere...You can only save one. Which one? Does this not imply anything? Or does it simply imply that we're more empathetic towards our own species(and if so, can this be proven scientifically? I know that animals show empathy as well...that's not in question....I just don't know whether or not they would favor their own species[but not of their own "family" if u get what im saying] over another or not ..anything you know about this? )

A2D

its not entirley uncommon for animals to adopt other species offspring, maybee several hundred species will do it..there is more to whats going on in an animals mind than we know.

I think we may be getting a little off track as well.....the initial question posed was:

Perhaps you won't mind answering a question for me. Underlying all that you have posted in this thread is an insistence that human beings are somehow set apart from the animals. I have never been able to understand why this is so important to some people, and I'm curious about it. Would you care to explain?

And I guess I'd have to say...well....nothing. It's not important.

"Worth" is absolutely objective....but according to our own self-ascribed "worth"....
I guess I'm egotistical and you're insignificant!

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Wild animals have sometimes been known to come to each other's aid even when they are of different species. Here's a recently observed example.

As for animals helping humans, the story of Arion and the dolphins is three thousand years old at least.

I think you have missed my point though. It is normal for humans to show greater compassion for organisms that are more closely related to them. If two children are equally in trouble and I can only help one, I'll tend to help the one more closely related to me. If it's a child and a chimp, I'd help the child. If it's a chimp and an iguana, I'd probably help the chimp. If it's an iguana and a slug, I'd probably help the iguana.

Other animals rarely extend their compassion quite as far as humans do, but even the Bible claims that the prophet Elijah was fed by ravens, so the idea shouldn't be too hard for you to swallow.

I'm afraid that uses up your allowance of questions for a few days, though. If you really are as keen on learning about evolution as you say you are, read the links I posted earlier, and hunt out those books by Dawkins I recommended. After you've read them, I'll be happy to answer any questions you have to the best of my ability.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Wow....clearly we pick and choose what we want to discuss around here....

Not once did I "claim" that the evolutionary timeline for humans is/was short...
Also, I clearly stated, multiple times, that I'm discussing the INTELLECTUAL evolution....

Give me anything...anything at all that even closely resembles the intellectual evolution of the purported ape-man theory on a similar timeline.....Even evolutionary processes that take millions more years than what it took for humans to appear haven't accomplished anything even remotely close in INTELLECTUAL terms....

A2D

Evolution of intelligence is not any different than evolution of physical characteristics. The brain is physical. You are making a very general statement here about a complex process that depends almost 100% on the environment. Whether its happened before (it could have) is irrelevant and your logic only applies if you ignore all of the hominid species that also evolved similar intelligence. The same mechanisms of genetic mutations and natural selection are involved.

Besides humans are very similar genetically to chimpanzees. They use tools and are society beings that communicate with each other. You are just stuck thinking that human intellect is special because we have bigger brains that make us more intelligent than other creatures. Dolphins and chimps are very intelligent as well compared to creatures of the past, much moreso even. Are they special as well? Obviously they aren't on human level, but it's still irrelevant. There's no reason to suggest that the ancient ape to modern human process is unrealistic, or impossible. It is apparent based on the fossil record and our recent genetic history.

Maybe I didn't explain my point well enough. Think about this. For the past 2.5 million years, we've been in an ice age. Ice ages swing back and forth from warm to cold temperatures (called glacial periods). A significant portion of human evolution came during this time. Now bear in mind that living in a constantly changing environment will "accelerate" evolution. When each glacial period began or ended, the earth went through a big transition that included flooding, temperature changes, rising and lowering of sea levels, and all kinds of nasty weather patterns. This would have put environment pressure on humans / human ancestors to survive. Chances are they used their intelligence and creative problem solving skills to do this. This is more than likely the reason for the higher evolved intelligence. Much like a Cheetah survives because of its incredible running speed, the human survived the end of the last glacial period because of his intelligence. This is probably why humans are the sole survivor amongst the intelligent hominids, which puts them far ahead of other intelligent lifeforms. They used to be marginally ahead, but it's obvious that human intellect is their prime survival trait.

The Bible Doesn't Support a 6,000 Year Old Creation. Why doesn't anyone seem to get that? Just read what was written and see for yourselves.

Read the following biblical passages concerning how God experiences time vs how man does. Keep in mind, that everywhere this is quoted, God never says his experienced day "is" exactly the same as a human's 1,000 years, but instead said "is like", "as good as" or "shall be as".

2 Peter 3:8 ". . . A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. With God, one day is as good as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day."

Barnabas 15:4 " . . . Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years."

The following passages (2 translations) clearly shows that man's day is incredibly short compared to God's and uses ever smaller units of time to emphasize that. Note in the following that a watch was actually 4 hours in duration.

Psalm 90

4 - but a thousand years mean nothing to you! They are merely a day gone by or a few hours in the night.

4 For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, [N] and as a watch in the night.

It seems plain to me that this is saying that our human day is extremely small compared to God's day, but it doesn't commit to an exact comparison. However, a literal interpretation of 1,000 human years equals 4 of God's hours gives us the following estimate.

In this case a divine hour would be 250 human years, or a divine day of 6,000 human years, or a divine year equaling 2,190,000 for humans. With such a formula creation occurs over 36,000 years + 6,000 for the day of rest = 42,000 years. Now add to this the years since the bible was written plus the previous oral history. Dates go from 3,000 to 6,000 years ago, I'll choose a date of around 4,500 years giving us a age of creation around 46,500 human years.

However, if you were to apply the 7 divine days of creation to the currently held scientific age of the universe, around 14 billion years, then a day to God is somewhere in the realm of 2 billion years. Of course with God being an eternal, omnipotent being, I'd believe the first translation of Psalms given above that states a thousand human years means nothing to God.

originally posted by: toktaylor
Why do Christians try to make facts out of the non factual events of the Bible? Is it not more conceivable to admit that the bible is flawed rather than try to dilute events and reasoning to fit the absurdness of the bible? You read it and it did not make sense to you do not try to imply or suggest that some hidden reasoning exists.

Because according to some Christians who push creationism, the bible is fact and the proof comes from the words written therein.

In other words... "my bible is fact because my bible says so"..lol