Donate Now
Goal amount for this month: 180 EUR, Received: 55 EUR (31%)
By donating, you not only support the continued existence of this site, you also improve this site in various ways, by making it affordable for ForumBiodiversity to upgrade the server with better hardware and licensed non-free proprietary software, but also motivating the staff to work harder. ABF will always be free of charge (gratis) to use. However, if everyone donates a small monthly amount, it makes a tremendous difference for the forum's overall quality in the long haul.
What is it then, if not a matter of belief? I suppose you could say that the idea of creation doesn't have to have any kind of ties to any specific religion. That's true. However, the sources you've posted and the terminology you use is based on sources of fundamentalist Christian origin. The whole discussion is basically a "science vs. fundamentalist Christian religion" discussion, and it's certainly understood within the creators of creationists sources that all purpose of what they do is to promote US fundamentalist Christianity, and nothing else. Their whole agenda is a religious one, whether it's your agenda or not.
You may think that that's not the case - but it just is. It has changed a bit because of the various discussions, especially the legal discussions in the USA regarding this subject (the alternative "theory" to evolution*). But make no mistake, regardless of what it's called, "creationism" is a movement made because the bible states that humans are special and created in the image of God and therefore the idea of a common ancestry just doesn't fit very well with a fundamentalist or literalist interpretation of the bible.
The only reason why this issue exist is because some religious leaders were uncomfortable with the idea that people would be taught ideas in school which conflicted with their fundamentalist views - because it made it possible for students to realize - if this part of my religious teachings are false - then what else is false? And you know what the consequence of this kind of thinking is, I presume.
*the idea of evolution is not a single theory as such, but if we consider it a theory, then it can be falsified - but that does not require any alternative theory, and the problem in the US is that creationism is considered an "alternative theory" when in fact it's not a scientific theory, it's based on the falsification of the theory of evolution, and the evidence for this creation is the bible.
Even if the whole concept of evolution is totally wrong, that doesn't mean that the idea of a direct creation by a higher power is true. There is no alternative scientific theory available - or maybe there is, but it's not related to creationism.
Last edited by JaM; 2012-04-13 at 18:18.
"A bloke walks into a pub, and asks for a pint of Adenosinetriphosphate.
The barman says "That'll be ATP please!"
What is it then, if not a matter of belief? I suppose you could say that the idea of creation doesn't have to have any kind of ties to any specific religion. That's true. However, the sources you've posted and the terminology you use is based on sources of fundamentalist Christian origin. The whole discussion is basically a "science vs. fundamentalist Christian religion" discussion, and it's certainly understood within the creators of creationists sources that all purpose of what they do is to promote US fundamentalist Christianity, and nothing else. Their whole agenda is a religious one, whether it's your agenda or not.
You may think that that's not the case - but it just is. It has changed a bit because of the various discussions, especially the legal discussions in the USA regarding this subject (the alternative "theory" to evolution*). But make no mistake, regardless of what it's called, "creationism" is a movement made because the bible states that humans are special and created in the image of God and therefore the idea of a common ancestry just doesn't fit very well with a fundamentalist or literalist interpretation of the bible.
The only reason why this issue exist is because some religious leaders were uncomfortable with the idea that people would be taught ideas in school which conflicted with their fundamentalist views - because it made it possible for students to realize - if this part of my religious teachings are false - then what else is false? And you know what the consequence of this kind of thinking is, I presume.
*the idea of evolution is not a single theory as such, but if we consider it a theory, then it can be falsified - but that does not require any alternative theory, and the problem in the US is that creationism is considered an "alternative theory" when in fact it's not a scientific theory, it's based on the falsification of the theory of evolution, and the evidence for this creation is the bible.
Even if the whole concept of evolution is totally wrong, that doesn't mean that the idea of a direct creation by a higher power is true. There is no alternative scientific theory available - or maybe there is, but it's not related to creationism.
I would slightly agree with u but from a different angle...Creationism without a doubt advances Christianity...but becuase Creation theory has diversity amongst its group I dont think we can fully label it. Young Earth Creationist follow the biblical story word for word but most other Creationist dont. There main defense is as follows: "It's not religious to say your computer was intelligently designed with a purpose, Its religious to say who designed it".
So, what other evidence than a religious one is there that the other apes and humans are unrelated? All scientific evidence seems to suggest that apes and humans are related, based on the general understanding of biology as we know it now. Obviously some specifics may change, but unless the whole idea of genetics turn out to be wrong, then the overall assumption of a relation is the direct conclusion based on the available evidence as of now. Of course, the evidence suggests that all "higher" animals have a sort of relation, and the label "apes" is just a label. The categorizing of animals is not a completely solid science, because it's often based on morphology rather than a true determined relation. In the case of apes it's based on all kinds of evidence, including morphology and genetics etc.
Last edited by JaM; 2012-04-20 at 09:33.
"A bloke walks into a pub, and asks for a pint of Adenosinetriphosphate.
The barman says "That'll be ATP please!"
I voted No but I dont mean that I dont believe in evolution or deny the common ancestors of humans ad other apes, but I believe homo sapiens evolved much diffferently than the other apes to lump it together.
Maybe humans are more genetically similar to chimps than gorilas ae to chimps, but the look, behaviour, abilities (at least in our cotext) divide humans much more.
So, what other evidence than a religious one is there that the other apes and humans are unrelated? All scientific evidence seems to suggest that apes and humans are related, based on the general understanding of biology as we know it now. Obviously some specifics may change, but unless the whole idea of genetics turn out to be wrong, then the overall assumption of a relation is the direct conclusion based on the available evidence as of now. Of course, the evidence suggests that all "higher" animals have a sort of relation, and the label "apes" is just a label. The categorizing of animals is not a completely solid science, because it's often based on morphology rather than a true determined relation. In the case of apes it's based on all kinds of evidence, including morphology and genetics etc.
I wouldnt know of any other possible evidence. Maybe there is none. No idea. In a way i think you kinda answered your own question. I think all creatures on this planet are related some closer than others. Thats my best answer. Im just saying neither theory holds much weight. Too many holes in both.
I guess I have a question...Would you say based on your knowledge that humans are a higher form of ape or apes evolving from humans is a fact of life? Or is it that the evidence suggest that and therefore we can safely assume it to be true?
I wouldnt know of any other possible evidence. Maybe there is none. No idea. In a way i think you kinda answered your own question. I think all creatures on this planet are related some closer than others. Thats my best answer. Im just saying neither theory holds much weight. Too many holes in both.
I guess I have a question...Would you say based on your knowledge that humans are a higher form of ape or apes evolving from humans is a fact of life? Or is it that the evidence suggest that and therefore we can safely assume it to be true?
The evidence available as of now suggests that this is the case, but that doesn't mean that it's an absolute truth. However, we can only relate to the available evidence and not to the evidence which we don't have. It's always possible that there is some other explanation which we haven't thought of yet, because of a lack of evidence. Whether humans are a "higher" form than the other apes depends on how you look at it, and I'd say it's a debatable presumption.
If we take the rather lacking fossil evidence, then we can't actually say for sure that humans evolved from any of the species that we have found. It could just as well be that we didn't evolve from any known species, and that we may never find the ancestral hominids ever. Even if we actually find (or have found) our ancestral species, we still can't be 100% sure that those are our actual ancestors.
"A bloke walks into a pub, and asks for a pint of Adenosinetriphosphate.
The barman says "That'll be ATP please!"
Even if we actually find (or have found) our ancestral species, we still can't be 100% sure that those are our actual ancestors.
I disagree. With full gnome testing on neanderthal we know what percentage of our gnome we share, so science could certainly confirm 100% sure if various hominids are are direct ancestors or just share a common ancestor. I do agree with everything else you stated.
I voted No but I dont mean that I dont believe in evolution or deny the common ancestors of humans ad other apes, but I believe homo sapiens evolved much diffferently than the other apes to lump it together.
Maybe humans are more genetically similar to chimps than gorilas ae to chimps, but the look, behaviour, abilities (at least in our cotext) divide humans much more.
Originally Posted by JaM
Reply With Quote