Part 20 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

What is acceptable by the forum rules is my saying this: all of what you have stated above is merely your opinion and as an opinion, it has as much credibility as my opinion. Now where is that PROOF you said you have that I would allegedly be unwilling to accept? How do you know that it would not be accepted by me?

BTW: The terms (YOUR MIND) is not a part of the definition of PROOF. In that definition it only mentions "the mind". However that does infer that the mind would be the mind of each individual giving consideration to the evidence or argument. So, in short, even though something is acceptable to YOUR MIND, does not mean that it is going to be acceptable to ALL MINDS.

 

If I'm still around in 1 million years I'll tell you. In the meantime each species adapts to its surroundings and in doing so has to gain 'knowledge' to survive. Given those circumstances I see no reason why apes will not achieve a high degree of intelligence. That doesn't mean they will become human. Intelligence isn't confined to human beings.

 

Okay...let's try a little experiment. I will gladly provide you with the verified and well established data that indicates to those who study or even understand the science that Apes and Humans evolved from a common ancestor and are thus related, I will also provide information which shows a rough time frame as to when these thing occurred.

These things are not simply my opinion...they are documented proofs established by scientific research and evaluation of physical evidences.


"In popular fiction and movies, the concept of the wild "ape-man" is often that of a tree-living, vine-swinging throwback like Tarzan. However, the pantheon of hominids is much richer than this, as the evogram shows with forms as different as Paranthropus and Ardipithecus shows. For example, imagine going back in time to the common ancestor of humans and chimps (including bonobos). What did that common ancestor look like? In the Origin of Species Darwin noted that the extinct common ancestor of two living forms should not be expected to look like a perfect intermediate between them. Rather, it could look more like one branch or the other branch, or something else entirely.

Did the common ancestor of humans and chimps conform to the ape-man myth and live in the trees, swinging from vines? To answer this, we have to focus not only on anatomy but on behavior, and we have to do it in a phylogenetic context. Apes such as the gibbon and orangutan, which are more distantly related to humans, are largely arboreal (i.e., tree-living). The more closely related apes such as the gorilla and chimps are relatively terrestrial, although they can still climb trees. The feet of the first hominids have a considerable opposition of the big toe to the others but relatively flat feet, as arboreal apes generally do. But other features of their skeleton, such as the position of the foramen magnum underneath the skull, the vertically shortened and laterally flaring hips, and the larger head of the femur, suggest that they were not just mainly terrestrial but habitually bipedal, unlike their knuckle-walking relatives. Most evidence suggests that the hominid lineage retained some of the anatomical features related to arboreal life and quadrupedal gait even after it had evolved a more terrestrial lifestyle and a bipedal gait. There is no fossil record of these behaviors, but the balance of the available evidence supports the hypothesis that the hominid ancestor was terrestrial and bipedal".
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07
"Miocene Origins of the Hominin Lineage

In order to understand the evolution of any species, we must first establish its ancestral state: what sort of animal did it evolve from? For our lineage, this requires that we try and reconstruct the Last Common Ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (marked "A" in Figure 1). The Human-Chimpanzee Last Common Ancestor (HC-LCA) is the species from which the hominin lineage and the chimpanzee & bonobo lineage diverged. Hominins are species on our branch of the hominoid tree after the split with the chimpanzee & bonobo line, including all of the extinct species and evolutionary side branches (Figure 1).

There was a great diversity of ape species in the Miocene, with dozens of species known from the fossil record across Africa, Europe, and Asia. These species varied in their anatomy and ecology, and it is not clear which, if any, of the fossil species discovered thus far represent the HC-LCA (Kunimatsu et al. 2007; Young and MacLatchy, 2004). Nonetheless, we know from fossil and comparative evidence that it was much more similar to living apes than to living humans. The HC-LCA would have had an ape-sized brain and body, with relatively long arms and fingers and a grasping foot that allowed it to forage in the trees. The canine teeth were probably large and sharp, as seen in several Miocene hominoids. Moreover, the canines were probably sexually dimorphic, with males having much larger canines than females, as seen among the living great apes and Miocene fossils. Like living apes it would have walked quadrupedally (on all fours) when on the ground, and its diet would have consisted almost entirely of plant foods, primarily fruit and leaves.

Early Hominins

Changes from an ape-like anatomy are discernible in hominoid fossils from the late Miocene in Africa. Some hominoid species from this period exhibit traits that are typical of humans but are not seen in the other living apes, leading paleoanthropologists to infer that these fossils represent early members of the hominin lineage. The first human-like traits to appear in the hominin fossil record are bipedal walking and smaller, blunt canines.

The oldest hominins currently known are Sahelanthropus tchadensis from Chad (Brunet et al. 2005) and Orrorin tugenensis from Kenya (Senut et al. 2001). Sahelanthropus, dated to between 6 and 7 mya, is known from a largely complete skull and some other fragmentary remains. Its brain size, 360cc, is within the range seen in chimpanzees, and the skull has a massive brow ridge, similar in thickness to male gorillas (Brunet et al. 2005). However, the position and orientation of the foramen magnum, the hole in the base of the skull through which the spinal cord passes, suggests that Sahelanthropus stood and walked bipedally, with its spinal column held vertically as in modern humans rather than horizontally as in apes and other quadrupeds (Zollikofer et al. 2005). Orrorin is known primarily from postcranial fossils, including a partial femur. The proximal portion of the femur shows similarities to those of modern humans, suggesting the species was bipedal (Pickford et al. 2002). No skulls of Orrorin have been recovered, and so its cranial morphology and brain size are uncertain. In both Orrorin and Sahelanthropus the canine teeth of males are larger and more pointed than in modern humans, but are small and blunt compared to the canines of male apes. This suggests that canine sexual dimorphism — and by extension, competition among males for mating access to females — was diminished in these early hominins compared to the great apes.

By far the best known early hominin is Ardipithecus ramidus, a 4.4 million year old species from Ethiopia, which is known from a nearly complete skeleton as well as numerous other dental and skeletal remains (White et al. 2009). Ar. ramidus and an older, related species known from fragmentary remains, Ar. kadabba (5.8–5.2 mya), have reduced canines similar to those of Orrorin and Sahelanthropus. The skull of Ar. ramidus is rather ape-like and broadly similar to that of Sahelanthropus, with a small chimpanzee-sized brain of 300–350cc (Figure 2). The Ardipithecus postcranial skeleton is intriguing. Although badly fragmented, the pelvis recovered reveals a morphology quite different from that of living apes, with a shorter, more bowl-like shape that strongly suggests Ardipithecus walked bipedally; this is consistent with the foramen magnum position, which suggests an upright posture. However, its long forelimbs and fingers and its divergent, grasping first toe (hallux) suggest Ardipithecus spent much of its time in the trees. The overall impression is of a largely arboreal species that walked bipedally whenever it ventured to the ground.




Anatomical comparisons of apes, early hominins, <i>Australopithecus</i>, <i>Homo erectus</i>, and humans.


Figure 2: Anatomical comparisons of apes, early hominins, Australopithecus, Homo erectus, and humans.

A male chimpanzee skull is shown as an example of modern apes. Early hominins and Australopithecus retained ape-size brains. Bipedal walking evolved very early in the hominin lineage, but Ardipithecus (and possibly other early hominins) retained a grasping foot that may have diminished bipedal efficiency. Reduced canine size also evolved early in the hominin lineage, although early hominin canines were larger and more pointed than those of later hominins. Molar size increased with Australopithecus but later is reduced in Homo (note: premolars are not shown in this schematic). Arboreal locomotion, as indicated by the presence of long arms, curved fingers and toes, and other forelimb features, was common throughout much of the hominin lineage.

© 2012 Nature Education All rights reserved. View Terms of Use





Australopithecus


Around 4mya we find the earliest members of the genus Australopithecus, hominins which were adept terrestrial bipeds but continued to use the trees for food and protection. The first specimens of Australopithecus were discovered in South Africa in 1924 (Dart, 1925), and research efforts over the subsequent eight decades have produced hundreds of fossils from several species at sites all across East and Southern Africa. We now know that Australopithecus was a highly successful genus that persisted for nearly three million years (Figure 1).

The best-known Australopithecus species are A. afarensis (3.6&#8211;2.9 mya) from East Africa and A. africanus (3.2&#8211;2.0mya) from South Africa. The pelvis and lower limb of these species clearly indicates that they were fully bipedal: the pelvis is short and bowl-shaped, bringing the gluteal muscles around to the side of the body, as in modern humans, for trunk stabilization during bipedalism, and the first toe is in line with the other toes (Ward, 2002; Harcourt-Smith and Aiello, 2004). The Australopithecus foot may even have had a human-like arch, based on analysis of the metatarsals and the fossilized Laetoli footprints (Ward et al. 2011). Nonetheless, compared to modern humans, the forearms were long and the fingers and toes were long and somewhat curved, suggesting that Australopithecus regularly used the trees to forage and perhaps as a refuge from predators at night. This mixed terrestrial & arboreal strategy would have served these species well in the mixed woodland and savannah environments they inhabited.

Brain size in Australopithecus ranged between 390 and 515cc, similar to chimpanzees and gorillas (Falk et al. 2000), suggesting cognitive abilities were broadly similar to living apes (Figure 2). Body size in Australopithecus was rather small and sexually dimorphic, about 30kg for females and 40kg for males (McHenry, 1992). This level of dimorphism is not reflected in the canines, which were small, blunt, and monomorphic as in earlier hominins.

Unlike the canines, molar teeth in Australopithecus were much larger than those of earlier hominins, and had thicker enamel. This suggests their diet included hard, low quality plant foods that required powerful chewing to process. A subgroup of Australopithecus, known as the "robust" australopiths (often labeled by a separate genus Paranthropus) because of their enormous teeth and chewing muscles, took this adaptation to the extreme. Most Australopithecus species were extinct by 2 mya, but some robust forms persisted until about 1.2 mya in East and South Africa.



The Genus Homo


The earliest fossils of our own genus, Homo, are found in East Africa and dated to 2.3 mya (Kimbel et al. 1997). These early specimens are similar in brain and body size to Australopithecus, but show differences in their molar teeth, suggesting a change in diet. Indeed, by at least 1.8 mya, early members of our genus were using primitive stone tools to butcher animal carcasses, adding energy-rich meat and bone marrow to their plant-based diet.

The oldest member of the genus Homo, H. habilis (2.3&#8211;1.4 mya) is found in East Africa and is associated with butchered animal bones and simple stone tools (Blumenschine et al. 2003). Its more formidable and widespread descendant, H. erectus, is found throughout Africa and Eurasia and persisted from 1.9 mya to 100 kya, and perhaps even later (Anton, 2003). Like modern humans, H. erectus lacked the forelimb adaptations for climbing seen in Australopithecus (Figure 2). Its global expansion suggests H. erectus was ecologically flexible, with the cognitive capacity to adapt and thrive in vastly different environments. Not surprisingly, it is with H. erectus that we begin to see a major increase in brain size, up to 1,250cc for later Asian specimens (Anton, 2003). Molar size is reduced in H. erectus relative to Australopithecus, reflecting its softer, richer diet.

Around 700 kya, and perhaps earlier, H. erectus in Africa gave rise to H. heidelbergensis, a species very much like us in terms of body proportions, dental adaptations, and cognitive ability (Rightmire, 2009). H. heidelbergensis, often referred to as an "archaic" Homo sapiens, was an active big-game hunter, produced sophisticated Levallois style tools, and by at least 400 kya had learned to control fire (Roebroeks and Villa, 2011). Neanderthals (H. neanderthalensis), cold-adapted hominins with stout physiques, complex behaviors, and brains similar in size to ours, are thought to have evolved from H. heidelbergensis populations in Europe by at least 250 kya (Rightmire, 2008; Hublin, 2009).

Fossil and DNA evidence suggest our own species, H. sapiens, evolved in Africa 200 kya (Relethford, 2008; Rightmire, 2009), probably from H. heidelbergensis. The increased behavioral sophistication of H. sapiens, as indicated by our large brains (1,400cc) and archeological evidence of a broader tool set and clever hunting techniques, allowed our species to flourish and grow on the African continent. By 100kya, our species spilled into Eurasia, eventually expanding across the entire globe into Australia and the Americas (DiGiorgio et al. 2009). Along the way our species displaced other hominins they encountered, including Neanderthals in Europe and similar forms in Asia. (Note that not all agree with this interpretation of the data, see Tryon and Bailey). Studies of ancient DNA extracted from Neanderthal fossils suggest our species may have occasionally interbred with them (Green et al., 2010). Our increasing global impact continues today, as cultural innovations such as agriculture and urbanization shape the landscape and species around us." View attachment 28953

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/overview-of-hominin-evolution-89010983
Likely....you will blow off this data as opinion and irrelevant, which is to be expected from an individual who thinks the Bible(s) are history books.

 

I said one was full of snakes, let's say the other is full of... I don't know, teddy bears.

How is God not "forcing us to take part" in his dichotomous system?

Where in the world are you getting that Lucifer created Hell? That certainly isn't in the Bible. Matthew 25:41 clearly states that Hell was prepared for the evil souls by God, not the Devil.

 

Ref. Post #53: While primates are related humans are the oldest line. The others came much later.

 

I have highlighted some concerns that I have with your introduction and summary of what the posted material is to represent.
Starting at the bottom of the introduction is the word "proofs". Since when did science find it possible to show PROOF of anything. I have read and posted a few demonstrations presented by persons holding phd's that stipulate that science does not PROVE but rather through the aid of the scientists; simply observe, analyze, and offer explanations which are hopefully accepted by the other members of the scientific community. It is further understood that the very tool of science called the 'scientific method' is based on assumption. Where assumption is something that is accepted or believed to be true without proof. So, if the basic fundamental tool of science is assumption based, then how can any result derived from such an assumption based tool have any greater credibililty than the tool that is being used.

Then in the second highlighted text, you stipulate in relevant part: "indicates to those who" . Immediately I am alerted to the fact that the information has been presented to a specified group of people who have a vested interest in the 'established data'. Well, at that point, I am immensely curious. It is pretty obvious that the 'established data' was established by that same community which is attempting to verify the data that is being scrutinized. That in itself also tells me that the data was established for the sole benefit of those holding the vested interest. Your statement also suggests that there is a matter of 'understanding' the data. Well, naturally, someone who has not studied and have received their specialized indoctrination, would not necessarily have the same understanding as those that were indoctrinated and became understanding or shared in the vested interest. Now you have to admit that the scientific industry is a multi trillion dollar business, and that the members of that community are receiving top dollar for their colaborration and cooperation in any specific area of research. So, naturally, they have a vested interest in maintaining their status quo.

Then there is the very first highlighted word: "verified". Who verified the data? Well of course.... one or several participating in the 'peer review' (vested interest holders) of a specific research. The quote below would seem likely to be the motivator for the actions of the members of the scientific community.
“If you got the money honey I got the time and when you run out of money honey I run out of time"
Willie Nelson
http://quotes.lifehack.org/quote/willie-nelson/if-you-got-the-money-honey-i/

All in all, I could see where some people would be easily compelled to accept that data as true... there is always the possibility that some people would attempt to capitalize (not specifically speaking of monetary gain) on such data... after all who really wants to challenge science and the so-called higher education of scientists? I have, I will, and I will continue to do so as long as the information is not compelling. BTW: Nice copy and paste work.

What does the root word 'compel' mean?:
com·pel (km-pl)tr.v. com·pelled, com·pel·ling, com·pels 1. To force, drive, or constrain: Duty compelled the soldiers to volunteer for the mission.
2. To necessitate or pressure by force; exact: An energy crisis compels fuel conservation. See Synonyms at force.
3. To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway: "The land, in a certain, very real way, compels the minds of the people" (Barry Lopez)."

 

As expected....I do not wish to waste my time further.....good luck.

 

I don't depend on 'luck'. I depend on the good Lord Jesus, proof and whatever else will work in a given situation.

 

Still waiting on evidence that scientists are trying to create chimpanzees that are more intelligent than humans, which is what you are implying. Mapping a gnome doesn't mean we are trying to make chimps more intelligent.

 

1. It's not my opinion. It's fact.
2. Yes, the Hebrew does say that.

Jesus us God.

 

Not true. There are far, far more biblical documents on record, thousands
upon thousands, as with Plato and Socrates. The accuracy of the Bible
is in fact more reliable than any of their works.

Not true. The Bible has been found to a very detailed and quite
meticulous history book

This is opinion being spoken as fact. You've dismissed nothing.

 

There's really NO evidence that there wasn't. I'm very much aware of the
area around the Black Sea. It's still not anywhere near conclusive.

 

The Black Sea breach was a slow, creeping flood.. The people had ample time to leave and take their livestock with them.. It did cause the rapid spread of agriculture and new technologies as they dispersed.

The Great Flood was more likely in the Euphrates River Basin and stretched 150 miles wide and 350 deep towards the Persian Gulf and Bahrain.. There are records and King's lists and a flood footprint.. plus the huge amount of ancient clay tablets that reference such an event.. If that is the case.. it was in the Spring of 2900 BC and lasted about a week.

 

That because you didn't provide any specific verses. However I have
addressed that salvation is not by works and you've completely ignored
them and have used your usual dodge tactic to not respond.

How about you post them again.

Because you keep dodging and refusing to address the evidence I've
provided. You keep moving around.

No he didn't. Not once. Please provide specific evidence as I have.

In the meantime here are some specific references of Paul telling us that
Salvation isn't by works.

Rom 3:27-28 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By
what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we
hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Rom 4:1-2 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather
according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has
something to boast about, but not before God.

Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And
this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so
that no one may boast.

I suggest you address these and please use specific evidence from
the Bible.

 

I wish you'd read my posts before replying.

Since you won't... Neither of the aforementioned are the word of God. If
they were they would be in harmony with His Word. They aren't and are at
times quite contradictory of His Word.

I have no problem with tongues since it's Biblical. Who are the
fundamentalists?

 

Quite the contrary, I'm very specific and knowledgeable of what I'me saying.
Unfortunate for you, you aren't.

 

There are ancient towers all over the middle east.. They were signal towers to warn of an enemy coming.. The Tower of Babel is not so unusual..

 

Not all towers were used for warning of an enemy coming. The Tower of
Babel was different than others because it was much higher.

 

So the story goes.. and yes they were watch towers at intervals of about 20 miles.. Haven't you seen them for yourself?

 

Not so. Parts of the Bible can be verified, other parts not. The only parts are found in the Books of Kings. The kings themselves, and events with which they are associated. Much of these are verified by other records of nations around. In the NT much is down to belief. I believe that Jesus existed, but as a Jewish Teacher. Many of the references to Jesus by historians are secondhand. And yes, I've been through them.

The Bible is also full of errors.

 

Well wan tell us what form we are in when we die. If Im energy I wont be bound to any earthly sphere. I can go anywhere I want in the universe. It surely wont be limbo, hell, or purgatory. It will be my version of heaven not yours. My heaven doesn't have prerequisites. All people who aren't evil can walk right in without bowing before any deity that suffers from vanity.

 

That is true. The Bible's texts have been tradited to us very accurately. In fact we don't have any works by Socrates at all and Plato and Xenophon heavily contradict each other in their descriptions of him (A bit like Mark and Matthew contradict each other concerning their views of Jesus).

That is not true. Of course the Bible reflects some history, but it has certainly not been found a very detailed and meticulous history book. Its scriptures were never meant to be taken as one. The Bible itself tells you so by giving us four gospels rather than just one for example.

The problem with proponents of Biblical inerrancy is not just that they are plainly wrong, it's that they bring the Bible into discredit by raising false expectations. Alas, many sceptics forget that only very few Christians hold this unnecessary and unbelievable doctrine in the way some fundamentalist evangelicals do and then chuck all of Christianity because of it.

 

Why this series is 20 parts and hundreds of posts long is beyond me, but I'll play along.

What happens to our soul immediately after we die?

 

They don't contradict each other.

No, when it speaks historically it's accurate and archeaologists and others find
this to be an ongoing fact.

That is an inaccurate statement. It is as one.

This is a very bogus claim and typical of those who want to appear educated
or enlightened. Please provide specific Biblical evidence that agrees with you.

 

Like when the Bible makes up Herod's slaughter of the innocents?