Human Origins Rethink ?
- Started
- Last post
- 72 Responses
- gramme0
The two central tenets of atheism (someone else said this, I can't take credit for it):
1. God doesn't exist.
2. I hate him.- We have no 'tenets'...
Conceded that is funny, tho :)mikotondria3 - I don't hate unicorns either.Mimio
- Tenets don't have to be typeset in two columns and leather-bound with foil-stamped cover in order to be tenets. :)gramme
- We don't have meetings. We would have to be organized to have tenets.DrBombay
- We have no 'tenets'...
- Corvo20
LATFH:
- designbot0
tenet of evolution:
You are dumb and ugly....but not as dumb and ugly as your ancestors.
- GeorgesII0
interresting
-
Her arrival was announced with unrestrained razzmatazz. She was the "eighth wonder of the world", "our Mona Lisa" and an evolutionary "Rosetta Stone", according to the researchers who unveiled her.
"Our analysis and results have convinced us that Ida was not an ancestor of monkeys, apes, or humans, and if anything has more relevance for our understanding of lemur and loris origins," said Erik Seiffert, a fossil hunter at Stony Brook University in New York who led the Nature study.
..............http://www.guardia...
-
- gramme0
Hey miko, I consider you to be a friend, at least as much of a friend as one can have in a virtual forum such as this. So I'll ask without malicious intent, what do you see as illogical about anything I've ever said in these discussions?
Also: death cult? Really? Do I strike you as the sort of person who would subscribe to a "death cult"?
There's absolutely no reason why science and religion can't co-exist peacefully without canceling one another out. If we can get past the fact that everyone applies a bias of some sort to objective or "objective" evidence, and that personal belief and scientific inquiry can never be perfectly divorced from one another—because it's inscribed on our very nature to believe in something, be it ourselves, God, or a flying spaghetti monster—then we can establish mutual respect for one another.
By mutual respect I don't mean perfect agreement. It's quite possible to respect someone and yet believe they're deeply mistaken about things. We don't need to squash those who disagree with us into oblivion in order to coexist. This would create a new kind of totalitarian morality, the very thing you rail against.
- I think he just likes to hear himself talk (or type) as his whole statement above is simply inflammatory.designbot
- Mimio0
Amazing we even have this information considering how fragile the remains are.
- -also I love the way Mko introduced this... always funny Miko.Mimio
- why thank you, Mimio - I too enjoy your wise and witty leftist supplements to the fray :)mikotondria3
- DrBombay0
- haha sorry I heard someone pronounce Muslim as Muslin earlier.DrBombay
- Isn't muslin a textile?gramme
- Yep and also an ignorant rednecky way of mispronouncing Muslim.DrBombay
- I hate them nucular Muslins!gramme
- hahahaMimio
- There used to be this music project band called Muslimgauze.
http://en.wikipedia.…Mimio
- ukit0
Makes you wonder what else we don't know...
- ukit0
Listening to how reasonable someone like gramme is, I don't know why Discovery Institute types feel the need to invent their own little pseudo-religion to try to retrofit modern science to a 2,000 year old faith. It's as weird and goofy as Joseph Smith reading his golden plates and discovering that Jesus will return in Missouri.
- Yep, if there's any beauty in religion it's not found through legalism.Mimio
- baseline_shift0
i tend to agree with gramme here.
For me, its a concept best described by the ancient greeks as 'Logos vs Mythos'. Logos being science and reason and Mythos being mythology and the spiritual.
Before Galileo, there was a sharp divide between religious and scientific lines of thinking. What he did was help us realize our place in the universe, and begin trying to explain our place in the universe. Then, Darwin further blended these lines by offering scientific theories as to the origins of life on the planet.
That being said, the discoveries made by these scientists and their predecessors have helped mold our understanding of our universe and the life in it, but they also began to give gravity to the idea of science REPLACING religion (or spirituality. Read logos replacing ethos.)
Now, the greeks had a much more basic understanding of our natural world, but they believed that both had an equally important part of the human experience on our planet. Logos for fueling our rational, scientific, logical brain. This is obviously important for architecture, engineering, medicine, etc. But, Mythos had an equal spot at their table, because Logos had no business trying to explain love, or joy, or helping you get over the death of a loved one.
In out increasingly scientifically aware existence, its easier to explain more through science. And while this has many benefits, it doesnt necessarily improve our mortal human experience. Even though science can explain more, doesnt mean it should stretch to explain EVERYTHING. Mythos should have an equal spot at the table. IMHO
- <gramme
- and im not really that 'religious'. I just dont think science can explain everything. Pain and beauty exist independent of logic.baseline_shift
- independent of logic.baseline_shift
- +1designbot
- That's all well and good but religion breaks this rule all the time by trying to explain the natural world.Mimio
- In fact that's really the initial role of faith and religion.Mimio
- i wouldnt necessarily call organized religion as we know it Mythos. And its all about balance. you need BOTHbaseline_shift
- teleos0
Khurram - unfortunately I don't remember my password to that email address. Haven't been able to check it for ages.
Ardi is an exciting find. And of course it calls to mind Standish's Law: The media reports will hearld the overturning of our previous understanding of human evolution approximately once each six months, using “words to the effect of ‘this means rewriting the history of human evolution." (lol)
And so much for anti-human exceptionalists with this find:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs…"Human exceptionalism received a boost today with the news that human beings apparently did not evolve from apes...I bring this up because some Darwinsists and other assorted materialists have attacked human exceptionalism on the basis that our supposed emergence from the great apes and/or our genetic closeness means that we should not think of ourselves as distinctive. I never thought that was in the least persuasive. What matters is what we are now, not what might have been millions of years ago or how we got here..."
"Take that 98.4 per cent, an oft-repeated figure that has been used to argue that chimps deserve human rights. True, Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes share an extraordinary amount of genetic similarity – yet humans and mice share almost as much."
So... it's looking more like "devolution" happened. The non-Darwinian saltation which took place is demonstrating more and more that our alleged ancestors were more of a human biped type of creature... hmmmm.
- saltation = creative bursts. As opposed to gradualism.teleos
- ukit0
It should be pointed out that Galileo was tried and convicted for heresy. His books were banned by the Catholic Church, and the Pope personally ordered that he be locked him up and never leave his home.
All of this was for his crazy idea that the Earth rotated around the Sun.
- right, thats why Logos and Mythos BOTH should have seats on the table. Just Mythos is as bad as just Logos.baseline_shift
- i would say that the Pope banning condoms in africa is another terrible example of Mythos over Logosbaseline_shift
- Yep. Besides, there's no biblical reason for banning birth control, so long as a life is not being taken.gramme
- fertlized egg = life. Killing sperm isn't killing life anymore than clipping one's toenails.gramme
- unless you happen to be a sperm, then in which case I guess you are their god and can do things divinely to them by whim.DrBombay
- on whim.DrBombay
- 7point340
has anyone mentioned whether or not they'd like to "hit" this ape girl yet?
allow me to toss my chip in the pile.
since megan fox i've found i have a insatiable attraction to toe thumbs
- teleos0
Note that the artist renderings have Ardi covered in fur and with ape-like (early hominid) facial features. Typical license taken here. We have fossilized bones and fragments of a skull.
- Khurram0
i'll bite. How does the fact that apes and humans have a much older ancestor than we thought equate to human "exceptionalism"?
Typical license taken her?
- teleos0
"the common ancestor of both humans and modern apes — was different from both, and apes have evolved just as much as humans have from that common ancestor, they said."
"Researchers concluded that both the human branch and the ape branch of the family tree have evolved significantly from its common ancestor, and chimps can no longer be thought of as a “proxy” for that common ancestor."
"I bring this up because some Darwinsists and other assorted materialists have attacked human exceptionalism on the basis that our supposed emergence from the great apes and/or our genetic closeness means that we should not think of ourselves as distinctive."
Of course we don't need a fossil to tell us we are distinct as humans. Consciousness, 1st person perspective, what philosophers call "qaulia", etc... make this clearly evident.
- in essence, because if indeed we did "evolve" from a proto-human, it wasn't a small feces flinging lemur type thingy.teleos
- what?? not a small face feces lemur type thing??? How can you conclude THAT from this skeleton?? lolKhurram
- ummm because it's more human in structure and looks nothing like a little lemur?teleos
- lol. Fool. At what chronological point in time do you think scientists think lemurs became monleys???Khurram
- Khurram0
Again, you are playing semantic games, this time with the word "exceptional."
How does the fact that humans and apes share a common ancestor much older than we thought equate to human "exceptionalism"?
- The author is saying this based on the fact that the earlier fossils were more "human", structurally, than later fossils.teleos
- One earlier fossil of one species they found which walked upright earlier than we thoughtKhurram
- again... "exceptionalism"?Khurram
- right, but it was markedly less "humanoid" structurally.teleos
- markedly less humanoid? are you saying later fossils are LESS humanoid? which SPECIFIC fossil do u mean?Khurram
- the australopithecinesteleos
- WHICH australopithecine fossil??Khurram
