[_ Old Earth _] Primates, sweating, marriage etc

[Barbarian]

Where is your evidence for this.

Observation of modern primates. The more aggressive a male is at sequestering females for himself, the more offspring of his own are raised.

Or is it an assumption?

Doesn't really take much intelligence to realize that it has to be that way.

 

[Barbarian]

I see so many logic holes in speciation,

Directly observed.

abiogenesis,

Not part of evolutionary theory. Darwin, for example, supposed that God just created the first living things.

evolution

Directly observed.

Morals, mores etc

Societies without altruism and self-sacrifice tend to die out. In a social species, these traits favor survival.

are just another logic hole that I see in the widely held belief that we descended from a single cell, crawled out of the primordial ooze, crawled back in and grew legs and crawled back out to descend from apes.

We're talking about the real theory, not people's misconceptions about it. You'd be a lot more effective arguing against the real thing, instead of someone's imaginary form of it.

 

[Terry Thone]

Observation of modern primates. The more aggressive a male is at sequestering females for himself, the more offspring of his own are raised.



Doesn't really take much intelligence to realize that it has to be that way.

Is there some kind of history with you and Jack Brats that I'm not aware of because it seems like a put down to question his intelligence.

 

[Barbarian]

Is there some kind of history with you and Jack Brats that I'm not aware of because it seems like a put down to question his intelligence.

Don't really know him. In retrospect, it looks pretty rude. I'm too blunt, I suppose. But if you think about it, there's no other way it could be.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Doesn't really take much intelligence to realize that it has to be that way.

So, it is an assumption then. You have no way of knowing what the behavior was of the primates millions of years ago and how it affected this supposed evolving into mankind.

It is the same assumption, speculation and extrapolation that is applied to the fossil record, which is nothing more than a static snap shot of an animal that was alive once and then died.

Meanwhile, God Himself, has given you a step by step record of the events during the six days that He spoke the universe, the earth, each and every kind of animal and Adam into existence. It is only man's ignorance, combined with arrogance, that says "it must have taken more than six days".
The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the God of the Holy Scriptures is All Powerful and had no trouble carrying out the events of Genesis exactly how it is written.

We have to be careful to put the stories, assumptions and conclusions of men of science, above the infallible word of God.

 

[Barbarian]

So, it is an assumption then.

No, it's an observation that male primates that more jealously limit access to females by other males, have more offspring. Always works that way. Would you like to see some data?

You have no way of knowing what the behavior was of the primates millions of years ago

See above. That's how it works with primates. We belong to a primate group where such behavior is most markedly demonstrated. As you learned, sexual dimorphism is a good marker for male jealousy (because males that are larger are more likely to win more females).

American Journal of Physical Anthropology Vol 135 Issue 3
Strong postcranial size dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis: Results from two new resampling methods for multivariate data sets with missing data
There is considerable debate over the level of size dimorphism and inferred social behavior of Australopithecus afarensis. Most previous studies have analyzed size variation in single variables or multiple variables drawn from single elements. These approaches suffer from small sample sizes, underscoring the need for new techniques that incorporate measurements from multiple unassociated elements, reducing the influence of random sampling on size variation in fossil samples. One such technique, the template method, has recently been proposed but is limited to samples with a template specimen and is sensitive to a number of assumptions. Here we present two new resampling methods that do not require a template specimen, allow measurements from multiple unassociated elements to be included in a single analysis, and allow for significance tests between comparative and fossil multivariate data sets with missing data. Using these new methods, multivariate postcranial size dimorphism is measured using eight measurements of the femur, tibia, humerus, and radius in samples of A. afarensis, modern humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Postcranial dimorphism in A. afarensis is similar to that of gorillas and orangutans, and significantly greater than in modern humans and chimpanzees. Because studies in living primates have examined the association of behavior with dimorphism in body mass and craniodental measurements, not postcrania, relationships between postcranial dimorphism and social behavior must be established to make robust behavioral inferences for A. afarensis. However, the results of this and past studies strongly suggest behavioral and mating strategies differed between A. afarensis and modern humans.

The argument is a bit difficult; I think it's not yet settled, but this does give support to the consensus.

It is the same assumption, speculation and extrapolation that is applied to the fossil record, which is nothing more than a static snap shot of an animal that was alive once and then died.

Data is always useful; science makes it's discoveries by inferences from evidence. It works rather well, as you might notice.

Meanwhile, God Himself, has given you a step by step record of the events during the six days that He spoke the universe, the earth, each and every kind of animal and Adam into existence.

In Genesis, He says otherwise. For example, He didn't create life ex nihilo. He created the Earth which then brought forth life. He used nature to make living things. And of course, even early Christians, long before Darwin or Lyell, realized that Genesis did not give a "step by step" record.

It is only man's ignorance, combined with arrogance, that says "it must have taken only six days".
The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the God of the Holy Scriptures is All Powerful and had no trouble carrying out the events of Genesis exactly how it is written.

We have to be careful to never put the stories, assumptions and conclusions of creationists, above the infallible word of God.

 

[Terry Thone]

No, it's an observation that male primates that more jealously limit access to females by other males, have more offspring. Always works that way. Would you like to see some data?

For me the problem with science(ists) in general is that to substantiate their beliefs they refer to someone else's hypothesis that agrees with theirs and refer to it as data.

You make the same claim against creationist later(stories, assumptions and conclusions of creationists). I think we can look at the rational of both creationists and scientists and decide if that data stands up to scrutiny. To lump creationists into story tellers, assumptionists(made up sorry) and imply their conclusions are inferior to scientists is bigotry. In my opinion we need to hold each other accountable to reason, integrity and common sense.

The argument is a bit difficult; I think it's not yet settled, but this does give support to the consensus.

If someone writes observations down that agree to your hypothesis doesn't mean that it gives support but that someone else views primate interactions the same way as you.

Data is always useful; science makes it's discoveries by inferences from evidence. It works rather well, as you might notice.

Data is useful but it is sometimes viewed as accurate when its not and skewed in its use which is misleading.

I don't might notice. Once again the word evidence is used very loosely in an assumption from millions of years ago. You make the assumption that someone's observations are data. Observation of primates is simply speculation that you both agree on. It's not data. I think it's very difficult to assign data to observations of social interactions as you stated previously this is not science as it is not a body of facts but interpretation of interaction.

I think what Jacks is implying is that it is conjecture to assume what occurred with primates a long time ago is just that conjecture. To apply what is observed with primates today to a million years ago or to present day humans is a large stretch for me. If I'm putting words in your mouth Jacks I apologize.

In Genesis, He says otherwise. For example, He didn't create life ex nihilo. He created the Earth which then brought forth life. He used nature to make living things. And of course, even early Christians, long before Darwin or Lyell, realized that Genesis did not give a "step by step" record.

It is only man's ignorance, combined with arrogance, that says "it must have taken only six days".
The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the God of the Holy Scriptures is All Powerful and had no trouble carrying out the events of Genesis exactly how it is written.

We have to be careful to never put the stories, assumptions and conclusions of creationists, above the infallible word of God.

I'm probably going to upset the apple cart with the following so I'm putting out a disclaimer for what I'm going to propose!

When the KJV came to be the rhinoceros were interpreted to be unicorns. This is a unintentional mistake that was introduced into the original KJV.

The story of Lazarus and the rich man tells the story/parable etc of Lazarus being in the bosom of Abraham and the rich man being in Haiti. The rich man asks for Lazarus to wet his finger and reach across and wet his tongue. Is this heaven and hell? Is it a holding place before judgement? Is it purgatory? How is it that both places are within an arms reach?

My point is that I think the judeo-Christian bible is God's essence/word put into human form/scripture. How would a being such as God convey who he is to someone who can only fathom a minute portion of who He is? God's word/essence of who He is can only be imparted to men who constantly are and do imperfect.

To argue Noah's ark, six days or if David existed is like arguing how many angels fit on a needle. These arguments are futile for me unless to exercise ones spiritual or analytical mind. The judeo-Christian bible is significant for me in that it is God's way of being personal with us and it is the only bible that does not confine the Creator inside of time. 6 days for me is a simple way for God to tell us the incomprehensible story of creation. He is all powerful, all knowing and can be anywhere at any time at the same time. He wouldn't need 6 days to do anything. This is a condensed version of my outlook on reality and over simplified.

 

[Terry Thone]

Don't really know him. In retrospect, it looks pretty rude. I'm too blunt, I suppose. But if you think about it, there's no other way it could be.

What's to stop the feminist(joke) females from leaving the herd or not ever had joined and mated with numerous males? How about monogamous apes? To equate what happens with present day primates with what happened millions of years ago with the pre-evolved primates would be bad science would it not?

 

[Terry Thone]

When it comes to data what I find interesting is the climatologists that they inform Al Gore that the waters are going to increase by feet. Al Gore goes preaching the climatologist mantra and gets immensely rich through his promotion of corrupted data and buys a mansion on the ocean while flying fuel consuming jets to preach this corrupted mantra.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

The story of Lazarus and the rich man tells the story/parable etc of Lazarus being in the bosom of Abraham and the rich man being in Haiti. The rich man asks for Lazarus to wet his finger and reach across and wet his tongue. Is this heaven and hell? Is it a holding place before judgement? Is it purgatory? How is it that both places are within an arms reach?

You are correct, I do believe that Barbarian's theory is based on conjecture as is anything to do with evolution based on the static information given by the fossil record.

As an aside, the story of Lazarus and the rich man is probably not a parable as it give one of the characters a name. Correct me if I'm wrong but the subjects of parables don't have names. This story has a very high probability of being a true story based on real people. Also, Lazarus could not reach across the divide, it was too far. They were in sight and could talk but they could in no way come to each other. There was a great divide.

This is a very important lesson. At the end the rich man is told that Abraham will not send anyone back to his family because, and this is very important, "if they did not believe the profits, they will not believe someone back from the dead".

This has powerful implications when talking about the written record of the Bible. If we do not believe what Moses wrote in the book then what will it take for us to believe. Moses wrote that God created the universe, earth and all the animals in six days. He also created Adam in a very special manner (if you don't believe He had hands He still personally formed Adam not just by speech) in His image. Man is a very special creation. NOT the end result of multiple morphing and changing and evolving creatures guided by "survival of the fittest", acceptable DNA alterations or any other method. We were created by God, for God in the image of God.

To believe anything different is to turn a deaf ear to the words God dictated to Moses.

 

[Terry Thone]

It's ironic that I taught this parable/story in my high school Sunday school class. It got me kicked out of the church. My philosophy for the class was to know why you believe what you believe and to think outside the box. You're probably thinking that I did more than this to get the boot but that was the full extent. Two deacons came to my home and stated that I could not teach that in Sunday school. I asked them what they thought the scripture was referring to and they ignored the question and I no longer attend a brick and mortar church anymore. Be the church and don't go to church!

I've recently come to the conclusion that parables, stories, fact, fiction, or mistakes in the judeo-Christian bible aren't a major point of contention or concern for me. You are correct in that I made some mistakes on the divide. I look at it from the view point that as long as I don't corrupt the point of the parable/story the point is still made and there is no reason to split hairs. If I corrupted the point with my inaccuracy then I truly apologize.

During the class I did ask how it is that heaven and hell etc are so close that they can see each other and why did he ask to have him reach across. Are we seeing into the future when judgement day comes? Definitely food for fodder.

One more ? for you. Does the 6 days literally interpreted matter to you? Do you think it had to take 6 days because God couldn't do it any quicker? And now for the most important ? "Did Adam have a belly button?".

 

[Jacks Bratt]

It's ironic that I taught this parable/story in my high school Sunday school class. It got me kicked out of the church. My philosophy for the class was to know why you believe what you believe and to think outside the box. You're probably thinking that I did more than this to get the boot but that was the full extent. Two deacons came to my home and stated that I could not teach that in Sunday school. I asked them what they thought the scripture was referring to and they ignored the question and I no longer attend a brick and mortar church anymore. Be the church and don't go to church!

I've recently come to the conclusion that parables, stories, fact, fiction, or mistakes in the judeo-Christian bible aren't a major point of contention or concern for me. You are correct in that I made some mistakes on the divide. I look at it from the view point that as long as I don't corrupt the point of the parable/story the point is still made and there is no reason to split hairs. If I corrupted the point with my inaccuracy then I truly apologize.

During the class I did ask how it is that heaven and hell etc are so close that they can see each other and why did he ask to have him reach across. Are we seeing into the future when judgement day comes? Definitely food for fodder.

One more ? for you. Does the 6 days literally interpreted matter to you? Do you think it had to take 6 days because God couldn't do it any quicker? And now for the most important ? "Did Adam have a belly button?".

I think that it was six literal days based on the scripture reference to "there was evening, there was morning, the first day" etc. I certainly don't think that He made the universe and the earth then let a single or even multiple simple life forms loose to eventually arrive at the animals and humans we have today.

I don't have any reason to believe that God couldn't have done it all in one day or even in a microsecond. I think that He did it as it is written so that we would be given the structure of the six days of work to one day of rest. I believe this is best for the human mentally, physically, spiritually and emotionally.

Adam was perfectly formed, I have no proof but doubt that he or Eve had a belly button... Just my opinion.

 

[Terry Thone]

The navel thing is just a pseudo joke. I figure he had one so his kids weren't jealous.