Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
See..I'm nto concretely sure.. but I don't really accept that ALL humans came from Monkeys.. on the basis that you dont seem them changing in anyway today.
The evidence does point quite clearly in that direction though. The line between monkeys and humans is a gradient stretched over a long time-span. It's perhaps difficult to accept the idea, but why would other species evolve from one kind into the next and we don't? It's not like monkeys now are thát much different from us either, eventhough there's still a reasonably huge evolutionary difference (don't walk upright, not so smart and so on).
Quote:
Then I guess "God" is the wrong word alltogether.
Yes it is. Simply because it's our definition. We can't know what God is, well except for the "God" we defined...
Quote:
but put yourself as one of the first species of intelligent life.. maybe before there ever were humans or arborial species. You're alot closer to the point of beggining, so the data's alot more fresh. Any words that were uttered for the universe to hear are thousands of generations less distorted. Even so.. they saw this.. and it was far beyond their comprehension how the universe could be the work, much less the concept, of a mortal being.. or physical being of any kind.. even the little they understand of the working.. most of it still seems to heavy and too complex for any living thing.. but their being closer to the evidence leads them to know it was in fatc an exceptional individual.. and then as the generations pass.. and as its passed from species to species so that some part of the original story survives.. it gets shaped and exxagerated until the creator who was maybe witnessed by the very first of all sentient intelligent life.. becomes a God.. and is made so from then on.
That's how all tall tales happen. If you've ever done that experiment in a college class where someone starts with one story and passes it to the next person, and how it changes completely by the time it gets to the last, you'd see what I mean.
Yes, off course the tale itself will change dramatically, but there are no witnesses who could possibly know. That's my biggest problem actually. Off course I do not believe in Jesus and all the other prophets with their messages, so religious people would probably consider me biased, but just because they (or someone else) wrote down their thoughts of what they were convinced doesn't mean their stories can't be wrong, end up getting mixed up by the tell tale mechanic and so on. There's little real value because of how stories end up being completely different because of how people tell these stories to others... in a classroom it's perhaps one week that people talk about the story and change it, the content of the Bible (especially in the early years) was being told for years and years at least.
Quote:
They contain some of the knowledge, obviously.. just like any survived information..
Perhaps it was meant as entertainment? There are some good entertaining stories that talk about morality and so on just the same. (lol, think Star Wars.) I don't believe any information has survived simply because of the role this scripture has played in history and because of how in became a tool instead of a valuable source.
Quote:
But what they found was that these species, though tribal,.. and with very different brain structures.. were at least as smart and as capable as modern humans just smaller and with different shaped meat slabs.. erm..brains.
What this says to me is that they are also wrong about neanderthals, sapiens and so forth. I can't say that they werent human.. or different humans than we are now.. but what's also being found are older skeletons of modern sapien humans.. some brushing shoulders with the dinosaurs, time-wise.
Brushing shoulders? As far as we can tell there's a gigantic time between humans and dinosaurs. Don't forget that dinosaurs went extinct over 65 million years ago (based on our current knowledge). There's no way the human species can be thát old.
As far as brain size and intelligence... yes, I guess scientists might have been wrong indeed. But there have always been some scientists that said that size doesn't matter, because you don't know whether the brain would have a very dense structure or not along with some other characteristics that are believed to influence the 'intelligence'. But... how do you measure intelligence if size doesn't matter? I think as far as tool making human species, you can conclude that they weren't all that stupid, but it's still totally impossible to compare to us whether they were equally as smart. It's not technology that defines how smart you are, but neither is brain size apparently.
Quote:
I think we all came from an imprint human closer to modern man, though. Offbranches happened, but it's being continually uncovered that we at least existed in modern form for much longer than originally though.
The evolutionary gradient between monkeys and humans are those earlier human species. Our generation of people that lived the last 1000 years obviously doesn't come from the monkeys that lived 7 million years ago or so, but from species closer to us that have parents that have parents and so on that did come from those monkeys.
The difference between point 0 in time (monkeys) and point 7 million (us right now) can't be covered with just one step.
I don't believe we as a modern species lived longer, because lately there have been some changes in what is considered 'modern' and what not. I think dating the finds in most cases show that there are gaps that don't fit that theory, eventhough I wouldn't be surprised if the modern species did live longer. It's not like our knowledge is perfect on this. We can easily be wrong about the time spans, but newer finds are needed to say anything useful about this.
Quote:
1- There is not, never was, and never will be a "God".. because "God"..being defined as an all powerful divninity who has it all and can do it all with nothing more than the tip of a finger.. makes no sense in the physical universe in which everything else.. whether or not we understand it all...does.
and
2- It also stands to reason, though it isn't fact.. it just makes alot of sense... that SOME.. kind of DELIBERATED.. and therefore INTELLIGENT.. and.. far SUPERIOR..(DUE TO HAVING OR ACQUIRING IN HIS/HER/ITS' LIFETIME.. FAR SUPERIOUR INTELLECT, WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE).. being.. is very likely the one who got the bowling ball rolling. Not a special, magic being.. just one far more powerful.. (perhaps close to all powerful) through knowledge and wisdom.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems we might have accidentally come to the same pages on those two thoughts.;)
Yes, I do agree indeed, but I do not agree that it's "very likely" that there has been a creator as described in point 2. I do think that it's a possibility, but in terms of likeliness we disagree. In my opinion certain aspects of creation do not make sense, but it's both difficult to describe why I think so and difficult to defend too. At some points it might feel contradicting, on other points not at all when it comes to logic.
Quote:
There is no such thing as total harmony within a group unless they are malleable and gullible.. and you can't be wise enough for such creation as the universe, even if you have all the knowledge.. if you are gullible and malleable. You might be capable of great things.. just not that. Groups and societies have politics.. they have agendas.. bottom line being that all of this would've kept thme in a constant state of dissagreement about what to use the knowledge for.. and how it should be.
This would be all the more reason for me to think of 'creation' as an accident actually. The whole idea of an all powerful being is completely nuts. There's no such thing as a being with infinity knowledge. But off course this is again about the 'defined' "God". I do think that it's quite valid for the 'creator' still though, and furthermore would infinity knowledge be required to be able to create? I don't think so.
Quote:
Forthermore.. I think it was either asexual.. or female.
I don't think we can say anything useful about that, because neither are females always the lesser dominant part of a species nor do we know whether the creator must have been part of a species itself. Is it likely that there were a whole bunch of creators? If the universe is flooded with life perhaps yes to some extent, but since, at least in our closest proximity, we haven't found extraterrestrial life... it's an open question. Off course we also know the philosophical question too; "if a creator created us, then who created the creator?". Somehow, and I guess that's my opinion, it logically implies that it's impossible to have a creator as a being itself.
Cheers
|
