Results 1 to 20 of 169

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #9
    Thinker AnglePrey's Avatar

    AnglePrey is offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    perceived reality
    This user has no status.

    Re: Evolution. Were we really envolve from monkeys?

    Quote Originally Posted by ImmaculateShadow View Post
    No, I'm sorry but you don't understand. Stating that we share a common ancestor from 4 to 8 Million years ago with Primates is nothing like saying that Human beings are monkeys.

    In other words you and your cousin, if you happen to have one, share a common ancestor - this common ancestor is ether your Grandparents or your Great-Grandparents. Does this mean you and your cousin are the same people? No, you could differ in a multiplicity of ways — privilege, looks, charisma, hair color, eye color, skin pigment, genetic anomalies, personality, environmental pressures, dietary restrictions, IQ, esthetic tastes & vocation. All of those things that make you two different happened in the span of two to three generations.

    Now imagine what could happen to the offspring of two such cousins after 6 million years, where in the genetic mutation and drift, dietary constrictions & differing migratory patters carry them in to two distinctly differing species. It's really not that hard to understand — long periods of time where genetic material is passed on followed by punctuated equilibrium.

    Do you understand?

    That's fine, though it doesn't have any barring on the subject at hand.

    my mistake if i didn't let you understand that i understood. by saying evolution calls us monkeys, i didn't mean monkeys specifically. i meant animals in general. to say we're just another branch of an animal is to say we have no right to consciousness because we should be like all the other branches that came from similar ancestors. we're different from animals for no apparent reason. that in itself is enough to realize we're privileged with something we shouldn't have, which often sparks in the belief of some sort of creator. but for sceince's sake, i'll say it's not enough. even if we have similar dna or whatever with apes, personally i'm not buying it, but my personal stance isn't what i want you to get out of what i say.

    if you read my first post you'd make an easier connection when i said it's easier to deny science than god. the belief in god has everything to do with everything, even if you don't realize it. religion ruled society until the enlightenment era, then came philosophy, scientology, and now new age philosophy. it has controlled history, caused wars, etc. but that's not why it's important. it's important because we as humans have a hunger for knowledge. that hunger is also described as the desire to be gods ourselves. science is merely what we use to chase knowledge. so when we develop scientific explanations to replace our beliefs (as john locke & others did), we're really trying to get that god-like dominion we feel we should have. the same dominion the bible says we already had from the beginning. i hope this makes sense.
    Last edited by AnglePrey; 10-04-2012 at 06:21 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts