One question to atheists II (does that mean it's two questions now??)

[Yorick]

Originally posted by homer: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Regardless, for all their similarities, chimps are very different to humans. When I do study chimps it gives me a greater appreciation and love for the human race - which is hardly a bad thing. It's not arrogant either as someone else suggested, for when I love humans I also give gloy to God for creating such wonderously complex and intriguing individuals.

I am curious if you put any stake in evolution. I believe it has been surmised that humans evolved from creatures very similar to chimpanzees. I think that this might explain some of the differences that you refer to. They are simply less evolved.

Regardless, I wonder: do you believe that human beings are the only creatures that posses a soul?[/QUOTE]I belief in evolution within a species (humans getting taller, dogs getting smaller etc), and social evolution, but have not seen proof to convince me of the mutational advances necessary for new species to evolve. I cannot accept evolution because of a lack of evidence, and so am a creationist practically by default. Evolutionism is for me a seperate issue to my faith in God. Were I an evolutionist, I would believe God initiated the spark of life, the big bang and guided evolutionary development. I simply have not seen enough proof to suggest that is how the world developed.

Regarding the soul, yes I do believe that only humans possess a soul. That has sometimes been a painful acceptance when say a pet dies, but I believe this with certainty.

Various reasons abound for this, including the conscience - a moral guide that alters behaviour. A cat shows no remorse in killing a mouse, and will do so repeatedly.

Another reason is the Arts. Creating for it's own sake. Creating things with no functional purpose other than reflecting internal feelings, emotions and conflicts are to me a language of the soul. Many mysteries can be communicated in just two notes, between the expresser and the receiver. Words cannot define such communication.

[Moiraine]

Chimpanzees have not evolved less than humans, they have evolved differently.

Chimpanzees are not our ancestors, but our cousins. Think of an "Y" with humans on top of one branch, chimpanzees on top of the other, and our common ancestor at the bottom branch. The two branches diverged between 10 and 5 millions of yeard ago, and we share more than 99.5 % of our genes with them.

When I asked "Are the chimpanzees our future ?" I was not suggesting the human race would evolve into something like Chimpanzees, but that if we blow ourselves over the Chimpanzees may become the best chance for our gene pool to survive.

Also keep in mind that we currently know about Chimpanzees, we know using human tools. We teach Chimpanzees to talk our deaf language (is that the word ?), we don't communicate with them with their own language. Lots of things are lost in communication. Probably there are things they can do and we can't. Through all you say they don't do, maybe they have a bigger potential for happiness ?

Yorick, all the things you say that Chimpanzees don't do, our long ago ancestors didn't do either. But the potential was there. Chimpanzees's evolution probably won't make them 'human' as in similar to us. They laugh and cry, they are conscious of self, they live with each other, they learn - the potential is here. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Yorick, all the things you say that Chimpanzees don't do, our long ago ancestors didn't do either. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well that's where we disagree Claude. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[esquire]

Meet Aegyptopithecus, earliest example of an anthropoid (early primates), and ancestor to later hominoids (as in us)

As far as Chimps go, they do use tools:
-they make fishing sticks (where they use a stick to catch termites and eat them)
-they use rocks to break open nuts

They also work cooperatively to hunt small animals, and they share the meat.
Oh and they have many different calls, body motions they use to communicate different emotional states.

Chimps are very simular to humans, their genes only differ by 1% compared to ours.
Also, Comparing DNA Chimps have shown to have diverged from humans by about 5 million years.

It goes like this,
We are part of the Hominoid group (comprised of Orangutans, Gorilla, Chimp, Bonobo, and Human)
And the Hominoid group as a whole is an off-shoot of the Old world monkeys which started happening around 7 million years ago. Anyway, there are too many examples to list, but you get the idea

[ 01-23-2003, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: esquire ]

[Yorick]

A rats DNA is also very similar to a humans. That is meaninless. We are also similar to trees in that we're alive and we grow. It doesn't mean we must have come from a shared ancestor to a tree.

Showing a photo of a skull that bears little resemblence to a humans does little in my book either. It is an old skull of a creature with a huge mouth and small brain. Hardly proof of evolution.

Co-operative behaviour is not the exclusive domain of chimps and humans. Hyenas, dolphins, lions, ants and many other animals work co-operatively. Again, not conclusive proof.

Again I repeat. Using a rock or simple tool is like reinvention of the wheel. Humans alone use compounded knowledge and invention. We communicate our discoveries and inventions to each other and build upon that. The result is an engine driven car, not simply another wheel.

Human inventiveness, consrtuction and artistic expression far outsurpasses any other lifeforms, in terms of complexity, scope, permanence and communicative significance.

Also, humans collectively and individually have adapted to every environment on the planet. Apes have not.

[esquire]

Ummm ok, look I'm not going to argue the validity of science, you can go look it up if you feel like it. I figured since you guys were interested in chimps that I would just fill in a few gaps. Obviously the photo I posted doesn't look much like us! We have changed a lot since then

I guess me quoting an Anthropology text is not much different than you quoting the bible. So to each his own...

But...there is not a conspiracy of any kind, the fossils of early mammals are quite real, as are the remains of our ancestors. I suppose if you hold the assumption that the principles of science are false, well there you have it.

[Yorick]

I'm sure they are real. The issue is, it is a fossil of just one part of the creatures body. All it proves is that a creature with such a skull existed. All else is speculation. It is an ASSUMPTION that the thing is indicative of a common ancestor. It is an ASSUMPTION that it possessed an ape or humanlike body, without finding the rest of the skeleton to prove it so.

Call me a cynic, but I need to see facts, not guesswork, assumptions and speculations before changing a position.

[Timber Loftis]

(If and) when words scribbled down thousands of years ago by PEOPLE from oral tradition and *ostensibly* the direct "words" of a diety make someone ignore such clearly understood things as carbon dating and fossil evidence (note: I am only referring to the fossil evidence we do actually understand) then it is time for me to quit reading a thread that has become meaningless.

[edit]: sorry Yoric - now that I saw your later post, I don't think this is what you were doing, but at the time I did. [end edit]

Yorick is offended by the notion we come from Chimps or something similar, just as he is arrogant in placing humans on a pedastal. Mayhap these internal feelings of superiority and need for a purpose are shared by the majority of people. Mayhap this feeling, and many others shared by conscious reasoning being who fully comprehend mortality is why those people have a *need* to create gods to worship.

God created man. And man, being the perfect gentleman, returned the favor.
- Inherit the Wind

[Yorick]

Originally posted by esquire: I guess me quoting an Anthropology text is not much different than you quoting the bible. So to each his own..

Agreed. The diff is that the Bible has been around and relevent for 2000 years. Parts of it for 4000 years. It's a constant. The Anthropological books are much younger, and are always being updated.

But yes to each his own. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: Call me a cynic, but I need to see facts, not guesswork, assumptions and speculations before changing a position.

You gotta be kidding me! You believe the bible yet doubt other things not grounded in hard facts?