| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 7:41 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
 Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | Moloth wrote: | | dobie wrote: | Any self respecting geneticist would tell you that adam did not have a pure genetic line, as he evolved from apes, and apes had corrupted lines. Technically, though, what you mean by "corrupted" is a little slanted. In genetics, there is no such thing as a "corrupt" gene. When you inbreed, the processs simply makes mutations more likely. As most mutations are a detriment to survival, one family inbreeding itself would have very quickly died off.
any more questions? |
no.
we and apes have a common ancestor. |
*sigh*.
If that common ancestor were standing in front of you it would by any definition be an ape. Just not any current ape species. |
*sigh*
no. it would be what came BEFORE apes.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2428
Local time: 4:41 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Only if you are looking for the common ancestor of humans and all the other apes, not just our closest ape relative, and even then that common ancestor would be the first ape ... something like the Proconsul.
You don't have multiple lines of apes descending from one non-ape. You have the ape diverge from the old world monkey, and that ape diverges into different apes.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 7:41 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | Only if you are looking for the common ancestor of humans and all the other apes, not just our closest ape relative, and even then that common ancestor would be the first ape ... something like the Proconsul.
You don't have multiple lines of apes descending from one non-ape. You have the ape diverge from the old world monkey, and that ape diverges into different apes. |
yes, you do. go back far enough and were we all descended from fish. we ALL (life on Earth) have a common ancestor, if you go back far enough.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2428
Local time: 4:41 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is true that if you go back far enough you will get non-apes. But the statement "the common ancestor of man and ape" has much different connotations than "the common ancestor of man and fish", it generally denotes the most recent common ancestor.
The most recent common ancestor of man and gibbon is something much like Proconsul, the first ape. The most recent common ancestor of man and all other great apes was something similar to Sivapithicus, a great ape. The most recent ancestor of man and our closest ape ancestor was by any and every definition clearly an ape.
But in any case, you had to have that first ape species before that ape becomes several lines of apes, and that first ape is ... an ape. You don't have several lines of ape descending from one non-ape, you have that non-ape giving rise to that one ape which then gives rise to the several apes.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aitm
using the thinker thingy
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 1274
Local time: 7:41 PM
Location: Melbourne, Fl
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: | | kmisho wrote: | | PLEASE don't tell me you take genesis 6 seriously, like the parts where the Nephilim had sex with women and produced hercules-like heros. |
Yes I take Genesis 6 seriously but I don't come to your conclusion, not to say I have a strong position because the Hebrew here is out of my league.
| Quote: | | Genesis 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in(1 )man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." 4 The Nephilim(1 )were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. |
Yours is one of the theories and probably the most famous but that view is not held by most if any reputable theologians. There intrinsic elements in the text that limit what it could mean. The easiest way to interpret a text is begin with the first subject and identify shifts in subject. The first subject is straight forward - humans had children particularly daughters. The second subject is the "sons of God" this idiom is used of angels, is used later by Christ referring to himself, of men in general and of special men, like prophets. So it is unfounded to say on that title alone that this is talking about angelic beings.
so what we know is that their is a distinction between average man and the entity identified as "sons of God." the result of the immorality the "sons of God" was God limited the years of man. This is the first indication that the "sons of God" means above average humans otherwise God would have taken action against the "sons of God" if they were something distinct from humans.
Next we have another subject shift to the Nephilim. Again the famous idea is that these are demons. But the most common is men that grew to unusual size (maybe 10' tall) what we know for sure is the Nephalim and the "sons of God are the same as seen in the italicized part of the text. The final subject is consistent with the above average human theory since their offspring was also above average just maybe not quite as above average as the "sons of God"
Some other indicators that are not strong but make me think the above theory is right. "sons of God" the hebrew word for God is "elohim" which also means majesty. so an alternative translation for the title is "sons of majesty" but this title is not used anyplace else. and limiting the days is a effective solution because longevity and inbreeding may have perpetuated these outstanding physical features (I know what your going to do with that one) |
kishmo,, all of that really meant, "we will make up our own version when anything that can contradicte the original is presented." Sorry Romans, but either the bible is the word of god or the word of man. Not so oddly, it looks like the word of man.
_________________
Its not that I question so much whether a god created man, but that he would admit it.- Thomas Brumfield
psst, theres a vagina on your bumper!
Knowledge: The cure for religion.
The reality is: The majority of Christians are, because they have never read the Bible, whereas the majority of Atheists are, because they have. tjb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aitm
using the thinker thingy
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 1274
Local time: 7:41 PM
Location: Melbourne, Fl
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | It is true that if you go back far enough you will get non-apes. But the statement "the common ancestor of man and ape" has much different connotations than "the common ancestor of man and fish", it generally denotes the most recent common ancestor.
The most recent common ancestor of man and gibbon is something much like Proconsul, the first ape. The most recent common ancestor of man and all other great apes was something similar to Sivapithicus, a great ape. The most recent ancestor of man and our closest ape ancestor was by any and every definition clearly an ape.
But in any case, you had to have that first ape species before that ape becomes several lines of apes, and that first ape is ... an ape. You don't have several lines of ape descending from one non-ape, you have that non-ape giving rise to that one ape which then gives rise to the several apes. |
However, as any good anthro knows, right before Afropithecus is a little know species, only one remains has been found, its called ,,,,,,,,the moloth.
_________________
Its not that I question so much whether a god created man, but that he would admit it.- Thomas Brumfield
psst, theres a vagina on your bumper!
Knowledge: The cure for religion.
The reality is: The majority of Christians are, because they have never read the Bible, whereas the majority of Atheists are, because they have. tjb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
romans120
Resident Theist
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 2051
Local time: 6:41 PM
Location: The God Shaped Hole in Your Heart
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aitm wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | kmisho wrote: | | PLEASE don't tell me you take genesis 6 seriously, like the parts where the Nephilim had sex with women and produced hercules-like heros. |
Yes I take Genesis 6 seriously but I don't come to your conclusion, not to say I have a strong position because the Hebrew here is out of my league.
| Quote: | | Genesis 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in(1 )man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." 4 The Nephilim(1 )were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. |
Yours is one of the theories and probably the most famous but that view is not held by most if any reputable theologians. There intrinsic elements in the text that limit what it could mean. The easiest way to interpret a text is begin with the first subject and identify shifts in subject. The first subject is straight forward - humans had children particularly daughters. The second subject is the "sons of God" this idiom is used of angels, is used later by Christ referring to himself, of men in general and of special men, like prophets. So it is unfounded to say on that title alone that this is talking about angelic beings.
so what we know is that their is a distinction between average man and the entity identified as "sons of God." the result of the immorality the "sons of God" was God limited the years of man. This is the first indication that the "sons of God" means above average humans otherwise God would have taken action against the "sons of God" if they were something distinct from humans.
Next we have another subject shift to the Nephilim. Again the famous idea is that these are demons. But the most common is men that grew to unusual size (maybe 10' tall) what we know for sure is the Nephalim and the "sons of God are the same as seen in the italicized part of the text. The final subject is consistent with the above average human theory since their offspring was also above average just maybe not quite as above average as the "sons of God"
Some other indicators that are not strong but make me think the above theory is right. "sons of God" the hebrew word for God is "elohim" which also means majesty. so an alternative translation for the title is "sons of majesty" but this title is not used anyplace else. and limiting the days is a effective solution because longevity and inbreeding may have perpetuated these outstanding physical features (I know what your going to do with that one) |
kishmo,, all of that really meant, "we will make up our own version when anything that can contradicte the original is presented." Sorry Romans, but either the bible is the word of god or the word of man. Not so oddly, it looks like the word of man. |
Did you read my post? I demonstrated that the kimsho version is reading into the text material that isn't there. How is that making up my own version. The Jews mistakenly thought large caananites were "Nephilim" the cainanites are obviously not going to be mistaken for demons but were a large people. Nobody has any idea who the "sons of God" are. But the text in no way demands that they be demons unless of course you can show me where it does?
_________________
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
_Frost
Visitor
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 23
Local time: 7:41 PM
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Romans120, you are sorely mistaken. The genealogies of Genesis hardly represent reliable accounts; in fact, they follow the Near Eastern genre. Just look at the Sumerian King List: the lengths of reigns in that list are ridiculously extensive, and that list was written more than 1500 years before the compilation of the Old Testament as we know it. Which goes to say, as well, that the scribes who wrote the "Old Testament" had to have learned the Epic of Gilgamesh and other stories in order to become scribes (in order to best learn to write to other nations, you must become familiar with their literary style, thus you learn their literature). They did not posit the story of the Flood as some sort of religious absolute, they simply used it to illustrate the nature of Yhwh to a people familiar with mesopotamian stories.
It is difficult to know how the Israelites viewed the story of Adam and Eve and other narratives in Genesis, but only lack of knowledge would lead one to assume the story of Adam and Eve to be anything but illustrative (though this could be a discussion in its own right). If the writers saw it as "science," they would not have left confusion concerning Cain's wife, but since its simply a story, they let this detail unexplained. If you wish to take a scientific approach to this, it is to say that other humans still existed (evolution) but Adam and Eve serve to represent humans in general.
_________________
Ecclesiastes 7:23-25
All this I have tested by wisdom; I said, "I will be wise," but it was far from me. That which is, is far off, and deep, very deep; who can find it out? I turned my mind to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the sum of things, and to know that wickedness is folly and that foolishness is madness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
secularguy
*
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Posts: 313
Local time: 1:41 AM
Location: the real world
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | *sigh*.
If that common ancestor were standing in front of you it would by any definition be an ape. Just not any current ape species. |
Thank you for being right about this. I was about to say the same thing, having for a long time, just by common sense, been annoyed by "We didn't evolve from apes. We and apes have a common ancestor" being repeated uncritically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
romans120
Resident Theist
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 2051
Local time: 6:41 PM
Location: The God Shaped Hole in Your Heart
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| _Frost wrote: | Romans120, you are sorely mistaken. The genealogies of Genesis hardly represent reliable accounts; in fact, they follow the Near Eastern genre. Just look at the Sumerian King List: the lengths of reigns in that list are ridiculously extensive, and that list was written more than 1500 years before the compilation of the Old Testament as we know it. Which goes to say, as well, that the scribes who wrote the "Old Testament" had to have learned the Epic of Gilgamesh and other stories in order to become scribes (in order to best learn to write to other nations, you must become familiar with their literary style, thus you learn their literature). They did not posit the story of the Flood as some sort of religious absolute, they simply used it to illustrate the nature of Yhwh to a people familiar with mesopotamian stories.
It is difficult to know how the Israelites viewed the story of Adam and Eve and other narratives in Genesis, but only lack of knowledge would lead one to assume the story of Adam and Eve to be anything but illustrative (though this could be a discussion in its own right). If the writers saw it as "science," they would not have left confusion concerning Cain's wife, but since its simply a story, they let this detail unexplained. If you wish to take a scientific approach to this, it is to say that other humans still existed (evolution) but Adam and Eve serve to represent humans in general. |
So are you confident enough to say you know more about the authenticity of the book of Genesis then Paul knows? If so why do you believe in the Christian God at all, if it is based on subjective unreliable stories? You can not believe what you believe and also believe in inerrantcy as soon as you disregard inerrantcy all those atheistic arguments of "stealing the concept" and god of the gaps" all of a sudden have meaning and negate your truth claims to subjective and imaginary concepts that are no better than childish superstitions.
The Old testament was written by prophets concerned with truth not dispensing tradition they were set apart by God to reveal God to men. | Quote: | 2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture (speaking of the whole OT including Genesis) comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
|
_________________
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wildsimian
Visitor
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 16
Local time: 7:41 PM
Location: Tennessee
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | Its all fairy-takes, but, you have to admit that Christianity, especially the Catholics, have some really kick-ass mythology. i think its almost as good as the Greeks and their Epics. |
Agreed on the Catholics. They're so ... paganistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
