# Early Reproduction



## stringmusic (Aug 20, 2012)

When humans were still in the primordial stage of developement and had not yet gained consciousness, how did they "know" to reproduce? Beyond that, how did they "know" how to reproduce? Is this something that mother nature took care of for us? 


I would also like to take it a step further and discuss reproduction after she (mother nature) gave us consciousness. Why did we care to reproduce? I don't imagine early humans cared much for the family style life that we enjoy today.

Edit: For those that don't read in here a lot, my use of "Mother Nature" is completely tongue in cheek.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 20, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> When humans were still in the primordial stage of developement and had not yet gained consciousness, how did they "know" to reproduce? Beyond that, how did they "know" how to reproduce? Is this something that mother nature took care of for us?
> 
> 
> I would also like to take it a step further and discuss reproduction after she (mother nature) gave us consciousness. Why did we care to reproduce? I don't imagine early humans cared much for the family style life that we enjoy today.
> ...



Its basic animal instinct.  Chemistry really, harmones. Nothing taught frogs how to mate, but they still do it. If you are here to suggest that god embedded all organism with the desire to reproduce, then we are going to have to ask alot of other questions about other survival instincts. And why "god" would make organisms do some seeming odd things.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 20, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Its basic animal instinct.  Chemistry really, harmones.


How did we come about this instinct? How did early humans know to act on this instinct?

I would also imagine that a crying baby in a cave would have brought on an instinct to kill it so everyone could get some sleep. Seems as though that instinct was not acted upon, at least not enough for the human race to survive.



> Nothing taught frogs how to mate, but they still do it. If you are here to suggest that god embedded all organism with the desire to reproduce, then we are going to have to ask alot of other questions about other survival instincts. And why "god" would make organisms do some seeming odd things.



I am not suggesting anything. I might later though.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 20, 2012)

I don't see any place in evolution for the evolvememt of reproduction for each species.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 20, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How did we come about this instinct? How did early humans know to act on this instinct?
> 
> I would also imagine that a crying baby in a cave would have brought on an instinct to kill it so everyone could get some sleep. Seems as though that instinct was not acted upon, at least not enough for the human race to survive.
> 
> ...



Chemistry.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 20, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I don't see any place in evolution for the evolvememt of reproduction for each species.



Then you are blind.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 20, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Chemistry.



Do you believe our chemistry make up was fully evolved in the beginning of human development?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 20, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Then you are blind.



Actually he is spot on, and it's kind of the point of the OP. The reproductive characteristics of humans had to be fully evolved from the beginning, otherwise we wouldn't be here. 

Why didn't the reproductive parts of human development have to evolve like every other part of us?


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 20, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Do you believe our chemistry make up was fully evolved in the beginning of human development?



No thats kind of the point of evolution its on going process.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 20, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No thats kind of the point of evolution its on going process.



Then that takes us back to how the earliest stages of humans reproduced.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 20, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Actually he is spot on, and it's kind of the point of the OP. The reproductive characteristics of humans had to be fully evolved from the beginning, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
> 
> Why didn't the reproductive parts of human development have to evolve like every other part of us?



I'm no anthropologist, so I don't know how to answer your question other I don't know mostly.  There are factors I don't think we can know. Like for instance were women's menstrations cycles the same? The amount and quality of sperm? The size of reproductive organs? Ect. 

There is no doubt in my mind the species of humans has changed and is changing, not excluding reproductive patterns.  You would have to be a complete idiot not to believe it.  In the last 100+ years humans are taller on average, faster, healthier, live longer, reproduce in less numbers, and so on.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 20, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Then that takes us back to how the earliest stages of humans reproduced.



The same way their primate ancestors did, and all the other mammals, they stuck the right thing in the right place.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 20, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> The same way their primate ancestors did, and all the other mammals, *they stuck the right thing in the right place.*


How did they know to do that and why did they do it?

I don't want to keep going around in circles here but I don't know any other way to ask the questions.

You've got to picture yourself on earth 418 trillion billion years ago, do you actually think reproducing is anywhere on your mind?


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 20, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How did they know to do that and why did they do it?
> 
> I don't want to keep going around in circles here but I don't know any other way to ask the questions.
> 
> You've got to picture yourself on earth 418 trillion billion years ago, do you actually think reproducing is anywhere on your mind?



As much as its on mind already (well the act of anyway, don't need anymore mouths to feed at the moment) I dont think it was really all that difficult.  Again I'm sure they say the animals around them doin'it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 20, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> As much as its on mind already (well the act of anyway, don't need anymore mouths to feed at the moment) I dont think it was really all that difficult.


It's on your mind because of the society you grew up and still live in, the earliest humans didn't have the same pursuations. In fact, they didn't have any pursuations at all and would have had ZERO clue that they needed to reproduce, or even how to do it for that matter. Thats is basically my entire point.



> Again I'm sure they say the animals around them doin'it.


I could use this same argument for animals, but lets just keep it at humans for now.

Remember, I'm talking the very first humans here, there is little time to waste, they had to figure out what was going on, and quickly.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 20, 2012)

String go outside during spring everythings doin it. Maybe thats how they got thier que.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 20, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> String go outside during spring everythings doin it. Maybe thats how they got thier que.



Yes everything is doing "it"....now. I am trying to figure out how they figured it out in the very beginning, and how the naturalists rationalize it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 20, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> ... they stuck the right thing in the right place.



I'd like that tattooed on my thigh.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 20, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I'd like that tattooed on my thigh.





Could we read that statement to mean that Bishop is against homosexuals?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 20, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Could we read that statement to mean that Bishop is against homosexuals?



I think so.  He probably had a "hate biscuit" for breakfast this morning.  I know I did.


----------



## Ridge Walker (Aug 20, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How did they know to do that and why did they do it?



Holy Mackerel, this question is almost as good as the "Is He ll really in the center of the Earth?" question on the forums a few years back. 

Here's a quote from The Bloodhound Gang that should clear up any confusion on the topic: "You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel"

All clear now?

RW


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 20, 2012)

Ridge Walker said:


> Holy Mackerel, this question is almost as good as the "Is He ll really in the center of the Earth?" question on the forums a few years back.



Does this mean that the question is so easy that you can give me a clear and rational answer? Because so far, Bishop is the only one giving it a shot.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 20, 2012)

When God was going around telling all the critters of the Earth how to do this and that I wish he had neglected to tell the mosquitos how to bite my legs and face. 

Also, telling those wasps to hang around our front door and try to sting everyone who comes by was kind of a jerk move.


----------



## Ridge Walker (Aug 20, 2012)

Like I quoted, "You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals". It's instinct and hormones, just like in every other animal. Even something as primitive as a slug figures out how to mate.

RW


----------



## Ridge Walker (Aug 20, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> When God was going around telling all the critters of the Earth how to do this and that I wish he had neglected to tell the mosquitos how to bite my legs and face.
> 
> Also, telling those wasps to hang around our front door and try to sting everyone who comes by was kind of a jerk move.





Wish he would tell the family dog to stop it with my leg already too!


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 20, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Could we read that statement to mean that Bishop is against homosexuals?



I don't hate'em I just don't get'em, well except lesbians. Seems like they have the same tastses as me.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 20, 2012)

Ridge Walker said:


> Like I quoted, "You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals". It's instinct and hormones, just like in every other animal. Even something as primitive as a slug figures out how to mate.
> 
> RW


See post #3.

Where did this instinct come from? Did Miss Nature know that we would need to develop it?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 20, 2012)

Guys, let's not forget the first part of the OP. I still would like to get some answers of how reproduction took place before consciousness. Don't we need conciousness to act on our instincts?


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 20, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Guys, let's not forget the first part of the OP. I still would like to get some answers of how reproduction took place before consciousness. Don't we need conciousness to act on our instincts?



Obviously not.  Basic organisms act on instinct, and would not be considered to have a conscious.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2012)

Do we really need a link to an 8th grade biology text book?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2012)

Some very primitive protozoa need to 'bump into' each other to exchange genetic material.  What your really saying is that you either don't understand or you don't accept how evolution works.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 20, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Does this mean that the question is so easy that you can give me a clear and rational answer? Because so far, Bishop is the only one giving it a shot.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction
The answers you seek are only a click away.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 21, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Do we really need a link to an 8th grade biology text book?


Apparently, you should post a link that answers the questions in the OP.



ambush80 said:


> Some very primitive protozoa need to 'bump into' each other to exchange genetic material.


Why did this scenario not extrapolate itself out and continue to be the way we reproduce? If we reproduced asexually, my questions would probably be moot, but we reproduce sexually, I'm trying to figure out how and why humans came to the conclusions they did about reproduction. 



> What your really saying is that you either don't understand or you don't accept how evolution works.


I don't fully understand, that's why I'm asking questions, although the answers I've gotten so far aren't very sufficient, I hope that changes.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction
> The answers you seek are only a click away.



Thanks bullet. However, I wasn't looking for the definition, or how the reproduction system works. I was looking more of how early humans, before and after consciousness, knew why and how to reproduce.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 21, 2012)

Here's some 8th grade info:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/advantage/page06.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/281/5385/1979

And one from 'your' side:

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

I'll discuss after work.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 21, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/281/5385/1979



This is a quote from your second link....



> _
> "The News story by Wuethrich and article by Barton and Charlesworth address the first of these questions—what makes sex so alluring from an evolutionary standpoint? Barton and Charlesworth conclude that genetic recombination seems to be the key. Indeed, as discussed in both pieces, *most theories suggest that sex and recombination remove harmful mutations and allow new combinations of genes to come together, providing more opportunities for improved fitness and offering the flexibility to adapt to new environments*. Biologists are finding new ways to test these theories, Wuethrich reports, but proving that they are actually operating in the natural world remains a challenge."_



We know this now, or at least we have a theory about it, but the first humans on earth, from a naturalist viewpoint, could not have known this to be true. So the questions in the OP still stands.

I've skimed through the other articles and they still don't address the questions directly either.

Maybe some 12th grade literature?


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 21, 2012)

Here's the question that cannot be answered:

How could  reproduction come from a process of evolution?  
It takes thousands of generational changes in order for evolution to occur.  How is that even possible for reproduction?

Organs have to evolve, but it cannot evolve, because every failure results in the death of the organism.  That organism is then gone.  It no longer exist.  It must reevolve to its original state before the process of reproduction can begin all over again.

It is a lose/lose process.  And it must happen for millions of organisms.

And in the evolution process, there must be the evolving of a male and female for each species.

Evolution is a process that will continually corrupt itself when it comes to reproduction.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Aug 21, 2012)

> Evolution is a process that will continually corrupt itself when it comes to reproduction.



Reproduction is the means of evolution.  The offspring that have more desirable traits for survival of the species live longer and reproduce more often than those who have undesirable traits.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 21, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Reproduction is the means of evolution.  The offspring that have more desirable traits for survival of the species live longer and reproduce more often than those who have undesirable traits.



Good theory.I guess that doesn't pertain to humans.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 21, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Reproduction is the means of evolution.  The offspring that have more desirable traits for survival of the species live longer and reproduce more often than those who have undesirable traits.



Are you saying that humans reproduced differently in the beginning? Evolving reproductive traits would seem to indicate that would be the case, but I've never heard that humans reproduced any other way but sexually.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 21, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Here's the question that cannot be answered:
> 
> How could  reproduction come from a process of evolution?
> It takes thousands of generational changes in order for evolution to occur.  How is that even possible for reproduction?
> ...



Fantastic post Ronnie.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 21, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Reproduction is the means of evolution.  The offspring that have more desirable traits for survival of the species live longer and reproduce more often than those who have undesirable traits.



Great point.  

Now just how did that organism evolve it's reproductive capability?  IT CANNOT.

No more than the earth can reproduce itself.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Thanks bullet. However, I wasn't looking for the definition, or how the reproduction system works. I was looking more of how early humans, before and after consciousness, knew why and how to reproduce.



I know that string, but if you read through all that thoroughly you will find some of that explained. You will see how early humans, IE: before we were anything like a human, reproduced.
And you seem to have missed the part entitled "Life with out reproduction" which has a link to Abiogenesis which in turn talks about and teaches you the very things you are asking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I know that string, but if you read through all that thoroughly you will find some of that explained. You will see how early humans, IE: before we were anything like a human, reproduced.
> And you seem to have missed the part entitled "Life with out reproduction" which has a link to Abiogenesis which in turn talks about and teaches you the very things you are asking about.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis



The life with out reproduction was the first thing I scrolled down to after reading the opening paragraphs. I also went to the link of the abiogenesis page and read some of that.

Abiogenesis does not answer my question, it is a study of how inorganic life could have formed organic life. It is not conclusive and doesnt' answer my questions.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 21, 2012)

Here's a quote from that site: 

 "There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life".

Evolution of reproduction is illogical.  There's no way for anything to evolve if the first failure will always result in going back to nothingness.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 21, 2012)

You know, what stands out to me about this is that some Christians use these really simplistic questions as a way to "prove" the existance of a higher power since the average Joe cannot answer. I believe you are asking why "life" developed from asexual reprodution or cellular splitting, to sexual reproduction. I can't answer that. My gut isn't telling me, however, that it is the work of a magic being. I just accept that *I* don't posess the scientific background to properly give an explanation.



I would suspect that folks who use this strategy don't take too kindly to an outsider asking a simplistic question to show the opposite. An example would be, "Why did God create murder/cancer/rattlesnakes/autism?"


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2012)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The life with out reproduction was the first thing I scrolled down to after reading the opening paragraphs. I also went to the link of the abiogenesis page and read some of that.
> 
> Abiogenesis does not answer my question, it is a study of how inorganic life could have formed organic life. It is not conclusive and doesnt' answer my questions.



Actually it does explain an answer to your question. You just don't want to go back far enough as to what YOUR definition of a human is to see the right answer. Early on involving the simplest forms of life, much simpler than we have today, water and or wind dispersed the reproductive cells necessary to make life replicate. Billions of years of evolution later "we" and every other living thing on the planet evolved into having that natural instinct to "know" what to do.
Ever watch the Blue Lagoon?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2012)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/origins-life.html

Click on the "Transcript" if you want to read it. Or just watch the video. Actually< read the transcript and watch the video, there is more info in the transcript.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 21, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> You know, what stands out to me about this is that some Christians use these really simplistic questions as a way to "prove" the existance of a higher power since the average Joe cannot answer.


Actually, you're the first person to bring up a higher power in this thread.



> I believe you are asking why "life" developed from asexual reprodution or cellular splitting, to sexual reproduction. I can't answer that.


I am asking the questions in the OP. I understand that asexual reproduction is possible, just not in humans, or what makes up humans.



> My gut isn't telling me, however, that it is the work of a magic being.


It should, and BTW, it's not magic.



> I just accept that *I* don't posess the scientific background to properly give an explanation.


There are many places on the www. that would provide you with an answer, if there is one, and I'm not sure there is.




> I would suspect that folks who use this strategy don't take too kindly to an outsider asking a simplistic question to show the opposite. An example would be, "Why did God create murder/cancer/rattlesnakes/autism?"



I take very kindly to any question you may have. The reasons God did not create a perfect planet for us to inhabit have been discussed in here many times. You could do a search for the information or you could start another thread about it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Actually it does explain an answer to your question. You just don't want to go back far enough as to what YOUR definition of a human is to see the right answer.


I'm not sure what your saying here.



> Early on involving the simplest forms of life, much simpler than we have today, water and or wind dispersed the reproductive cells necessary to make life replicate. Billions of years of evolution later "we" and every other living thing on the planet evolved into having that natural instinct to "know" what to do.
> Ever watch the Blue Lagoon?



The time in between your water and wind theory and the billions of years later is the timeframe in which my questions are needing answers.

I have never watched Blue Lagoon, any good?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/origins-life.html
> 
> Click on the "Transcript" if you want to read it. Or just watch the video. Actually< read the transcript and watch the video, there is more info in the transcript.



I wasn't looking for info on the origin of life, however, that was an interesting video!


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 21, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Here's a quote from that site:
> 
> "There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life".
> 
> Evolution of reproduction is illogical.  *There's no way for anything to evolve if the first failure will always result in going back to nothingness.*



Interesting angle you bring to the table. Hopefully some of our resident naturalist will tackle that statement, it would be interesting to see what a counter to that would be.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I wasn't looking for info on the origin of life, however, that was an interesting video!



The origin of life includes the beginning of reproduction. It is that beginning of reproduction where our instinct to reproduce comes from.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Interesting angle you bring to the table. Hopefully some of our resident naturalist will tackle that statement, it would be interesting to see what a counter to that would be.



The video I posted above addresses that.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not sure what your saying here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Movie was OK 30 years ago but if you've never seen it then you have no reference to the scene where shipwrecked children know "what to do" when they reach their early teens when no other influences are on the island.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not sure what your saying here.
> 
> 
> 
> The time in between your water and wind theory and the billions of years later is the timeframe in which my questions are needing answers.



All those answers were provided in the posts and links I gave you. Our instincts to reproduce come from those earliest forms which reproduced and evolved into later forms and on and on and on and on until we are where we are today. 
It really is not hard to understand unless you don't read it or don't read it thoroughly or read it thoroughly and just do not understand it or refuse to accept what you have just learned. Being that you reply with a statements/questions that has already been covered I can only guess that one of the above scenarios are true.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 21, 2012)

How did we learn how to eat?  Why do we have hair and not feathers?   And on and on and on.......

Take a community college night class.

If you don't believe that the process of evolution and natural selection occurs or that macro evolution occurs then there's no point in discussing these questions.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Movie was OK 30 years ago but if you've never seen it then you have no reference to the scene where shipwrecked children know "what to do" when they reach their early teens when no other influences are on the island.



Actually, they had a natural desire to have sex.  If they hadn't had reproductive organs they wouldn't have missed them.

The problem continues today.  Teens have a natural desire to have sex, but they don't want the children.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 21, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> How did we learn how to eat?  Why do we have hair and not feathers?   And on and on and on.......
> Take a community college night class.
> 
> If you don't believe that the process of evolution and natural selection occurs or that macro evolution occurs then there's no point in discussing these questions.



Cause God created all of us to be separate individuals.
Totally different people from the same exact process.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Aug 21, 2012)

So if we evolved...then why do REALLY old statues look like people


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> So if we evolved...then why do REALLY old statues look like people



priceless


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Cause God created all of us to be separate individuals.
> Totally different people from the same exact process.



Kudos to Zeus


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Aug 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> priceless



Ya I dont know what statues like that would cost either


----------



## The Greatest Sum (Aug 21, 2012)

If you're legitimately interested in learning about this subject, then I recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> All those answers were provided in the posts and links I gave you. *Our instincts to reproduce come from those earliest forms which reproduced and evolved into later forms and on and on and on and on until we are where we are today. *It really is not hard to understand unless you don't read it or don't read it thoroughly or read it thoroughly and just do not understand it or refuse to accept what you have just learned. Being that you reply with a statements/questions that has already been covered I can only guess that one of the above scenarios are true.



Could you copy and post the answers from the link please, since I am obviously not finding them. 

The part in red still doesn't answer the question either. "People had the instinct and knew how to reproduce because earlier stages of people had the instinct and knew how to reproduce" Keep going backward until people didn't have that instinct and didn't know how to reproduce.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> How did we learn how to eat?  Why do we have hair and not feathers?   And on and on and on.......
> 
> Take a community college night class.



I just might do that, want to join me?



> If you don't believe that the process of evolution and natural selection occurs or that macro evolution occurs then there's no point in discussing these questions.


Where did you get this idea? I'm asking how and why, not if.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Could you copy and post the answers from the link please, since I am obviously not finding them.
> 
> The part in red still doesn't answer the question either. "People had the instinct and knew how to reproduce because earlier stages of people had the instinct and knew how to reproduce" Keep going backward until people didn't have that instinct and didn't know how to reproduce.



I've given you the material, it's up to you to do the homework.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The origin of life includes the beginning of reproduction. It is that beginning of reproduction where our instinct to reproduce comes from.



The video talked about the origin of life and about how some chemists can rebuild a part of RNA. I don't remember anyone talking much about reproduction, could you point out what times in the video it was talked about for me?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I've given you the material, it's up to you to do the homework.



You could have just said, "the answers are not there"


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You could have just said, "the answers are not there"



Why would I lie?


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 22, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> So if we evolved...then why do REALLY old statues look like people






Not *that* is a solid argument.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Why would I lie?



You gave me some links to answer my questions, I'm saying I can't find the answers there, I'm asking you to post the answers for me. If you claim the answers are there, then you know where they are, it would be a simple task to copy and paste them.

And BTW, I'm not looking to "show you up" or anything, I'm just looking for the answers to the questions.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 22, 2012)

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Mechanistic_origin_of_sexual_reproduction



> Viral eukaryogenesis
> 
> The viral eukaryogenesis (VE) theory proposes that eukaryotic cells arose from a combination of a lysogenic virus, an archaeon and a bacterium. This model suggests that the nucleus originated when the lysogenic virus incorporated genetic material from the archaeon and the bacterium and took over the role of information storage for the amalgam. The archaeal host transferred much of its functional genome to the virus during the evolution of cytoplasm but retained the function of gene translation and general metabolism. The bacterium transferred most of its functional genome to the virus as it transitioned into a mitochondrion.[38]
> 
> ...



Go find another gap to plug your God into.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The video talked about the origin of life and about how some chemists can rebuild a part of RNA. I don't remember anyone talking much about reproduction, could you point out what times in the video it was talked about for me?



I believe the exact term used was Organic Chemistry. It is how life was formed. Then you have asexual reproduction.

Asexual reproduction involves only one organism, as opposed to two in sexual reproduction. It occurs when a single cell divides to form two daughter cells that are genetically identical to the parent cell. This process is known as fission, and it may take the form either of binary fission, in which two new cells are produced, or multiple fission, which results in the creation of many new cells. Since there is no fusion of two different cells, the daughter cells produced by asexual reproduction are genetically identical to the parent cell. Asexual reproduction usually takes place by mitosis, a process during which the chromosomes in a cell's nucleus are duplicated before cell division. (Mitosis, chromosomes, and many other topics referred to in this essay are discussed in considerably more detail in Genetics.)

Whereas sexual reproduction is extremely complex—and human sexual reproduction is much more so, freighted as it is with degrees of meaning that go far beyond mere biology—asexual reproduction is a fairly simple, cellular process. Of course, nothing in nature is really simple, and, in fact, the dividing and replication of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid, the genetic blueprint material found in each cell) is a complicated subject; however, that subject, too, is discussed in the essay Genetics. DNA is located at the cell nucleus, which is the cell's control center, and the nucleus is the first part of the cell to divide in asexual reproduction. After the nucleus splits, the cytoplasm, or the cellular material external to the nucleus, then divides. The result is the formation of two new daughter cells whose nuclei have the same number and kind of chromosomes as the parent.

The adaptive advantage of asexual reproduction is that organisms can reproduce quickly and by doing so colonize favorable environments rapidly. (See Evolution for more about the importance of adaptation and environment in shaping species.) For example, some bacteria can double their numbers every 20 minutes. In addition to bacteria, which are discussed in more detail in Infection, other life-forms that reproduce asexu-ally include protozoa (varieties of which are examined in Parasites and Parasitology), blue-green algae, yeast, dandelions, and flatworms.

There are the basics. If you really want to know more then do the homework. If you think by asking a question in the AAA forum and not getting the answer you want...or will accept...or refuse to look into for yourself...somehow implies an invisible divine being HAD to do it, well.....hang in there cause your in for more news you don't want to hear.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You gave me some links to answer my questions, I'm saying I can't find the answers there, I'm asking you to post the answers for me. If you claim the answers are there, then you know where they are, it would be a simple task to copy and paste them.
> 
> And BTW, I'm not looking to "show you up" or anything, I'm just looking for the answers to the questions.



Whew! Thanks for sparing me.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2012)

http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/sex.html

You can keep reading by clicking at the bottom of the page(s) and it goes into human reproduction guided by strong biological instincts.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/sex.html
> 
> You can keep reading by clicking at the bottom of the page(s) and it goes into human reproduction guided by strong biological instincts.



Sexual reproduction didn't start with humans so to get the answer to what he is really asking you have to go much further back.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Sexual reproduction didn't start with humans so to get the answer to what he is really asking you have to go much further back.



Exact-A-mundo Atlasarelli


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Sexual reproduction didn't start with humans so to get the answer to what he is really asking you have to go much further back.



What seems to be happening right from the OP in this thread is the usual power of assertion. "WE" are somehow to believe and take as fact that the drive for human reproduction was somehow created in the garden of eden, backed up by some bible verse about being "fruitful" and then "WE" are supposed to explain how this is not 100% true.

Any and all of it goes back much further than ANY and EVERY human  or human like creature and goes back to a single celled organism that reproduced by splitting and making a copy of itself. BILLIONS of years later it turned into what we "do" today. 
The details are out there for anyone that really WANTS to know the answers.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 22, 2012)

Let's go with Adam and Eve as single cell organisms, that way everybody can be right.


----------



## StriperAddict (Aug 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The details are out there for anyone that really WANTS to know the answers.


 
yes they are



sorry... couldn't resist


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What seems to be happening right from the OP in this thread is the usual power of assertion. "WE" are somehow to believe and take as fact that the drive for human reproduction was somehow created in the garden of eden, backed up by some bible verse about being "fruitful" and then "WE" are supposed to explain how this is not 100% true.
> 
> Any and all of it goes back much further than ANY and EVERY human  or human like creature and goes back to a single celled organism that reproduced by splitting and making a copy of itself. BILLIONS of years later it turned into what we "do" today.
> The details are out there for anyone that really WANTS to know the answers.



Details?

It takes as much faith to believe in many of those as it takes to believe in the Almighty God.
Some of it is probably correct.  But no one will ever know which is correct and which isn't.

.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Here you go:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Mechanistic_origin_of_sexual_reproduction



I just read every word of that, and I don't understand it. I believe one would have to be highly intelligent in the field of chemistry and biology to be able to understand it. From what I do understand of it, it doesn't seem to answer my questions, it seems to explain the origin of sexual reproduction, which is not my question. I don't want to know where sexual reproduction came from, I wanted to know how humans knew to use it, how they knew how to sexually reproduce, and why early humans did it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I believe the exact term used was Organic Chemistry. It is how life was formed. Then you have asexual reproduction.
> 
> Asexual reproduction involves only one organism, as opposed to two in sexual reproduction. It occurs when a single cell divides to form two daughter cells that are genetically identical to the parent cell. This process is known as fission, and it may take the form either of binary fission, in which two new cells are produced, or multiple fission, which results in the creation of many new cells. Since there is no fusion of two different cells, the daughter cells produced by asexual reproduction are genetically identical to the parent cell. Asexual reproduction usually takes place by mitosis, a process during which the chromosomes in a cell's nucleus are duplicated before cell division. (Mitosis, chromosomes, and many other topics referred to in this essay are discussed in considerably more detail in Genetics.)
> 
> ...


Thanks for giving me a contrast of asexual and sexual reproduction, but again, that is not my question. I don't think your understanding my questions, so I'll try to rephrase them.

How did the human brain, before and after consciousness, know how to reproduce. How did a male know what to do to a female to get her pregnant? Why did he do it? Why did she let him do it? How did they know they needed to do it? I'm talking about the first humans on earth hear, they know nothing about anything. 

Telling me the advantages of asexual reproduction or how many organisms are involved in sexual reproduction are not answers to those questions.




> If you really want to know more then do the homework. If you think by asking a question in the AAA forum and not getting the answer you want...or will accept...or refuse to look into for yourself...somehow implies an invisible divine being HAD to do it, well.....hang in there cause your in for more news you don't want to hear.


I'm not implying anything, you and Atlas are, do y'all have and itch you can't scratch or something?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 22, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Go find another gap to plug your God into.



Any theory out there is a "plug" for some "gap."

Remember your abiogenesis video?  That is it's own "god of the gaps."  Except, you plug your gaps with natural theories, where we plug our gaps with a natural God.  

Though I believe in evolution, I do think there is something particularly odd about an organism slowly evolving to be both male and female.  The two sexes cannot survive indepndently.  It would seem natural selection would favor the asexual organisms which do not require a counterpart.  The "fittest" would require the least to survive.

How many female single celled organisms died until one evolved to be sufficiently male?  Or, were the males and females mutants and the asexual critters eventually died off?

Any answer you have for those questions is a gap filler.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What seems to be happening right from the OP in this thread is the usual power of assertion. "WE" are somehow to believe and take as fact that the drive for human reproduction was somehow created in the garden of eden, backed up by some bible verse about being "fruitful" and then "WE" are supposed to explain how this is not 100% true.
> 
> Any and all of it goes back much further than ANY and EVERY human  or human like creature and goes back to a single celled organism that reproduced by splitting and making a copy of itself. BILLIONS of years later it turned into what we "do" today.
> The details are out there for anyone that really WANTS to know the answers.



YOUR asserting here, not me, I'm asking questions. If the detials for the answers to my questions are out there, it doesn't seem like anyone can find them, this thread is going on 3 pages and not one answer has been close so far.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 22, 2012)

Good grief!

It's called instinctive activity, just like breathing or blinking your eyes. It's an activity that does not have to be taught as it is coded in DNA. 

Obviously evolution and natural selection would explain how those humans who couldn't figure it out (or couldn't find a mate) were selected OUT of the gene pool.


It sounds like you are looking for an extremely dumbed-down explanation of why organisms have coded reponses to certain stimuli. My answer would be "that's just the way it works." Why does your heart know to beat? Why do you let go of a hot stove when you grab it?


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 22, 2012)

Another angle would be to suggest that the earliest humans didn't know that intercourse and reproduction were related. They probably weren't keenly aware that animal flesh provided necessary proteins, they just had a nagging in their belly and the solution was to eat.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Whew! Thanks for sparing me.



Sorry I tried to be friendly and straight up with you. I forgot you atheists don't like that kind of stuff because I believe in God. Every converstation in here has to be like a WWII keyboard battle.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> Good grief!
> 
> It's called instinctive activity, just like breathing or blinking your eyes. It's an activity that does not have to be taught as it is coded in DNA.
> 
> ...



Finally, and decent answer to my questions.

The eye blinking and breathing make sense to me, I'm not sure I would but those in the same catagory as sexual reproduction, but that is a good explanation on your part. Thanks.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 22, 2012)

I would say it's the same as an infant reaching for a woman's breast when it's hungry. (They'll reach for any woman's, not just the mother) The baby feels something "off" inside and it's genetic response tells it to stick that thing in it's mouth and suck to make everything feel better. Again, it just *knows* to do that via genetic coding.

You could basically say the same thing for a caveman who "gets a feeling" and something tells him to match up his part to that cavechick's part to make it feel better. They probably had no idea that the act would make a baby come out 9 months later.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

grizzlyblake said:


> I would say it's the same as an infant reaching for a woman's breast when it's hungry. (They'll reach for any woman's, not just the mother) The baby feels something "off" inside and it's genetic response tells it to stick that thing in it's mouth and suck to make everything feel better. Again, it just *knows* to do that via genetic coding.
> 
> You could basically say the same thing for a caveman who "gets a feeling" and something tells him to match up his part to that cavechick's part to make it feel better. They probably had no idea that the act would make a baby come out 9 months later.



You might be right. Just be glad your not defending God with this answer, "thats just the way it works" and "it just knows" are not very acceptable answers for Christians.

Either way, I appreciate your answers.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 22, 2012)

String, did you have to be taught to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex or did it come naturally?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You might be right. Just be glad your not defending God with this answer, "thats just the way it works" and "it just knows" are not very acceptable answers for Christians.
> 
> Either way, I appreciate your answers.



So what is the answer "You just have to have faith?"  Isn't that like"thats just the way it works" ?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 22, 2012)

I'm gonna differ from Grizzly somewhat.  I think that by the time we had an awareness we knew what sex was and what it produced.  It evolved along with everything else.  Our drive is to keep the population going.  To survive.  To pass on our genes.  We are animals after all.  Just smart ones.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 22, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Any theory out there is a "plug" for some "gap."
> 
> Remember your abiogenesis video?  That is it's own "god of the gaps."  Except, you plug your gaps with natural theories, where we plug our gaps with a natural God.
> 
> ...



"God done it" doesn't explain how and it isn't testable and falsifiable.

There are evolutionary advantages to sexual reproduction discussed in the link I posted.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 22, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> There are evolutionary advantages to sexual reproduction discussed in the link I posted.



Are those advantages testable, or hypothetical?  I read a bit of the link, and saw a lot of hypothesizing on the subject.

Theres the god you plugged into the gap.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 22, 2012)

I don't believe "something" ever "just happens".


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 22, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> I'm gonna differ from Grizzly somewhat.  I think that by the time we had an awareness we knew what sex was and what it produced.  It evolved along with everything else.  Our drive is to keep the population going.  To survive.  To pass on our genes.  We are animals after all.  Just smart ones.



No, I disagree completely. Ask a 15 year old boy why he wants to have sex. He will tell you because it's great and fun and it's just what he REALLY wants to do. He could not care any less about producing more humans for the population. It's pure instinct that's telling him what to do, not logic or reason about the future outcome.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> String, did you have to be taught to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex or did it come naturally?



It came naturally.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> So what is the answer "You just have to have faith?"  Isn't that like"thats just the way it works" ?



Yes. I was pointing out the fact that Christians get beat over the head when our answer is faith.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 22, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Are those advantages testable, or hypothetical?  I read a bit of the link, and saw a lot of hypothesizing on the subject.
> 
> Theres the god you plugged into the gap.



Testable. Try harder...


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> I'm gonna differ from Grizzly somewhat.  I think that by the time we had an awareness we knew what sex was and what it produced.  It evolved along with everything else.  Our drive is to keep the population going.  To survive.  To pass on our genes.  We are animals after all.  Just smart ones.



Thats pretty convenient, huh?


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It came naturally.



Then you've answered your own question.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 22, 2012)

No, both sides of the aisle have faith - Whether you have faith that God "told" man how to behave, or whether you have faith that the arrangement of certain amino acids "tells" the organism how to behave.

I'll say that I have no idea. I have an understanding of what the scientists tell me and I hear what the religious folks say about it all. I am not an expert in either field so my grasp of nuclear bonding and immaculate conception BOTH revolve around what other people tell me.

Maybe one day I'll understand it all for sure but for now I basically have to shrug my shoulders and say "that's just the way it works."


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 22, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Then you've answered your own question.



So it didn't evolve? Sexual reproduction in humans has been the same since the beginning?


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> So it didn't evolve? Sexual reproduction in humans has been the same since the beginning?



Yes it evolved and it long predates humans.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 22, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Testable. Try harder...



Do we know these advantages will lead to asexual organisms evolving into two sexes?

And, does it go in reverse?

(I am aware of certain critters being able to change, but that is genetic, I am talking about those critters which biologically cannot change)


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 22, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Do we know these advantages will lead to asexual organisms evolving into two sexes?
> 
> And, does it go in reverse?
> 
> (I am aware of certain critters being able to change, but that is genetic, I am talking about those critters which biologically cannot change)



I suggest you read the wikipedia link on the evolution of sexual reproduction and then we can discuss the details if you want.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 22, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I suggest you read the wikipedia link on the evolution of sexual reproduction and then we can discuss the details if you want.



TRying to avoid it.  Hate biology.  Hoping you could summarize.

I looked through it a bit.....which is to say I read about the first sentence or two of each paragraph.....and saw a lot of theory.  Not fact.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 22, 2012)

Here's what I'm talking about.....



> The viral eukaryogenesis (VE) theory proposes that.....



Then....



> An alternative theory, proposed by Thomas Cavalier-Smith, was labeled the Neomuran revolution.....



Let's test it and see who's right.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 22, 2012)

And that's what I was kind of getting at - both sides require a tremendous leap of faith to say "Uh huh, that's exactly correct."


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 22, 2012)

And, another example......



> The most primitive form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.[34]



Then....



> Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is: copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation



And even more guessing....



> A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism.



Again, we are hypothesizing here.  We all fill our gaps with stuff.

If it's "testable," why are we still having competing theories?  There are 3 theories up there.  Who is right?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 22, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Testable. Try harder...



I just did.  About 5 minutes of reading and I produced multiple contradictory theories from your link.  When will they begin testing to see which is the "one" theory that created sexual reproduction.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 22, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> And, another example......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can have multiple hypotheses for something and test the feasibility of each. You may or may not be able to prove with certainty which of the feasible possibilities is actually what happened. In other words they are falsifiable. We can test the hypotheses for instance that sexual reproduction produces increased genetic diversity and the molecular advantage discussed in that link. "God did it" isn't testable. It isn't falsifiable. It doesn't tell us how it happened. It really doesn't explain anything. "God did it" is how we explained disease before we learned about the microscopic basis of germ theory. God was used to fill that gap in our understanding but really didn't explain anything. A testable hypothesis came along and kicked him out of that gap as has happened with many other gaps. You can insist that one explanation is just as good as the other but it just ain't so.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Aug 22, 2012)

Reproduction is the fundamental building block for the Whole Universe and It's not only in relation's too the Human Species's it is the survival instinct for every thing that exist .


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Aug 22, 2012)

So 50 posts and 2 insults later... those 'priceless' statues that look just like humans 1000s of years later.. why don't those prove evolution? Why don't the statues look different than us if we evolved?


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 22, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> So 50 posts and 2 insults later... those 'priceless' statues that look just like humans 1000s of years later.. why don't those prove evolution? Why don't the statues look different than us if we evolved?



I'm not aware of any statues that have been around longer than humans. Are you?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> So 50 posts and 2 insults later... those 'priceless' statues that look just like humans 1000s of years later.. why don't those prove evolution? Why don't the statues look different than us if we evolved?



It is rare but I am speechless.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 22, 2012)

I often spend two hours watching a particular tv show, in bed, when I should be sleeping.

I like to watch "The first 48 hours".  I believe it comes on the A&E network.
It's a docu-drama that deals with solving murder cases.  The premise is this:  If you don't solve a murder within the first 48 hours, your chances of solving that crime greatly deminish.

There isn't a Christian nor an atheist alive or ever have lived who can understand or describe the details of our beginning or the planets' beginning.  
We all to stupid.
We'll all be trying to figure it out, but there are far too many variables involved.  There's too much information missing.  There's too many 'could have beens'.  

People have and will dedicate their lives to explaining all of it to us.  But frankly, they're too stupid to know the unknown.

I'm not being derogatory.
In the words of Big red, "it's just common sense".


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 22, 2012)

Don't you believe Genesis Ronnie?


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 22, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Don't you believe Genesis Ronnie?



Yes.  totally.
But anything I say beyond what's written there can't be considered very reliable.

.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 22, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Yes.  totally.
> But anything I say beyond what's written there can't be considered very reliable.
> 
> .



Well that's a pretty detailed account.


----------



## StriperAddict (Aug 22, 2012)

I don't think Ronnie's or other Christians' position on Genesis is to close the book on what's reveled. I'm gonna bet he and others have some providential perspectives worth sharing.  Genesis is relevant to so many discussions today, from creation to the birth of sin in the first Adam, etc., etc.

I think that for many of us an intense prayerful study of the scriptures on those verses in Genesis and other books, esp. some of the major prophets will yield truth if we are open to it.  I love to compare scripture with other scripture, and my journey is far from over.
I don't have much to say on the subject at hand, but to encourage everyone to keep digging and searching.  The 'word' is a unique yet 'safe' place to dwell... as it points to the Living Word.

Pardon my derail for the sake of scriptural encouragement.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 22, 2012)

Revealed knowledge doesn't have a very good track record.


----------



## StriperAddict (Aug 23, 2012)

It does for me and many.  I find it exciting every time I journey into the scriptures, esp. for the heart stuff, grace and mercy, etc.

You know I'm praying for you & many other loved ones to 'know' that same grace. 
Don't mean to offend, but that's the truth


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 23, 2012)

The list of things we once "knew" through revelation that was later found wrong is quite long. The results of praying to a non-existent being are exactly what we would expect.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 23, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> So 50 posts and 2 insults later... those 'priceless' statues that look just like humans 1000s of years later.. why don't those prove evolution? Why don't the statues look different than us if we evolved?


What are you talking about?  Which statues exactly?


----------



## StriperAddict (Aug 23, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> The list of things we once "knew" through revelation that was later found wrong is quite long. The results of praying to a non-existent being are exactly what we would expect.


 
Continue as you may to post up the considerations of unbelief, I am convinced you and others come to these type of forums from a fight 'inside' of a different kind. As nearly convinced as holy writ itself.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 23, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Continue as you may to post up the considerations of unbelief, I am convinced you and others come to these type of forums from a fight 'inside' of a different kind. As nearly convinced as holy writ itself.



Believe whatever you want. I've already been there and done that.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 23, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Continue as you may to post up the considerations of unbelief, I am convinced you and others come to these type of forums from a fight 'inside' of a different kind. As nearly convinced as holy writ itself.



I have a neighbor and good friend who believes in ghosts.  Sometimes when we're hanging out we will hear a thump in the night.  I can't help but yell "Haints!!!!" and go running off flailing my arms.  We all have a chuckle.  It doesn't mean that deep down that I wish ghosts were real.


----------



## StriperAddict (Aug 23, 2012)

*Guess I'll be branded a blasphemer after this post!*



atlashunter said:


> Believe whatever you want. I've already been there and done that.


 
I know I'll get in trouble with the churchanity legalists for this, but here goes!  
If at one time you really shouted up to heaven "help!" and believed in Christ to forgive your sins... then God really did that (saved, redeemed, justified, glorified etc., your inner man), and all the deception of sin you embrace/carry now won't be able to stop Him from His love and calling you ( the real 'spirit-man' you ) back to Providence here on earth and unto eternity.  
((Saved to unsaved doesn't measure up BTW.  It would take another round of the one time gift of the cross/ressurection if that were the case, a square peg in a round hole.))

Nevertheless, you may be in for quite a pleasant surprise when your outward part is done.

Disclaimer: But if all you "touched" was the "christian religion" .... ??  There's no saving help there, sorry.  

And since I have no way of knowing... prayer continues !


----------



## Four (Aug 23, 2012)

Just like any other trait, or more so, any trait that helps promote reproduction (pleasure, etc) would be kept, as only those with those traits would breed... Any organism that didn't breed would have died out very quickly. 

It's like asking how an organism knew to breath... any organism that didn't would die before reproduction. 

Now we can have a regression problem if we try to go back to the 'first' reproduction... that might be more of a abiogenesis question vs. evolution. 

In many ways the question is like "what came first, the chicken or the egg" its an interesting thought experiment... but the questions doesn't actually make much sense as stated.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 23, 2012)

Four said:


> Just like any other trait, or more so, any trait that helps promote reproduction (pleasure, etc) would be kept, as only those with those traits would breed... Any organism that didn't breed would have died out very quickly.
> 
> It's like asking how an organism knew to breath... any organism that didn't would die before reproduction.
> 
> In many ways the question is like "what came first, the chicken or the egg" its an interesting thought experiment... *but the questions doesn't actually make much sense as stated.*



It made sense in my head! But, I'm not always as articulate as I would like to be.



> Now we can have a regression problem if we try to go back to the 'first' reproduction... that might be more of a abiogenesis question vs. evolution.


That is what I was trying to get at, the first humans reproducing. How and why.

You're one of the first humans walking around on earth and you have to reproduce, obviously, or we wouldn't be here. It seems odd to say the we "just so happen" to have the traits needed to know how and why to reproduce.

I know that it could be said that, yes, we just so happen to have those reproductive traits, just like breathing and our heart beating, and the correct DNA and RNA and everything else that's needed to keep us alive. At some point though, if I shared the naturalist worldview, I would have to stop and say to myself, " this just so happened might not have just so happened"


----------



## Four (Aug 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It made sense in my head! But, I'm not always as articulate as I would like to be.





stringmusic said:


> That is what I was trying to get at, the first humans reproducing. How and why.



It does make sense at first glance, but if we think of it in the lens of evolution.. it grays a bit. The concept of a species is actually not well defined. So there is no discrete line drawn as to what would necessarily even call the first human... I've used this picture before but it makes my point better i think. You're basically asking when the first letter became purple.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It made sense in my head! But, I'm not always as articulate as I would like to be.
> 
> 
> That is what I was trying to get at, the first humans reproducing. How and why.
> ...



Sexual reproduction happened way down on the 'trunk' of the evolutionary tree (single celled organisms).  We and all the other organisms following (that sexually reproduce) have been doing it ever since.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 23, 2012)

Four said:


> It does make sense at first glance, but if we think of it in the lens of evolution.. it grays a bit. The concept of a species is actually not well defined. So there is no discrete line drawn as to what would necessarily even call the first human... I've used this picture before but it makes my point better i think. You're basically asking when the first letter became purple.



I love that graphic.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 23, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Sexual reproduction happened way down on the 'trunk' of the evolutionary tree (single celled organisms).  We and all the other organisms following (that sexually reproduce) have been doing it ever since.



Ok, then replace humans in my questions and insert single celled organisms.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 23, 2012)

If the first humans (not easily defined) came from sexually reproductive ancestors then the question makes as much sense as asking how you learned how to reproduce or for that matter how any other animal knows how to reproduce. Their ancestors figured it out or else they wouldn't be there. It's a trait that is naturally selected for.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, then replace humans in my questions and insert single celled organisms.



 When I posted a link that addressed this you said I wasn't answering the question you asked!


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 23, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> If the first humans (not easily defined) came from sexually reproductive ancestors then the question makes as much sense as asking how you learned how to reproduce or for that matter how any other animal knows how to reproduce. Their ancestors figured it out or else they wouldn't be there. *It's a trait that is naturally selected for*.



Why? Just happens to be that way?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 23, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> When I posted a link that addressed this you said I wasn't answering the question you asked!



If your talking about the wiki link you posted, I said I didn't completely understand everything that was written, and that I believe a person would have to be highly intelligent in biology and chemistry to be able to to make sense of it and that from what I could understand, it didn't seem to answer my questions.

I would highly doubt that you, or anyone else, well except for TedBSR, would understand it completely, unless your a biologist who gets paid to play on GON all day.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Why? Just happens to be that way?



Because that trait has an influence on whether or not an individual reproduces and passes on their genes. If you can't figure out how to make a mini you then when you die your genes die with you.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 23, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Because that trait has an influence on whether or not an individual reproduces and passes on their genes. *If you can't figure out how to make a mini you then when you die your genes die with you*.



And early humans cared about this? Single celled organisms cared about this? Or does that trait just happen to be there?


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 23, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> I don't think Ronnie's or other Christians' position on Genesis is to close the book on what's reveled. I'm gonna bet he and others have some providential perspectives worth sharing.  Genesis is relevant to so many discussions today, from creation to the birth of sin in the first Adam, etc., etc.
> 
> I think that for many of us an intense prayerful study of the scriptures on those verses in Genesis and other books, esp. some of the major prophets will yield truth if we are open to it.  I love to compare scripture with other scripture, and my journey is far from over.
> I don't have much to say on the subject at hand, but to encourage everyone to keep digging and searching.  The 'word' is a unique yet 'safe' place to dwell... as it points to the Living Word.
> ...



We may or we may not.  In truth, the book of Genesis, like all other scripture, contains truths that should be prayed over, meditated upon, and allowed to explain God's will in hundreds of areas.

But everytime we add a word or a thought to what's given to us we stand a chance of changing what is originally said.  It is what it provides.  It is historical.  
Anyone should tread lightly when applying 21 century thinking to the origins of the universe.

Where little is provided, little is known.  
That doesn't sit very well with our 21st century thinking.
It's alright for a Christian to say:  "The answer to that question is simply not available".

.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If your talking about the wiki link you posted, I said I didn't completely understand everything that was written, and that I believe a person would have to be highly intelligent in biology and chemistry to be able to to make sense of it and that from what I could understand, it didn't seem to answer my questions.
> 
> I would highly doubt that you, or anyone else, well except for TedBSR, would understand it completely, unless your a biologist who gets paid to play on GON all day.



No I'm not and even if I was nobody pays me enough to spoon feed you knowledge. But the point is it is out there if you have the desire to seek it out and gain a better understanding. What you were really asking all along was the evolutionary origins of sexual reproduction. You're continually looking for the gaps in the misguided belief that if man doesn't have the answer then "God did it" wins.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 23, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> No I'm not and even if I was nobody pays me enough to spoon feed you knowledge. But the point is it is out there if you have the desire to seek it out and gain a better understanding. What you were really asking all along was the evolutionary origins of sexual reproduction. You're continually looking for the gaps in the misguided belief that if man doesn't have the answer then "God did it" wins.



That's really his game in a nutshell.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 23, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> We may or we may not.  In truth, the book of Genesis, like all other scripture, contains truths that should be prayed over, meditated upon, and allowed to explain God's will in hundreds of areas.
> 
> But everytime we add a word or a thought to what's given to us we stand a chance of changing what is originally said.  It is what it provides.  It is historical.
> Anyone should tread lightly when applying 21 century thinking to the origins of the universe.
> ...



What do you make of the various hominid bones that have been found, their relative order in the geological record, the independent dating methods that complement one another in the conclusions, our genetic closeness to apes, etc? Do you think all of that is some how compatible with the Genesis account? If not then what accounts for it?


----------



## Four (Aug 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> And early humans cared about this? Single celled organisms cared about this? Or does that trait just happen to be there?



It kind of has to be there. By virtue of existing, you have to have a trait that either promotes sexual reproduction, or allows for asexual reproduction. 

Sexual reproduction has the benefit of allowing for better variation as its a combination of genes vs. just relying on mutations for variance, as in asexual reproduction.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 23, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> No I'm not and even if I was nobody pays me enough to spoon feed you knowledge. But the point is it is out there if you have the desire to seek it out and gain a better understanding. What you were really asking all along was the evolutionary origins of sexual reproduction. You're continually looking for the gaps in the misguided belief that if man doesn't have the answer then "God did it" wins.


You and bullet, "the knowledge is out there if you want to find it" I didn't look at one website on this subject before I started this thread. If all anyone ever did was research their questions outside this forum, then we wouldn't have much of a need for it.


ambush80 said:


> That's really his game in a nutshell.



I don't have a game, I didn't bring God into this debate, you (plural) did. I asked some questions that have had obvious effects on some people.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 23, 2012)

Four said:


> *It kind of has to be there*. By virtue of existing, you have to have a trait that either promotes sexual reproduction, or allows for asexual reproduction.


I believe it's there, I just don't buy the, "it just happens to be there, along with the millions(possible more) of other things that keep us and this universe the way it needs to be for everything to thrive and survive" idea



> Sexual reproduction has the benefit of allowing for better variation as its a combination of genes vs. just relying on mutations for variance, as in asexual reproduction.



Thanks for your answers four. I appreciate that you can have a pleasent conversation. You don't get into the derogatory poking fun game, at least not that I can remember. Your post come off as intelligent and respectful.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You and bullet, "the knowledge is out there if you want to find it" I didn't look at one website on this subject before I started this thread. If all anyone ever did was research their questions outside this forum, then we wouldn't have much of a need for it.
> 
> 
> I don't have a game, I didn't bring God into this debate, you (pl) did. I asked some questions that have had obvious effects on some people.



Then maybe you should have just Pm'd Tedbsr and have been done with it. You ask people(who you don't think can understand the answers they give) for answers that you seek without even trying to research the answers for yourself, and then you dismiss any and all answers you get because you cannot make an understanding of them.
Your right  about not needing a forum to seek and discuss questions and answers, but a person should have some limited knowledge( through research) about what they seek so they can at least recognize a decent answer when it is provided.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Then maybe you should have just Pm'd Tedbsr and have been done with it. You ask people(who you don't think can understand the answers they give) for answers that you seek without even trying to research the answers for yourself, and then you dismiss any and all answers you get because you cannot make an understanding of them.
> Your right  about not needing a forum to seek and discuss questions and answers, but a person should have some limited knowledge( through research) about what they seek so they can at least recognize a decent answer when it is provided.



I was talking specifically about post #74 that I didn't understand, and neither do you, unless you have a biology or chemistry degree you haven't informed us about yet. I didn't say that I didn't understand anything else in this thread. I can recognize a decent answer, when one is provided. Take grizzly blake and four for example, they provided decent answers, you didn't, I'm sorry that is upsetting to you.


----------



## Four (Aug 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I believe it's there, I just don't buy the, "it just happens to be there, along with the millions(possible more) of other things that keep us and this universe the way it needs to be for everything to thrive and survive" idea



Well.. it doesn't just happen to be there, if it wasn't there we wouldn't exist, or much of anything biologic. It's a prerequisite to life. 

Generally when defining life, reproduction is required, along with metabolism and reaction to stimuli.  It's at the forefront of evolution, good traits that have to do with reproduction are needed in all life.



stringmusic said:


> Thanks for your answers four. I appreciate that you can have a pleasent conversation. You don't get into the derogatory poking fun game, at least not that I can remember. Your post come off as intelligent and respectful.



No problem, i find this stuff interesting. I'm sure i can / do get into the derogatory poking fun game.  But i'll at least try the nice route first!


----------



## bullethead (Aug 23, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I was talking specifically about post #74 that I didn't understand, and neither do you, unless you have a biology or chemistry degree you haven't informed us about yet. I didn't say that I didn't understand anything else in this thread. I can recognize a decent answer, when one is provided. Take grizzly blake and four for example, they provided decent answers, you didn't, I'm sorry that is upsetting to you.



There is lots you don't know about ol bullet.
Correct answers do not have to be decent as long as they cover what is asked. You are not going to find a simple few sentences to cover what you want answered. A few of us pointed you in the right direction and now it is up to you to take the information provided and look into it deeper if you really want to get to the bottom of your question.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 23, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> What do you make of the various hominid bones that have been found, their relative order in the geological record, the independent dating methods that complement one another in the conclusions, our genetic closeness to apes, etc? Do you think all of that is some how compatible with the Genesis account? If not then what accounts for it?



The possibilities are endless.

We also have much in common with a pig.  Their body parts become valuable in rebuilding our own physical bodies.  But that doesn't necessarily mean we had a 
'connection' in the past.

Frogs, apes, pigs, they are what they are.

The possibilities, and the chance for error, are endless.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 23, 2012)

Which possibility best explains that evidence?


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Aug 23, 2012)

Alright I don't know of specific statues or locations of the statues but I know that there are statues of people(maybe euorope?) That look the same as modern day people, so I would think that if evolution was true, then the statues would look different than we do today because we would have evolved? What am I wrong about..?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 23, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> Alright I don't know of specific statues or locations of the statues but I know that there are statues of people(maybe euorope?) That look the same as modern day people, so I would think that if evolution was true, then the statues would look different than we do today because we would have evolved? What am I wrong about..?


How old are we talkin'?  We have looked roughly the same for 8-10 thousand years or more.  Just not as well dressed.  I'd say we've looked the same as long as statues have been carved.  Evolution takes longer than that.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 23, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 23, 2012)

Looks pretty normal for women these days to me....


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 23, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> Alright I don't know of specific statues or locations of the statues but I know that there are statues of people(maybe euorope?) That look the same as modern day people, so I would think that if evolution was true, then the statues would look different than we do today because we would have evolved? What am I wrong about..?



The oldest human fossils found have been dated to nearly 200,000 years ago. I'm not aware of any statues that come any where near being that old.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0216_050216_omo.html

But who needs statues to see changes when you have the bones?


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Aug 23, 2012)

Alright I didn't know evolution was supposed to take that long, iguess that answers my question thanks. Just out of curiosity, how does someone determine the age of fossils/bones? I can't imagine how difficult that could be


----------



## grizzlyblake (Aug 23, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> Alright I didn't know evolution was supposed to take that long, iguess that answers my question thanks. Just out of curiosity, how does someone determine the age of fossils/bones? I can't imagine how difficult that could be



I think I learned in 4th grade about carbon dating.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Aug 23, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> You would have to be a complete idiot not to believe it.  In the last 100+ years humans are taller on average, faster, healthier, live longer, reproduce in less numbers, and so on.



So this is evidence of evolution, but it takes many thousands of years for the overall human appearence to change? Is this what y'all are saying


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 23, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> Alright I didn't know evolution was supposed to take that long, iguess that answers my question thanks. Just out of curiosity, how does someone determine the age of fossils/bones? I can't imagine how difficult that could be



If you click on the second page of that article they explain how the dating was done in this case.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 23, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> So this is evidence of evolution, but it takes many thousands of years for the overall human appearence to change? Is this what y'all are saying



I'm smarter than he is, so I'm right.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Aug 23, 2012)

Hahaha alright drippin' rock, thanks guys


----------



## bullethead (Aug 23, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> Alright I didn't know evolution was supposed to take that long, iguess that answers my question thanks. Just out of curiosity, how does someone determine the age of fossils/bones? I can't imagine how difficult that could be



The mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Honestly and meant with respect, take some time to read about evolution. It may just clear some things up that you might have always wondered about.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 23, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Which possibility best explains that evidence?



Well, after staring at your question for several numb minutes, I'm stuck on one part of your question.

"explains that evidence"?

See, I can't know what's evidence and what isn't.
For me, the most logical explanation is that the same creator created every animal and every plant, and that's why there are so many similarities, yet variances, within all living creatures.
Sorry, I know that isn't the type answer you wanted.  But I can't reach any further.

.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 24, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Well, after staring at your question for several numb minutes, I'm stuck on one part of your question.
> 
> "explains that evidence"?
> 
> ...



I suppose that would be a reasonable possibility if not for the differences in dates that show a progression of creatures. If everything was created individually by God in the beginning then we should expect to see fossils of everything jumbled together within the geologic record. We don't. I guess a way around that would be multiple special creations over a vast expanse of time. Maybe the physical progression of features we see in the fossil record was by design to confuse and make it look like evolution. And the same for the genetic similarities?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe the physical progression of features we see in the fossil record was by design to confuse and make it look like evolution.



Anybody who claims such a thing is speculating.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Anybody who claims such a thing is speculating.



Well the transitional forms are there in the fossil record. That doesn't prove definitively that fossil A evolved into fossil C by way of fossil B but it is what we would expect to see if that is what happened. How theists explain the fossil record is a mystery to me. Add to that the genetic evidence. If God put multiple sources of evidence out there that all lead to the same but false conclusion, what kind of God is that? And if that isn't the theist explanation then what is?


----------



## Four (Aug 24, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Well the transitional forms are there in the fossil record. That doesn't prove definitively that fossil A evolved into fossil C by way of fossil B but it is what we would expect to see if that is what happened. How theists explain the fossil record is a mystery to me. Add to that the genetic evidence. If God put multiple sources of evidence out there that all lead to the same but false conclusion, what kind of God is that? And if that isn't the theist explanation then what is?



To my understanding, all fossils are transitional forms, because evolution is constant. It doesn't go from point A to point B and stop.

Only young earth creationists should have problems reconciling the fossil record. IIRC JB isnt a young earther... if you just assume god started/created the universe you can have no problem with evolution, etc.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 24, 2012)

Four said:


> To my understanding, all fossils are transitional forms, because evolution is constant. It doesn't go from point A to point B and stop.



That is correct. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. You and I are transitional forms between whatever we came from and whatever comes from us and so on. My point is that the chronology of the fossils and the forms of the fossils point to evolution.




Four said:


> Only young earth creationists should have problems reconciling the fossil record. IIRC JB isnt a young earther... if you just assume god started/created the universe you can have no problem with evolution, etc.



Well I don't know how someone can reconcile that with the Genesis account. Even if you just assume that where it says a day it actually means millions or billions of years you still have the order of animals wrong and you've got man being made from scratch out of dirt, preceding the female member of his species and the female being made out of one of his bones. Suppose we throw that all out in favor of human evolution. That creates problems of it's own. At what point in the evolutionary process does man get an eternal spirit and how does that work? If we gradually evolved then there was no single "first human" and if that is the case then where and when does original sin come into the picture? The Genesis account also start off in the age of agriculture. The archeological record goes much further back than that. So you can accept all of this and still believe in a God but I'm not sure how one can do it without tossing out Genesis. Once you do that you've lost the foundation upon which everything that follows is built.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 24, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I suppose that would be a reasonable possibility if not for the differences in dates that show a progression of creatures. If everything was created individually by God in the beginning then we should expect to see fossils of everything jumbled together within the geologic record. We don't. I guess a way around that would be multiple special creations over a vast expanse of time. Maybe the physical progression of features we see in the fossil record was by design to confuse and make it look like evolution. And the same for the genetic similarities?



I personally wouldn't even begin to speculate.  There obviously could be many different possibilities that I could not even imagine.
But I know it's a search that will continue.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2012)

Four said:


> IIRC JB isnt a young earther... if you just assume god started/created the universe you can have no problem with evolution, etc.



You are correct.

A young earth perspective will, from what I remember, attribute much of the Earth's age to the flood.   That is not my position, but it addresses Atlas' question about theists reconciling the fossil record.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 24, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I personally wouldn't even begin to speculate.  There obviously could be many different possibilities that I could not even imagine.
> But I know it's a search that will continue.



Fair enough but the problem remains. The fossil record isn't what we would expect to see if Genesis is true. There must be an explanation for that and I would think Christians of all people would be the most interested in figuring it out.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Well I don't know how someone can reconcile that with the Genesis account.



Look for what the author was trying to communicate to the reader.  If he was speaking metaphorically, it could just be a basic summary of what actually happened.

We did all come from dirt?




			
				atlashunter said:
			
		

> Suppose we throw that all out in favor of human evolution. That creates problems of it's own.



Not unless you try and ratioanlize it happenning without God.



			
				atlashunter said:
			
		

> At what point in the evolutionary process does man get an eternal spirit and how does that work?



When God gave it to him.  



			
				atlashunter said:
			
		

> If we gradually evolved then there was no single "first human" and if that is the case then where and when does original sin come into the picture? The Genesis account also start off in the age of agriculture. The archeological record goes much further back than that. So you can accept all of this and still believe in a God but I'm not sure how one can do it without tossing out Genesis. Once you do that you've lost the foundation upon which everything that follows is built.



You don't toss Genesis.  You accept that the author is conveying a "God created everything" message.  Many believe the garden is a metaphor for man coming into consciousness.  I don't know about all of that.  But, as with anything, there are many, many theories.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Look for what the author was trying to communicate to the reader.  If he was speaking metaphorically, it could just be a basic summary of what actually happened.
> 
> We did all come from dirt?
> 
> ...



If someone can read Genesis and do the mental acrobatics to make it compatible with evolution then we can do that with any creation myth. If Genesis isn't historically true then who is to say any other part of the bible isn't metaphorical too? Maybe every miracle story is a myth just like Genesis intended to convey some symbolic message. After all, if the author of Genesis never intended for it to be a historical account and it has been understood as such by Christians and Jews for so long how can the rest of their interpretations be trusted? I think the creationists for all their faults accurately recognize the threat evolution presents to the Christian religion.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> If Genesis isn't historically true then who is to say any other part of the bible isn't metaphorical too?



Every Christian believes there are some metaphors in the Bible.  Some just see more than others.  The book of Job is a good example.  I see it as a didactic poem written with the intention of instructing folks that God is in control, so we should trust him.  Many others see it as an actual telling of events.



atlashunter said:


> Maybe every miracle story is a myth just like Genesis intended to convey some symbolic message. After all, if the author of Genesis never intended for it to be a historical account and it has been understood as such by Christians and Jews for so long how can the rest of their interpretations be trusted?



Maybe some, and not others.  The Bible changes as it moves along.  There are many books which are clearly literal.....Leviticus, Numbers, Judges, etc.  There are other books which involve TONS of metaphors....Song of Solomon, the Parables, Psalms, etc.

It's not a "one or the other" proposition.  Each book is unique and with a different purpose.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Every Christian believes there are some metaphors in the Bible.  Some just see more than others.  The book of Job is a good example.  I see it as a didactic poem written with the intention of instructing folks that God is in control, so we should trust him.  Many others see it as an actual telling of events.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure you can have both metaphor and literalism. But to believe the foundational story of the text was literal for so long and then have to change that view to it having been metaphorical all along should make one question the reliability of all the other views. Remember we aren't talking about just any book here. We're talking about what is supposed to be a message from the creator of the universe given to people who are in direct communication with that creator. That sort of sets a higher bar for the expected accuracy and reliability of the stories don't you think?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> But to believe the foundational story of the text was literal for so long and then have to change that view to it having been metaphorical all along should make one question the reliability of all the other views.



I don't see why.  It is never argued that the author was present at creation.  Unless one believes God literally told the creation story to the author (different than "inspired"), one has to assume there is a bit of allegory happening.  In addition, there are huge cultural changes in audiences over the years.  Initially....it wasn't a book for you and me.

Assume Jesus is who he claims to be......he seemed to enjoy speaking in parables, and saying things in a way that makes sense to folks.  I see no change in that pattern through Genesis.



atlashunter said:


> Remember we aren't talking about just any book here. We're talking about what is supposed to be a message from the creator of the universe given to people who are in direct communication with that creator. That sort of sets a higher bar for the expected accuracy and reliability of the stories don't you think?



I don't see why.  Also, I don't understand why we have to assign greater importance to Genesis than we do to the gospels.....which are actually the foundational books of Christianity.


----------



## Four (Aug 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I don't see why.  It is never argued that the author was present at creation.  Unless one believes God literally told the creation story to the author (different than "inspired"), one has to assume there is a bit of allegory happening.  In addition, there are huge cultural changes in audiences over the years.  Initially....it wasn't a book for you and me.
> 
> Assume Jesus is who he claims to be......he seemed to enjoy speaking in parables, and saying things in a way that makes sense to folks.  I see no change in that pattern through Genesis.
> 
> ...



I just had an interesting thought.. if we assume genesis is a metaphor, or at least we don't take it literally, would it be to far of a leap to also be christian, but to not believe that god created the universe?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2012)

Four said:


> I just had an interesting thought.. if we assume genesis is a metaphor, or at least we don't take it literally, would it be to far of a leap to also be christian, but to not believe that god created the universe?



Never really thought of it....but you would have to elliminate God as the "creator of all" or as the one who is ultimately in control.  And God, as I believe in him, is the creator.  Existence is the basic reason for my belief in God. So, personally, I believe God created the universe.   I think science works to explain the "how."


----------



## Four (Aug 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Never really thought of it....but you would have to elliminate God as the "creator of all" or as the one who is ultimately in control.  And God, as I believe in him, is the creator.  Existence is the basic reason for my belief in God. So, personally, I believe God created the universe.   I think science works to explain the "how."



Well, god still could be the creator of the world or w.e. but the universe could exist before. 

Or god could be the creator in a fatherly sense.. like your dad "creates" everything because he is the provider of things (food, cloths, money, etc)


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I don't see why.  It is never argued that the author was present at creation.  Unless one believes God literally told the creation story to the author (different than "inspired"), one has to assume there is a bit of allegory happening.  In addition, there are huge cultural changes in audiences over the years.  Initially....it wasn't a book for you and me.



Genesis is a very detailed account. I'm not sure what the difference between being told the name of the first woman was Eve and she was made by God from Adam's rib and being "inspired" to say all of that would be. If it's the latter and we have to give the author leeway that the story may have been a fabrication all along that raises two questions. First, why didn't believers hold that view all along if that was the appropriate way to approach the story? We're talking about people who say they are in communication with God. Who say they not only talk to him but he talks back. Isn't it just a bit odd that they were never told that they were reading Genesis all wrong and that it didn't really go down that way? Second, how do we know the same mistake made with Genesis isn't still being made with other parts of the bible still taken as historical accounts?




JB0704 said:


> I don't see why.  Also, I don't understand why we have to assign greater importance to Genesis than we do to the gospels.....which are actually the foundational books of Christianity.



The story of the bible doesn't start with the gospels. The need for salvation is premised on the view that sin was brought into the world by Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve then the premise is in question.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 24, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> If someone can read Genesis and do the mental acrobatics to make it compatible with evolution then we can do that with any creation myth. If Genesis isn't historically true then who is to say any other part of the bible isn't metaphorical too? Maybe every miracle story is a myth just like Genesis intended to convey some symbolic message. After all, if the author of Genesis never intended for it to be a historical account and it has been understood as such by Christians and Jews for so long how can the rest of their interpretations be trusted? I think the creationists for all their faults accurately recognize the threat evolution presents to the Christian religion.



Most mature Christians won't have a need to make creation compatible with evolution.  Rather, we would need to see evolution become compatible with creation.
And not even that.
I'm comfortable with the differences some might find in the two.  So far I haven't been driven to care.
Honestly, it's much easier for me to believe that God controled it all than to believe mankind could perfectly figure out what occurred many thousands (even billions) of years ago.
If my physical life depended on it, I'd still stick with God as the creator rather than risking my life for the accuracy of mankind on the subject.

.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2012)

Four said:


> Well, god still could be the creator of the world or w.e. but the universe could exist before.



Then God woul dhave to have a god.....and we would still have the problem of infinite regress. 



Four said:


> Or god could be the creator in a fatherly sense.. like your dad "creates" everything because he is the provider of things (food, cloths, money, etc)



That would fit in with those who believe we are "planted" by aliens....or some other "created" force.  I cannot go along with that, because my conclusions on God are relevant to existence being dependent on a cause...or, an uncaused cause.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 24, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Most mature Christians won't have a need to make creation compatible with evolution.  Rather, we would need to see evolution become compatible with creation.



So if you have multiple sources of physical evidence that indicates your belief isn't true but something else is true your expectation is that the explanation that best explains that evidence conform to your beliefs.




Ronnie T said:


> I'm comfortable with the differences some might find in the two.  So far I haven't been driven to care.



I simply can't relate. Assuming there really is a being that created everything examining the evidence for how we came to be would actually be examining how that creator did their work. If it turns out that we find how we came to be is very different from a creation story we thought to be true then a respect for the creator would demand that we acknowledge the error and change our beliefs. To simply disregard this to avoid the reality the creator is responsible for would be very disrespectful toward that creator. And if there is no creator then it still shows a stubborn preference for delusion over reality.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 24, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I simply can't relate. Assuming there really is a being that created everything examining the evidence for how we came to be would actually be examining how that creator did their work. If it turns out that we find how we came to be is very different from a creation story we thought to be true then a respect for the creator would demand that we acknowledge the error and change our beliefs. To simply disregard this to avoid the reality the creator is responsible for would be very disrespectful toward that creator. And if there is no creator then it still shows a stubborn preference for delusion over reality.



That's not what I meant.
I'm 63 years old.  Some might call me an educated person.  Been around the world a time or two.  Studied lots of stuff.  Forgotten much of it.
As many of us do, I grew up believing everything taught concerning evolution.... and I also believed in God as the creator.
Obviously, as I grew I became more interested in each of those principles.  But in the end, when I read the statement:  "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", I believe it to be a true statement.  I don't believe it because faith in God clouds my physical judgment so that I believe things without question.
I'm saying that after all my life, I believe God created it all.  That it could not have begun without God.

Was there some element of an evolution in the process?  Wouldn't surprise me, at least for some segment, but I don't trust me, you, or Darwin for telling me what occurred a billion years ago.  It's illogical, to me.

God the creator is not illogical, for me.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 24, 2012)

You should trust yourself more than that book IMO.

Believing "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" to be true doesn't necessarily conflict with anything because it says nothing of how it happened. For the numerous parts that do tell how something happened we may be able to test the veracity of those claims and in so doing either confirm their truth or eliminate them as falsehoods. A worthy pursuit in either case regardless of whether there is a creator or not.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 24, 2012)

Did australopithecus afarensis have a soul?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Then God woul dhave to have a god.....and we would still have the problem of infinite regress.
> 
> 
> 
> That would fit in with those who believe we are "planted" by aliens....or some other "created" force.  I cannot go along with that, because my conclusions on God are relevant to existence being dependent on a cause...or, an uncaused cause.



What if he does and there are whackier weirder realities  that he has to deal with; weirder than ours.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Aug 24, 2012)

Four said:


> Well, god still could be the creator of the world or w.e. but the universe could exist before.
> 
> Or god could be the creator in a fatherly sense.. like your dad "creates" everything because he is the provider of things (food, cloths, money, etc)



That would still leave the question of how did the universe get here..and if you say the universe was here before God then that's saying that the universe would be greater?? I'm not sure exactly but if I had no clue how the world was here..I might go crazy


----------



## Four (Aug 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Then God woul dhave to have a god.....and we would still have the problem of infinite regress.



Yea I certainly wasn't claiming it was a more logically consistent position, just that it's not a less valid interpretation.




JB0704 said:


> That would fit in with those who believe we are "planted" by aliens....or some other "created" force.  I cannot go along with that, because my conclusions on God are relevant to existence being dependent on a cause...or, an uncaused cause.



Right, but the god of the bible doesn't necessarily have to be the uncaused case, maybe the biblical god was created by the 'mega-god' and THAT is the god that's the uncaused cause... Considering the OT god Yahweh was based off of Babylonian religion (which was polytheistic) it might not be even to far of a stretch.


----------



## Four (Aug 25, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> That would still leave the question of how did the universe get here..and if you say the universe was here before God then that's saying that the universe would be greater?? I'm not sure exactly but if I had no clue how the world was here..I might go crazy



To deal with the universe you would either have to have an infinite universe, or God has to have a god.



ross the deer slayer said:


> I'm not sure exactly but if I had no clue how the world was here..I might go crazy



I don't see there being much of a difference. Even if we assume God created everything, we still have questions about how god got here, which is way more loaded.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Aug 25, 2012)

I know its confusing at times and obvious at others.. i'm trying to think of something for comparison..but I can't figure anything to compare with our questions about God. I don't understand what you mean about "to deal with the universe"


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 25, 2012)

Four said:


> To deal with the universe you would either have to have an infinite universe, or God has to have a god.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see there being much of a difference. Even if we assume God created everything, we still have questions about how god got here, which is way more loaded.



Questions!

Ultimately, we humans have far more questions than there'll ever be answers.  I got questions about fishing, and hunting, and gas mileage, and new wrinkles on my face.  I seldom get an answer that does me a lot of good.

.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 26, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What if he does and there are whackier weirder realities  that he has to deal with; weirder than ours.





			
				Four said:
			
		

> Right, but the god of the bible doesn't necessarily have to be the uncaused case, maybe the biblical god was created by the 'mega-god' and THAT is the god that's the uncaused cause... Considering the OT god Yahweh was based off of Babylonian religion (which was polytheistic) it might not be even to far of a stretch.



You guys may not believe this, but I have considered this before.......what if God is just one of a whole slew of gods.......what if this universe is a speck in a much grander scheme......

But,God, as I believe in him, is the creator of the universe.  So, logically, he could not have a God.  And the premise of Yahweh is that he is the ultimate force in the universe....which would define him as the "uncaused cause."  I believe that is the premise of most people's "god" concept.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 26, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Did australopithecus afarensis have a soul?



The first man to have a soul would have to be the first man to sin.


----------



## kpfister (Sep 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, then replace humans in my questions and insert single celled organisms.



I guess I'm jumping in a bit late here. But here goes.

Cells reproduce by dividing. What happens is they take in nutrients through the cell walls and grow larger. The larger they grow, the more inefficient they become.  
Much like myself after eating 30 wings during a football game. 
Cells that don't divide once they reach this point burst their cell walls (die) and their genetic material leaves the pool.  There is no consciousness involved here.  As cells divide and combine into more complex organisms more and more chemical reactions come into play. And when they combine into an almost unfathomably complex system like a conscious human being these chemical reactions take place in the brain and become the things we call joy, pleasure, and desire (to eat 30 wings) etc. 
Those complex organisms which did not develop with these chemical reactions are flushed out of the gene pool.


----------

