[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The evolutionary model doesn’t require that man is reduced to an animal. I’m sure some evolutionists would argue man evolved beyond animals and that he is unique.[/quote]
If you’re going to claim this you must explain why.
Of course, there are theistic evolutionists. And they bring a truckload of problems with their explanations. Huge truckload.[/quote]
Why? Because it is self evident that man is unique: language; abstract thought; culture etc. If man evolved from animals he has certainly surpassed them and civilised man has transcended his animalistic nature.
[/quote]
Exactly my point.
Now explain why and how “the evolutionary model doesn’t require that man is reduced to an animal.”[/quote]
Why would it? Man could have evolved into something beyond a mere animal.[/quote]
Good grief, you’re struggling here, man.
Explain HOW and WHY this could/did happen.[/quote]
In order
-bipedalism as a uniquely derived trait of the genus Homo
-development of stone tools
-brain expansion
-development of the larynx
-development of language [/quote]
face palm
[/quote]
What a cogent and nuanced response. Homo sapiens are preeminent because of one thing - our brains. Primate intelligence is already unique within the animal kingdom. Within the brainy primate order, the family hominidae is outstanding. Within hominidae, the genus Homo is a standout. And finally, the genus species Homo sapiens became the pinnacle of human intelligence, and as a result became the only extant human species.
Encephalization quotient is a measure of relative brain size defined as the ratio between actual brain mass and predicted brain mass for an animal of a given size, which is hypothesized to be a rough estimate of the intelligence or cognition of the animal. Human brains are 3X larger than what regression analysis would predict for a primate of our size, and 7X for a comparatively sized mammal. Much of the the size expansion comes from the cerebral cortex, especially the frontal lobes, which are associated with executive functions such as self-control, planning, reasoning, and abstract thought.
It should be obvious to see why these uniquely derived traits would give Homo sapiens an overwhelming advantage over its peers, most notably over the other human species it coexisted with in the past. This massively improved software is a relatively new development in human evolution, occurring between 600-400 thousand years ago. Modern man is an animal, but an incredibly intelligent one.
This intelligence begets agency, which itself begets morality. Within creationism, there is no logical need for a Creator to have made man in its image, so why do you take this position? Gown the overwhelming scientific literature, it is far more tenable to believe that the Deus constructed and set the mechanisms of evolution in motion. The particular flavor of creationism that you are arguing for represents only a tiny fraction of possible creationist narratives. Not only do you have to provide evidence of creationism more generally, but you have to go deeper and evidence that the creation account given by the Abrahamic religions is the correct one. Of those three faiths, you have to evidence why Christianity wins the day. Your faith is a Russian nesting doll Push. The philosophy of science is infinitely simpler and makes far, far less assumptions. [/quote]
The problem with science is that it purports to explain the world when in actuality it can only describe the world. Further, as Descartes explained we can never really know for sure that what we observe is real. The only thing we can be sure of is that we exist(because we think - cogito ergo sum).
I’m not a perennialist(and if I was I wouldn’t be allowed to say so), but it’s interesting how the same founding myths appear in disparate civilisations across the globe. For example, the epic war between the Titans and Olympians in Hesiod’s Theogony, the Aesir-Venir war in Norse mythology, the war of the Babylonian Gods in the Enuma Elis, the Hittite Kumarbi, Virubhadra’s war against the Vedic Gods in Hindu mythology and the rebellion of Satan in Christianity etc.
With the exception of Christianity these are all nationalist myths that define people. A “people” in the ethnic, cultural and linguistic sense comes into existence through its founding myths. There is not a tribe on earth that does not have one. Without these myths distinct peoples would not exist. These creation myths serve the function they describe - they create a people. Who is to say they are not true? Science? Science is devoid of meaning.
[/quote]
You are failing to distinguish between a paradigm’s ability to describe, to explain, or to predict. Science ( and the theory of evolution in particular) is able to fulfill all of these functions. In the philosophical sense, the physical and life sciences are more empirical than they are rational.
I fail to see how national mythologies relate to what I posted above. The do not describe reality, not do they possess explanatory or predictive power.