(Matt - Split topic from this thread)
I see myself as human with a soul who doesn’t belong in a category for animals, you should think better of yourself, monkeys don’t so who will?
That’s nice, but I wasn’t asking for anyone opinions on what they thought was the nature of their being.
If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, do you mind not posting? Thanks.
Sorry, you mention your personal beliefs and that’s what it comes down to.
No, actually I was looking for objective facts as to why other animals haven’t evolved cognitive reasoning.
Exactly, and that theory is a mere belief, while on the subject of beliefs why would it be irrelevant that I state mine in comparison to yours? It was my “objective facts” as far as beliefs may go be it you like them or not.
You can watch evolution in a laboratory if you wished. The fact of natural selection, and evolution, as being something that happens in the real world, is irrevocable. It happens. There is such a process as natural selection and there is such a thing as evolution, you can objectively watch it in the real world.
The question of whether that’s how we got here, or whether it was a process ‘designed’ into us or magiced or whatever your personal belief system is, is a more contentious issue, but the evidence is so overwhelming, that too has been accepted as fact by any scientist worth his salt. Many Christians now hold onto their crazy belief system by calling Gensis an allegory.
The fossils, the fossil line, geology, all the physical evidence in the world points to that being the way we came into being, from an earlier relative of the monkeys.
If you believe that evolution is just a belief, give us your reasons!
I don’t understand how one is evolved from another species. When humans have a child that child carries on their genes and in turn reproduces the genes of their ancestors. How is it that we turn into a species so far distinguished from one another that we cannot do so much as communicate? (Not that we are flawless through our means of communicating but at least we have developed a system that gets a common idea across) Yes, some people are born disabled or mutated but these people are entirely capable of reproducing what was produced the previous generation and the generation that produced themselves was just as normal as the next person, this goes for any species. If we don’t have a proper identification aside from eachother we would have no being. I do know that we change over time but do we change who we are? As far as I can see through this world is that who I am relies fully on who others are and if I’m not of them then what am I?
This is why I believe I have a soul. I believe I am more than shifting flesh that will disintegrate into a pile of dust with no being outside of this world and the confines of time. I have a soul who is one with love, the love of those who have been created in the image of just that. The almighty, I Am. More than that, I have a father who reveals himself in all of his creation and wants nothing more than for you to believe the same as he is, he does not change, he is the foundation, he is love and truth to those who see with belief and even unto those who do not.
Silent, the only problem I had with your first post, is you were talking about how we didn’t evolve from monkeys, when I was asking how other species have not evolved intelligence. Can you see the distinct seperation between those two?
As far as whether or not we evolved from primates, I think it’s pretty obvious that we did. Does that make anything any less holy, or spiritual or whatever you want to call it? I don’t think so, I don’t think it’s even relevant.
Who’s to say that animals or plants, or the great globe itself is any less spiritual or important then we are? We may have higher cognitive faculties, but what does that amount to? Are we not all interdependant on the whole ecosystem, the sun, the solar system, the galaxies that holds the solar system, and the universe that holds the galaxy? That’s the main problem with western thinking, we think we’re above nature. I’m much more inclined to traditional societies, that see all things in nature as equal. So, if you take away your prejudices about us being more “special” then the rest of nature, then it’s much easier to accept that we evolved from monkeys.
No. I see a belief.
You have no identity if you evolve from that which has no consistancy. You cannot be one if the universe is changing completely different species into eachother. Time cycles into itself, though you may be evolving you’re only evolved as far as within your fleshly body. You could never completely see through someone elses eyes but you can empathize with them because you share something, that is a soul and feelings in a spiritual realm that other species are cut off from, they’re not an image of God. You are one, you have your own opinions, own senses, own soul, own choice, these cannot be shared with species other than your own kind. You are of your mother and your father who are of their own with the empathy and feelings to create one, that is the cycle within itself. They have given you earthly life as God has given you spiritual life, your father in heaven has, as mother Mary had given to Jesus and Adam and Eve to their descendants. When time is no longer your ruler, God will be, you will return to dust as particles but remain as one soul.
You may indeed see a belief, a theoretical belief based on objective truth. However, belief or not, there is a distinct difference between disagreeing with us evolving from monkeys, and me asking why other animals have not attained intelligence. You may attempt to refute my arguement with saying evolution is not true. But my original question was assuming that evolution is true, which is what I was basing my question on.
Like most the topics where you have two sides arguing vociferously for one side or the other it appears to me that the truth is somewhere between the two and the case is still open.
Take Darwin’s finches. They have definitely evolved. Take Homo Sapiens. We have got taller (and wider!), but not to reach higher food, just because we have changed our diet. Natural selection would appear to be occurring in the former, but change is so recent in the latter that the case here would appear to be still open, we don’t know who, if any, will survive.
As for new species, there appears to be very little evidence thus far to show it is anything but a fairly sudden and widespread change.
Maybe origin of variations within a species would have been a better title, but origin of species would be a bit of an extrapolation, possibly one too far.
Lets say it’s definitely a factor, but how great a one is still unknown.
Which explains why I said it. We don’t view the same way and the only opinion and insight I had was that of my belief to yours and yours to mine. I couldn’t assume it was true when my sight comes from it not existing so.
On opposite sides we will tumble into disarray with no solution in any amount or span.
Let’s call it a thread, shall we?
neo-darwinistic evolution is an observed fact,
it being responsible for the diversity of species is the best available theory
Having expressed a view of moderation I feel that I cannot let it be hijacked in favour of one particular religious view. We could be in the wrong section here but I must say that I, in no way, endorse the basis of your argument.
Hi Willem. I agree that it is an observed fact within a species, though possibly not the whole answer. Whether it can be valid across species is another matter and only a theory, albeit possibly the best one we have at present.
SilentSoliloquy
Silent, I think you should really look into evolution. It doesnt contradict with Christianity, and it really helps to establish the connection of all things. You feel as though you are “above” or better than the animals. This makes me assume you feel your above the trees and the minerals too. But the only thing that makes you different, is this feeling. Really think about that.
Its important to remember there hardly are factual truths. We simply do not know a lot of things and with evidence that are highly circumstancial and borderline. There are good arguments against the first evolution of the simplist lifeform also, that makes beginning evolution work. That is natural selection and survival of the fittest. Withot the first simplist lifeform (like a simple cell), natural selection and survival of the fittest cannot occur, and without those, evolution breaks down. Science cannot explain how the first simplist lifeform came to be. Even if they did they couldnt find evidence. Without evidence backing theory, then it is nothing more than philosophy, no ‘factual’ science theory. Its like string theories. Works great but no proof. Probably can never find it either.
Whats most important is keep your mind open I guess. Evolution seems toe xplain well for things that are in existance but fails to describe the beginning of the process. But if you were really an asshole then you would explain that the power of probability and fluke was responsible for everything. If you argue like that then you will win cause nothing can beat arguments like that. Objectively speaking though, it is still debatable
teddy wrote:
You make a good point here. I personally think that if a particular consensus could occur among science and religion, then evolution could indeed explain how things came about. Problem is, science and religion are separate from each other, and niether wants to give in to the other. There are explanations to the beginning of and evolution of our universe in religious type truth seeking doctrines such as theosophy. But scientist cant empiracally test these explanations, as they involve themselves to be in what I would refer to as a materialist type religion. Everything cant be understood by what we can sense in the physical. However, much of what’s understood in theosophy is slowly being discovered scientifically, so we may be on our way. People just refuse to see the connection. Take a look at this article and see what you think. http://blavatsky.net/features/newsletters/2005/blavatsky_evolution.htm
What I find to be most interesting is the suspicious links and similarities we are finding between quantum physics and buddhism, hinduism and taoism… 
torrentfields wrote:
They are two different ways of trying to understand or interpret the truth, if they contain any merit, there should be links.