How is coming from dirt better than coming from an ape?

[F0uad]

I don't even understand your respose.

You made a question, I answered it.

they believe the first human was created from dirt, yes. I claim we were created from ape-like creatures.

Sciences supports the latter. I am merely saying I don't understand why some people feel it is degrading to come from a lesser species even when this is said to them by another theist. If you see the OP, it is mostly about people who believe in God but believe in evolution (which actually means most people...)

I am merely pointing at that it doesn't make much sense to ridicule the raw material. End of the day, we were made from God (or not, but the OP is mostly assuming this and this would not really be the subject of the debate) and God either used dirt or a lesser specie as base material form to create the human. If you even want to critique the raw material, why would you say dirt is BETTER than an actual thinking being? That is pretty much the OP.

Like i said i don't think its dirt mixed with water(mud) but a different kind of mud. There were no words for in that time (i think), the Quran also describes Blood and Water in the verse.

Anyway if the Dirt is created directly from a supreme-being who is all-knowing and all-powerful then coming from a being that almost knows nothing and more stupid then us i would prefer Dirt like i mentioned before.

 

[Muffled]

This is not even a debate of wheter it is true or not, it is just an honest curiosity of why do you think it is so low to come from a less evolved species in opposition to coming from dirt or mud?

I mean, many religious people believe in evolution(actually, we are the majority), so either if God decided to use dirt or an ape as raw material to do something more to his image it still comes from God.

What is your problem with apes?

They are at least smarter than dirt.

And funnier

Just saying. Weird stuff

Dirt or ape, it all is the same stuff, so there is no difference.

Evolution isn't wrong because apes are bad. Evolution is wrong because it has no supporting evidence. Saying that Apes can turn into men is like saying that salt can turn into water. It is simply physically impossible for that to happen.

 

[Muffled]

If it make you feel better, we do come from dirt, but it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the evolution line. Like when we were bacteria and stuff. Then other animal thingys. Then Ape-ish animals. Then us.

Although man at least in the form of hominids existed before Adam and Eve, the fact remains that Adam was created only 7000 years ago. He is the one created from dirt.

As for me, most likely my origin is extraterrestrial since it is most likely that I descend from the Odinic racial groups, wolves, elves, dwarfs and gods.

PS: I suppose I could have some Atlantean ancesters who most likely come from Atlantis and were extra-terrestrial settlers also.

 

[beerisit]

Dirt or ape, it all is the same stuff, so there is no difference.

Evolution isn't wrong because apes are bad. Evolution is wrong because it has no supporting evidence. Saying that Apes can turn into men is like saying that salt can turn into water. It is simply physically impossible for that to happen.

And your evidence to support this claim is? Oh that's right apes didn't turn into men as far as evolution goes. That's just one of the lies told by the uninformed.

 

[Muffled]

Nope. It uses "dirt."

Dirt is a rather generic tem. It can mean anything in the ground, rocks, dead leaves, bones.....

 

[averageJOE]

It would probably be better if you just said that you don't accept my answer which is divine or natural. You want it both ways. You want Christians to accept that God used evolution, yet you still want it to be a natural process. You want it to be a choice between divine and divine, but that would mean that, under your rules, it would be magic or magic, or natural or natural.

Why don't you take a pick. First tell me which one that God did, dirt or ape? Then maybe I can explain it better. If you say both then it is magic or magic and they should both be scorned according to the "god did it" rules.

I personally don't care how we "started", be it dirt, ape, alien, whatever. Creationist tend to only argue against evolution to support their claims. All the OP is doing is asking is why does your alternative, being that we came from dirt, make more sense to you? All it seems is that your answer is "it's divine or natural". If thats your answer then fine, but please elaborate.

 

[gnomon]

Scientific endeavors always start with a presupposition of a religion, either the Bible or naturalism along with The Origin of the Species. We all know by now that Christians were instrumental in starting and developing the field of science because if God is a God of order then the universe will have a certain order and constants to it that can be studied and then experiments on the constants can be done and duplicated.

However if we start with an ever changing environment, which evolution says we have, then science would be no good. So the fact that science is even possible, invalidates the naturalistic starting point. However let’s forget all of that for now so that I can answer you question, because I am a fair, reasonable and caring person, not an animal that would just look at you as food, which evolution says is true.

The soul is my immortal essence. With modern resuscitation techniques and also modern ghost hunters, people are seeing into the next life more frequently. We can’t get around the fact that there is life after death and the soul is what carries us on to our final destination, mine being with Jesus in Heaven.

What properties does a soul have?

Does the soul influence one's decision making process or is that process handled solely by the brain?

If ghost hunters are seeing into the next life more frequently are you implying that ghosts are souls and vice-versa?

When does this immortal essence become part of the body? At conception, at birth, at baptism......when?

When does the soul leave the body? At time of death or not until the day of judgment?

You say the soul carries you. Are you separate from your soul? What is being carried to the life after? The body?

 

[McBell]

So your question should have be: What do you prefer believing in coming from a ape or a god?

except that neither the Bible or the Koran state humans came from god.
BOTH state that humans came from dirt/mud...

 

[McBell]

This post validates my post, that didn't take long. :beach:

really?
How so?

Seems you are merely trying real hard to avoid defending your thus far completely unsubstantiated claims...

 

[McBell]

Scientific endeavors always start with a presupposition of a religion, either the Bible or naturalism along with The Origin of the Species. We all know by now that Christians were instrumental in starting and developing the field of science because if God is a God of order then the universe will have a certain order and constants to it that can be studied and then experiments on the constants can be done and duplicated.

However if we start with an ever changing environment, which evolution says we have, then science would be no good. So the fact that science is even possible, invalidates the naturalistic starting point. However let’s forget all of that for now so that I can answer you question, because I am a fair, reasonable and caring person, not an animal that would just look at you as food, which evolution says is true.

The soul is my immortal essence. With modern resuscitation techniques and also modern ghost hunters, people are seeing into the next life more frequently. We can’t get around the fact that there is life after death and the soul is what carries us on to our final destination, mine being with Jesus in Heaven.

except that you have presented nothing but even more unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to substantiate your previous unsubstantiated claims....

 

[McBell]

It would probably be better if you just said that you don't accept my answer which is divine or natural. You want it both ways. You want Christians to accept that God used evolution, yet you still want it to be a natural process. You want it to be a choice between divine and divine, but that would mean that, under your rules, it would be magic or magic, or natural or natural.

Anything else you would like to dictate to them?
Perhaps you could let them what their favourite color is?

Why don't you take a pick. First tell me which one that God did, dirt or ape? Then maybe I can explain it better. If you say both then it is magic or magic and they should both be scorned according to the "god did it" rules.

sounds to me as though you are stuck on magic doing it either way.
is this need to stick god somewhere a failing of yours or a failing of your god?

 

[Hope]

To know humanity was specially created by God, in the image of God, as stated in Genesis, is the whole point. Not what material humanity was made out of. Certainly in one sense dirt is no better than ape, and if God chose to take an ape, and supernaturally transform that ape into a being like Himself with a spirit, then who am I to argue with that? However, that's not what Genesis states, and, quite frankly, from a personal standpoint, it's much more reassuring to know God took extra time and effort to create humanity, even if it was from dirt, rather than taking an ape He'd already made, looking at it, going "Hmmm, what can I do with that?" and going "poof! Here is man!"

Anyway, when you think about it, even apes are essentially made from dirt. The real point is not the substance of our creation, but the reason for our creation and the special care that went into our creation.

 

[outhouse]

Anyway, apes are animals, humans are not.

yes all the violence and wars and murder, just like animals, makes us so MUCH different!

only difference between us and animals is the people kill for fun like a cat's amd killer whales, as to where most animals kill for food.

 

[Me Myself]

T from a personal standpoint, it's much more reassuring to know God took extra time and effort to create humanity, even if it was from dirt, rather than taking an ape He'd already made, looking at it, going "Hmmm, what can I do with that?" and going "poof! Here is man!"

Well, evolution would be the extra time actually. It takes more than "poof"

 

[waitasec]

yes all the violence and wars and murder, just like animals, makes us so MUCH different!

only difference between us and animals is the people kill for fun like a cat's amd killer whales, as to where most animals kill for food.

actually...cats don't kill for fun.

their nose and mouths are too close to their eyes, so they tire out their prey to protect their eyes.

 

[Breathe]

Anyway, apes are animals, humans are not. I wish people could see the difference, but alas, I am doomed to debate people that can’t see the differences from humans and animals and even call humans animals. How can a person that considers humans to be divinely different and created in the image of God debate with a person that thinks we are just animals?

A genuine question, MoF:

Were Neanderthals animals, or humans?
If we brought them back to life through technological advances, would they be, in your view, animals or humans? After all, they were probably around the same in intelligence as us (their brains were bigger than us, but different), and they could, most likely speak (indicated by the presence of a hyoid bone) or at least vocalize.

They buried their dead, with grave goods: a definite possibility that they had some concept of religion.

What makes humans unique? Or if not just humans, but Neanderthals too, what makes both of these groups unique?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Anyway, apes are animals, humans are not.

A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:

(1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions)
(2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
(3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
(4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment

So, what part of this does Homo Sapiens lack?

 

[Fiddler]

What about the cool idea that there is evolution by the will of G-d?

 

[Me Myself]

It's pretty much in my OP actually

 

[Falvlun]

However if we start with an ever changing environment, which evolution says we have, then science would be no good. So the fact that science is even possible, invalidates the naturalistic starting point.

Actually, the concept of uniformitarianism was a huge turning point for science, and is one of the things that made modern science possible. This is the theory that basically "nature" works the same way today as it did yesterday, as it did 100 years ago, as it did 1 million years ago, etc. It is predictable, and the world has (mostly) been shaped by gradual forces working over long periods of time. This is contrast to catastrophism, which maintained that unpredicatable and (by some accounts) supernaturally-caused catastrophes were largely responsible for the shaping of the world as it is today.

Science requires the assumption that nature works the same tomorrow as it does today; otherwise, all the work at understanding the processes of nature are in vain, since they could just up and change. Catastrophism allows that God, or some other random events, can just happen out of nowhere.

Unsurprisingly, catastrophism was the favored interpretation by those of a religious persuasion.