The first people...

[Mr Cheese]

And one needs fine motor skills, which I don't have. Not my fault... There's too much creationist-bashing here, too!:slap:

I think its idiot bashing, there is a difference

 

[The Great Architect]

I think its idiot bashing, there is a difference

Well, I am surely not an idiot. (Not that you were saying I am.)

So, how did animals, such as monkeys, begin to appear? Where did they come from?

 

[painted wolf]

From whence did we (the human species) emerge? Didn't the first humans come from Africa? My knowledge of this is shaky, at best. Do people who believe in God, and people who believe in evolution, agree on anything? Regarding the origin of species, I mean.

I suppose I should throw my 2cents into this...

First I need to know what you consider 'human'...
If you are talking about anatomically modern humans... H.sapiens.. then we originate roughly 250,000 years ago in Africa.
The oldest genetic linage of living people still live in Africa and are known as the San (bushmen).

Genetic evidence and fossil evidence indicates that the hominid lineage that leads to us and the ape linage that leads to Chimps went their separate ways around 6 million years ago.

I didn't read the rest of this thread.. so I don't know what else people have said or asked...

wa:do

ps... to address the op... I am a theist and a biologist. As a biologist I've studied evolution and will continue to do so as I continue my education.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Well, I am surely not an idiot. (Not that you were saying I am.)

So, how did animals, such as monkeys, begin to appear? Where did they come from?

their anscestors...lemurs and stuff....

I am sure someone wiser can say

 

[Kurgan]

Of course people who believe in evoloution believe in God. Christianity is a latter day religion.

God and man have coexisted since a time beginning somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago. Without religion mankind would not exist in its present form.

 

[Kurgan]

This statement seems to be the closest to the truth as we can get with today's scienticic knowledge. This brings up the question did God create humans or did humans create God. The short answer is we do not have a clue, nobody can prove either belief. The honesty is, we have to consider both until we know for certain. I have seen on this string and others where people mention the explosion between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago and some think the domestication of animals is what made man progress and some thought it was farming that did it. I believe that God did it. What I think took place is that a physical and a biological mutation took place that allowed mankind to develop imagination, this along with logic and the ability to reason caused man to develop a biological god. This then created a culturial god. This is what caused man to be able to establish community rules and moral principles and protected the propagation of the tribe. This is what cause mankind to excel, of course domestication of animals and farming soon followed. Adam and Eve became the explaination of why man existed in the first place. It was also the foundation for understanding the necessity of morality. The myth of Adam and Eve existed in mythology about 4000 years before Moses. People were not stupid at the time it was that their knowledge base (science) was very limited. Humans have a tendency to fear what they do not understand. If you cannot have a logical reason for something then you cannot understand it if you cannot understand it, then it bothers you. My example is; to look up into the heavens on a starlite (clear) night and say to yourself there is no end to the universe. what do you believe ????? What is infinity??? God provided all of the answers,there is no record of a tribe existing with any success with out a core religion.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Just because you don't understand a different ruler, does not make it less valid.
Of course there is a difference between the esoteric and exoteric. The esoteric does everythign you say, observe, recreate, demonstrate, predict..... but I understand that is beyond your scope of understanding

But I offer the following, even though I know it is probably like trying to teach a mouse how to split an atom.

For example a certain well known modern alchemist recently stated:

There is a prevailing notion, that an identity exists between what
are called Initiatory states, and the mystical states.
These “mystical” states, incorrectly identified with the Grades of
Initiation, include such things as “ecstasy”-and the proponents of these
theories thereafter insist that these things are all availble to
visualizations, such as PET and MRI. Moreover, they argue that the
Initiatory Grades, being in their minds, equivalent to the states of
mysticism, can never be truly occupied permanemtly by the being, but
are merely fleeting “experiences”.
While we would agree that the states encountered by “mysticism” are
fleeting, and even that since they are psychic experineces, that they
can be observed via imagery techniques, we can not see how they are to be
identified with the Initiatory Grades, which speak of diverse other things.
Moreover, every traditional Initiatory doctrine notes not only an
ascent(”Realization”, and “Escape from the cosmos”), but a redescent, in which,
although the original individual being is
changed, nothing is lost of the Gnosis in the redescent (unlike
mysticism, where the experineces are but “memories”).
Doctrinaly, these differences are noted in many ways, but one way
of explaining it is in the Sufistic distinction bewteen “Hal”, and
“Maqqam”. Ibn Arabi, for example, goes to great lengths to explain the
distinction between temporary “states” (Hal), and totally aquired “Stations”
(Maqqam)–which are the objectives of the
Initiatory path.
Another illustration, is derived from geometry.
All of the states of being can be envisioned as points along some
indefinite verticle axis, which have, independently, their own
circumference (conceived of in the horizontal plane, or
intersecting the vertical plane, at specific given points).
Initiation involves something of a reversal…as opposed to
seeing independent concentric circles staked on one another,
along a verticle axis, the “circumference” (of what is really
sphereical), presents itself as a circle in the horizontal
plane, uniting all states in simultaniety and succesion.
There is thus an ascending path (the lowest point to the highest
point), and and a descending path (the highest point returning to the
lowest point)…occuring without interuption and continuity.
This is a partial explanation of the Cross, that forms the
emblem of “Rosicrucianism”.
In the Hermetic (Alchemical) symbolism, that Rosicrucianism
originated from, there are many similar examples of this
“return to earth”, invloving things such as birds having their
wings removed, among other symbols.

My point was that religion and science are not translatable enough so that one can say that they are both striving for the same goal in getting in touch with the universe. You can't completely translate science aspects to religious aspects as easily as you can convert inches to centimeters. Furthermore, most of the time alot of religious people can't understand the ruler they created themselves.

If you can't present tangible, demonstrable, measurable, predictable, or reliable evidence to support your claim or belief, what evidence do you have. Many people say that they had a religious experience and if I could have the same religious experience as they had, then I would believe in their faiths too. In all actuality, maybe iwould, but probably not. An experience inside one's head is proof that one had an experience, it is not proof of god. Basically one had an experience that they couldn't explain, and so they call it god. this is not science and this is not knowledge. Without valid evidence that an outside force caused you to see your experience, then you can only call it just that, an experience, and nothing else.

Also, mysticism is not a science and is not a very good way of claiming anything as existing. there is no scientific evidence for a soul or spirit ad mysticim is nothing more than belief without evidence, belief that denies observation, practicalit. Mysticism is nothing more than obscure speculation, undefined thought, and vague rationalization.

 

[sandor606]

I suppose I should throw my 2cents into this...

First I need to know what you consider 'human'...
If you are talking about anatomically modern humans... H.sapiens.. then we originate roughly 250,000 years ago in Africa.

I consider human a being that possesses will, the power of making one's own decisions. Animals have drives and instincts they must follow; only human beings have the power to choose.

 

[sandor606]

Well, I am surely not an idiot. (Not that you were saying I am.)

So, how did animals, such as monkeys, begin to appear? Where did they come from?

Do you believe in evolution?

 

[painted wolf]

I consider human a being that possesses will, the power of making one's own decisions. Animals have drives and instincts they must follow; only human beings have the power to choose.

You're sure you're a biologist?
Humans have instincts as much as any other animal... and animals make choices all the time. (Otherwise people wouldn't always be seeking a better mouse trap)
Rats have metacognition and dogs may possess this complex higher thought process.

Tool use (and thus abstract thought) is so common as to be almost hum-drum.

wa:do

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

You're sure you're a biologist?
Humans have instincts as much as any other animal... and animals make choices all the time. (Otherwise people wouldn't always be seeking a better mouse trap)
Rats have metacognition and dogs may possess this complex higher thought process.

Tool use (and thus abstract thought) is so common as to be almost hum-drum.

wa:do

I always understood that animals like whales and dolphins made conscious choices also.

 

[camanintx]

I consider human a being that possesses will, the power of making one's own decisions. Animals have drives and instincts they must follow; only human beings have the power to choose.

So when a rat refuses to push a lever for food when it sees that another rat receives an electric shock as a result, exactly which drive or instinct is it following? I think you will have a hard time proving that humans are the only ones capable of making their own decisions.

 

[fantome profane]

I consider human a being that possesses will, the power of making one's own decisions. Animals have drives and instincts they must follow; only human beings have the power to choose.

I understand the point you are making, but even here it is a matter of degree, not black and white. As has already been pointed out humans have instinct, and animals make choices. Even this power to choose is something that has evolved through a slow gradual process and we can see any number of intermediary stages represented in other species living today.

Did homo erectus have this ability to choose?
Did homo habilis have this ability to choose?
What about the australopithecines?
What about our new (very old) friend Ida (Darwinius masillae)?

 

[The Great Architect]

Do you believe in evolution?

sure.:yes: But I have faith

 

[painted wolf]

No reason for faith and evolution to be incompatible.

wa:do