Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting that you responded to my statement rather than my question.
Because your question is silly.
But I will play along. When do humans become something else?
A certain date cannot be pointed to. Eventually, at some point in the future, the collection of evolutionary changes will become great enough that the descendants of modern day human beings look physically different. This will be gradual, and not really noticible from one generation to the next.
At some point after that, a human being from the 21st century, where he able to travel in time to the future, would be unable to reproduce with the descendants of modern man.
This might be 1 million years from now. Or 2 million. Maybe 3.
But I will play along. When do humans become something else?
A certain date cannot be pointed to. Eventually, at some point in the future, the collection of evolutionary changes will become great enough that the descendants of modern day human beings look physically different. This will be gradual, and not really noticible from one generation to the next.
At some point after that, a human being from the 21st century, where he able to travel in time to the future, would be unable to reproduce with the descendants of modern man.
This might be 1 million years from now. Or 2 million. Maybe 3.
It still amazes me that you guys don't see the faith needed to believe that. But I guess we're kinda running in circles here....
It still amazes me that you guys don't see the faith needed to believe that. But I guess we're kinda running in circles here....
But there is no faith needed.
Look back 3 million years and you have Australopithecus afarensis. Look at today and you have human beings. Look forward 3 million years. Is it really so much of a stretch to imagine change on a similar scale?
If by "our bodies" you are merely refering to your own weary sack of bones that sits beneath that brain of yours,
..........I hadn't realised you knew me!
Quote:
then you must have discovered some sort of miracle drug over in Spain and I want some.
Can't say too much about that....know what I mean??
Quote:
But if you actually mean our collective descendents of mankind, then I think you got the idea.
Yeah! That's what I meant. Like I said, I know Jack about the subject....so I guess I'll just go and sit under my palm tree, peel an orange and shut up!!!
Look back 3 million years and you have Australopithecus afarensis. Look at today and you have human beings. Look forward 3 million years. Is it really so much of a stretch to imagine change on a similar scale?
No faith needed.
Well, really there is faith needed in just about everything, there is just differning levels of it. Saying that past evidence proves it will happen in the future is acceptional because for the most part the past repeats itsself. But your statement is similar to saying that you know you will get a paycheck from work next month because you have recieved one the previous month. Of course, there is that small possibility that you could get fired before then and that this month's paycheck is the last you will ever see from your current employer. Now, assuming you are a good worker, the likelyhood of that happening is quite thing, but it still takes a level of confidence and belief. I don't mean to come out like this, but it does require a certain amount of faith. I say this as both a Christian and somebody who believes in evolution.
Its not what I call fact, it IS fact. There is NO doubt that we developed from earlier species.
It's not a FACT to me. I believe the believe the Bible and that God created us.
You are entitled to your own opinion: what you are NOT entitled to is your own version of the FACTS. There is, literally speaking, mountains of evidence that the process of evolution did, in fact, occur. You may disagree with the Theory of Evolution (and the entire community of life scientists who are taken seriously) all you want. On the other hand, I hate to burst your bubble, but evolution really, really happened.
Last edited by ninewands; 05-15-2007 at 11:36 AM..
Reason: typos
My question to stretch et al is when do they stop being human and become something else?
Answer: they don't
And only time and unbiased research can prove that out.
Hi Alpha,
I didn't get your question until you and stretch went at it a bit. Your question is difficult to answer. In the color wheel when does red stop being red and become purple? That's what you are effectively asking. You can pick a hue that we all agree is red and one that we all agree is purple, but many of the hues inbetween would be a matter of individual preference. The same would be if we looked at the complete continuum of genetic steps from Homo sapiens back to a previous evolutionary form that is clearly a different creature that Homo sapiens. We could agree that easily at the tails, but the transitional creatures would be up to debate.
I didn't get your question until you and stretch went at it a bit. Your question is difficult to answer. In the color wheel when does red stop being red and become purple? That's what you are effectively asking. You can pick a hue that we all agree is red and one that we all agree is purple, but many of the hues inbetween would be a matter of individual preference. The same would be if we looked at the complete continuum of genetic steps from Homo sapiens back to a previous evolutionary form that is clearly a different creature that Homo sapiens. We could agree that easily at the tails, but the transitional creatures would be up to debate.
Yup. The designation "human," like other designations, is man-made and very subjective. At one time, we defined "human" as the use of tools...until people pointed out that gorillas use sticks inserted into termite holes to retrive termites, and otters bang clams against rocks (the rock being the tool) to open them. What "is" human? That's very subjective and any definition can leave people out. For instance, you can't define humanity as having a certain brain capacity since there are many intellectually disabled humans who are very obviously human! You can't define human as walking upright as there are animals that can walk upright for certain periods. If you said, "Well, fine, then 'human' is walking upright for X percent of one's day," that leaves out people with disabilities of the legs.
Feeling emotions isn't "humanity". We've all looked into a dog's eyes and known how its feelings are deeply hurt that we haven't pet it, or seen shame when it had an accident on the carpet.
For the purposes of science, humanity is defined in a variety of ways that do seem to change as refinements are made. But that's what's so great about science. Science does NOT purport to have all the answers. Science purports only to know the questions...and to seek from there. And new questions pop up all the time. People think science is dry and clear-cut and unemotional. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is an exciting study (or umbrella of thousands and thousands of studies) that exercise and fascinate the human mind. I personally feel there will always be questions, and there will always be seekers.
Well, really there is faith needed in just about everything, there is just differing levels of it.
That is a very astute observation, Maniac. I have found it useful to realize what thing in life I truly believe to be the most likely thing to be actually true and then I call that "fact" and think of all other things in terms of how sure I am in comparison. For example, my most basic "fact" the I really believe in is that, I exist. Then all else falls into place from there pretty easily. This is a bit OT, perhaps you may want to start a thread on it? (or maybe I will if you don't -- its a intersting side topic to me).
The Bible doesn't say how old the earth is. The 6000 year bit was first explicitly stated by Bishop James Ussher, Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, in 1650. He wrote that the Creation began in the evening of October 23, 4004 BC. The basis of his statement was that he added up all the "begats" that allegedly show the genealogy from Jesus all the way back to Adam.
Now, there are a number of problems with Bishop Ussher's chronology, not the least of which is how he narrowed it down to a specific day when he had no basis whatsoever for doing so. Another is that the ages of the patriarchs shown in the Biblical genealogies are ludicrous. Still another is that there is absolutely no way of proving that the genealogies are complete and no extra-Biblical evidence to suggest that they are. In short, just on the question of the age of the earth, young-earth creationism is a house of cards built upon sand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
