Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Maybe, then, the earth IS billions of years old as measured in present year time frame.
Human bodies are not ape bodies, don’t be ridiculous. There are similarities, but to say that an ape body and human body are exactly the same is sheer insanity. There are many similarities between human bodies and pigs, for instance, that’s why they can use pig parts in humans (which i think is a disgusting and cruel practice), or ferrets - that’s why ferrets are often used in experiments. All bodies have similiarities since they are made from the same elements with similiar or same systems, and of course some have more resemblances than others.
What I am saying is people who identify “I am an ape” will certainly be born as an ape after they leave the human body - death being leaving the earthly body and going elsehwere. The “where” being dependent on one’s consciousness, which is molded by how one lives life, thoughts, attachments, and so on.
But you would sense them with your real senses (pain receptors) and not with senses you don't have a name for, would you?
Now, I used radio waves specifically because at that frequency we do not sense them nor do they have a deleterious effect on us as they pass through us, or our walls.
There is radiation we perceive as "heat" that we can sense, or light or even colors, all detected by known senses. For radiation we cannot detect with our bodies we have devices that can. The neat things is that we all sense them and detect them directly or indirectly with known sensors (natural or artificial) and no one disputes them.
Those who do can stick their hand on a red hot stove top. So, there is a universal agreement of their occurrence.
Unfortunately, we have no senses or devices that uniformly detect spirits angels and what not, except as apparently figments of our imagination, and then even those who "share" these experiences don't really agree what they are.
In the same way that the blind man senses thing around him without seeing them, we can sense the effects of what you would call the "supernatural" (which I prefer to thing of as only an "undiscovered country".)
Blind people detect things by known senses (sense we have names for) except the sense of sight. They can's 'see' light unless they can also feel the heat associated with it such as an incandescent light bulb) if they can recognize a lamp by feel. They certainly can't hear light.
None of this is an extraordinary claim and therefore can be proven by ordinary evidence demonstrable to all. But claiming that one sense the "supernatural" is extraordinary, and as such requires extraordinary evidence which amounts to more than just your word for it.
If that causes you to doubt my sanity, well, the line forms to the left.....
A guy who claims to be Napoleon said the same thing. In his world, he really is Napoleon and we are "crazy" for doubting him!
I am a creationist but not a young earth one. I follow the teachings of the Vedas, which describe that the earth is billions of years old.
But I have much more in common with young earth creationists than godless mechanics. Big deal whether the earth is young or old, it and everything else in this universe and beyond is a creation or emanation from the Supreme Lord, and He makes His own rules.
And a rather strange concept of rebirth where your actions are not judged on if you ascend or descend in worth, but somehow your thoughts about what you ARE. Some sort of “sympathetic magic” involved in reincarnation. Wow, what wacky theology.
Human bodies ARE ape bodies, and I didn't say “exactly the same” that is your strawman, of course our bodies are not “exactly the same”; but neither is the body of a chimp and a gorilla “exactly the same”. Obviously your criteria is too narrow, because by it gorillas would not be apes unless their body was “exactly the same” as a chimp.
Pigs are not even close. Pigs have hoofs, and as such are a part of a rather recent mammalian clade separate from any mammal that has nails on the end of each digit.
Moreover I did not mention morphology alone, although by our physical morphology we are most certainly apes. I mentioned DNA.
We are 98% the same in genetic DNA as a chimpanzee and 94% the same over the entire genome. Neither humans or chimps share that same degree of DNA similarity with any other animal.
So by what physical or chemical (DNA) criteria do you seek to remove humans from the ape clade?
BTW, the etymology of the word "natural" from dictionary.reference.com includes this:Man himself is both "natural" and "supernatural" (so to speak); he is "natural" in that he has a physical body; he is "supernatural" in that he has an immortal soul. I Corinthians 2:14 tells us that God, in His dealings with us, speaks to us not as physical bodies, but as souls: Spirit-to-spirit as it were.c.1300, naturel, "of one's inborn character, of the world of nature (especially as opposed to man)," from O.Fr. naturelThe root word, naturel as opposed to man — or what he should be — parallels this translation of Scripture:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. — I Corinthians 2:14
Thank you so much for this outstanding essay/post, dearest sister in Christ!
Faith and belief are two different things entirely. Faith is spiritual, whereas belief is temporal. You can believe in Christ, yet have no faith in him at all. The world may acknowledge Christ's existence and as such the world may believe in Christ, but there are but few who have faith in Christ.
Certainly you must have a belief in Christ to have faith in Christ, but there is no corollary conclusion that all who believe in Christ have faith in him. Just as not all people who believe in Airplanes are willing to fly on them.
I consider what you call modern “science” to be quite primitve and ignorant in many ways. You can cite DNA matches and whatever else you like; but anyone not indoctrinated and hypnotized by evolutionary theory can see quite clearly that although ape bodies and human bodies have many similiarities, humans are not apes. Nor are apes humans.
You wouldn’t be interested in deeper discussion of consciousness or Vedic theology, so I won’t waste my time.
I am reminded of Issa, the last Yaqui (I think that was his tribe) Indian of northern CA found in the early 20th century. He knew nothing of modern life at all, until he was a grown man. After seeing modern life, he considered the “white man’s world” thus - clever, but no wisdom.
Of course, his limited contact and understanding of what “white man’s world” consisted of didn’t give him a broad view, but still I like his assessment to a degree. Modern technical scientific veiw and conclusions are clever, but not wise.
Science has been demonstrated to be the best way to gain reliable and replicable information about our physical universe. Musing about reincarnation or the afterlife and what thoughts will get you reborn into what shape is NOT and has NEVER been a way of gaining reliable and replicable information about our physical universe.
I can and did cite DNA similarity. I also can and did cite our morphological similarity. Humans are biologically apes. I notice that you do not name a SINGLE physical criteria by which humans would be excluded from the ape clade.
The theory explains the fact. How do you propose to explain the fact that humans and chimps are closer in DNA than a chimp is to a gorilla?
Why would you group chimps together with gorillas, who they are NOT as closely related to, but exclude humans, who chimps ARE the closest in relation to?
Obviously this is a case where the common ground of existence has been destroyed, as between this self-styled Napoleon and the rest of us. In the olden days, on the chronic ward, we used to call this sort of self-identification with Napoleon (or Jesus Christ, or some other historical figure) evidence of profound mental disturbance, "insanity."
But lose the common ground of existence, and all you have left is opinion.
In our current "climate of opinion," this ersatz Napoleon's "opinion" is just as good as anyone else's. If your opinion is that this Napoleon is insane for believing what he believes, well, that's just your "opinion." You could be the insane one.
Wipe out the common ground of existence, and there's no way to tell who is insane. For there is simply no longer any criterion by which the judgment could be made. It's all a matter of "opinion."
This is where your method of reasoning, dear kosta, is taking you down a path that leads to exactly nowhere. In my "opinion." :^)
His name was Ishi.
And as much as he was really cool and all that, his assessment of what was “good” or “wise” in a society is hardly the gold standard as he was from a society and culture that went extinct.
Noting succeeds like success.
Although science as it is currently understood, certainly has uses, and had discovered some interesting things, it is not the only way to see the truths of the universe. It is merely one faulty way. It’s like looking into a huge cavern with a flickering penlight.
So I am not the person to get into a science type discussion. It really doesn’t interest me.
I am interested in eternal Truth and how the light of eternal Truth gives meaning and purpose to life, and also shines light on the temporal relative truths in the universe. I am not very interested in the flickering penlight that at best can illuminate a tiny part of the cavern, and can shed no light at all on the entire cavern, or the world outside the cavern.
Ishi, that’s right.
Just because he was an aborigine doesn’t mean that his thoughts had no meaning.
Fascinating distinction, P-Marlowe! "Faith" has additional connotations which "belief" lacks: the idea of trust. So I agree with your observation, "You can believe in Christ, yet have no faith in him at all." If you believe in Him, but do not put your trust in Him, then you have no faith in Him.
Faith comes from the Latin word fides — which, in English, in addition to "faith" carries the meanings: trust; loyalty; honesty; credit; confidence.
Thank you so very much for your outstanding insights, P-Marlowe!
It is obvious that physical reality doesn't much interest you.
So by all means continue musing on about reincarnation and leave the discussions of science and physical reality or those who...
a) have knowledge of the subject
b) are interested in the subject.
"Faith and belief are two different things entirely. Faith is spiritual, whereas belief is temporal."
Faith is a type of belief and it is not limited to spiritual claims. An example is a sergeant that has faith in his general and vice versa. In the example, the details of the sergent's belief is implied. As far as religeous faith goes, it is solely dependent on believing what someone has told, heard, or read.
"The world may acknowledge Christ's existence and as such the world may believe in Christ, but there are but few who have faith in Christ."
The sergeant may believe the general exists and at the same time have no faith in him and vice versa. Usually though, the world simply does not believe what someone has told them about Christ.
I neither said nor implied that Ishi’s thoughts had no meaning.
I pointed out that taking the societal advice from someone whose society went kaput would be like getting financial advice from a guy living on skid row.
But maybe if I keep thinking about Tigers I can get myself reincarnated as a Tiger! That would be so cool! Much better than just learning useful things using science! I could be a Tiger! LOL!
Trust is an essential and fundamental element of faith.
"If you believe in Him, but do not put your trust in Him, then you have no faith in Him."
The given belief is faith, because it is based in what someone has read, heard, or been told by someone. It is based in trust. Faith in Him requires that the details of the person presented be believed as faith and only from that start can a belief in that person be had- a belief which is faith.
You could be a tiger, but more likely an ape. Karma is desires mixed with what you deserve, as you sow, so shall you reap.
It’s a natural law, only science hasn’t discovred it. There’s a lot science cannot or does not know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.