I'm saying that are animals that have shown the ability to meaningfully communicate both with speech and and writing. I'm saying there are other animals which use objects in their environment to accomplish tasks (tool use). They can not (seemingly) reason as we do, but that doesn't mean they can't be good candidates for the "in between" case that I believe you were requiring. Paper, bronze and stone working, are technological advancements not evolutional advancements. If you are looking for another species which represents a stepping stone to humans, you need to have criteria which is more biologically based.
To be clear, I didn't say they "use writing" I've said that they have "shown the ability"... which is to say, they can be taught to express themselves with written languages, and I was refering to great apes. That said, many animals can intentionally communicate indirectly in numerous ways including by leaving scents. Granted the messages aren't complex, but an "in between" doesn't need to show our level of complexity.
netslave, so you are pro-evolution (or at least, you see no reason to disagree with it) for every species on the planet except humans? I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to nail down some of the specifics of your version of creationism. This is in your opinion. Equivocation is allowed, provided it is part of a wider picture. I'm just interested in what you believe. 1- How old is the universe? 2- How old is the earth? 3- When did life first start to appear on the planet? 4- How long after/before life appears on the planet do Humans, such as we are, appear on the planet? 5- How do you reconcile our physical, reproductive, cellular and enzymatic simularity to other terrestrial life forms?
For the record, I would jus tlike to point out that we are totally beating the pants off of the "for those who don't believe..." thread. The "right's" thread rulz!!
1- How old is the universe? - No idea. I'll let you or Stephen Hawking answer that one. 2- How old is the earth? - No idea. I don't personally believe the earth was created in 6 - 24 hour periods like we know them to be. The word 'day' can be translated as 'a period of time.' That's not dismissing that an all powerful God can do whatever He wants though. 3- When did life first start to appear on the planet? Three 'periods of time' after the Earth was formed 4- How long after/before life appears on the planet do Humans, such as we are, appear on the planet? Six 'periods of time' after the Earth was formed 5- How do you reconcile our physical, reproductive, cellular and enzymatic simularity to other terrestrial life forms? Why would we have to be 'completely' different from other terrestrial life forms? We're different enough in my opinion. I see no reason to have to reconcile this. If you must, maybe it was so we could actually live on this planet. Most of our scientific discoveries in history have been from observing the world around us, and not just ourselves. Maybe we were made similarly, or rather the rest of creation reflects our makeup, so we could learn more and understand more about ourselves. In any case, I don't think this is a questions that 'must' be answered. Two objects can be wood, and blue, but one doesn't HAVE to have come from the other, nor come from the same tree.
RE: Answers 1-4 So basically, you are saying that God doesn't obfuscate his creation. If cosmologists determine through observation that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, then it probably is that old. When we find bones in the ground, they are from actual living dinosaurs, a species of life which is now extinct? You have no problem with the decendants of the animals from that time period being the ancestors of modern animals through the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection? The words of the bible do not conflict with what we see, they instead simplify the process down to its essentials. Does that sum it up?
RE: Answers 1-4 REV.2 So basically you are saying that you don't see why God would obfuscate his creation. If science presents evidence for specific intervals, ordering or even mechanisms for the creation of the universe and (non-human) organic evolutional processes, there is no reason to assume that evidence necessarily conflicts with the biblical account of creation. God's mechnisms are his own, and if study of his creation indicates bird evolved from dinosaurs, then they probably did. Is that closer, or further to your view than my last statement was?
I'm having a hard time reconciling these two sentences: "Whatever the wording, I believe in a literal translation of the Bible, but that doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means. I read what the Bible says and let it tell me what it says. I don't read things into the Bible to suit my purposes like some." "I'm not putting all of my Faith in Science and Paleontologists, nor am I putting all my Faith in what it is a traditional translation of the Bible. We could burn all textbooks and Bibles and my Faith would still remain." The last sentence says more or less that you allow your understanding of one to influence the meaning you take from the other and vice versa. That just does not fit with any interpretation of the word "literal" I've ever heard.
I'm sorry, let me reword that...."Whatever the wording, I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, but that doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means. I read what the Bible says and let it tell me what it says. I don't read things into the Bible to suit my purposes like some." "I'm not putting all of my Faith in Science and Paleontologists, nor am I putting all my Faith in what it is a traditional interpretation of the Bible. We could burn all textbooks and Bibles and my Faith would still remain." Sometimes a traditional interpretation doesn't mean it's actually a literal one.
Netslave, you are messing with the meaning of words again and it is totally freaking me out. Something can not be "literal" if it is does not EXACTLY describe a thing. For example, saying a "day" is the amount of time it takes the earth to complete a revolution around its axis relative to the sun (just less than 24 hours)... that is a literal interpretation. Saying the "day" is a place holder to describe the regular passage of time... that is a metaphorical interpretation. Once again, assuming one meaning denies the other, and the meaning of the word "day" has not functionally changed in the 3500 years since the book of Genesis was written. Either you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, or you think there is wiggle room in the text, but you can't claim both without violating the meaning of the word "literal".
Nobody really interprets the entire Bible literally. The Bible records Jesus as saying "You are the salt of the earth" As far as I know, everyone interprets that figuratively, not literally. Never heard anyone suggest that Jesus was saying our bodies are literally made out of NaCl.
Despite growing up in a conservative Christian family, being homeschooled, and going to church my whole life, I have yet to meet even one single person who believed that. I could argue against the idea that we know Jesus didn't exist because the Popes just all conspired to write the New Testament so that they could have more justification to stay in power, but I'm pretty sure nobody here believes that, so what would be the point?
