Is shame is a prediction of Biblical Creationism
NITRO
up their nudity, after the fall they used animal skins to cover up.
The basic idea here was that somehow the knowledge of good and evil
made them ashamed of their own nakedness.
So a creationist explanation would predict that the reason why modern
people are clothed stems from a 'sin consciousness', and we do indeed
see people at large keeping clothed, which sort of confirms this
prediction.
So my question is this; other than keeping clothed for the obvious
reasons of staying warm, why don't people allow nudity in public, why
isn't nudity a preferred state of being? For example, why don't we
just take all our clothes off and leave them at the door at
restaurants and shopping malls? Why is public nudity against the law
in most places?
It also is interesting that animals don't seem to mind being
unclothed. Is the need for clothing a differentiating factor between
humans and animals? Furthermore, is it possible that creatures can be
differentiated (in a scientific way) by psychological means?
In other words, will future taxonomic trees separate creatures based
upon psychological reasons as well as anatomical and physiological
reasons? Why are intellectual and psychological differences between
humans so distinct and diverse, yet most animals seem to have the same
basic worldviews as most of the members of their respective species?
Last question: how many strange ideas can I come up with in one
post? :)
Kermit
> After Man sinned in the garden, Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves to cover
> up their nudity, after the fall they used animal skins to cover up.
>
> The basic idea here was that somehow the knowledge of good and evil
> made them ashamed of their own nakedness.
>
> So a creationist explanation would predict that the reason why modern
> people are clothed stems from a 'sin consciousness', and we do indeed
> see people at large keeping clothed, which sort of confirms this
> prediction.
Ummm... it's not a prediction, however. It's an attempted explanation
for an observed fact. I'm not sure how we could test it, however. It's
a just-so story.
>
> So my question is this; other than keeping clothed for the obvious
> reasons of staying warm, why don't people allow nudity in public, why
> isn't nudity a preferred state of being? For example, why don't we
> just take all our clothes off and leave them at the door at
> restaurants and shopping malls? Why is public nudity against the law
> in most places?
>
> It also is interesting that animals don't seem to mind being
> unclothed. Is the need for clothing a differentiating factor between
> humans and animals?
My mom once said that "if God meant for animals to be inside the
house, he wouldn't have given them fur".
> Furthermore, is it possible that creatures can be
> differentiated (in a scientific way) by psychological means?
We can talk about different psychological characteristics, and the
complexities of the animal minds, of course.
>
> In other words, will future taxonomic trees separate creatures based
> upon psychological reasons as well as anatomical and physiological
> reasons?
Psychological behavior doesn't fit into a nested hierarchy. In
mammals, at least, there is a wide variety of behavior which has been
modified to fit a species' particular circumstances.
Lions are somewhat sociable; other cats are very unsociable. My cat's
best friend next door will come over to the edge of our yard, and they
both sit with their backs to each other growling,
Orangutans are solitary; most primates are very social. Coyotes travel
alone or in pairs, their very close cousins the wolves travel in
packs.
> Why are intellectual and psychological differences between
> humans so distinct and diverse, yet most animals seem to have the same
> basic worldviews as most of the members of their respective species?
>
Animals have distinct personalities, as anyone who has ever served a
cat or had dogs in their pack can tell you. There is clearly a species
personality, but within that species there is great variety. Humans
simply have the most complicated minds on the planet (we think).
> Last question: how many strange ideas can I come up with in one
> post? :)
I would think that for any moderately long post (more than a few
sentences), it would be very difficult to maintain over one strange
idea per sentence. Probably no theoretical upper limit.
Kermit
loua...@yahoo.com
> So my question is this; other than keeping clothed for the obvious
> reasons of staying warm, why don't people allow nudity in public, why
> isn't nudity a preferred state of being? For example, why don't we
> just take all our clothes off and leave them at the door at
> restaurants and shopping malls? Why is public nudity against the law
> in most places?
Let me mention at this point that at nudist resorts, people
traditionally carry towels with them to sit on. Hopefully there will
be no need to spell this out further.
Also: from the female standpoint, being naked in front of strangers in
most times and places can be interpreted (and in some places, by law
IS) a synonym for "asking to be raped." This sort of kills the
relaxation aspect of nudity.
Also: pockets. Very handy. Hot/cold food and drink spills, very
uncomfortable on bare skin. Stuff like that.
Anyway, nudity taboos vary widely. An Original Sin(tm) explanation
that would account for both tropical tribes wearing little more than
fiber belts and Islamic countries where you can get arrested for
showing your eyebrows is hard to imagine.
Friar Broccoli
I don't find this question terribly interesting, but I am curious
about your current beliefs. Last time you were posting here
regularly (about a year ago) you were, what I believe could be
described as an Old Earth Creationist (as distinguished from
a Theological Evolutionist). Have your beliefs modified at all
since then?
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Jenny Brien
> Anyway, nudity taboos vary widely. An Original Sin(tm) explanation
> that would account for both tropical tribes wearing little more than
> fiber belts and Islamic countries where you can get arrested for
> showing your eyebrows is hard to imagine.
>
Inez
> After Man sinned in the garden, Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves to cover
> up their nudity, after the fall they used animal skins to cover up.
>
> The basic idea here was that somehow the knowledge of good and evil
> made them ashamed of their own nakedness.
>
> So a creationist explanation would predict that the reason why modern
> people are clothed stems from a 'sin consciousness', and we do indeed
> see people at large keeping clothed, which sort of confirms this
> prediction.
>
> So my question is this; other than keeping clothed for the obvious
> reasons of staying warm, why don't people allow nudity in public, why
> isn't nudity a preferred state of being? For example, why don't we
> just take all our clothes off and leave them at the door at
> restaurants and shopping malls? Why is public nudity against the law
> in most places?
There are a number of places in the world where nudity is not taboo.
They tend to be hot and humid. Children are not born with a nudity
taboo, and have to have it drummed into them by society.
> It also is interesting that animals don't seem to mind being
> unclothed. Is the need for clothing a differentiating factor between
> humans and animals?
Humans come from places in Africa where it was warm and clothes
weren't necessary to keep from freezing. They now live in colder
places they are not adapted for. Other animals stick to areas that
they are adapted to, which is why you don't see a lot of cobras
wandering the streets of St. Paul.
NITRO
> I don't find this question terribly interesting, but I am curious
> about your current beliefs. Last time you were posting here
> regularly (about a year ago) you were, what I believe could be
> described as an Old Earth Creationist (as distinguished from
> a Theological Evolutionist). Have your beliefs modified at all
> since then?
>
> Cordially;
>
> Friar Broccoli
> Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
> Best programmer's & all purpose text editor:http://www.semware.com
>
> --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
My beliefs have modified in the sense that they have become dimmer. I
really cant rationalize a literal translation of the Bible and there
is still a lot I don't know about evolution, so I guess that leaves me
somewhere in between trying to learn all I can. I really have trouble
with the whole question.
There are several things that would confuse me about the 1st couple of
chapters of Genesis. Specifically this whole idea of sewing leaves as
cover vs. getting animal skins to cover later.(If your aware of the
story you would know that the original covering of nudity was leaves,
and then the original couple was given animal skins) This phenomena
seems to correlate to the whole aspect of carnivores coming on the
scene directly after the fall, (Gen 1:29, 30)which if it was all-of-a-
sudden would mean that there were very great changes to existing
creatures or that the carnivores were just created from the dust. This
would of course be unscientific, and would shatter any real rationale
I might have had as a creationist.
Does that mean it could not have happened? No, I believe that it is
possible, especially since God can theoretically do anything at
anytime. But it helps make any logical synthesis I might have had on
the subject pretty much useless. So maybe I'll learn some new
development later.
On the other hand, all I have learned about evolution has been for the
last 2 or 3 years under the critical lens of a creationist, which has
been to, by default, doubt anything put forth by science about the
origins of the species. I think that this perspective has actually
helped me differentiate between what might indeed be science and what
might be psuedoscience, so I think it is a healthy mindset. For
example I'm not just going to accept any fact because science says so,
I need to know why...so I think it is healthy.
So questions like these help me see other people's perspective, and Im
not then going to be limited by my own ideas.
Walter Bushell
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Humans
> simply have the most complicated minds on the planet (we think).
Are you saying we think we have the most complicated minds on the
planet, or that we think implies we have the most complicated minds?
Walter Bushell
"loua...@yahoo.com" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Also: from the female standpoint, being naked in front of strangers in
> most times and places can be interpreted (and in some places, by law
> IS) a synonym for "asking to be raped." This sort of kills the
> relaxation aspect of nudity.
Well if you ask for it, it isn't rape.
Bobby Bryant
NITRO <NITR...@gmail.com> writes:
> After Man sinned in the garden, Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves to cover
> up their nudity, after the fall they used animal skins to cover up.
>
> The basic idea here was that somehow the knowledge of good and evil
> made them ashamed of their own nakedness.
>
> So a creationist explanation would predict that the reason why modern
> people are clothed stems from a 'sin consciousness', and we do indeed
> see people at large keeping clothed, which sort of confirms this
> prediction.
>
> So my question is this; other than keeping clothed for the obvious
> reasons of staying warm, why don't people allow nudity in public, why
> isn't nudity a preferred state of being? For example, why don't we
> just take all our clothes off and leave them at the door at
> restaurants and shopping malls? Why is public nudity against the law
> in most places?
IMO you should read that particular part of the Genesis account as
etiological, i.e. a post-hoc folk explanation for why people wear
clothes.
You'll find much of the same in the early parts of Genesis: why men
are entitled to lord it over women and animals, why snakes go around
on their bellies, why farming and having babies are hard work, why
there's a rainbow, why not everyone speaks the same language, etc.
You find myths and folklore of similar purpose in many other cultures.
(Almost all cultures, I suspect.)
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Greg G.
...
>
> My mom once said that "if God meant for animals to be inside the
> house, he wouldn't have given them fur".
She didn't have a problem with frogs, lizards, and snakes?
--
Greg G.
The hardest position in sports is being a benchwarmer in hockey.
.
r norman
wrote:
After you get this settled, could you take up the question of just
what other organisms on the planet are claimed to have minds?
mc...@sunset.net
NITRO wrote:
> After Man sinned in the garden, Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves to cover
> up their nudity, after the fall they used animal skins to cover up.
Some would contend, as I do, that Adam and Eve probably had a
brightness about them that clothed them. When they ate the fruit
that brightness disapered. This would be the same light that eminated
from Moses' faith after he saw the Lord on Mt Sinai.
JM
Greg G.
> NITRO wrote:
> > After Man sinned in the garden, Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves to cover
> > up their nudity, after the fall they used animal skins to cover up.
>
> Some would contend, as I do, that Adam and Eve probably had a
> brightness about them that clothed them. When they ate the fruit
> that brightness disapered. This would be the same light that eminated
> from Moses' faith after he saw the Lord on Mt Sinai.
Now that's kinky!!! My newest fantasy: a glow-in-the-dark pussy!
--
Greg G.
Women without principle draw a lot of interest.
.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>
>NITRO wrote:
>> After Man sinned in the garden, Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves to cover
>> up their nudity, after the fall they used animal skins to cover up.
>
>Some would contend, as I do, that Adam and Eve probably had a
>brightness about them that clothed them. When they ate the fruit
>that brightness disapered. This would be the same light that eminated
>from Moses' faith after he saw the Lord on Mt Sinai.
You do love your fairy tale characters McClueless.
>
>JM
>
[excessive sig removed and reported.]
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
>On Oct 4, 5:49 pm, mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>> NITRO wrote:
>> > After Man sinned in the garden, Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves to cover
>> > up their nudity, after the fall they used animal skins to cover up.
>>
>> Some would contend, as I do, that Adam and Eve probably had a
>> brightness about them that clothed them. When they ate the fruit
>> that brightness disapered. This would be the same light that eminated
>> from Moses' faith after he saw the Lord on Mt Sinai.
Nominated in the "Cats have all the fun" category.
>
>Now that's kinky!!! My newest fantasy: a glow-in-the-dark pussy!
--
Bob.
Mark Evans
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aside from keeping warm, clothing also protects from the sun and
rain. Even in our native setting of Africa this protection can be an
advantage. Also clothes offer a chance for decoration. And as others
have mentioned, pockets are darn handy. (Old Joke: I never do nue
photography. I need my pockets too much.)
I have know several adults who had little, if any, nudity taboos.
Makes for some interesting moments when folks knock on their doors.
Mark Evans
Vend
> On Oct 4, 11:53 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
>
>
> > My mom once said that "if God meant for animals to be inside the
> > house, he wouldn't have given them fur".
>
> She didn't have a problem with frogs, lizards, and snakes?
Surely not with frogs.
josesa...@yahoo.com
easy money just follow the directions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TURN $6 INTO THOUSANDS AS SEEN ON OPRAH...HERE'S HOW....
**Proven by various, highly-respected U.S. TV and Radio programs as
being 100% legal, feasible and true.**
**Oprah Winfrey and ABC's investigation team 20/20 also prove it can
be done.***
Note from PayPal:
**Dear Member, it has come to our attention that there is a paypal
scheme floating around at the moment you may have heard or seen the
$6
scheme. You may have even taken part in it well we have been asked a
lot of questions about this scheme, the answer is yes, it does work
and, yes it is safe to use providing you follow the rules, it is
legal
and has made a big hit on the internet this year. If you would like
to
take part in this scheme or would like a bit more information, then
please see the attached file that was kindly donated to us. Thank you
for using PayPal!**
TURN $6 INTO $15,000 IN ONLY 30 DAYS...HERES HOW.
"What an amazing plan! I followed your instructions just 3 weeks ago,
and although I haven't made 15 grand yet, I'm already up to $9,135.
I'm absolutely amazed!" -Pam Whittemore , Ohio
Let's get started, just follow the instructions exactly as set out
below and then prepare yourself for a HUGE influx of cash over the
next 30 days! Here's what you need to do. . .
REQUIREMENTS:
..1) an email address
..2) a Premier or Business PayPal account
Setting up your FREE PayPal Account. It's extremely safe and very
easy
to set up. Copy and paste this to the address bar: view link'>view
link (notice the secure "https"within the link)
Be sure to sign up for a free PREMIER or BUSINESS account (and not
just a PERSONAL account) if people want to use a credit card to pay.
Step 1 -
Once you have a Paypal account running, use Paypal to pay $1 EACH to
the 6 E-mail Addresses below because you pay people with an email
address in Paypal. Please MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT!
...1) reas...@gmail.com
...2) dandro...@netscape.net
...3) jocelyntir...@yahoo.com
.. 4) sosne...@cox.net
.. 5) calvin...@yahoo.com
...6) josesa...@yahoo.com
FOLLOW THESE EASY STEPS:
l. Log in to PayPal. Go to SEND MONEY TAB.
2. Type in Recipients name: (E-mail address)
3. Subject: e-mail list
Category: Service
Comments: PLEASE ADD ME TO YOUR EMAIL LIST.
Next screen: CHECK PAYMENT DETAIL - Select - NO SHIPPING ADDRESS
REQUIRED. CLICK: SEND MONEY - THAT'S IT! YOU'RE DONE!!!
What you are doing is creating a service. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL!
You are requesting a legitimate service and you are paying for it.
STEP ..2 - Now...AFTER paying $1.00 to each of the email addresses
above, take the #1 email Address off the list, move the other email
Addresses up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc.) and ADD YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS AS NUMBER 6 ON THE LIST.
.Make sure the subject of the payment says... *PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR
EMAIL LIST* ( by requesting this service it keeps the program 100%
legal.. so please don't forget!)
Note: (If you do not see the full email address for the 6 members,
just hit reply To this email and they will show up.)
Remember, all of this is ABSOLUTELY LEGAL. You are creating a
service!
If you have any doubts, please refer to Title 18 Sec. 1302 & 1241 of
the United States Postal laws.
**MAKE SURE THE EMAIL YOU SUPPLY IS EXACTLY AS IT APPEARS IN YOUR
PAYPAL ACCOUNT.**
STEP 3 - Keep this article as close to the original as possible.
You are now ready to post your copy of this message to at least 200
newsgroups, message boards, etc. (I think there are close to 32,000
groups)
All you need is 200, but remember, the more you post, the more money
you make - as well as everyone else on the list! In this situation
your job is to let as many people see this letter as possible. You
can
even start posting the moment your email is confirmed. Payments will
still appear in your PayPal account even while your bank account is
being confirmed.
HOW TO POST TO NEWSGROUPS & MESSAGE BOARDS
Step ..1) You do not need to re-type this entire letter to do your
own
posting. Simply put your CURSOR at the beginning of this letter and
drag your CURSOR to the bottom of this document, and select 'copy'
from the edit menu. This will copy the entire letter into your
computer's temporary memory.
Step ..2) Open a blank 'Notepad' file and place your cursor at the
top
of the blank page. From the 'Edit' menu select 'Paste'. This will
paste a copy of the letter into notepad so that you can add your
email
to the list.
Step ..3) Save your new Notepad file as a .txt file. If you want to
do
your postings in different sittings, you'll always have this file to
go back to.
Step ..4) Use Netscape or Internet Explorer and try searching for
various newsgroups, on-line forums, message boards, bulletin boards,
chat sites, discussions, discussion groups, online communities, etc.
EXAMPLE: go to any search engine like yahoo.com, google.com,
altavista.com, excite.com - then search with subjects like ?
millionaire message board? or ?money making message board? or ?
opportunity message board? or ?money making discussions? or ?business
bulletin board? or ?money making forum? etc. You will find thousands
&
thousands of message boards. Click them one by one then you will find
the option to post a new message.
Step ..5) Visit these message boards and post this article as a new
message by highlighting the text of this letter and selecting 'Paste'
from the 'Edit' menu. Fill in the Subject, this will be the header
that everyone sees as they scroll thru the list of postings in a
particular group, click the post message button. You're done with
your
first one! Congratulations! THAT'S IT!! All you have to do is jump to
different newsgroups and post away. After you get the hang of it, it
will take about 30 seconds for each newsgroup!
REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS AND/OR MESSAGE BOARDS YOU POST IN, THE
MORE MONEY YOU WILL MAKE!! BUT YOU HAVE TO POST A MINIMUM OF 200**
Why 200 postings?
Say I receive only 5 replies (a very low example).
So then I made $5.00 with my name at #6 on the letter.
Each of the 5 persons who just sent me $1.00 make the MINIMUM 200
postings, each with my name at # 5 and only 5 persons respond to each
of the original 5, this is an additional $25.00 for me.
Now those 24 each make 200 minimum posts with my name at #4 and only
5
replies each.
This brings in an additional $125.00.
Those 125 persons turn around and post the MINIMUM 200 with my name
at
#3 and receive 5 replies each, I will make an additional $625.00.
Ok, now here is the FUN part, each of those 625 people post a MINIMUM
of 200 letters with my name at #2 and they receive 5 replies each.
That just made me $3,125.00!!!
Those 3125 persons will all deliver this message to 200 newsgroups
with my name at #1 and if still 5 persons per 200 react, I will
receive an additional $15,625.00!!
With an investment of only $6.00!!
That's it! You will begin receiving money within days!
**JUST MAKE SURE THE EMAIL YOU SUPPLY IS EXACTLY AS IT APPEARS ON
PAYPAL.**
So can you afford $6?? And see if it really works?? I think so?
People
have said, what if the plan is played out and no one sends you the
money? So what are the chances of that happening when there are tons
of new honest users and new honest people who are joining the
internet
and newsgroups everyday and are willing to give it a try? Estimates
are at 20,000 to 50,000 new
users, every day, with thousands of those joining the actual
Internet.
PLEASE REMEMBER
This program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity
of the participants and by their carefully adhering to the
directions.
You are simply paying into a money making chain of participants and
if
the chain is broken you are screwing someone else out of their fair
share.
So, as each person who joins the family and the directions are
followed, six members will be reimbursed for their participation as a
List Developer with one dollar each.
You then insert your Email Address into the list and it will move up
geometrically.
So that when your name reaches the #1 position you will have
potentially received thousands of dollars into your account!!! play
FAIRLY and HONESTLY and this will work. This really isn't another one
of those crazy scams! As long as people follow through with sending
out $6.00,
it works!
Friar Broccoli
>> I don't find this question terribly interesting, but I am curious
>> about your current beliefs. Last time you were posting here
>> regularly (about a year ago) you were, what I believe could be
>> described as an Old Earth Creationist (as distinguished from
>> a Theological Evolutionist). Have your beliefs modified at all
>> since then?
.
I went thru something similar about 30 years ago. At the
time, and for at least the next 15 years, it didn't feel very
healthy at all. I spent more than 5 years agonizing over
whether I was going to burn in hell forever, and then another
10 (or more) not believing anything that anybody said about
anything at all - which is as destructive as its opposite.
So I'd like to begin by pointing out that, in my view, the most
literal interpretation of Genesis is not at odds with
evolution:
Consider for example the story of Cain, who after killing his
brother was driven away by God and made a fugitive. Then it is
said, his wife bore him Enoch. Chronologically this was before
Adam and Eve could have had any female children. For me the
clear implication is that there were other homosapiens about
who could be husbands and wives, but that Adam and Eve where
the first to be recognized by God.
Consider also that Genesis 1 and 2 (starting at 2:4) appear to
be two completely different creation stories. Most striking is
the fact that in Gen_1; animals were created first and then man
while in Gen_2; the order is man followed by animals. Since
such a contradiction could not possibly have gone unnoticed by
the author(s) of Genesis, this seems to me to be a clear
and deliberate statement that the story is to be read as
allegory for "God did it", not as literal truth.
> For example I'm not just going to accept any fact because
> science says so, I need to know why...so I think it is
> healthy.
Well, instead of saying "science says so" I do my best to trot
out various pieces of evidence when trying to defend evolution.
The (rather large) bit I have been starting with recently is
the following:
It illustrates the evolution of the human brain over the past
2.5 million years from about 450cc to it's present size of
about 1350cc:
STS 5
Mrs. Ples
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.6 million years
Brain Size: 485cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts5.html
STS 71
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.5 million years
Brain Size: 428cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts71.html
KNM ER 1813
Species: Homo habilis
Age: 1.9 million years
Brain Size: 510cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html
KNM ER 1470
Species: Homo rudolfensis
Age: 1.8 million years
Brain Size: 775cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html
KNM ER 3733
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.75 million years
Brain Size: 850 cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER3733.html
KNM WT 15000
"The Turkana Boy"
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.6 million years
Brain Size: 880cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
rotatable skull here:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/qt/wt15kmov.html
Peking Man
Species: Homo erectus
Age: 500-230 thousand years
Brain Size: 1043cc (average of 5 skulls)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/weid2.htm
"Rhodesian Man"
Species: Homo heidelbergensis
Age: 300-125 thousand years
Brain Size: 1300 cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/brokenhill.htm
Skhul V
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~90,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/skhul.html
Cro-Magnon 1
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~30,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html
> So questions like these help me see other people's
> perspective, and Im not then going to be limited by my own
> ideas.
Well, I'd like to convince you to limit your ideas to what is
true, or at least to reject ideas that are clearly false.
From what you've said I'm sure you will take the time to
consider to these points.
wf3h
> >
> On the other hand, all I have learned about evolution has been for the
> last 2 or 3 years under the critical lens of a creationist,
now THERE'S an oxymoron...'critical creationist'...
which has
> been to, by default, doubt anything put forth by science \
yes, religious fanatics generally do hate science...'thinking
themselves wise'....
about the
> origins of the species. I think that this perspective has actually
> helped me differentiate between what might indeed be science and what
> might be psuedoscience, so I think it is a healthy mindset. For
> example I'm not just going to accept any fact because science says so,
> I need to know why...so I think it is healthy.
as opposed to swallowing whatever religious fad happens to be the
flavor of the month...
now let's see...which has told more lies in its history...religion or
science....hmmm...let me think.
John Blake
Heh, brilliant.
Augray
<mccoy-11915345...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
>
>NITRO wrote:
>> After Man sinned in the garden, Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves to cover
>> up their nudity, after the fall they used animal skins to cover up.
>
>Some would contend, as I do, that Adam and Eve probably had a
>brightness about them that clothed them. When they ate the fruit
>that brightness disapered. This would be the same light that eminated
>from Moses' faith after he saw the Lord on Mt Sinai.
So Moses wore no clothes afterwards?
[snip]
NITRO
> Well, I'd like to convince you to limit your ideas to what is
> true, or at least to reject ideas that are clearly false.
>
> From what you've said I'm sure you will take the time to
> consider to these points.
>
> Cordially;
>
> Friar Broccoli
> Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
> Best programmer's & all purpose text editor:http://www.semware.com
Thanks Robert,
I did indeed read the links you have provided, and not only learned
about the meanings of the words "prognathic" and "sexual dimorphism",
but also came up with some small conclusions.
My first analysis was towards the lack of abundance of these fossils.
I certainly would not take for granted all of the work and time and
study that went into finding and studying the fossils you gave me, and
it seems like the height of ignorance to simply demand more, but it
does seem rational to me that larger numbers of these different groups
are not available. (And they may indeed be available, I just would not
know where to look). But that would be my intial response, and because
I am sure that 100,000's of fossils exists in museums around the
world, maybe over a million? It seems reasonable to expect a lot more
fossils showing human evolution.
Ok. So that would be wondering about what doesnt exist, it is much
more pragmatic to look at what actually DOES exist, and that is the
nice group of fossils that you linked to. So what does the existence
of these fossils mean? It means that there is a logical progression of
brain sizes and morphological changes which lead to us. Of course,
those changes alone seem to have the power to be hand waved away as:
"They were all apes with different brain sizes" except for the fact
that I am presuming that no apes have brain sizes that large.
So what would this evidence mean in the light of creationism? It would
mean that God would have created at least 10 different humanlike
species which do not exist today. Its possible, because anything is
possible when your dealing with the idea of God.
So what if we did evolve from apes? I dont know...Im still a good man,
I still love God, my wife and kids. Maybe God doesnt exist and that
guy I've been having this internal dialogue with for all these years
is just a very elaborate mental construct I have created with the help
of the Bible and Christianity. Still though, I love my mental
construct, and He seems to give me the strength I need to survive.
So back to brain size, I think that brain size would be the most
convincing evidence that these fossils provide, as well as evidence of
these creatures walking upright, the article on Mrs. Ples said:"
Mrs.Ples also possesses a cranial capacity of 485cc, well above the
modern ape average, and has an undeniably forward placed foramen
magnum, which would make sense only if she had maintained an erect
posture. "
NITRO
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is hard for me to understand in terms of 'brightness', perhaps
some sort of 'glory' or 'aura of righteousness', but if it were a
brightness whcih actually limited their ability to see their own
nakedness, it would not only be harmful to their eyes(unless you are
proposing some advanced eye-sheilding mechanism). Also it would
definitely be a BAD thing in terms of copulation. Especially
considering that the first man would most certainly want to see the
first woman 'in her entirety' when he had sex with her. Also you need
to see your private parts to wash them and other functions. Im sorry
to be so rude, perhaps you were not talking about a literal
brightness, or perhaps you were talking about a brightness which
cannot be explained by science, Im trying to understand what you mean,
could they 'remove' the brightness clothing whenever they needed to
see their own nakedness?
My idea of Adam and Eve was that they always walked around naked in
the garden because they were innocent, like very small children walk
around the house naked with no sense of self-consciousness. They were
adult in terms of intelligence, yet childlike in terms of morality,
but I could be wrong. Thats the problem with interpretation of
Genesis, we could be wrong, and we often are wrong because its just
different people who seem to be trying to make science fit the Genesis
account, so therefore there is going to be a lot of differing opinion,
with almost no hope of standardization. Its all just subjective.
gregwrld
Consider the possibility that religion was seen early-on as a useful
form of
social control as early societies began to self-organize. As
hierarchies appeared
and wealth was more unevenly distributed the way a person dressed
reflected
their status in a society. This might have made a society easier to
govern by
tribal leaders and shaman.
Just guessing, though.
gregwrld
chris thompson
Some might contend that.
The vast majority would contend you're off your rocker.
Chris
Kermit
> In article <1191513188.058525.242...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Humans
> > simply have the most complicated minds on the planet (we think).
>
> Are you saying we think we have the most complicated minds on the
> planet, or that we think implies we have the most complicated minds?
What I meant was, we (most of us (when we think of it at all)) think
that we have the most complicated minds on the planet. We are
conceivably wrong, but I don't think we are.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:59:26 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Humans
> >> simply have the most complicated minds on the planet (we think).
>
> >Are you saying we think we have the most complicated minds on the
> >planet, or that we think implies we have the most complicated minds?
>
> After you get this settled, could you take up the question of just
> what other organisms on the planet are claimed to have minds?
Depend on what you think "mind" means. If it means an image of self,
and thinking, then I believe that my cat has a mind. It certainly is a
simple mind, but a mind nonetheless. ( I have no strong opinion in
this.) When I had a dog, he occasionally displayed guilt; he wasn't
much for philosophy, but he shared my love for wrestling, hiking,
jogging, sitting by the fire in the winter, and ice cream. He was
jealous of me and my wife simultaneously when we hugged.
Like our human speech, altruism, social maneuvering, etc., I think
what we are, including our minds, grew gradually from what came before
us. The roots of our minds go back to before the first nervous system.
So, do other species have minds? Define it first.
If we're the only species with a mind, then we certainly have the most
complicated one ;)
Kermit
Kermit
Well, she threw out the jar of Japanese beetles I had in the freezer.
Hey! Half of 'em crawled away after they thawed out; I considered it a
productive experiment even though management terminated it abruptly.
I did have a pet lizard for a couple of years. Hmmm. And some
salmonella turtles, now that I think about it. I don't think they
bothered her much if they were confined. She just hated cleaning up
after other critters.
Kermit
Kermit
Clothing and other fashion accessories is used universally to
determined tribal membership, status, stage in life, etc. This
includes various body modifications.
I'm guess this predates the neolithic by a considerable margin.
Certainly once we developed cities, and subcultures, multiple
religions, etc., our status became more complicated.
Kermit
Sam
news:1191522904....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
You're last comment is very relevant. Along the same lines however, be
mindful that your approach is derived from one particular religious
tradition and one particular mode of interpretation of the relationship of
man and the divine. You can broaden your perspective even further by
investigating other systems of belief, their origins, and their similarities
and differences. Don't be afraid to throw your own tradition in the mix as
well.
Desertphile
wrote:
> After Man sinned in the garden, Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves to cover
Sorry, but NO EVIDENCE. Therefore: dismissed!
Try again?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Friar Broccoli
>> Well, I'd like to convince you to limit your ideas to what is
>> true, or at least to reject ideas that are clearly false.
>>
>> From what you've said I'm sure you will take the time to
>> consider to these points.
>>
>> Cordially;
>>
>> Friar Broccoli
>> Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
>> Best programmer's & all purpose text editor:http://www.semware.com
.
> Thanks Robert,
> I did indeed read the links you have provided, and not only learned
> about the meanings of the words "prognathic" and "sexual dimorphism",
> but also came up with some small conclusions.
.
> My first analysis was towards the lack of abundance of these fossils.
> I certainly would not take for granted all of the work and time and
> study that went into finding and studying the fossils you gave me, and
> it seems like the height of ignorance to simply demand more, but it
> does seem rational to me that larger numbers of these different groups
> are not available. (And they may indeed be available, I just would not
> know where to look). But that would be my intial response, and because
> I am sure that 100,000's of fossils exists in museums around the
> world, maybe over a million? It seems reasonable to expect a lot more
> fossils showing human evolution.
Frankly, I'm not sure why you would expect that. Humans
represent an extremely tiny fraction of all the species that
have existed during the last 500 million years, and since we are
constantly finding "new" never before seen species in the fossil
record, it seems quite likely that we have zero samples of most
species. Also, up until recently (say 10,000-40,000 years ago)
we were just one more minor species in the general clutter.
By those measures we have an over abundance of fossils
for human ancestors.
Also keep in mind that almost all fossils (of any kind) are
found because natural erosion processes have exposed fossilized
bones, and then someone who knows what to look for, looks there.
Most of us can't see exposed fossils. I have paid several
visits to a local site where trilobite fossils are said to be
"abundant" and can't see a thing.
> Ok. So that would be wondering about what doesnt exist, it is much
> more pragmatic to look at what actually DOES exist, and that is the
> nice group of fossils that you linked to. So what does the existence
> of these fossils mean? It means that there is a logical progression of
> brain sizes and morphological changes which lead to us. Of course,
> those changes alone seem to have the power to be hand waved away as:
> "They were all apes with different brain sizes" except for the fact
> that I am presuming that no apes have brain sizes that large.
.
> So what would this evidence mean in the light of creationism? It would
> mean that God would have created at least 10 different humanlike
> species which do not exist today. Its possible, because anything is
> possible when your dealing with the idea of God.
True, but assuming God intended to make man, this looks like
God is practicing, or alternatively intentionally creating
smaller brained forms first in order to create the appearance
that we got here by an evolutionary process. In the first
case, wouldn't God be able to figure out that a 700cc brain
wasn't big enough for His purposes? In the second, if God was
willing to intentionally leave false information in the fossil
record, how can we be sure that He has not left other false
information in scripture?
And these problems only get worse when we look back over the
entire fossil record. Why for example would God have created
and then allowed to die-out at least 15,000 species of
trilobites, only to completely give up on the project 250
million years ago? And then there's that 2 billion period when
nothing but single celled creatures lived. What was that all
about?
> So what if we did evolve from apes? I dont know...Im still a good man,
> I still love God, my wife and kids. Maybe God doesnt exist and that
> guy I've been having this internal dialogue with for all these years
> is just a very elaborate mental construct I have created with the help
> of the Bible and Christianity. Still though, I love my mental
> construct, and He seems to give me the strength I need to survive.
I don't think evolution is a justification for abandoning faith.
> So back to brain size, I think that brain size would be the most
> convincing evidence that these fossils provide, as well as evidence of
> these creatures walking upright, the article on Mrs. Ples said:"
> Mrs.Ples also possesses a cranial capacity of 485cc, well above the
> modern ape average, and has an undeniably forward placed foramen
> magnum, which would make sense only if she had maintained an erect
> posture."
I was glad to see that you looked at the info in the links I
provided. Often that doesn't happen.
PS: Sorry for being so slow to respond. In future I promise to
be just as slow, unless I'm otherwise.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Steve O
"gregwrld" <GCze...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1191593372.3...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> My idea of Adam and Eve was that they always walked around naked in
>> the garden because they were innocent, like very small children walk
>> around the house naked with no sense of self-consciousness. They were
>> adult in terms of intelligence, yet childlike in terms of morality,
>> but I could be wrong. Thats the problem with interpretation of
>> Genesis, we could be wrong, and we often are wrong because its just
>> different people who seem to be trying to make science fit the Genesis
>> account, so therefore there is going to be a lot of differing opinion,
>> with almost no hope of standardization. Its all just subjective.
It's all just subjective?
Really?
Hey, and there was me stupidly thinking that there really is a dead cosmic
jewish zombie who was his own father who wants to grant me eternal life if I
eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically accept him as my master
in order to atone for an ancient curse placed upon humanity because a man
made from dust was persuaded by a woman made from a rib to eat fruit from a
magic tree by a talking snake...
... Silly me.