We never saw a letter from cavemen yet trust our flaws are from them

2,597 Views | 17 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by DirtDiver
NowhereMan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why do people doubt the bible with written works of antiquity but believe in things like fight or flee reactions come from cavemen with only speculations about caveman? All we have is some crude art.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm sorry, what? Is there some theory that fight or flight instincts/physiological responses in human might have some non-evolutionary source?
mesocosm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TrailerTrash said:

Why do people doubt the bible with written works of antiquity but believe in things like fight or flee reactions come from cavemen with only speculations about caveman? All we have is some crude art.


Who argues that fight or flight reactions came from cavemen? Such instincts in animals predate humans by millions of years
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We can trace the physiology of fight-or-flight responses and compare it in different species. We have nothing physically from the Bible before the first or second century and current scholarship places the composition of the earliest books at the 5th or 6th century BC.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

current scholarship places the composition of the earliest books at the 5th or 6th century BC.
What do you think are the most significant facts supporting that thesis? What facts may contradict that thesis?
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jabin said:

Quote:

current scholarship places the composition of the earliest books at the 5th or 6th century BC.
What do you think are the most significant facts supporting that thesis? What facts may contradict that thesis?

I think the bigger point may be that we all 'believe' something. The naturalist can no more run a psychological study on a 2 million year old 'caveman' than a theist can provide proof of supernatural Creation.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My quick reaction is that I think I agree with that. Other than perhaps in math, I am not aware of anything in life that provides absolute proof of anything. At some point, every conclusion requires some leap. The question is whether that leap is reasonable or not.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jabin said:

My quick reaction is that I think I agree with that. Other than perhaps in math, I am not aware of anything in life that provides absolute proof of anything. At some point, every conclusion requires some leap. The question is whether that leap is reasonable or not.

I feel like the question of the reasonableness of a leap has to be evaluated within a set of principles or presuppositions. If we don't have the same presuppositions, we may not agree on whether a leap is reasonable or not.

In the case of the OPs question - a theory that fight or flight behavior is the result of evolved traits over millions of years based on current scientific data and evolutionary theory and modeling is reasonable within naturalism. That same theory is not reasonable within young earth creationism.

And I think this would serve as my response to the OP's question.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fight or flight is a physiological response that has been observed in most (maybe all?) aniimal species. It's essential to survival.

Now, there are plenty of other human behaviors that likely developed amongst our ancestors, via evolutionary processes, over thousands of generations.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Again, I agree with your post, although I'm not exactly sure what point the OP was making other than possibly using "fight or flight" to argue that we know very little about "cavemen".
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
True. I read the OPs statement as a general skepticism of exactly what Larry's post says (right above) or what Sapper and meso touched on in their posts. Or more specifically, skepticism of the process by which an evolutionary biologist might come to those conclusions.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I've read the original post a dozen times and I'm still baffled as to what point he thinks he's making.

Ignoring the cavemen part for a second, it sounds like he means we should accept without question written accounts from antiquity. But I doubt he really thinks that. Most historical accounts are treated with a good deal of skepticism that their contents are either biased or completely mythological.
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

In the case of the OPs question - a theory that fight or flight behavior is the result of evolved traits over millions of years based on current scientific data and evolutionary theory and modeling is reasonable within naturalism. That same theory is not reasonable within young earth creationism.

And I think this would serve as my response to the OP's question.

"result of evolved traits over millions of years based on current scientific data?"

Can you tell us how one collects data on behaviors of anything without a written record or someone being an eyewitness to observe the behavior?


kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
DirtDiver said:


"result of evolved traits over millions of years based on current scientific data?"

Can you tell us how one collects data on behaviors of anything without a written record or someone being an eyewitness to observe the behavior?

One collects data on observable natural mechanisms and makes extrapolations between what is known and uses forms of reasoning to develop theories which are subject to refinement or rejection. I am not aware of any version of naturalism that suggests that evolutionary theory is based on millions of years of eyewitness accounts.

How does a geologist determine how a mountain range was formed without someone alive to witness it? How does an astronomer determine how stars behave without a sufficient timescale to observe a single stars' behavior? How does a detective observe a crime scene and gather evidence to determine who committed a crime without an eyewitness?

The question at hand is where does 'flight or fight' come from? I would put forward the idea that it is likely an evolved trait based on a long natural biological evolution. Others might put forward the idea that is a trait given to human beings by God. If the lack of millions of years of data and eyewitness accounts is a criticism of my theory, what does it do to your theory? How many eye witness accounts do we have of God creating this trait in humans?

DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kurt vonnegut said:

DirtDiver said:


"result of evolved traits over millions of years based on current scientific data?"

Can you tell us how one collects data on behaviors of anything without a written record or someone being an eyewitness to observe the behavior?

One collects data on observable natural mechanisms and makes extrapolations between what is known and uses forms of reasoning to develop theories which are subject to refinement or rejection. I am not aware of any version of naturalism that suggests that evolutionary theory is based on millions of years of eyewitness accounts.
"a theory that fight or flight behavior is the result of evolved traits over millions of years based on current scientific data and evolutionary theory and modeling is reasonable within naturalism"

I'm trying to understand your view on this statement you had made. Is there data that exists that show how behavioral traits over millions of years?

If I find the bones of an ancient animals we may be able to guess at travel patterns, diets, and cause of death, but to claim we have data for behaviors where I struggle.

Example:
If I go out to the ranches and walk through the bone pile, I cannot determine if the dead cow was a good mother or a feisty one? Was the bull docile or aggressive? Would he fight or flee. Would he fight even though there was not a threat?

Example 2:
What are the behavioral differences between animals between 2,000,000 years ago and 1,990,000 millions years ago, and 1,990,000 and 1,989,000 years ago?


Quote:

How does a geologist determine how a mountain range was formed without someone alive to witness it? How does an astronomer determine how stars behave without a sufficient timescale to observe a single stars' behavior? How does a detective observe a crime scene and gather evidence to determine who committed a crime without an eyewitness?

They use evidence and make guesses. Sometimes the guesses are reasonable and sometimes they are not. Sometimes the guesses are far fetched despite having no observable evidence that it was even possible. The Flood Story of Noah is a great example:
The evidence is that dinosaurs were buried alive (bones intact in sedimentary rock layers) on a round planet

Possible options
Option 1: Global Flood
Option 2: Ice Age
Option 3: Meteor

One of the 3 options has a recorded written history of a global destruction of all life on earth.


Quote:

The question at hand is where does 'flight or fight' come from? I would put forward the idea that it is likely an evolved trait based on a long natural biological evolution. Others might put forward the idea that is a trait given to human beings by God. If the lack of millions of years of data and eyewitness accounts is a criticism of my theory, what does it do to your theory? How many eye witness accounts do we have of God creating this trait in humans?
None

How many humans witness their parents having sex to conceive them?

On the Biblical account God created 1 man and 1 woman who got to meet and have a speaking in person relationship with their creator with a vast array of traits. We do have observations in the Biblical text that there are more options to fight or flight. Many people faceplant or tremble in fear at an interaction. Some immediately confess their sinfulness.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

They use evidence and make guesses. Sometimes the guesses are reasonable and sometimes they are not. Sometimes the guesses are far fetched despite having no observable evidence that it was even possible. The Flood Story of Noah is a great example:
The evidence is that dinosaurs were buried alive (bones intact in sedimentary rock layers) on a round planet

Possible options
Option 1: Global Flood
Option 2: Ice Age
Option 3: Meteor

One of the 3 options has a recorded written history of a global destruction of all life on earth.


There's evidence drawn from the position of the bones, the number and condition, the matrix they are found in, the surrounding geology, similar finds of a similar age, etc. Saying they are "buried alive" is bizarre. We have plenty of evidence of predation and scavenging on plenty of dinosaur fossils.

All of this is without going into the fact that there's no cataclysm for the vast majority of the roughly 160 million years that dinosaurs were the dominant land animals. Where we do have a cataclysm there's a ton of evidence for extraterrestrial origin and impact to include iridium, breccias, and shocked quartz. There's no evidence of a global flood while life exists. Ever.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To understand my view, I think you'll need to put yourself into the mindset of someone believing in an 'old Earth', ie billions of years. Radiometric / radiocarbon dating, a host of other dating processes, Fossil record, geological record, old starlight . . . I am positive that you are not unaware of many of the evidences against a young Earth. My problem with the counter - evidences that you might provide is not that they cannot be true, but that they require a supernatural intervention, which by definition is beyond something we can comprehend or understand.

Here is a silly analogy, but I think it demonstrates something.. . . . Imagine that you have a house with a leaky roof. This morning, you put a bucket under the leaky area because you expect it might rain today and you want the bucket there while you are at work. It starts raining at a constant rate about 6 hours before you get home and continues for the next 7+ hours. When you get home, you notice roughly 6 ounces of water in the bucket and an hour after getting home, you notice the bucket is holding about 7 ounces of water. The next time it rains at the same steady rate, you run similar experiments and receive similar results. You then decide to try to figure out something about the leak in your roof and come up with a few options:

A - The leak lets water through at roughly one ounce per hour and the bucket fills up at a relatively steady pace once rain starts.

B - The leak does not allow any water through for 6 hours and then, a moment before you arrived home, the leak opens up to allow 6 ounces of water into the bucket all at once before slowing down to the rate of one ounce per hour that you observe when you get home.

C - The leak did not allow any water in until the moment you arrived home and God poofed 6 ounces of water into the bucket the moment before you got home.

In other words:

A - Things follow physical laws.
B - Physical laws are unreliable and change, or
C - Physical laws can only be relied upon when they don't conflict with faith.

I believe things follow physical laws. If there were proof that physical laws change over time, that would be fascinating. I do not rule out the possibility of God or a supernatural force intervening with the physical. . . . but, belief without evidence, (which is the definition of faith) is just that - it is a belief in something without evidence.

Quote:

"a theory that fight or flight behavior is the result of evolved traits over millions of years based on current scientific data and evolutionary theory and modeling is reasonable within naturalism"

I'm trying to understand your view on this statement you had made. Is there data that exists that show how behavioral traits over millions of years?

If I find the bones of an ancient animals we may be able to guess at travel patterns, diets, and cause of death, but to claim we have data for behaviors where I struggle.

Evolutionary theory is built on a couple of key ideas; Reproduction with variance and natural selection. Organisms that reproduce, will reproduce with variance (this is easy enough to study and provide evidence for). Natural selection on a certain scale is also easy enough to observe and gather evidence for. Someone more fluent in evolutionary biology could provide a description of the biological mechanisms that account for variance and mutation, but these are large scale forces that shape life.

The earth is old and life is old. For billions of years, organisms have been reproducing and surviving. Those who have benefitted from 'positive' variances are more likely to survive and reproduce. Those with 'negative' variances are more likely not to survive and reproduce. In this manner, variances which add to an organisms ability to reproduce, are more likely to be passed on. And we have plenty of records of populations of animals doing just this. The question becomes, what can this process do given billions of years? If you believe in a 6000 year old Earth, the question is nonsense. If you believe in an older Earth, the answer is potentially 'a lot!'.

I believe we have a complete enough fossil record to be able to look at a timeline of organisms that have lived and make the conclusion that certain organisms live at certain times and not others. One way to explain this observation is to say God is constantly making new creatures that just go extinct. Another way to explain it is to consider the possibility that animals evolve from species to species through the mechanisms we know already work from generation to generation and on smaller time scales. Given enough time, a population can change its physical appearance, size, diet. . . . and its psychology, instincts, and intelligence.

It is not difficult to see why 'fight or flight' works within natural selection. We observe fight or flight instincts in other animals and it doesn't take an expert to understand why a mouse would react in this manner if cornered by a cat. Run away from the big scary predator. . . . if you can't, maybe get lucky by getting a bite in and startling the cat enough to get away.

Further consider the similarities between human emotion, psychology, intelligence, and social structure to the animals on the planet most genetically similar to us.


Quote:

Example:
If I go out to the ranches and walk through the bone pile, I cannot determine if the dead cow was a good mother or a feisty one? Was the bull docile or aggressive? Would he fight or flee. Would he fight even though there was not a threat?
We know enough about cows in order to make general statements about their behavior.


Quote:

Example 2:
What are the behavioral differences between animals between 2,000,000 years ago and 1,990,000 millions years ago, and 1,990,000 and 1,989,000 years ago?

This example fundamentally misses the point of what evolutionary theory claims to explain.

Quote:

Possible options
Option 1: Global Flood
Option 2: Ice Age
Option 3: Meteor

One of the fascinating things to me about the flood idea is that it suggests that 4,000 years ago, all life (save for what was on the boat) is killed off. And all animals and people today are descendants from them. This means that in 4,000 years:

* humans spread out to the corners of the planet and set up civilizations all over.
* Since we have archeological evidence of civilizations before the flood and soon after the flood, humans must have repopulated the Earth in the blink of an eye. . . . starting from one family.
* Every racial or geographic physical distinction in a population is the result of some 200 generations of human reproduction with variance. In other words, every human race was created through 200 or so human generations.
* Given the fact that we have art and portraits from Africa and China and the Americas, etc. that predate Christ, then it means that every human race was created even quicker . . . maybe 70 to 100 generations of human reproduction.
* With 8.5 million species of organisms on the planet, the rate of species creation after the flood must have been upwards of 2,000 new species a year.

Ironically the flood idea seems to suggest an efficiency and speed of evolution that far exceeds what scientists believe is possible.


Quote:

How many humans witness their parents having sex to conceive them?

No, but, we understand how human reproduction occurs and can make reasonable guesses. Take this exact type of reasoning and apply it to 3 billion years of life.


Quote:

On the Biblical account God created 1 man and 1 woman who got to meet and have a speaking in person relationship with their creator with a vast array of traits. We do have observations in the Biblical text that there are more options to fight or flight. Many people faceplant or tremble in fear at an interaction. Some immediately confess their sinfulness.

We also have observations in the Harry Potter text that there are wizards and witches that do magic and fight dragons. This is not proof or evidence that it is true.

One of the differences between religion and science is that science has the ability to make predictions. The geologist we talked about before looking at the mountain range can look at the mountains and areas and make predictions on where to find types of rocks or minerals. The astronomer can observe the heavens and make predictions. The biologist can make predictions. Religion does not offer any similar path to verification. It must be believed. . . . . which is fine. But, I think it is a huge mistake to conflate religious belief with scientific evidence.



DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

My problem with the counter - evidences that you might provide is not that they cannot be true, but that they require a supernatural intervention, which by definition is beyond something we can comprehend or understand.
If you mean supernatural intervention is beyond something we can comprehend because we can not do scientific experiments, you are correct. A supernatural event is by definition a break in the laws of nature that cannot be repeated in a lab. Scientific experimentation is not the only branch of knowledge. A supernatural intervention can be comprehended or understood in part if it's witnessed, described, and explained. Example: I cannot explain how does God physically resurrects a body. I can comprehend that Jesus died and was resurrected and performed miracles based upon the eye witness testimony and that the one doing miracles at many times explained what he was doing and why.

Think of all of the "miracles" in a "there is no God" worldview that do not include a miracle worker and that have never been by repeated or witnessed. These things are believed by faith.
1. Life coming from non-life.
2. Rationality being a product of non-living random reactions
3. Monkeys becoming man
4. Consciousness being a product of non-conscious reactions


Quote:

I believe things follow physical laws. If there were proof that physical laws change over time, that would be fascinating. I do not rule out the possibility of God or a supernatural force intervening with the physical. . . . but, belief without evidence, (which is the definition of faith) is just that - it is a belief in something without evidence.

I'm going to be a little picky here. First, I agree that things follow physical laws. I do believe that God can and has intervened with the physical laws historically. I believe these instances are very very rare, otherwise they wouldn't stand out.

The definition of faith that you presented (belief in something without evidence) is a position I would disagree with for the following reasons:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

To have conviction, be assured or convinced something is true does not mean there is no evidence. It's often the case that the more evidence there is the stronger the conviction is.

2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures (Old Testament), 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."

To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.

because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

Thomas...

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." 26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you." 27 Then He *said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

Faith in Jesus is not faith a faith without evidence.


Quote:

Evolutionary theory is built on a couple of key ideas; Reproduction with variance and natural selection. Organisms that reproduce, will reproduce with variance (this is easy enough to study and provide evidence for). Natural selection on a certain scale is also easy enough to observe and gather evidence for. Someone more fluent in evolutionary biology could provide a description of the biological mechanisms that account for variance and mutation, but these are large scale forces that shape life.
I don't believe anyone disagrees with variance within a kind. I think the great smoke and mirror show of our time is: reproductive variance is evidence for monkeys to man evolution.


Quote:

The earth is old and life is old. For billions of years, organisms have been reproducing and surviving. Those who have benefitted from 'positive' variances are more likely to survive and reproduce. Those with 'negative' variances are more likely not to survive and reproduce. In this manner, variances which add to an organisms ability to reproduce, are more likely to be passed on. And we have plenty of records of populations of animals doing just this. The question becomes, what can this process do given billions of years? If you believe in a 6000 year old Earth, the question is nonsense. If you believe in an older Earth, the answer is potentially 'a lot!'
What can processes do given billions of years?

I think this statement is the doctrine of faith for the evolutionist. There's no evidence of monkey's to man evolution so we have to imagine what the processes could do if there's billions of years.


Quote:

I believe we have a complete enough fossil record to be able to look at a timeline of organisms that have lived and make the conclusion that certain organisms live at certain times and not others. One way to explain this observation is to say God is constantly making new creatures that just go extinct. Another way to explain it is to consider the possibility that animals evolve from species to species through the mechanisms we know already work from generation to generation and on smaller time scales. Given enough time, a population can change its physical appearance, size, diet. . . . and its psychology, instincts, and intelligence.
Assumption 1: The fossil record is a timeline vs a single catastrophic event where life on earth was buried alive and sorted.
Assumption 2: God is constantly making new creations assumes the fossil record is a timeline vs a catastrophic event.
Assumption 3: Animals evolve from species to species: Change within a species, cattle breeding is not evidence of species to species transformations.






Quote:

It is not difficult to see why 'fight or flight' works within natural selection. We observe fight or flight instincts in other animals and it doesn't take an expert to understand why a mouse would react in this manner if cornered by a cat. Run away from the big scary predator. . . . if you can't, maybe get lucky by getting a bite in and startling the cat enough to get away.

We see flight or fight (or paralyzation through fear) in nature. I have no reason to believe this has not been the case since the fall of creation. I would call this common sense. I do not deny that animals would have this behavior. I was calling out the claim that we have millions of years of scientific data to support this in animals.


Quote:

We know enough about cows in order to make general statements about their behavior.
Agreed. We can assume they always have behaved this way. We do not have millions of years of facts that describe their behavior.


Quote:

Example 2:

What are the behavioral differences between animals between 2,000,000 years ago and 1,990,000 millions years ago, and 1,990,000 and 1,989,000 years ago?

This example fundamentally misses the point of what evolutionary theory claims to explain

The purpose in making this point was to point out that we do not have millions of years of scientific data as mentioned in describing animal behavior which was the claim.



Quote:

One of the fascinating things to me about the flood idea is that it suggests that 4,000 years ago, all life (save for what was on the boat) is killed off. And all animals and people today are descendants from them. This means that in 4,000 years:

1. humans spread out to the corners of the planet and set up civilizations all over.
2. Since we have archeological evidence of civilizations before the flood and soon after the flood, humans must have repopulated the Earth in the blink of an eye. . . . starting from one family.
3. Every racial or geographic physical distinction in a population is the result of some 200 generations of human reproduction with variance. In other words, every human race was created through 200 or so human generations.
4. Given the fact that we have art and portraits from Africa and China and the Americas, etc. that predate Christ, then it means that every human race was created even quicker . . . maybe 70 to 100 generations of human reproduction.
5. With 8.5 million species of organisms on the planet, the rate of species creation after the flood must have been upwards of 2,000 new species a year.

1. So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. 9 Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth.
2. Consider the math: Billions of people in thousands of years
3. Not sure I'm getting the point. I think every human race a product of the first 2 humans created.
4. Races predated Christ, I'm may be missing the point.
5. We don't know how many kinds of animals were on the ark.

Quote:

No, but, we understand how human reproduction occurs and can make reasonable guesses. Take this exact type of reasoning and apply it to 3 billion years of life.
In other words, use your imagination to guess what may have happened in the past is not science.

If I imagine humans reproducing for 3 billion years:
1. I still get humans producing humans, not apes producing humans.
2. I get an overpopulated earth.


Quote:

We also have observations in the Harry Potter text that there are wizards and witches that do magic and fight dragons. This is not proof or evidence that it is true.


When studying literature the first step is to identify the genre.

Harry Potter is fiction,
Fiction - literature created from the imagination, not presented as fact, though it may be based on a true story or situation

The Bible is Historical narrative:
Historical narratives give accounts of real-life. experiences. They are either written by a person who actually experienced those events OR a person who has observed or studied them extensively. Historical narratives may be primary sources, which present direct, firsthand knowledge.


Quote:

One of the differences between religion and science is that science has the ability to make predictions. The geologist we talked about before looking at the mountain range can look at the mountains and areas and make predictions on where to find types of rocks or minerals. The astronomer can observe the heavens and make predictions. The biologist can make predictions. Religion does not offer any similar path to verification. It must be believed. . . . . which is fine. But, I think it is a huge mistake to conflate religious belief with scientific evidence.
If a God is real and outside of time He's why would He not be able to make predictions? In fact I think He did which produces one of the greatest evidences we can observe.

1. "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." 515 BC
2. My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" ...I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint...A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones.They look, they stare at me; 18 They divide my garments among them, Psalm 22 ~1,000 B.C.
3. 25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks (476 years)the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. 536 to 610 BC
4. Isaiah 53 : 739 - 686 BC
5. OT predictions in NT Fulfilled
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.