Origin of man - History Forum ~ All Empires

These threads normally end up as slaughter houses for people who believe in God as they can not prove the existance of God.

A radical hindu view on this: Common ancestry with apes is partly written in the Ramayan where Hunuman's army fought with Rama against the forces of evil

<pause for laughter>

My view, as Omar's and Emperor Barberossa's, is that the existance of evolution and God are not connected. I beleive there was a creator. He created the universe. Perhaps he controls the universe, perhaps he doesn't. Doesn't really matter if you think about it. Just live your life as morally right as you can, leave with a clear conscious and it was a success.

I can't remember the countless times I've told people that the most religious people I have ever met happened to be my A level Physics teachers.

So I pick other and all the above.

Although I have never done much research on the creation of man, much preferring what man did afterwards, I would say that the aquatic ape theory is my favourite. Humans being a type of ape that is designed to live alongside rivers and coasts sounds logical to me.

Omar I too am a firm believer in the AAH, and its a shame that our narrow-minded science purist, can't open up to a well thought out theory that explains how evolution could affect our behaviors and our seemingly superficial body characteristics, that could not survive a fossil record.

Ok if man and monkeys have the same ancestor then could someone explain me why humans have soul and the animals havent?

Hoplite, this isn't quite a fair questions since different beliefs challenge this differently. I can tell you according to catholic doctrine we believe that both humans and animals both have souls, although only men are in need of salvation therefore they are the only ones capable of salvation. This would seem to imply therefore that animals are angelic beings superior to man, unfortunately for them though, according to God, as written in the bible man is the master of all the animals and therefore has precedence over them. Also, of all the animals God took special care in breathing a soul into a lifeless form, thereby giving man a unique link to God himself.

Also, souls cannot have mass, seeing as how that would violate the laws of thermodynamics since the soul would over time decay into something different, therefore changing an unchanging object.

Humans lived by the rivers not because they liked awquatic monkeys or enjoyed swimming their, but because rivers proovided fresh water along with means of communication. You really need to research this topic. Their was nothing like th aqautic apes.

Vivek, the aquatic ape hypothesis takes place during the transitionary period between apes walking on all fours to apes walking on two legs, it has nothing to do with the fact that civilizations began in river valleys. Also, the Aquatic Ape probably didn't evolve near a river at all, far too dangerous with crocodiles about. It probably would have looked more like a swamp, rich in foods for a scavenger (could this be where we got all the meat to stimulate brain growth). Also it seems far more logical walking would evolve from wading in chest deep water (apes couldn't balance properly) over a long period of time rather than, uh, they stood up so they could see better over tall grass. We actually do have an ape that went from an arboreal lifestyle to a plains dwelling lifestyle in the baboon and that animal certainly walks on all fours. Whereas a primate that spends a lot of time in the water (proboscis monkey) will walk on two legs for a long period of time.

Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.

Actually gibbons are almost totally arboreal and walk exclusively bipedal when terrestrial. I think the best argument for the Aquatic Ape is how our fat is stored and our skin, sweat glands, etc.

Edited by Goban - 11-Sep-2006 at 21:58

The sharpest spoon in the drawer.

Why do you get angry. I think it was meant to be a joke. Just look at the expressions of the two. I guess that funny coincidence is wha he wanted to show!

PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Descendant from some seriously horny proto-monkey type thing.

Arrrgh!!"

Poor primates

The sharpest spoon in the drawer.

Originally posted by Greek Hoplite

And something else these who voted '' something else "what do they beleive that aliens made man?lol lol

That is not funny at all. Just because somebody is disatisfied with the two main theories "there is a god that created the earth, believe it" or the Big Bang does not at all mean that they believe in something so ridiculous as "aliens made man". I think that is the Scientologist theory, is it not?

And what caused the existence of a god to appear from nothing? You can't just argue for your beliefs on the basis that another theory may not make sense. The Big Bang is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific theory. Do not confuse the two. Even if the Big Bang Theory is incorrect, it does not in any way prove there is a creator.

Edited by Emperor Barbarossa - 12-Sep-2006 at 16:27

God exists forever, has not got begining or end, (religion says it not me) .If you try to expain how God been created its like a blind man trying to tell you what colors watches in front of him.

Edited by Greek Hoplite - 12-Sep-2006 at 16:35

My blog
http://mankap.blogspot.com/

Originally posted by Greek Hoplite

God exists forever, has not got begining or end, (religion says it not me) .If you try to expain how God been created its like a blind man trying to tell you what colors watches in front of him.

As Aeglifu has already said, this argument could be turned against you. You do not realize that you do not have enough evidence to prove your claims. Instead of trying to actually argue for your claims, you call anybody whom does not agree with you "not being able to see the truth".