Poll: How did human life come about?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.

I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?




No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?

Why would you imagine my answer? They are all cons, however, christianity is the biggest con in my book because it has done more harm than any of the others imo. Why would you "imagine" that I'd say "probably not"?

Btw, have of your comparisons are not religion...

Good lot of assumptions from you... one of the reasons that I stated that I can't stand your arrogant postings in another thread. You think WAY too highly of yourself and your opinions.

Sorry, I'm not the one who's arrogant here. You're just an ignorant bigoted asshole who thinks his prejudices are the laws of nature, and I just call it like it is.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.

Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?

Here is something basic to start off.

I read the first 5 paragraphs and I already know the gist of their poorly thought out argument. First of all, complex life as we know it today did not magically appear 3.5 billion years ago. So in terms of the flash cards analogy, natural didn't suddenly align the 10 cards in a row. Evolution stats that you start very simple then build to complexity through a string of changes that work. So you start with 1. Ok , that's fine. Then as one multiplies, you add a number (a mutation). If its a 3, then obviously 1,3 is out of order an that set "dies" (reflecting a less competitve mutation doomd to extinction) but while this 1,3 set is going extinct, another 1 just had a 2 card added next to it. Since thats in order ,it stays. So if you propagate that idea, you can build to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 without having all of them be there at once. Who ever wrote that article has a very poor understanding of evolutionary theory.

According to evolution, single-celled organisms where the first forms of life. Do you have any idea how amazingly complex even those tiny creatures are (thousands of genes)? The article was for the purpose of demonstrating the impossibility that even the "simplest" forms of life could not have come together from a collection of random processes and that it is clearly a showcase of the ordered structure of the universe.

please excuse me if I already replied to this:

EVOLUTION DOES NOT DEPEND ON ABIOGENESIS

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jack bauer
Option #3. This is fact. Period. Read Sam Harris or Greg Graffin, if you want to learn how to save the future of human beings and learn about Naturalism in the process.

I'm not sure how you think that intolerance is going to save us from intolerance, or ignorance from ignorance, but I envy you your naivete.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
MoOo,

That complexity can arise through small minute mutations in DNA given an extended period of time, many leading to dead ends but a few lineages survive, making up the diversity of life as we know it today.

I you consider this to be the most significant and solid data proving evolution, then you should do a better job of explaining it, not merely alluding to it. I am not certain about short term mutations, but they would prove nothing. What "long term" study has been done on this, and how long of a term was it? Although my list of questions is short, don't let that deter you from elaborating on the finer points.

Why would short term mutations prove nothing? Obivously there can be no active long term study but fossil evidence has suggested a morphological continuity among phylogenies

Take a look at the QBeta RNA virus study for short term evolution

I dont make a distinction between micro and macro evolution, i think macro evolution is merely the accumulation of a long line of microevolutionary steps.

Which I could elaborate further but i gotta go to class. (molecular evolution coincidentally)

I suppose that it is easier to lump micro and macro evolution into one ball, but there is NO evidence to support this, except for a person's own biases. There is NO evidence in the fossil record to support anything, except that there were alot of extinct species of life.

One of the main traits that science claims as a requisite for good logic is an open mind. I do not claim to have one, but since those who are scientifically oriented should, I wonder why they ignore other possibilities for explaining the fossil record, other than those popularly held? Even if you ignore religion, there are other "scientific" explainations available, which have better support than evolution. Every attempt to explain life via evolution is confronted by a huge chasm that requires a leap of faith, which is far greater than that which is required to believe in God. Without this faith, nothing is left but alot of isolated bit of data without explanation, which would leave science bouncing around in a darkness that would leave it's followers very uneasy.

No fossil evidence to support anything? You have to be kidding me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Isolated data? What makes evolution such a sound theory is that the data is NOT isolated. it is actually intertwined and fits the theory like a glove. It can be used to explain a lot of things. Why do black people have higher rates of sickle cell disease than white people? Consider what continent to black people come from and what disease is very prevalent there. Let me know when you're ready for the evolutionary answer.

 

[markymoo]

Religion is the biggest scam on the planet. Thousands of years ago people didnt know any better. They were told by a few this is the way it is and majority believed the few as we believe in scientists now. They didnt have science backed up by facts and reality as we do now. The truth will set you free. We maybe one day know the mind of God. People who have been brought up on religion all there lives are basically brainwashed and can't think beyond that. There is going on something far bigger beyond your tiny mind.

 

[WoodButcher]

Short story???

god was doing the deed with an angel and when he pulled out he spewed on this rock we call earth and the rest is history,,,,,,,,

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

How in the world does that follow? Are you seriously contending that evolution is believed to be true only by a minority of academia? Please tell me this is not your contention.

Let me lay it out for you:

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

What makes your tens of thousands of scientists statement so powerful? The scientists with advanced degrees are woefully outnumbered by people who believe in God that have advanced degrees.

Newsflash genius, evolution |= atheism. Therefore, belief in God does not automatically confer disbelief in evolution. In fact, as the surveys always show, the majority of academics are theists and accept evolution. I have to wonder where you got your alleged "facts" from because they are certainly not consistent with reality.

Take a reading lesson, go back and re-read my point. No one said that belief in God automatically means disbelief in evolution. Where'd you get that business from?

The counterpoint that you provided to the claim that a majority of individuals holding advanced degrees accept evolution (which provides strong indication evolution is true) was that a majority of people worldwide believe in God, which according to you "blows that point apart." But it could only follow that his claim is "blown" apart if somehow the majority of theism in the world meant that the very same majority disbelieved evolution. It doesn't.

If that is not what you intended, then I suggest you take a writing lesson and learn to construct arguments coherently.

Cute. I need to take a writing lesson! You are clearly a mental midget who thinks way too highly of yourself. The point I was disagreeing with (again take a reading lesson, and here's a hint- the conversation flows down the page) was that saying "tens of thousands of scientists" is somehow adding validity to the rest of the statement made.

In any event these types of threads seem to attract more asshats than any other type on ATOT. Now there are asshats who believe they are so damn smart they can immediately make smart ass comments ("news flash genius") when really their mental capacity is somewhere between a rock and a lawn mower. Why o why do I bother with these threads?

This is me happily leaving this conversation for dead.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.

I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?




No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?

Why would you imagine my answer? They are all cons, however, christianity is the biggest con in my book because it has done more harm than any of the others imo. Why would you "imagine" that I'd say "probably not"?

Btw, have of your comparisons are not religion...

Good lot of assumptions from you... one of the reasons that I stated that I can't stand your arrogant postings in another thread. You think WAY too highly of yourself and your opinions.

Sorry, I'm not the one who's arrogant here. You're just an ignorant bigoted asshole who thinks his prejudices are the laws of nature, and I just call it like it is.

Again, you think very highly of yourself. I have the right to have my own opinion. You think YOUR opinion must be accepted by everyone.. that is what makes you arrogant.. and name calling only reinforces how immature you are.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

How in the world does that follow? Are you seriously contending that evolution is believed to be true only by a minority of academia? Please tell me this is not your contention.

Let me lay it out for you:

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

What makes your tens of thousands of scientists statement so powerful? The scientists with advanced degrees are woefully outnumbered by people who believe in God that have advanced degrees.

Newsflash genius, evolution |= atheism. Therefore, belief in God does not automatically confer disbelief in evolution. In fact, as the surveys always show, the majority of academics are theists and accept evolution. I have to wonder where you got your alleged "facts" from because they are certainly not consistent with reality.

Take a reading lesson, go back and re-read my point. No one said that belief in God automatically means disbelief in evolution. Where'd you get that business from?

The counterpoint that you provided to the claim that a majority of individuals holding advanced degrees accept evolution (which provides strong indication evolution is true) was that a majority of people worldwide believe in God, which according to you "blows that point apart." But it could only follow that his claim is "blown" apart if somehow the majority of theism in the world meant that the very same majority disbelieved evolution. It doesn't.

If that is not what you intended, then I suggest you take a writing lesson and learn to construct arguments coherently.

Cute. I need to take a writing lesson! You are clearly a mental midget who thinks way too highly of yourself. The point I was disagreeing with (again take a reading lesson, and here's a hint- the conversation flows down the page) was that saying "tens of thousands of scientists" is somehow adding validity to the rest of the statement made.

In any event these types of threads seem to attract more asshats than any other type on ATOT. Now there are asshats who believe they are so damn smart they can immediately make smart ass comments ("news flash genius") when really their mental capacity is somewhere between a rock and a lawn mower. Why o why do I bother with these threads?

This is me happily leaving this conversation for dead.

Yeah, you leave after ignoring my response...

The world is flat! There is no such thing as gravity! My opinion is just as important as scientists! Says dnugget!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Cute. I need to take a writing lesson!

Yes, as a matter of fact, you do.

You are clearly a mental midget who thinks way too highly of yourself. The point I was disagreeing with (again take a reading lesson, and here's a hint- the conversation flows down the page) was that saying "tens of thousands of scientists" is somehow adding validity to the rest of the statement made.

In general, it does. Argument from authority is not a fallacy when the authority is legitimate.

In any event these types of threads seem to attract more asshats than any other type on ATOT. Now there are asshats who believe they are so damn smart they can immediately make smart ass comments ("news flash genius") when really their mental capacity is somewhere between a rock and a lawn mower. Why o why do I bother with these threads?

This is me happily leaving this conversation for dead.

Rant, rant, rant. Blah, blah, blah. Your point is a terrible one. It figures that you would abandon it.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees, they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

Advanced degrees in what? Scientists follow a strict and reliable method of deriving conclusions 9scientific method), people do not. Numbers of just any people don't mean anything. The credibility of 10 biologists on the topic of biology is greater than that of 10,000 accountants. Don't forget the majority thought the earth was flat. You missed my point and you have no point.

Exactly.

If majority opinion mattered in this country, then Al Gore would be president, and we'd probably have had electric cars 10 years ago.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.

Why don't you actually put some effort into educating yourself instead making all of these stupid posts? Your posts make it clear that you don't even understand the fundamentals behind the theory of evolution.

Instead of calling me stupid, why don't you post a constructive post and inform me? Or am I stupid to read and learn? :frown: Explain abiogenesis to me (if that's what you believe in) or any alternate hypothesis that explains how organic chemicals developed here on earth.

For the 10th time evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories that are independent of one another, in the same way that the Big Bang and the existence of the four forces of nature (weak nuclear, strong nuclear, gravity, and electromagnetism) are independent of one another. Evolution deals with how life reached the point it is at now. Abiogeneses deals with how it originated. We don't know much about abiogenesis but we have 130+ years of overwhelming evidence at just about every sub-field of biology (and even psychology and chemistry) to support evolution. We came from an ape like ancestor, who came from an even ape-er like ancestor, who's generation dates back to a single celled bacteria. Do you think it is a coincidence that you and a fruit-fly share 60% of the same genetic code!

not to mention zebrafish at ~75% homology, mouse near 85%, and chimpanzee at 95%....

These people would have no answer for how I can inject mouse RNA into a newly-fertilized zebrafish embryo, and that RNA will produce protein. This is peer-reviewed research that I have published, btw
(This isn't isolated data by any means; this is standard in developmental genetics)

which begs the question, "why do we waste our time arguing with simpletons?"

 

[Seekermeister]

For a while, I gave the membership here the credit for above average intelligence, but I'm beginning to doubt that. Because the primary characteristic of intelligence is listening. This is necessary to improve the activity of either learning, teaching or even deciding who is best to be ignored. Proper ignoring doesn't mean not listening, just not responding, wasting time spinning your wheels, with futile attempts to teach, or going down deadends repeatedly. A greater waste of time, is simply responding with denigrating epithets, aspersions or vulgarity. This latter activity is a trait of those not interested in anything except feeding their own vanity or amusing themselves by trolling...neither of which is intelligent.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
For a while, I gave the membership here the credit for above average intelligence, but I'm beginning to doubt that. Because the primary characteristic of intelligence is listening. This is necessary to improve the activity of either learning, teaching or even deciding who is best to be ignored. Proper ignoring doesn't mean not listening, just not responding, wasting time spinning your wheels, with futile attempts to teach, or going down deadends repeatedly. A greater waste of time, is simply responding with denigrating epithets, aspersions or vulgarity. This latter activity is a trait of those not interested in anything except feeding their own vanity or amusing themselves by trolling...neither of which is intelligent.

Like when you choose to insult my mother, who actually has authority on Christian theology... unlike you with your direct feed to the Robertson/Falwell network. You sound like a layperson, and you know it.

BTW, I forgot to add my 4th option to the poll: Seekermesiter spoke, and life happened.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I did find this link about the "Hobbit":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050304175249.htm

But it shows nothing that adds any credibility to the evolution theory. First off, rather than 10 years, it was only discovered in 2003 and not announced until the fall of 2004, but that isn't all that significant. According to the article itself, it is clear that science has not even determined how to classify this themselves. Nothing new in either pygmy, dwarf or midgets, either individually or as a clan. As far as the brain size, that may easily just be a deformity. It said nothing about being long lived, but only how old the fossil was. Even at 18000 years, that would place it from an era prior to this Earth Age, so has nothing to do with modern man...like most other fossils.

OK so you've only been ignoring the news for 4 years and not 10, my bad. It also doesn't matter what the species is, because it is a demonstration of significant changes in an isolated group of people. There has been more than one set of bones found and they are all diminutive in size.

Most other fossils? Huh? What are you babbling about? Are you saying that Lucy is irrelevant too because that species is some 3 million years old?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
For a while, I gave the membership here the credit for above average intelligence, but I'm beginning to doubt that. Because the primary characteristic of intelligence is listening. This is necessary to improve the activity of either learning, teaching or even deciding who is best to be ignored. Proper ignoring doesn't mean not listening, just not responding, wasting time spinning your wheels, with futile attempts to teach, or going down deadends repeatedly. A greater waste of time, is simply responding with denigrating epithets, aspersions or vulgarity. This latter activity is a trait of those not interested in anything except feeding their own vanity or amusing themselves by trolling...neither of which is intelligent.

Anytime you post here, the average intelligence level of the forum drops because you never acknowledge facts that are well documented that your opposition brings up.

Once again you ignore facts and try and sit in your self-righteousness highchair and cast judgement upon people, ignoring the fact that you yourself don't understand the basic tenets of scientific principles and therefore have no credibility in judging others.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I did find this link about the "Hobbit":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050304175249.htm

But it shows nothing that adds any credibility to the evolution theory. First off, rather than 10 years, it was only discovered in 2003 and not announced until the fall of 2004, but that isn't all that significant. According to the article itself, it is clear that science has not even determined how to classify this themselves. Nothing new in either pygmy, dwarf or midgets, either individually or as a clan. As far as the brain size, that may easily just be a deformity. It said nothing about being long lived, but only how old the fossil was. Even at 18000 years, that would place it from an era prior to this Earth Age, so has nothing to do with modern man...like most other fossils.

OK so you've only been ignoring the news for 4 years and not 10, my bad.

Your math is still off, since it wasn't announced until the fall of 2004, that leaves only a little over 2 years, not 4. I won't bother you with personal details which have interfered in my life, but I really don't believe that you or anyone else gleans everything presented on the news everyday.

It also doesn't matter what the species is, because it is a demonstration of significant changes in an isolated group of people. There has been more than one set of bones found and they are all diminutive in size.

I don't believe that anyone needs the news, or must go to a remote island to dig up fossils to know that life changes. It is whether these changes prove anything about evolution...they do not.

Most other fossils? Huh? What are you babbling about? Are you saying that Lucy is irrelevant too because that species is some 3 million years old?

If you consider it babble, because I have explained this sufficiently, that if you don't understand now, you won't, regardless of how much I "babble".

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I did find this link about the "Hobbit":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050304175249.htm

But it shows nothing that adds any credibility to the evolution theory. First off, rather than 10 years, it was only discovered in 2003 and not announced until the fall of 2004, but that isn't all that significant. According to the article itself, it is clear that science has not even determined how to classify this themselves. Nothing new in either pygmy, dwarf or midgets, either individually or as a clan. As far as the brain size, that may easily just be a deformity. It said nothing about being long lived, but only how old the fossil was. Even at 18000 years, that would place it from an era prior to this Earth Age, so has nothing to do with modern man...like most other fossils.

OK so you've only been ignoring the news for 4 years and not 10, my bad.

Your math is still off, since it wasn't announced until the fall of 2004, that leaves only a little over 2 years, not 4. I won't bother you with personal details which have interfered in my life, but I really don't believe that you or anyone else gleans everything presented on the news everyday.

It also doesn't matter what the species is, because it is a demonstration of significant changes in an isolated group of people. There has been more than one set of bones found and they are all diminutive in size.

I don't believe that anyone need the news, or to go to a remote island to dig up fossils to know that life changes. It is whether these changes prove anything about evolution...they do not.

Most other fossils? Huh? What are you babbling about? Are you saying that Lucy is irrelevant too because that species is some 3 million years old?

If you consider it babble, because I have explained this sufficiently, that if you don't understand now, you won't, regardless of how much I "babble".

ROFL you just admitted that life changes and yet still deny evolution! Are you really that retarded?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.

I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?




No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?

Why would you imagine my answer? They are all cons, however, christianity is the biggest con in my book because it has done more harm than any of the others imo. Why would you "imagine" that I'd say "probably not"?

Btw, have of your comparisons are not religion...

Good lot of assumptions from you... one of the reasons that I stated that I can't stand your arrogant postings in another thread. You think WAY too highly of yourself and your opinions.

Sorry, I'm not the one who's arrogant here. You're just an ignorant bigoted asshole who thinks his prejudices are the laws of nature, and I just call it like it is.

Again, you think very highly of yourself. I have the right to have my own opinion. You think YOUR opinion must be accepted by everyone.. that is what makes you arrogant.. and name calling only reinforces how immature you are.

Uh... you might want to pay attention here... you made this personal, not I (and you should leave this personal attack BS in P&N). And my response is that you're a bigot. What little intelligence you have is overruled by your emotional prejudices.
There's a reason the humanist crowd is increasingly separating itself from the evangelical atheist crowd. You people are sick and delusional. Dictating to people what they should believe is harmful, whether it's religion or atheism. You cite the harms caused by religion, I ask you, how many people died in religious wars last century? None, there weren't any. OTOH how many people did authoritarian atheism ala communism kill last century? Over 100 million.
Maybe now you might understand. I personally don't like religion. But authoritarian evangelical atheism certainly not the answer. Ask yourself, why do you care about other people's personal beliefs? What does it really matter if, despite our massive education efforts, a largish percentage of people insist on clinging to traditional beliefs even when those beliefs are scientifically wrong? Why do you care? Why do you want to force those people to change their beliefs?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
For a while, I gave the membership here the credit for above average intelligence, but I'm beginning to doubt that. Because the primary characteristic of intelligence is listening.

Listening is not the primary characteristic of intelligence. My cat listens to me talk but has no idea what I'm talking about. Similar to when people present facts to you, you listen but do not understand, because your faith is so ingrained into your personality that you take it for granted, not realizing that it is coloring your viewpoint.

 

[torpid]

OK Seeker, so you ignored the news for 2.5 years and despite repeated posts about hobbit you didn't even bother to look it up. I will forgive all of that as at least now you finally googled it and learned something. There is hope for you yet.

You claim to have stated something interesting about fossils but I can't find it. The only thing you stated is that there are chasm-like holes in the fossil record, but I can find no support for this belief since we have fossils of numerous known species from which humans eventually involved. Including Lucy, which you claimed to be a hoax but dropped it once I said I googled it and found nothing about a hoax beyond some claim that since the knee joint was found elsewhere and the archaeologist misunderstood a question asked, the whole thing is a hoax since he therefore lied.

Edit: I did find a post of yours where you basically claimed all human-like species became extinct and then some bizzare event happened where god decided to start over and created a new and improved human 2.0. Then you claim there is evidence supporting this theory but fail to provide it or even describe it. Is that what you are referring to about fossils? That basically all fossils that aren't of humans are invalid because it is somehow likely humans were mysteriously poofed into existence shortly after nearly humans were poofed out of existence?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Vic
You people are sick and delusional. Dictating to people what they should believe is harmful, whether it's religion or atheism.

People have begun bashing the religious wing-nuts because they are hampering my everyday life with their restrictions on what I can and cannot see on television, or listen to on the radio, or whether or not my girlfriend gets denied a morning after pill. If the only thing that the religious right did was pray amongst themselves then I would have no problem with them. It's when they start trying to turn this great country of ours into a fascist theocracy and hold back scientific research and development, that I begin to feel that I have had enough with their self-righteous belief system telling me what I can and cannot do. When it affects funding for scientific research and tries to interfere with our school system, then that's when I say that I've had enough with people like you!

Science > religion

 

[Seekermeister]

torpid,

[/quote]Edit: I did find a post of yours where you basically claimed all human-like species became extinct and then some bizzare event happened where god decided to start over and created a new and improved human 2.0. Then you claim there is evidence supporting this theory but fail to provide it or even describe it. Is that what you are referring to about fossils? That basically all fossils that aren't of humans are invalid because it is somehow likely humans were mysteriously poofed into existence shortly after nearly humans were poofed out of existence?[/quote]
I both provided and described the the source of this elsewhere, but since you at least dug up this much, I will refresh it. The Bible, when properly translated, says this in the first couple of verses in Genesis. I realize that you and many others do not consider this a valid source of information, but that is not my problem. But, regardless of your own biases, if you do not believe the Bible, you should still consider the concept, because it is not one that science has considered, yet there is factual evidence to support it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Vic
You people are sick and delusional. Dictating to people what they should believe is harmful, whether it's religion or atheism.

People have begun bashing the religious wing-nuts because they are hampering my everyday life with their restrictions on what I can and cannot see on television, or listen to on the radio, or whether or not my girlfriend gets denied a morning after pill. If the only thing that the religious right did was pray amongst themselves then I would have no problem with them. It's when they start trying to turn this great country of ours into a fascist theocracy and hold back scientific research and development, that I begin to feel that I have had enough with their self-righteous belief system telling me what I can and cannot do. When it affects funding for scientific research and tries to interfere with our school system, then that's when I say that I've had enough with people like you!

Science > religion

So you would turn it into an atheist totalitarian technocracy with requirements on belief just as strict the religionists would have?

BTW, I'm not "people like you." I'm not a religionist. Far from it, I'm a humanist, which is why I have to stand up against the authoritarian BS that passes for scientific atheism these days. It is simply wrong to force people what and how to believe whether you call it religion or science, get it? Education is one thing, and certainly the hallmark of science, but when you start spouting nonsense that religion is a con that should be outlawed and begin preaching intolerance and hate against those with different beliefs, then you don't represent science any more no matter how much you want to pretend to. In that case, you are a religion, and a particularly nasty one at that.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
torpid,

Edit: I did find a post of yours where you basically claimed all human-like species became extinct and then some bizzare event happened where god decided to start over and created a new and improved human 2.0. Then you claim there is evidence supporting this theory but fail to provide it or even describe it. Is that what you are referring to about fossils? That basically all fossils that aren't of humans are invalid because it is somehow likely humans were mysteriously poofed into existence shortly after nearly humans were poofed out of existence?[/quote]
I both provided and described the the source of this elsewhere, but since you at least dug up this much, I will refresh it. The Bible, when properly translated, says this in the first couple of verses in Genesis. I realize that you and many others do not consider this a valid source of information, but that is not my problem. But, regardless of your own biases, if you do not believe the Bible, you should still consider the concept, because it is not one that science has considered, yet there is factual evidence to support it.[/quote]

What about human fossils from over 20,000 years ago, or fossils of species that are not extinct?

And what is this factual evidence that you speak of?