or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Human common descent ancestor discovered
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Human common descent ancestor discovered

post #1 of 411
Thread Starter 
18-nov-2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4014351.stm

Another nail in the creationist coffin. Who's the whitecap now bibleboys?
post #2 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
18-nov-2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4014351.stm

Another nail in the creationist coffin. Who's the whitecap now bibleboys?

Quote:
Scientists have unearthed remains of a primate that could have been ancestral not only to humans but to all great apes, including chimps and gorillas.


Coulda, shoulda, woulda... Somoene could say that there's still no proof that humans evolved from this thing... I dunno.
Follow me on Twitter.
Reply
Follow me on Twitter.
Reply
post #3 of 411
But there's TONS of evidence God created man from the dirt, right?
post #4 of 411
MarcUk

Liber... al.. ist?

Jimzip
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
Reply
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
Reply
post #5 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by Jimzip
MarcUk

Liber... al.. ist?

Jimzip

i'd say he's more of a realist.
post #6 of 411
"Creationist vs Evolutionist" is soooo last year.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #7 of 411
All I know is I remember saying some pretty nasty things to Fellowship in that thread, and I would like to apologize.
post #8 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Another nail in the creationist coffin. Who's the whitecap now bibleboys?

In the USA, there isn't even a coffin to nail. This Gallup Poll report from gadflyer is truly depressing.

This is a religious-political issue here. It won't be changed by any scientific fact unless it is changed from within.
post #9 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
In the USA, there isn't even a coffin to nail. This Gallup Poll report from gadflyer is truly depressing.

This is a religious-political issue here. It won't be changed by any scientific fact unless it is changed from within.

jesus, this country's screwed.

0: the number of creationists soulcrusher knew before coming to college in the US.
post #10 of 411
Why does it always have to be some huge battle? MarkUK reads something at BBC so he can feel so superior and be so condescending to people he hates. He has to run to AA and post a thread to let others know how smart he is and how stupid others are. I don't understand the goal.
post #11 of 411
Scott. The goal is to stamp out ignorance. It's a crying shame that our system allows people to go through life denying there's evidence for evolution. That is a societal breakdown.
post #12 of 411
Paleontologists discover "missing links" at the rate of about one or two a year. Once their findings are reviewed by the scientific community, it becomes evident that (in the case of homonids) they are already similar to either a distinctly ape species, or human species. (e.g. lucy, e.g. Ardipithecus ramidus, e.g. Homo habilis/erectus, e.g. Archaeoraptor liaoningensis)

This is nothing new.
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #13 of 411
THT:

You have ruined my day.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #14 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
THT:

You have ruined my day.

we truly do live in an ignorant society.
post #15 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Paleontologists discover "missing links" at the rate of about one or two a year. Once their findings are reviewed by the scientific community, it becomes evident that (in the case of homonids) they are already similar to either a distinctly ape species, or human species. (e.g. lucy, e.g. Ardipithecus ramidus, e.g. Homo habilis/erectus, e.g. Archaeoraptor liaoningensis)

This is nothing new.

benzene, eh? Is that what you've been sniffing? Or are you honestly, and with a clear head, claiming that humans and apes are not related?

Nobody's looking for a 'missing link' to prove we're descended from apes. They already proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The scientists are just excited to find an actual preserved fossil that helps to fill in some of the details along the way.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #16 of 411
I just want to put this out there again.

48% of Americans believe that God created humans 10,000 years ago.

Apparently that is true.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #17 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Why does it always have to be some huge battle? MarkUK reads something at BBC so he can feel so superior and be so condescending to people he hates. He has to run to AA and post a thread to let others know how smart he is and how stupid others are. I don't understand the goal.

As you all know the story, Creationism is my issue. Frankly I didn't give a fvck about evolution, but the claims were made and I spent considerable time checking them out. I didn't even know what creationism or the theory of Evolution was until the claims were made right here at AO. But thats in the distant past, and the fact that i decided to check it out was a blessing in disguise a year later when I joined a company that has a couple of Creationists running amok.

I personally don't really care what an individual chooses to base their life ethos on, but there is a large movement of creationists that collectively I do want to take issue with.

Creationism is deceitful ignorance. There are two types of creationist. The deceived and the deceivers.

The deceived are the vocal ignorants who just spew crap without ever bothering to research, check or validate their claims. They can recite whole passages from their literature and make convincing arguments that the average person doesn't have enough of an education to refute. These are the people who aren't smart enough to realise that disproving one theory doesn't prove the other one. Hell, these are people who don't actually know what the scientific theory of evolution actually is. They'll tell you that information can't increase, but dont have a fucking clue what the information relates to anyway. They'll tell you that there are issues with Macroevolution, but decline to tell you that their version of macroE is their own fantasy and doesn't resemble the scientific definition of macroE. They'll tell you a live seal was carbon dated at 29,000 years old, but decline to tell you that a biologist would never seriously carbon date a marine animal. For reasons the're blissfully ignorant of. etc etc ad infinitium...

Then there are the deceivers....They know the theory of Evolution is fucking irrelavent because it describes the naturalistic changes in life after it appeared and it doesn't say that God might have/have not started it off anyway. They know that the scientific definition of 'theory' differs from the every day use of the word, but they'll still tell you its 'just a theory anyway'. They know that 'scientific' MacroE is fully corroberated with copius evidence, but still ask you why a cat doesn't magically give birth to a cow?. They know the reason why marine life doesn't carbon date, but still give you the seal example as evidence that science is wrong. They'll tell you with a perfectly straight face that you'll never assembe a 747 with a tornado in a junkyard, knowing full well it's not a valid allegory of evolution anyway. They'll tell you that the chances of chemicals ever coming together are to the nth power to 1, knowing that there are that many atoms in every square meter of water. They'll sell their books, have their world famous lectures, and like most religious cults, do it only to make money from an ignorant fanbase.

I cannot promise you that the theory of Evolution is 100% the truth of how we got here, but I can promise you Creation theory is a lie based on an nth power of lies.

This is why it is my issue.
post #18 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
benzene, eh? Is that what you've been sniffing? Or are you honestly, and with a clear head, claiming that humans and apes are not related?

Nobody's looking for a 'missing link' to prove we're descended from apes. They already proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The scientists are just excited to find an actual preserved fossil that helps to fill in some of the details along the way.

I am claiming that we did not descend from apes. Are we "related" genetically? Yes. We share lots of genetic information. We also have two legs, two "arms", one head, two eyes, etc.

As for your claim that "nobody's looking", you obviously haven't read a lot of the comments being made about this "find". Statements like "Another nail in the creationist coffin." attest to that.

Fact of the matter is, there are plenty of reasonable and very intellegent men and women out there for whom the random natural processes so bandied about do not provide a conclusive enough argument for pure naturalistic evolution.
Fortunately, history has always had those who stand out against the mainstream. Many times their theories turn out to be groundless, and some times they have siezed upon a nugget of truth.
Darwin had many valid points when he said that fitness could be selected for. I think that genetic modification is critical for surviability, but that it is insufficient for generating the massive amounts of original information required to make life.

These finds of "missing links" in no way make my position on origin theory untenable. Even the staunchest of paleontologists will agree that the procession from apes to humans is still patchy at best.
Although at times I still hold to some dogmatic statements, I am a scientist foremost, and a creationist second. My views on origins are not going to be swayed either way by any single find. I have read some very hairy journal articles on theories of biochemical evolution (I try to stick to the stuff I know), and their conclusions, although enlightening, are not persuasive (or are they meant to be). I have also read many articles about creationistic theories that are likewise far from the conclusive evidence needed.

One thing that has always struck me as interesting is the different positions scientists take on the theory (yes, I said theory) of evolution. Biologists (this includes paleontologists) are almost always the staunchest of naturalists. Chemists less so, and physicists the least of all.
It is very easy for a biologist to wave his hands in the air and say "the avian wing then developed like this". For the biochemist, he's thinking about the several thousand proteins and several million bp of DNA involved. It's not such a trivial statement at that point.

Once again, I am not a paleontologist, so I'm trying to make an analogy between statements like "this is an example of evolution" and the complexity of what is really going on.
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #19 of 411
I don't find it too surprising. I would have when I was in college, but now I don't. I've learned way too many depressing things since leaving the carefree days of age < 10.
post #20 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
I am claiming that we did not descend from apes. Are we "related" genetically? Yes. We share lots of genetic information. We also have two legs, two "arms", one head, two eyes, etc.

As for your claim that "nobody's looking", you obviously haven't read a lot of the comments being made about this "find". Statements like "Another nail in the creationist coffin." attest to that.

Fact of the matter is, there are plenty of reasonable and very intellegent men and women out there for whom the random natural processes so bandied about do not provide a conclusive enough argument for pure naturalistic evolution.
Fortunately, history has always had those who stand out against the mainstream. Many times their theories turn out to be groundless, and some times they have siezed upon a nugget of truth.
Darwin had many valid points when he said that fitness could be selected for. I think that genetic modification is critical for surviability, but that it is insufficient for generating the massive amounts of original information required to make life.

These finds of "missing links" in no way make my position on origin theory untenable. Even the staunchest of paleontologists will agree that the procession from apes to humans is still patchy at best.
Although at times I still hold to some dogmatic statements, I am a scientist foremost, and a creationist second. My views on origins are not going to be swayed either way by any single find. I have read some very hairy journal articles on theories of biochemical evolution (I try to stick to the stuff I know), and their conclusions, although enlightening, are not persuasive (or are they meant to be). I have also read many articles about creationistic theories that are likewise far from the conclusive evidence needed.

One thing that has always struck me as interesting is the different positions scientists take on the theory (yes, I said theory) of evolution. Biologists (this includes paleontologists) are almost always the staunchest of naturalists. Chemists less so, and physicists the least of all.
It is very easy for a biologist to wave his hands in the air and say "the avian wing then developed like this". For the biochemist, he's thinking about the several thousand proteins and several million bp of DNA involved. It's not such a trivial statement at that point.

Once again, I am not a paleontologist, so I'm trying to make an analogy between statements like "this is an example of evolution" and the complexity of what is really going on.

And yet...For all your intelligence and understanding of the issue...How does proving one theory wrong make the other fantasy correct?

I'd hazard a guess that you are an intentional deceiver

Where is the evidence that the Bible IS the unadulterated word of God?

Where is the evidence that the book of Genesis is a literal fact and not an allegorical work?

Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?

Where is the evidence that the Old testament was written by its claimed author under guidance of God, and is not the evolution or 'pillaging' of Ancient Egyptian or Babylonian Astrotheology?

Where is the evidence that the Earth was created <10000 years ago?

Where is the evidence that God created the world in 6 days?

Where is the evidence of a global flood?

What is Gopher Wood?

Where is the credible evidence that Jesus ever walked the Earth?

Why does Adam translate to 'mankind or humankind' in the original hebrew?

Why is the fourth word of Genesis1:1 translated incorrectly?

Where is the 'flaming sword that flashes back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life'???

Why does the 'tree of life' appear an ancient egytian astrotheology?

Why is part of the Genesis story on the Narmer plate 4500BC?

In My [humble] opinion, your 'theory fantasy' has so many holes, your ship sunk before it left the dock.
post #21 of 411
...MarkUK posted while I was writing my last novella...

Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
The deceived are the vocal ignorants who just spew crap without ever bothering to research, check or validate their claims. They can recite whole passages from their literature and make convincing arguments that the average person doesn't have enough of an education to refute. These are the people who aren't smart enough to realise that disproving one theory doesn't prove the other one.

Oh come on now. Not everyone can be an expert, so yes, many people are going to quote somebody they trust. Secondly, when it comes to origins, it really is A or B. You can't have it any other way. Either we came about by chance, or something made us. You might call on the cyclic universe theory, e.g. "It's always been this way", so I guess that might be a third theory. I also suppose someone could call on the whole idealism mumbojumbo. Thread starter anyone?

Quote:
They'll tell you that information can't increase, but dont have a fucking clue what the information relates to anyway.

That is untrue. What most creationists will say (again, I don't know who you hang around with) is that you need to have information (be it encoded in RNA, DNA, or a protein) to create information. The information might be encoded in a sequence, or in an molecular arrangement of some kind. In short: stored data. It's not a tough concept.

Quote:
They'll tell you that there are issues with Macroevolution, but decline to tell you that their version of macroE is their own fantasy and doesn't resemble the scientific definition of macroE.

That's a patent lie. Again, I don't know who you hang out with, but even the dumber creationists I've known would define macroevolution (as the scientists would) as interspecies change. (P.S. Did you know the different species of finches on the galapagos islands can mate with each other?) If you really want to pick a bone, do it with the definition of species. That'll make the fur fly in the taxological community.

Quote:
They'll tell you a live seal was carbon dated at 29,000 years old, but decline to tell you that a biologist would never seriously carbon date a marine animal. For reasons the're blissfully ignorant of. etc etc ad infinitium...

Nevermind the fact that plenty of articles do C14 dating on marine life anyway...

Quote:
Then there are the deceivers....They know the theory of Evolution is fucking irrelavent because it describes the naturalistic changes in life after it appeared and it doesn't say that God might have/have not started it off anyway.

I guess this sort of makes me a "deciever" oh well...pushing on. This is actually a good point, but you will notice that there has been a big movement toward "intellegent design" that tends to deal more with the origins of life. (What happens from there is generally left up to the individual's own interpretation of the evidence)
As for evolution being "irrelevant", I'm sure several thousand naturalists would like a word with you about that.

Quote:
MacroE is fully corroberated with copius evidence, but still ask you why a cat doesn't magically give birth to a cow?

Hmm. Really. What "copious" evidence is that? The article you just posted? All we have is dried bones and fossils to look at, and grandiose statements about how it all came from one creature are made. Interestingly enough, the "evidence" on which the genetic changes necessary for all those changes are derived from unicellular studies. Excessive extrapolation anyone?

Quote:
I cannot promise you that the theory of Evolution is 100% the truth of how we got here, but I can promise you Creation theory is a lie based on an nth power of lies.

Interesting, that. You really haven't given a single reason why creationism is a lie. Only that it is made up of "decieved" and "decievers", which would imply a lie, but one you didn't specify...oh well.

Quote:
This is why it is my issue.

And debunking fallacious claims is mine.

The few, the proud, the apple-using creationists!
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #22 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
...MarkUK posted while I was writing my last novella...



Oh come on now. Not everyone can be an expert, so yes, many people are going to quote somebody they trust. Secondly, when it comes to origins, it really is A or B. You can't have it any other way. Either we came about by chance, or something made us. You might call on the cyclic universe theory, e.g. "It's always been this way", so I guess that might be a third theory. I also suppose someone could call on the whole idealism mumbojumbo. Thread starter anyone?



That is untrue. What most creationists will say (again, I don't know who you hang around with) is that you need to have information (be it encoded in RNA, DNA, or a protein) to create information. The information might be encoded in a sequence, or in an molecular arrangement of some kind. In short: stored data. It's not a tough concept.



That's a patent lie. Again, I don't know who you hang out with, but even the dumber creationists I've known would define macroevolution (as the scientists would) as interspecies change. (P.S. Did you know the different species of finches on the galapagos islands can mate with each other?) If you really want to pick a bone, do it with the definition of species. That'll make the fur fly in the taxological community.



Nevermind the fact that plenty of articles do C14 dating on marine life anyway...



I guess this sort of makes me a "deciever" oh well...pushing on. This is actually a good point, but you will notice that there has been a big movement toward "intellegent design" that tends to deal more with the origins of life. (What happens from there is generally left up to the individual's own interpretation of the evidence)
As for evolution being "irrelevant", I'm sure several thousand naturalists would like a word with you about that.



Hmm. Really. What "copious" evidence is that? The article you just posted? All we have is dried bones and fossils to look at, and grandiose statements about how it all came from one creature are made. Interestingly enough, the "evidence" on which the genetic changes necessary for all those changes are derived from unicellular studies. Excessive extrapolation anyone?



Interesting, that. You really haven't given a single reason why creationism is a lie. Only that it is made up of "decieved" and "decievers", which would imply a lie, but one you didn't specify...oh well.



And debunking fallacious claims is mine.

The few, the proud, the apple-using creationists!

I dont care for all the small talk.... Just tell me how and why proving evolution wrong makes your fantasy right. That right there IS the fundamental lie of the creationist.
post #23 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Where is the evidence that the Bible IS the unadulterated word of God?

Well, first of all I'd have to ask you if you even believed in God, because it would be foolhardy to show you evidence that would be relating to something you don't even think exists. But for the benefit of those out there who at least entertain the concept of a higher being, I'll do my best.
First, it's the oldest holy book that isn't laughably full of scientific holes (yes yes, I know some wiseass is going to throw a whole bunch of verses at me and ask me to explain them. bring it on)
Second, its progression of thought (from the old to the new testaments) makes sense of what I think God would be like. If I had been raised hindu, maybe that would be different, and I'd think the bhagavad gita would be it.

Quote:
Where is the evidence that the book of Genesis is a literal fact and not an allegorical work?

Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?

Well in this instance I would invoke occam's razor, and say that if God really did make the world x thousand years ago, it's simpler to accept the account at face value, especially if there is not damning evidence to the contrary. (based upon my personal studies, there haven't been any)

Quote:
Where is the evidence that the Old testament was written by its claimed author under guidance of God, and is not the evolution or 'pillaging' of Ancient Egyptian or Babylonian Astrotheology?

Well, people are debating whether or not shakespeare wrote all of his plays, and he only live a couple of a hundred years ago. So trying to determine which came first, the bible or astrotheology would be difficult at best. However, given the fairly universal stories about creation (and even the flood), why can't they actually trace back to the actual event?

Quote:
Where is the evidence that the Earth was created <10000 years ago?
Where is the evidence that God created the world in 6 days?

LOL. That's what I thought this whole thread was about. Just because creationists hold a fairly simple theory (God made it) makes us "stupid" and "simple". Am I "stupid" and "simple" for wanting a non-intrusive operating system? As I remember, Mac users used to be characterized as such. I point you to my earlier statements about it being either A or B. If it's not one, it pretty much has to be the other.

Quote:
Where is the evidence of a global flood?

To quote a charismatic creationist, "Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth." (I guess that makes me a Decieved, doesn't it?)
It's no source of amazement to me to observe the conclusions different people can come to based on the same evidence. Fact of the matter is, many fossils exist in massive boneyards that consist of thousands of species all jumbled on top of each other (and these can be found all over the world in similar rock layers). You name a process other than a flood that can do that.


Quote:
What is Gopher Wood?

Ah! Finally! Someone has asked that question. Interestingly enough, an inquiry into the original hebrew/aramaic root of the word used in the bible seems to lend credence to a type of man-made material, possibly similar to plywood. I'm sure you would scoff at the possibility that "primitive man" could have made such a item. However, don't forget that the egyptians were masters at electroplating and even developed batteries to do it with. Now that's early ingenuity!

Quote:
Where is the credible evidence that Jesus ever walked the Earth?

Well, the Jewish (not christian) historian Josephus mentions him, and other writings recovered from (I believe) Rome also make mention about some rabblerouser (as they put it) named "Jesus" in Israel.
Also, places and people named in the bible have turned out to exist after all, even when many archaeologists scoffed at their existence. If you want to know more, ask me and I'll get you some more stuff when I get home.

Quote:
Why does Adam translate to 'mankind or humankind' in the original hebrew?

Many scholars think that the name "Adam" came to be used as mankind after the original name "Adam" because older traces to the word "soil" or "ground" have been identified. (Which would be interesting, because the bible account has Adam created from soil)

Quote:
Why is the fourth word of Genesis1:1 translated incorrectly?

Well, if you're using the KJV (which is pretty hairy stuff to read), it's "God". What is it supposed to be?

Quote:
Where is the 'flaming sword that flashes back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life'???

Well, the "flaming sword" that you are referring to was set in place to prevent Adam and Eve (or their children) from returning to the garden of eden. I believe this was done to serve as a reminder of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God's only command. Presumably, once the garden was destroyed in the flood, the sword was no longer necessary.

Quote:
Why does the 'tree of life' appear an ancient egytian astrotheology?

Why is part of the Genesis story on the Nermer plate 4500BC?

Why couldn't the authors have gotten it from the same place the author of genesis did?

I welcome these questions, as I don't have anything to hide. I'm not saying I'm some great thinker or anything, just that I have spent a lot of time going over what I believe and why. Having people ask questions only helps me be critical of what I hold as truth, and make sure that it makes sense.
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #24 of 411
Thread Starter 
how many of these d'ya think noah got in the ark?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4031789.stm

I wonder if they count as a clean, or unclean beast?
post #25 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
I dont care for all the small talk.... Just tell me how and why proving evolution wrong makes your fantasy right. That right there IS the fundamental lie of the creationist.

Good grief. I thought I covered this one. It's either A or B (as I stated several times). If you think there's another alternative, state it. Otherwise, don't ask questions you don't want answers to. (and therefore generate "small talk")
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #26 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
how many of these d'ya think noah got in the ark?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4031789.stm

I wonder if they count as a clean, or unclean beast?

Who says Noah had to bring a fully-grown one? Eh?
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #27 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Good grief. I thought I covered this one. It's either A or B (as I stated several times). If you think there's another alternative, state it. Otherwise, don't ask questions you don't want answers to. (and therefore generate "small talk")

Theres another lie or deception. You are not arguing its A or B. You are arguing thats its A or the literal word of the Genesis. This is not B because it could still be designed but not according to the literal word of Genesis. You need to prove the literal word of Genesis is the truth.

BTW I thought your previous answers were very good and honest, and you just gained a fair bit of respect.
post #28 of 411
All I want to know is where is the jewish teacher and the clean looking nice little arian boy?

Naah fuck it. I guess someone who wasn´t here the last time would get a kick out of this discussion. But those who was involved the last time\
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #29 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Theres another lie or deception. You are not arguing its A or B. You are arguing thats its A or the literal word of the Genesis. This is not B because it could still be designed but not according to the literal word of Genesis. You need to prove the literal word of Genesis is the truth.


Whoa Whoa Whoa!

I don't know what you've been smoking, but I said:

Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Either we came about by chance, or something made us.

The literality of the Bible is a whole 'nother can of worms.

[edit]
BTW, thank you.
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #30 of 411
No I don´t want to discuss Creationism but this you got all wrong benzene.

Its not like the book of evolutionism was written and then everything has to match 100% to be true. Its adaption of theory according to findings that drives science. So its not a choice between A or B but about what theory that points in the most promising direction.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #31 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Well, first of all I'd have to ask you if you even believed in God, because it would be foolhardy to show you evidence that would be relating to something you don't even think exists. But for the benefit of those out there who at least entertain the concept of a higher being, I'll do my best.

Why would it be foolhardy to give me evidence of something I dont think exists? Youre hardly going to prove existance by withholding the evidence. I dont know wether God exists. If there was evidence it would be established by now, and the whole world wouldn't be able to deny Gods existance. But it doesn't exist unless you want it to.

Quote:

First, it's the oldest holy book that isn't laughably full of scientific holes (yes yes, I know some wiseass is going to throw a whole bunch of verses at me and ask me to explain them. bring it on)
Second, its progression of thought (from the old to the new testaments) makes sense of what I think God would be like. If I had been raised hindu, maybe that would be different, and I'd think the bhagavad gita would be it.

yet the literal word of Genesis is scientifically full of holes the size of jupiter - which is the topic were discussing.

Second, prove the progression of thought is the product of God and not man. By the time the new testament was written there had been thousands of years of refined philosophy. Mankind was more than capable. Personally I find the actions of God rather perverted.


Quote:

Well in this instance I would invoke occam's razor, and say that if God really did make the world x thousand years ago, it's simpler to accept the account at face value, especially if there is not damning evidence to the contrary. (based upon my personal studies, there haven't been any)

The whole of evolution is damning evidence to the contrary, not that evolution says that God didn't create it. It just says that it didn't happen 10000 years ago. Oh and it also implies that if Genesis is not true, then there is no need for Jesus to save you - which is the real reason its so important to prove it wrong isn't it.


Quote:

Well, people are debating whether or not shakespeare wrote all of his plays, and he only live a couple of a hundred years ago. So trying to determine which came first, the bible or astrotheology would be difficult at best. However, given the fairly universal stories about creation (and even the flood), why can't they actually trace back to the actual event?

Its pretty clear that astrotheology came first and to pretend otherwise is another lie. And they do trace back to an actual event, the emergence of civilizations after the melting of the ice after the last ice age, but the flood was not global, didn't happen because God was angry.


Quote:

LOL. That's what I thought this whole thread was about. Just because creationists hold a fairly simple theory (God made it) makes us "stupid" and "simple". Am I "stupid" and "simple" for wanting a non-intrusive operating system? As I remember, Mac users used to be characterized as such. I point you to my earlier statements about it being either A or B. If it's not one, it pretty much has to be the other

.
Yet another deception. Your arguing that god made it, I dont claim he didn't - but dont forget the important bit hey- "in accordance with a very strict literal interpretation of a book that evolved from sun-worship mythology". That is stupid and simple. A or B already adressed.


Quote:

To quote a charismatic creationist, "Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth." (I guess that makes me a Decieved, doesn't it?)
It's no source of amazement to me to observe the conclusions different people can come to based on the same evidence. Fact of the matter is, many fossils exist in massive boneyards that consist of thousands of species all jumbled on top of each other (and these can be found all over the world in similar rock layers). You name a process other than a flood that can do that.

LIE. They're sorted very carefully. You know what I mean and you know its true. There is no jumbledness here. The process is that they died and sank to the bottom of the sea. No 'global' flood necessary.



Quote:

Ah! Finally! Someone has asked that question. Interestingly enough, an inquiry into the original hebrew/aramaic root of the word used in the bible seems to lend credence to a type of man-made material, possibly similar to plywood. I'm sure you would scoff at the possibility that "primitive man" could have made such a item. However, don't forget that the egyptians were masters at electroplating and even developed batteries to do it with. Now that's early ingenuity!

How convienent, studies showed that natural wood could never be built into a boat the size of an ark,without steel reinforcements, so your evidence gives noah a man made super substance. And noah made this plywood and built an ark himself in 7 days?

Why couldn't God snap his finger and kill everything but Noah and family? Occams Razor is that the ark story is the collective memory of civilizations local floods and the boats built to escape.

Quote:

Well, the Jewish (not christian) historian Josephus mentions him, and other writings recovered from (I believe) Rome also make mention about some rabblerouser (as they put it) named "Jesus" in Israel.
Also, places and people named in the bible have turned out to exist after all, even when many archaeologists scoffed at their existence. If you want to know more, ask me and I'll get you some more stuff when I get home.

Josephus's paragraphs are known to have been inserted by the Catholic Church, don't read in the style of Josephus writing, and when removed make the writing more coherant. Next.

Tell me, why would a Jew, expecting a divine prophet to appear as per scripture, actually witness the account, and write just a few paragraphs about this event. No its BS inserted by the Catholic Church to try to give some credibility to Jesus' existance when they realised there were no actual accounts of the man from his life, even though he was so famous and rode into Jerusalem on an ass and crowds lined the streets. Guess no-one took a photo either?

Of course places and people occured in the Bible, places and people important to the authors. Funny how all these other places and people have been recorded well in comtemporary history aswell, but somehow not the most important person to have ever existed.


Quote:

Many scholars think that the name "Adam" came to be used as mankind after the original name "Adam" because older traces to the word "soil" or "ground" have been identified. (Which would be interesting, because the bible account has Adam created from soil)

Occams razor suggests the opposite.


Quote:

Well, if you're using the KJV (which is pretty hairy stuff to read), it's "God". What is it supposed to be?

The word is Elohim, that doesn't mean god. This is because the ancient Hebrew culture was polytheistic. That means the Hebrews worshipped more than one god. No shit, because they were worshipping the sun-gods, more evidence that the Bible evolved out of mythology.


Quote:

Well, the "flaming sword" that you are referring to was set in place to prevent Adam and Eve (or their children) from returning to the garden of eden. I believe this was done to serve as a reminder of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God's only command. Presumably, once the garden was destroyed in the flood, the sword was no longer necessary.

Cute!


Quote:

Why couldn't the authors have gotten it from the same place the author of genesis did?

I welcome these questions, as I don't have anything to hide. I'm not saying I'm some great thinker or anything, just that I have spent a lot of time going over what I believe and why. Having people ask questions only helps me be critical of what I hold as truth, and make sure that it makes sense.

They did, it comes from sun-worship. Im glad you dont have anything to hide - so just answer the question. How does disproving evolution make your fantasy true?
post #32 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Whoa Whoa Whoa!

I don't know what you've been smoking, but I said:



The literality of the Bible is a whole 'nother can of worms.

[edit]
BTW, thank you.

Youre so full of shit

You are a creationist? Check
You are trying to prove evolution is false? Check
You claim it's either my theory (A) or your theory (B)?Check

Then you claim your theory is nothing to do with a literal intepretation of Genesis? Check.

Ahhahahahahahahahahahfuckoffhahahahahahahahah.

Later, thanks for wasting my evening.
post #33 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK Occams Razor is that the ark story is the collective memory of civilizations local floods and the boats built to escape.[/B]

Quite interesting aspect of religions actually. Its like huge collectors of collective consciousness that describes how our minds work and does so in the society: What goes on in our heads is manifested in the sociale. What is interesting is how connected the myths are, even if those believeing in the almost similar myth could not have been in contact. Especially the change in the mind set when different groups went from being hunters to farmers and this change also change the understanding of the world in a similar way across the world.

I think psychology and my own field of sociology could benefit from doing what antropologists have done in ages: Understanding their object from the religious myths present.

I think the books that have changed my view on human nature the most is Mircea Eliades A History of Religious Ideas. Going forward in history, describing the various religions stories, concepts, ideas, connections and social meaning it also describes how thoughts are organized, a pattern that transcends barriers of geographic and time.

I really don´t think deeply religious people will be offended by his descriptions on how religious thoughts are connected. We would probably only differ on one question: Are those common patterns the work of a real god or of patterns related to our biology.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #34 of 411
Before this turns into another Fellowship Wars-like thread, I'd like to propose a compromise.

I'm willing to amend my personal faith to believe that conservatives were created by God, while liberals evolved from monkeys.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #35 of 411
We also have muslim clerics up here in Canada who keep referring to Jews as 'sons of pigs and monkeys' in Friday sermons, so this evolution thing is apparently taking over Islam as well.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #36 of 411
Agreed. Conservatives are created by a figure of fiction while the liberals actually evolved.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #37 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Agreed. Conservatives are created by a figure of fiction while the liberals actually evolved.

Nah, conservatives are real enough - they just pasted the Democrats on Nov. 4th.
No-one, on the other hand, wants to claim to be a member of the 'Liberal elite'.

Well, except MarcUK. And he's a nut.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #38 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Before this turns into another Fellowship Wars-like thread, I'd like to propose a compromise.

I'm willing to amend my personal faith to believe that conservatives were created by God, while liberals evolved from monkeys.

Which at least makes liberals evolved.
post #39 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Why would it be foolhardy to give me evidence of something I dont think exists? Youre hardly going to prove existance by withholding the evidence. I dont know wether God exists. If there was evidence it would be established by now, and the whole world wouldn't be able to deny Gods existance. But it doesn't exist unless you want it to.

I'm merely asking if you really care, or if you're just a troll...but we already know that, don't we?

Quote:
yet the literal word of Genesis is scientifically full of holes the size of jupiter - which is the topic were discussing.

No, we're not. We are discussing the scientific evidence involved in orgins debate. If you seriously want a look at the "holes" (which I doubt), there are plenty of books written in defense/attack of them.

Quote:
Second, prove the progression of thought is the product of God and not man. By the time the new testament was written there had been thousands of years of refined philosophy. Mankind was more than capable. Personally I find the actions of God rather perverted.

A chicken and the egg tautology. I would say "God created man in his own image", and you would say the opposite.

Quote:
The whole of evolution is damning evidence to the contrary, not that evolution says that God didn't create it. It just says that it didn't happen 10000 years ago. Oh and it also implies that if Genesis is not true, then there is no need for Jesus to save you - which is the real reason its so important to prove it wrong isn't it.

Hmm, that's funny, I thought we were looking at the evidence for/against creation/evolution. Oh, that's right, you decided to bring up my personal beliefs about the bible, and lump them all together. Nice try.

Quote:
Its pretty clear that astrotheology came first and to pretend otherwise is another lie. And they do trace back to an actual event, the emergence of civilizations after the melting of the ice after the last ice age, but the flood was not global, didn't happen because God was angry.

Really. Cite some evidence that says astrotheology came first, and then we'll talk. As for the flood, I revert what I said back a few posts ago about people looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions.

Quote:
Yet another deception. Your arguing that god made it, I dont claim he didn't - but dont forget the important bit hey- "in accordance with a very strict literal interpretation of a book that evolved from sun-worship mythology". That is stupid and simple. A or B already adressed.

Here we go again. I very distinctly separated my creationistic beliefs and my statements about the Bible. You, sir, are the one who is decieving. I highly you really want to talk about the topics of the Bible.

Quote:
LIE. They're sorted very carefully. You know what I mean and you know its true. There is no jumbledness here. The process is that they died and sank to the bottom of the sea. No 'global' flood necessary.

(A question finally on track for once)

You really need to at least do a little preliminary research before you post. Very rarely do paleontologists find a single isolated fossil. Many times they are found in large "bone beds". Google is your friend, use it. As for sorting, that too makes sense. You yourself say that they died and sank to the bottom of the sea...sounds like a flood. Given the similarity of strata in which these fossils are found throughout the world, it lends credence to a global flood. Regional floods would have a hard time causing such extensive similar strata formation. But then again, same data, different interpretations.


Quote:
How convienent, studies showed that natural wood could never be built into a boat the size of an ark,without steel reinforcements, so your evidence gives noah a man made super substance. And noah made this plywood and built an ark himself in 7 days?

I am not aware of these "studies" that you refer to. A link perhaps? As for the seven day theory, (which I've never head said anywhere before) you (again) need to do a little preliminary research. Try this link perhaps?


Quote:
Why couldn't God snap his finger and kill everything but Noah and family? Occams Razor is that the ark story is the collective memory of civilizations local floods and the boats built to escape.

Hmm, a collective memory? In which the central tenet is a huge flood and one family survives? Also in which they usually save animals?
Sounds like a pretty collective memory. Check this out.


Quote:
Josephus's paragraphs are known to have been inserted by the Catholic Church, don't read in the style of Josephus writing, and when removed make the writing more coherant. Next.

Really. Have you even read josephus? Eh? How about a source for these rather conspiratorial statements?

Quote:
Tell me, why would a Jew, expecting a divine prophet to appear as per scripture, actually witness the account, and write just a few paragraphs about this event. No its BS inserted by the Catholic Church to try to give some credibility to Jesus' existance when they realised there were no actual accounts of the man from his life, even though he was so famous and rode into Jerusalem on an ass and crowds lined the streets. Guess no-one took a photo either?

Well, Josephus lived in Rome, and died before Christianity came to Italy. (But you would know that, given your evidently exhaustive research into a topic you decry as "full of lies" wouldn't you?)
Jesus public life only lasted a few years, and Israel was known to have lots of rabblerousers (Read Acts 5:36-39, where several of them are mentioned in the same context as Jesus).

Quote:
Of course places and people occured in the Bible, places and people important to the authors. Funny how all these other places and people have been recorded well in comtemporary history aswell, but somehow not the most important person to have ever existed.

This is actually one of the greatest arguments of all times, whether or not Christ really existed. I would be crazy to think I could cover all the bases here. Then again, historians can't even agree that King Arthur ever existed...

Quote:
The word is Elohim, that doesn't mean god. This is because the ancient Hebrew culture was polytheistic. That means the Hebrews worshipped more than one god. No shit, because they were worshipping the sun-gods, more evidence that the Bible evolved out of mythology.

The reason it's plural is that God is always referred to as a Trinity. This is covered quite well here.


Quote:
They did, it comes from sun-worship. Im glad you dont have anything to hide - so just answer the question. How does disproving evolution make your fantasy true?

I'm going to say it for the last time: In this thread I was attempting to discuss origins. I have tried to answer some of your questions about the bible, but I am not a literature scholar. I have this gnawing suspicion that I'm feeding a troll in that regard.

Regards,
(an aromatic hydrocarbon)

[edit]
(formatting)
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #40 of 411
Benzene: Please stay away from calling someone who are really trying to make a real arguments a "troll". If that continues I have to close the thread. Creationist threads can turn really bad and my lock trigger is in unsecured position.

About floods myths. They are present everywhere where floods happen regularly or where the culture has been in contact with other such cultures. Desert myths with drought as gods punishment to the people are present in cultures living under those circumstances. Myths about natural disasters as the punishment of god is both a form of social control and a way for the people to control their surroundings. It tells the members of the culture that if they go astray the order of the world may go out the door and chaos (a state where the predictable goes out the door. The predictable is crucial to cultures that does not live in plenty). And if they play by special rules they are able to control what isn´t controllable.

Eskimo culture is particular interesting because the eskimos lived at a bare minimum up until recently. If they didn´t kill a bear at the hunt it could wipe out several families. So a strict set of rules and rites were applied to the hunt and the treatment of the animal after the kjll. If not carried out the master of the animal would get angry and keep the animals from the hunters. So in a reverse way the eskimos could control their world and had a way to ensure their survival, by living up to all those rules. Without a set of rules they lived by chance and an ever present fear of starvation would be present.

Two funny details: Eskimos don´t have any myths about floods. Why not? And one of the rules about how to treat a bear after the hunt was never to break its bones (despite the delicious marrow) because it was inside the bones the soul was present. This myth is also present in many other cultures. Does hat mean that God really placed the soul in the bones or that the quality of bones (perhaps a strong protective surface around a strange gel substance) that appeal to certain structures in our head and makes it logic that the soul should be present there?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Human common descent ancestor discovered