Missing Link Between Man and Apes Found

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
222

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]metal.head wrote:
i smell sarcasm :slight_smile:

but is there any “that one secular scientist guy” out there, who is not religiously affiliated whatsoever, that believes in a YE? or is YE all christians who believe in biblical literal interpretation?

i actually googled the concept for a while, and found nothing.[/quote]

Yes, that was the reasoning given in the last thread for the mysterious absence of creationist research outside of strictly pro-creationism journals.[/quote]

Reasoning with credibility.[/quote]

lmao

223

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Eph continues to foolishly and inaccurately insist that creationists do not believe that adaptation/speciation/microevolution occur. It is THERE the “real world applications and discoveries” have been made.[/quote]

Well, most didn’t until it was proven beyond a doubt that such things DO occur, right?[/quote]

Incorrect.[/quote]

So I wouldn’t be able to hop on to, say ICR (a site you quite often turn to for references), and find quotes within the past decade or two saying that speciation has never been observed?[/quote]

Define speciation.[/quote]

gold.

arguing definitions.

224

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Can you rightfully say science has given us anything[/quote]

Vaccinations and a longer lifespan.

Hey look, two off the bat!

225

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…the reverse is also true: the altar has no place in science…
[/quote]

Problem is we see you at the altar often on this thread and other similar ones.

You’re more “religious” about this subject than anyone else on this thread.[/quote]

You know he has you on ignore, why do you respond to him? Does it offend your manliness that he might get in the last word, however unintentionally?

227

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Another perspective is this: Can you rightfully say science has given us anything? Is knowledge a commodity, a possession that resulting knowledge can be given or withheld? If a scientist should with hold a fantastic invention, does that mean another man will never come up with the same idea somewhere else or at another time and space?[/quote]

This is dumb.
Science is not so much a belief as it is a a state of mind. It is the will to pursue knowledge, whether for the good or bad of mankind (that is up to debate).
Religion has been nothing but persecution of those who “believed differently”.
Most (if not all) of the advances in quality of human life has been due to science.
A belief that says that everything that occurs is the sole will of an all seeing, all powerful, unquestionable being and who’s words can be (mis)interpreted by anyone to serve their own political agenda is a dangerous one.
The fact that you believe that a God created us in his image (why the fuck does God need a dick, 2 arms, 2 legs, etc) and whatnot is laughable. The fact that you believe an omnipotent being would give two shits about what we think is also laughable.
Do you care when you step on an ant? Do you care when you kill a mosquito? And we’re stupid “imperfect mortal”. I can’t imagine how little i’d care if i was all powerful.

It’s dangerous because it allows people to put all the burden of life, work, etc on a fictional being.
Religion: God willed it. God wanted it. God this. God that. God works in mysterious ways.

God doesn’t like homosexuals…yet never mind the ridiculous acts of pedophilia, homosexuality, sodomy, torture, rape, etc that the characters of the bible commit.

Science: What’s going on? How does it work? Why does it work like that? Can we reproduce it? Can we do this? Can we do that?

Religion is like the couch potatoes of the world.‘Whatever. I can’t do anything about it.’

And science is what everyone on this website aspires to be “I’ll do it my way. I’ll figure it out. I’ll pursue, I’ll chase and I’ll turn it into reality”.

228

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…the reverse is also true: the altar has no place in science…

…it’s a lovely message Alpha F, and i will take it to heart, but your message is also beside the point; the point is …the reverse is also true: the altar has no place in science…

[/quote]

Fair enough.
If such is the case then, I think that like me, you are expressing a personal and therefore subjective belief.
It is therefore, not a question of right and wrong but a question of what is right for you and what adds something to your life.

229

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…the reverse is also true: the altar has no place in science…

…it’s a lovely message Alpha F, and i will take it to heart, but your message is also beside the point; the point is …the reverse is also true: the altar has no place in science…

[/quote]

Fair enough.
If such is the case then, I think that like me, you are expressing a personal and therefore subjective belief.
It is therefore, not a question of right and wrong but a question of what is right for you and what adds something to your life.

[/quote]

…everything and anything people give as their opinion is a personal and therefore subjective belief, but that’s not the issue here. The issue is whether it’s right to ride the coattails of actual science in an attempt to discredit science to further a religious agenda…

…and that is a clear question of right and wrong, because that is what’s happening in the USA and sadly it’s trickling down across the pond aswell. I’m just fortunate enough to live in a country that has, what this is concerned anyway, a rational and pragmatic approach to questions like this…

230

So we originated from Apes right?
Through evolution…

So what did Apes evolve from as we still have apes nowadays ?

231

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…everything and anything people give as their opinion is a personal and therefore subjective belief, but that’s not the issue here. The issue is whether it’s right to ride the coattails of actual science in an attempt to discredit science to further a religious agenda…
[/quote]

“actual science” is a qualification with implications of discrimination.
That is a judgement.
And again a strong one at that.
Obviously, I don’t have the benefit of seeing your face or hearing your tone of voice but a clear sense of rejection through objection comes across.
From what I continue to see you are still expressing a personal belief.

I would like to say you are right it is wrong to discredit science to further religious agenda but when I see your continuous qualifications and negative judgements I cannot help but think there is a lot of attachment and irrationality in your approach, which is the identifying mark of people with religious agenda to push.

I am sorry and I still see no fundamental difference.

232

[quote]porkpie wrote:
So we originated from Apes right?
Through evolution…

So what did Apes evolve from as we still have apes nowadays ?[/quote]

Common ancestor dipshit.

233

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…everything and anything people give as their opinion is a personal and therefore subjective belief, but that’s not the issue here. The issue is whether it’s right to ride the coattails of actual science in an attempt to discredit science to further a religious agenda…
[/quote]

“actual science” is a qualification with implications of discrimination.
That is a judgement.
And again a strong one at that.
Obviously, I don’t have the benefit of seeing your face or hearing your tone of voice but a clear sense of rejection through objection comes across.
From what I continue to see you are still expressing a personal belief.

I would like to say you are right it is wrong to discredit science to further religious agenda but when I see your continuous qualifications and negative judgements I cannot help but think there is a lot of attachment and irrationality in your approach, which is the identifying mark of people with religious agenda to push.

I am sorry and I still see no fundamental difference.[/quote]

…you are using a common tactic by trying to defuse the argument by making the argument appear as if it’s similar to the one it’s opposing, without actually countering the argument with points of your own…

…in fact, you haven’t adressed any of my points at all, have you? This thread, the ‘arrest the pope’-thread and other threads dealing with these issues have been mostly one-way street arguments where believers won’t answer simple questions, but require a multitude of answers in return without bothering to contemplate them…

…archeological, antropological, biological and astronomical evidence thorougly refutes any belief in YEC’ism, and yet somehow not believing in YEC’ism is irrational, or on the same plane as science? It is not Alpha F, no matter how you twist or turn it…

234

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…the reverse is also true: the altar has no place in science…
[/quote]

Problem is we see you at the altar often on this thread and other similar ones.

You’re more “religious” about this subject than anyone else on this thread.[/quote]

You know he has you on ignore, why do you respond to him? Does it offend your manliness that he might get in the last word, however unintentionally?[/quote]

I don’t just have run of the mill manliness. I have manly manliness. Manly manliness is much more difficult to offend than just manliness.

How come you didn’t know this?

(You know sumthin, Machiavelli, even though you are an impertinent young pup full of your own collection of “inane ramblings” I don’t ever remember wanting to put you on Ignore)
[/quote]

It is true…Push’s manliness is the stuff of legend. Don’t you remember reading about him in elementary school?

235

Man, this thread is torture.

236

…and fun at the same time. Weird, huh?

237

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

Religion has been nothing but persecution of those who “believed differently”.[/quote]

I’ve been enjoying this thread’s discussion. And was, for the most part, content just reading. But I’ll jump in here because of some of the generalizations you’ve made. Your above statement is not true. It has been a lot of other things than the negatives you pointed out. However, the parts in history that get the most “press” would be what you are alluding to. Just like today, you really only see the negatives on the news.

Never mind the fact that you seem to be saying God=religion. Religion is the worship of a god (or other). I haven’t seen anyone in this discussion say that “religion” was perfect, or organized religion wasn’t the cause of some evils. Religion IS practiced by humans who, as you point out below, are imperfect mortals. And some humans do use religion for evil and power-but that wasn’t really what this thread was about, was it?

The fact that you think you know what an omnipotent being needs, wants, or gives two shits about is laughable. It is beyond anyone’s mortal comprehension so don’t pretend YOU have it figured out.

Edit:

Why do you think that since there were evil-doers in the Bible mean that those actions were excused or allowable in God’s eyes. Not every character in the Bible was ever meant to be used as an example of how to live your life, or as an example of acceptable behavior.

238

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…and fun at the same time. Weird, huh?[/quote]

Not that weird. I like arguing with unlike minds…I just don’t see what the big deal about evolution is…It’s harmless really. I don’t see it as threat to faith at all.
Besides, this monkey was apparently not that successful, so he must not have been very good at survival and procreation…Maybe the dudes had really tiny dicks or the females recessed twats…Or the chicks were so ugly, the dudes just didn’t want to fuck them…

239

I guess since I threw myself into the fire, I’ll share my thoughts about the actual topic.

I have never understood why creation and evolution/science have to be mutually exclusive. For many years now, I have had the mindset that the Creation was carried out through natural biological, geological, and astronomical means. For those who don’t believe in Creation, it seems that the only way to look at Creation is through a childish view of “God snapped his fingers and, presto!, everything was here”.

Could it not be that God allowed these natural processes to occur as they did to give us a puzzle to solve? A grand mystery that may never be fully solved, only to see “the light” after we have passed?

We may never know (in this generation or any other) WHY everything is the way it is. And science can never answer the why. It might be able to tell us how, but even if we learn the how, I don’t think we would be satisfied. The search for the how may actually be the search for the why.

Maybe this is one of the fundamental differences between believers and non-believers. The believers know the why (in-so-much as we can comprehend) and the non-believers won’t accept the believers “why”. The non-believers NEED the how, and feel that if they have the how, everything will be answered and there will be no need for a why. But after the how, comes the why.

I am reminded of the need to know “why” every day by my daughter. Yo can tell her how something happens, but there is ALWAYS a why after the explaination. It seems to be human nature to know that there is a reason for things. Some people I think don’t always want to believe there is a reason for things.

240

[quote]cueball wrote:
I guess since I threw myself into the fire, I’ll share my thoughts about the actual topic.

I have never understood why creation and evolution/science have to be mutually exclusive. For many years now, I have had the mindset that the Creation was carried out through natural biological, geological, and astronomical means. For those who don’t believe in Creation, it seems that the only way to look at Creation is through a childish view of “God snapped his fingers and, presto!, everything was here”.

Could it not be that God allowed these natural processes to occur as they did to give us a puzzle to solve? A grand mystery that may never be fully solved, only to see “the light” after we have passed?

We may never know (in this generation or any other) WHY everything is the way it is. And science can never answer the why. It might be able to tell us how, but even if we learn the how, I don’t think we would be satisfied. The search for the how may actually be the search for the why.

Maybe this is one of the fundamental differences between believers and non-believers. The believers know the why (in-so-much as we can comprehend) and the non-believers won’t accept the believers “why”. The non-believers NEED the how, and feel that if they have the how, everything will be answered and there will be no need for a why. But after the how, comes the why.

I am reminded of the need to know “why” every day by my daughter. Yo can tell her how something happens, but there is ALWAYS a why after the explaination. It seems to be human nature to know that there is a reason for things. Some people I think don’t always want to believe there is a reason for things.

[/quote]

I don’t believe they are. Religion and science are two different disciplines. I believe that God created creation. There is no doubt in my mind actually that, that is so. How it was done is the question. If you go to the Kalam Cosmological argument thread, with in that is the most logical, deductive view of first cause. It’s not a poof-bang theory.

Biblically speaking, the most critical error people make with the various books and letters, is the original audience for which it was intended. That makes a huge difference in understanding them. The book of Genisis’s original audience was not 21rst century man, it was 5000 B.C. man. Their understanding would be way different than ours. If we pick the lessons out through their eye’s it makes a ton more sense.