idea assassin Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Thats too bad, because we´ve found bodies in the different stages of evolution, and I don´t remenber seeing in the bible that god created neanderthals, Australopitecus, Homo Erectus and Homo Abilis. :huh: Well, we've found some unusual bones, true. But I read that they now think the Neanderthal bones they found was just a normal human with a bone disease. And I've seen some awful 'homo erectus and homo abilis' lookin people walkin' around today. :lol: Still isn't 'proof.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Reaper Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 But I read that they now think the Neanderthal bones they found was just a normal human with a bone disease.Oh really? All the bodies? :o How could I have missed that!And I've seen some awful 'homo erectus and homo abilis' lookin people walkin' around today. :lol:I don´t see the fun in this. I thought this was a debate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idea assassin Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Oh really? All the bodies? :o How could I have missed that! Just how many 50,000 year old bodies do you think they've found? And I am having fun, and this is a debate. Who says debates can't be fun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Reaper Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 And I've seen some awful 'homo erectus and homo abilis' lookin people walkin' around today. Still isn't 'proof.'What possible point where you hoping to achieve with THIS!Hey, i´m having fun too but that statement had no point and surely wasn´t funny. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idea assassin Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 And I've seen some awful 'homo erectus and homo abilis' lookin people walkin' around today. Still isn't 'proof.'What possible point where you hoping to achieve with THIS!Hey, i´m having fun too but that statement had no point and surely wasn´t funny. :( Well if you were offended, I apologize. You're right, it's not cool to make fun of groups of people, and I really wasn't intending to. But I did have a point with it. IMO you can't make broad generalizations about how people looked 50,000 years ago or more based on a few bones found. And they do make those assumptions based on very little fossil evidence. And, there are strange looking people around today, for a number of reasons. Deformities, diseases, etc. If someone found their bones 100,000 years from now, they may think that's how everyone looks now. That was my only point. But I should have phrased it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Well, if there was no such thing as evolution, why do people of today not look like the earliest humans? Why do animals such as arctic snowhares adapt to their environment by changing the colour of their fur to camouflage them better? Why do the eyes on flounders move until both are on the same side? Why do humans have so much redundant DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idea assassin Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Well, if there was no such thing as evolution, why do people of today not look like the earliest humans? Why do animals such as arctic snowhares adapt to their environment by changing the colour of their fur to camouflage them better? Why do the eyes on flounders move until both are on the same side? Why do humans have so much redundant DNA? Again, I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of mutation, evolution, whatever you want to call it. My disagreement is that evolution being true automatically means there is no God, that the universe just 'happened,' etc. Of course, the trite answer would be because God made them that way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingFox Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Hoy! Been a while... Again, I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of mutation, evolution, whatever you want to call it. My disagreement is that evolution being true automatically means there is no God, that the universe just 'happened,' etc. Of course, the trite answer would be because God made them that way... How does evolution automatically mean that there is no God? God exists because humans exist. God does not exist beacause the universe was created. God and humans have a very intimate bond in that they are mutually interdependent; tat is, they rely on each other in a symbiotic relationship. Without God, humans would be without direction (and I believe that this is true with atheists, as well, that there is a guiding force behind their lives; there are very moral atheists and incredibly horrible Christians). Fear would run rampent and humans cannot live in fear. Without man, God cannot exist because God needs such a relationship too. Evolution states that species evolve throughout time-- they change to fit their needs. This in no way reduces the credidation of the Genesis story. Science does not replace religion. Religion is merely the expression of and idea, an archetype that is intrinsic to all humans. It is not an explanation of how things came to be, but an representation of the beliefs and emotions of man. Science is the explanation of the world. And thus, both can coexist without discrediting the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamastor Posted September 13, 2003 Author Share Posted September 13, 2003 i dont come here for a few days and there are 3 more pages to read thru, so i think i'll write 3 pages of my own: it is quite sad if we were nothing more than chemical/electrical impulses moving around causing muscle fibers to contract all over the place, it is also very sad if there is no reason for anything, and it is also very sad if the 'evil' go unpunished by some omnipotent force while the 'good' suffer. now this is one end of the spectrum. the other end is that we were all handmade by the most powerfull anything anytime to exist beyond existance and that he liked us so much that we have souls and all and destiny and the good go to heaven and the evil to hell this does not mean that the first is science and the latter is religion. both fall somewhere in between... now, there only being a handfull of bones to prove previous evolutionary steps is absolute crap. there are many full skeletons that have been dug up everywhere. i highly doubt that they all suffered the exact same defomaties. and what about the dinosaurs? did god just screw up or where they also humans but with some weird disease? it can be argued that 'god' created the world yesterday and created us all with all these memories and an entire planet full of bones and everything, but that would be streching it a bit. noone can ever disprove god becouse go has been defined as unprovable. its like me saying to a friend: "i have a fire breathing dragon in my garage." he says: "but i cant see it." so i respond: "its invisible." so he says: "so ill use my infra red goggles and see his body heat." "but its cold blooded." "then ill see the flames." "the flames are room temperature." "then ill walk in and bump into him." "but he will go thru you." "then ill paint the floor sothat when he moves ill see his footprints" "but he flies" "then he'll blow stuff around." "oh, not with wings he just floats in mid air" etc. etc. etc. does anyone get my point? as has been said before, science adapts to proof. who said experimental data is often wrong? how desperate are you? have you ever done any kind of experiment? data does have a magin of error, but besides someone seriously screwing up, it is usualy right. the theories then adapt to said data, and as long as new data fits into the theory it is held as 'true'. when data proves the theory wrong a new one is created. and who said matter can not be created nor destroyed? have yo heard of the atomic bomb? you know the one that destroys (not changes, destroys) matter to release energy? or how about super coliders in which mater is give so much energy that more matter is created? yes just thoeries and it is actually god messing with us... oh and back to jesus. he is the only figurehead of a religion to do something interesting (which has not been proven)? do you know of the muslim religion? they have to travel to meka once in their lifetimes and walk three times around a large rock on which is embedded the footprint of mohamed as he flew up towards allah and something. not that i belive this any more or less than the 'rising from the dead' bit but its is also quite interesting. btw they do metion jesus but only as a profet and not as the son of allah (allah being arab for god, arab cristians also pray to allah coz its the same word...) i find it hilarious how all the cristian post here asif there's is the only religion that exists. many religions overlap if your mind is open enough. this says to me that they are trying to say something that milenia of narow mindedness has totally programed out of existance (and not in the good way). sure there might be a god, sure there might be a soul, but unless religion is willing to cut a deal then there is no reall point in argueing about it... while im at souls and stuff, what about animals? they have no soul becouse we are special? even tho the diferance between us and a chimp is so very tiny, we have a soul and they dont. oh let me guess:''i dont believe in dna, there is no proof''. animals are actually intelegent, they are capable of far more that imitating us. they are easily capable of emotion, they are even able to go against there instincts if they want. but they are just chemical/electrical impulses moving around causing muscle fibers to contract all over the place, unlike us, the chosen ones... sure. anyone have a dog? can you not see when it is happy or sad or whatever? how about a dog eating only a part of its food(which it would eat twice as much of given the chance) becouse it thought that the other dog didnt get any? how about primates that have learned signlanguage and cread new words from the ones they have to fill out the gaps in their vocabulary? i do believe in a greater consciousness, but as a scientist i find myself redefining it every so often becouse i learn something new, or hear a different point of view. with the ultimate goal of understanding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 Adamastor, nuclear bombs do not destroy mass in any way. Take the sun, for instance. It is much more powerful than any nuclear bomb, but the mass within it is conserved. It's still called the Law of Conservation of Mass for a reason. If nuclear bombs were to defy it, it would be disproven. I don't see the point that you were trying to make with that statement, but it doesn't hold up in any way. And about the flying Dragon, how can it breate flames that are room temperature? Also, a Dragon is defined as an orgainsm. An organism must generate heat. Therefore, if the entity does not generate heat, it cannot be classified as an organism and thus cannot be classified as a Dragon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.