The Great AH Census of Religion

Misanthrope

landsleaving wrote: »

Then I would posit that we shall never become civilised.

We can strive for it though.

Zillah

OutlawPete wrote: »

Oh puullleeease!

This is the type of crap that winds people up.

Do you REALLY think that Storm wonders why she can't see Apes evolving with her own eyes??

Do you think she goes to the Zoo in the hope of seeing an Ape eating a banana, only to then turn into a caveman right before her fcuking eyes??

"It's a slow process".

:rolleyes:

Okay thanks guys, y'all cleared that one up.

Would you care to elaborate on what the question actually is then?

Zillah

My name is URL wrote: »

I hate how these threads descend into intellectual wankfests.. so some people don't fully understand evolution theory. That doesn't give people an excuse to wave their scientifically created penises around and douse everyone in primordial cum

There is a massive difference between someone who doesn't understand evolution and someone who doesn't understand evolution but feels they should argue with people who do about how evolution is wrong.

The former I'd never be confrontational with, we all have gaps in our knowledge. The latter, however, are begging to be put in their place.

Misanthrope

Zillah wrote: »

I will bet the very fate of this planet right now that you have never read a book about evolution.

Chimps and bonobos and orangutans are evolving. Every single life form is evolving. Evolution does not have an end form in mind. Bacteria have been evolving for just as long as humans have, we are no more evolved than a cockroach*. The one thing evolution does it adapt life to the environment in which it finds itself. Our ancestors at some point benefitted greatly from walking bipedally and from having a smarter brain. Other species, such as the gorilla, benefitted greatly from gaining titanic amounts of muscle and developing a harem mating system. Also, evolution happens on a scale of time the human mind cannot easily understand. Very little evolution will have occured between now and when the Romans put Jesus on a cross. It's very slow.

*If anything, one could argue that a cockroach is a superior creature to human beings in evolutionary terms. When the planet is devastated by nuclear fire or commetary impact, they are far more likely to survive than we are.

Off the top of my head, here's a few contemporary examples of evolution that we have managed to notice in our time here on the planet:
- Bacteria grown in vats for decades evolved to process foods that their species was never before able to eat.
- Elephants have evolved smaller tusks because of massive selection pressures from human hunters.
- Wolves have evolved to avoid groups of human beings who move with confidence, as such individuals are almost invariably armed.

Stop forcing your wild opinion on me;)

Zillah

Misanthrope wrote: »

Stop forcing your wild opinion on me;)

Agghhh! My misconceptions, they burn! THEY BURN, AGGGHHHH!

landsleaving

OutlawPete wrote: »

Oh puullleeease!

This is the type of crap that winds people up.

Do you REALLY think that Storm wonders why she can't see Apes evolving with her own eyes??

Do you think she goes to the Zoo in the hope of seeing an Ape eating a banana, only to then turn into a caveman right before her fcuking eyes??

"It's a slow process".

:rolleyes:

Okay thanks guys, y'all cleared that one up.

I was trying to be nice, thats why I said about insects... jeez loueez Pete! Sorry if I came across as patronising.

Well ok, what about the finches Darwin dsicovered, that had different shaped beaks based on the food sources available on the islands they lived on.

How about people just being taller in Ireland than they were 100 years ago, thats evolution in a sense.

Tar.Aldarion

evolution s not happening 'faster' or 'slower' with anything in that sense, it is mutation(you can make a stab at birth rates if you want), some work for the better, some don't, ours have worked better than others depending on what criteria you use. There is no end goal, or aim with evolution.

Misanthrope

OutlawPete wrote: »

Oh puullleeease!

This is the type of crap that winds people up.

Do you REALLY think that Storm wonders why she can't see Apes evolving with her own eyes??

Do you think she goes to the Zoo in the hope of seeing an Ape eating a banana, only to then turn into a caveman right before her fcuking eyes??

"It's a slow process".

:rolleyes:

Okay thanks guys, y'all cleared that one up.

Eh , you really got the wrong end of the stick there.I think he was covering a time span greater than that of Zoo opening hours.If yo were to scrutinize them for 200 years without blinking, any evolutionary change would still be imperceptible.

Ape at Zoo to 'caveman' is a massive evolutionary leap requiring first of all a belief in linear evolution.What makes you think that todays apes are destined to evolve into caveman?Evolution is a response to environment and experience(pangenerational genetic memory).

It is just stimulus and response, one of the elementary signs of any life form.

Misanthrope

landsleaving wrote: »

I was trying to be nice, thats why I said about insects... jeez loueez Pete! Sorry if I came across as patronising.

Well ok, what about the finches Darwin dsicovered, that had different shaped beaks based on the food sources available on the islands they lived on.

How about people just being taller in Ireland than they were 100 years ago, thats evolution in a sense.

Oh so you're saying that short people are all unevolved.You hate little people.Typical 6ft 2 Atheist most likely.

OutlawPete

landsleaving wrote: »

I was trying to be nice, thats why I said about insects... jeez loueez Pete! Sorry if I came across as patronising

No, I apologise actually.

I was venting at many comments that were posted that also addressed the same point as yours did and I should have replied to them all individually, rather than just include yours.

landsleaving wrote: »

How about people just being taller in Ireland than they were 100 years ago, thats evolution in a sense.

Aye but even scientists will argue about these things.

I guess my point is that I see no proof that we evolved from Apes, just proof that all species are evolving.

I am not a creationist and do not believe in God for the record.

Misanthrope wrote: »

Eh , you really got the wrong end of the stick there.I think he was covering a time span greater than that of Zoo opening hours.If yo were to scrutinize them for 200 years without blinking, any evolutionary change would still be imperceptible.

Which is precisily my point.

Storm wasn't asking why she couldn't SEE the evolution of Apes, just why they had not evolved, as was I.

Misanthrope

They have evolved.What makes you say they haven't?

RolandIRL

i'd be tending towards atheism on the side of agnosticism. i dunno about disproving the existence of a god but if it makes people feel better and comforts them, let them have at it. the only problem i have with religion is the churches taking people's money and all that, saying you'll get into heaven.

@Pete, evolution is occuring all the time. in a hundred years or so, all the gingers will be gone. natural selection (and the sun) has decided that we're no good for humans :pac:

Tar.Aldarion

I think people might put it down to physical looks too much.

philologos

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

That is basically all the two of you are doing, it's not a debate, it's two people just forcing there opinions on people.

Quoted for truth! - Unfortunately a lot of new atheist discourse tends to go like this. People often aren't interested in civil dialogue, but rather are much more interested in going on a rant about how deluded, or irrational you are. More often than not based on nothing of substance.

landsleaving

OutlawPete wrote: »

No, I apologise actually.

I was venting at many comments that were posted that also addressed the same point as yours did and I should have replied to them all individually, rather than just include yours.

It's cool, nothing wrong with asking questions, and I take absolutely no offence at anything you've said, so no need for any apology

OutlawPete wrote: »

Aye but even scientists will argue about these things.

I guess my point is that I see no proof that we evolved from Apes, just proof that all species are evolving.

I am not a creationist and do not believe in God for the record.

True, I'm not going to claim I know everything. I'd just be inclined to agree that we evolved from apes since we have so many similarities, and as you go back through human evolution to homo erectus, etc. those similarities become more pronounced. Y'know, we were hairier. But as I say, I'm not claiming this as the absolute definite truth, I just wanted to explain why evolution wasn't obvious in general.

I think I answered a quesiton in my previous posts that you weren't asking in the first place!

Misanthrope

whiteman19 wrote: »

i'd be tending towards atheism on the side of agnosticism. i dunno about disproving the existence of a god but if it makes people feel better and comforts them, let them have at it. the only problem i have with religion is the churches taking people's money and all that, saying you'll get into heaven.

@Pete, evolution is occuring all the time. in a hundred years or so, all the gingers will be gone. natural selection (and the sun) has decided that we're no good for humans :pac:

They'll never be totally gone I'd say.Gingerism is a necessary defence mechanism against Vit D depletion.If it ever gets dark and dreary for a few hundred years, there'll be gingers everywhere.That's my hunch anyway.

I know a Jamaican ginger and a Samoan ginger.I asked one of them years back why he "tried to bleach his hair" and told him he need to give it a second dose.He wasn't offended.I felt a tad embarrassed though.

landsleaving

Misanthrope wrote: »

Oh so you're saying that short people are all unevolved.You hate little people.Typical 6ft 2 Atheist most likely.

5 foot 6 actually. I said 'in a sense' because I honestly have no idea why on earth that change happened, but as Tar said, evolution doesn't have a goal. I guess maybe tall people are more attractive to potential mates, so the population of shortarses like myself has been thinned out :pac:

RolandIRL

Misanthrope wrote: »

They'll never be totally gone I'd say.Gingerism is a necessary defence mechanism against Vit D depletion.If it ever gets dark and dreary for a few hundred years, there'll be gingers everywhere.That's my hunch anyway.

I know a Jamaican ginger and a Samoan ginger.I asked one of them years back why he "tried to bleach his hair" and told him he need to give it a second dose.He wasn't offended.I felt a tad embarrassed though.

unless we get Cartman to exterminate all non-gingers, we are going to be a dying breed.
but maybe that's why i'm leaning towards atheism, i have no soul due to my daywalker status so i'm going to hell anyway
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VfXr6HPGwc
:pac:

landsleaving

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I think people might put it down to physical looks too much.

Well in your case Tar, it's hard not to...

philologos

OutlawPete wrote: »

I guess my point is that I see no proof that we evolved from Apes, just proof that all species are evolving.

I thought humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Not that humans evolved from apes, but that humans and apes are both primates in a sense because of their common ancestry. I.E - We evolved from an ancestor, which then evolved into a number of strains, one leading to apes, and one leading to humans.

If we have common ancestor A, and A mutates into (for example 3 different ways). A1, A2, and A3, it is possible that all three could again mutate into different branches eventually marking clear and distinct differences over a long period of time.

Mutations can be either beneficial, or harmful to a species survival. Mutations which are harmful to survival will eventually die out. Mutations which are beneficial to survival will remain.

In terms of DNA humans and apes also have a high similarity. I think it was over 90% of genetic data in common?

Misanthrope

Jakkass wrote: »

Quoted for truth! - Unfortunately a lot of new atheist discourse tends to go like this. People often aren't interested in civil dialogue, but rather are much more interested in going on a rant about how deluded, or irrational you are. More often than not based on nothing of substance.

On the contrary, I find it extremely insulting that "believers" mock science by refusing to bring any tangible evidence,concrete proof or measurable data of any kind.Nothing but the Shroud of Turin and similar fake mumbo jumbo.

You get defensive the minute scientific process as applied to your writings and casts doubt on them.
But you hav no problem twisting and corrupting it to support your insubstantiable claims.This is a perversion.For an example look up 'irreducible complexity' and see the truly sly nature of the believer who is really a deceiver.

Science is based in reason and record and above all tangible data that is open to critique and review within the parameters of demonstrable reason.

Do you deny this?

Believers continually fall back to the 'faith".Hide behind a myth is what you are doing.

You are deliberately trying to undermine science, man's attempt to better himself ,to learn, to strive for the continuance of all life.And to go against pure science is the true blasphemy because it is the championing of willful ignorance and a threat to the existence of life.

landsleaving

Misanthrope... read the post directly above yours there, by the same person you quoted. Who, it turns out, knows a fair bit about the scientific part of this discussion.

The ironing is delicious.

philologos

Misanthrope wrote: »

On the contrary, I find it extremely insulting that "believers" mock science by refusing to bring any tangible evidence,concrete proof or measurable data of any kind.Nothing but the Shroud of Turin and similar fake mumbo jumbo.

I'm quite happy to discuss with you about my reasons for believing in God under certain conditions.

Misanthrope wrote: »

You get defensive the minute scientific process as applied to your writings and casts doubt on them.
But you hav no problem twisting and corrupting it to support your insubstantiable claims.This is a perversion.For an example look up 'irreducible complexity' and see the truly sly nature of the believer who is really a deceiver.

Making assumptions again about my belief in evolution. It's such assumptions that turn perfectly good threads into absolute trainwrecks.

Misanthrope wrote: »

Science is based in reason and record and above all tangible data that is open to critique and review within the parameters of demonstrable reason.

Do you deny this?

What I do deny is that atheism has anything to do with science. One can be wholly scientifically illiterate and still be an atheist. Vice versa for theism.

Science is agnostic on the issue of God. Not atheist by any means.

Misanthrope wrote: »

Believers continually fall back to the 'faith".Hide behind a myth is what you are doing.

Not at all, I have perfectly good reasons for believing in God. I just know that it is an outright waste of time arguing them with antitheists who aren't willing to listen or respect you.

Misanthrope wrote: »

You are deliberately trying to undermine science, man's attempt to better himself ,to learn, to strive for the continuance of all life.And to go against pure science is the true blasphemy because it is the championing of willful ignorance and a threat to the existence of life.

All you've done is make a complete strawman out of my post, and argue against something I never argued. Fantastic, but not much use!

You have a habit of doing this. I would like to talk about what I actually believe sometime, rather than what you think I believe.

MagicMarker

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

YOU ARE AN IDIOT YOU ARE WRONG BLAH BLAH BLAH

That is basically all the two of you are doing, it's not a debate, it's two people just forcing there opinions on people.

I'm not forcing my opinion on you, my posts directed at you have been related to, and only to, evolution/creationism. In fact I don't think I've argued against anyone in this thread on the existence of a deity.

All I'm trying to tell you is that evolution is a fact, and it is wrong to teach creationism/deny evolution. You seem to be completely ignoring that and then tell me that I'm full of shít.

Misanthrope

landsleaving wrote: »

Misanthrope... read the post directly above yours there, by the same person you quoted. Who, it turns out, knows a fair bit about the scientific part of this discussion.

The ironing is delicious.

That actually stunned me a little when I saw it.Then I pondered , this guy knows that much so he cannot claim ignorance, yet he champions it and pisses in the face of science with the faith argument.

At least I know he has the capacity to make such a post and grasp a point about evolution that escapes some of it's own proponents.

That puts him somewhere closer to the path of truth than many believers

MagicMarker

storm2811 wrote: »

You seem to be being a bit hypocritical by saying "attack the post,not the poster", just look at thread I was in the other day, I continually brought up how rude you were being to me but you ignored it.

I don't mind people being rude, however I didn't launch into an all out personal attack on you like raah! did to me in his post above.

If you got that impression, then I apologise.

raah!

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yes it was, the crucifix shaped chip on your should was quite apparent.

The chip on my shoulder is of quite a different shape, thank you very much.

In fact, I have no idea what having a chip of a certain shape on your shoulder even means.

Edit: Also, if you want people to take you seriously, and to take part seriously in a debate, then perhaps more than one liner jokes and insults would be more approrpiate, don't you think?

Killer Pigeon

Did you know that Humans have more DNA in common with Chimpanzees than Horses do with Asses and Horses mate with Asses. There's something to think about the next time you're at the zoo.

philologos

Misanthrope wrote: »

That actually stunned me a little when I saw it.Then I pondered , this guy knows that much so he cannot claim ignorance, yet he champions it and pisses in the face of science with the faith argument.

At least I know he has the capacity to make such a post and grasp a point about evolution that escapes some of it's own proponents.

That puts him somewhere closer to the path of truth than many believers

Science doesn't confirm or deny the existence of God, or gods. All science seeks to do is understand material things around us and their functions, whether that be biologically, physically, or anything else.

It's clear to me, that religion like philosophy intends to investigate, why these things are. That to me is entirely different to science. Indeed, it goes beyond science in a certain degree. One cannot really explain what accounts for science, scientific words. Likewise, one cannot explain a number of philosophical content in scientific words.

That's because, there are different terms of reference for different things. Science isn't the only way to explain things in the world. It is a fairly useful way though, I won't deny that.

Misanthrope

Jakkass wrote: »

I would like to talk about what I actually believe sometime, rather than what you think I believe.

The floor is yours.State your actual beliefs there to avoid further confusion or presumption on my part.

I think I've stated mine numerous times, but someone here actually summed it up beautifully with something like "we are all the universe trying to understand itself."

That's my view , in a nutshell.

So clarify yours please.