Loch Ness Monster Is Real and so Disproves Evolution

Sarky

squod wrote: »

Explain that to the other posters on here.

Uh... I'm pretty confident they already know.

You're a type of ape. Deal with it. Or make a fool of yourself. Either's cool.

steddyeddy

squod wrote: »

Poor quality put down there. I reckon your psychosis is getting the better of you. I'm no ape or monkey or whatever.

Wheter or not your a primate has nothing to do with evolution. If your not a primate could you tell me what taxonomic group you belong to?

squod

Sarky wrote: »

Uh... I'm pretty confident they already know.

You're a type of ape. Deal with it. Or make a fool of yourself. Either's cool.

lol.

dlofnep

You see ladies and gents, Squod is incapable of actually engaging in a debate. Do you want to try refute any of the points I highlighted earlier in this thread Squod?

We are a member of the Ape family. Whether or not you can comprehend that doesn't change it as a matter of fact.

dlofnep

squod wrote: »

Poor quality put down there. I reckon your psychosis is getting the better of you. I'm no ape or monkey or whatever.

Not a put-down. Just highlighting the obvious. You clearly have no experience in debating at an academic level. You do not address any of the points highlighted.

You are an ape, I'm not interested in whether you accept the factual nature of that classification of humans or not. It just happens to be true.

The Radiator

Wow, this is big news. I didn't even think the Lock Ness Monster existed!

squod

dlofnep wrote: »

Not a put-down. Just highlighting the obvious. You clearly have no experience in debating at an academic level. You do not address any of the points highlighted.

You are an ape, I'm not interested in whether you accept the factual nature of that classification of humans or not. It just happens to be true.

You're merely interpreting information in a way that suits your belief system. Get over it. Also, stop trying to include me in whatever fantasy you wish to put about. Thank you.

steddyeddy

squod wrote: »

You're merely interpreting information in a way that suits your belief system. Get over it. Also, stop trying to include me in whatever fantasy you wish to put about. Thank you.

What species are you if not an ape?

dlofnep

squod wrote: »

You're merely interpreting information in a way that suits your belief system. Get over it. Also, stop trying to include me in whatever fantasy you wish to put about. Thank you.

No, I'm relaying science. If what I have stated is incorrect, then please explain why. Don't just tell me I'm interpreting something in a way that suits me without even attempting to address a single point I made.

kowloon

I'm an Ape. You only need to see me get out of bed to accept it.

Corkfeen

squod wrote: »

You're merely interpreting information in a way that suits your belief system. Get over it. Also, stop trying to include me in whatever fantasy you wish to put about. Thank you.

You've spent your time attempting to be condescending towards other posters. You haven't provided evidence that goes against the theory of evolution and have merely engaged in a bit of a name calling while describing a scientific theory as a fantasy. :rolleyes: So we can assume that you actually have no evidence that will disprove evolution.

squod

Corkfeen wrote: »

You've spent your time attempting to be condescending towards other posters. You haven't provided evidence that goes against the theory of evolution and have merely engaged in a bit of a name calling while describing a scientific theory as a fantasy. :rolleyes: So we can assume that you actually have no evidence that will disprove evolution.

Darwinism is having it's own effect on sociology, beliefs and even science. If you choose to have your status debased and believe what is a flimsy story then that's up to you. All I ask is that you don't include me when you describe yourself.

If you'd like to start a debate on Darwinism and it's effects then please do. But I certainly won't be aping your ideas about the origins of man.

srsly78

Indeed Darwinism has a great effect on many theories - the crap ones get weeded out and discarded.

Scioch

squod wrote: »

Darwinism is having it's own effect on sociology, beliefs and even science. If you choose to have your status debased and believe what is a flimsy story then that's up to you. All I ask is that you don't include me when you describe yourself.

If you'd like to start a debate on Darwinism and it's effects then please do. But I certainly won't be aping your ideas about the origins of man.

Whats your story then if you dont accept that we evolved from apes ? I'm very curious as to how someone can call something with so much evidence backing it up flimsy and believe something else which cannot be based on anything remotely approaching reality.

Do you believe anything or just think we dont know and will never know and just live in a state of confusion ? Or are you religious and believe the teachings of the bible ?

Ray Palmer

Anybody taking the bible as we'd for word fact would have to explain which version. In English the versions are quite different. King James has massive poetic licence. Most references to the spirit of god actually mean the breath of god. So often people talk of the holy spirit as an entity are wrong as it is an action not a thing.
Creationism has no basis in science. Acknowledgment of an acedemic award does seem to have anything to do with the subject. Likely to be something to change as belief based study is exposed for what it is. It will be seen as a religious qualification and not scientific one.
Evolution is fact, you can choose to say we didn't evolve as hairless apes but we evolved and did not arrive fully formed made of mud.

Burt Lancaster

Sarky wrote: »

Uh... I'm pretty confident they already know.

You're a type of ape. Deal with it. Or make a fool of yourself. Either's cool.

Is he some sort of special case ? I thought we humans and apes had a common ancestor, not that we are descended from apes ?

dlofnep

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

Is he some sort of special case ? I thought we humans and apes had a common ancestor, not that we are descended from apes ?

No.

We are apes, and our most recent ancestor was an ape. We share a common ancestor with modern apes, which also was an ape. We are just not descended from modern apes.

Capt'n Midnight

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Anybody taking the bible as we'd for word fact would have to explain which version. In English the versions are quite different.

http://bible.cc/ is handy for that

They would also have to explain which of the Gospels they choose as there are more than four.

philologos

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://bible.cc/ is handy for that

They would also have to explain which of the Gospels they choose as there are more than four.

Thankfully this is a poor argument.

Why trust the four Gospels? -

1. They were all written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
2. They mention far far more specific events than the others. Events and details which could have been used by people in the first century to validate the details in the Gospels. One of the things about the Bible that atheists rarely consider is that the specific names, events and people could be used by those who heard the Gospel initially to validate its claims. It makes me wonder, why nobody did actually refute the details in the Gospels by finding these people. Or indeed, why nobody actually found the body or bones of Jesus (which is a whole different kettle of fish, I'm happy to discuss why I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus later).
3. Details mentioned in the Gospels are backed up by other material outside of the Gospels. All one needs to do is look to the first century letters of Paul, and Peter all of which mention details found in the Gospels.
4. There is historical evidence through the writings of the Church Fathers to show that all 22 books were used in the early church during the 2nd century.
5. The other "gospels" date centuries after Jesus. There's no way that they could have been based on eyewitness testimony.

I can go into more depth on these. The reason why the New Testament features in our canon today is because of evidence.

I'd also challenge an atheist to show me how differing translations radically differ in meaning. It's obvious that translations are going to differ in exact words.

Why are there differences in translating the Bible? -
It's been obvious for centuries actually. During the Renaissance translation adopted the practice of translating texts on the basis of the spirit of the text, rather than word by word. However, in English translations commonly used today. We have literal translations such as the ESV, or the NRSV, we also have paraphrases such as the Message, or the Good News Bible.

There are advantages to both. If you want a close word for word study of the passages.

It's obvious to anyone as to why differences exist in translation. Take an extensive text of thousands of words in Irish for example, give it to two people completely separate from eachother and see the results. Will the translations be the same? I doubt it heavily. Will the meaning change radically? - I doubt it.

The idea that the four Gospels are equally reliable to false gospels which were rejected is atheist mythology.

Burt Lancaster

dlofnep wrote: »

No.

We are apes, and our most recent ancestor was an ape. We share a common ancestor with modern apes, which also was an ape. We are just not descended from modern apes.

I get it, it's important to say it's an ape we're descended from not a monkey.
Cool, I've a good excuse to be more ape like now so.

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

Why trust the four Gospels? -

I could have quoted each of the sections in there with some response for each, but instead I'll treat the lot with something that will basically give the gist of what I'd say about all of them.

You make the point about the gospels being contemporary in their writing. Not really the case in terms of the scrolls that have been uncovered. Do you see that you are misrepresenting the data where the facts are involved?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

The codex is an Alexandrian text-type manuscript written in the 4th century in uncial letters on parchment. Current scholarship considers the Codex Sinaiticus to be one of the best Greek texts of the New Testament,[3] along with that of the Codex Vaticanus. Until the discovery by Tischendorf of the Sinaiticus text, the Codex Vaticanus was unrivaled.[4]

As for other points there, a lot of "Oh yeah? Prove it" in regards a lot of your assertions. Also throw in a bit of non-biblical sources are found wanting to the estimation of what I'd consider reasonable expectations. And finally, these lofty scripture battles, while interesting, well, it isn't going to be the grounding for convincing someone of the existence of a deity.

I don't think they'd even convince one who believed there was a deity of some sort that it must be the one you have presumed it to be. They certainly wouldn't convince a believer in another religion of the veracity of your holy text. But that last one is an unreasonable one, as I'm sure you'd be quick to point out. It is very hard to show one of faith their errors.

I'd also challenge an atheist to show me how differing translations radically differ in meaning. It's obvious that translations are going to differ in exact words.

I can send you on a link to a audio book of Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman if you want. It is on YouTube, but unlisted.

philologos

It's not misrepresenting the facts to point to evidence that:

1) Most theological and historical opinion date the New Testament to the first century.

2) The manuscripts of the four Gospels that we do have, are copies of the original text. This again, is widely accepted on theological and historical grounds.

3) The events described in the four Gospels are backed up by other texts such as the writings of Paul and Peter, again, dating to the first century.

4) The four gospels were widely used in the early church. We have again, textual evidence to back this up.

5) We know that details that were later written in the four gospels were already believed by Christians before they were written. Why? - Paul describes many aspects of the teachings in the four gospels in his works before they were written. Paul was a convert, therefore these teachings predated Paul.

On the other hand, for the gnostic gospels, we have nowhere near as much evidence to demonstrate their authenticity.

This is being straight with the truth, nothing more nothing less.

What is disingenuous is to suggest that the gnostic gospels are in anyway on par with the four gospels, and I think anyone who is honest about the history could easily concede that irrespective of belief in the Gospel.

My point about the New Testament drawing scrutiny is quite clear. The specific details of people, and places, and their involvement with Jesus would be enough for anyone who heard the Gospel in the first century to ask serious questions of the veracity of these events. That's not really what you want to be doing if you're telling an outright lie

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

It's not misrepresenting the facts to point to evidence that:

Tell me more of this place where assertions are evidence. That is all that this post I'm replying to consists of.

Wibbs

philologos wrote: »

Thankfully this is a poor argument.

Indeed.

I'd also challenge an atheist to show me how differing translations radically differ in meaning. It's obvious that translations are going to differ in exact words.

Well speaking as an interested bystander(not a "hard" atheist as I find them a bit too linear/dismissive/OTT at times) can you explain why the various gospels vary on reported facts as I outlined in another thread on the resurrection? The single most important hub upon which Christianity revolves? Makes zero sense. If they can't agree on the names, numbers, geography and timeline, it's hardly convincing. Never mind other variabiities among them(the Romans never held a census as described by two of the Gospel writers. Feck all to do with interpretation nor translation either. In Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic one is still one, three is still three.

Sleepy

This is just depressing...

Orando Broom

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

is the loch ness monster not just a priest or nun from loch ness

It's a Baptist minister dressed as a Pleisosaur.

Pushtrak

Sleepy wrote: »

This is just depressing...

The troll, the troll being taken seriously or both?

Scioch

Pushtrak wrote: »

The troll, the troll being taken seriously or both?

The fact that they probably aint trollin I'd say

Pushtrak

squod has 0 posts in Christianity. People who genuinely hold to the beliefs that squod claims have just as much issue (sometimes more) with believers who don't believe the "right way" as those who don't believe at all. Also, even serious people who believe what squod claims could try and bring better to the table. Misrepresentations, misquotes, taking scientists out of context.. There is a plethora of stuff a person who believes that stuff could bring to the table and still be a troll. So, squod isn't just a troll, he is a sucky troll. Though, dedicated. Lot of posts under his belt. I was hoping a serious young earther would try and bring something to the discussion. It isn't the sort/strength of belief that in my experience is generally casually important in the way it would, say for the a la carte religious.

dlofnep

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

I get it, it's important to say it's an ape we're descended from not a monkey.
Cool, I've a good excuse to be more ape like now so.

Er not exactly. We're also descended from monkeys. Basically, it goes like this.

We are a member of the great ape family. The common ancestor of all great apes (Hominidae) was an ape. We are also a member of the ape family (Hominoidea), which also include lesser apes. The common ancestor of all of the above was an ape. Go back far enough to find the common ancestor between apes and old world monkeys, and you'll find a monkey. So yes, we are descended from monkeys, and also apes.

This image should explain it further: http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/20/primates_tree.gif