Jonsa Posted March 21, 2011 Author Report Posted March 21, 2011 I can't speak for the others here, but since you quoted me directly, and are now responding to what you think I said (but did not) let me clarify: I never said we aren't related to monkeys. What I said was we are not descended from chimpanzees. Can you really not understand the distinction? I was just about to post the exact same response to betsy's lame attempt to twist our words. I re-iterate that anyone claiming that we are descendent from monkeys is simply ignorant. the people who do talk about this idiotic and completely unscientific notion seem to be creationists lamely attempting to ridicule the theory. they are left to ridicule since they haven't a scientific leg to stand on. Quote
bloodyminded Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 I was just about to post the exact same response to betsy's lame attempt to twist our words. Yeah. Geez. It's one thing if I write something hastily or sloppily, and so my words are understandably misconstrued. It's quite another thing to have one's words twisted beyond recognition...only to explain, again, and clarify further...and then have them twisted around again. It gets tiresome. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Jonsa Posted March 21, 2011 Author Report Posted March 21, 2011 I am an atheist, meaning I don't beleive in any God, but will allow that given our limited understanding of the universe and existence that there may be entities and powers beyond our current understanding. I am not an anti-theist although I can be aggressively anti-religious at times. I am repulsed by the self righteousness of these supposed Evangelical biblethumpers, who appear to select the teachings they are willing to adhere by what is convenient and comfortable. They stand up and yell about creationism, abortion, same sex marriage, and a host of other moral issues, claiming devine direction from the invoilate and inerrant words of god yet are perfectly comfortable to reject those same words of god when they are inconvenient or threaten their sense of well being. If the Word of God can be cherry picked, then the Word of God is not, it is the Word of "Some Guys in the olden days". Quote
WIP Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 Bimbo! Imbecile! You were able to conclude that in just the first video? One out of 7? About what, 3 minutes of footage? When she first opened her mouth to disagree, that's about it eh? Sealed her fate, eh? I guess that's what you get for disagreeing. So what happens when you refuse to convert? Or refuse to renounce your God? And we're supposed to get scared of Theocracy? Yes, I seen enough and don't need to watch 7 youtube clips of her. As soon as she started talking about "microevolution" and macroevolution" to a pre-eminent evolutionary biologist, I knew where this was going. When I used to be a libertarian, I came across these terms on a conservative forum four or five years ago; and they don't really exist as scientific terms. Instead, they were concocted back in the 70's as a fallback position by creationists. Up till about 40 years ago, the creationists used to claim that beneficial mutations were impossible, and therefore they rejected ALL evidence of evolution. When that started getting difficult, they created this micro/macro claptrap to convey that they will accept evolution within species, but deny that it can eventually lead to the development of new species that can no longer interbreed. A real biologist or geneticist could have told this woman long ago that "micro" evolutionary mutations that are favoured by natural selection, can eventually appear to be "macro" evolutionary steps after long periods of time, and the disappearance of some of the intermediary steps along the way....and that's how bacteria get their little flagella motors: NewScientist Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex The sad and shocking aspect of modern life is that with so much information available, there are so many people who are totally ignorant of basic scientific facts such as these, or how large and old the Universe is, the age of Planet Earth also; and what's most disturbing is that when fundamentalists turn hostile against basic science that they see as a threat, they are the kind of pigeons who find it easy to accept pseudoscholars who still deny climate change at everyone's peril. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
segnosaur Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 Bimbo! Imbecile! You were able to conclude that in just the first video? One out of 7? About what, 3 minutes of footage? Ummm... does anyone else consider it extremely hypocritical that betsy would complain about someone seeing 'just' part of the evidence, while in post 31 (after I provided references showing how scummy Mother Teresa was) she stated "...I haven't read any of those..." So, why is she complaining about other people not watching all of her unscientific mumbo-jumbo when she's quite happy wallowing in her own ignorance? Re: Atheism...Collective single belief: no God/gods. Psssss... just so you know... Atheism does not have a 'belief'. Belief implies the acceptance of something without evidence. (From the dictionary: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.) You have belief in a god, because there is no proof and you accept it anyways. I have no proof that there is no god, just as I have no proof there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my sock drawer. What I do have is an acceptance that there is no real 'proof' of god, so in the absence of proof we assume the null hypothesis... that there is no invisible sky daddy. Quote
bloodyminded Posted March 22, 2011 Report Posted March 22, 2011 I have no proof that there is no god, just as I have no proof there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my sock drawer. What I do have is an acceptance that there is no real 'proof' of god, so in the absence of proof we assume the null hypothesis... That's right. If I see compelling evidence for a god, I would have no reason to cling to atheism. I'm not married to the idea. So that's the primary difference, I think. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
wyly Posted March 22, 2011 Report Posted March 22, 2011 Ummm... does anyone else consider it extremely hypocritical that betsy would complain about someone seeing 'just' part of the evidence, while in post 31 (after I provided references showing how scummy Mother Teresa was) she stated "...I haven't read any of those..." So, why is she complaining about other people not watching all of her unscientific mumbo-jumbo when she's quite happy wallowing in her own ignorance? it's kind of your own fault you should know better, having an informed intelligent honest discussion with her is rather futile...you'd have more success explaining astrophysics with some hunter gather from the depths of the amazon, at least they would attempt to understand what you're trying to explain... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
segnosaur Posted March 22, 2011 Report Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) Ummm... does anyone else consider it extremely hypocritical that betsy would complain about someone seeing 'just' part of the evidence, while in post 31 (after I provided references showing how scummy Mother Teresa was) she stated "...I haven't read any of those..." it's kind of your own fault you should know better, having an informed intelligent honest discussion with her is rather futile...you'd have more success explaining astrophysics with some hunter gather from the depths of the amazon, at least they would attempt to understand what you're trying to explain... Yeah, I do recognize the futility of trying to 'debate' with someone who is a super-duper ultra mega-christian. But hey, anything that can be done to expose the corrupt nature of people like that could be beneficial, should there be any christians more capable of rational thought reading this thread. Perhaps others might recognize the type of hypocrisy and dishonesty that "true christians" like betsy exhibit and decide not to associate themselves with people like her. Edited March 22, 2011 by segnosaur Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Generally people worship gods. Actually,if one is a Christian,one believes in THE God...Not "gods"... Belief in multiple "gods" would indeed be idolatrous... As it relates to the verse you've quoted... The disciple John called Jesus "The Word".He also called Him this in the Book of Revelation. "In the beginning was the Word" This relates to Jesus being the earthly embodiment of God...The Alpha and the Omega...The beginning and the end. ",and the Word was with God" This not only relates to the New Testament being the literal word of God,but that Jesus IS God...And has been forever. ",and the Word was God." Again,that Jesus is God...And He is eternal... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
ToadBrother Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) Actually,if one is a Christian,one believes in THE God...Not "gods"... Belief in multiple "gods" would indeed be idolatrous... As it relates to the verse you've quoted... The disciple John called Jesus "The Word".He also called Him this in the Book of Revelation. "In the beginning was the Word" This relates to Jesus being the earthly embodiment of God...The Alpha and the Omega...The beginning and the end. ",and the Word was with God" This not only relates to the New Testament being the literal word of God,but that Jesus IS God...And has been forever. ",and the Word was God." Again,that Jesus is God...And He is eternal... Quiet ye Arian heretic! God hath a tripartite nature! Edited March 23, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) Quiet ye Arian heretic! God hath a tripartite nature! God,Jesus,and,The Holy Ghost... The Holy Trinity... The Godhead.... Edited March 23, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
ToadBrother Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 God,Jesus,and,The Holy Ghost... The Holy Trinity... The Godhead.... Okay, we'll put out the fire, you seem legit and orthodox. But I'm watching you. Quote
betsy Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 Where do you place agnostics then? I didn't mention anything about agnostics. Besides, Agnostics are neutral....so I don't think they're likely to have religion-like attitudes like some atheists (unless I'm wrong and that like Atheists, they too have come up with different denominations?) How likely is it for Agnostics to go rabid and be religious-like in promoting neutrality? Quote
GostHacked Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 I didn't mention anything about agnostics. Besides, Agnostics are neutral....so I don't think they're likely to have religion-like attitudes like some atheists (unless I'm wrong and that like Atheists, they too have come up with different denominations?) How likely is it for Agnostics to go rabid and be religious-like in promoting neutrality? Do tell the different denominations of atheism? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 I didn't mention anything about agnostics. Besides, Agnostics are neutral....so I don't think they're likely to have religion-like attitudes like some atheists (unless I'm wrong and that like Atheists, they too have come up with different denominations?) How likely is it for Agnostics to go rabid and be religious-like in promoting neutrality? Your point is important. Unfortunately the lazy way "atheist" and "agnostic" are interchanged means that this familiar argument is more often than not about miscommunication. Agnostic = "not knowing", i.e. "open minded", "show me proof and I will believe", "don't know/don't care" Atheist = "There is NOTHING out there", i.e. "I am a BELIEVER in the idea of no gods & spirits", i.e. "I KNOW this is TRUE without PROOF to the contrary", "I am a true BELIEVER in NON_GOD". Some true atheists will make a weak argument that they are permitted to ascribe to a theory if there's no contrary proof submitted after a time. I don't know that that applies to any other aspect of the universe, for them, other than the idea of a non materialistic side to the universe. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Black Dog Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 A religion without a credo, without a theology, without a clergy, and with only one single common feature; a lack of belief in gods. Now, I'll grant you, some atheists are positively proselytic. Certainly guys like Hitchens and Dawkins can be stridently so. But if proselytism is all it takes to make a religion, then football and comic books are religions. I really like this post. Such a measured and concise response to the imbecilic "neener neener atheism is a religion too!' crowd. Quote
pinko Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) Your point is important. Unfortunately the lazy way "atheist" and "agnostic" are interchanged means that this familiar argument is more often than not about miscommunication. Agnostic = "not knowing", i.e. "open minded", "show me proof and I will believe", "don't know/don't care" Atheist = "There is NOTHING out there", i.e. "I am a BELIEVER in the idea of no gods & spirits", i.e. "I KNOW this is TRUE without PROOF to the contrary", "I am a true BELIEVER in NON_GOD". Some true atheists will make a weak argument that they are permitted to ascribe to a theory if there's no contrary proof submitted after a time. I don't know that that applies to any other aspect of the universe, for them, other than the idea of a non materialistic side to the universe. What is a true atheist in your view? Edited March 25, 2011 by pinko Quote
betsy Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) Jonsa and Bloodyminded, let's have a little recap here: The following exchanges happened in the thread, Creation. The talking snake was YOUR uncle. Mine was a Chimpanzee and Im OK with that. Anyone who ridicules the theory of evolution by asserting that humans are descendant from monkeys or apes simply demonstrates their utter lack of knowledge and understanding. Dre was just being humorous. He knows we aren't descended from chimps. I saw the debate video (link provided by Dre) between Dawkins and Wright. In that video, Dawkins repeated two times that we are related to the monkey. He also rebuked anti-evolutionists for resisting the idea that we are related to the monkey. Check it out for yourselves. So clearly, by your own exchanges as shown....the three of you don't agree. You protest: I was just about to post the exact same response to betsy's lame attempt to twist our words. I re-iterate that anyone claiming that we are descendent from monkeys is simply ignorant. the people who do talk about this idiotic and completely unscientific notion seem to be creationists lamely attempting to ridicule the theory. they are left to ridicule since they haven't a scientific leg to stand on. Jonsa disagrees with the great Dawkins himself. There is no twisting of words about this. Dre said her uncle is the chimp. You jumped in and talked about the monkeys....like chimp and monkeys are the same things. I guess so....they're related too, aren't they? And Bloodyminded....well...this is where it really gets really, really confusing. let me clarify: I never said we aren't related to monkeys. What I said was we are not descended from chimpanzees. Can you really not understand the distinction? If Jonsa disagreed with Bishop Dawkins, Bloodyminded disagrees with the Science Daily: ScienceDaily (May 15, 2005) — ITHACA, N.Y. -- Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor, and even today 99 percent of the two species' DNA is identical. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050515151741.htm I mean...c'mon! What have you got against the poor monkey, or the poor chimp? This looks kinda like the sophisticated folks ashamed of their poor relations....or rather, the country bumpkins. I've got a cat that has the facial features of a baboon....and I spoil him rotten! You guys should invite the monkey and the chimp for dinner! Note: edited to add to statement. Edited March 25, 2011 by betsy Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 I mean...c'mon! What have you got against the poor monkey, or the poor chimp? This looks kinda like the sophisticated folks ashamed of their poor relations. I've got a cat that has the facial features of a baboon....and I spoil him rotten! You guys should invite the monkey and the chimp for dinner! The morphological similarities between the various primates are pronounced, and were observed by the likes of Linnaeus decades before Darwin began working on the theory of evolution. Of course, neither Linnaeus or Darwin had the benefit of the molecular data gained over the last forty years which firmly place all the primates; Old World and New World monkeys, apes (including chimps and humans) and lemurs into the same genetic tree. Or to put it the other way, the morphological and taxonomical trees built since the 18th century were, in large part, confirmed by the genetic data. Humans are apes, are descended from a monkey-like creature and all primates share a common ancestor. Quote
wyly Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 The morphological similarities between the various primates are pronounced, and were observed by the likes of Linnaeus decades before Darwin began working on the theory of evolution. Of course, neither Linnaeus or Darwin had the benefit of the molecular data gained over the last forty years which firmly place all the primates; Old World and New World monkeys, apes (including chimps and humans) and lemurs into the same genetic tree. Or to put it the other way, the morphological and taxonomical trees built since the 18th century were, in large part, confirmed by the genetic data. Humans are apes, are descended from a monkey-like creature and all primates share a common ancestor. in fact we're related to most if not all living things on the planet...a quick browse on the web one site has sharing 50% dna with a banana, another 75% with a chicken... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
SF/PF Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 Wow.... where do you even begin to respond to this? Lets start with the obvious... being related to something is not the same thing as being descended from it. If I had a daughter I would be related to her, but I sure as hell wouldn't be descended from her. If I was descended from her, I would have to also be descended from myself (??). But we all know that only Jesus is descended from Himself. So are we related to chimpanzees and monkeys? Yes, of course we are. In fact, we're probably related to every living thing on the planet, we just happen to be more closely related to apes and monkeys. Will you find any rational person with even a modest understanding of biological taxonomy that disputes that claim. Nope! Jonsa disagrees with the great Dawkins himself. There is no twisting of words about this. Dre said her uncle is the chimp. You jumped in and talked about the monkeys....like chimp and monkeys are the same things. I guess so....they're related too, aren't they? Again, only Jesus can be the same thing as something that isnt the same thing. Well, maybe God and Jesus? Wait... Shit, I'm so confused.. ScienceDaily (May 15, 2005) — ITHACA, N.Y. -- Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor, and even today 99 percent of the two species' DNA is identical.So now we have "related to," "descended from," and "share a common ancestor." I understand that you believe these are all synonymous, but they're really not. I'm sure if you think really hard about your living relatives you can understand the important differences amongst those phrases. So I'll try to spell this out for you as simply as possible: (1) You are related to, and share a common ancestor with, chimps and monkeys. However, you are not descended from them. (2) You are related to, share a common ancestor with, and are descended from the common ancestor in (1). I honestly can't believe that needed to be clarified. Quote Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
betsy Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) Deleted: Misplaced reply. Edited March 25, 2011 by betsy Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 What is a true atheist in your view? To me - same as my definition of atheist above. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
betsy Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 Wow.... where do you even begin to respond to this? Lets start with the obvious... being related to something is not the same thing as being descended from it. If I had a daughter I would be related to her, but I sure as hell wouldn't be descended from her. If I was descended from her, I would have to also be descended from myself (??). But we all know that only Jesus is descended from Himself. So are we related to chimpanzees and monkeys? Yes, of course we are. In fact, we're probably related to every living thing on the planet, we just happen to be more closely related to apes and monkeys. Will you find any rational person with even a modest understanding of biological taxonomy that disputes that claim. Nope! Again, only Jesus can be the same thing as something that isnt the same thing. Well, maybe God and Jesus? Wait... Shit, I'm so confused.. . So now we have "related to," "descended from," and "share a common ancestor." I understand that you believe these are all synonymous, but they're really not. I'm sure if you think really hard about your living relatives you can understand the important differences amongst those phrases. So I'll try to spell this out for you as simply as possible: (1) You are related to, and share a common ancestor with, chimps and monkeys. However, you are not descended from them. (2) You are related to, share a common ancestor with, and are descended from the common ancestor in (1). I honestly can't believe that needed to be clarified. I saw the debate video (link provided by Dre) between Dawkins and Wright. In that video, Dawkins repeated two times that we are related to the monkey. He also rebuked anti-evolutionists for resisting the idea that we are related to the monkey. Check it out for yourselves. So clearly, by your own exchanges as shown....the three of you don't agree. You protest: And Bloodyminded....well...this is where it really gets really, really confusing. If Jonsa disagreed with Bishop Dawkins, Bloodyminded disagrees with the Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050515151741.htm I mean...c'mon! What have you got against the poor monkey, or the poor chimp? This looks kinda like the sophisticated folks ashamed of their poor relations....or rather, the country bumpkins. The relativism continues.... Dre accepted that the chimp is her uncle. Nobody said anything about descended or mentioned "descendant"....except Jonsa! Anyway.... Guess who's coming to dinner....and it ain't Sidney Poiter! Quote
Oleg Bach Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 They took a great thinker and teacher that lived over 2000 years ago and hyjacked the more seductive parts of his doctrine. Then used them imporperly and created an idol out of Jesus...which nulifiys the power of this teachings. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.