Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Base on previous debate about evolution, all supporters of evolution theory say that we were not created as human beings but just a step in a long process of evolution… So regarding ourselves as we came into being by chance as animals who developed by means of the fight for survival…. Beautiful human meanings and morals are just a myth. There is nothing as love, caring, justice, equality, freedom, and family….etc. All is a myth… Now do the evolutionists know the heavy price human beings are paying – and will pay – for this? I doubt… So - according to them – what is the problem of killing weak people if you are strong? What is problem if a strong country invades a less developed one and destroy all weak -not fittest – people? Nothing is wrong with that from their point of view… According to Darwin, at some point in the future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. This may shed some light on all kind of savage invasions from strong countries against weak ones. There is no wonder why “fittest” people “here” are humans and worth living, but other people “there” are just numbers and are “not fittest” are not worth living… Again Now do the evolutionists know the heavy price human beings are paying – and will pay – for their theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Again with the plagiarism... At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.from...http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonficti...win_ManC8P4.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Again with the plagiarism...At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.from...http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonficti...win_ManC8P4.htm Day per day, I am more convinced that some people follow only their desires other than their minds… Instead of taking responsibly towards life and living beings, they just look for easy “guessing” to avoid the idea that they are responsible…. When they think “What? God? Judgment day? Humans? “, they quickly escape to the easy thing “No..No...No… We are animals – Man-!!!!!” So why should anyone do anything good? Everyone for himself… Why should not anyone do anything – bad or good – if it is for him/her? Law? They will tell you if you can even kill and do not get caught, go ahead…and remember “Life is a fight for survival”... Again according to the revolutionists, what is the problem of killing weak people if you are strong? What is problem if a strong country invades a less developed one and destroy all weak -not fittest – people? I hope someone can answer… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 So regarding ourselves as we came into being by chance as animals who developed by means of the fight for survival….Beautiful human meanings and morals are just a myth. There is nothing as love, caring, justice, equality, freedom, and family….etc. All is a myth… The one statement does not flow logically from the other. You are making tedious (and frequently misplaced, condescending and accusatory) points that have already been tendered and refuted dozens of times on this forum. Why don't you read some of the past threads and try to take the argument somewhere new? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Again with the plagiarism...At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.from...http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonficti...win_ManC8P4.htm Did you report him to Greg? I will.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Did this need a new thread? I'm still waiting for you to respond to the questions I posed to you in one of the other similar threads you started. Let me redirect you: "Is it up to us to believe in god" thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Dear figleaf, Did you report him to Greg? I will....Indeed I did. After repeated transgressions, I would think 'banning' would be appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Again with the plagiarism... At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.from...http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonficti...win_ManC8P4.htm Did you report him to Greg? I will.... That is all you can do to answer my questions… Oh, that is good… No-one gave any answer to the big questions… If we came from animals, what is your point of view about our responsibilities for our actions? If the fittest has the absolute right to exterminate the less developed… is there any justice now in this world? Cannot we now put it into context what Hitler meant when he said “History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.” . Then he said later - in the 1933 Nuremberg party rally "a higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right". Very heavy prices are being paid by humans because some people think there is no responsibility…They think that their savage behavior is very normal and that is natural... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Again with the plagiarism... At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.from...http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonficti...win_ManC8P4.htm Did you report him to Greg? I will.... That is all you can do to answer my questions… Oh, that is good… Your questions have been answered on this Forum dozens of times and in literature thousands of times. Meanwhile, you tend to be pretty non-responsive yourself. No-one gave any answer to the big questions…If we came from animals, what is your point of view about our responsibilities for our actions? Quite irrespective of whether we 'came from animals', what do you want to know about our responsibilities for our actions? If the fittest has the absolute right to exterminate the less developed… is there any justice now in this world? Define 'fittest', define 'right', and define 'justice'. Then it might be possible to answer that question. Cannot we now put it into context what Hitler meant when he said “History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.” . Then he said later - in the 1933 Nuremberg party rally "a higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right". And what exactly is the context for that here? Very heavy prices are being paid by humans because some people think there is no responsibility…They think that their savage behavior is very normal and that is natural... Or they say God told them to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ft.niagara Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Day per day, I am more convinced that some people follow only their desires other than their minds…Instead of taking responsibly towards life and living beings, they just look for easy “guessing” to avoid the idea that they are responsible…. When they think “What? God? Judgment day? Humans? “, they quickly escape to the easy thing “No..No...No… We are animals – Man-!!!!!” So why should anyone do anything good? Everyone for himself… Why should not anyone do anything – bad or good – if it is for him/her? Law? They will tell you if you can even kill and do not get caught, go ahead…and remember “Life is a fight for survival”... Again according to the revolutionists, what is the problem of killing weak people if you are strong? What is problem if a strong country invades a less developed one and destroy all weak -not fittest – people? I hope someone can answer… She sounds like my 14 year old daughter. You want to engage her in conversation, but just can't because of some cosmic disconnect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Again with the plagiarism... At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.from...http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonficti...win_ManC8P4.htm Did you report him to Greg? I will.... That is all you can do to answer my questions… Oh, that is good… Your questions have been answered on this Forum dozens of times and in literature thousands of times. Meanwhile, you tend to be pretty non-responsive yourself. No-one gave any answer to the big questions…If we came from animals, what is your point of view about our responsibilities for our actions? Quite irrespective of whether we 'came from animals', what do you want to know about our responsibilities for our actions? If the fittest has the absolute right to exterminate the less developed… is there any justice now in this world? Define 'fittest', define 'right', and define 'justice'. Then it might be possible to answer that question. Cannot we now put it into context what Hitler meant when he said “History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.” . Then he said later - in the 1933 Nuremberg party rally "a higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right". And what exactly is the context for that here? Very heavy prices are being paid by humans because some people think there is no responsibility…They think that their savage behavior is very normal and that is natural... Or they say God told them to do it. 1- Our responsibility towards our actions depends mainly on where we come from. If we came from animals (i.e. no creator, life is a chance, no meaning for life, no life after death…) then no clear moral frame for anything. Why should anyone control himself not to do any thing even it harms other people? Is it the law? Well there is so many ways to escape from law….. The main point here is that if anyone can get away with his actions, nothing wrong to do it. 2- But if the we are created by God that is completely different. Then where to escape from your evil actions? If you escape from knowledge-limited human beings, you cannot go away from the one who created you and knows everything in the whole universe. So if tow persons for example alone in a desert. If one of them wants to steal money or even kill the other, this will depend on our responsibility for our actions. If he does not believe in God and believes he just came from animals, then the only thing he will care about is whether he will be caught be laws or not. If he feels safe, he will kill no problem. But if the same persons know that his creator is watching him right now and everything gets recorded and will be responsible for his actions sooner or later, this is the biggest grantee he will not commit a crime. I am sure there are many bad believers, not most of them fear God… 3- The context I put is that Evolution theory gave enough - false- excuses for people to stop believing in God and act in this way: If you are strong, you are naturally allowed prevail. Then take whatever actions (all means are accepted) to prevail. Weak do not deserve living. That is the law of nature. The fittest lives… 4- God never told people to kill people. There is no special relation between God and any kind of person or persons. The only thing that makes someone closer to God is only obeying His orders. These orders and instructions - 90 % of them – define the framework within which people live together in a good society. Absolutely killing, lying, stealing,etc were explicitly rejected and severe consequences were been mentioned fro people committing it. If you know that God said that “He does not get benefit from our obeying, and He does not get harmed by our disobey” you will know that His instructions have been for our good. 5- It is people’s deception that leads them to commit crime by name of God. But religion text is clear and lots of people who understand religion always warn misguided persons that they are deceivers not reliogious… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 blah blah blah... Pretty easy for me to see when you are copying, or perhaps plagiarising , versus writing in your own words. You make a lot of mistakes in your writing and none when you copy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 blah blah blah... Pretty easy for me to see when you are copying, or perhaps plagiarising , versus writing in your own words. You make a lot of mistakes in your writing and none when you copy. Convincing answers for my questions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Your ignoring a number of points 1. There is no biological justification for race...we are all of the same race 2. Morality is a human term, that we attribute to humans. But we can see animals acting in terms we would describe as "moral" 3. When a predator attacks a group of elaphants...all elaphants circle around the young and attempt to protect them from the predator, they put their life on the line for children, that are not always their own. 4. If we look at other animals we can see that they form social bonds, partnerships, and work together. Animals are not simply savage beasts. When you say evolution proposes that humans are animals (true) so Humans should be really savage...that would be false. Animals can form social bonds, provide for their young, help other animals, even help other animals of other species, hunt together, protect each other, etc... Very simply evolution does not dictate that we have to act like un-caring animals, because that is not how animals act either...it is again a false dillema. In some cases animals act more "moral" than humans do. The ability to show "compassion" is not a phenomenon belonging solely to homo sapiens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 y Our responsibility towards our actions depends mainly on where we come from. First, what do you even mean by 'responsibilty towards our actions'? And why does it depend on where we come from? If you mean what are good ethics, then where we came from seems not quite the point. If we came from animals (i.e. no creator, life is a chance, no meaning for life, no life after death…) Whoa nelly. That's quite a package. How about we just stick to 'no creator'. Why should anyone control himself not to do any thing even it harms other people? Out of self-interest. In a good person that self-interest includes not having to see him or herself as a person who harms others. But if the we are created by God that is completely different. Then where to escape from your evil actions? Now there is one of the biggest problems of talking with religious people. Y'all have this tendency to jump from one thing to another without connecting the dots. How would a creator necessarily ensure no-one escaped from their evil actions? To answer this question you will go off into a whole architecture of theology that describes the creator you imagine and his infrastructure of enforcement and punishment. Once examined, this infrastructure will prove absurd and probably morally insupportable. In any event, whether 'God' is socially useful or not is not really any help in deciding whether It really exists or what It wants. So if tow persons for example alone in a desert. If one of them wants to steal money or even kill the other, this will depend on our responsibility for our actions. If he does not believe in God and believes he just came from animals, then the only thing he will care about is whether he will be caught be laws or not. If he feels safe, he will kill no problem. But if the same persons know that his creator is watching him right now and everything gets recorded and will be responsible for his actions sooner or later, this is the biggest grantee he will not commit a crime. It is NO guarantee at all! Believers throughout history have had crime and violence in their communities. The context I put is that Evolution theory gave enough - false- excuses for people to stop believing in God and act in this way: If you are strong, you are naturally allowed prevail. Evolution is just one of the lines of thought that served to undermine archaic superstitious religious beliefs; most of them had to do with proving the claims of religion were at odds with facts or logic or both. Generally speaking, this process did not involve anyone proposing that it's AOK for the strong to harm the weak. WRT evolution in particular, it describes survival of the fittest, but it doesn't make any moral case for it. God never told people to kill people. So, you don't believe in the Bible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Again Now do the evolutionists know the heavy price human beings are paying – and will pay – for their theory? Well, unfortunately it's supported by science. QUOTEGod never told people to kill people. So, you don't believe in the Bible? New Testament or Old Testament? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenny Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Where, Greg haha. What a loser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 y Our responsibility towards our actions depends mainly on where we come from. First, what do you even mean by 'responsibilty towards our actions'? And why does it depend on where we come from? If you mean what are good ethics, then where we came from seems not quite the point. If we came from animals (i.e. no creator, life is a chance, no meaning for life, no life after death…) Whoa nelly. That's quite a package. How about we just stick to 'no creator'. Why should anyone control himself not to do any thing even it harms other people? Out of self-interest. In a good person that self-interest includes not having to see him or herself as a person who harms others. But if the we are created by God that is completely different. Then where to escape from your evil actions? Now there is one of the biggest problems of talking with religious people. Y'all have this tendency to jump from one thing to another without connecting the dots. How would a creator necessarily ensure no-one escaped from their evil actions? To answer this question you will go off into a whole architecture of theology that describes the creator you imagine and his infrastructure of enforcement and punishment. Once examined, this infrastructure will prove absurd and probably morally insupportable. In any event, whether 'God' is socially useful or not is not really any help in deciding whether It really exists or what It wants. So if tow persons for example alone in a desert. If one of them wants to steal money or even kill the other, this will depend on our responsibility for our actions. If he does not believe in God and believes he just came from animals, then the only thing he will care about is whether he will be caught be laws or not. If he feels safe, he will kill no problem. But if the same persons know that his creator is watching him right now and everything gets recorded and will be responsible for his actions sooner or later, this is the biggest grantee he will not commit a crime. It is NO guarantee at all! Believers throughout history have had crime and violence in their communities. The context I put is that Evolution theory gave enough - false- excuses for people to stop believing in God and act in this way: If you are strong, you are naturally allowed prevail. Evolution is just one of the lines of thought that served to undermine archaic superstitious religious beliefs; most of them had to do with proving the claims of religion were at odds with facts or logic or both. Generally speaking, this process did not involve anyone proposing that it's AOK for the strong to harm the weak. WRT evolution in particular, it describes survival of the fittest, but it doesn't make any moral case for it. God never told people to kill people. So, you don't believe in the Bible? Out of self-interest. In a good person that self-interest includes not having to see him or herself as a person who harms others. Self-interest is the very single thing that makes people hurt each other. Self-interest (containing selfness at the center of it) makes people cheat to achieve their goals, kidnap and rape to fulfill desires not possible otherwise, lie to hide their weaknesses, kill to hide their secrets, ….. Resources in life are not endless, and depending only on self-interest will inevitablely lead people take all means to achieve their goals regardless of its morality… Evolution is just one of the lines of thought that served to undermine archaic superstitious religious beliefs.. . It is religion that undermines completely all other silly thoughts and assumptions about the universe… It is religion that told people, thousands of years ago, the answers for the big questions of life while science – as we know now – had to wait thousands of years to say anything… It is religion that OREDRS people to learn and explore the universe… It is religion that considered ignorance a sin… All facts that science confirmed just support religion… other thoughts that contradict it are necessarily just theories or assumptions… When the creator tells anything about His universe, who will know best: He or very ignorant and limited creatures… It is pity that people when using their minds, do not stop and think for a second that their minds - as any other sense – are limited…. I am sure when you will know what God said in his holy books, you will be very surprised…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Well, unfortunately it's supported by science. It is not supported by science at all and it is arguable to say the best… Evolutionists have always failed to give any fossil that holds transitional forms. When talking about Humans, they mentioned some fossils that most scientists said they are either for Human races as we know now or Australopithecines. No transitional forms have ever been found. As I mentioned in another post they found a fossil Spain in 1995 that revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. That boy died 800,000 years ago.. Unfortunately every time I tried to quote any fact that scientists stated, guys in this form did not like it as it was clearly undermining their thoughts… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Well, unfortunately it's supported by science. It is not supported by science at all and it is arguable to say the best… Evolutionists have always failed to give any fossil that holds transitional forms. When talking about Humans, they mentioned some fossils that most scientists said they are either for Human races as we know now or Australopithecines. No transitional forms have ever been found. As I mentioned in another post they found a fossil Spain in 1995 that revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. That boy died 800,000 years ago.. Unfortunately every time I tried to quote any fact that scientists stated, guys in this form did not like it as it was clearly undermining their thoughts… Now your just lieing, and being sensational, you are making claims that are not true and do not hold water. BTW Self interest is not inherrently a bad thing, maybe you and Karl Marx should stop hanging out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Well, unfortunately it's supported by science. It is not supported by science at all and it is arguable to say the best… Evolutionists have always failed to give any fossil that holds transitional forms. When talking about Humans, they mentioned some fossils that most scientists said they are either for Human races as we know now or Australopithecines. No transitional forms have ever been found. As I mentioned in another post they found a fossil Spain in 1995 that revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. That boy died 800,000 years ago.. Unfortunately every time I tried to quote any fact that scientists stated, guys in this form did not like it as it was clearly undermining their thoughts… Now your just lieing, and being sensational, you are making claims that are not true and do not hold water. BTW Self interest is not inherrently a bad thing, maybe you and Karl Marx should stop hanging out. Now your just lieing, and being sensational, you are making claims that are not true and do not hold water Well, I have supported all my points with quotes. And guess what, 99% of those quotes were from ardent evolutionists who had to confess when faced by facts… Please go back to the references I mentioned and pages I stated and tell me if they were just personal … … maybe you and Karl Marx should stop hanging out. It is you guys and your theory that helped Karl Marx so much… Marx and Engels embraced Darwin's The Origin of Species as soon as it came out. They were amazed at its “dialectical materialist” attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as "containing the basis in natural history for communism". In his book [The Dialectics of Nature], which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 I will say this very simply you are a BLATANT LIAR and should be ashamed of yourself, please do us all a favour and leave these forum before you are removed. What you have done is made post after post of creationist falsehoods, thats what they are...your claims about the australapithicus, Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus, and your misinformed opinion about gran dolina...all of which are FALSE. As for karl marx it was a bloody joke reflecting your blatant misrepresentation of self interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 ..I will say this very simply you are a BLATANT LIAR and should be ashamed of yourself… I am sorry again to hear this language… You know what I don’t like most: blindly following some opinion and accept it as a fact, while never pay attention to check references and loot at names of people and their scientific weighs who oppose it…. I respect you ideological choice and your strong defense, but, excuse me, just because you studied that as a fact, does not mean that other very respected scientist do not accept it… How many scientific theories have been taught for people for decades and many scientific papers and researches have been accepted them as facts.. and then science discovered that they were not accurate or correct? And again you don’t have to reply to my posts… but it is not your right to prevent people from expressing themselves…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 ..I will say this very simply you are a BLATANT LIAR and should be ashamed of yourself… I am sorry again to hear this language… You know what I don’t like most: blindly following some opinion and accept it as a fact, while never pay attention to check references and loot at names of people and their scientific weighs who oppose it…. I respect you ideological choice and your strong defense, but, excuse me, just because you studied that as a fact, does not mean that other very respected scientist do not accept it… How many scientific theories have been taught for people for decades and many scientific papers and researches have been accepted them as facts.. and then science discovered that they were not accurate or correct? And again you don’t have to reply to my posts… but it is not your right to prevent people from expressing themselves…. You are not expresssing yourself you are lieing, after beign informed of the truth, I already demonstrated this recently with a reponse to your claims about the Australapithicus, homo Habilus and homo erectus in another thread it is you who are not checking your references. And even after I pointed out the problems you continue to make the claim...one that is false. furthermore you made anothe rmistake when you claimed tha tI approached evolution as a fact. That is simply not true, I approached the subject of evolution as a Young Earth Creationist who adarently believed the bible was the literal word of God. So again you are demonstrating a tendancy to speak with out knowing or bothering to check what you are saying for facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Self-interest is the very single thing that makes people hurt each other. Self-interest (containing selfness at the center of it) makes people cheat to achieve their goals, kidnap and rape to fulfill desires not possible otherwise, lie to hide their weaknesses, kill to hide their secrets, ….. Well, actually perceived self-interest is the motivation for all actions, good or ill. ... depending only on self-interest will inevitablely lead people take all means to achieve their goals regardless of its morality… No, it won't lead to that because people look beyond the short term interest of grabbing something from someone and consider the long term relationships that apply. Evolution is just one of the lines of thought that served to undermine archaic superstitious religious beliefs.. . It is religion that undermines completely all other silly thoughts and assumptions about the universe… Blah blah blah. It is religion that told people, thousands of years ago, the answers for the big questions of life while science – as we know now – had to wait thousands of years to say anything… Religion told people made-up, useless, fake, sometimes corrupt answers. Science is not an animated external actor. Science is the method of human progress. IT didn't wait; WE took time to find it. It is religion that considered ignorance a sin… Religion thrives on ignorance. Without ignorance religion would be a footnote, a fad that people sometimes indulge. All facts that science confirmed just support religion… Name one. When the creator tells anything about His universe, who will know best: He or very ignorant and limited creatures… Humans surely are limited creatures. Thing is, those same limitations exist among both the humans who claim to know what God wants and those who don't claim that. I am sure when you will know what God said in his holy books, you will be very surprised…. Which holy books? I am somewhat familiar with the Christian Bible, and indeed, I did find much of it surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.