Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Atheist Thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Atheist Thread
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 25>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
progismylife View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 14:29
I give up but do not give in. I do not have the answers but I believe what I believe. i may come back later though. But I am done arguing, it is giving me a headache.
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 14:45
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Geck0 Geck0 wrote:

That's just silly, though. Wink
 
So is the thought that we evolved from apes. C'mon, it is. Ture or not, it is. Wink


Please explain how it's a silly notion?  Besides, it's been proved time and time again that we evolved from not only apes, but from fish also.


Edited by Geck0 - December 30 2006 at 14:45
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 14:48
Originally posted by Geck0 Geck0 wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Geck0 Geck0 wrote:

That's just silly, though. Wink
 
So is the thought that we evolved from apes. C'mon, it is. Ture or not, it is. Wink


Please explain how it's a silly notion?  Besides, it's been proved time and time again that we evolved from not only apes, but from fish also.
 
Unless you're a diehard evolutionist who defends it at every chance, I don't see how it isn't silly. I look at an ape (or even a fish!) and then think I could have been that millions of years ago! Makes me laugh. Tongue
My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 14:48
Originally posted by Geck0 Geck0 wrote:

Of course Sasquamo, the Bible is a very important book to many billions of people in the world and I will not deny the impact it has.  However, my argument is that people take a lot of it far too truthfully and some, such as Creationists, take it even more to the extreme and to me, that's just weird.
 
Good point, the Holy Bible is not totally accurate in dates and facts because prople in those days knew a lot less than we know today, they would have never ubnderstood the concept of Evolution or the Theory of the Big Bang (A theory), I'm sure God is the force behind all this but how could you explain that to an Israelite from the Bronce Age, except with an easy story?
 
The Pope said in 1996:
 
Quote

The Pope reminded the Academy that the Roman Catholic Church has long given tentative approval to the theory of evolution. He cited a 1950 papal encyclical entitled "Humani Generis" by Pius XII, which "considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis. ... Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory" (Vatican Information Service, Oct. 23, 1996).

The Pope attempts to reconcile the Bible with evolution by claiming that while the world was made by the process of evolution, the soul of man was "directly created by God." Pius XII described this theory in these words: "if the origin of the human body is sought in living matter which existed before it, the spiritual soul is directly created by God."

 
Even at the end of the XX Century this comments caused reaction from the most radical sectors of Christianity, imagine Moses trying to explain this to a nation that was born in an Empire who believed in 10 or 20 gods, one for each purpose during their slavery in Egypt.
 
This quote is taken from a Baptist article that criticizes the Pope as the Anti Christ (Most radical sectors do this).
 
Science doesn't deny God but some religious groups try to deny science except when it's convenient for them.


So you believe that Jesus was resurrected after he was nailed too and died on the cross?
 
Yes I do.

Nobody has ever had that happen to them since and many thousands of people have been worthy of such an accolade too.
 
Nobody else was God, BTW: The phrase Son of God is a way to explain people in 30 AD who Christ was, if he would have even tried to explain those people that God is a trinity consisting in three persons or manifestations of the same God, his followers would have never understood.
 
Jesus being God knew this and understanding the limits of human knowledge he explained things in the simplest possible way, remember he used parables.

Surely if this happened, it would have happened again?
 
No because God hasn't taken the human form again.
 
The Tunguska phenomenom has happened only once during the known history and nobody doubts it happened, despite scientists have the most contradictory theories that go from the simple Ice meteor to the scientificly unlikely colission of matery with anti-matery and of course the Sci Fi explanation of an OVNI collisioning with earth.
 
It's easier for some people to believe in green men with a damaged UFO leaving no trace than in God, it's a paradox.
 
Iván
 
 
            
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 14:54
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Geck0 Geck0 wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Geck0 Geck0 wrote:

That's just silly, though. Wink
 
So is the thought that we evolved from apes. C'mon, it is. Ture or not, it is. Wink


Please explain how it's a silly notion?  Besides, it's been proved time and time again that we evolved from not only apes, but from fish also.
 
Unless you're a diehard evolutionist who defends it at every chance, I don't see how it isn't silly. I look at an ape (or even a fish!) and then think I could have been that millions of years ago! Makes me laugh. Tongue


It's patently (to me) obvious though.  I don't see it any other way.

Some people I've spoken to, even deny the existence of dinosaurs (who also evolved from fish, meaing we're related to them too Wink). Confused
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 15:03
Originally posted by Geck0 Geck0 wrote:



It's patently (to me) obvious though.  I don't see it any other way.
 
Well the conceopt that we evolved from monkeys is very simplistic and wrong, you take a monkey couple, keep them in captivity, let them procreate for million years and at the end you will have....a lot of monkeys not wiser than their ancesters.
 
Humans and apes have a common ancester which is something different, some species evolved others don't, if still today we have problems understanding this, imagine in the Biblic days.

Some people I've spoken to, even deny the existence of dinosaurs (who also evolved from fish, meaing we're related to them too Wink). Confused
 
Well, there's people who will deny everything and they are entitled to, but as a religious person I don't agree with this position, Religion doesn't have to be anti scientific, there are lots of scientists who are religious also.
 
Iván

 
 


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 30 2006 at 15:04
            
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 16:26
Iván, your analogy doesn't hold water.

It depends on a lot more than just putting two monkeys in capitivity together and letting them procreate.  There's a lot of other things involved.  Climate, food available, predators and most likely other factors too.

If someone decided to put a human couple on the moon (or in captivity, or some in a huge greenhouse), they'd have to adapt to their surroundings.  Now, if this couple were of high IQ and intelligence, life would be much easier for them.  If they were not so bright, they'd find it a lot harder to cope and would probably die (or their descents would struggle and die also).

The same is true with monkeys.  I am sure there are different intelligences in monkeys.  They have built in survival instincts that they've had for millenia.  As do humans also, but we've changed our way of living and the majority of humans are no longer nomadic.

There is also a chance of cross-breeding between other bipeds (i.e. other monkey species, as well as apes, ourangutang, gorilla &c), so there is all possiblity of a new (sub-)species being created.

So it's not just a matter of putting two monkeys of the opposite gender in capitivity and letting them get on with their dirty business.


Edited by Geck0 - December 30 2006 at 16:28
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 18:01
Originally posted by Geck0 Geck0 wrote:

Iván, your analogy doesn't hold water.

It depends on a lot more than just putting two monkeys in capitivity together and letting them procreate.  There's a lot of other things involved.  Climate, food available, predators and most likely other factors too.

If someone decided to put a human couple on the moon (or in captivity, or some in a huge greenhouse), they'd have to adapt to their surroundings.  Now, if this couple were of high IQ and intelligence, life would be much easier for them.  If they were not so bright, they'd find it a lot harder to cope and would probably die (or their descents would struggle and die also).

The same is true with monkeys.  I am sure there are different intelligences in monkeys.  They have built in survival instincts that they've had for millenia.  As do humans also, but we've changed our way of living and the majority of humans are no longer nomadic.

There is also a chance of cross-breeding between other bipeds (i.e. other monkey species, as well as apes, ourangutang, gorilla &c), so there is all possiblity of a new (sub-)species being created.

So it's not just a matter of putting two monkeys of the opposite gender in capitivity and letting them get on with their dirty business.
 
Place them wherever (I read the Evolution of Species) and they will always be Monkeys.
 
The Homo Erectus is a different specie from the Homo Habillis or Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.
 
A new specie appeared adapted better to the environmental changes and survived to the previous, in other words is not that a monkey had a Homo Erectus son and at some point a Neanderthal had a Cromagnon son, both are different species.
 
One specie has changes according to the environment (Thick of skin, color of the skin, color of the eyes, etc) but forradical changes that take from a monkey to a man it's impossible, you need several different sopecies that appeared one after the other, some coexisted simultaneously and only the fittest would survive.
 
This is the theory of evolution, the monkey is something like a final product, it won't evolve too much, maybe some slight characteristics but will always be a monkey and will never turn into a man.
 
The Human genome and the Chimpanzee genome are totally different, our oldest ancestor (Pre-human primates) split around 6.3 million years ago , one branch leads to the monkeys and another totally different leads to the Homo Sapiens.
 
 
 
The branch that leads to humans kept evolving, the branch that leads to the actual ape remains almost unchanged.
 
Satying that man descends from the monkey is absurd, both descend from an ancient ancestor but the human is totally different from the monkey.
 
Probably when people read Darwin book and saw the reconstruction of a hair covered Sahelantropus Tchadensis (The oldest hominid that rised in two feet) saw the similarities with the monkey and the uninformed claimed that human descends from monkey, but the reality is that a monkey will never evolve in a  human both species have a parallel evolution.
 
This false premise is the one used to make mockery of evolution.
 
Iván
 
 
            
Back to Top
Sasquamo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 18:09
But we descended from an ancestor that kind of looked like a monkey, right?
Back to Top
progismylife View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 18:23
^^Just like your avatar. Tongue
Back to Top
Logos View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: March 08 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 2383 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 18:31
Prokaryotic bacteria --> man

That's a very simple way of looking at it, and of course seems ridiculous. Just like monkey--> man seems stupid, because it's not that simple. It's not something that just happened over a generation or two, it happened slowly and gradually. A monkey doesn't simply turn into a man.

Different populations become isolated from each other; there's little or none genetic "migration" or gene glow, mutations occur and natural selection does it's 'job'. As generations come and go of course different genes, or different alleles, become more common or rare in the different populations --> EVOLUTION.

Pure common sense is enough to tell me that is correct, and of course the amount of evidence is overwhelming.

EDIT: By the way; the theory of evolution should not even be a problem to Christians. It doesn't say anything about how life began; therefore there's more than enough room for a Creator in that equation too. It only becomes a problem if one takes the creation myth(s) in the Bible literally, which clearly is just wrong. Anyone in their right mind acknowledges that they are not factual descriptions of how the Earth and man were created.

Belief in God shouldn't mean ignoring facts which contradict the Bible.


Edited by Logos - December 30 2006 at 18:39
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 20:28
Chimpanzee and Human genome are totally different?

By present estimates, humans have approximately 20,000–25,000 genes and share 95% of their DNA with their closest living evolutionary relatives, the two species of chimpanzees.[10] Genetic studies indicate that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees, while gorillas diverged earlier from the chimpanzee/human line of descent.[11] Consequently, use of the term 'apes' to mean chimpanzees and gorillas is incorrect, with humans and chimpanzees forming one group and gorillas a second, more distantly-related group.[12]

Only about 5%, that's not that much.  That still means a few thousand or more that aren't the same though.

Edited by Geck0 - December 30 2006 at 20:29
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 21:44
Originally posted by Sasquamo Sasquamo wrote:

But we descended from an ancestor that kind of looked like a monkey, right?
 
That's pretty more accurate, a monkey won't evolve in any number of generations into a human, but that ancestor that looked more or less like a monkey had the capacity to evolve.
 
The monkeys appeared almost simultaneously with the first pre-hominid, and haven't evolved a bit while there have been at least 10 different stages (that we know) from our first ancestor who rised in tw feet until the homo sapiemns.
 
In other words, in 6.3 millions of years humans have evolved from a specie similar in external appearence to a man while the monkey from 7.5 millions of years looks exactly the same as the monkey from today. 
 
BTW: James, the genoma of the monkey is so different to human that you can't procreate with an ape, while even animals from different species more related like horse and donkey can procreate a hybrid called mule.
 
A 5% of difference in genoma is a lot, just imagine that simple fly has only about 1/2 of the chromosomes of a human, rephrasing: Our genoma is only twice as complex as the one of an insignificant fly.
 
Iván 
 
BTWII: I'm not denying evolution, by the contrary I firmly believe in it, it's the silly phrase "The man descends from the moinkey" the one that gives fundamentalists arguments against it because it's false.
 
If we are going to be accurate, lets try to be the closer possible to reality and it's not correct to say human descends from the ape.
            
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 22:33
I've been reading a bit about it and I stand corrected.  It even seems we're not even a descendant of Homo neanderthalensis, as there is no similarity in the gene flow.  So it seems Homo neanderthalensis are a separate species.  However, we do have a gene flow from Homo erectus.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2006 at 23:23
Even before James, Homo Erectus and Neanderthal were already humans, with differenvces with the Homo Sapiens but essentially humans.
 
Trying to be simpler
 
If people said that Man descends from the monkey it means that our great great great........great grandfather could have been a monkey, that's false.
 
The reality is that Man and monkey share one great, great, great, great.............grandfather called Pierolapithecus Catalaunicus, the last common link between man and ape (Not an ape, not a man).
 
The Pierolapithecus catalaunicus descendants split in two different branches
 
1.- The  Australopithecus Anamensis that evolved into the  Australopithecus Africanus etc (All pre hominids) then at one pouint this link took to Homo Habilis (The first properl human), Homo Erectus......Neanderthal, Cromagnon and Homo Sapiens.
2.- The Common monkey that evolved in....common monkey. Wink
 
Both branches share a lot of comon genetic characteristics inherited from the Pierolapithecus catalaunicus but not because the man descends from the chimp.
 
Iván
 
Note: Not being an expert in this issue, I surely have jumped a lot of stages but the idea is clear and can be appreciated in the chart on my previous post.


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 30 2006 at 23:25
            
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2006 at 00:37
I know they were humans (well, they were of the Homo genus), I didn't say they weren't. Wink

But it seems we're not descended from Homo neanderthalensis (some even debate our Homo habilis ancestry), but only Homo erectus, Homo habiliis (all classed as "man") and Australophitecus anamensis are our ancestors.  Pierolapithecus catalaunicus is currently only thought to be the ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas.

Edited by Geck0 - December 31 2006 at 00:37
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2006 at 00:38
Hehe, you said "homo." Embarrassed
 
Sorry, sorry. Embarrassed
My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2006 at 00:41
Well before we get more technicall Wink
 
1.- Man doesn't decend from the monkey as is commonly believed.
2.- Man and monkey descend from a common ancester (Most surely Pierolapithecus Catalaunicus) that is non of both but had elements common to both.
 
That's all.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2006 at 00:44
Yes, I agree Iván. Wink

Although they have doubts the Orangutan is descended from Pierolapithecus catalaunicus because of certain facial characteristics.
Back to Top
toolis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 26 2006
Location: MacedoniaGreece
Status: Offline
Points: 1678 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2006 at 01:04

i had a really interesting discussion about all these the other day with a friend of mine..

he claims that the question of the existence of God was raised by man gazillions years ago due to the fact that he developed his mind through evolution and it is just a characteristic of the human species like everything else and nothing more...

so, due to the evloution again and because of our progress -that we constantly answer to many questions that until recently we couldn't- sooner or later this "flaw" will extinct through natural selection...

-music is like pornography...

sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more...



-sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 25>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.196 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.