Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
to all atheists out there, religion although with its many faults and cons. come many positives, religion of all sorts bring happiness and hope in times when there isnt any, chill out just because someone has a different opinion doesnt mean you have to hate them.
you may now continue your flame war
And THAT is the difference between science and religion."
Unless the religious are willing to weigh the evidence and try to understand their faith in light of science, as opposed to forcing their faith onto science.
Yes I was using a common phrase that everyone is familiar with. I was responding to quotes like this
"Asked whether A. ramidus was our direct ancestor or not, the team said more fossils from different places and time periods were needed to answer the question."
If you get a mo, pop over to the journal of The Scientist and search for "fossil missing link" and you will see that it is a common term even in the scientific community.
And so the boundaries between exact science and non-exact science get blurred. In a discussion about the scientific view of the big bang and fossils, the fact that science has created computers is brought up. Exact science is exactly that, exact. Processes can be replayed infinite times in the lab. This is science. Non exact science such as fossil dating and the origin of the universe is a totally different thing, and this is the area that I liken to religion.
You demonstrate your ignorance again. Scientists are not searching for "the missing link" because they don`t think there is "the missing link". It`s an over-simplification for use in the media.
"Theories are by definition proposed answers, followed by lots of research to try to prove that theory as being true. It is the whole principal behind any non-exact science (a science that can`t be repeated in the lab, which is the case when working such old remains)."
Theories are the principle behind *all* science.A proposed answer is a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is much more than that. Experiments can`t prove that a theory is true. They can fail to prove it false, but that`s not the same thing.
You don`t understand scien
And THAT is the difference between science and religion.
Do you know how many books we`re going to have to edit? O, it`s only that one page for now.
*has it fixed*
Fem- you`re probably right
That is not science. You don`t know what science is.
"Look at Dawkins now, he even acts like a religious preacher."
That`s true, but it`s not what makes him a scientist.
"If both sides to this debate were man enough to agree that their own side was flawed, then a lot more respect would be given."
You prove that is untrue - you eagerly seize on any acknowledgement that science is not perfectly true at all times in order to ridicule science for being imperfect. That is not respect.
"As for me, I am well read in both camps and have an empathy for both arguments."
You don`t know what science is and you ridicule it for being honest rather than claiming perfect knowledge of everything. Your claim is therefore completely false.
Fem... that is a frightening prospect.
THEREFORE, anyone that ‘suffers’ from ABS is really someone blessed by Opie.(See I blame science. Everyone knows that if you have ABS, it really means that you’ve been chosen by Opie as a demi-god.)
“Blessed is they who sits at Opie’s right stump. For they be a true friend of the goddess/”Testicles XXIX; 34.5
I love this.
I`m currently rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.
In conclusion, 10Bears, I award you no points.
*removes palm from face*
And yet you typed that statement into a computer keyboard. Made from a plastic compound manufactured from crude hydrocarbons, recovered from geological reservoirs miles beneath the earth`s surface. Processed by microchips millimetres in size, using semiconductor technology. And posted on this website by sending thousands of bits of binary information down fibre-optic cables for thousands of kilometers, before being reassembled, reprocessed, and appearing on my liquid crystal display flatscreen for my perusal.
Here`s a hint. These things didn`t come about from prayers.
You remain "unconvinced" of science? Forgive me for being reminded of the "what have the Romans ever done for us" scene from the Life of Brian.
A friend of mine once said `A history heeded, is a future improved`. Those that don`t `see`, or refuse to `see` what their actions and lack of action is creating, will ultimately succumb to their `un-knowing`.
Science has the same problem! We can see light from stars supposedly 47million light years away, yet the big bang only happened 14million years ago. Exactly the same problem. The scientists reconcile this with a peculiar answer that tries to circumvent the obvious conclusion that at the big bang, matter had to travel many times faster than the speed of light, thereby breaking one of the fundamental laws of physics.
And so I remain unconvinced of either.
It is the reason that people call this "the missing link", because that`s what they want to find. Oddly, the scientists don`t call this the missing link, it`s only the hangers on that use this phrase, the scientists are actually admitting that this isn`t quite the missing link that they are still searching for.
I am in a rare position of not being in either camp at the moment, which gives me the clear and unbiased view that both sides are equally dogmatic. You can`t question either without being considered an idiot. Your call for me to re-read everything is a case in point!
To describe science and religion as the same thing is ridiculous and extremely disrespectful to all scientists working hard every day to determine truth and proper conclusions in their work. Religion asks its believers to "keep the faith" in spite of evidence, science does the opposite.
Your example of why science and religion are the same is confusing. Science does not claim to "have the answer" as religion does. If you are indeed well read in both camps then I suggest that you begin to re-read your material as you seem to have completely missed the point when it comes to the developme
Science and religion are the same thing. Think of the answer, then work backwards to make everything else fit. Look at Dawkins now, he even acts like a religious preacher.
If both sides to this debate were man enough to agree that their own side was flawed, then a lot more respect would be given.
As for me, I am well read in both camps and have an empathy for both arguments. But I do want to see a fair and honest debate - after all, I too am looking for the answer - and this kind of theoretical science being quoted as "science" is just misleading and misguided.
That statement is so utterly wrong that I`m having trouble describing how wrong it is.
"Words like *suggests* and *may* and *supposed* are ambiguous and are hardly the language of science."
"the language of science" often contains words indicating uncertainty because acknowledging it is part of science. Scientists shouldn`t state certainty unless it is proven and proof is only certain in maths. Science is essentially about what seems most likely to be true in the light of current evidence. Something might stand up to testing a billion times, but science still allows for the possibility of it being incorrect or incomplete. Acknowledging uncertainty is a key strength of science.
Phrases like this..."it suggests this common ancestor may have existed much further back in time than had previously been supposed"Words like *suggests* and *may* and *supposed* are ambiguous and are hardly the language of science.
Here`s another quote from the same article..."We will need many more fossil recoveries from the period of 3-5 million years ago to confidently answer that question in the future," So some things aren`t answered concretely yet. Will those standing by the article with a passion please take note.
There`s a section called "Rapid evolution" too. Every book I`ve read about evolution (and it`s quite a few) talks about inexplicably rapid steps in evolution.
This is not science. It is a theory. Theories are not science.
By the way, I have the same problems with religion, b
Not quite, no. I`m like a cheap knock-off of him :)
"So what you`re saying is when we started using tools we jumped straight in with flint axes and reciprocating saws and missed the sticks and stones bit? I find this harder to swallow than a whole pineapple."
No, I`m saying "Humans were using tools in a more complex way than other apes long ago." Humans right back to the beginning of humans used tools in a more complex way than other apes do today. In some ways, tool use is the defining feature of our species.
"And that one day an ape woke up and sang wop bop a do wop a wop bam boo pretty far fetched too."
Which might be why no-one is suggesting it happened.
Would you provide references for the statement you made about why we sometimes jerk as we`re falling asleep? It doesn`t match what I`ve read.
And God replied, "You stupid Human, do not question the Lord.I f*ck with you and then I carry you.It`s just something that I enjoy doing.If you don`t like it, you can just go to Hell."
"One night I dreamt that I was walking along the beach with God.
Across the sky flashed scenes from my life. For each scene, I noticed two sets of footprints in the sand. One belonged to me, and the other to God.
But I noticed something strange.
I noticed that many times along the path of my life, there was only one set of footprints. I also noticed that it happened at the hardest times in my life.
I said, "God, I have noticed that during the most difficult times of my life, there is only one set of footprints. I don`t understand why, when I needed you the most, You would leave me".
God replied, "I didn`t leave you. During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, that was when I carried you."
*heads the desk repeatedly, and at considerable velocity*
Religion is not kind to the toeless!
The Conservative Christian view: "You`re (very slightly) disabled. That`s just God`s will. He has a plan. He Made you with a disability a reason. He has a plan blahblahblah horsewank"
The slightly more sane, scientific view: "You suffered from ABS (look it up, those who are unfamiliar) in the womb. That sucks, but it`s no big deal. Roll with it honey, we all love you big time."
Let`s face up to it. If God exists, he`s a wanker.
OMG THAT MEANS I PROVE EVOLUTION WRONG.
I AM THE NEXT JESUS.
All you just did was prove that the Bible is full of conflicting advice and inconsistencies. We both have Bible verses backing up our points. If anything, mine should supercede yours, since mine is the word of Jesus himself, whereas yours isn`t.
Have a nap.
Mate, anyone can make an account. Which is why the BanHammer is always put back on the recharge cradle after every use. I`m talking spambots and wankers here obviously, not you guys. Much love. You`d be staggered at how many times it`s wheeled out on an average day at IAB.
"Don`t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." - 2 Timothy 2:23
you might wanna sit down, dude. you`ve been pwned pretty hard. :- )
Your mind is boggling because you`re doing something that isn`t allowed in young earth creationism: thinking.
Incidentally, YEC stems from ignorance of ancient Jewish customs regarding written genealogies...and I`d be willing to bet that most YECs don`t even know that the origin of their belief is Jewish, let alone anything about ancient Jewish customs.
It depends on what you mean by "ape", which has a bit of a woolly definition. It`s correct to say that humans *are* apes, but it`s also correct to exclude humans from that term.
There`s no indication that humans evolved from any currently living ape species, though, so what you read was right in terms of the common ancestor and also the rather long time scale. The generally accepted timescale is in the region of 10 million years ago for the great apes diverging from other apes and about 2 million years ago for the homo genus diverging from the great apes, with homo sapiens a relatively recent ~150,000 years ago.
I`d just like the strength and toughness of other great apes along with the human dexterity and intelligence. We`re rather frail in comparison.
According to YEC, the Universe is around 6013 years old right? So does that mean that the Universe only extends out from the Earth for 6013 (for arguments sake) light years? Seeing as the Milky Way alone is well over 100,000 light years across how is it that we on Earth can see stars further than 6013 light years away as they didn`t exist before that time? Also, other galaxies which are too far away for their light protons to have arrived in this creation time-frame shouldn`t exist either right? Does the Milky Way exist for you guys?Or does Creationism allow for the billion upon billions of stars to be instantly formed and be shining onto Earth even those who are further than 6013 light year away from Earth?
My mind boggles.
Humans were using tools in a more complex way than other apes long ago. Ancient humans also had art, music, etc.
I agree that the number of people not spending most of the waking life on surviving is a big factor in the pace of technological change (see my post 2 before yours).
Cultural values and religion are also big factors. Many religions suppress change of any kind and culture can suppress or promote it. The industrial revolution was enabled by technological advances, especially the reinvention of the steam engine, but it was also driven by cultural values that enthusiastically supported it, especially in Britain.
A similar combination of cultural values, freedom from religious oppression and enough people with enough free time existed in ancient Greece, with similar results. It was much less pronounced in the much more pragmatic Roman republic, an example of the effect of cultural values.
Seriously my imagination is out of control.
3 million years? Homo sapiens is far more recent than that.
The increase in the pace of technological advance has nothing to do with intelligence. It`s far too complex for ~970 characters, but I`ll have a go:
i) It`s all built on earlier work, which was built on earlier work, etc. It didn`t pop out of nothing in the 20th century.
ii) Widespread education, a very new idea, provided a massive increase in the number of people who could contribute. Social changes likewise.
iii) The reinvention and *practical application* of the steam engine transformed society, urbanising it and putting technology into the heart of society.
.........another knee, another knee, another knee.........Holy cow this thing has fifty legs!!!
You have slightly misheard or misread young earth creationism. The "4000" you referred to is 4004 BC, i.e. 6013 years ago. Almost exactly 6013 years now - creation supposedly occured at 9 in the morning on the 23rd of October 4004 BC.
You`re spot on about how ludicrous it is, though. The only way it can make any sense is if their god does exist and is faking all the evidence for a laugh.
All of the vast amount of evidence of anything on earth older than 6013 years, or even of the earth itself being older than that, must be dismissed by lying about it not existing. See, for example, Reformer81 in this thread. YECs think that if they lie often enough most people will believe them and that if they get enough power anyone who doesn`t believe them can be suppressed. They might be right - it`s worked for other tyrants.
It isn`t really a creationism vs evolution thing. It`s a tyranny vs freedom thing.
@shunpo 31, I don`t think Creationists have a point in the first place. It smacks of zealotry. And is just plain weird.
"So if you`re unwilling to spread biblical teachings (creationism being one of them) then you`re directly disobeying Jesus."
I`m off to tell everyone to kill thier kids if they disobey them, all in the name of Jesus.
Leviticus I think. It`s been a while.
We have a considerable amount of USER SUBMITTED CONTENT to peruse. :)
Also, to throw my opinion into the ring, I am reminded of the episode "Go God, Go" of SouthPark where Stan says:
"Can`t evolution be the answer to `how` and not the answer to `why`?"
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
So if you`re unwilling to spread biblical teachings (creationism being one of them) then you`re directly disobeying Jesus.
No; we are apes. We never stopped being apes.
Well Crackr, while we`re quoting single lines from the article:
"This is not an ordinary fossil. It`s not a chimp. It`s not a human. It shows us what we used to be."
Note that last sentence.
if we`re right, everyone else will figure it out when they die.
why don`t we just wait till then? :-)
There`s plenty, you`re just too stupid to look it up. There`s a huge difference between "there isn`t", and "I don`t know there is."
Your cluelessness is legendary
Well see, that`s not exactly true now, is it? You could try starting HERE for a decent scientific synopsis of some of the evidence. Not that I actually expect any Young Earth Creationists present to read that article - reading must be pretty tricky with those big blinkers on.
And this evolution/creation theory is really annoying. BOTH sides.
The title of this link is wrong. Humans ARE apes (great apes). We and other modern primates share a common ancestor. But I`m sure those who care enough already knew and the creationists will scream and then retreat back to their outhouses.
Now carry on with your flame war. Go on.
This is a lie or delusion.
"There is NO evidence (beyond circumstantial) for Evolution. At all."
And so is this.
There is NO evidence (beyond circumstantial) for Evolution. At all.
Jesus is a gay, and science is all cool and stuff.