FreeHovind - Why Aren’t Humans Animals?

Home Petition Watch Download Info Forum

Home Content Submit

Home > Content > Creation and Evolution > Discussion: Why Aren’t Humans Animals?

Why Aren’t Humans Animals?

58 Comments - 5054 Views

Submitted By WWDD on 09/03/27

FreeHovind, WWDD, Creation and Evolution

Creationism promotes an underlying belief that humans are superior to all other life forms, because we are created in god’s image. Humans and chimps have DNA that, on average, is 98.8% similar. I mentioned once before that the 1.2% difference is mainly comprised of regulatory sequences. These code for enzymes and other transcription factors that in turn alter the expression of other genes. For example, the genes controlling hair growth in humans are expressed to a limited extent. In chimps, transcription of these genes is more frequent and thus chimps have more hair. So let’s think of this in terms of creationism.

According to Genesis, god made animals before he made people. This means that the chimp genome came before the human genome. So you’d think that when god went to make humans, he’d want to make them sort of special and unique. We’re made in his image, after all. So what does god do? He takes the genetic information from chimps, and adds a few extra sequences to it. Just enough to make us taller and less hairy and somewhat more intelligent. And there you have it, humans!

As an evolutionist, that idea sounds pretty silly. It probably sounds silly to creationists too, although I’m sure you won’t admit that. What I’d like to know is this: What is it that makes humans so different from other animals? What is the determining factor that sets us apart from all other living things on Earth?

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 58 Replies

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/27 - 4:41 GMT

We aren't descendants from monkey-like creatures. GOD created man in HIS image. And we were created from the dust of the ground or soil. Monkeys may as well have some god-like traits image wise. But GOD created us superior to the animals. That's why we are the top of the food chain. Monkeys have the next closest image to GOD because they are his creation. Isn't that what a car maker does? He makes something better than before? There was a story I read once about a priest that went to witness to Indians in Africa in the early 1900's. He also tried to teach the Indians evolution. But he told the natives that we come from monkeys. When the natives heard this they burst into hysterical laughter. Even they know that we are unique as all creatures and that we come from a creator. I hope this helps. I'm going on vacation. GOD bless.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/03/27 - 8:24 GMT

"That's why we are the top of the food chain"

tell that to the tiger, anaconda, lion, bear, wolf and the 5m big great white.....

"Isn't that what a car maker does? He makes something better than before?"

only when he want's to make something more efficient. he might just aswell make something entirely different to try it out.

"He also tried to teach the Indians evolution. But he told the natives that we come from monkeys."

apparently he didn't know enough of evolution to teach it.....strong misunderstanding there again....

"Even they know that we are unique as all creatures"

EVERY DIFFERENT STRAIN OF DNA OR RNA is unique...

"and that we come from a creator"

maybe, but did they think it was the CHRISTIAN god? probably not.

"I'm going on vacation"

have fun! ^^

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/27 - 18:04 GMT

“When the natives heard this they burst into hysterical laughter. Even they know that we are unique as all creatures and that we come from a creator.”

That proves my point exactly. For those who live a primitive lifestyle, conclusions are drawn only from what can be seen. Of course natives in Africa would find evolution a hard concept to understand, because we don’t look exactly like chimps (stop using the word monkeys, chimps are not monkeys).

The thing is, many creationists don’t live in third world countries where they have no access to scientific analysis. Research has been done that proves that humans and chimps are actually very, very similar. We no longer rely solely on what we can see right in front of us, but instead try to understand things at a genetic level.

And you actually believe that “we were created from the dust of the ground or soil”?!?! How can you make fun of a theory which suggests we shared a common ancestor with chimps, when your theory states we’re made out of dirt? Dirt doesn’t even contain the chemical components needed to form life.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/03/27 - 18:38 GMT

"when your theory states we’re made out of dirt?"

that should be "hypothosis" not theory :P

lets keep things "scientific" enough for bigdog.

Peter

10 hours - 774v

Posted 2009/03/28 - 4:24 GMT

Monkey-like-creatures. I'll have to remember that one...Hahaha!

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/03/28 - 6:22 GMT

We aren't descendants from monkey-like creatures.

Yes, in fact you are - unless your parents weren't human that is. I hate to break it to you, but you ARE a "monkey-like creature." Even 18th century creationists like Carl Linnaeus were able to grasp that.

Isn't that what a car maker does? He makes something better than before?

Hmm, so I guess the Terry Gilliam version of God was accurate.

"Well what do you expect? It was a rush job, we only had seven days after all."

But he told the natives that we come from monkeys. When the natives heard this they burst into hysterical laughter.

That's probably the first time I've ever seen an "appeal to ignorance" used as a debate tactic. Impressive!

Joe (epiclolguy)

1 day - 1,984v

Posted 2009/03/29 - 18:35 GMT

"Im going on vacation"

I am unbelievably jealous ;)

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/07 - 20:33 GMT

Oh my this is too funny, never posted here and i do not think I will again just had to say, the difference is , we have the ability to reason (most anyway) a 2 year old child is smarter than a chimp monkey or whatever, love animals, but they know we are the boss.

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/04/07 - 22:33 GMT

Yeah I was waiting for that explanation. You’re right, humans are smarter than animals. However, the fact that our brains are bigger and more sophisticated is a purely physical trait and does not provide evidence for creation. Elephants have longer noses than us, does that make them superior? Physical traits prove nothing.

Furthermore, animals are absolutely able to reason. I would even argue that the more intelligent animals are equipped with a basic moral compass, and can determine right from wrong. My dog doesn’t pee on the carpet because he’s been taught that it’s wrong. He knows that if he does, he will be reprimanded. He may not be able to determine the long-term consequences of his actions the way bigger-brained humans can, but he can reason.

And as for your statement, “...but they know we are the boss.” ...Really? Because that’s news to me. Try being “the boss” around sharks, grizzly bears, venomous snakes, man-of-war jellyfish, disease-carrying ticks, Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), flesh-eating bacteria, mosquitoes with malaria parasites, Mycobacterium leprae (leprosy), Yersinia pestis (bubonic plague, and of course the rats who were kind enough to spread it around)... the list could go on. Basically, humans have had our asses kicked by the other living things we share this planet with.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/08 - 14:12 GMT

"a 2 year old child is smarter than a chimp monkey or whatever, love animals, but they know we are the boss."

tell that to the guy who got his hand bitten of by a chimp becasue he was considered a treath to the group. (oh ya, the chimp escaped and wounded and killed 2 other people)

Kent Clark (Brothertrucker)

1 day - 1,411v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 9:00 GMT

theyre not?

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 9:21 GMT

Isabella, you asked the question? Why aren`t humans animals?,Really good question, I actually looked in this thread as i thought it was a creationists question, LOL. The fact that you even asked that question tells me you know we are different. Why are all animals in Zoo`s or game parks, or far off in the wilderness,or being ridden, milked, bred to be used or eaten by man, and not walking free down the street? If somebody swims out of his element and gets eaten by a shark whos to blame? certainly not the shark. Does not make the shark "boss" just a stupid human. Take him out of his element, and he is even more useless than us. Sharks are being killed by the millions, daily, by humans.

Same answer to whoever said someone got his hand bitten off by a chimp, all animals protect their young, and it is people not using their God given common sense that are to blame. Our reason puts us at the top, of the food chain, not our dna, If you think 1.2% difference is all there is between chimps and us, I am just speachless. It really is a total waste of time even discussing this.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 10:21 GMT

" Our reason puts us at the top, of the food chain"

exactly. however that wasn't the point. just because we are mentally superior to other animals doesn't mean we are overall superior to them.

but that STILL doesn't answer the question why humans shouldn't be considered animals when an animal is:

1: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation

2 a: one of the lower animals as distinguished from human beings b: mammal ; broadly : vertebrate

3: a human being considered chiefly as physical or nonrational ; also : this nature

4: a person with a particular interest or aptitude <a political animal>5: matter , thing <the theater…is an entirely different animal — Arthur Miller> ; also : creature 1c

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal

see the first 2 ? the first one is the biological defenition. which is what he question is referrign too.

and the second one portrays our arrogance in elevating ourselves over the rest (rightfully so on most cases).

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 20:54 GMT

The fact that you even asked that question tells me you know we are different.

1) That's an odd leap of logic - and I'm tempted to call it a deliberate attempt at spin, since you appear to be literate enough to know better. It should be obvious the question was a challenge to creationists to explain their reasoning behind the "humans are not animals" claim.

2) Even if your analysis were correct, no one here is arguing that there are no differences between humans and other types of animals. But you seem to be mistakenly interepreting those differences to mean that humans aren't animals.

To put it more simply: there are differences between gorillas and termites. So does that mean that gorillas aren't animals? What about termites?

If you think 1.2% difference is all there is between chimps and us, I am just speachless.

Strawman argument. No one has made the claim that the difference between chimps and humans is only 1.2%, in and of itself. The 1.2% difference is in terms of GENETIC CODE - I'm hoping you don't need the difference spelled-out for you.

Oh, and I don't normally like to engage in "spelling flames" - but since you already opened the door, you should know that the word is actually "speechless."

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 11:44 GMT

QUOTE "maybe, but did they think it was the CHRISTIAN god? probably not."

When you realise what God is capable of, you are NOT impressed with what science(only man) can do. The above quote about which God ( of all the gods out there) is always used by atheists, is just stupid.

The reason there are so many gods,and religions, is, it is in ALL humans to know there is more to this life,and wonder what the heck is the meaning of all this, like, Why aren`t humans animals? and isnt all the stars out there and space a little OTT, etc etc Why? That is why we are all here debating, these sort of questions. Man has decieved man since the beginning, and religion as well. All mans greed and selfishness. Man will twist anything to suit his agenda.

The truth is, imo, in the Christian God JESUS, where, all myths, religions, gods etc, became FACT, and God entered history. C.S. Lewis said that, now there is an intellect worth pondering. He reverses the equation and the secular worldview, that the thoughtless embrace Christianity, and the thoughtful reject it. He also slices away at the cluttered thinking, double talk and his OWN atheism.
Reading pages like this just makes me believe that more and more.

People have opinions and believe what they want, not always what they actually know, or really tried to find out, with an open mind and heart. Before you do that nothing is clear at all. They(people) do it all the time, they listen to the media(weapon of mass INSTRUCTION) friends and family, and just repeat it. THE actual truth is not even considered, it is the easy lazy way.

I approached this whole thing from the point of, I could be very WRONG !!and that God does Not exist. The ability to be Wrong, is the way to find truth, ALL the time. Imagine how far science would be, if they did not admit they were wrong and try again. I was open to everything, but honesty and integrity is what I was after, (why believe a lie) People do it all the time, for many reasons. I have read countless opinions of people I do not agree with. That is how you start seeing the truth.

David Hume rightly stated "we cannot know with Absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow" But the best is C.S. Lewis again"" I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else"

We are not animals, because God made us that way, and fear of the Lord IS the beginning of knowledge and wisdom. I am not an intelectual or clever (as a lot of you think you are) at all.
I know i will be ridiculed and laughed at, so what, it is not what you think of me or God, that matters, what is of importance is what God thinks of me, and You, actually, that is of the utmost importance.

That is my truth, and if you love, in Gods way, you tell anyone, including this thread, and your own loved ones, your hard earned truth. They do not have to believe me,I do not expect that, they can take it or leave it. That is their right. Just like if you have children, do you not wish to hand them all the answers to life on a plate, so they do not have to go through all you have, but it does not work like that. They have to do it on their own.That is exactly what I did.

I do not think I will change made up minds , that is not my intention or reason I wrote this. We all owe it to ourselves, to believe our hard earned and researched with an open mind , truth (whatever that is)

"Are You Absolutely sure that what you are believing is the truth" Ok stupid question, I know the answer to that already.

I AM. and that is all that matters to ME.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 16:40 GMT

"When you realise what God is capable of, you are NOT impressed with what science(only man) can do. The above quote about which God ( of all the gods out there) is always used by atheists, is just stupid."

it's just so funny to see people post that.

for me THERE IS NO GOD, HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSE TO REALISE WHAT SOMETHING THAT DOESN"T EXIST IS CAPABLE OF.

in the very essence that entire statement is just god of the gaps repackaged.

"we don't understand it-> god dunnit. period."

wheras curious people would go

"we don't understand it->we try to figure out how it works"

and honest people would say:

"we don't understand it-> we may understand it in the future, its stupid to say that we will never know something and it's stupid to say that we will ever know everything."

(thereby dismissing god of the gaps as crap and yet still knowing that there will always be a gap that other people can fill with god.)

"The reason there are so many gods,and religions, is, it is in ALL humans to know there is more to this life,and wonder what the heck is the meaning of all this, like,:

maybe...or its because it's assuming there is a causal agent behind something unexplained is and survival booster (eg: lion in the bushes)

that coupled with the self reflection and self projection that humans have AND our habit of making up fantastic thing to explain unexplained thing out of hand....greek etiological myths any1?

again your entire arguement is god of the gaps and an appeal to ignorance.

"Why aren`t humans animals?"

damm I DIDN'T KNOW I WASN'T A :

": any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation"

!!!

oh w8...i am.

"Man will twist anything to suit his agenda."

including lying misinforming and mislleading people about things to convert people to their religion? like hovind does?

i have yet to see and icecomet that will cool the earth on impact.]

"The truth is, imo,"

exactly, as is your right.

and it is our right to analyze the arguements with wich you assault our position. weighing their merit and exposing the fallacies. and it'g you "God given rigth" to ignore them..

"Reading pages like this just makes me believe that more and more."

i might have an explanation for that. you have taken a postition where you will not under any circumstances change, because you must have reality conform with your beliefs. when any arguement is presented you automatically asume that its is founded in the same "reality" you have.

so when we say something like "god of the gaps" arugument. you will not recognize it as such because you cannot (or will not) acknowledge that in our arguments stem from our "reality" where THERE IS NO GOD. whereas in your reality the IS A GOD and the "god of the gaps" ISN"T a flawed arguement, but an valid explination.

"People have opinions and believe what they want, not always what they actually know, or really tried to find out, with an open mind and heart."

like creationist bashing evolution.

"They(people) do it all the time, they listen to the media(weapon of mass INSTRUCTION) friends and family, and just repeat it. THE actual truth is not even considered, it is the easy lazy way."

and that is suppose to "expose" us who take value critical thinking, good solid arguements and an open mind? whereas a christian familiy (and christian society in general) is rutinely bashe..ehm "enlightened" with scripture that must be believed uncontditionally (in some cases literally) and because of that, all of reality must bend to that belief. like again.,....creationist bashing science...

funny how you autoflamed your camp....

"I was open to everything, but honesty and integrity is what I was after"

/....and peer review is less honest then a evangelical preaching dino's ate plants?

" I have read countless opinions of people I do not agree with. That is how you start seeing the truth."

i read your opinion, but i don't agree with it.

"Imagine how far science would be, if they did not admit they were wrong and try again."

something that a unquestionable belief in god does not?

"I am not an intelectual or clever (as a lot of you think you are) at all."

ah yessss...the humble and "fogive them father for they do not know.."ish appeal to emotion.

for who would trusht those arrogant atheists?!

i am not arrogant. i just know that i have an higher intellect than the average person and i know i won't be snared by such "appeal to.." or

the hypocritical claim of an "elightened" literalist (not that i know you are one, i still have to hear you on the preferences when it comes to creation ect. however i have reason to believe you are a old earth flood creationists. am i rigth?)

"I know i will be ridiculed and laughed at, so what, it is not what you think of me or God, that matters, what is of importance is what God thinks of me, and You, actually, that is of the utmost importance."

(forgive them father for they do not kno.....)*zealotry

" They do not have to believe me,I do not expect that, they can take it or leave it. That is their right. "

then quit acting like you are being opressed by the "biased god denying atheists" (yes i jumped to a conclusion, based on my gut feeling of the atmosphere and style of your post)

""Are You Absolutely sure that what you are believing is the truth" Ok stupid question, I know the answer to that already."

LOOOOOL how is that a stupid question???! thats the basic question ANYONE SHOULD ASK HIMSELF ALL THE TIME!!!your answer goes hand in hand with unquestinable belief and denial of opposing arguements, and thus closemindedness. it's simply "i believe therefor it is"

(* note: i interpret the word "believe" in the question in the sense of acceptence on evidence, EG: i believe the world i round because of curve in the horizon)

*this question is:

it is the ESSENCE of peer review,

it is the ESSENCE of critical thinking.

it is the ESSENCE of curiousity and it is the essence of being openminded.

without asking ourselves that question what would stop us from thinking the earth flat when we hear it form the pope.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 17:05 GMT

i'm just gonna cut the grass out from under maylon if he wants to call me a closeminded, christian bashing, god denying, biased, arrogant atheist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

just watch this before you do.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 1:48 GMT

David Hume rightly stated "we cannot know with Absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow" But the best is C.S. Lewis again"" I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else"

There's no question that Lewis was a talented writer and had a gift for poetic turns-of-phrase - as that quote demonstrates.

That doesn't mean he had any sort of intellectually-valid argument, though. If I replace "Christianity" in that quote with "The giant tortoise on whose back the Earth rests," does that make it a convincing argument for a flat Earth?

We are not animals, because God made us that way, and fear of the Lord IS the beginning of knowledge and wisdom.

Conclusion does not follow from premise. At best, that's just tautological reasoning.

I know i will be ridiculed and laughed at, so what, it is not what you think of me or God, that matters, what is of importance is what God thinks of me, and You, actually, that is of the utmost importance.

Given that you're still posting here, it's obvious that it does matter to you.

I do not think I will change made up minds , that is not my intention or reason I wrote this.

Let me get this straight: you're arguing from a position of steadfast religious conviction - yet accusing others of being close-minded?

And that doesn't seem the least bit contradictory to you?

"Are You Absolutely sure that what you are believing is the truth" Ok stupid question, I know the answer to that already.

How convenient, since that (unfounded) presumption gives you an excuse to avoid providing any sort of intellectually-convincing argument.

Basically, your position is that you've made up YOUR mind that OUR minds are already made up.

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 11:57 GMT

"exactly. however that wasn't the point. just because we are mentally superior to other animals doesn't mean we are overall superior to them"

Really!!!!!, this is a waste of time, what is the point?. Write in plain English is a place to start.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 15:45 GMT

"Really!!!!!, this is a waste of time, what is the point?. Write in plain English is a place to start."

1) english is not my native language.

2) i write these post a little hastily and i know that most people can still understand something perfectly well even with typos.

3) can you digest nylon? no? well then that would make a bacteria who can supirior to you when it comes to digensting nylon. can you regrow a limb? can you lie in a muddy puddle with an open wound an not get ganggreen? can you sprint 90 km/h?

our intellect allows us to better understand the world around us, and by understanding we are able to manipulate it.

however asserting that that intellect suddenly makes us superior to all life is absurd, as there is still so much attributes of other organisms that we cannot reproduce. and no. i won't take "thats because god dunnit" for an answer because for me there is no god. that answer is the same as saying "it happened by magic". and why presume it must have been magic when we can find a natural explination.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 20:44 GMT

Write in plain English is a place to start.

You might want to try taking your own advice, chum.

For example, I'm assuming you meant to post "Writing in plain English is a place to start."

Of course the sentence is still rather awkward, even with that change. A better choice of words would have been "Writing in plain English would be a good place to start."

(emphasis: mine)

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 17:45 GMT

"i might have an explanation for that. you have taken a postition where you will not under any circumstances change, because you must have reality conform with your beliefs. when any arguement is presented you automatically asume that its is founded in the same "reality"

Pot calling the Kettle??? I am not here to bring you or anyone down, in the least, just stating MY beliefs, which I came to by starting from the point that I am or could be Wrong. i happen to use that for everything. Not just God.

I really have not the interest or time to persue this discussion. I am very happy with what I believe, and i really hope that you are too. As I said my own children have to find out for themselves about everything, I do not worry about them either. POINTLESS.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 18:30 GMT

ehm....that's why you fail?

(maylon)

(325AD)

it's just so funny to see people post that.

for me THERE IS NO GOD, HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSE TO REALISE WHAT SOMETHING THAT DOESN"T EXIST IS CAPABLE OF.

in the very essence that entire statement is just god of the gaps repackaged.

"we don't understand it-> god dunnit. period."

wheras curious people would go

"we don't understand it->we try to figure out how it works"

and honest people would say:

"we don't understand it-> we may understand it in the future, its stupid to say that we will never know something and it's stupid to say that we will ever know everything."

(thereby dismissing god of the gaps as crap and yet still knowing that there will always be a gap that other people can fill with god.)

pot calling kettle? i agree. although i am the kettle.

"which I came to by starting from the point that I am or could be Wrong. i happen to use that for everything. Not just God."

How convienient from you to prove my point, that is that you are not capable of thinking outside the "god box".

and then......you run away.

"POINTLESS."

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 20:38 GMT

Pot calling the Kettle???

Nope. The difference being that 325AD has actually tried to back up his argument, rather than just repeating unsubstantiated claims over and over again.

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 18:15 GMT

THERE IS NO GOD,

How can you possibly know that? That is so arrogant. I can not absolutely say there is a God either, just to ME, not you I realise that, the evidence points to a God. like I said it is the only way I can come to any conclusion on the topic, get All the evidence from everywhere, and follow that evidence. That is what I did. If that is what you have done fine. I repect that.

When all is said and done it really will not matter one way or the other if I am wrong, Pascal`s wager. Many people(atheists) think, and this is a quote from another thread, """"He(The Christian) Fails to see his loss is happening right now everyday in his life. Oh the irony"""" What loss???? How can anyone think anyone is losing out because of his beliefs.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 18:48 GMT

"THERE IS NO GOD,

How can you possibly know that? That is so arrogant."

ehm, would you please ALSO quote the PART WHERE I EXPLAINED THE SIGNIFICANCE AND THE REASON FOR THAT STATEMENT?!

or let me outline it for you again.

I, on analysis of evidence presented to me, draw a particulat conclusion on the nature of religion and the existance or lack thereof of a god.

"I can not absolutely say there is a God either, just to ME, not you I realise that, the evidence points to a God."

as i explained, you superimpose god onto something out of either ignorance (god of the gaps) and/or you dismiss counter agruments because you are unable to think outside the "godbox".

"like I said it is the only way I can come to any conclusion on the topic, get All the evidence from everywhere, and follow that evidence. That is what I did. If that is what you have done fine. I repect that."

and i agree...you are perfectly in your rigth to do that and i am perfectly in my right to to that too.

but similarly i am also perfectly in my right to expose the fallaceis in the presented argumetns and similarly you are perfect in your right to ignore them because of your beliefs or mental shortcomings ( NOT MEANT AS OFFENCE AGAIN IT REFERS TO "not outside the godbox")

"How can anyone think anyone is losing out because of his beliefs."

god says it's wrong to mastrubate (OR SO MANY CLAIM) or have sex before marriage....i call that missing out in life....but hey, that just the reproductively minded human that i am.

not that womens rights matter anyway aswell. women are al made out of man's rib anyway...their a mans property...XD

"When all is said and done it really will not matter one way or the other if I am wrong, Pascal`s wager. Many people(atheists) think, and this is a quote from another thread, """"He(The Christian) Fails to see his loss is happening right now everyday in his life. Oh the irony"""""

aah you actually try to discredit us with pascals wager?

the main point about the wager is that christians FAIL TO ENCORPORATE ALL THE OTHER GODS AND POSSIBLE SCENARIO"S OUT THERE! essentially turning the what if you'r wrong and you "burn in hell" around on themselves aswell. aka IRONY

which you omitted so "subtlely".

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 19:11 GMT

“Why are all animals in Zoo`s or game parks, or far off in the wilderness,or being ridden, milked, bred to be used or eaten by man, and not walking free down the street?”

Domesticating animals was not an easy process. Take cows as an example. The first cattle were massive bull-like creatures, not the black and white dairy cows we see today. Hunters would follow these wild herds, and kill off the strongest males. Eventually, only the most docile animals would remain. It’s not as if cows were submissive to us from the beginning, but our intelligence allowed us to alter nature so it better met our needs.

Does that make us special though? There are a lot of animals that have learned to change their surroundings to better suit their needs. Beavers build dams, and then use the calm pools they create to store food and make a home. Ants search for shrubs covered in aphids, and then proceed to build a dirt barrier around the shrub. The aphids produce a liquid that the ants eat, and in turn, the ants ward off predators from the shrub. The ants can actually increase the yield of this liquid by stroking the aphids with their antenna. Sounds like farming to me.

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 0:16 GMT

""" i just know that i have an higher intellect """
that says it all to me.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 9:41 GMT

""" i just know that i have an higher intellect """
that says it all to me."

if you say your intteclt is average and mine is tested above average then yes.

i have all the reason to say that and not sound arrogant.

Kent Clark (Brothertrucker)

1 day - 1,411v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 2:17 GMT

Let me explain something to you Maylan. This is Kent Hovinds web. Now regardless of how you feel about Hovinds work many evolutionists feel threatened by Hovind so they come here out of self defence.

They do not support logical arguments. They say stupid things and then wonder out loud (Actually in print) why no one has an answer for them. They are insecure little people without a life. I would ignore them like most everyone else does but I am an evolutionist myself. I came here because I am interested in Kents ideas, Im open to any idea that has relevance and like to share with other sincere people looking for knowledge.

That is not the environment here. Most people are okay but they are not the ones you hear from the most of the time. The ones who keep mouthing off and deriding others are extremely prejudicial and protectionist of theories that are not widely accepted by science. They quote stats like 80 or 90% of scientists support evolution assuming that all those scientists support their favourite blend of pseudo science. That is not the case.

I am not going to sight who believes in what because as far as I know there is no poll that goes that route but we have all been made extremely aware over the last few years that their is the likelihood that someday we will all look back and find no one behind us. As new discoveries are made those who do not embrace them are left behind. The world is becoming far more educated and evolved. It is very obvious this scares some. The rest of us embrace truth. Now if these clowns perform true to their history you will see them coming back on and finding fault with this statement and enquiring about what it is I do not understand like they were the sole posessors of knowledge. Stick with it though. you will soon discover some pretty amazing things if you can overlook the insanity.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 9:55 GMT

"Let me explain something to you Maylan. This is Kent Hovinds web. Now regardless of how you feel about Hovinds work many evolutionists feel threatened by Hovind so they come here out of self defence."

actually no. this is a hovind supporters web. and this is a free forum.

and I came here to troll creationist with logic. only to be troled byself be them. ain't that right bigdog?

"They do not support logical arguments."

oh yes, ofc we don't say:

"X is because of reason Y and Z"

look again kent.

" They are insecure little people without a life."

wow, saying that to someone who got himself out of a suicidal depression without god is kinda lame..

"They quote stats like 80 or 90% of scientists support evolution assuming that all those scientists support their favourite blend of pseudo science.'

coming form the guy who camps with the "66% of scientist believe in god and so secretly deny evolution" people.

whatyou are probably referring to is the single commen ancestor and abiogenesis. abiogenesis still beign receareched alot and still not a rock soldi theory. and a single commen ancestor still also under research. the idea of commen ancestory of entire brances is however, disputed ver little.

" As new discoveries are made those who do not embrace them are left behind."

again something coming form someone who "sides" with the people who reject there being transitional fossils just because their literal intepretation of a certain holy book doesn't allow then to understand what a transitional form is. croduck any?

"Now if these clowns perform true to their history you will see them coming back on and finding fault with this statement and enquiring about what it is I do not understand like they were the sole posessors of knowledge."

aah yes. that's liek the 5th time you said you had a problem with a certain theory and then you won't say what the theory is or what your (possible mis)understandment of the theory is.

GJ for fucking yourself over yet again.

PS i know nothing therefore i shal seek answers.

claimign to have insta truth about somethign is religions job, not science. everything i know so far i have gathered. and i have formulated my worldview accordingly. all i'm doing here is, in essece, exposing flaws in arguements and flaming you people for having the closemindedness of a walnut.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 2:04 GMT

Now regardless of how you feel about Hovinds work many evolutionists feel threatened by Hovind so they come here out of self defence.

Threatened? Don't flatter yourself, mate.

They are insecure little people without a life.

Looks like petitchein lent you his copy of "Internet Flaming 101." Try not to get too much drool on it.

I would ignore them like most everyone else does but I am an evolutionist myself.

Do you have any notion how clueless that statement makes you sound?

Considering who I'm asking, that might as well be a rhetorical question.

They quote stats like 80 or 90% of scientists support evolution assuming that all those scientists support their favourite blend of pseudo science. That is not the case.

Whereas you have yet to back even a SINGLE, solitary claim that you've made.

I see you're back to using the "monkey see, monkey do" approach again, by the way.

I am not going to sight who believes in what because as far as I know there is no poll that goes that route but we have all been made extremely aware over the last few years that their is the likelihood that someday we will all look back and find no one behind us.

"To make life whole, it's as easy as a bridge! We must come together as one, like a twin!"

See, you're not the only who can spout meaningless gibberish.

Now if these clowns perform true to their history you will see them coming back on and finding fault with this statement and enquiring about what it is I do not understand like they were the sole posessors of knowledge.

Awwww, waaaaah - we hurt his feewings again. Someone get the widdle baby his bottle.

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 10:41 GMT

"""Stick with it though. you will soon discover some pretty amazing things if you can overlook the insanity. """

That is exactly what I have always tried to do, although I have not found any really reasonable evolutionists yet, you could be the first. they are always so dogmatic and angry, which of course makes absoutely No sense to me, but I do try, as I feel there must be some good reasons why so many people believe this whole thing. I still however do not see what difference it makes what we believe, if we are only superior animals, as All our thoughts if we are animals, have no more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.
Thank you

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 12:22 GMT

"they are always so dogmatic and angry,"

oh yes the person who expose my logical fallacies and is capacble of critically takign apart my arguements one by one is a dogmatic person.

and he's angry because he he's frustrated at how i can continue to argue with my fallcies even when he's pointed them our and gave them a value that is next to nothign with his (absurdly high) standard of evidence to be convinced.......

or something like that no?

"as I feel there must be some good reasons why so many people believe this whole thing."

because it is a theory that explains accuraelty how stuff works and makes correct predictions? ever occur to you?

no kent don't try and pin "HOW CAN WE PREDICT WE DESENCED FROM MONKEIES!" on me. the predictions are along the line of "we should find a fusion point of 2 chromosones in the human genome to explain the missing cromosone we share with apes." and "we should find a more advanced then previous hominds, but less advanced homonid then later homonids in this strata layer".

oh ya and kent. you are a microevolution creationist rigth?

you however fail so see how many tiems micro =macro and the fact that YES we HAVE observed SPECIATION. please don't tell me you think speciation is going form a cat to a dog or somethign because then you haven't a clue as to how evolution explains speciation. or how the hell taxonomy supports the mechanism evolution gives us. which is chiefly natural selection.

PS:

ID ISN"T A THEORY. IT"S A HYPOTHESIS. AND ONE THAT HAS TO STILL PASS PEER REVIEW, DISPITE IT NOW BEING SCIENCE WHEN THEY PRESUME THE CREATOR WAS SUPERNATURAL ANYWAY.

....and if you didn't know that....

way to go "science buff"....

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 2:06 GMT

That is exactly what I have always tried to do, although I have not found any really reasonable evolutionists yet

Thank you for demonstrating the concept of "confirmation bias."

Oh, and you might get less-adverserial responses if you didn't use infantile labels like "evolutionists." Just a thought.

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 13:42 GMT

""""""""oh yes the person who expose my logical fallacies and is capacble of critically takign apart my arguements one by one is a dogmatic person.
and he's angry because he he's frustrated at how i can continue to argue with my fallcies even when he's pointed them our and gave them a value that is next to nothign with his (absurdly high) standard of evidence to be convinced.......
or something like that no?""""""""""

Oh please stop, stop, kidding yourself, you have not pointed out frustrated or convinced me of anything. Really how dillusional can someone be, Hope your age is the reason. Wisdom sometimes comes with age. I really hope that happens for you.

I am actually having a ball, for now, I tire quickly,of gibberish, but I always hope to maybe learn something. As I have said before I approach everything as if I could be Wrong, that is why I am here. What a waste of time, debating children. Kent Clark and a few others, are the only ones worth reading, but it is tiring trying to find them. All you are looking for is attention, so from now on I will hit the ignore button or seek fresh pastures.

All you have to do is imagine yourself when you say "I do not believe in God"(your belief) and then imagine the exact same degree of conviction on the opposite side,"I believe in God" (my belief) Very Very Easy really.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 14:08 GMT

"Oh please stop, stop, kidding yourself, you have not pointed out frustrated or convinced me of anything."

lol do you not poses humor? i trying to portray how you might view me.

I WAS THE ONE WHO is frustrated..its called satire.

"but I always hope to maybe learn something."

will you then try to peek outside the godbox and see everything from a different perspective?

"What a waste of time, debating children."

k THAT statement carries SOOO much history with me. i wasn't raised (12-17) by my parents. i was raised by some christian folks and they adopted EXACTLY the same arrogant attitude towards me explainign logical fallacies, and science. most likely the reason you adopt the same attitude is the same as their reason, namely the inability to think outside of the box and realize that YOU ARE IN FACT WRONG...which adds so much more irony to your

"As I have said before I approach everything as if I could be Wrong,"

and then you amke 1 exception and thats god. which mean you have your own can of insta Truth you can shake and spray in peoples faces.

"Kent Clark and a few others, are the only ones worth reading, but it is tiring trying to find them."

selectively choosing only likeminded views is not a good way to discover new things...

a ghos beleiver won't find the proof of ghosts in his circle fo beleivers but in the acknowledgement of the ghost deniers.

that is also how science works. falsify and don't boost.

"All you have to do is imagine yourself when you say "I do not believe in God"(your belief) and then imagine the exact same degree of conviction on the opposite side,"I believe in God" (my belief) Very Very Easy really."

EXACTLY! and with that you have outlined how someone could not think outside the godbox.

because it doesn't work the other way around as easiliy god->no god

since your "god view" requires you to always acknoledge his existance. where as mine (beign an agnostic) say well there MIGTH, but i don't see the evidence.

however here comes the snake in the grass.

i look at one piece of evidence and i see a natural explination

OR i call it unexplained.

you look at the same evidence and see a natural explination

OR call it god.

and by calling it god you "revalidate or proof" god's existance to your mind. this is the flaw in the logic, it's circular reasoning.

god exists > god "explaines" the unexplained> god exists because he "explains" the unexplained> so go exists.

it REQUIRES a presumption to BE true.

whereas MY reasoning would go

no Belief in god> unexplained phenomena> i try explain (science/logic)

Yes> natural explaniation

no> it's unexplained > i might explain this later (natural expl later)

> this might be god (unexplained> GOD OF GAP)

do you understand now? do you udnerstand that i must require of you to think outside the godbox before you can understand me.

and don't bounce the ball back to me with "i require you to think inside the godbox" I CAN, i just explained how that worked. it;s just that in my experience saying god exists requires a lot more presumptions and "insta truth" which i refuse to accept as enoguh proof because it requires my to forgo logical consistancy on some points.

oh and if validating god nonexistance as an atheist would is ALSO circular reasoning if only it weren't for that branching steps at

explained> no god

unexplained> explain later

> god?(unexplained)

Kent Clark (Brothertrucker)

1 day - 1,411v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 14:22 GMT

I would like to thank you all for that amazing input some of you have actually gone a long way today to prove animals are more advanced then man. Thats truely a priceless argument 325 you really thought that through and because you do not have the ability to recognize humour, THAT WAS SATIRE. Actually that theory your strokin has made a stack of incorrect assumptions and dont ask me for a quote like a half wit, read a book, youll find them amazing little things. Yes Maylon many evolutionists, probably most of us believe God created each of us with inalienable abilities and since then the world has continued to evolve. Some of us believe it will some day evolve to a perfect place like Isaiah describes.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 16:32 GMT

I would like to thank you all for that amazing input some of you have actually gone a long way today to prove animals are more advanced then man."

-_- jackass.

we said on specific attributes, like muscle strength. but that is irrelevent ANYWAY because the big question was :

why aren't humans "any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation" ?

"Thats truely a priceless argument 325 you really thought that through"

ehm..no not rly. thats basic logic. that's what we teach 16 year olds nowadays to evaluate wtf they are being told for merit. but hey, what would you care

"THAT WAS SATIRE"

"Yes Maylon many evolutionists, probably most of us believe God.."

and that probably where the quote should end, but no. you go on to claim that he majority believes YOUR version, which is creationism without natural selection creating new species (aka to you as macroevolution). which btw is:

"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels."

http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

which as the defenition IS EVEN compatable with creationism! god could ahve created cats, that split into lion and panthers ect. but is also compatable with abiogensesis, because 1 "species" of cell could split into many new "species" with cladogenesis.

(read rest of page before you start your usual bashing, you might learn something)

"created each of us with inalienable abilities and since then the world has continued to evolve."Some of us believe it will some day evolve to a perfect place like Isaiah describes."

believe what you want, I never said you couldn't, but when you want to convince others of your views and your arguemtns hold no merit. don't whine. and this is the reason i am posting here. exposign the flaws in your arguements. in a hope that you might just see how you've become (tricked in a way) to being a supporter of "god dunnit" creationism.

oh and kent

you are a creationist. you are only evolutionist in the way that you acknowledge "microevolution".

but HEY i could be wrong on your stance there SEEING AS YOU DIDN"T FILL IN YOU STATS BUT JUST TROLLED.

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 18:05 GMT

Actually 325, you did make some sense this time. What interests me is why people believe things. My problem still is, I thought science was NOT about believing but finding things out. The verb believe generally expresses a weak opinion, like," Where is James?",Gone to America I believe, Not sure in other words. I still have not had any proof of anything, in evolution anyway.

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 18:45 GMT

If saying you believe in something makes your opinion weak, then religion is probably the weakest opinion out there. The Apostles’ Creed starts out with the line, “I believe in God, the Father Almighty...”

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 18:50 GMT

It takes more faith to believe that we came from monkey-like creatures.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 20:07 GMT

"It takes more faith to believe that we came from monkey-like creatures."

well at least you quit using the strawman:

"It takes more faith to believe that we came from monkies"

that's some progress.

but let me ask you this:

is it more likely we where formed by some magical skydaddy who needed someone to praise his almighty perfection (why would a perfect being need worship? shouldn't a perfect beign be above needs?) AND:

-we were made out of clay.

-everything was formed like it was now.

-ect...you know the drill.

now undoubtibly you will say yes bigdog.

-and then comes my question: 'why do you think so?"

-and then you try to explain or convince me.

-and then i evaluate your arguemtns for the logical consistancy and merit.

-and then i draw a conlcusion based on that evaluation, using my standard of evidence and my interpretation.

-and then i give my evaluation.

(see how it goes maylon?)

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 2:10 GMT

I see you're still operating under the belief that you make an unsupported claim true, just repeating it over and over and over again.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 20:01 GMT

"My problem still is, I thought science was NOT about believing but finding things out."

science is indeed about finding things out. but you the word "believe" can be used very loosly.

you can use it anywhere from "accepting on faith" to "accepting on evidence"

the former defenition of course meaning that it is based on no evidence "of very weak" and the latter meaning it can be based on cold hard fact.

bu then again you can also "stretch" the defenition of faith to encompass accepting hard facts.

EG :"i have beliele a miracle (supernatural so no science need apply) happened on faith"

"I believe you" (you could still be lying but you'll accept his words as true)

"i believe the earth orbits the sun" (that of course being backed by scientific evidence)

the thing with believing in faith is, that you do not need to find out more about it for you to accept it as true.

when you completely ingore faith , you have to active seek the valid evidence that must convince you or someone else that a certain thing is "true".

"My problem still is, I thought science was NOT about believing but finding things out."

how you interpret evidence and what your standard is determines when you will find somehting true.

(interpetation)

-so if you interpret ..lets say..equalibrium reactions (like weak acids) as proof that god is actively keeping things in check. you will use it as evidence for god.

-if i interpret it as a natural process that happens due to certain character of matter. i use it as evidence for a natural process.

(standard)_

-if your standard of evidence is low you might accept the existance of ghosts just by taking someone's word for it.

-if your standard of evidence is high you will not acknowledge the existance of ghost just on someone's word. maby you like to "see to believe"? or maybe you need to see calculations and simulations in a test environment?

so it is entirely popssible that you have been given the same evidence. and have concluded something entirely different.

but who of us is rigth? and that is where logic and discussion comes in.

-did we look at the evidence like it was and not what we wanted to see?

- did we need to make a lot of presumptions before with out interpetation? (depending on how you view god it requires more or less, a fundie requires more then an agnostic theist.)

Kent Clark (Brothertrucker)

1 day - 1,411v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 5:49 GMT

Your right Isabella the idea of religion is based on the human condition being weak and needing assistance from a God. I certainly do not believe in the theory of natural selection to the point of crossing species and I have some arguments with survival of the fittest which was not Darwins argument by the way. I do believe of course that natural selection takes place, just not as described in some theories. I do understand the prevailing intelligence cannot go past a theory though so please stick with the script.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 9:15 GMT

"I certainly do not believe in the theory of natural selection to the point of crossing species"

1) natural selection doesn't say we cross species.

it says they diverge. BRANCHING = NO COROCDUCK

2)you're just cherry picking your parts so you can call yourself and "evolutionist" and not lose the initial credebility of beign called a downright "creationist".

3) anyone with an basic knowledge of natural selection knows that "crossing speices" kind of natural selection is an creationist misrepresentation or misunderstanding. you know the kind of natural selection that brings forth a crocoduck?

"I have some arguments with survival of the fittest which was not Darwins argument by the way"

it was his arguement, but that discription (which WAS coined by soemone else) fitted the arguement better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

" just not as described in some theories."

like....common ancestory? that theory that explains how we evolved form lesser organisms and weren't made out of clay by a magical sky daddy? the one that is accepted nearly the entire scientific community.

oh and when i refer to magical skydaddy i am referring to that supernatural "our farther, who art in heaven".

". I do believe of course that natural selection takes place"

going form you previous post you porbalby mean "i accept micro evolution, not macro evolution"

you migth want to learn exactly what a species is called in biology and how 1 species can differate into 2 different species.

no not cats splitting into dogs and snakes

but cat becoming a certain cat that cannot reporciate with another certain cat because he's been genetically isolated to long.

and then that process will continue untill the morphological and genetic changes are so grand we can't call it a cat any more, but "baboozle....or whatever"

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 11:37 GMT

""""""""If saying you believe in something makes your opinion weak, then religion is probably the weakest opinion out there. The Apostles’ Creed starts out with the line, “I believe in God, the Father Almighty...”"""""""

I do not see that, as opinions(beliefs) can only mean something if there is a God, it makes no sense to me, to believe anything really, unless there is a God. My reason is this, and I actually do see what 325 was saying up thread, but that can all be turned around and say, science also has huge gaps as well. So my point is this, what does it really matter what we all believe, if it all ends in nothing. Why are we all here looking for answers anyway? If we are just superior animals , which a lot here do not even think we are. I am not trying to convince anyone , just thinking out loud so to speak.

All we have is 80 -90 yrs in this world, if we are very lucky. My belief makes a lot more sense if only for the peace of mind it gives, and it definitely is not all it gives me. I do not understand, why people are so offended by my beliefs when their beliefs lead to nihilism. Why do you even care, not sure that is the right word, maybe why does it so upset annoy whatever others who do not believe. I do not understand that at all. Why cant we just accept people have different beliefs and leave it like that. Why does someone always have to be right. Obviously one of us is wrong, and there is at the end of it all no proof who is.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 13:46 GMT

"but that can all be turned around and say, science also has huge gaps as well."

!!!that was the entire point!

that is the entire "god of the gaps" arguement

:"science doesn't explain it, so god must have done it!"

, which to atheists isn't any evidence at all

whereas a person who presuems there is NO GOD simply says.

: science doesn't explain it, maybe it will in 5 years (or agnostically) maybe it never will, but must we presume it is (a specific god) god then?

"If we are just superior animals , which a lot here do not even think we are."

again why are we not a biological animal? we share just about every characteristic of animals save for a few. which only determine us as specific animals but still animals. look at the biological defenition of animal.

how can you conclude form that that we are not animal>vertebrate>mammalian>ape (homonidea).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc&feature=channel

watch that and think about it.

"My belief makes a lot more sense if only for the peace of mind it gives,"

noooo not rly. comfort isn't a criteria for making sense.

i can believe in a fairy bringing me joy everytime i eat chocolate.

does that make it any less absurd?

"why people are so offended by my beliefs when their beliefs lead to nihilism."

i'm not offended by your beliefs. i am offended by you calling me closeminded and my thought being controlled by the sin that only you believe exists.

(btw) nihilist wouldn't give a crap about your beleifs. for them nothing matters.

" maybe why does it so upset annoy whatever others who do not believe"

thats not it. what annoys us that that you present to have the truth and all the answers and then back it up with claims that can't stand basic scrutiny (like hovind's cliams) and THEN you call US deluded. because WE do NOT ACCEPT YOUR belief.

"Why cant we just accept people have different beliefs and leave it like that"

we can. but not when they want to convince us they are right. then we need to look at their arguments merits and value. and that is why we "fight" creationists.

or would you just have religion taught as science?

"Why does someone always have to be right."

because if you aren't "right", how will you convince us to do something? or vice versa.

"Obviously one of us is wrong, and there is at the end of it all no proof who is."

indeed.

but there is evidence.

"ice comets hittign the earht will cool it"

"no they won't"

"yes they will"

"no they won't, becasue with the speed your comet would have had the friction and the impact would have released so much energy is actually wwarmed up the earth"

"you're just makign that up"

"/ pulls out graph and explains kinetic and potential energy, plots a grahp and calculates the speed at which the comet would traveling and so the amount of energy it would release on impact. and then sets that up against the bench mark of the amount of energy it would tkae to heat and melt the comet to earth temperature.

...line intersect at specific speed.

speed is then compared agaisn speeds of comets still flying around.

see you're wrong"

".....you're right..i was wrong"

however you are PROBABLY referring to "does god exists?" in which case you misunderstood what an agnostic is.

my opinion.

there "might" be a god. i just haven't seen the evidence for it. so for me he doesn't exist. yet.

your response will probably be "there IS a (your specific) god".

whereapon i ask you.

"prove it to me"

you give your proof

i evaluate it. and draw my conclusion.

(and this the step i bash you for logical fallacies and appeals to ... and other screwy arguments)

Just saying "there is because i think so", isn't any proof to others at all.

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 15:39 GMT

i'm not offended by your beliefs. i am offended by you calling me closeminded and my thought being controlled by the sin that only you believe exists.
(btw) nihilist wouldn't give a crap about your beleifs. for them nothing matters.

In that case to me the nihilist is right, as nothing does matter, if you do not believe in God.I just think that premise applies to everyone who does not believe in God. That is my Opinion not anyone elses
I really did understand all you said, upthread,you do not have to repeat. I have never called you closed minded. I actually have noticed you do have loads of intelligence, and your typing( has actually improved) The fact that you are 17 and Dutch is also impressive, I certainly could not be so articulate in another language at all.

Point is one of us is wrong, (about our beliefs). That is a FACT, funny thing is, you obviously care very much, although I do care, I do not care about that Fact. What I think I have realised is we just go round and round in never ending circles, not really getting anywhere.

you present to have the truth

No I have not. I have presented my truth, and have not told anyone they are delusional, or what they should believe, If anything I have learned is, that it is pointlesss.

whereapon i ask you.
"prove it to me"

I have been looking for years, and never had any concrete "proof" of evolution (macro)in a plain easy to understand non scientic jargon way.

Maybe it is all down to what we WANT to believe in the end. Some people want this another wants that. All people believe what they want to about evidence(what evidence you think is right you believe and visa versa) anyway.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 17:42 GMT

"In that case to me the nihilist is right, as nothing does matter, if you do not believe in God."

no. not rly. you di read my entire post where i explained my meaning in life as formulated by my atheistic world view didn't you?

life is living. living is reproducing. intellect is giving your life an meaning of it's own. but please, read the post again.

"I just think that premise applies to everyone who does not believe in God. That is my Opinion not anyone elses
I really did understand all you said, upthread,you do not have to repeat."

apperantly i did or otherwise you wouldn't have made the previous claim.

your opinion might be your opinion but it ignores reality, and that is that you are wrong. god is not a requirement to life. my example proves that.

"I have never called you closed minded."

no but you have implied so.

and all the OTHER creationist have called me that, maby not in those words. ain't that right kent?

"Point is one of us is wrong, (about our beliefs). That is a FACT,"

Noooooo. again you missed the point. i am AGNOSTIC. i DIDN't say "there is no god" i said "i have not seen sufficient evidence for his existance, so i conlcude , for now, that he doesn't exist. so FOR ME there is no god."

i DID NOT give any DEFINITIVE statement. so the only one who can be wrong here is you. i am have not taken any part of the issue yet.

yet IF you try to CONVINCE me. i WILL point out how your SUPPORTING EVIDENCE is insufficient reason for me to conclude the existance of A or YOUR SPECIFIC god. IF that is the case. and untill now. it has been.

"I have been looking for years, and never had any concrete "proof" of evolution (macro)in a plain easy to understand non scientic jargon way."

let me give it to you then.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

and that's just a start.

(oh and please don;t say "biased anti creationist" because the article are done by actual scientists and scientist try to be as unbiased as possible..unlike most creaionists"

oh and YES that is macroevolution speciation.

look up the actual defenition of macro evolution BEFORE you say" that's not like cats turning into turtles"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

oh and if you plan to understand a scientific theory, if "might" be smart to actually LEARN a bit of the jargon and the mechanics of science.

it's like saying you don't accept that mozart was a muscial wunderkind when you have no idea of classical music, or how to play the piano.

"Maybe it is all down to what we WANT to believe in the end."

and that is what science minded person try to NOT do.

because no matter how hard you want to believe that (EG) an ice comet cools the earth. the evidence shows otherwise. same goes with the rest of science. and even if you do try to "bend it", peer review will crush you.

"All people believe what they want to about evidence(what evidence you think is right you believe and visa versa) anyway."

which a scientist tries to minimalize by trying to write his observation down as objectively as possible. (you won't find any "now god/science makes the water boil" there.)

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 22:10 GMT

"I have never called you closed minded."
no but you have implied so.

Ok Ok I admit I was sarcastic and said that you must write English better and type better, and you seemed 6 etc LOL it was a joke. That was before I was learned that you are only 17 and Dutch, Appologies, I think you have been harder on me than I on you, but it really is not important, and I do not mind.

Point is I have come to my world veiw over many years, probably more than you have been alive.I

"""i DID NOT give any DEFINITIVE statement. so the only one who can be wrong here is you"""""

If that is not giving a definite statement, what is

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 22:45 GMT

"i have not seen sufficient evidence for his existance, so i conlcude , for now, that he doesn't exist. so FOR ME there is no god.""

maylon. did you notice that part where it said " ,for now,"

being an agnostic basically means that you believ that the existance of god can never be disproven, so no by default, i have not made a definitive conflicting statement with you. and i never will, untill i quit being agnostic that is.

i can however take apart the arguments YOU present as evidence for god. like quoting bible verses.

i will explain to you WHY they are not sufficient evidence FOR ME to conclude "There is a god." WHICH IS taking a definitive position.

you say: "there is"

i say: "there might"

YOU however make a definitive claim so it is up to YOU to give evidence. if you intend to convince me or anyone else.

now lets get hypothetical!!!!!

IF i said there wasn't a god, as a definitive statement YOU are perfectly in your right to say "proof it".

my arguement to disprove god will then focus on disproving your particular "version" of god (aka disproving the bible or the christian god), or the entire concept of god (using psychology, history and science). the former beign A LOT harder then the latter btw.

HOWEVER. in such a discussion I will ALSO be completly in my right to say "WELL, YOU prove there is a god!". this is an effective and honest counter. it will end up to a matter of courtisy over who gets so prove what (most of the times it's the person who does the initial claim)

now why is this important, and why can this stratagy be taken in this discussion?

because THIS is a case where a false dichotomy CANNOT be made.

IF i am correct, you are wrong and vice versa. there is either a god, or there is not.

X is or X is not.

HOWEVER. this ONLY applies to the most VAGUE defenition of "god".

a false dichotomy CAN be made IF i say" i disproved the christian god, so therefore, there is no god" because there are other "gods" besides the christian god.

(I HAVE to back up my claim, you are not required)

HOWEVER. false dichotomy DOES NOT APPLY WHEN i make the statement: "i have disproved your christian god, so YOUR CHRISTIAN GOD DOES NOT EXIST"

why? because there either IS your specific "version" of the christian god, OR there is NOT a "your specific "version" of the christian god".

(we BOTH HAVE to back up our claims)

sci,

if i banged the logic here, please correct me. im to tired to to check thoroughly now..-_- it's 1 AM!

rationalist (ben)

3 days - 3,596v

Posted 2009/04/15 - 2:03 GMT

Mylon,

You are closed minded. You have said that you only read posts by people that say what you want to hear because you can agree with them. Your inability to read the other side shows you are closed minded.

Here is what would greatly benefit you. Look at most of the threads where any question has come up and see how people have argued from their points of view. Some have used reason and logic. I observe A, B, and C so I expect this to explain it. Or saying if I observe X, Y, or Z it would invalidate my point of view.

Some use arguments like "everyone knows" (appeal to authority), "I can't see that happening" (argument from incredulity), "man came from monkeys"/"nothing exploded and made everything"/"man came from a rock" (strawman argument), "you were wrong about how much Hovind charges for DVDs so nothing you say can be true" (ad hominem), or "what about (unrelated fact)" (red herring).

You say that believing in God is like not believing in God but that is not logical. Now if you say you believe in God and I say I believe in invisiable faries that hear my thoughts and change the world to suit me and will welcome me into fairy land after I die then you will have a point. You a believing in something that has no proof and no evidence to support it. That is what makes it a belief. C.f. Hebrews 11

Even thinking theists cannot reject evolution. That is why Miller accepts evolution. That is where the evidence points.

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/04/15 - 5:27 GMT

I think your the closed minded one my friend. You see monkey skulls and DNA and say that proves evolution. That is the only explanation you will accept. The logical explanation is that we have a similar designer. I call him GOD. You believe we're all here by accident since your an athiest. That as well is not rational.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/15 - 7:03 GMT

"You see monkey skulls and DNA and say that proves evolution."

if'd you put the word "prove" in marks you might have passed of. SCIENCE DOESN'T OFFER PROOF. it only offers the most valid explination.

and again your entire point is...

-an argument for incrudility (you do not understand what in science made us tcome the the conclusion of evolution)

- strawmen or a lie...if you ignored our explinations that is.. ("You believe we're all here by accident since your an athiest.That as well is not rational.")

- bashing ("That is the only explanation you will accept.") i will accept whatever the evidence points to!! NOT WHAT I READ IN A BOOK THAT SAIS WE WERE MADE OUT OF CLAY BY SOME MAGICAL SKYDADDY (your supernatural "our father who art in heaven" so NOT a strawman).

rationalist (ben)

3 days - 3,596v

Posted 2009/04/15 - 15:29 GMT

You are free to think that I am closed minded but what action have I taken to show that I do not consider any evidence that you offer. I watch you movies you post. I read the links. That is why I am able to come back and point out the flaws. It is not closed minded to find evidence lacking if there is a foundational basis for rejection.

As pointed out I never said anything proves evolution. Evolution is the model that best fits the evidence. All it takes is finding one thing that is counter the model for it to be rejected. Find a human and a dinosaur together. Then the evolution model will be rejected.

It is not evolution or God. If you disprove evolution then that doesn't prove God. It could just as easily prove magical invisable dragons.

Neither humans nor apes show signs of design. They show signs of slow tinkering with structures that are terrible for our use. That is evidence of common decent and not common design.

So athiests believe that we are all here by accident? Okay.

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/15 - 21:32 GMT

"""""""""You say that believing in God is like not believing in God but that is not logical"""""""""

Sorry you have lost me, I would never say that.

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 58 Replies

PlexPedia - The unified online compendium of knowledge

- My Settings

This website is powered by Plexpedia
Usage of this site constitutes agreement to the » Legal Stuff