Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

First topic message reminder :

Just thinking about the comments you sometimes see -- "Scientists once thought the Sun revolves around the Earth." "Scientists once thought we think with our hearts." "Scientists once though leeches could cure you of illnesses."

No, no and no. None of the people who thought those things were scientists in the modern sense of the word; none of them used the scientific method to reach their conclusions.

In fact, most "science" before the mid-1800s was quite haphazard and prone to guessing and overall shoddy work. Leonardo DaVinci was the rare exception before the advent of modern science who put it quite poetically:

"Many think that they can with reason blame me, alleging that my proofs are contrary to the authority of certain men held in great reverence by their inexperienced judgments, not considering that my works are the issue of simple and plain experience which is the true mistress.

These rules enable you to know the true from the false – and this induces men to look only for things that are possible and with due moderation – and they forbid you to use a cloak of ignorance, which will bring about that you attain to no result and despair abandon yourself to melancholy."

I think it would be fair to say that comparing the "scientists" who came before the widespread use of the scientific method to today's scientists would be like comparing witch doctors to modern physicians.

... um, discuss.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


And?

It is a clear a set time period of 6 days, the same as the bible, just because the Quran claims the length of a time of a day is, does not mean it is different to the bible does it?
Seriously the number is the key, 6, both are the same in both books.

Are you now disputing that, odd that the number is chosen the same in both, you are debating the length of a day, not how many days

DOH

You do know there's a diffence between 6 cm and 6 meters? Both are 6. Are they the same?

Dear me, this is getting hilarious now

Irrelevant, where does the bible state a day is 24 hours in creation.

Thus the key again is 6 what is classed as days for creation, the same.

The number 6 is used in both, that is the key, now you quibble over the length of that day when the bible does not state in the creation story this length of time.

Do you have any biblical verse that shows a day to the biblical god is 24 hours?  
It says morning and evening but does not describe how long this actually is.

You see I do know the Quran very well Zack as you should well know, thus your argument is flawed

6 days in both, thus the same

well this seems to think the koran says 8 days..

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i010.html   

Phil, I think we're wasting our time, for they keep using diversionary tactics to try to divert from the truth. Fuzzy likewise, following my comment about the Koran being a copy of the OT, asked if the Koran mentioned Mary. Who cares? We've made our point which they cannot refute.

Once more Fuzzy, I ask have you read the first paragraph of the House of Imran in your Koran?

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You do know there's a diffence between 6 cm and 6 meters? Both are 6. Are they the same?

Dear me, this is getting hilarious now

Irrelevant, where does the bible state a day is 24 hours in creation.

Thus the key again is 6 what is classed as days for creation, the same.

The number 6 is used in both, that is the key, now you quibble over the length of that day when the bible does not state in the creation story this length of time.

Do you have any biblical verse that shows a day to the biblical god is 24 hours?  
It says morning and evening but does not describe how long this actually is.

You see I do know the Quran very well Zack as you should well know, thus your argument is flawed

6 days in both, thus the same

Is that your only evidence of plagiarism? Lol!

What about the portion of the Quran that contradicts the Bible?

Or as I was mentioning to Sd - what about the story of Mary which is not included in the Bible?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Dear me, this is getting hilarious now

Irrelevant, where does the bible state a day is 24 hours in creation.

Thus the key again is 6 what is classed as days for creation, the same.

The number 6 is used in both, that is the key, now you quibble over the length of that day when the bible does not state in the creation story this length of time.

Do you have any biblical verse that shows a day to the biblical god is 24 hours?  
It says morning and evening but does not describe how long this actually is.

You see I do know the Quran very well Zack as you should well know, thus your argument is flawed

6 days in both, thus the same

Is that your only evidence of plagiarism? Lol!

What about the portion of the Quran that contradicts the Bible?

Or as I was mentioning to Sd - what about the story of Mary which is not included in the Bible?

That means fuck all, to plagiarized as the bible has done is you try and make the story your own, sadly echoes of that story is mirrored in other tales, so it does not matter if they match word for word, only the theme matters to point to plagiarism.

You think because they are different makes the Quran exempt from this claim?

Don't be daft, the bible is formed from many such claims, have you never read the creation myths of the Sumarians?
Until you do, then you might grasp what I am talking about, or how about the Aten?

stardesk wrote:Phil, I think we're wasting our time, for they keep using diversionary tactics to try to divert from the truth. Fuzzy likewise, following my comment about the Koran being a copy of the OT, asked if the Koran mentioned Mary. Who cares? We've made our point which they cannot refute.

Once more Fuzzy, I ask have you read the first paragraph of the House of Imran in your Koran?

Hi Satrdesk

What you say is true, and it is daft for a Muslim to deny this, when their faith is based upon the same deity. To claim their version is right based upon not only God getting wrong once backing the wrong horse in the Jews, to then send his only son and thus get that wrong, which Islam recognize as a Prophet , to then claim no all that was wrong because some chap who can not read and write is going to rewrite everything that was already meant to be the word of God twice before. Which is odd being God is infallible and could get the message wrong twice across to people, that he would need a third time to get it right.
I mean what sort of plan is god playing?

"I have a great plan, I shall introduce racism and exalt all Hebrews above others, no wait hang on a minute, erm lets change that, how about I have a son, who is really just me, made flesh, suffer unbelievable pain and die to save everyone, no wait that plan is not going to work, lets find a desert dweller again, but claim he cannot read and write, that will make people believe in me."

DOH

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Is that your only evidence of plagiarism? Lol!

What about the portion of the Quran that contradicts the Bible?

Or as I was mentioning to Sd - what about the story of Mary which is not included in the Bible?

That means fuck all, to plagiarized as the bible has done is you try and make the story your own, sadly echoes of that story is mirrored in other tales, so it does not matter if they match word for word, only the theme matters to point to plagiarism.

You think because they are different makes the Quran exempt from this claim?

Don't be daft, the bible is formed from many such claims, have you never read the creation myths of the Sumarians?
Until you do, then you might grasp what I am talking about, or how about the Aten?

"That means fuck all" is the basis of your argument? HA HA!

For a historian who claims to deal in fact, you seem to be dealing in a lot of claims. Tut tut.

I'm not taking about word for word - say when it comes to the story of Mary or the quite specific contradictions such as Jesus did not die on the cross. Where did those accounts come from?

Your analysis is weak - and probably just like your science, biased towards your own belief system.

PhilDidge wrote:

stardesk wrote:Phil, I think we're wasting our time, for they keep using diversionary tactics to try to divert from the truth. Fuzzy likewise, following my comment about the Koran being a copy of the OT, asked if the Koran mentioned Mary. Who cares? We've made our point which they cannot refute.

Once more Fuzzy, I ask have you read the first paragraph of the House of Imran in your Koran?

Hi Satrdesk

What you say is true, and it is daft for a Muslim to deny this, when their faith is based upon the same deity. To claim their version is right based upon not only God getting wrong once backing the wrong horse in the Jews, to then send his only son and thus get that wrong, which Islam recognize as a Prophet , to then claim no all that was wrong because some chap who can not read and write is going to rewrite everything that was already meant to be the word of God twice before. Which is odd being God is infallible and could get the message wrong twice across to people, that he would need a third time to get it right.
I mean what sort of plan is god playing?

"I have a great plan, I shall introduce racism and exalt all Hebrews above others, no wait hang on a minute, erm lets change that, how about I have a son, who is really just me, made flesh, suffer unbelievable pain and die to save everyone, no wait that plan is not going to work, lets find a desert dweller again, but claim he cannot read and write, that will make people believe in me."

DOH

Are you ready to be taught everything there is to learn? In your sheer arrogance and pride, I bet you say yes.

Deep down, when you're honest with yourself, you'll realise how wrong you were.

One religion comes after another so we have time to absorb the new standard of living. It's that simple, you missed it. That's the fault of your arrogance.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

That means fuck all, to plagiarized as the bible has done is you try and make the story your own, sadly echoes of that story is mirrored in other tales, so it does not matter if they match word for word, only the theme matters to point to plagiarism.

You think because they are different makes the Quran exempt from this claim?

Don't be daft, the bible is formed from many such claims, have you never read the creation myths of the Sumarians?
Until you do, then you might grasp what I am talking about, or how about the Aten?

"That means fuck all" is the basis of your argument? HA HA!

For a historian who claims to deal in fact, you seem to be dealing in a lot of claims. Tut tut.

I'm not taking about word for word - say when it comes to the story of Mary or the quite specific contradictions such as Jesus did not die on the cross. Where did those accounts come from?

Your analysis is weak - and probably just like your science, biased towards your own belief system.

Dear me you do clutch at straws, the reality is the Quran and bible share many themes and characters, thus being as the biblical works were formed before the Quran, it is easy to see that the Quran is nothing more than a copy and extension of these works, mainly because there is no proof Muhammad could not read and write and even from the dubious traditions surrounding him, he had followers who most certainly could and knew both Christianity and Judaism.

So it is easy to take a core story and turn it into something that fits your view. As stated what is really absurd from the Quran more than any is it claims to follow the previous two, Christianity and Judaisms, but clearly Allah was not very good and getting his message across first the people he exalted above all others, which is odd as he actually is meant to have appeared to them on several occasions. Sends his son, though Islam sees him as a Prophet, this again failed from the islamic view point, to then use a third different view point through an arab. Clearly this God is not very good at getting his view point over, if we are to believe the Quran that is, because twice he would have failed.

Mate my history can wipe the floor with you and clearly I acknowledge your science is way better than mine, except you were not smart enough in that debate, because time left you fell apart ha ha.
Now you can continue to act like a 2 year old or debate like an adult, your choice

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Hi Satrdesk

What you say is true, and it is daft for a Muslim to deny this, when their faith is based upon the same deity. To claim their version is right based upon not only God getting wrong once backing the wrong horse in the Jews, to then send his only son and thus get that wrong, which Islam recognize as a Prophet , to then claim no all that was wrong because some chap who can not read and write is going to rewrite everything that was already meant to be the word of God twice before. Which is odd being God is infallible and could get the message wrong twice across to people, that he would need a third time to get it right.
I mean what sort of plan is god playing?

"I have a great plan, I shall introduce racism and exalt all Hebrews above others, no wait hang on a minute, erm lets change that, how about I have a son, who is really just me, made flesh, suffer unbelievable pain and die to save everyone, no wait that plan is not going to work, lets find a desert dweller again, but claim he cannot read and write, that will make people believe in me."

DOH

Are you ready to be taught everything there is to learn? In your sheer arrogance and pride, I bet you say yes.

Deep down, when you're honest with yourself, you'll realise how wrong you were.

One religion comes after another so we have time to absorb the new standard of living. It's that simple, you missed it. That's the fault of your arrogance.

Wow a counter telling me I am wrong, where did you learn such debating skills Zack?
The Quran is just an extension of the bible to give Arabs a religion, as seen the stupidity that it acknowledges the works before it shows this deity is flawed and makes mistakes, being as that would mean twice his messsage would have failed, something you cannot seem to grasp.
Its up to you id you want faith and good luck to you but it is a sign of ignorance to hold faith in something that has no evidence. This even more so with the Quran which its formation and even worse the hadiths are all clearly suspect, being as the later do not exist until a couple of centuries after and no complete Quran exists for well over a hundred years after either.

The historicity of the Quran is plagued with problems, because everything is down to traditions

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Are you ready to be taught everything there is to learn? In your sheer arrogance and pride, I bet you say yes.

Deep down, when you're honest with yourself, you'll realise how wrong you were.

One religion comes after another so we have time to absorb the new standard of living. It's that simple, you missed it. That's the fault of your arrogance.

Wow a counter telling me I am wrong, where did you learn such debating skills Zack?
The Quran is just an extension of the bible to give Arabs a religion, as seen the stupidity that it acknowledges the works before it shows this deity is flawed and makes mistakes, being as that would mean twice his messsage would have failed, something you cannot seem to grasp.
Its up to you id you want faith and good luck to you but it is a sign of ignorance to hold faith in something that has no evidence. This even more so with the Quran which its formation and even worse the hadiths are all clearly suspect, being as the later do not exist until a couple of centuries after and no complete Quran exists for well over a hundred years after either.

The historicity of the Quran is plagued with problems, because everything is down to traditions

You didn't answer the question. Perhaps arrogance has made you blind.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Wow a counter telling me I am wrong, where did you learn such debating skills Zack?
The Quran is just an extension of the bible to give Arabs a religion, as seen the stupidity that it acknowledges the works before it shows this deity is flawed and makes mistakes, being as that would mean twice his messsage would have failed, something you cannot seem to grasp.
Its up to you id you want faith and good luck to you but it is a sign of ignorance to hold faith in something that has no evidence. This even more so with the Quran which its formation and even worse the hadiths are all clearly suspect, being as the later do not exist until a couple of centuries after and no complete Quran exists for well over a hundred years after either.

The historicity of the Quran is plagued with problems, because everything is down to traditions

You didn't answer the question. Perhaps arrogance has made you blind.

What on being taught everything?

Is that even a relevant question to how you are now avoiding all my points, knowing full well the historicity of your faith is based upon oral traditions?

Seriously you really are acting like a child, all you are doing is deflecting from the debate now over what I am taught, because you place more faith in traditions that you do in real evidence.

Let me know when you want to debate and that the Zack who I knew who had a sense of humour comes back who did not get so wound up and upset over the history of his faith. Seriously this is the problem with religion, people get upset because their faith is challenged, the clear and present danger of religion

Fuzzy, quoting you from page 6. 'Show me the story of Mary in the Quran - and show me similar in the. Bible.'

As I’ve had no response to my question to Fuzzy, ‘have you read the first paragraph of ‘The House of Imran,’ it seems I’ll have to appraise you of what it says:

“He has sent down upon thee the Book with the truth, confirming what was before it, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel aforetime, as a guidance to the people, and he sent down the Salvation.”

The question of Mary was asked so again, in the Koran, again in ‘The House of Imran’ verse 49 an account of Mary’s holy pregnancy:

“Zachariah went in to her in the sanctuary, he found her provisioned, (pregnant). ‘Mary,’ he said, ‘how comes this to thee?’ ‘From God,’ she said.’

Further on we read: ‘Mary, God gives thee good tidings of a Word from Him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary. High honoured shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to God. He shall speak to men in the cradle…..’Lord,’ said Mary, ‘how shall I have a son seeing no mortal has touched me?’ ‘Even so,’ God said, ‘God creates what he will.’

And towards the end of that verse we read ‘……Jesus, I will take thee to me and will raise thee to me….’ (further on) ‘….Unto me you shall return.’
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So folks, there we have in the Koran an account of accepting what came before the Koran, and an account of Mary being impregnated by God, and Jesus being ‘returned’ to God. You can’t ‘return’ unless you came from, can you. I expect we’ll get the usual denials, side-tracking and splitting of hairs, but you cannot dispute it, read it for yourselves.

 

FUZZY is a 100% banana brain !

(See "chimpanzee DNA" thread for extra clarification..).

 ::sexbnan:       <<   Traditional Creationist initiation ceremony.

Hi Bee. I think you're right. He might as well worship Shrek or the Incredible Hulk, god is just as fictional and fantasy.

lol or we could worship the earth or the moon or the stars or science..  

heavenly father wrote:lol or we could worship the earth or the moon or the stars or science..  

Or how about worship nothing, being as that is what us atheists do, in that we are not clouded by (man made) claims to divine commands, of which some of those commands do not come from supreme intelligence, showing they are the work of men.

  

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:lol or we could worship the earth or the moon or the stars or science..  

Or how about worship nothing, being as that is what us atheists do, in that we are not clouded by (man made) claims to divine commands, of which some of those commands do not come from supreme intelligence, showing they are the work of men.

  

of course you are, you are clouded by mans explanation of creation..  

Quite right Phil. God didn't sit down and write the Bible or other religious works, men wrote them so there is no proof of a god. It was all in the minds of fantasizing humans.

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Or how about worship nothing, being as that is what us atheists do, in that we are not clouded by (man made) claims to divine commands, of which some of those commands do not come from supreme intelligence, showing they are the work of men.

  

of course you are, you are clouded by mans explanation of creation..  

Nope not clouded by that either, so on all counts you really have nothing.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

of course you are, you are clouded by mans explanation of creation..  

Nope not clouded by that either, so on all counts you really have nothing.

of course you are clouded, you will not accept creation as you prefer to have faith in what men have told you...  

stardesk wrote:Quite right Phil. God didn't sit down and write the Bible or other religious works, men wrote them so there is no proof of a god. It was all in the minds of fantasizing humans.

Exactly, what loving deity orders punishments of death for disobedient children for goodness sake???

  

A very sick and deluded creature, not worthy of being praised and worshipped. When I get time I'll post here some of god's commands to slaughter men, women, AND CHILDREN.

And they call Satan evil? Assuming he and god existed, it is thanks to Satan that mankind woke up and was no longer subservient and a pet for god to play with.

stardesk wrote:A very sick and deluded creature, not worthy of being praised and worshipped. When I get time I'll post here some of god's commands to slaughter men, women, AND CHILDREN.

do you think worshipping the earth is better or the moon or other inanimate objects...

maybe you could find that report from your friend at university, the one about the flood...  

stardesk wrote:A very sick and deluded creature, not worthy of being praised and worshipped. When I get time I'll post here some of god's commands to slaughter men, women, AND CHILDREN.

They make very interesting reading in regards to claims of a god that loves, mind you he is really a war deity, he is called the Lord of armies countless times

Side tracking and diverting again, are we HF? The scientist in question is away on business but as soon as I hear from him I'll post it for you. Now, like me, be patient.

PhilDidge wrote:

stardesk wrote:A very sick and deluded creature, not worthy of being praised and worshipped. When I get time I'll post here some of god's commands to slaughter men, women, AND CHILDREN.

They make very interesting reading in regards to claims of a god that loves, mind you he is really a war deity, he is called the Lord of armies countless times

the greatest of all is love...  

stardesk wrote:Side tracking and diverting again, are we? The scientist in question is away on business but as soon as I hear from him I'll post it for you. Now, like me, be patient.

hiding your druidic side are we..lol

   

Indeed, love they neighbour as you love yourself. Nothing wrong with that. But loving a god of fantasy is pathetic for there are no positive returns. You might just as well worship the sun or moon.

Going now, but will be back later.

stardesk wrote:Indeed, love they neighbour as you love yourself. Nothing wrong with that. But loving a god of fantasy is pathetic for there are no positive returns. You might just as well worship the sun or moon.

ha ha ha and moon worship is so much better why or is it mother earth...   

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Or how about worship nothing, being as that is what us atheists do, in that we are not clouded by (man made) claims to divine commands, of which some of those commands do not come from supreme intelligence, showing they are the work of men.

  

of course you are, you are clouded by mans explanation of creation..  

So HF, what exactly makes your belief in your God more valid than a Hindu's belief in Brahma? Or a Taoist's belief in the Jade Emperor? Or following the teachings of the Buddha? Or an ancient Greek's belief in Zeus?

If I was to choose a religion to follow- how could I be absolutely sure yours was the right one in a pool of thousands of others?

Eilzel wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

of course you are, you are clouded by mans explanation of creation..  

So HF, what exactly makes your belief in your God more valid than a Hindu's belief in Brahma? Or a Taoist's belief in the Jade Emperor? Or following the teachings of the Buddha? Or an ancient Greek's belief in Zeus?

If I was to choose a religion to follow- how could I be absolutely sure yours was the right one in a pool of thousands of others?

that would be up to you to discover but what made you chose a man made version over the thousands of gods??...   

heavenly father wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

So HF, what exactly makes your belief in your God more valid than a Hindu's belief in Brahma? Or a Taoist's belief in the Jade Emperor? Or following the teachings of the Buddha? Or an ancient Greek's belief in Zeus?

If I was to choose a religion to follow- how could I be absolutely sure yours was the right one in a pool of thousands of others?

that would be up to you to discover but what made you chose a man made version over the thousands of gods??...   

Well you see it was probably the knowledge of all those thousands of Gods when I was a child (well not thousands; but once I became aware of Hindu Gods; a Muslim God, Buddha etc plus all those Greek, Roman, Egyptian etc gods that no one even believed anymore) that began to make me own assumed belief in One God look more than a little questionable- that by accident of birth I believed in Jesus- when if I'd been born elsewhere I probably would have just accepted another.

The reason I don't accept any of them? Because like all religions each one asks us to accept certain impossible tales of miracles, magic and superstition. None of which have any more authority to reality than the other. There is no more reason to believe blue skinned and elephant headed gods govern the universe than to believe a virgin was impregnated by an angel and her child then died and came alive again than to believe Zeus really did go around raping innocent young humans sometimes disguised as an animal- all BS with no real basis in the real world.

Science is backed by a great deal of evidence and even if for some not as much evidence as they would like there IS STILL masses of evidence to suggest what they say is true- the evidence for the facts of the universe by science is at least existent- which is already vastly more than one single religion can lay claim to.

And that's why I believe what science says but not one of the thousands of religions out there- because none of them offer anything to suggest they are more true than the others.

Eilzel wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

that would be up to you to discover but what made you chose a man made version over the thousands of gods??...   

Well you see it was probably the knowledge of all those thousands of Gods when I was a child (well not thousands; but once I became aware of Hindu Gods; a Muslim God, Buddha etc plus all those Greek, Roman, Egyptian etc gods that no one even believed anymore) that began to make me own assumed belief in One God look more than a little questionable- that by accident of birth I believed in Jesus- when if I'd been born elsewhere I probably would have just accepted another.

The reason I don't accept any of them? Because like all religions each one asks us to accept certain impossible tales of miracles, magic and superstition. None of which have any more authority to reality than the other. There is no more reason to believe blue skinned and elephant headed gods govern the universe than to believe a virgin was impregnated by an angel and her child then died and came alive again than to believe Zeus really did go around raping innocent young humans sometimes disguised as an animal- all BS with no real basis in the real world.

Science is backed by a great deal of evidence and even if for some not as much evidence as they would like there IS STILL masses of evidence to suggest what they say is true- the evidence for the facts of the universe by science is at least existent- which is already vastly more than one single religion can lay claim to.

And that's why I believe what science says but not one of the thousands of religions out there- because none of them offer anything to suggest they are more true than the others.

what like the impossible tale of evolution with the apes becoming men, and mutations making us what we are today...etc...  

so the religion of science made more sense to yu and you followed what men told you is true..  

heavenly father wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Well you see it was probably the knowledge of all those thousands of Gods when I was a child (well not thousands; but once I became aware of Hindu Gods; a Muslim God, Buddha etc plus all those Greek, Roman, Egyptian etc gods that no one even believed anymore) that began to make me own assumed belief in One God look more than a little questionable- that by accident of birth I believed in Jesus- when if I'd been born elsewhere I probably would have just accepted another.

The reason I don't accept any of them? Because like all religions each one asks us to accept certain impossible tales of miracles, magic and superstition. None of which have any more authority to reality than the other. There is no more reason to believe blue skinned and elephant headed gods govern the universe than to believe a virgin was impregnated by an angel and her child then died and came alive again than to believe Zeus really did go around raping innocent young humans sometimes disguised as an animal- all BS with no real basis in the real world.

Science is backed by a great deal of evidence and even if for some not as much evidence as they would like there IS STILL masses of evidence to suggest what they say is true- the evidence for the facts of the universe by science is at least existent- which is already vastly more than one single religion can lay claim to.

And that's why I believe what science says but not one of the thousands of religions out there- because none of them offer anything to suggest they are more true than the others.

what like the impossible tale of evolution with the apes becoming men, and mutations making us what we are today...etc...  

so the religion of science made more sense to yu and you followed what men told you is true..  

You follow what men told you as well- the difference is the men you listened to wear frocks and have no authority on facts only stories put together over 1000 years ago; while the men and women I listen to work in research labs and look at actual evidence.

You have no more legitimacy that Mr Patel and his blue skinned four armed warrior God   

HF, you're impossibe. Quoting you again: 'what like the impossible tale of evolution with the apes becoming men, and mutations making us what we are today...etc'

How many times have you been told that humans did not evolve
from apes. We had the same ancestor but there was a split, a divergence. Whilst apes evolved into many different species of primates, humans evolved down a different route.

Eilzel, how are you getting on with your mythology? Going by your comments above it seems pretty good.

stardesk wrote:HF, you're impossibe. Quoting you again: 'what like the impossible tale of evolution with the apes becoming men, and mutations making us what we are today...etc'

How many times have you been told that humans did not evolve
from apes. We had the same ancestor but there was a split, a divergence. Whilst apes evolved into many different species of primates, humans evolved down a different route.

Eilzel, how are you getting on with your mythology? Going by your comments above it seems pretty good.

Hey Star   

The mythology aspect is going well, a lot of stuff I already knew but there is more I didn't. Fascinating stories of Ovid at the moment, with wonderful parallels to the Bible in parts (which is we know is hardly a source of much originality haha).

And of course I fully sympathize re: HF; he doesn't even try to understand evolution- if he did it might not be so easy for him to ignorant dismiss it   

stardesk wrote:HF, you're impossibe. Quoting you again: 'what like the impossible tale of evolution with the apes becoming men, and mutations making us what we are today...etc'

How many times have you been told that humans did not evolve
from apes. We had the same ancestor but there was a split, a divergence. Whilst apes evolved into many different species of primates, humans evolved down a different route.

Eilzel, how are you getting on with your mythology? Going by your comments above it seems pretty good.

and what mutations changed the line from the line of the apes..  

why was darwin looking for a missing link??

Oh my, HF you sound just like a Jehovah's Witness. One of their favourite ploys/get-outs is to mention Darwin. As I've said before, his ideas are 150 years out of date, and if he could come back now he wouldn't recognise or understand the scientific research techniques we use today.

Yes he looked for a 'missing link' because during his lifetime there wasn't the knowledge of palaeontolgy, geology, archaeology etc etc that we use today. He helped start the research but didn't get very far. As fossils lay in certain rock strata, geology is now used to locate those strata thus helping in the search for fossils.

stardesk wrote:Oh my, HF you sound just like a Jehovah's Witness. One of their favourite ploys/get-outs is to mention Darwin. As I've said before, his ideas are 150 years out of date, and if he could come back now he wouldn't recognise or understand the scientific research techniques we use today.

Yes he looked for a 'missing link' because during his lifetime there wasn't the knowledge of palaeontolgy, geology, archaeology etc etc that we use today. He helped start the research but didn't get very far. As fossils lay in certain rock strata, geology is now used to locate those strata thus helping in the search for fossils.

oh i forgot evolution has evolved...lol..

so what mutations took ape ancestor to man and why didn't effect apes the same odd really, what colour eyes did our ape ancestors have, just wondering...  

stardesk wrote:Oh my, HF you sound just like a Jehovah's Witness. One of their favourite ploys/get-outs is to mention Darwin. As I've said before, his ideas are 150 years out of date, and if he could come back now he wouldn't recognise or understand the scientific research techniques we use today.

Yes he looked for a 'missing link' because during his lifetime there wasn't the knowledge of palaeontolgy, geology, archaeology etc etc that we use today. He helped start the research but didn't get very far. As fossils lay in certain rock strata, geology is now used to locate those strata thus helping in the search for fossils.

Star; I am always in awe of your knowledge on evolution. But I thought you may find this lecture by Richard Dawkins on evolution of interest. For a layman like myself it spells out clearly the flaws in arguments against evolution- Dawkins is a master of oration and has a great way of making science accessible to a more mainstream audience   

Good evening Folks.

Have any of you read Stephen Baxters book titled Evolution?

If you haven't it's basically about evolution from the time a few weeks before the comet hit earth 65 million years ago,told as a story.

Baxters description of the comet strike in what is now Mexico is coldly stunning,sobering & chilling because what he has not done is beef up the impact & after effects.In fact it's narrative is simple but accurately descriptive with no smash bang,Hollywood type special effects.

Hi Shady. Thanks for that, I've heard of the book and Baxter but not yet read it.

heavenly father wrote:

stardesk wrote:Oh my, HF you sound just like a Jehovah's Witness. One of their favourite ploys/get-outs is to mention Darwin. As I've said before, his ideas are 150 years out of date, and if he could come back now he wouldn't recognise or understand the scientific research techniques we use today.

Yes he looked for a 'missing link' because during his lifetime there wasn't the knowledge of palaeontolgy, geology, archaeology etc etc that we use today. He helped start the research but didn't get very far. As fossils lay in certain rock strata, geology is now used to locate those strata thus helping in the search for fossils.

oh i forgot evolution has evolved...lol..

so what mutations took ape ancestor to man and why didn't effect apes the same odd really, what colour eyes did our ape ancestors have, just wondering...  

i'm sure stardesk just missed this question..

heavenly father wrote:lol or we could worship the earth or the moon or the stars or science..

BECAUSE unlike God all those things are definitely real and have an real impact on our lives ::D:: ::D:: ::D:: ::D::

veya_victaous wrote:

heavenly father wrote:lol or we could worship the earth or the moon or the stars or science..

BECAUSE unlike God all those things are definitely real and have an real impact on our lives  ::D:: ::D::::D::::D::

so praying to the earth, moon and science has a real impact in our lives...??   

heavenly father wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

BECAUSE unlike God all those things are definitely real and have an real impact on our lives ::D:: ::D::::D::::D::

so praying to the earth, moon and science has a real impact in our lives...??

not all faiths require prayer or even have the concept of it, many faiths accept we move by our own power the higher beings while they can affect us are no more interested in us that we are in ants.
IF you replace Pray with donate, well donating to Earth Charities does impact us it keeps forests and oceans for future generations, donating to science produces real cures millions of people are alive today because of donations to scientific research. the moon cares not for our donations but affects us (and tides) none the less. ::alahoo:: ::alahoo:: ::alahoo:: ::alahoo:: You pray because you want something, you need forgiveness. I 'pray' because I am grateful for the blessing we already have.

AND
IT has as much effect as praying to god

heavenly father wrote:

star desk wrote:
Oh my, HF you sound just like a Jehovah's Witness. One of their favourite ploys/get-outs is to mention Darwin. As I've said before, his ideas are 150 years out of date, and if he could come back now he wouldn't recognise or understand the scientific research techniques we use today.

Yes he looked for a 'missing link' because during his lifetime there wasn't the knowledge of palaeontolgy, geology, archaeology etc etc that we use today. He helped start the research but didn't get very far. As fossils lay in certain rock strata, geology is now used to locate those strata thus helping in the search for fossils.

...so what mutations took ape ancestor to man and why didn't effect apes the same odd really, what colour eyes did our ape ancestors have, just wondering...   

  

Fuck off h_f, you ignorant retard...

YOU are such a stupid and thick clod, "heavenly", that NO-ONE on here can possibly support your idiotic ramblings aimed against Stardesk this week..  ::fishffight:: 

Hi Bee, thanks for the support, above. BTW, a bit more about the Wagilak Sisters, 2 Creator goddesses. As they travelled north from Central Australia up to Arnhem Land, they plunged their digging sticks into the ground at various spots and waterholes sprang forth. They named the places they visited and animals and life sprang forth at those places.

World Mythology is fascinating and if HF and others like him were to read about myths they'd then realise that their god is no different to the hundreds of gods and goddesses worldwide.

Another btw: I counted in my myth files 297 Creator Goddesses, and only 190 Creator gods. What does that say? That the feminine principle is/was more important to primitive people than the male.

stardesk wrote:
Hi Bee, thanks for the support, above. BTW, a bit more about the Wagilak Sisters, 2 Creator goddesses. As they travelled north from Central Australia up to Arnhem Land, they plunged their digging sticks into the ground at various spots and waterholes sprang forth. They named the places they visited and animals and life sprang forth at those places.

World Mythology is fascinating and if HF and others like him were to read about myths they'd then realise that their god is no different to the hundreds of gods and goddesses worldwide.

Another btw: I counted in my myth files 297 Creator Goddesses, and only 190 Creator gods. What does that say? That the feminine principle is/was more important to primitive people than the male.

i have been bored by the so called similar gods before...why do yu chose to worship the sun or moon??