How are people like this getting elected?

[OutHouse]

You were not taught that neanderthals came from apes, because neanderthals are apes. Unless you are trying to say that humans are descendants of humanoids.

Also, there is no such thing as a missing link. We have many links. They are not trying to prove it, because its already been proven. I do hope you simply misunderstood your teachings, and you were not actually taught what you just said.

first you question what I and millions of others were taught then you say neanderthals were apes.

dunno if you are stupid or dumb.

 

[realibrad]

I don't support any laws that discriminate.

Yes you do, and everyone else does too. Its even a good thing. If there is someone you know who molested children, you are not going to want that person to watch your child. You are probably for not letting child molesters be teachers. Totally legal and sane if you ask me. That is clear discrimination, but its the good kind.

I'm worked up over an illegal and bigoted position, and your shameless defending of it.

I am not defending it, as I am not for it. Again, I am explaining his position. I am for people being free to choose who they hire. In the public sector, I think that a person should be able to teach even if there is a conflict so long as they follow the rules of their job. You just assumed I was not for that, even though I never said my position. Go back and check.

No ones denying what happened back then, but Galileo proved that deeply religious people advance science.

You kind of helped my point by bringing this up.

But, Galileo almost gave up. Its a clear example of what religion can do to science. He did felt his desire stemmed from wanting to understand god, but the vast majority of the church thought it damaged their view of god. A person can get through, but his life is an example of the church holding back, not helping science. If you think that helps your point so be it, but it does not.

Ummm...what?

If someone were to believe a rainbow is just something pretty created by god, then they believe they know all there is to know about rainbows. What desire would they have to learn more if they believe they already fully understand it?

If you know all there is to know about something, there is no reason to study it for the purpose of "discovery" anymore.

All you'd be doing is getting better acquainted with the "known".

That is the inherent problem, a belief you know all of something. Before Einstein came out with his theory, there was a growing belief that science had figured almost everything out there was to learn. Seems stupid now, but many thought they had discovered all that could be discovered. People were not doing as much research because they thought it was all done. Turns out they were wrong, but it slowed when they thought they were getting to the end.

 

[realibrad]

first you question what I and millions of others were taught then you say neanderthals were apes.

dunno if you are stupid or dumb.

Yeah, because Neanderthals are apes genius. Humans are also apes.

Apes are Hominids. This includes extant species, and extinct species. Neanderthals are extinct and humans are extant.

So, I question your understanding of what you were taught. You have access to the internet so do not simply take my word for this either. Its a .65 second google search to back this up.

 

[DrDoug]

I see. Goodbye

See, you can learn something new if you pay attention to what people are saying instead of just blabbering on about your stupid nonsense.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes you do, and everyone else does too. Its even a good thing. If there is someone you know who molested children, you are not going to want that person to watch your child. You are probably for not letting child molesters be teachers. Totally legal and sane if you ask me. That is clear discrimination, but its the good kind.

Clearly, you know what I meant. Why are you resorting to childish tricks?

If someone were to believe a rainbow is just something pretty created by god, then they believe they know all there is to know about rainbows. What desire would they have to learn more if they believe they already fully understand it?

This argument is so faulty that I don't know where to start.

Take engineers who study how car engines are designed to better understand how to design and build their own, for example.

They KNOW someone designed and built existing engines, but has that ever stopped them from learning about those engines? How does knowing humans built engines detract from learning more about them?

Scientists in the past were so excited to learn about the God they believed created life. God fueled their desire to learn about the physical world, so they saw science as a means to understand God. Believing "God did it" has never hindered science.

The issue is that atheists today have tried to lay claim to science, attempting to trick people into the lie that you have to ascribe to some form of Denial of the Divine in order to be a good scientist. That takes a healthy dose of ignorance of the history of science and advancement to hold such a position.

This is part of the reason why people like Ken Ham are relevant in some circles. Its very easy to show that even the most deeply religious people are outstanding, creative scientists.

 

[Thebobo]

i ask myself the same question about Pelosi, Reid, and Feinstein

So Pelosi, Rewid, and Feindstiewn believe the wold is less then 60K years old, enterprising, oh and the chamtrails hing....

 

[realibrad]

Clearly, you know what I meant. Why are you resorting to childish tricks?




This argument is so faulty that I don't know where to start.

Take engineers who study how car engines are designed to better understand how to design and build their own, for example.

They KNOW someone designed and built existing engines, but has that ever stopped them from learning about those engines? How does knowing humans built engines detract from learning more about them?

Scientists in the past were so excited to learn about the God they believed created life. God fueled their desire to learn about the physical world, so they saw science as a means to understand God. Believing "God did it" has never hindered science.

The issue is that atheists today have tried to lay claim to science, attempting to trick people into the lie that you have to ascribe to some form of Denial of the Divine in order to be a good scientist. That takes a healthy dose of ignorance of the history of science and advancement to hold such a position.

This is part of the reason why people like Ken Ham are relevant in some circles. Its very easy to show that even the most deeply religious people are outstanding, creative scientists.

Its not a childish trick. You were making it seem like discrimination was inherently wrong and its not. Your stance was that you did not like his position because it discriminated, but what you really dislike is who he discriminates against. I actually agree with you, but you wont let that stop you it seems.

As for the rainbow, you are missing the point. Now that we know rainbows are made from light and all the other things that go into making it, we know that a rainbow is not magic. There was a time when people did not understand, and thought rainbows were just nice things created by god. They did not know it was refraction of light, just a thing. Just like they thought wind was an element.

You are looking at rainbows through the lens of science and you forgot that in the past people did not have that.

 

[Retro Rob]

Its not a childish trick. You were making it seem like discrimination was inherently wrong and its not.

The context was very clear. I meant when its excludes people on basis of protected class. Pedophiles aren't a protected class.

As for the rainbow, you are missing the point. Now that we know rainbows are made from light and all the other things that go into making it, we know that a rainbow is not magic. There was a time when people did not understand, and thought rainbows were just nice things created by god. They did not know it was refraction of light, just a thing. Just like they thought wind was an element.

So what? We know that tires are made of rubber, so does that mean people didn't make them all of a sudden?

I understand that people used God as a gap-filler, but still, knowing how something is made doesn't mean no one made it.

 

[realibrad]

The context was very clear. I meant when its excludes people on basis of protected class. Pedophiles aren't a protected class.




So what? We know that tires are made of rubber, so does that mean people didn't make them all of a sudden?

I understand that people used God as a gap-filler, but still, knowing how something is made doesn't mean no one made it.

Science has shown that things are very often made of smaller things. People used to believe maggots just formed. They believed water was an element. They did not realize a rainbow was made of other things, and that it was an effect. They thought a rainbow was its own material. You know that a tire is made up of smaller parts, but to the people back in the day, the tire was its own material.

Religion throughout history has slowed or held back science when they felt it conflicted with teaching. It has not stopped science, but it sure seems to slow it down.

 

[Retro Rob]

People used to believe maggots just formed.

Yes, but that wasn't a religious teaching. That was purely scientific.

They believed water was an element. They did not realize a rainbow was made of other things, and that it was an effect. They thought a rainbow was its own material. You know that a tire is made up of smaller parts, but to the people back in the day, the tire was its own material.

Right, but that doesn't disprove a designer, though. When scientists looked onto a cell, for instance, way back, they didn't believe something that complex with all the "smaller parts" just happen to fall into place via time and coincidence.

I'd argue that the more we examine life and its components, the more we see intelligence.

This is just my opinion, however.

Religion throughout history has slowed or held back science when they felt it conflicted with teaching. It has not stopped science, but it sure seems to slow it down.

I agree that religious institutions in its desire to retain its power and influence, held back discovery when it was in its heyday, but religious individuals advanced science. My point was that belief in God in no way impeded progress.

 

[realibrad]

Yes, but that wasn't a religious teaching. That was purely scientific.



Right, but that doesn't disprove a designer, though. When scientists looked onto a cell, for instance, way back, they didn't believe something that complex with all the "smaller parts" just happen to fall into place via time and coincidence.

I'd argue that the more we examine life and its components, the more we see intelligence.

This is just my opinion, however.



I agree that religious institutions in its desire to retain its power and influence, held back discovery when it was in its heyday, but religious individuals advanced science. My point was that belief in God in no way impeded progress.

It sure seems to impeed things when a group of religious form. Look at buck, do you think he disbelieves in evolution because of facts or religion?

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-12/p-ngb123015.php

The formation of genes de novo from previously non-active parts of the genome was, until recently, considered highly improbable. This study has shown that the mutations that occur normally in our genetic material may be sufficient to explain how this happens. Once expressed, the genes can act as a substrate for the evolution of new molecular functions. This study identified several candidate human proteins that bear no resemblance to any other known protein. What they do is an enigma still to be resolved

 

[buckshot24]

People used to believe maggots just formed.

They will be saying the same thing about people who believed that random genetic copying errors and selection is what created complex biological structures.

 

[buckshot24]

Religion throughout history has slowed or held back science when they felt it conflicted with teaching. It has not stopped science, but it sure seems to slow it down.

Religious men were the grandfathers of modern science because of their religious views.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

They will be saying the same thing about people who believed that random genetic copying errors and selection is what created complex biological structures.

Religious men were the grandfathers of modern science because of their religious views.

 

[Paratus]

Religious men were the grandfathers of modern science because of their religious views.

You believe religion gave birth to science? Where's your evidence?

:whiste:

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote:
People used to believe maggots just formed.

They will be saying the same thing about people who believed that random genetic copying errors and selection is what created complex biological structures.

No they won't. There was no evidence to support the former whereas the latter is recognized fact based on mountains of evidence.

 

[Moonbeam]

You believe religion gave birth to science? Where's your evidence?

:whiste:

You misunderstand the nature of evidence. You think of evidence as something that can be had by the confirmation of independent observers, but that's just half the story. The fact of an observer effects what is observed. God realization depends on the observer's state. You could say that God is known by having one eye looking out and one looking in. You can't have evidence of God if you do not see the assumptions you make in observation. In order to know God you can't be unconscious of things because God is known via conscious awareness. This is perfectly testable. All you need to do is die to your ego. But that will be tricky because what you call awareness is your ego so if you wanted to know God based on some need or denied Him out of some need, the hunt for ego death would be conducted by your ego. But the ego is ego because it is there to prevent knowing you are already emotionally dead. It's job is to keep you that way. All this can be learned only through self observation via the eye turned inward.

So the science of religion practiced by those who know what it is, is to help you die to your ego. The knowledge of how to do this is passed down in secret because it is a secret that protects itself. It can't b3e given to those who don't deserve it, folk who are in love with the ego, and it can't be kept from those whose needs are such that to know they are driven to die, psychically, of course.

With bs, I think, you will find nothing to help you with evidence because his faith, as I see it, is tied to his ego.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

They will be saying the same thing about people who believed that random genetic copying errors and selection is what created complex biological structures.

This is the comment of a person who is so deluded as to think that the entirety of modern biological science will one day (soon!) be up-ended and invalidated because somehow (but inevitably, we're assured) science is going to figure out that it was all really the magical work of his imaginary friend.

Consider that when you read his comments, here and elsewhere.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Religious men were the grandfathers of modern science because of their religious views.

Name one institution which does not have "religious men" among its ancestors.

Early human society was woefully ignorant and superstitious, so basically everybody was religious.

Now, not everybody is woefully ignorant and superstitious -- it's just the religious people that are.

 

[DrDoug]

You believe religion gave birth to science? Where's your evidence?

:whiste:

Yeah, that made me lol. Religious interpretations of 'how things work' has held back science any time evidence showed that the religious leaders were wrong.

Grandfathers of science? You have to be a true believer to believe that bullshit.

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151214165724.htm

Evolution in as little as ten years.....

 

[kage69]

Name one institution which does not have "religious men" among its ancestors.

Early human society was woefully ignorant and superstitious, so basically everybody was religious.

Now, not everybody is woefully ignorant and superstitious -- it's just the religious people that are.

That accounts for some of it I'm sure, but as I understand it from people who are actual anthropologists, the simple fact is when science showed up on the scene, religious institutions were really the only thing around for 'learning' anything. Where else were you going to find skill in writing, recording, printing, libraries, etc? Of course it would kick off at pretty much the only place it could. Of course Darwin and others had religious backgrounds, prerequisite education and the ability to pursue new fields at the time originated from religious schools.

Pointing to the religious background of scientists as some kind of proof that religion created science is absurdly disingenuous. Science became what it is not because of religion, but in spite of it.

 

[kage69]

I see it like this: religion provided the dirt for the plant of science to grow in. Periodically, religious types came by and tried to stomp everything into oblivion. Bring me salt and a rake! Occasionally someone of the same group gave the little guy a drink, maybe ferts and nurturing. The plant got big enough to propagate seeds elsewhere, and now it grows everywhere. Reliance on religious dirt and fears of eradication are no longer issues.

 

[Jeff7]

You believe religion gave birth to science? Where's your evidence?

:whiste:

In a way, religion developed to accomplish what scientific exploration does: Explain things in the world. It simply stopped too soon in the process, and never closed the feedback loop of the scientific method.

Scientific exploration is a way for humans to create a working model of the world around them, which can then be used to improve our lives in some way. If you possess a working mental model of how a lever works, you can use that mechanical advantage to accomplish things that you couldn't have done without that mental model. More complex things can be studied as well, which can lead to more models, as well as mathematical models.
A "model" by definition is a simplified representation of something, which is necessary in order to permit our limited brains to work with complex concepts.

What's one way of modeling the world?
"This world is really big and complex. I wonder how it all got here."
-"Well, humans are able to make things. Maybe a really big man made everything."
"Maybe, but the world is really really big."
-"Ok, so it was a really really big and really powerful man."
"But...where is he? I don't see him."
-"Hmm....maybe he's just invisible."

That's a simplified model that was developed as a way of explaining things: The big powerful man made everything.
Unfortunately, it go that far and stopped. Continued exploration of the basic premise would mean it's necessary to demonstrate extraordinary evidence of this extraordinary claim of the big invisible man that can make planets, star systems, and life. Instead, many people liked this very simple model and simply accepted it, and the basic idea has persisted for thousands of years.

In time though, other ways of explaining things were found, and those models were refined as technology improved. That includes models of how life came to exist in the first place, and of how life changes over long periods of time. It's more complex though, and it covers time periods much longer than 6 days. The complexity, and the lack of any kind of divine or privileged history for our species, makes this idea less appealing for some people. They also don't like the way science can change what is known based on new evidence. It's too complex, versus an unchanging doctrine.

Interestingly, some people dislike the aspect of science that it keeps changing because of new evidence. Religions can remain unfazed by new evidence. Some still see that as a major strength, though I can't see how that is the case.
If you believe you can walk off a height and not fall to your death because you walked off of a 6" step, or because an ancient story told of someone walking off a 6" step, it's stupid to continue to believe you're invulnerable to stepping off of various heights in spite of evidence that a 500-foot step is extremely likely to be fatal. It's also stupid to believe that you're invulnerable to a 500-foot fall simply because you've never personally seen that kind of evidence.

At some point, one must accept some of the knowledge that other people have accrued over their lives. If you have ideas that fly in the face of that common knowledge, you do have some options:
- Accept that they know what they're talking about and integrate their knowledge into your own.
- Study it yourself and discover why their knowledge is correct.
- Present evidence yourself against the common knowledge. Sometimes it turns out that common knowledge is in fact not correct, but it can take a lot of evidence to prove that.

What you don't do in that situation is go around saying that it's a ridiculous idea that people die after falling 500 feet, which you say because you know that humans can fall 6 inches without injury, and that you've never personally seen a person fall 500 feet, and therefore the notion of dying as a result of such a fall is absolutely absurd until someone takes time out of their day to give you a personal demonstration.
You'd have to follow the guidelines above:
- Accept that they know what they're talking about.
- Study it yourself to determine why a 500-foot fall is almost certain to be fatal.
- Present solid evidence to prove it wrong, get it peer-reviewed, and maybe you'll end up being correct after all.

i was taught through-out school that man most like are descendants of the neanderthal and that the neanderthals came from the apes. and that there are dedicated anthropologist out there scraping away layers of African dirt looking for the missing link to prove it.

well it seems that science has proven we do not come cave-men and the mystery of our ancestors has become more mysterious.

basically nobody know where the hell we come from.

Basically, knowledge is constantly updated by new evidence. What is known has to be able to change, otherwise there's really no point to exploration of anything. There's not much point in trying to find new things if it's not going to enhance or update what is known. It's like going to the grocery store over and over, but buying nothing every time because you know that your refrigerator is empty, and that cannot change under any circumstance. But that certainly does make it easy to always remember in your fridge.





...okay, now I'm bored with this same thread again. :awe: