Poll: How did human life come about?

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: Jahee
Why won't this thread go away! 😕

Since you apparently keep reading it, perhaps you should have asked why that is so. It's not like anyone is forcing you to read this...is there?

 

[KurskKnyaz]

According to evolution, single-celled organisms where the first forms of life. Do you have any idea how amazingly complex even those tiny creatures are (thousands of genes)? The article was for the purpose of demonstrating the impossibility that even the "simplest" forms of life could not have come together from a collection of random processes and that it is clearly a showcase of the ordered structure of the universe.

You are talking about abiogenises - how life formed. Evolution deals with life evolving. Evolution is much more elaborate and does not depends on whether or not abiogenises is true.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: zinfamous
An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:

"Christianity is the only true religion."

perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this.... 😉

An open mind doesn't mean that a person has to be oblivious to the facts that are available. Open mindedness means that a person is capable of connecting these facts in fashions that is not so obvious. It also helps to be able to convey this train of thought to others in a fashion that might promote their understanding.

Open mindedness, as you have pictured it, would mean requiring a lobotomy.

Right, so your'e still saying that the only facts that are acceptable are those that can be found within the bible. You fail at rationality.

I'm guessing that if you break penal code 265-17a established in your county upon the year of your conversion (It states that you, Seekermeister, are forbidden to breed), your brood would be home-schooled? I'm guessing you were, too.

 

[Seekermeister]

torpid,

They may not call it the missing link for nothing, certainly there is some historical use of the term, but that doesn't mean it's really missing. See above in my point about 398 billion fossils not being needed. Lucy and hobbits (homo florienesis or however it is spelled) aren't good enough?

Perhaps you can explain what fiction or hoaxes have to do with this subject?

Main Entry: hob·bit
Pronunciation: 'hä-b&t
Function: noun
Etymology: coined by J.R.R. Tolkien
: a member of a fictitious peaceful and genial race of small humanlike creatures that dwell underground

I will leave the hoaxes links for you, because Lucy is prominent among them.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: zinfamous
An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:

"Christianity is the only true religion."

perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this.... 😉

An open mind doesn't mean that a person has to be oblivious to the facts that are available. Open mindedness means that a person is capable of connecting these facts in fashions that is not so obvious. It also helps to be able to convey this train of thought to others in a fashion that might promote their understanding.

Open mindedness, as you have pictured it, would mean requiring a lobotomy.

Right, so your'e still saying that the only facts that are acceptable are those that can be found within the bible. You fail at rationality.

I'm guessing that if you break penal code 265-17a established in your county upon the year of your conversion (It states that you, Seekermeister, are forbidden to breed), your brood would be home-schooled? I'm guessing you were, too.

What is rational about making assumptions and unfounded accusations?

Just for your benefit, I'm not home schooled. I went to a public school, followed by college and tech schools.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: zinfamous
An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:

"Christianity is the only true religion."

perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this.... 😉

Maybe this thread, but I don't know what page, probably somewhere in the teens... Text

Yes, it's page 15, where he calls out buddhism (i have been looking for it too):

I suppose that the world might be a more peaceful place, if people were all converted to one set of beliefs, regardless of what they were. But, without lobotomizing them, that will never happen. Ultimately, the world shall be converted to Christianity, but not by any mere man. Buddhism has some good qualities, as does all religions, but it is still a false religion.

and later, on page 17 he calls out Islam:

I do not intend to go very deeply on this, because that would require a thread of it's own. However, the fact that a religion claims an origin with another does not make it true. There is no shared origins between the Islamic and Judaic people, except a bloodline that split at the time of Abraham, from which the Arabic people sprung. Obviously, there is alot of people without any Arabic pedigree, who are Islamic. That in itself is not too important, but the religion authored by Mohammed has none of the values in Judaism or Christianity. To suggest that Islam shares an origin with Christianity without Christ, is obviously way off base, and without any logic.

All religions convey certain basic beliefs. When these beliefs are in direct conflict with one another, they do not have a common origin. Mohammed was the author of murder, lying and mayhem. Well, not actually the author of those things, but of formalizing them into a religion.

here, on page 16, he basically claims that my mother, an ordained minister, is not a true christian. also, that he is most liekly the only true christian:

Perhaps you don't know any TRUE Christians. I know of few ministers that are, and none that are female. I have no intention of offending you, but an honest response requires honesty. I really do not care whether you or anyone else believe that I'm out of touch or not. Any Christian that believes that any other religion is just as valid as Christianity, or that Jesus will not return to this Earth, and set it right, is not a true Christian. This goes to the very root of faith.

Seekermesiter, I assume that you do not even need to attend church, right? You clearly have a greater understanding of Christianity than anyone who has devoted their life to reading and interpreting the bible, explicating centuries' worth of texts well-known to contradict themselves. While I don't believe you understand much about Christianity, I do believe that you have an enormous brass pair, and some rather ignorant ones at that 😉

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: zinfamous
An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:

"Christianity is the only true religion."

perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this.... 😉

This is why I just ignore his posts. They're worthless. Kind of like DVK916 is when it comes to atheist arguments. They came to their conclusions beforehand, so evidence and arguments are meaningless to them. There's nothing left to discuss.

You're clearly a better person than I. I have a hard time letting such idiocy go unadressed. It's especially bad during a slow work day....

 

[Seekermeister]

zinfamous,

I do not believe that my post referring to women ministers was directed to you, so I will assume that you adopted it, because of similarities to your situation. If your mother is such a good Christian minister, how is it that she hasn't reached you? Did she teach you that Buddhism and Islam was equal to Christianity? If so, then the point is made. If not, then she must not have been able to reach you at all...her own child. The qualifications given for a bishop or deacon of the Church, is that they must be MEN, with a well managed family. This kind of management would mean that the father would be able to communicate properly with his children. Apparently, you have ignored what your mother has taught you, because you certainly do not sound like a Christian.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: zinfamous
An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:

"Christianity is the only true religion."

perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this.... 😉

This is why I just ignore his posts. They're worthless. Kind of like DVK916 is when it comes to atheist arguments. They came to their conclusions beforehand, so evidence and arguments are meaningless to them. There's nothing left to discuss.

You're clearly a better person than I. I have a hard time letting such idiocy go unadressed. It's especially bad during a slow work day....

I certainly understand. I frequently forgo restraint too, especially in P&N.

 

[shadow9d9]

The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
torpid,

They may not call it the missing link for nothing, certainly there is some historical use of the term, but that doesn't mean it's really missing. See above in my point about 398 billion fossils not being needed. Lucy and hobbits (homo florienesis or however it is spelled) aren't good enough?

Perhaps you can explain what fiction or hoaxes have to do with this subject?

Main Entry: hob·bit
Pronunciation: 'hä-b&t
Function: noun
Etymology: coined by J.R.R. Tolkien
: a member of a fictitious peaceful and genial race of small humanlike creatures that dwell underground

I will leave the hoaxes links for you, because Lucy is prominent among them.

Uh huh. Yeah, Lucy, the moon landing, the holocaust, all those are hoaxes. As for the hobbit definition, I'll leave it to you to stew in your own ignorance. Apparently you haven't been reading the news for the last 10 years or so.

 

[Seekermeister]

torpid,

Uh huh. Yeah, Lucy, the moon landing, the holocaust, all those are hoaxes. As for the hobbit definition, I'll leave it to you to stew in your own ignorance. Apparently you haven't been reading the news for the last 10 years or so.

Where did I say a word about the moon landing or the holocaust? I assume that you are just throwing them in for "good" measure to distract from what I did say. Since you are unwilling to Google for Lucy hoaxes, I won't bother you with any links, but perhaps you might enlighten me as to your news reference to hobbits?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
I can throw links around too. here is a good one - it addresses every creationist claim out there.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

QFT, great link. I linked to the section on macroevolution twice already in this thread with zero response from the anti-macroevolution creationists here.

 

[torpid]

If you google lucy hoax there's only some rubbish about a knee joint being reported at a different location, thus constituting a logical fallacy by attempting to call the discoverer a liar, as if that disproves anything. Perhaps you are referring to piltdown which is completely unrelated.

The hobbits were either a group of genetically abnormal (tiny brained? Forgot the term) homo sapiens or an unusually long-lived species of near man descended from earlier species. In either case around 10-15,000 years old or so unless I'm remembering incorrectly. So you have lucy, 3 million or so years, and the hobbit dudes, 10,000 years. Maybe you think there's a huge gap there but there are in fact numerous fossils of homo erectus and neanderthals too.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.

I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?

🙂


No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.

I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?

🙂


No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?

Well, although I mirror your sentiment, I'd hesitate to group in buddhism and taosim with christianity. Christianity and other theisitic religions at their core claim absolute, exclusive truth, which puts it completely at odds with formal science, or any discovery that comes in conflict with what was already written.

Whereas the eastern religions are vastly different, and although there are forms that delve into worship and borderline deification, and their very core they are religions of awakening - paths to the truth, rather than the truth itself. There is no conflict between them and modern science, in fact, modern science has in some ways eerily put into formula many of their ideas.

This isnt a judgement of their truth value vs. other religions, but its a quite interesting contrast to note that not ALL religion is diametrically opposed to science and evolution.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Well, although I mirror your sentiment, I'd hesitate to group in buddhism and taosim with christianity. Christianity and other theisitic religions at their core claim absolute, exclusive truth, which puts it completely at odds with formal science, or any discovery that comes in conflict with what was already written.

How did you come upon discovering what these religions were at their core? In my view they are nothing more than what the people who worship them believe at their core. I've met numerous "theists" who are far from your description of what is at the "core". I would just like to know if they have lost their way, weren't aware of the core, or what.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: BD2003
Well, although I mirror your sentiment, I'd hesitate to group in buddhism and taosim with christianity. Christianity and other theisitic religions at their core claim absolute, exclusive truth, which puts it completely at odds with formal science, or any discovery that comes in conflict with what was already written.

How did you come upon discovering what these religions were at their core? In my view they are nothing more than what the people who worship them believe at their core. I've met numerous "theists" who are far from your description of what is at the "core". I would just like to know if they have lost their way, weren't aware of the core, or what.

I've met such people as well. I'm not talking about the people, but the very basic tenets of the religions.

Theistic religions such as christianity, judaism and islam entail a supernatural deity, and have books that contain the truth. There are various sects, but none do away with the deity itself. The corresponding scripture of the religions contain the absolute truth.

The buddha was not a deity, nor was lao tzu. Yet these realizations are not hard and fast facts, and that is basically the entire point. They were sages who came to certain realizations, and the writings go nowhere near specifying the "absolute truth."

Certainly, the current forms of the religions are certainly influenced by the people who practice them and the average follower may stray quite far from the ideal set down many years ago, but thats not what I was referring to. At any rate, you won't have buddhists railing against evolution in the classroom. There can be no clash when your "religion" doesn't overlap with the same intellectual territory as science.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

Everyone should note that even when Seekermeister's challenges are met, he will continue to pretend that they were not so that he can justify his wanton ignorance to himself and continue spouting his obviously nonsensical claims.

Perhaps you can refer me to where I asked anyone for links? You have not met any of my challenges, therefore, no pretense is necessary.

Your tapdancing is so transparent only you would believe it to be convincing. You cannot reject out-of-hand the perfect response to your challenge merely because I didn't reinvent the wheel right in front of you. The answers are there, provided in handy reference with illustrations and everything, but apparently you are not interested in finding them. That was my point.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: torpid
If you google lucy hoax there's only some rubbish about a knee joint being reported at a different location, thus constituting a logical fallacy by attempting to call the discoverer a liar, as if that disproves anything. Perhaps you are referring to piltdown which is completely unrelated.

The hobbits were either a group of genetically abnormal (tiny brained? Forgot the term) homo sapiens or an unusually long-lived species of near man descended from earlier species. In either case around 10-15,000 years old or so unless I'm remembering incorrectly. So you have lucy, 3 million or so years, and the hobbit dudes, 10,000 years. Maybe you think there's a huge gap there but there are in fact numerous fossils of homo erectus and neanderthals too.

I did find this link about the "Hobbit":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050304175249.htm

But it shows nothing that adds any credibility to the evolution theory. First off, rather than 10 years, it was only discovered in 2003 and not announced until the fall of 2004, but that isn't all that significant. According to the article itself, it is clear that science has not even determined how to classify this themselves. Nothing new in either pygmy, dwarf or midgets, either individually or as a clan. As far as the brain size, that may easily just be a deformity. It said nothing about being long lived, but only how old the fossil was. Even at 18000 years, that would place it from an era prior to this Earth Age, so has nothing to do with modern man...like most other fossils.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

Everyone should note that even when Seekermeister's challenges are met, he will continue to pretend that they were not so that he can justify his wanton ignorance to himself and continue spouting his obviously nonsensical claims.

Perhaps you can refer me to where I asked anyone for links? You have not met any of my challenges, therefore, no pretense is necessary.

Your tapdancing is so transparent only you would believe it to be convincing. You cannot reject out-of-hand the perfect response to your challenge merely because I didn't reinvent the wheel right in front of you. The answers are there, provided in handy reference with illustrations and everything, but apparently you are not interested in finding them. That was my point.

Your point is very dull, because as I have pointed out previously, to other posters, I do not need links to articles about something that I already understand. When I ask for an explanation from somebody, it is often for the purpose of seeing what they understand. When I really want a link, I'll ask for it, like I did with torpid's hobbits. If you don't like the way that I "dance", then start playing another tune.

 

[db]

I think God is one of those in here making jokes. Some of you take him much too seriously. You learned it from someone else. It is your challenge to overcome it or live with it.

But please, dogmatism sucks no matter what subject you are talking about. Just b/c someone believes something doesn't mean everyone else should.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: torpid
If you google lucy hoax there's only some rubbish about a knee joint being reported at a different location, thus constituting a logical fallacy by attempting to call the discoverer a liar, as if that disproves anything. Perhaps you are referring to piltdown which is completely unrelated.

The hobbits were either a group of genetically abnormal (tiny brained? Forgot the term) homo sapiens or an unusually long-lived species of near man descended from earlier species. In either case around 10-15,000 years old or so unless I'm remembering incorrectly. So you have lucy, 3 million or so years, and the hobbit dudes, 10,000 years. Maybe you think there's a huge gap there but there are in fact numerous fossils of homo erectus and neanderthals too.

I did find this link about the "Hobbit":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050304175249.htm

But it shows nothing that adds any credibility to the evolution theory. First off, rather than 10 years, it was only discovered in 2003 and not announced until the fall of 2004, but that isn't all that significant. According to the article itself, it is clear that science has not even determined how to classify this themselves. Nothing new in either pygmy, dwarf or midgets, either individually or as a clan. As far as the brain size, that may easily just be a deformity. It said nothing about being long lived, but only how old the fossil was. Even at 18000 years, that would place it from an era prior to this Earth Age, so has nothing to do with modern man...like most other fossils.

If scientists knew where to classify it, it wouldnt be much of a discovery, now would it?

I'm not sure if I'm following you correctly, but I'm reading that you don't doubt it's *actually* 18k years old, but you shrug it off as irrelevant due to some sort of supernaturally influenced change in the universe that happened 10,000 years ago?

 

[chusteczka]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
... but perhaps you might enlighten me as to your news reference to hobbits?

Originally posted by: torpid
...
The hobbits were either a group of genetically abnormal (tiny brained? Forgot the term) homo sapiens or an unusually long-lived species of near man descended from earlier species. In either case around 10-15,000 years old or so unless I'm remembering incorrectly. So you have lucy, 3 million or so years, and the hobbit dudes, 10,000 years. Maybe you think there's a huge gap there but there are in fact numerous fossils of homo erectus and neanderthals too.

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I did find this link about the "Hobbit":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050304175249.htm

But it shows nothing that adds any credibility to the evolution theory. First off, rather than 10 years, it was only discovered in 2003 and not announced until the fall of 2004, but that isn't all that significant. According to the article itself, it is clear that science has not even determined how to classify this themselves. Nothing new in either pygmy, dwarf or midgets, either individually or as a clan. As far as the brain size, that may easily just be a deformity. It said nothing about being long lived, but only how old the fossil was. Even at 18000 years, that would place it from an era prior to this Earth Age, so has nothing to do with modern man...like most other fossils.

"Hobbits" Were Pygmy Ancestors, Not New Species, Study Says

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.

I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?

🙂


No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?

Why would you imagine my answer? They are all cons, however, christianity is the biggest con in my book because it has done more harm than any of the others imo. Why would you "imagine" that I'd say "probably not"?

Btw, have of your comparisons are not religion...

Good lot of assumptions from you... one of the reasons that I stated that I can't stand your arrogant postings in another thread. You think WAY too highly of yourself and your opinions.