Originally posted by Raisen
This^^ is why I wrote my statement in the first place. Then you guys come at me even more aggressively. You can be an Atheist and not berate people.
That's not berating, but it is impugning, which is just as bad. Not to mention stereotyping.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well, your first post alleges without any kind of support that all (or at least most) atheists are ignorant people without convictions who only became atheists because they want to be "different"That's not berating, but it is impugning, which is just as bad. Not to mention stereotyping.
I like how everyone fails to address the fact that Lucien said all Christians praise a magical zombie.
I really don't care anymore anyway, like I said, I don't believe in Christianity but I don't criticize those who do.
Originally posted by Raisen
I like how everyone fails to address the fact that Lucien said all Christians praise a magical zombie.
I really don't care anymore anyway, like I said, I don't believe in Christianity but I don't criticize those who do.
...then you quit joking, and made an actual blanket statement. That's what prompted the response.
P.S. I love you Bardock42.
Originally posted by Raisen
I have a question.
oh, I thought you left?
Originally posted by Raisen
Who ever heard of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis? What do you think of it?
just in general?
at the core, it was more of a feminist critique of how evolution was conceptualized at the time (it was published in a book called "The Descent of Woman"😉. A lot of it's valid criticisms not only helped explained things, they actually offered predictions that have been tested. Some, like the change in habitat from jungle to coastal areas, during a period where most animals were losing cranial capacity, bringing more protein into the pre-human species' diet and allowing for greater brain size, are likely true to varying degrees and are generally supported by the locations of early human settlement (close to water), though certainly isn't the only factor. Others, not so much. From a modern perspective, it is sort of undeniable that coastal areas played a huge role in our evolution and, in fact, in the development of human society, and if that is sort of the point where you take Aquatic Ape theory to, it works really well.
Originally posted by Oliver North
oh, I thought you left?just in general?
at the core, it was more of a feminist critique of how evolution was conceptualized at the time (it was published in a book called "The Descent of Woman"😉. A lot of it's valid criticisms not only helped explained things, they actually offered predictions that have been tested. Some, like the change in habitat from jungle to coastal areas, during a period where most animals were losing cranial capacity, bringing more protein into the pre-human species' diet and allowing for greater brain size, are likely true to varying degrees and are generally supported by the locations of early human settlement (close to water), though certainly isn't the only factor. Others, not so much. From a modern perspective, it is sort of undeniable that coastal areas played a huge role in our evolution and, in fact, in the development of human society, and if that is sort of the point where you take Aquatic Ape theory to, it works really well.
Seems like you just looked it up. It's definitely not a theory at this point tho.
Originally posted by Oliver North
well, you sure showed me it was worth my time to do anything other than mock you
just a little busy; wanted to drop a quick line to let you know that i'm listening but apparently you jumped to conclusions.
I do wonder why you would choose to mock somebody who you don't know...........anyway, it doesn't matter. this HYPOTHESIS was debunked I heard, but I couldn't find any evidence to that.