Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Let's pretend this is still a debate, lol... because unfortunately far too many people still don't look honestly at the evidence. I think our species is doomed unless we realize our true origins and start making sense of the universe and our place in it. If we don't we're going to continue to kill each other (at worst) and delude ourselves (at best) over which book was written by God.



Creationism has a lot of things to answer for to be a viable scientific theory. Just to name a few...

1. Vestigial Structures like the appendix in humans and hip bones in whales and dolphins (not very "intelligently designed" (see video 1 below)

2. Starlight (I even had a Bible teacher in high school mention this as a baffling piece of evidence for Christians)

3. Fossil Record (less complex organisms deeper in the record, more complex more recent in the fossil record - no humans with dinosaurs, no rabbits in the Precambrian era, etc)

4. Chromosome 2 (evidence of a fusion, pretty conclusive for our relation to apes) (See video 3 below)

5. Dover, Pennsylvania area School district. Creationism did not hold up in court. (See video: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design On Trial (NOVA)




A couple really good introductory videos (the first is pretty short)...

lIEoO5KdPvg

Jw0MLJJJbqc

zi8FfMBYCkk


Oh, and here are a few really good videos debunking Creationists, showing how dishonest and/or willfully ignorant they are about the evidence. It's deceptive and wrong...

Debunking Creationists - Dr. Ben Carson
Debunking Creationists - Dr. Jason Lisle
Debunking Creationists - Alan Horvath
Debunking Creationists - Jerry Bergman

That should be enough to keep anyone interested busy for a while... heh..

I mean most of the Christians I know believe God created the universe but also believe in evolution and not that God created humans as we are.

As my own personal Christian stance goes if I believe God is the creator of the universe then I believe scientific law is in a sense his direct word, so rejecting scientific fact would be blasphemous from that perspective.

This thread is about Evolution vs Creation, not Evolution vs Christians.

Well the point I'm making is that the two aren't necessarily diametrically opposed unless you're speaking of a particular stance of creationism.

I think the OP is going against the particular stance of creationism

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean most of the Christians I know believe God created the universe but also believe in evolution and not that God created humans as we are.

That's great. But unfortunately there are still many, many, many Christians who think the earth is 6,000 years old or so using the brilliant method of counting back all the genealogies in the Bible. It doesn't matter what evidence there is to the contrary. It's true because it simply has to be, because the Bible is the infallible Word of God!

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well the point I'm making is that the two aren't necessarily diametrically opposed unless you're speaking of a particular stance of creationism.

...which the OP was.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I think our species is doomed unless we realize our true origins

So just how have you managed to come to "terms" with your origin being that you came from a inert wad of snot?

What EXACTLY would be said persons PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE!?

Right next to the yellow mustard stain on the cosmic hanky?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So just how have you managed to come to "terms" with your origin being that you came from a inert wad of snot?

I worship the Great Cosmic Snot Monster. Duh. And so do you apparently, judging by your green snot-colored font.

Really? That is all you got? Oh wait. You had NOTHING to start with so...I guess that makes sense.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Really? That is all you got? Oh wait. You had NOTHING to start with so...I guess that makes sense.

Well, since you're too big of a blind idiot to infer what I'm talking about I'll spell it out for you...

Our place in the universe is on a ball of rock spinning around a ball of fire and we were fortunate enough to find ourselves here. It's a gift. And it's up to us to take control of our evolution instead of killing ourselves off by destroying the planet and killing each other over land, greed, and ideological differences.

We were not placed here by some anthropomorphic deity (as many people believe) that can just fix everything (in this life or the next) after we screw it all up.

Get it?

You can't call it " a gift" that would imply that it was GIVEN to us by someone or thing. At Best all it is is pure dumb luck. Happenstance, almost more of a joke. There is no MEANING to anything. On we can PRETEND that what we do as either or both individuals or a species has some kind of meaning but in the long run, it don't mean a thing at all.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well the point I'm making is that the two aren't necessarily diametrically opposed unless you're speaking of a particular stance of creationism.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
...which the OP was.

Let him speak... what is wrong with him pointing that out?



But my question to Emperor, though, is this...

Since you clearly welcome open criticism to the Bible and everything that typical fundamental Christianity involves, and you obviously recognize that the Bible has been required to go through some serious reformations and rationalizations to make sense of its narrow-minded outlook (it's stance on slavery and primitive understanding of creation, etc) then what special pedestal does the Bible belong on? Why not just look at it like any other old piece of literature?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
You can't call it " a gift" that would imply that it was GIVEN to us by someone or thing. At Best all it is is pure dumb luck. Happenstance, almost more of a joke. There is no MEANING to anything. On we can PRETEND that what we do as either or both individuals or a species has some kind of meaning but in the long run, it don't mean a thing at all.

It means what we make it mean.

Right now it means killing each other over land, greed, and ideological differences in certain parts of the world.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It means what we make it mean.

Right now it means killing each other over land, greed, and ideological differences in certain parts of the world.

You would be happier if they were doing it to push The Evolution Theory instead?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
You would be happier if they were doing it to push The Evolution Theory instead?

Whut?

You know like in the South Park Episode where everybody in the future "worshiped" science and then fought and killed each other over petty differences.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
You know like in the South Park Episode where everybody in the future "worshiped" science and then fought and killed each other over petty differences.



Yeah, I know the episode. It's funny. Especially the giant otters eating things on their tummies.

But it's not really true to reality. The science community is actually a very collaborative one, even worldwide. They obviously don't care about petty things like what to name the "Atheist Movement." And the things they do care about, which are scientific discoveries, they're terrified of being wrong, so they're always passing ideas on to more and more specialized fields of study. It's a very anti-dogmatic system. When was the last time we heard a scientist announce that he wants to kill non-scientists? Never. Whereas we've heard it non-stop from Muslims and even some particularly wacky (and non-reformed) Christians. Scientists don't kill people.. lol

What I never understood about the religious people who argue against evolution is that if they believe in God and feel he is all powerful then why does evolution bother them? Since God could have purposely created a universe that gives life forms a chance to evolve.

Originally posted by Surtur
What I never understood about the religious people who argue against evolution is that if they believe in God and feel he is all powerful then why does evolution bother them? Since God could have purposely created a universe that gives life forms a chance to evolve.
Yeah I always found it more flattering to God to say he made something that continually improves upon itself rather than some stagnant creation.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, I know the episode. It's funny. Especially the giant otters eating things on their tummies.

But it's not really true to reality. The science community is actually a very collaborative one, even worldwide.

To Prove that isn't really true. 2 Words..."CLIMATE CHANGE"

Gotcha!

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
But my question to Emperor, though, is this...

Since you clearly welcome open criticism to the Bible and everything that typical fundamental Christianity involves, and you obviously recognize that the Bible has been required to go through some serious reformations and rationalizations to make sense of its narrow-minded outlook (it's stance on slavery and primitive understanding of creation, etc) then what special pedestal does the Bible belong on? Why not just look at it like any other old piece of literature?
An excellent question. I believe the a Christian should look at the Bible as containing divine truth, however at the same time as it was written by man it is subject to the flaws of man, and thus, while I still think the Bible is important, it shouldn't be worshipped in the same way that the Holy Trinity is. The problem that I have with a lot of people who call themselves fundamentalists is that rather than actually seize upon the core values of Christianity (which I think are very justifiable from even a secular standpoint), they instead focus and dogmatically obsess over the details of the Bible, even when those details or precepts contradict the core values of Christianity.

A general rule of thumb I have is to not accept contradictions to the core values of Christianity, and to not deny scientific fact which is undeniably the literal direct word of God if he did indeed create the universe.

Christians should treat the Bible as containing divine truth, but shouldn't make the mistake of treating it as a flawless work, or when a contradiction arises make the mistake of choosing the Biblical precept over the core Christian value it contradicts.

I find it interesting that you mentioned the creation story, because the creation story and the fall of man might actually be my favorite part of the Old Testament. Though the details are scientifically accurate, there's something powerful about God forming our physical reality from articulated speech. There's actually a professor named Jordan Peterson in Canada whose given some really good concepts on the Christian concept of the Logos, which is both the articulated speech God used in creation to form order out of chaos, and also one of the titles of Jesus, so Jordan Peterson places emphasis on the idea that humanity's salvation is the same thing that organized order from Chaos, so articulated speech, logical reasoning, systems of meaning, etc. Which is something I think quite a few Christians and Atheists would do better to seize upon. Some Christians ignore logical reasoning, and while I have a lot of respect for plenty of very logical and scientifically minded atheists, some people make the mistake of assuming that atheism is synonymous with logic when I've known quite a few unintelligent atheists, and when some atheists take the conclusion of "there is no God" to reject systems of meaning or ordering, such as those who embrace nihilism, post-modernism, or amorality.

And the other part of Genesis that intrigues me is the fall of man, because taken literally the idea of collective guilt, that we all bear the guilt for something our ancestors did, is stupid and is one of the reasons I find myself in opposition to those termed SJWs, because people trying to implicate me in collective guilt for slavery, or "the patriarchy" just because I'm a white male even though I've never oppressed anyone is dumb. However, viewed allegorically the fall of man is a perfect allegory for why we as humans have the capacity for evil. In the creation story and in the act of disobeying God and eating the fruit is the idea of choice. Then of course what ultimately motivated that original sin was the serpent tempting Eve with essentially a God-complex, which is the most extreme form of arrogance, and from both a Christian theological stance and my own observation of human behavior I believe arrogance to be the root of all evil, (since arrogance motivates people's selfish desires, allows them to justify doing something immoral and unethical for those desires, and prevents them from being willing to admit their own faults), and the original sin, the act of eating the fruit bestowed upon humanity a knowledge of good and evil, which is necessary for moral accountability. So the original sin when viewed allegorically posits that we have a capacity for evil because we can make the choice between good and evil, have a knowledge of good and evil, and within us we contain the part of human nature that motivates all evil.

Whelp, that was a particularly long winded rant, not necessarily as an argument moreso than I felt like going onto a lengthy philosophical diatribe.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, I know the episode. It's funny. Especially the giant otters eating things on their tummies.

But it's not really true to reality. The science community is actually a very collaborative one, even worldwide. They obviously don't care about petty things like what to name the "Atheist Movement." And the things they do care about, which are scientific discoveries, they're terrified of being wrong, so they're always passing ideas on to more and more specialized fields of study. It's a very anti-dogmatic system. When was the last time we heard a scientist announce that he wants to kill non-scientists? Never. Whereas we've heard it non-stop from Muslims and even some particularly wacky (and non-reformed) Christians. Scientists don't kill people.. lol
Yeah it's dumb to view that episode as an attack on the scientific community so much as it is an obvious attack on the idea that religion is somehow the root of all or most evil and that by removing religion we could create some utopia, essentially Trey Parker and Matt Stone are pointing out that you could get rid of religion, but humans would still find ideological differences to fight over and shit.

And this can be viewed in a modern or historical context even, for example communism. Communism in the twentieth century killed a lot more people than the Nazis, and in modern day (if I'm not mistaken) communist terrorism is currently the second most common form of terrorism after Islamic terrorism. Or for other examples, the prospect of nuclear war in Russia which could lead to mass scale destruction never seen before, at least to my knowledge is completely disconnected from religion, and one of the greatest problems in politics is political corruption and corporatism, which is something getting rid of religion wouldn't have any noticeable impact in actually solving.

In fact, while Islamism (the political religious ideology of spreading Islam and Islamic law behind terrorism that a lot of Muslims, but not all support) is clearly the most dangerous and currently destructive ideology in our time, I'd go so far as to argue the next few most destructive ideologies are not religious in nature. For example there's communism, which an atheist could make a case that Christianity is detrimental to nations, however there's hardly nearly as much of a historical precedence for there being nations doing well... then Christianity swoops in and completely ruins them, however with communism there's examples like Russia, or Cuba, or virtually any country it's been tried in, whereas nations with a large Christian presence have been generally successful and advanced (you could argue that's in spite of Christianity rather than because of it, but it doesn't change the fact that Christianity didn't collapse those nations). Or for example there's also post-modernist ideology, which has in modern lead to rather oppressive laws for example in Canada, and has poisoned the ideological sanctity of universities and open discussion and free speech in a way that Christianity despite being such a presence in say the US for example hasn't done in a comparable manner (at least not in the modern day), and also has driven some students to actively obstruct law enforcement. Or for another example you have anarchist groups or groups with anarchist tendencies, such as the anarcho-communist Antifa movment and an Antifa group known as BAMN who actively promote political violence against their ideological opponents and have actually assaulted police officers in some cases, or a certain anarchistic aspect of BLM that calls for dead cops (even if someone is to argue it's a good movement, certainly it could do without calling for violence and murder against law enforcement).

Say what you want about the Western practices of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, New Age shit, Mormonism, or even Scientology, but unlike ideologies disconnected from religion such as communism, post-modernism, and anarchistic ideologies, the western practices of the aforementioned religions do not by necessity stand in direct opposition to and call for the upheaval of western civilization.

And all of this isn't me saying religious ideology shouldn't be challenged when disagreed with, but this is me agreeing with South Park that getting rid of religion wouldn't create utopia, and the idea that if only we got rid of religion we'd live in a society where everyone upholds logical reasoning is woefully optimistic to say the least. I also think sometimes people who want a logical society and progress, even if they should criticize religious ideologies they find detrimental, sometimes overemphasize the western practice of religion when there are more detrimental ideologies that aren't connected to the religion vs atheism debate.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Gotcha!

Keep your hands where I can see em Benny!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
To Prove that isn't really true. 2 Words..."CLIMATE CHANGE"

Oh, you mean something that about 97% of scientists agree on? Oh, yeah, that actually proves my point. It's the idiotic media that muddies those actually crystal clear waters.

They've actually taken old samples of air from deep layers of ice from hundreds of years ago and found less carbon dioxide present than current air.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
An excellent question. I believe the a Christian should look at the Bible as containing divine truth, however at the same time as it was written by man it is subject to the flaws of man, and thus, while I still think the Bible is important, it shouldn't be worshipped in the same way that the Holy Trinity is....

Christians should treat the Bible as containing divine truth, but shouldn't make the mistake of treating it as a flawless work...

So it's written through men, and that's why it isn't flawless? And forgive me for bringing this up again and again (especially since it isn't relevant to this topic), but that would also be why the Bible advocates slavery and other rather immoral behavior?

Why would an all-powerful God allow his perfect Word to get janked up by men? lol. And the Word still claims to be the perfect Word of God and you say it's not... are you calling God a liar?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah it's dumb to view that episode as an attack on the scientific community so much as it is an obvious attack on the idea that religion is somehow the root of all or most evil and that by removing religion we could create some utopia, essentially Trey Parker and Matt Stone are pointing out that you could get rid of religion, but humans would still find ideological differences to fight over and shit....

And all of this isn't me saying religious ideology shouldn't be challenged when disagreed with, but this is me agreeing with South Park that getting rid of religion wouldn't create utopia, and the idea that if only we got rid of religion we'd live in a society where everyone upholds logical reasoning is woefully optimistic to say the least.

Sure, no one is arguing that religion is the sole reason for violence and hatred in the world, but it is a big reason for tribal us-versus-them violence and in the case of Islam it's a big reason for religious conquest. But there's also this...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8f/d7/99/8fd799e1006b06d1a84612e02c2ca743.png

us-vs-them mentality exists in any kind of society, not just those in which religion plays a big part.

Unless your argument is that war between classes has been delayed because of religion being used as an argument for the poor vs rich ultimate conflict. I could come back saying that nations already played that role as "placebo" wars.

Originally posted by Bentley
us-vs-them mentality exists in any kind of society, not just those in which religion plays a big part.

Sure. No one is saying otherwise.

But I really can't recommend Sam Harris' book The End of Faith highly enough. He lays out an undeniable argument for how dangerous our incompatible religions are, the ones that are particularly faith-based, i.e. based on fantastic assertions about the universe but without sufficient evidence...



And to get a little bit more on topic here, I'm going to be reading this book by Richard Dawkins (speaking of the South Park episode, haha). So I might share some interesting tidbits as I go along...

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51pZEx0CtvL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
So it's written through men, and that's why it isn't flawless? And forgive me for bringing this up again and again (especially since it isn't relevant to this topic), but that would also be why the Bible advocates slavery and other rather immoral behavior?
Pretty much yeah

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Why would an all-powerful God allow his perfect Word to get janked up by men? lol.
My answer to this is similar to that of my answer to the problem of evil in that I don't believe God is interventionist to the extent of doing all of our work for us. I believe we could've been created as perfect beings in a perfect state of existence but that that would've robbed us of the opportunity for self-definition, thus I think the universe, our understanding of things, and certain conditions within it are there to allow the opportunity for progress, and I think after we die we all experience an understanding of how we've lived our lives that allows us to move beyond our remaining flaws and reach a perfect state of existence in Heaven, so when we are finally in a perfect state of existence it is partially of our own making, a collaborative effort between God and the individual if you will. I view the Bible in much the same way in that I view it as a collaborative effort between man and inspiration from the Holy Spirit, and that for it to partially be a product and part of human progress there has to have been a distinctly human element in it's creation, which inevitably leads to flaw.

Something of a Christian Universalist/Irenaean Theodicy approach

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
And the Word still claims to be the perfect Word of God and you say it's not... are you calling God a liar?
Well obviously if something claims it's perfect that doesn't mean it's perfect. I would take the claim of perfection to be one of the part's that's flawed.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Sure, no one is arguing that religion is the sole reason for violence and hatred in the world, but it is a big reason for tribal us-versus-them violence and in the case of Islam it's a big reason for religious conquest. But there's also this...
And I'm not so much critical of criticizing religion as much as I am against the disproportionate emphasis quite a few New Atheists place on religion in their quest for intellectualism and a reason based society when with the exception of Islamism there are numerous ideologies more detrimental than the practice of religion in western societies that rear their head in politics, violence, educational indoctrination for political means, and a desire for the upheaval of western society. Criticize religion, but I think quite a few New Atheists place a disproportionate emphasis on western religion when there are bigger fish to fry, and in particular those who place an extreme emphasis on Christianity such as TheYoungTurks for example who in every topic they discuss even vaguely connected to Christianity they take the opportunity to mock and place blame on it, yet for every video involving Islam it's all apologetics.

Sam Harris is an exception to both of these statements since he clearly is more critical of the threat of Islam than the threat of Christianity in a modern day context, and since he also comments on politics and thus doesn't focus ideological criticism exclusively around religious ideologies, and this is one of the reasons I have quite a bit of respect for Sam Harris despite my obvious disagreements with him, as well as the fact that in his criticism of religion while he's pretty blunt about his stances he's not a deliberately provocative ******* about them, and he's pragmatic enough to recognize that it's more realistic to work with moderate Muslims for ideological reform than to think removing the presence of Islam from the world is a practical notion.

This is also a reason I'm rather fond of Sargon of Akkad on YouTube, since he's obviously very critical of religion, but he places more emphasis on criticizing detrimental political ideologies than say western Christianity for example.

Basically I don't take an issue with ideological criticism as much as I take issue with the priorities of some New Atheists when it comes to ideological criticism.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Let's pretend this is still a debate...


Sadly, there is and there will be in the foreseeable future as huge numbers of people believe in some variation of the Creation story.

If you want to say evolution* isn't real, sure, that's your right, it has gaps. But believing in magical gardens, talking snakes, mythical creatures like angels, fire/smoke breathing sea monsters, flying horses, god-men is the stuff of lunacy; no sane adult should.

*I accept it as is and accept it could change as technology progresses

Originally posted by Emperordmb
My answer to this is similar to that of my answer to the problem of evil in that I don't believe God is interventionist to the extent of doing all of our work for us.

Exactly. So why would a loving creator give humans answers at all? It is not a loving thing to do, for to give humans answers rots our brains. Our brains evolved to think and reason and come up with solutions on our own. At no point have we ever been given answers from a supernatural entity. So believing in magic books and actual magic events is quite an archaic and superstitious worldview. It's... unnatural.



Originally posted by Emperordmb
And I'm not so much critical of criticizing religion as much as I am against the disproportionate emphasis quite a few New Atheists place on religion in their quest for intellectualism and a reason based society when with the exception of Islamism there are numerous ideologies more detrimental than the practice of religion in western societies that rear their head in politics, violence, educational indoctrination for political means, and a desire for the upheaval of western society. Criticize religion, but I think quite a few New Atheists place a disproportionate emphasis on western religion when there are bigger fish to fry, and in particular those who place an extreme emphasis on Christianity such as TheYoungTurks for example who in every topic they discuss even vaguely connected to Christianity they take the opportunity to mock and place blame on it, yet for every video involving Islam it's all apologetics.

Sam Harris is an exception to both of these statements since he clearly is more critical of the threat of Islam than the threat of Christianity in a modern day context, and since he also comments on politics and thus doesn't focus ideological criticism exclusively around religious ideologies, and this is one of the reasons I have quite a bit of respect for Sam Harris despite my obvious disagreements with him, as well as the fact that in his criticism of religion while he's pretty blunt about his stances he's not a deliberately provocative ******* about them, and he's pragmatic enough to recognize that it's more realistic to work with moderate Muslims for ideological reform than to think removing the presence of Islam from the world is a practical notion.

This is also a reason I'm rather fond of Sargon of Akkad on YouTube, since he's obviously very critical of religion, but he places more emphasis on criticizing detrimental political ideologies than say western Christianity for example.

Basically I don't take an issue with ideological criticism as much as I take issue with the priorities of some New Atheists when it comes to ideological criticism.

Yes, Sam Harris is reasonable enough to recognize that not all religions teach the same thing and where they do teach the same thing (as he points out: ) they don't teach it equally well. He definitely recognizes Islam as a particularly virulent strand of irrationality.

But Christianity is also quite a problem. Here in the United States it is simply accepted by many people as "the right way to be," and that's a very dangerous mode of thinking (or should i say 'non-thinking'?). Half of the country (give or take) thinks Jesus is coming back soon (Think about that for a second). That has some terrifying consequences. So of course many reasonably thinking atheists are going to speak out against it. Whether or not they see Islam as more dangerous than other religions I'm not sure. But I think they would realize quite obviously that Christianity has been reformed and that it used to be actually if not just as bad as Islam, certainly quite close to being just as bad. And unfortunately I think many Christian believers have a false sense of superiority to Islam because Christianity isn't still burning heretics and witches alive and requiring indulgences, etc. Because it's been reformed many people (including some that I work with) think we're (as Christians) at war with Islam. No, we're at war with Islam as rational human beings!

That was actually a Facebook post recently from someone I work with, here it is verbatim:



I suspect this opinion is pretty typical. That's a problem going up against Islam. It's not one form of irrationality against another, it's rationality against irrationality.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
He lays out an undeniable argument for how dangerous our incompatible religions are, the ones that are particularly faith-based, i.e. based on fantastic assertions about the universe but without sufficient evidence...

Fair point. Thanks to fantastic assertions being the base of primitive political/religious agendas modern thinkers have easily dismissed them. If divisions were to be based in more elaborate and fact oriented lies they'd be much harder to combat even with modern age understanding and information networks. The painful cost of leaving faith based societal links behind as the cohesion of the State became an excellent learning process.

We can see a similar danger in the light the whole novelty of the fake news propaganda, which is the kind of development I'd expect to happen in a world ruled by less "religious thinking"

http://www.godofevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/The-Most-Interesting-God-in-the-World-meme.jpg

Originally posted by Bentley
If divisions were to be based in more elaborate and fact oriented lies they'd be much harder to combat even with modern age understanding and information networks.

I don't know what you mean by "fact oriented lies."

He's talking about more complex and elaborated 'beliefs' that would be harder to debunk by the GA, ie: us.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
He's talking about more complex and elaborated 'beliefs' that would be harder to debunk by the GA, ie: us.

Oh, okay, well Creation Myths have been pretty well 'debunked' by scientific explanations, and where they try to become more sophisticated (like God using evolution along the way), that's just people clinging to old beliefs and trying to make them fit with new information instead of fully adopting new information.

...it's better to try to stick with natural explanations for things, not supernatural explanations because they can't really be proven and lend themselves more to our superstitious tendencies.

So we all know (at least many of us) that dogs have a sort of co-evolution with humans which explains whey they are 'man's best friend' and how they have come to be domesticated. Well, here is a very interesting modern experiment explained in the book I'm reading by Richard Dawkins that shows something very similar is possible with foxes. I typed out a few pages...



shock That's really cool.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Views_on_Evolution.svg/960px-Views_on_Evolution.svg.png

The USA is just ahead of Turkey. That is embarrassing.

Origin of Life = Creation
Diversity = Evolution

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Origin of Life = Creation
Diversity = Evolution

That's not the claim by many creationists, though. They claim everything was created exactly as things are today, which is obviously willfully ignorant.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
That's not the claim by many creationists, though. They claim everything was created exactly as things are today, which is obviously willfully ignorant.
Many are guilty of inherent biases and extremes in narrative-building (preachers and scientists included). Few keep an open mind.

I put the arguments/narratives in this way:-

Evolution Only ---------- Creation and Evolution Collective ---------- Creation Only

Chance Only ---------- Open-ended ---------- Biblical Accounts Only

EXTREMISM of LEFT ---------- BALANCE ---------- EXTREMISM of RIGHT

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Everything is Random ---------- Open-ended ---------- Creation Only

EXTREMISM of LEFT ------------ BALANCE ------------- EXTREMISM of RIGHT

That's a big misconception about evolution. It's anything but random. Natural selection is not random.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
That's a big misconception about evolution. It's anything but random. Natural selection is not random.
Original view of genetic mutations is that is it chance-based in relation to adaptation (element of randomness). However, this view was challenged in newer studies with observations that suggest that genetic mutations tend to be "directed." You can find ample details here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ptb/6959004.0002.003/--evolutionary-chance-mutation-a-defense-of-the-modern?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Now we have various articles popping out all over the web with caption "misconceptions about evolution" which is ironic in the light of the fact that the aforementioned debate has not be settled yet.

Scientists themselves are responsible for prevalent confusion and misconceptions.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Many are guilty of inherent biases and extremes in narrative-building (preachers and scientists included). Few keep an open mind.

I put the arguments/narratives in this way:-

Evolution Only ---------- Creation and Evolution Collective ---------- Creation Only

Chance Only ---------- Open-ended ---------- Biblical Accounts Only

EXTREMISM of LEFT ---------- BALANCE ---------- EXTREMISM of RIGHT

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Original view of genetic mutations is that is it chance-based in relation to adaptation (element of randomness). However, this view was challenged in newer studies with observations that suggest that genetic mutations tend to be "directed." You can find ample details here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ptb/6959004.0002.003/--evolutionary-chance-mutation-a-defense-of-the-modern?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Now we have various articles popping out all over the web with caption "misconceptions about evolution" which is ironic in the light of the fact that the aforementioned debate has not be settled yet.

Even this lady admits that there are beneficial outcomes. She's struggling pretty hard to debunk evolution...

W6WFUCJNu2w

And allow me to post another excerpt from Richard Dawkins as I am reading one of his books...




Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Scientists themselves are responsible for prevalent confusion and misconceptions.

What? No, that would be creationists constantly spreading willfully ignorant and idiotic assertions. Like not understanding the definition of a scientific "theory," as another example. Even our scientifically illiterate Vice President has used that same tired argument.

It's a waste of time arguing with that churchy liar. Creationists are inherently dishonest and/or they don't care about facts and evidence. Somebody who denies that there is common descent of humans, chimps, rabbits, birds is a Creationist no matter if he thinks the world is a few thousand or a few billion years old. You know that; stop lying.


And here's a case of an animal currently in the process of evolving:

boredomtherapy.com/skink-evolution/

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/#/25436.jpg

The Australian Three-Toed Skink is undergoing a double transformation. It's almost legless and it is changing from egg-laying to live birth.

But sure who cares about that when you've got a lying Creationist ******* to present you with all the real facts and info.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
It's a waste of time arguing with that churchy liar. Creationists are inherently dishonest and/or they don't care about facts and evidence. Somebody who denies that there is common descent of humans, chimps, rabbits, birds is a Creationist no matter if he thinks the world is a few thousand or a few billion years old. You know that; stop lying.




Originally posted by Ayelewis
And here's a case of an animal currently in the process of evolving:

boredomtherapy.com/skink-evolution/

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/#/25436.jpg

The Australian Three-Toed Skink is undergoing a double transformation. It's almost legless and it is changing from egg-laying to live birth.

That is cool as shit.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Even this lady admits that there are beneficial outcomes. She's struggling pretty hard to debunk evolution...

W6WFUCJNu2w

And allow me to post another excerpt from Richard Dawkins as I am reading one of his books...






What? No, that would be creationists constantly spreading willfully ignorant and idiotic assertions. Like not understanding the definition of a scientific "theory," as another example. Even our scientifically illiterate Vice President has used that same tired argument.
I think you missed my point.

Evolution is random or directed? This debate is not settled yet.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Evolution is random or directed? This debate is not settled yet.

I'm sure it's settled for you: it is directed by Allah, eh?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I'm sure it's settled for you: it is directed by Allah, eh?
You continue to miss this point:

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Scientists themselves are responsible for prevalent confusion and misconceptions.

Elaboration:

1. Some scientific studies suggest that Evolution is RANDOM.

2. Some scientific studies suggest that Evolution is DIRECTED.

You can find ample evidence in this study: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ptb/6959004.0002.003/--evolutionary-chance-mutation-a-defense-of-the-modern?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Due to the above:

I find the web pieces with caption "misconceptions about Evolution" ridiculous and funny.

You also stated that Evolution is anything but random - you are in agreement with so-called Creationists on this part.

---

As for Godly intervention, I have a question for you:

The comet that struck Earth 65 million years ago did (not) alter the course of evolution on Earth?

This extraterrestrial intervention enabled mammals to replace dinosaurs as the dominant life-form across the world and set in motion evolutionary processes that would eventually lead to hominids.

---

As for "it is directed by Allah" part:-

I am an advocate of "open-ended approach" to assess all developments.

Faith and Science can work in tandem for "enriched learning experience" for all of us - they don't have to be at loggerheads for the masses. Here is a beautiful argument from an atheist scientist: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/#4851c7815ada

Those who are trying their best to disprove the notion of GOD with the "randomness nonsense" - are failing spectacularly in this matter and are just as deluded as those who are trying to rely upon science to rediscover GOD.

If somebody believes in GOD - so be it. No need to judge him for this belief because nobody have a sound refutation for it - all of us are learning in the end.

My faith is that all of us will figure out the ultimate truths one day.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
My faith is that all of us will figure out the ultimate truths one day.
In better words:

My faith is that ultimate truths will eventually come to light one day - and those who were in the wrong, will truly regret it on that day. This is also the gist of arguments in the Quran.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You also stated that Evolution is anything but random - you are in agreement with so-called Creationists on this part.

I'm not missing the point. Creationist think life was created exactly as it is now less than 10,000 years ago. To them it's not directed at all, because it's not evolving. It's perfect and complete as is.

Mutations are random. Natural selection is not. I guess you could say it's a phenomenon that directs itself?



Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
As for Godly intervention, I have a question for you:

The comet that struck Earth 65 million years ago did (not) alter the course of evolution on Earth?

Yeah, I would definitely say it did alter the course of evolution. Not sure what your point is.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I'm not missing the point. Creationist think life was created exactly as it is now less than 10,000 years ago. To them it's not directed at all, because it's not evolving. It's perfect and complete as is.

Mutations are random. Natural selection is not. I guess you could say it's a phenomenon that directs itself?
I am not sure which "Creationists" you are referring to.

Natural Selection is not random? Correct.

Mutations are strictly at random? Wrong.

Mutations can occur randomly (and) otherwise and evidence is piling-up:

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/nature10995.html
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmed.php
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25264

Evolution is a visible phenomenon but THEORY of EVOLUTION does not accounts for additional realities such as extraterrestrial interventions (and their implications for natural evolutionary processes) and how it all began (origin of life). This is why THEORY of EVOLUTION cannot refute the notion of Creation because it is just a part of the puzzle.

Creation also happens (i.e. origin of life) but we need a refined understanding of its concepts and driving forces. I am also expecting some scientists to explain "creation" with alternative terminologies because this word is like a big dildo up their @sses.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, I would definitely say it did alter the course of evolution. Not sure what your point is.
https://i.imgflip.com/8n2lk.jpg

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I am not sure which "Creationists" you are referring to

The ones who take the words in Genesis 1 in the Bible literally. There are many of them here in the Unites States. My father is one of them. See the graph I posted on the bottom of Page 2.


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Creation also happens (i.e. origin of life) but we need a refined understanding of its concepts and driving forces.

Sure.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I am also expecting some scientists to explain "creation" with alternative terminologies because this word is like a big dildo up their @sses.

Scientists probably prefer the word chemistry, seeing as God is a way to explain things we don't understand and stop inquiry.


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
My faith is that ultimate truths will eventually come to light one day - and those who were in the wrong, will truly regret it on that day. This is also the gist of arguments in the Quran.

And there goes any credibility you may have once had.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
The ones who take the words in Genesis 1 in the Bible literally. There are many of them here in the Unites States. My father is one of them. See the graph I posted on the bottom of Page 2.
OK

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Sure.


Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Scientists probably prefer the word chemistry, seeing as God is a way to explain things we don't understand and stop inquiry.
I see.

However, nobody can (and should) deny Creation - it happens. Scientists might use another term but it is an undeniable fact of our Universe.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
And there goes any credibility you may have once had.
This "attitude" is something that EXTREMIST on the Left and EXTREMIST on the Right have in common and it doesn't address anything. Atheist think they know better and have greater credibility - they are just as deluded as those biblical nuts.

My point is that ultimate truths will come to light one day - and each individual will know if he was right or wrong. Nothing controversial in this.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
This "attitude" is something that EXTREMIST on the Left and EXTREMIST on the Right have in common and it doesn't address anything. Atheist think they know better and have greater credibility - they are just as deluded as those biblical nuts.

No, that is a false comparison. Bible nuts believe a bunch of silly stuff in a book without good evidence. Atheists simply reject such unsubstantiated silliness. That is not "EXTREMISM" as you seem to think. It is reasonableness.


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
My point is that ultimate truths will come to light one day - and each individual will know if he was right or wrong. Nothing controversial in this.

No, what you said was...


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
My faith is that ultimate truths will eventually come to light one day - and those who were in the wrong, will truly regret it on that day. This is also the gist of arguments in the Quran.

You're at least implicitly stating that there is some sort of judgment after death, and yes, that is controversial. It comes down to believing things without good evidence again. There is no evidence for such nonsense.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
No, that is a false comparison. Bible nuts believe a bunch of silly stuff in a book without good evidence. Atheists simply reject such unsubstantiated silliness. That is not "EXTREMISM" as you seem to think. It is reasonableness.
Evidence - as if it really matters?

People believe what they want to believe, my friend. Some examples:

1. Some people dismiss Jesus Christ as a legend: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/15/living/jesus-debate-man-versus-myth/index.html

2. Some people dismiss Man's visit to the Moon: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/moon-landing-celebrates-47th-anniversary-8446862

3. Some people believe that 9/11 was an inside job: https://www.livescience.com/56479-americans-believe-conspiracy-theories.html

Debunking efforts are not really working - are they?

I am sure many Atheist are into conspiracy theories as well - they just pretend to know better.

We cannot (and should not) take scientific studies as "gospel" either because newer findings can invalidate older assessments and/or rewrite them. Many scientists and/or researchers will tell you this.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
No, what you said was...



You're at least implicitly stating that there is some sort of judgment after death, and yes, that is controversial. It comes down to believing things without good evidence again. There is no evidence for such nonsense.
And if it is not nonsense? Dead don't talk and explain their experiences - do they?

What we know today is not the end.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
What we know today is not the end.
We have this itch to study, explore and question and these motives will lead us somewhere - it will have an end.

If God exists - he will respond to our queries one day.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
We cannot (and should not) take scientific studies as "gospel" either because newer findings can invalidate older assessments and/or rewrite them. Many scientists and/or researchers will tell you this.

That is a good thing, science is not dogmatic like religion and is willing to revise its understanding to make it more accurately reflect new evidence. That's absolutely a good thing. And that's why science and religion are not compatible.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
We have this itch to study, explore and question and these motives will lead us somewhere - it will have an end.

If God exists - he will respond to our queries one day.

Uh, okay. Moving on...



I thought I'd share another snippet from Dawkins...



(I tried to include some similar graphs and images that he has in the book, but my apologies if they don't work. I couldn't find many options.)

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
That is a good thing, science is not dogmatic like religion and is willing to revise its understanding to make it more accurately reflect new evidence. That's absolutely a good thing. And that's why science and religion are not compatible.
Religion is not supposed to be a scientific theory but a social construct.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Religion is not supposed to be a scientific theory but a social construct.

A social construct for murdering apostates, subjugating women, keeping slaves, preventing stem cell research, etc?

Religions make claims about the nature of the universe that conflict with science. Like Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse or Jesus walking on water. From the view of science those things didn't happen, sorry.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
A social construct for murdering apostates, subjugating women, keeping slaves, preventing stem cell research, etc?

Religions make claims about the nature of the universe that conflict with science. Like Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse or Jesus walking on water. From the view of science those things didn't happen, sorry.
Hmm.

Do you think scientists are in the position to provide evidence of (every) development in the past and (every) phenomenon out there?

I am an eye-witness to a very strange occurrence in one of the homes where I lived but I didn't had a smartphone to capture it - you have to take my word for it.

Will you accept my story in the absence of "scientific evidence" for it?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Hmm.

Do you think scientists are in the position to provide evidence of (every) development in the past and (every) phenomenon out there?

No, of course not, but that doesn't mean that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster (or the famous Cosmic Teapot) in deep space just because we can't prove that it doesn't exist. Because then religious fanatics should be perfectly free to make up whatever crap they want and call it "truth." So it's best to stick to what we have good evidence for.



Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Will you accept my story in the absence of "scientific evidence" for it?

No, I likely won't accept it, but you're welcome to tell it anyway. You've got me curious now.

Once upon a time there was a man named Mohammed...

Great little talk on how feathers and flight evolved...

AwY8z9L6KbU

You can't possibly look at a creature like the star nosed mole and think that it was specifically designed by a Creator God...



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9py6IgNlFak/TIegKhCpGgI/AAAAAAAAAnI/mj35Tx8GUTA/s1600/StarNosedMole.jpg

http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com/legacy_blog/5153972000_1be194f570.jpg


The platypus is pretty damn weird, too. It was actually mistaken as a hoax at first, haha...

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/images/nature/platypusLg.jpg

https://img-s3.onedio.com/id-54b4dd23556967ab4e7efdf6/rev-1/raw/s-26b63fb05fd038efc32ee6cb51276ba1cdb2f4c1.jpg

Ironically enough, an appendix does serve a purpose in the human body; not a significant or neccessarily all too effective purpose, but it's there for a reason.

But yeah, there's plenty of proof for evolution.

Originally posted by MythLord
Ironically enough, an appendix does serve a purpose in the human body; not a significant or neccessarily all too effective purpose, but it's there for a reason.

I don't think it serves any real purpose anymore.

And it can get inflamed and have to be removed in lots of people who live just fine without it. It's leftover from our more vegetarian ancestors.

It has it's purposes, actually, but it ultimately doesn't sum up to much.
It's like that one friend who helps you carry a few plates when you could've handled it yourself -- nice, but no neccessary.

Originally posted by MythLord
It has it's purposes, actually, but it ultimately doesn't sum up to much.
It's like that one friend who helps you carry a few plates when you could've handled it yourself -- nice, but no neccessary.

Fair enough, I did a little digging and it does appear to be somewhat involved in immune function. Dawkins points out that it used to have a larger role for our more vegetarian ancestors.

I would assume it does, given it also has a limited purpose in acid regulation, though not anymore.

Y'know, I find that the Jacobson's organ is honestly one of the best examples of evolution. This organ is used to deduce pheromones and helps finding mates and it's usually present during organogenisis(a fetus developing it's organs) yet it eventually regresses and a living, breathing human rarely ever has one. The fact that our body seems to create additional organs while developing in the womb just to sorta remove them because it realizes it's unneccessary supports the idea that humans do in fact evolve.

This is a fun watch.. Bill Nye is a Scientific Saint, unbelievable patience.

T9A-F8JEFyY

Dawkins makes an interesting observation about paleontologists quibbling about what to call each human fossil because it's hard to distinguish whether one should be classified in this particular group or the next group, and they are constantly changing which category certain fossils are in, but that's exactly what is expected with evolution because it's a long, gradual process and the lines will blur! That's precisely the point! And apparently museums are kind of strict about naming. But I think his point is that the naming system is not very good.

I think this image is about brain capacity (I wish it was better quality), but it also shows the ages...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e8/9e/8f/e89e8faed28a14b26ce4a1a3788f325e.jpg

And I didn't realize that Darwin actually predicted that humans started in Africa. He didn't have any fossils to go from with any of his predictions and it's all been confirmed.

That's pretty amazing.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
This is a fun watch.. Bill Nye is a Scientific Saint, unbelievable patience.

T9A-F8JEFyY

6m53lNTdyPg

That was nominated for an Emmy. That specific episode with that video, lol.

^ Yeah, I've actually been watching that show on Netflix. I only have a couple episodes left. I don't think he's done an evolution episode unfortunately. He shouldn't need to because it really should be a closed case, but an episode on it would be cool none-the-less.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ Yeah, I've actually been watching that show on Netflix. I only have a couple episodes left. I don't think he's done an evolution episode unfortunately. He shouldn't need to because it really should be a closed case, but an episode on it would be cool none-the-less.

The problem is the episode contradicts an episode about biology and gender that he did in the 90s.

Just to be clear: there has been zero actual scientific evidence discovered in the years between his old show and now that prove he was wrong in what he said before.

It almost seems like he kinda sold out. Embraced nonsense to become more popular. Scary thing is it worked, an Emmy nom. A lot of people watch the Emmy's. Is this shit what we really want to hold up and say is good? It's weird because he will argue for evolution, slap down silly things like astrology, but now he's talking about the science of "feelings" and doing this nonsense.

Yeah, I think I saw something about that. Well, biologically there are only 2 physical, anatomical genders. But it does seem to exist on more a spectrum in practice because obviously sexuality exists on a spectrum.

It's pretty obvious to see that if you throw out your Bible and Koran.

Lol I mean it's just...it's literally feelings over reality. That is what it boils down to. Science doesn't play any part.

Transgender folk have a 40% suicide rate. It's the same whether you look at pre transition transgenders or post transition people.

Nye doesn't mention that shit, because why would he? Also, do you know how high a frickin 40% suicide rate is?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, I think I saw something about that. Well, biologically there are only 2 physical, anatomical genders. But it does seem to exist on more a spectrum in practice because obviously sexuality exists on a spectrum.

It's pretty obvious to see that if you throw out your Bible and Koran.

You are using sex and gender here interchangeably.

Human beings are a sexually dimorphic species, and as such, there are only two biological sexes.

However, gender is a socially-constructed set of expectations assigned to people on the basis of their sex at birth.

That is a completely different issue altogether.

Most often, people experience a gender that corresponds to their sex, but not always.

Indeed, feelings>>reality. It's science.

I got a dick, but like Shania Twain...man, I feel like a woman. So I am one, is the logic.

ZJL4UGSbeFg

^Proof.

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed, feelings>>reality. It's science.

I got a dick, but like Shania Twain...man, I feel like a woman. So I am one, is the logic.

ZJL4UGSbeFg

^Proof.

Men can like Shania Twain, but if you identify as a woman, then more power to you. Congratulations on coming out, I guess. Maybe I will see you at Pride next year.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Men can like Shania Twain, but if you identify as a woman, then more power to you. Congratulations on coming out, I guess. Maybe I will see you at Pride next year.

What if I identify as a black lesbian? Do you accept it? More importantly, can I get in on that sweet affirmative action?

Originally posted by Surtur
What if I identify as a black lesbian? Do you accept it? More importantly, can I get in on that sweet affirmative action?

What if? Try it and find out.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Dawkins makes an interesting observation about paleontologists quibbling about what to call each human fossil because it's hard to distinguish whether one should be classified in this particular group or the next group, and they are constantly changing which category certain fossils are in, but that's exactly what is expected with evolution because it's a long, gradual process and the lines will blur! That's precisely the point! And apparently museums are kind of strict about naming. But I think his point is that the naming system is not very good.

I think this image is about brain capacity (I wish it was better quality), but it also shows the ages...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e8/9e/8f/e89e8faed28a14b26ce4a1a3788f325e.jpg

And I didn't realize that Darwin actually predicted that humans started in Africa. He didn't have any fossils to go from with any of his predictions and it's all been confirmed.

That's pretty amazing.

Dawkins also points out that to deal with this evidence that is in many museums to be seen with one's very own eyes, Creationists just ignore it and/or deny it. And look who has never posted in this thread: our good friend, JesusLovesYou.

Or, I've noticed another more insidious technique used by Creationists: feign knowledge or expertise and lie and mislead about the conclusions of certain data.

LOL...I remember seeing some video where a creationist argued that Dinosaurs just turned into little lizards to get on the Ark or some nonsense. It was over millions of years, it was like instantly or something because God can do that. It's funny, God changing the biological structure of something instantly is more believable than millions of years of selective adaptation.

This is a great little "debate" if you want to pull your hair out...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e8/78/ba/e878badf4142c1770352d5ed414b119d.jpg

l_WT0VJOErc


Kent Hovind is an arrogant, dishonest moron. The first opening presentations are very telling, but this descends into madness when they debate, haha... it's pretty epic facepalmage.

The US makes me sad...


Public Acceptance for the Theory of Evolution

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ff/0b/22/ff0b2264c7c51d62fcd7792cd53d8e30.jpg

w1m4mATYoig

Started watching this 7-part PBS documentary on evolution. It's quite good. Narrated by Liam Neeson...

MCOc7Xqj-kQ

L5DaOlpXtmQ

LlgnHOSEyFU

BBavDRDlug8

miiRmrZX3XM

ftXQ4xwF-8g

MfKKbPHlPuw

.

LOL. People still arguing about this? Sorry, but evolution is the biggest crock of shit hoax in human history. The Bible though is 100% accurate. Yes, God created the universe and He did it only 6,00 years ago.

The Religion of Evolution. Not that much fun. Only a bunch of science nerds show up to those parties.

Yeah, I know, why accept the truth when we can believe that everything written in a 2000 year old book is true?

Yeah, better to put all your FAITH into stuff that gets changed all the time and was started by a guy who gave up on it towards the end of his life.

So, you are saying never questioning creationism is better than constantly questioning evolution? Anyway, it's not like the theory of evolution gets changed all the time, but that every discovery gives us new insight.
Also, while I never saw prove that Darwin gave up on Evolution, I couldn't care less.It's not about what the person that discovered something thinks, it's about what he discovered.

More like You SHOULD ALWAYS question everything and never go full on blind faith in anything. That includes both Science & Religion.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
So, you are saying never questioning creationism is better than constantly questioning evolution? Anyway, it's not like the theory of evolution gets changed all the time, but that every discovery gives us new insight.
Also, while I never saw prove that Darwin gave up on Evolution, I couldn't care less.It's not about what the person that discovered something thinks, it's about what he discovered.



You'll have to excuse Fly. He's very special.

It's pretty much understood around here that he isn't to be taken seriously.

(btw: I've never even heard anything about Darwin "giving up on evolution." Sounds like more Creationist propaganda that even if true it means nothing significant, just a means of distracting from the truth of his profound discoveries and insights)

> says it gets changed all the time
> the Bible's been re-editted dozens of times

At least Evolution isn't filled with contradictory messages. Love everyone... but hate the gays, just in case

Also, just found this:


And I looked through a few articles, and especially the second goes against Darwin switching his beliefes:
http://www.icr.org/article/2834/
http://creation.mobi/did-charles-darwin-recant

^ Sounds like some Socratic wisdom and humility, not "giving up" on his theories.

http://i.imgur.com/4x9ry.jpg

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Let's pretend this is still a debate, lol... because unfortunately far too many people still don't look honestly at the evidence. I think our species is doomed unless we realize our true origins and start making sense of the universe and our place in it. If we don't we're going to continue to kill each other (at worst) and delude ourselves (at best) over which book was written by God.



Creationism has a lot of things to answer for to be a viable scientific theory. Just to name a few...

1. Vestigial Structures like the appendix in humans and hip bones in whales and dolphins (not very "intelligently designed" (see video 1 below)

2. Starlight (I even had a Bible teacher in high school mention this as a baffling piece of evidence for Christians)

3. Fossil Record (less complex organisms deeper in the record, more complex more recent in the fossil record - no humans with dinosaurs, no rabbits in the Precambrian era, etc)

4. Chromosome 2 (evidence of a fusion, pretty conclusive for our relation to apes) (See video 3 below)

5. Dover, Pennsylvania area School district. Creationism did not hold up in court. (See video: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design On Trial (NOVA)




A couple really good introductory videos (the first is pretty short)...

lIEoO5KdPvg

Jw0MLJJJbqc

zi8FfMBYCkk


Oh, and here are a few really good videos debunking Creationists, showing how dishonest and/or willfully ignorant they are about the evidence. It's deceptive and wrong...

Debunking Creationists - Dr. Ben Carson
Debunking Creationists - Dr. Jason Lisle
Debunking Creationists - Alan Horvath
Debunking Creationists - Jerry Bergman

That should be enough to keep anyone interested busy for a while... heh..

Where is it stated in the bible that God didn't created evolution?

chapter 1.

Regardless, though, he was arguing against creationism, not against the idea of a god, so your question isn't relevant.

^ Lol. Like the first page or so. Unless of course the 7 days thing is another one of those metaphors.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
chapter 1.

Regardless, though, he was arguing against creationism, not against the idea of a god, so your question isn't relevant.

The concept of creation is attached to an Omnipotent being. My questions isn't irrelevant.

Plus the OP typed God in his description of this thread.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Where is it stated in the bible that God didn't create evolution? Have you ever combed through the Bible looking for the passage that says God didn't create Micro Machines? I haven't found it yet, so that means he invented them. And even though there's also no passage saying he DID create Micro Machines, I just prefer to stick with the part that fits my chosen narrative.


Remember in Genesis 1-11, when God say: "Let the earth bring for grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit..."

Or 1-20 when God: "Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth..."

Or 1-21 when God: "created great whales, and every living creature that moveth..."



They just got to pop in outta nowhere. Grass didn't evolve until 55 million years ago. Whale ancestors didn't go back into water until 5-6 million years later. Nevermind the "fowl" and "literally the rest, we couldn't be bothered to name anything beyond fowl and whales." They got to skip 4.5 billion years of the planet's history. 4 billion of which had some form of life here.

F*cking Guy skipped right over evolving the creatures and just said "Here, take 'em as is." Literally the first chapter of the Old Testament put the kibosh on evolution.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Have you ever combed through the Bible looking for the passage that says God didn't create Micro Machines? I haven't found it yet, so that means he invented them. And even though there's also no passage saying he DID create Micro Machines, I just prefer to stick with the part that fits my chosen narrative.


Remember in Genesis 1-11, when God say: "Let the earth bring for grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit..."

Or 1-20 when God: "Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth..."

Or 1-21 when God: "created great whales, and every living creature that moveth..."



They just got to pop in outta nowhere. Grass didn't evolve until 55 million years ago. Whale ancestors didn't go back into water until 5-6 million years later. Nevermind the "fowl" and "literally the rest, we couldn't be bothered to name anything beyond fowl and whales." They got to skip 4.5 billion years of the planet's history. 4 billion of which had some form of life here.

F*cking Guy skipped right over evolving the creatures and just said "Here, take 'em as is." Literally the first chapter of the Old Testament put the kibosh on evolution.

Yes but you forget the fact that we know who created micro machines.

We dont know who created Life. Reason why your comparison is irrelevant.

You are taking the Bible literal. The Bible isnt literal.

Well how would you expect God to say that he created Dinosaurs and then evolved them into Whales when people back then didnt even knew what a dinosaur was nor the meaning of evolution?

Its like trying to teach kids about Algebra before they even learn Arithmetics.

God said he created life. The Bible never said Evolution isnt a thing.

Josh, you're retarded. Leech wasn't arguing against the existance of God, rather Creationists using the Bible to "disprove" evolution. These Creationists take the Bible literally, hence they think God legitimately created the world in 6 days and just made whales and fowls. They don't take the Bible as a metaphor.

You don't need to shove your own ideological regurgitations down our throats every single thread, when it has nothing to do with them.

Originally posted by MythLord
Josh, you're retarded. Leech wasn't arguing against the existance of God, rather Creationists using the Bible to "disprove" evolution. These Creationists take the Bible literally, hence they think God legitimately created the world in 6 days and just made whales and fowls. They don't take the Bible as a metaphor.

You don't need to shove your own ideological regurgitations down our throats every single thread, when it has nothing to do with them.

And thats why I said I dont see how the fight each other. Whats the problem with that?

Well i believe everything in this threads is but our ideologies. So i dont see the problem with sharing mines.

^ Stop feeding this troll

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Yes but you forget the fact that we know who created micro machines.

We dont know who created Life. Reason why your comparison is irrelevant.

You are taking the Bible literal. The Bible isnt literal.

Well how would you expect God to say that he created Dinosaurs and then evolved them into Whales when people back then didnt even knew what a dinosaur was nor the meaning of evolution?

Its like trying to teach kids about Algebra before they even learn Arithmetics.

God said he created life. The Bible never said Evolution isnt a thing. God didn't say anything at all. Humans did. The Bible isn't the word of a supreme mover just because a bunch of humans really believe it to be. It's a book penned by men. Men who lived centuries before science and needed to construct answers for the things they couldn't understand. Comfortable answers. Answers that fit their limited worldview and their limited experience. The Bible never said evolution isn't a thing because the classical-era literates who were capable of fabricating divine origins for unreal deities had no conceptualization of evolution or for a world history that extended further back than they could count. To say nothing of the understanding of mutated genes or molecular bonds broken by ionizing radiation that progresses life.


The Bible is as literal or figurative as any individual anywhere says it to be. Wants it to be. The multiple authors of the multiple books in it all themselves had differing intentions, and different grudges. Athanasius vs. Arrian led to fundamental changes in early Christian doctrine. Changes that should not be possible if the scriptures are absolute and incorruptible words of the Creator. A Creator who should not be incapable of communicating his truth clearly and eternally--something at which he has failed utterly.


Your Christian deity is a man-made enterprise, one that was created by scared apes that desperately needed comfort in a world that routinely frightened them. Their imagination and creativity created this God, along with the stories that involve him. Give those fictions credit, they continue to convince people it's all real even today. Why you people feel the need to submit to that ancient opiate when you have all the wonders of modern science to provide actual answers is simply beyond me.



And yet the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzbUPfoveok isn't hailed as the one true Rap God. You mortals suck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljt5iESYA7k

I've always found that people miss the mark when they try to explain supernatural belief is a comforting effort or a way to understand the universe. That kind of thinking is by far way too self-aware and dependant on individual fears that seem basic in modern society but that might've been all but afterthough for primitive men. What I mean is that by describing religion as this kind of utilitarian tool you essentially build a dogma to fit the a specific narrative because of the specific cultural values of modern western society.

I like Digi's answer a bit more actually, religion is not meant to solve deep problems, but to keep you from asking stupid questions. Metaphysical questions aren't helping hunters to get more food, so blind belief will keep them balanced and effective. Human brain would carry the seed of effective mediocrity in self-reflection to keep itself useful and present.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
God didn't say anything at all. Humans did. The Bible isn't the word of a supreme mover just because a bunch of humans really believe it to be. It's a book penned by men. Men who lived centuries before science and needed to construct answers for the things they couldn't understand. Comfortable answers. Answers that fit their limited worldview and their limited experience. The Bible never said evolution isn't a thing because the classical-era literates who were capable of fabricating divine origins for unreal deities had no conceptualization of evolution or for a world history that extended further back than they could count. To say nothing of the understanding of mutated genes or molecular bonds broken by ionizing radiation that progresses life.


The Bible is as literal or figurative as any individual anywhere says it to be. Wants it to be. The multiple authors of the multiple books in it all themselves had differing intentions, and different grudges. Athanasius vs. Arrian led to fundamental changes in early Christian doctrine. Changes that should not be possible if the scriptures are absolute and incorruptible words of the Creator. A Creator who should not be incapable of communicating his truth clearly and eternally--something at which he has failed utterly.


Your Christian deity is a man-made enterprise, one that was created by scared apes that desperately needed comfort in a world that routinely frightened them. Their imagination and creativity created this God, along with the stories that involve him. Give those fictions credit, they continue to convince people it's all real even today. Why you people feel the need to submit to that ancient opiate when you have all the wonders of modern science to provide actual answers is simply beyond me.



And yet the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzbUPfoveok isn't hailed as the one true Rap God. You mortals suck.

But again. You keep assuming the Bible is anywhere comparable to a common story. You keep forgetting that there is actual evidence behind the bible. Isn't like you can say the Plagues of Egypt didn't occur, or that Jesus Christ never came to Earth. Even if it's the words of men speaking for God, they clearly saw something, whether a God, Angel, or Alien.

Except it was the Church and the people BEHIND the church that refuses evolution. There is not a single page on the Bible that denies/contradicts evolution. So i don't see your point.

The point here is not whether the Bible is literal/philosophical/metaphorical/ or 100% authentic. The point here is whether the Bible goes against the Evolution Theory. In which case, the answer is NO. The Bible has never addressed such topic.

Except you are thinking that Science can answer everything when the real truth is that our science has failed to answer the most fundamental questions! How did those Apes came to evolve AWAY from other animals and develop such intellectual skills? Who created the universe? How is life created? etc, etc, etc. So don't place much hopes in science my friend, it's no better than Religion.

I haven't seen him pulling miracles.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
But again. You keep assuming the Bible is anywhere comparable to a common story. You keep forgetting that there is actual evidence behind the bible. Isn't like you can say the Plagues of Egypt didn't occur, or that Jesus Christ never came to Earth. Even if it's the words of men speaking for God, they clearly saw something, whether a God, Angel, or Alien.


The fact that some historical things did happen doesn't mean that the book is legit. Forrest Gump has a lot of historical references in it that actually happened, but that doesn't make it a true story.

Originally posted by Bentley
I've always found that people miss the mark when they try to explain supernatural belief is a comforting effort or a way to understand the universe. That kind of thinking is by far way too self-aware and dependant on individual fears that seem basic in modern society but that might've been all but afterthough for primitive men. What I mean is that by describing religion as this kind of utilitarian tool you essentially build a dogma to fit the a specific narrative because of the specific cultural values of modern western society.

I like Digi's answer a bit more actually, religion is not meant to solve deep problems, but to keep you from asking stupid questions. Metaphysical questions aren't helping hunters to get more food, so blind belief will keep them balanced and effective. Human brain would carry the seed of effective mediocrity in self-reflection to keep itself useful and present.

I like this comment very much. Nice way of thinking.

Let me ask you a question my friend, how has your "SCIENCE" answered to Death? What is after we die?

You are right, Religion is a belief that our behaviors should be ruled around a God, but it is also the belief that our actions are paid in the world after this one.

So, I would rather follow the Archaic Beliefs of my ancestors than the mediocre way of thinking we have developed nowadays.

Don't place too much faith in science! Science is the answer to this materialistic world, Religion is the answer to the World we can't see and beyond.

Originally posted by socool8520
The fact that some historical things did happen doesn't mean that the book is legit. Forrest Gump has a lot of historical references in it that actually happened, but that doesn't make it a true story.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THE BOOK IS FAKE NEITHER!

The point being here is that it's a mystery!

So it's a matter of which side you wish to believe more than which side is true!

If the assertion is that God is real, then bring solid evidence that there is such a being. The very fact that no one ever has actually lends more credence to the idea that there isn't a God. Someone all knowing and all compassionate should have announced itself by now with more than a book wouldn't you think?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I like this comment very much. Nice way of thinking.

Let me ask you a question my friend, how has your "SCIENCE" answered to Death? What is after we die?

You are right, Religion is a belief that our behaviors should be ruled around a God, but it is also the belief that our actions are paid in the world after this one.

So, I would rather follow the Archaic Beliefs of my ancestors than the mediocre way of thinking we have developed nowadays.

Don't place too much faith in science! Science is the answer to this materialistic world, Religion is the answer to the World we can't see and beyond.

Science is a method and intelligence is a tool. Given a specific task, they can be found wanting as they are ultimately context dependant. In the other hand, Science was invented to be shared and communicate concepts.

Because of the reasons above it's easier to know which questions we are supposed to ask through Science.

In religion and other metaphysical beliefs the assortment of questions you can throw at the wall are so many that they can delve into literal nonsense. At some point there is a legitimate problem of whether we should expect answers to existential problems or not, and to me, religious thinking has a harder time to admit its limitations than scientific methods.

If religion has to get to the point when you need to voluntarily ignore certain things, who choses that point?

Originally posted by MythLord
Ljt5iESYA7k

Originally posted by socool8520
If the assertion is that God is real, then bring solid evidence that there is such a being. The very fact that no one ever has actually lends more credence to the idea that there isn't a God. Someone all knowing and all compassionate should have announced itself by now with more than a book wouldn't you think?

Except he announced himself SEVERAL TIMES in the past and he was always rejected and even crucified! What makes you think it would be different today?


Furthermore, he left the Bible as a proof of his existence! Yet many like you STILL DOUBT! Why would God want someone who doesn't have faith in him? Someone who only believes because he has seen?

Originally posted by Bentley
Science is a method and intelligence is a tool. Given a specific task, they can be found wanting as they are ultimately context dependant. In the other hand, Science was invented to be shared and communicate concepts.

Because of the reasons above it's easier to know which questions we are supposed to ask through Science.

In religion and other metaphysical beliefs the assortment of questions you can throw at the wall are so many that they can delve into literal nonsense. At some point there is a legitimate problem of whether we should expect answers to existential problems or not, and to me, religious thinking has a harder time to admit its limitations than scientific methods.

If religion has to get to the point when you need to voluntarily ignore certain things, who choses that point?

I agree. Where does Science and Religion collide exactly? Religion's purpose is not to explain how and why things happen in an exact and empirical way. Religion is to prepare you for the afterlife, and for you to lead a life of morality.

Again you can see both methods don't really collide with each other.

On one side Science fails to answer what Religion does, whereas Religion fails to answer what Science does. They aren't really counterparts.

So in that aspect both methods are INEFFICIENT when alone. So, why would instead of following one way of thinking not follow both?

If you know both ways of thinking approach different aspects of our life, why won't you follow both? Who said you had to pick a side?

I am a scientific person, but am also a religious one. I don't see the logic behind those who are pure scientists and those who are pure religious.

Separating the social/individual functions of science and religion is, on the long term, shrinking the realm of religious questions that can be asked -the logic being that if scientific knowledge improves, then a question will move from one category to the other. This effectively means that religious thinking is subordinate to scientific thinking, something that by principle many religions will refuse.

^ this is a niche observation that in my opinion comes from a misunderstanding about what religious thought aims to be, you shouldn't be looking into spirituality to think about formal ideas.

In my previous post I already grazed the logic that holds atheist belief together: out of all infinite metaphysical problems you can ask religion to solve there is no set limit of when we should stop looking for answers. For all intents and purposes, the set number of questions we ask religion to solve it's arbitrary. Among the choices you can take, zero is as valid of a number as any other. If you ask religion to give you an answer to life about death why would you stop there -and by extention, why start asking questions at all.

Originally posted by Bentley
Separating the social/individual functions of science and religion is, on the long term, shrinking the realm of religious questions that can be asked -the logic being that if scientific knowledge improves, then a question will move from one category to the other. This effectively means that religious thinking is subordinate to scientific thinking, something that by principle many religions will refuse.

^ this is a niche observation that in my opinion comes from a misunderstanding about what religious thought aims to be, you shouldn't be looking into spirituality to think about formal ideas.

In my previous post I already grazed the logic that holds atheist belief together: out of all infinite metaphysical problems you can ask religion to solve there is no set limit of when we should stop looking for answers. For all intents and purposes, the set number of questions we ask religion to solve it's arbitrary. Among the choices you can take, zero is as valid of a number as any other. If you ask religion to give you an answer to life about death why would you stop there -and by extention, why start asking questions at all.

Okay you got me puzzled. What is the thing that holds Atheism together?

The need to set an arbitrary expectation from metaphysical intuition. It has to be arbitrary because there isn't any evident set of metaphysical worries. Since it's arbitrary and accepted as such, zero metaphysical expectations can be naturally held.

Originally posted by Bentley
The need to set an arbitrary expectation from metaphysical intuition. It has to be arbitrary because there isn't any evident set of metaphysical worries. Since it's arbitrary and accepted as such, zero metaphysical expectations can be naturally held.

So, let me see if i got it correct.

Atheism is held together because of the idea that since we are not influenced/affected by the metaphysical questions in a way in where they matter, they can be ignored/taken as irrelevant?

Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. It isn't, or at least shouldn't be, some sort of inherent culture or ideology of its own. So it isn't "held together" by anything, but if you want a common reason for people's atheism then it's usually a lack of compelling evidence to persuade them to adopt a religion.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Atheism is held together because of the idea that since we are not influenced/affected by the metaphysical questions in a way in where they matter, they can be ignored/taken as irrelevant?

Atheist can ask themselves metaphysical questions, many philosophers have been atheists. But if someone was to ask the minimal amount of metaphysical questions (read zero) he'd be an atheist by default. Hence atheism exists by the arbitrary nature/number of metaphysical questions that can exist.

Originally posted by SunRazer
Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. It isn't, or at least shouldn't be, some sort of inherent culture or ideology of its own. So it isn't "held together" by anything, but if you want a common reason for people's atheism then it's usually a lack of compelling evidence to persuade them to adopt a religion.

Yeah, that's what I originally thought however Bentley's description got me puzzled. Got the need to ask.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6e/33/3b/6e333b0bc22e2eadec8bb6f29700906a.png

IMO those who believe in a creator should not be ashamed of the idea that such a creator would give rise to a creation that would continually improve itself as opposed to creating something static.

^ That's not what the Bible says, Emp. It goes against the perfect and Holy Word of God.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ That's not what the Bible says, Emp. It goes against the perfect and Holy Word of God.
When your belief doesn't make sense, adjust it so it does.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
When your belief doesn't make sense, adjust it so it does.

Or just kill the people who disagree with you, Islam style.

Originally posted by Surtur
Or just kill the people who disagree with you, Islam style.
Or just don't subscribe yourself to beliefs with any logical or rational basis in the first place.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
When your belief doesn't make sense, adjust it so it does.

Well, that's actually a good thing. That's what a healthy belief systems should do. But unfortunately Christianity's way to deal with the problem is just to ignore real world facts and take the Bible as the final word on the matter. So it ignores reality. And yeah, like Surt said, Islam does that and kills anyone who disagrees. Islam is more hardcore.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
When your belief doesn't make sense, adjust it so it does.

Belief is part of the living core of intelligent beings, we know very little so we need to believe. Adjusting yourself and your beliefs is to be expected, religion is not passed down as a literal answer from all moral dilemas. At least not in christianity.


Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Well, that's actually a good thing. That's what a healthy belief systems should do. But unfortunately Christianity's way to deal with the problem is just to ignore real world facts and take the Bible as the final word on the matter. So it ignores reality. And yeah, like Surt said, Islam does that and kills anyone who disagrees. Islam is more hardcore.

Catholicism, the biggest branch of christianity in the world, doesn't.






uhuh

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Except he announced himself SEVERAL TIMES in the past and he was always rejected and even crucified! What makes you think it would be different today?


Furthermore, he left the Bible as a proof of his existence! Yet many like you STILL DOUBT! Why would God want someone who doesn't have faith in him? Someone who only believes because he has seen?

None of that has ever been proven outside of a story. That's the problem. Even Jesus could be written off as a well-intentioned guy with a God complex. I can't remember a passage where god legitimately showed his/her/it's true form to anyone.

Again, a book written by people that is unverifiable. That isn't proof. I could write a book about a God with a set of fables and rules if I wanted. It doesn't mean it's automatically factual.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Well, that's actually a good thing. That's what a healthy belief systems should do. But unfortunately Christianity's way to deal with the problem is just to ignore real world facts and take the Bible as the final word on the matter. So it ignores reality. And yeah, like Surt said, Islam does that and kills anyone who disagrees. Islam is more hardcore.

Well you kind of back yourself into a corner when you claim your God is infallible, and that his word is absolute, and then go change the book based on his word. lol You either have to believe it's true, or admit that it's just a story.

Originally posted by Bentley
Belief is part of the living core of intelligent beings, we know very little so we need to believe. Adjusting yourself and your beliefs is to be expected, religion is not passed down as a literal answer from all moral dilemas. At least not in christianity.
Even Jesus called out some shit, such as:

When a mob dragged that woman in front of him and went "Yo we gotta stone this *****" and he was like "he who has not sinned may cast the first stone"

Or when some people mobbed him like "You were healing people on the Sabbath, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" and he was like "My dudes, you circumcise boys on the Sabbath, if your beast falls over you'd pick it up, chill out"

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Or just don't subscribe yourself to beliefs with any logical or rational basis in the first place.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
When your belief doesn't make sense, adjust it so it does.

And

This...

But you know, who needs facts when you have the Bible.

.

Don't underestimate the kangaroos my dude.

http://funnylobby.com/uploads/23af4b45f1e166141a790d1a3126e77a.jpg

We did not evolve from orangutan though.

Originally posted by Bentley
We did not evolve from orangutan though.

We didn't evolve from any modern ape. But they are our closest ancestors. Chimpanzees are our closest living ancestor.

The meme is simply for amusement.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
We didn't evolve from any modern ape. But they are our closest ancestors. Chimpanzees are our closest living ancestor.

The meme is simply for amusement.

If we don't come from any apes what are you calling them our ancestors. We might've common ancestors though.



If memes are not serious and truthful you are going to tell me next that angry youtube rants aren't reliable either!!?







biscuits

Relative. Closest living relative is perhaps the proper term.