Religious Apes with Technology.

Post Reply New Topic

I hadn't heard that, but a few seconds of research (isn't the internet wonderful?) found the Wikipedia article on Xenotransplantation

It says among other things:
"...a major problem with the use of nonhuman primates is the increased risk of disease transmission, since they are so closely related to humans.[7] Pigs are currently thought to be the best candidates for organ donation. The risk of cross-species disease transmission is decreased because of their increased phylogenetic distance from humans..."

For any example you can come up with as a "problem" for evolution, I can produce a thousand or a million examples of evidence that supports the theory. No evidence yet found contradicts evolution. ALL the evidence yet found supports it, so much evidence of so many different types that most people are okay with labeling evolution a FACT of nature. We do not know all the details of all the mechanisms of change or the history of life on this planet, but we have learned an awful lot. We have learned so much that very few people who are familiar with the evidence think there is much chance of evolution being dismissed the way creationists wish it could be.

On the other hand, there is NO scientific evidence that supports a literal reading of Genesis as science or history, none, nada, zilch. There have been at least a dozen major court cases in the USA the past forty years where, IF creationists had any evidence to offer, ANY AT ALL, they had their chance. Guess what? They could not produce ANY scientific evidence at all, NONE! I'm not saying the Bible is wrong. What I am saying is that the evidence of the physical world supports evolution and does not support a literal reading of Genesis. If you have a problem with that, take it up with God. Maybe we're not supposed to read Genesis as science or history? Maybe it's supposed to teach us something spiritual?

We're in the wrong forum section. If you wish, perhaps move this discussion to PPR, or just agree to disagree? Personally, I think it more shameful to deny evolution now (with all the information we have and the means of accessing and sharing it worldwide instantaneously) than it would be to think the earth was flat if you lived a few hundred years ago. There really is no excuse for such ignorance today, especially from someone as computer literate as you. This discussion demonstrates the point the original poster was trying to make I think, that religious people (and humans are apes btw) can use technology but may send us back into the dark ages if we let them.

I have shown at least two historical documents showing that dinosaurs and humans existed in the same period of time. There is still no lab demonstration supporting Evolutionism. None, nada zilch. Where is it demonstrated in a lab that one kind of animal can "evolve" into another kind without human intervention? It has not happened yet. I'm using the Scientific method's rules. In order for a theory to be proven, it has to be demonstrated. Can you show me where it has been observed that a fish produced an amphibian? I'm not talking about a fish that can breath out of water. These have existed since the beginning of time. Now I agree and support natural selection changing certain characteristics of organisms. This is due to diversity in the gene pool and genetic code. However when organisms are too diverse from one another, they cannot produce viable offspring. Even animals as similar as a horse and a donkey will not produce offspring capable of reproducing themselves.

Getting back on to the topic: As far as religious people sending us back to the dark ages, I think it depends upon what religion you are talking about. North Korea is in the dark ages, and there is a militant policy against the Bible and the Koran there. Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union had similar policies, and look what happened to millions of their people. Look at what happened during the Inquisition (it was forbidden for the common people to own a Bible). Look at what has happened to the United States since the late 1800's when the Bible started to be rejected. Today, we have much higher incidences of parents murdering their own children and vice versa. We have had over 50 million babies killed since the early seventies. We have a much higher rate of mass shootings. Serial killers prowl our land. Yes, things like these have happened in past centuries, and even though technology was not as advanced as it is today, news of these atrocities still made their way across the nation. Lizzie Bordon type incidences are now so common that many don't even make it further than the local news.

So many people today lack basic fundamental knowledge of scripture that many are easily brainwashed by any huckster holding a Bible and giving an emotional sermon. One rarely hears of mass murder by practicing Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, Amish, or even Southern Baptists.

Where I went to school, the majority of the students and teachers were Christian (even though I didn't believe in Scripture at that time). Oh yeah, students brought firearms to school (during hunting season) as well. They left them in their vehicles in plain sight. If the principal had anything to say about it, it would be to make sure that they were unloaded. Nobody in the school got shot.

Today, in the same area there is a huge problem with drugs and teen pregnancy. There were two murders in the neighborhood where I used to live. Where we once were able to leave our doors unlocked, we can no longer do so. Anything that was outside, valuable, and not chained down was stolen. What's the difference?

To give an indication, most of the people doing these crimes didn't go to church nor as far as I can tell, believe in the Scriptures. The area was also a solid middle class neighborhood. We have moved from that area and have moved into a more secluded area. Even though I live on over 28 acres of wooded land, I still don't dare to leave my door unlocked or the main gate open. Even as far out as where I live, we have had stuff stolen from our property. We caught the culprit, and it wasn't a practicing Christian, Jew, or Muslim. We have five neighboring household near us. Three of those households practice some form of Christianity. Two don't, and we have trouble from both of those households One of those households use our perimeter road without permission and discard their trash on it. The other stirs up trouble for all of the rest of the neighbors. Even though we all try to keep to ourselves, the Christian neighbors will help us and the non-Christian if in need, and we do the same.

Oh and by the way, I'm a Bible believer, but I am not a Christian at least not in the modern day Christian sense. My neighbors know this, and yet, we get along just fine.

Ever seem to think that belief in a higher power is programmed into human beings? Most Atheists and agnostics (but not all) I know believe in ghosts or other worldly spirits. Some other atheists believe we are descended from extraterrestrial beings.

Like it or not, the Scriptures have served more or less as a moral compass for much of American history. Since its rejection by a majority of the people, we have been plagued by drugs, violence, endless wars, bad health and economic despair. When the Bible once served as a moral compass for the majority of the people living in the U.S. we had relative peace. There was sometimes trouble, but generally people got along pretty well. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case, and look where we are now. I would say that people act more like "animals" than they did even twenty years ago.

Bogus. The only "dinosaurs" that co-exist with humans are the birds which descended from a common ancestor to dinosaurs and feathered flying dinosaurs. The Real Big Dinosaurs croaked about 65 million years ago. Humans of our kind have been around for about 160,00 to 250,000 years. We are descended from earlier types of humans who lived in Africa.

Genesis taken literally is nonsense. A fairy tale. A likely story which has no scientifically credible evidence backing it up.

Hey scout, how do the moon and soon stand still over Gibeon? Answer: The Earth stops rotating pretty damned quick which leads to our immediate extinction as the ocean sloshes over the land.

ruveyn

What is an alligator or crocodile? It comes from the age of the dinosaurs. You might want to read, "The Travels of Marco Polo." Information from this book is used to teach history. Did you hear about the fossilized dinosaur skin that had white rings? It looks a lot like drawing of dinosaurs found on some pots in Central America. Oh yeah, those pots were "faked" so the man who found the fossilized dinosaur skin must have traveled back in time and made them.

how do the moon and soon stand still over Gibeon? I don't know the mechanics behind that phenomena. Explain to me what is gravity and exactly how does it work. Is it wave energy, and if so, what is it composed of? TAKE our best understanding of gravity, apply it to the way galaxies spin, and you'll quickly see something that cannot be explained: the galaxies should be falling apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point because its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces. But there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin.

Not a question of gravity for that - Newton's First Law of Motion for this one. If the Earth stops spinning, as it must for the sun and moon to remain motionless in the sky for any length of time, the oceans will still have inertia.

Wouldn't the atmosphere experience that to an extent as well?

Yep. Tectonic plates too. As well as everything on the surface.

Basically I think the world would be pretty much destroyed, instantaneously.

TAKE our best understanding of gravity, apply it to the way galaxies spin, and you'll quickly see something that cannot be explained: the galaxies should be falling apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point because its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces. But there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin.

There are other forces and possibly an unknown form of matter that may come into play. Like I said, I don't have the answers, but neither does anyone else.

Another (philosophical) point is to be made that hasn't been discussed on this thread recently. One should ponder it. Science and technology has given us vehicles, electricity and electronics. However so many scientists are sounding the alarm over the use of the stuff science has brought us. They say that the very use of the technology that science has given us is causing the planet to be destroyed through man made global warming. Scientists also say that the junk produced by discarded technology is also polluting the planet. They are also saying that our use and reliance on technology is making us obese, diabetic, and generally unhealthy (I have to agree on the health aspects). Let's get back to the original poster's question. So is it us "religious apes" that are destroying the world, or is it science, or are scientists wrong about mankind causing global warming?

I agree.

False truths are like negative positives. They cancel each other and you gain nothing as a result. I hate that idea! Forward is the only way to go.

We are all apes, but it is the way we choose to use the technology that is wrong. A stick can be used to kill someone just as well as a gun can- one makes a bit more mess but in the end it does the same thing.

There's so much controversy and altering of data in the global climate change debates, that I am not even sure which side to take.. the pollution problem however is solvable- it will cost a lot of money. Money is holding us back in this regard. Why don't we get rid of money? We can't let it go for fear of change.

We could get along by other means, but we choose to keep what we are used to.

People are obese and diabetic because money is the food industry's goal. As is medicine. Cancer should have been cured by now (I read rumours sometimes that give me a little hope) but money stands in the way. MRI scans make lots of it.

One could argue that the measure of a society's willingness to progress and change long standing values to improve life speaks to the intelligence of the individuals in said society.

Religious people are, in general, not progressive. Won't let go of the old values.

They are not destroying the world. But they are standing in the way of positive progress.

Not that I feel any violent rage towards them, many things stand in the way. This one is based on keeping people ignorant- that is why it gets the degree of flak from myself and other "enthusiasts".

You speak for yourself. I am actually a man.



This is so true in a lot of different areas. Research grants can bring in a lot of money especially if the results of the research favor the dogma of the people who hand out the money. It usually means that they will get additional grant money for more research

Getting rid of money has been tried. What happens is that the lazy will put in less effort and rely on the work of others. I use money to survive. Other than that, it is not that important to me. About half of the work I do not receive money or any other form of compensation. Some people really need the help, and others I discover later only taking advantage.



You won't get any argument from me here. The food industry pumps out a lot of crap. However, sitting in front of our computers, televisions, and game devices don't help us metabolize and get rid of the crap we eat. Modern medicine is a huge money maker as well as largely ineffective.



That depends upon what specific changes are being made. Some of the old values have worked tremendously well and should not be changed. Then again, there are long standing values that should be changed.



Again, some old values are worth keeping. They help keep society together and discourages people from oppressing one another. Many religious people have pushed for progress. So many people who ran the Underground Railroad were Christians helping slaves flee their masters.



Some people want an open debate on certain topics and want to challenge evidence used in support of certain opinions as well. This is not ignorance but rather open debate. Unfortunately certain ideas and beliefs are not open to debate and if disagreement on these beliefs become known, then those who are in disagreement on the belief are drummed out of their career.

Evolution in real time.

See: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/06/08/ ... tibiotics/

Being as short lived as we are we see only small evolutionary steps directly in real time. Large scale evolution involves the same underlying genetic modifications in descent but stretched out in large intervals of geologic time. We can only infer such mega evolution by indirect means, but the underlying genetic and epigenetic processes are beginning to be understood in detail.

Ditto for cosmology. Barring the invention of a backward time machine we cannot witness the beginning of the cosmos directly. We have to infer it from relic evidence such as the cosmic background radiation;

The insisting on direct witness (impossible in most cases) means tossing out all or most of physics.

ruveyn

How can you doubt that humans coexisted with dinosaurs?


Didnt you grow up watching the Flintstones?

Are you gonna trust in those lying textbooks?

Or in the Flintstones?

The amount of reality denial for such people is mind-boggling. It isn't just the textbooks that would be lying if humans and dinosaurs coexisted. IF that really happened, what we think we know of scientific knowledge would have to be so wrong that basically nothing built using that understanding would work. It isn't just denying biology. To deny evolution basically means rejecting all of science, because measurements from every branch of science all point to the same reality.

Also, as I have asked many times, if evolution did not happen then why oh why did God plant so MUCH evidence of so many different types that ALL support evolution, and NO evidence at all that falsifies it? I've heard some people say with a straight face that this is a test of our faith, or that Satan planted the fossils to deceive us, but why would God allow that? What kind of God would be like that? Would you really want to worship a malicious prankster who will send you to burn in Hell forever for accepting such evidence as real if it is really all a huge trick? And if it is a huge trick and we can't trust what we can observe and measure, that would include the Bible too! If we can't trust the rocks and fossils and DNA that were allegedly made by God, how can we possibly trust a BOOK written by men using words? Words have many failings in communicating direct experience or spiritual truths. I wrote a song about this a long time ago called
What Can I Say?

Usually though, most people who argue against evolution are arguing against a straw-man caricature and they are sincerely unaware of the VAST amounts of evidence that all clearly show it happens, whether they like it or not! They try to blow off finds such as Tiktaalik (pay attention cyberscan. this is an example of evidence you asked to see about the fish to amphibian transition), or human chromosome 2. Some creationists ask for ridiculous things like a cat giving birth to a dog or a crocoduck fossil to "prove" evolution, when in fact, if evidence of that nature were to be found it would NOT support evolution as we understand it but would instead be major problems to account for in our current understanding of it.

I wrote another song more than twenty years ago about this "controversy" (and let me be clear, there is a controversy but it is NOT a scientific controversy but a social and religious one.) Sadly, as at least one poster demonstrates in this thread, my Evolution song is still relevant.

Just a general comment...there is help available for mental illnesses(eg. Delusional Disorder, persecution complex, etc...) for those who require such services.

Last edited by slave on 08 Jun 2012, 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thinly veiled ad hominem.