# Evolutionism.



## Gregor Eisenhorn (Dec 29, 2015)

So, I noticed that there has been a lack of threads disucssing evolution and anything related to said theory.

At moments it may be hard to talk about it, since it's so bloody obvious, although there are a lot of people who dismiss this subject (and I'm not talking about creationists by the way). In terms of biology, it is still somewhat a theory _and _a fact.

Why would I open a thread like this? Well naturally evolution is just a ""simple"" (note the double ") process eg. there are certain traits in a gene pool that by natural/artificial selection get cleaned out, thus, "creating" a new set of traits that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Evolution happens over the course of millions of years, that amount of time is hard for even us to grasp. That's why the only evidence is actual observation of other species and... microorganisms. Due to their extremly short "life" spans we can toy around with them and notice how ceratin situations/genes change them. 

I was wondering where we as humans are continuing as a species. For the past hundreds of thousands of years we have been evolving into a smarter, more sofisticated race than our cousin primates. Due to certain mutations our muscles have been degrading (and our overal structure) giving way to the expanding of the mind- the single most powerful weapon this natural world has ever seen and our biggest attribute. 

The natural order is simple, every single creature that lives strives to pass on its genes. That's what surviving is all about, because what's the point of surviving if you cannot reproduce? Every animal that lacks the ability to plan ahead and is not aware of itself (depressing if you think about it) revolves its whole life around finding the next shag buddy and passing on its genes, insuring that its species will survive. 

As humans have evolved their brain into something far more complex we now can decide whether or not to reproduce. It's happening all the time and is not considered something abnormal... from our point of view. Some people live their whole lives without having children, which is perfectly fine. We are starting to break natures rules, the very foundations of this world and are heading in a completely new direction, one that has been unwalked by any other living being on this planet.

I don't know if you understand what I am trying to implie, but we are starting to evolve completely different in a way no other animal ever has. Which brings up the question, were are we heading? 

That's quite a bit of rambling, so I hope you all join in this discussion and we can work out a few theories.


----------



## reddan1981 (Jan 24, 2016)

I am interested in the physical demonstrable proof of evolution, i have yet to find any thing that is not theoretical heresy. I have however, found evidence to question the validity of the authors morality. Darwin was a paedophile. He nonced his own children and practiced occultism. Should we trust his theories?


----------



## Gregor Eisenhorn (Jan 24, 2016)

I had no idea there were such accusations, although I still don't think that has anything to do with his theories. The problem is they are still speculations. Freud, being the father of modern psychology had tons of theories, most of which can be stated as accurate, but some are still questionable (like humans actions are motivated only by sex and pleasure, which I find not exactly true).

But yes, physical proof is the best form of evidence out there. From what I remember, albeit not that clearly, Darwin on his voyage on the HMS Beagle came to the conclusion of the whole process while observing a certain species of birds on the Galapagos Islands. He noticed that while they were the same size and species, all of them had very different characteristics depending on the situation of the island they were living on. Some, when there was not other animals to eat on, had developed beaks perfect for crushing fruit, while others adapted in other ways. So we can see that evolution is also the ability to adapt to certain enviroments, thus creating new individuals and even new species.

I'm glad someone joined into the discussion, I find that evolution is an amazing topic to talk about.


----------



## reddan1981 (Jan 25, 2016)

Small scale changes, such as the size or shape of bird beaks or the slight changes of colour in the wing of 'peppered moths' as evident from Darwins studies can only be testimony to the fact that MICRO-evolution occurs. Whilst I agree that species can adapt within their own genre to environmental stresses, we have not witnesses enough between- species evidence to conclusively state that one species can change into another.


----------



## qwizoking (Jan 25, 2016)

only read the op, too many false assertions


----------



## texasjack (Jan 25, 2016)

Marsupials


----------



## HeatlessBBQ (Jan 25, 2016)




----------



## HeatlessBBQ (Jan 25, 2016)

~The Stoned Ape Theory ~




~The Stoned Ape Theory ~




~The Stoned Ape Theory ~




~The Stoned Ape Theory ~


----------



## reddan1981 (Jan 25, 2016)

qwizoking said:


> only read the op, too many false assertions


Please elaborate.


----------



## texasjack (Jan 25, 2016)

This is miscat anyway. Evolution isn't a religion or belief system or philosophy. None of those can be proven. Evolution is science because it can.


----------



## Gregor Eisenhorn (Jan 25, 2016)

That's the whole point of this thread, I would like to hear each and everys opinion. It's just our perception of the fundamentals of nature, but it doesn't necessarily have to be true. A lot of people simply don't buy evolution, because of lack of observable (to them) proof, and I'm not just talking about religious people who believe it contradicts their faith (it doesn't have to though).


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 25, 2016)

reddan1981 said:


> Small scale changes, such as the size or shape of bird beaks or the slight changes of colour in the wing of 'peppered moths' as evident from Darwins studies can only be testimony to the fact that MICRO-evolution occurs. Whilst I agree that species can adapt within their own genre to environmental stresses, we have not witnesses enough between- species evidence to conclusively state that one species can change into another.



Micro-evolution is evolution. Small changes add up over time. The only thing the term micro-evolution indicates is the resolution we are using to look at it. It's an indication of time-frame. It's not an actual category used by scientists. 

Evolution does not postulate that one species changes into another. It says that species branch off. It does not predict special transitional species, it says we are all transitional species. 



reddan1981 said:


> I am interested in the physical demonstrable proof of evolution, i have yet to find any thing that is not theoretical heresy. I have however, found evidence to question the validity of the authors morality. Darwin was a paedophile. He nonced his own children and practiced occultism. Should we trust his theories?


Morality has nothing to do with hypothesis testing. The moral standards of the author are completely inconsequential to the validity of the statements. What matters is the evidence, the predictions, and the results of experiments. If morals are part of your criteria for judging the accuracy of science, then perhaps it is your evaluations we should be weary of trusting.


----------



## Gregor Eisenhorn (Jan 25, 2016)

Micro evolution is the best way to show adaptions mechanisms amongst micro organisms since their reproduction rate is immensly greater than that of multi cell organisms. Natural/artificial selection is observable and we can see what genes natures deems as worthy to pass on to the next generations. 

Mammals on the other hand take billions of years to evolve, that's why some can be sceptical.


----------



## qwizoking (Jan 25, 2016)

.... evolving into a smarter, more sofisticated race than our cousin primates. Due to certain mutations our muscles have been degrading (and our overal structure) giving way to the expanding of the mind-




my favorite and easiest to simplify. but theres something almost every sentence
first what is "sophisticated" second
thats completely false and the opposite is true. we are taller,stronger, faster and better looking...in terms of sexual attraction..titties are bigger come in sooner, faces more symmetrical etc. im also not sure todays minds are innovative enough to come up with the philosophical and mathematic ideas etc we did long ago. innovation is slowing...

religion doesnt have anything to do with it, and if evolution is proven it wouldnt be a problem for say christians. in the same way a christian can say the "let there be light" was gods finger snap/big bang. and ot talks about a progression of animals in the bible.
not saying what i believe, i have studied christian "apologetics" from well known professors, im a pretty rounded person.

however evolution isnt really debatable in the since we can "evolve" animals through selective breeding and create a new sub species as it were, like a min pin from a wolf or whatever . weve created fruits never found in nature. there are many things difficult to explain, the boom of life for example. but science easily explainsm much harder to predict.

evolution hardly takes millions of years certainly not billions lol, think Bout the age of most species. even a new species takes a fraction of that. people just have trouble with inbetweens. shouldnt there be a half person half monkey?
lol no not at all, genes generally effect many traits and usually work in combination. one shouldnt expect any transitionary animal. but at some point a species could mate. then it couldn't

as far as this thread..
your not guaranteed "progression" and this is important. our brains are not likely to be appreciably more "intelligent" in another thiusand years. our muscles are not going to be more efficient, how much do you really expect to "evolve"
all of this becomes more complicated than anyone here can speculate on. in the same way, ive spent decades studying pharmacology and cannabis, still barely having a clue about the drug and its complex compounds

my penny.


----------



## Gregor Eisenhorn (Jan 25, 2016)

"evolving into a smarter, more sophisticated (thanks) race than our cousin primates. Due to certain mutations our muscles have been degrading (and our overal structure) giving way to the expanding of the mind-"

Well our brains use the most energy that is produced in the body. In nature, such "gifts" have to be recompensated in the form of energy. You can't have a powerful brain like ours AND have jaws that can snap bones in half or the ability to lift the amount of weight gorillas do for example. That form of monkey is immensly strong and they don't sit in the gym training, they are born like that. 

The only way to allow certain organs to expand is to in, very simple terms, redirect the energy we could be losing from having to upkeep the eg. jaw muscles and allow that energy to be focused on using the brain. Since we started walking, using tools and what not, our brains have been hungry for energy, which is normal considering that such new actions create new, unfound in our species neurological pathways.

That's what I meant. And sophisticated in a general sense, cultural, spiritual, mental etc.


----------



## Gregor Eisenhorn (Jan 25, 2016)

So just like with the example on the jaw muscles degrading, technology has pushed humans hundreds of ears forward in a relativly short time. Nowadays people don't use the muscles at the same rate as our GRAND PARENTS, so I'm not talking about ancestors that lived thousands of years ago. The human body is adapting at a huge rate, we are not as strong physically and mentally as people who lived hundreds of years ago.

So my guess is that over the course of a few decades/centuries, our muscle matter will start degrading and that will cause new pathways for us to walk on. What will happen, I cannot guess, but I think that the mind will greatly benefit from this. I think we are going to start evolving mentally faster than ever before. More specifically our emotions will porbably start evolving, we might in the future no not what anger is or survival instincts, we could very well start losing them over time since technology will be doing most of our chores for use. Be it cleaning, to traveling and thinking.


----------



## qwizoking (Jan 25, 2016)

we dont need to redirect energy.
cows or bulls spend all day grazing, we have the ability to get all our needs in a single meal before we even start our day. lol we dont sacrifice our brain for an unrelated jaw bone and muscle. there are many examples in nature. also why do we think we are smartest, how do we calculate this. our brain is relatively small compared to some other animals.

and what your saying is all opinion.
most doesnt make sense from a science/historical perspective 

we are much stronger in all ways than our ancestors, as well as taller etc read my post, why am i repeating... think about football players now and when the game first came out.


hence my first post in the thread, too many false assertions to have an intelligent debate or discussion


----------



## Gregor Eisenhorn (Jan 25, 2016)

Cows eat plants that have cellulose in them, and no animal can digest cellulose, therefore they eat a shit ton of food (and cows have a huge digestive system with chambers mind you, try filling that up) which is then broken down by bacteria into protein. All that means that first it does take some time, secondly grass isn't exactly rich in protein, therefore they have to eat much more. Humans have a different diet that consists in protein rich foods. Cows are huge freaking animals that are also warm blooded which means they have to eat a LOT to upkeap their metabolism. Same thing with birds. Crocodiles on the other hand are bigger than birds, but have a slow metabolism and are cold blooded, therefore only eat a small amount of food. (Because being energy efficient they don't need to eat so much to produce energy for their digestive systems, thermoregulation systems and so on )

Only humans have developed their cerebrum to the point that we can think abstract thoughts. We can plan ahead, which ither animals cannot do. They "live in the moment" or so to speak.


----------



## texasjack (Jan 25, 2016)

Fyi you can't change your genes. Short of receiving large amounts of radiation the genes you're born with are the ones you die with. So if you have tall genes but don't get enough food you'll be short. Your kids still have a good chance of being tall though. You can't change anything through behavior or environment to your genes. Fyi


----------



## reddan1981 (Jan 26, 2016)

Heisenberg said:


> Micro-evolution is evolution. Small changes add up over time. The only thing the term micro-evolution indicates is the resolution we are using to look at it. It's an indication of time-frame. It's not an actual category used by scientists.
> 
> Evolution does not postulate that one species changes into another. It says that species branch off. It does not predict special transitional species, it says we are all transitional species.
> 
> ...


Hello again heis, im going to have to disagree with your conjecture. I used the term MICRO evolution to distinguish my own thinking on the matter, you might note that I separated the word micro and typed it in capitals. Your understanding of the word is incomplete so you shouldnt of been so eager to jump in to contradict me, however i understand that you have built your career (or atleast created an online persona espousing your theoretical excrement) based on the back of the idea of evolution of mind.

1. Micro evolution is evolution. Well it certainly has the word evolution in it, however microevolution and macroevolution are different intentions on the word. Microevolution is scientifically defined as, the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift or even migration) within a population or species. Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary changes at the species level or higher,that is, the formation of new species, new genera and so forth. My point being that you yourself have incorrectly stated that 'the only thing the term micro evolution indicates is the resolution we are using to look at it'.

2. Small changes add up over time. Ok? Can you list the structual changes needed for an invertebrate to form from a single cell? A cell doesnt have the genes needed to produce even a simple nodal chord, so how can a fish produce legs if it hasnt the gene coding to do so? You must know, because you argue for the processes so vehemently. Before you say mutation (like most dissident persons might) can I add that mutations might produce novel genetic changes, but NEVER has a mutation been known to ADD coded information to an already complex DNAsystem. On the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration in the information present in DNA. Never has a helpfull mutation been observed.

3.Morality has nothing to do with hypothesis testing. Morality is an indication of an individuals ability to rationalize and make correct judgment, so an individual acting immoral demonstrates poor judgment, no?


----------



## Gregor Eisenhorn (Jan 26, 2016)

texasjack said:


> Fyi you can't change your genes. Short of receiving large amounts of radiation the genes you're born with are the ones you die with. So if you have tall genes but don't get enough food you'll be short. Your kids still have a good chance of being tall though. You can't change anything through behavior or environment to your genes. Fyi


What about genetic mutations? That's one of the only ways organisms recieve spanking brand new genes. Then, natural selection determines if that genetic mutaion was efficient/positive, not efficient/negative or neutral.


----------



## reddan1981 (Jan 26, 2016)

Sorry Gregor you must have been writing this as I was posting mine. Lol.


----------



## Rrog (Jan 26, 2016)

I do not believe anything is evolving fast. Isolated natural selection can happen, but that's selection of existing traits and phenotypes, not evolution

There has been no burst of human evolution. It's slow and plodding, like it is for every species.


----------



## qwizoking (Jan 26, 2016)

sort of,tx 
ever studied epigenetics?


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 26, 2016)

reddan1981 said:


> Hello again heis, im going to have to disagree with your conjecture. I used the term MICRO evolution to distinguish my own thinking on the matter, you might note that I separated the word micro and typed it in capitals.



Personal insults aside, it doesn't matter how you typed it, you are hiding behind the idea that you can admit to micro-evolution yet still deny evolutionary theory. It's nothing more than moving the goalpost via special pleading. You say there is no evidence for evolution, and upon being presented with evidence you can't deny, you simply say it doesn't count. It's not a particularly convincing bit of sophistry.




> 1. Micro evolution is evolution. Well it certainly has the word evolution in it, however microevolution and macroevolution are different intentions on the word. Microevolution is scientifically defined as, the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift or even migration) within a population or species. Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary changes at the species level or higher,that is, the formation of new species, new genera and so forth. My point being that you yourself have incorrectly stated that 'the only thing the term micro evolution indicates is the resolution we are using to look at it'.


You've merely restated my words. The terms do not indicate that we are talking about different mechanisms or processes, they indicate the scope. The distinction is in scale, not concept. But lets not pretend either of us are making original points or arguments. The micro vs macro misconception is well documented on the net. You are simply hiding behind a well debunked argument, refuted countless times. It's just one example of how deniers argue against a caricature of evolution than actual evolutionary theory.



> 2. Small changes add up over time. Ok? Can you list the structual changes needed for an invertebrate to form from a single cell? A cell doesnt have the genes needed to produce even a simple nodal chord, so how can a fish produce legs if it hasnt the gene coding to do so? You must know, because you argue for the processes so vehemently. Before you say mutation (like most dissident persons might) can I add that mutations might produce novel genetic changes, but NEVER has a mutation been known to ADD coded information to an already complex DNAsystem. On the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration in the information present in DNA. Never has a helpfull mutation been observed.


Again, simply another creationist talking point, refuted a thousand times. Evolution is defined as the adaptation of a population of organisms to its natural environment, and this does not necessarily require the information of the genome to increase. It can as easily decrease. Gene duplication is the most obvious example of a mechanism which can lead to increase. But in short, individuals do not evolve, populations do. You are confusing genome with gene pool.



> 3.Morality has nothing to do with hypothesis testing. Morality is an indication of an individuals ability to rationalize and make correct judgment, so an individual acting immoral demonstrates poor judgment, no?


Not necessarily. A pervert can still be good at math. However, I will agree that it can be a factor, and depending on the particular moral failing, it may even be reasonable grounds for suspicion. Yet, my point was that it is not a reliable heuristic that can be used for testing. All hypotheses should be given the strictest of doubt regardless if the author is a sinner or a saint. That doubt is then resolved via the examination by qualified peers of the methodology and conclusions, by constructing tests designed to let reality falsify the hypothesis, and by demanding reproduction and quantification of uncertainty. If the theory has a high degree of accuracy, it can be further strengthened through application, meaning we can apply it to reality and gain some sort of control over nature. That is the process used to judge the accuracy of a scientific model, and nowhere does it involve the examination of morals.

Really, the concept is as silly as a teacher giving a student a C- on a math test, even though every question was answered correctly, because they found out the student had sex out of wedlock.

But hey, on the bright side, in just a few short responses you've allowed me to check off multiple boxes on my bingo card.


----------



## texasjack (Jan 26, 2016)

qwizoking said:


> sort of,tx
> ever studied epigenetics?


I'm vaguely familiar but my understanding are that the changes aren't heritable rendering them irrelevant to evolutionary change.


----------



## texasjack (Jan 26, 2016)

Gregor Eisenhorn said:


> What about genetic mutations? That's one of the only ways organisms recieve spanking brand new genes. Then, natural selection determines if that genetic mutaion was efficient/positive, not efficient/negative or neutral.


Correct, but most if that happens in the womb.


----------



## WeeblesWobbles (Jan 26, 2016)

texasjack said:


> I'm vaguely familiar but my understanding are that the changes aren't heritable rendering them irrelevant to evolutionary change.


No. Inheritable.


----------



## WeeblesWobbles (Jan 26, 2016)

Rrog said:


> I do not believe anything is evolving fast. Isolated natural selection can happen, but that's selection of existing traits and phenotypes, not evolution
> 
> There has been no burst of human evolution. It's slow and plodding, like it is for every species.


Punctuated equilibrium.


----------



## reddan1981 (Jan 26, 2016)

Heisenberg said:


> Personal insults aside, it doesn't matter how you typed it, you are hiding behind the idea that you can admit to micro-evolution yet still deny evolutionary theory. It's nothing more than moving the goalpost via special pleading. You say there is no evidence for evolution, and upon being presented with evidence you can't deny, you simply say it doesn't count. It's not a particularly convincing bit of sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great reply................


----------



## qwizoking (Jan 26, 2016)

your genetics are always changing, along with expression, had to get rid of my favorite master kush cutting not long ago, the flavor was changing. epigenetic tags are loosely from the environment and can be inherited and therefore alter adaptations/evolution quite quickly. these changes are also subject to mutations etc.
The epigenome, can change rapidly in response to signals from the environment. And epigenetic changes can happen in many individuals at once.....

genetics is as complicated if not drastically more so, than my field of pharmacology.

heres a little example of one pathway it can work.. from wiki

Two important ways in which epigenetic inheritance can be different from traditional genetic inheritance, with important consequences for evolution, are that rates of epimutation can be much faster than rates of mutation[103]and the epimutations are more easily reversible.[104] In plants heritable DNA methylation mutations are 100.000 times more likely to occur compared to DNA mutations.[105] An epigenetically inherited element such as the PSI+system can act as a "stop-gap", good enough for short-term adaptation that allows the lineage to survive long enough for mutation and/or recombination to genetically assimilate the adaptive phenotypic change.[106]The existence of this possibility increases the evolvability of a species.


----------



## SamsonsRiddle (Jan 26, 2016)

can someone draw me the evolutionary map to whales, or a giraffe, a woodpecker? If you believe in the evolutionary theory you inherently must believe that there is no period without time, but that is easily proven as false. Our human minds have grown so much to the point that we have begun ignoring the truth and believing all the lies we are spoon fed by idiots with big titles. it doesn't take a genius to see our species is moving in the wrong direction.


----------



## reddan1981 (Jan 26, 2016)

Find the common denominator with these theorist, you will understand.


----------



## qwizoking (Jan 27, 2016)

If youbelieve in the evolutionary theory you inherently must believe that there is no period without time,but that is easily proven as false



could you explain?




also forgive my earlier post(s) was a grumpy that morn


----------



## Nyan Rapier (Jan 27, 2016)

I don't want to rustle any feathers here, Assuming life isn't a thing that has always existed and thus had to have occurred at some point in time, life appearing similar to how it is now opposes entropy A LOT. Kind of like a chunk or charcoal instantaneously breaking tons of covalent bonds and forming itself into a diamond. Then again creationism is basically magic.


----------



## qwizoking (Jan 27, 2016)

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate


----------



## SamsonsRiddle (Jan 27, 2016)

For evolution to occur there had to be a period when nothing became something. a period where there was no time that became time, when nothing became something and progressed from there. 

maybe i don't understand the evolutionary process, but i do know that some animals couldn't have evolved otherwise there is no way they could have developed to what they are today such as giraffes, woodpeckers, etc... they had to have been created and existed at one time because evolution could not work in their case.


----------



## SamsonsRiddle (Jan 27, 2016)

Nyan Rapier said:


> I don't want to rustle any feathers here, Assuming life isn't a thing that has always existed and thus had to have occurred at some point in time, life appearing similar to how it is now opposes entropy A LOT. Kind of like a chunk or charcoal instantaneously breaking tons of covalent bonds and forming itself into a diamond. Then again creationism is basically magic.


and evolutionism is realistic? monkey fish frog?


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 27, 2016)

SamsonsRiddle said:


> For evolution to occur there had to be a period when nothing became something. a period where there was no time that became time, when nothing became something and progressed from there.


Evolutionary theory describes how species change over time. It has nothing to say about how time began, how the cosmos developed, or if there was nothing before something. 



> maybe i don't understand the evolutionary process, but i do know that some animals couldn't have evolved otherwise there is no way they could have developed to what they are today such as giraffes, woodpeckers, etc... they had to have been created and existed at one time because evolution could not work in their case.



You do not have a firm grasp on evolutionary theory. It offers many mechanisms which can explain how the animals you mentioned evolved into what we see today. You may want to explore them so you can go from having an uninformed opinion to an informed one. Evolution is fun to learn about!


----------



## Rrog (Jan 27, 2016)

Can't believe this is being debated again. Abandon science! Embrace science fiction


----------



## Nyan Rapier (Jan 27, 2016)

qwizoking said:


> http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate


Doesn't contradict thermodynamics. Things spontaneously arranging themselves into sophisticated things goes against things wanting to be at their lowest energy state. In layman terms things combining themselves into complex organisms in something like a week highly highly opposes entropy. Kind of like an explosion reversing itself. I'm not saying biogenesis never happened, I'm just saying biogenesis was highly unlikely to happen without one common ancestor and a lot of slow progression. I've considered there actually being more than one similar common ancestor when some kind of life started and there are theories about it.


----------



## reddan1981 (Jan 27, 2016)

Next move, is they push for an alien ancestry. Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey.


----------



## Nyan Rapier (Jan 27, 2016)

Alien ancestry doesn't imply the super natural at least.


----------



## Nyan Rapier (Jan 27, 2016)

Anyway science doesn't deal in absolutes and it's really hard to prove something false using science as opposed to proving something true. I don't know, man. Science doesn't deal in absolutes.


----------



## Rrog (Jan 27, 2016)

Science is, however, reproducible and able to be peer-reviewed.


----------



## Nyan Rapier (Jan 27, 2016)

Rrog said:


> Science is, however, reproducible and able to be peer-reviewed.


I agree, don't you think there's always some measure off uncertainty though?


----------



## Rrog (Jan 27, 2016)

Shouldn't be with reproducibility and peer review.

Scientific theory is still just that. Not scientific law.


----------



## kine2731 (Jan 29, 2016)

how come monkeys are not still evolving?speech,up right posture,etc?


----------



## Rrog (Jan 29, 2016)

Takes millennia. Don't hold your breath


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 30, 2016)




----------



## Rrog (Jan 30, 2016)

Look at canine DNA and you're see why dogs are so varied. Breeding easily causes expression changes. Very easily. This is well understood


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 12, 2016)

Anyone who would deny evolution is one of two types of person, they are either deceivers or they themselves are deceived.

Ill admit, watching the Kent Hovind type is entertaining. Dude is a phenomenal public speaker and a smart guy. I doubt he believes what he says, to him, a lie told in service of the Lord is not a lie. He is the deceiver. Many deceivers are out there, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, William C. Lane, and many many more.

The fossil record and DNA evidence combine to give such an overwhelming evidence to Darwinian evolution that its simply not credible to deny it.

Apes are still evolving, come back in millions of years and the Chimpanzee with have continued to evolve, so will have we.


----------



## Rrog (Feb 13, 2016)

It really really obvious that people will literally believe any conspiracy. Doesn't matter how preposterous. Logic isn't needed to be deluded.


----------



## SamsonsRiddle (Feb 13, 2016)

it's logical to believe that a giraffe evolved? how could that even be possible - unless it was made the way it is the first time it wouldn't have made it because of the blood that rushes to it's head when it drinks. there are many other examples. Humans have all the resources to solve any problem that arises but can't seem to capture the knowledge to do so. So your carnal knowledge is as limited as your idea of what is logical.

Devolution makes more sense than evolution if you study it "logically"


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 13, 2016)

SamsonsRiddle said:


> it's logical to believe that a giraffe evolved? how could that even be possible - unless it was made the way it is the first time it wouldn't have made it because of the blood that rushes to it's head when it drinks. there are many other examples. Humans have all the resources to solve any problem that arises but can't seem to capture the knowledge to do so. So your carnal knowledge is as limited as your idea of what is logical.
> 
> Devolution makes more sense than evolution if you study it "logically"


Yes actually, Its funny that you mention the giraffe because Dawkins does a great bit on this on youtube you can find...


----------



## SamsonsRiddle (Feb 13, 2016)

lol, his idea of what he believes is true?


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 13, 2016)

It is hard to know where to begin a conversation like this. The guy in the video is promoting creation. An intelligent design view that tries to pass off the world as a designed place. Let's just for one second pretend that's true. It doesn't get us any closer to the Christian God. IF we had rock solid evidence that the world and all life was designed by some sort of creative force, it wouldn't be evidence for the god of Christian theology. At best it would be evidence for some sort of deistic god.

This guy has obviously not spent a lot of time watching or reading Dawkins. The giraffe bit is simply evidence. It is evidence of the theory of evolution. If you watched the video I liked you would see towards the end a graphic where the nerve in question is compared to fish, and then all sorts of mammals. IT is one tiny piece of evidence, in a large theory.

The guy in your video says evolution cannot serve to make predictions. Well that simply isn't true.

There was always said to be a fish that crawled out of the water to start living on land. We knew it didn't exist 400 million years ago. But by 350 million years ago there were lots of land animals that were descendents from this one species. So scientists set up an expedition to look into sedimentary rocks about 375 million years old, and after just a few years they found the fish, and it was almost exactly like they predicted it to be.

Whenever there is a gap in the fossil record the theory of evolution can predict with almost certainty what that intermediate species will look like.

I would also like to point out some logical fallacies the dude in your video had that made me laugh a little.

He said bad design is not evidence of no designer. If that is true than good design is not evidnce of a designer.


----------



## SamsonsRiddle (Feb 13, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> It is hard to know where to begin a conversation like this. The guy in the video is promoting creation. An intelligent design view that tries to pass off the world as a designed place. Let's just for one second pretend that's true. It doesn't get us any closer to the Christian God. IF we had rock solid evidence that the world and all life was designed by some sort of creative force, it wouldn't be evidence for the god of Christian theology. At best it would be evidence for some sort of deistic god.
> 
> This guy has obviously not spent a lot of time watching or reading Dawkins. The giraffe bit is simply evidence. It is evidence of the theory of evolution. If you watched the video I liked you would see towards the end a graphic where the nerve in question is compared to fish, and then all sorts of mammals. IT is one tiny piece of evidence, in a large theory.
> 
> ...


The point about bad design was followed up by the point that many things have been labeled as bad design until the reason behind why the design is the way it is is later figured out (knowledge gap?). 

I don't understand what you're trying to say about the "christian god" - especially since there about 30,000 different denominations all with a different god. You obviously have not spent a lot of time studying the word of god. All these worldly churches preaching ignorant theology that is diametrically opposed to what the bible actually says is not a way to get closer to the true god or the meaning of the bible. I studied with the catholics (as i have many churches to see what it's like to be a catholic, jehovah's witness, baptist, pentacostal, etc...) who tried to tell me that the bible doesn't NOT say their isn't evolution. That is retarded. Simple as that....retarded. They all have their own interpretations when the bible itself says it is of no one's private interpretation. It's rather a puzzle with pieces that must be put together in the right way and at the right time. That's another subject.

As far as your evolutionary arguement, i'm going to bow out before you realize how little i know about that subject as opposed to biblical knowledge and truth.


----------



## Heisenberg (Feb 13, 2016)




----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 13, 2016)

SamsonsRiddle said:


> The point about bad design was followed up by the point that many things have been labeled as bad design until the reason behind why the design is the way it is is later figured out (knowledge gap?).
> 
> I don't understand what you're trying to say about the "christian god" - especially since there about 30,000 different denominations all with a different god. You obviously have not spent a lot of time studying the word of god. All these worldly churches preaching ignorant theology that is diametrically opposed to what the bible actually says is not a way to get closer to the true god or the meaning of the bible. I studied with the catholics (as i have many churches to see what it's like to be a catholic, jehovah's witness, baptist, pentacostal, etc...) who tried to tell me that the bible doesn't NOT say their isn't evolution. That is retarded. Simple as that....retarded. They all have their own interpretations when the bible itself says it is of no one's private interpretation. It's rather a puzzle with pieces that must be put together in the right way and at the right time. That's another subject.
> 
> As far as your evolutionary arguement, i'm going to bow out before you realize how little i know about that subject as opposed to biblical knowledge and truth.


He listed two, he said something about a retna being upside down but gave no explanation, and then went on to talk about a quala or panda thumb but it eats bamboo well. I didn't address that point because he gave no evidence and that which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

He compared the bad design of a pinto with no one would say then that it didn't have a designer. The reason there is relevance to the Christian god is that Christians are behind this Intelligent Design movement (ID) but there is a vast difference between the god of ID and the Christian God, who is supposed to be perfect.

I know more about the bible and theology than the average person, but I wouldn't say I'm an expert. I grew up in a fundamentalist home and never remember believing it. Of course I felt guilty and that there was something wrong with me. I tried for years to force myself into belief, and I couldn't. I finally realized it was total bullshit. Even the bible. It isn't a coherent message and its all mixed up. The OT is just one of gods failures after another, he keeps screwing up and blaming it on man.

The NT has 4 anonymous gospels with different incompatible stories about Jesus, then you have Acts and the letters that never really talk about jesus except through revelation. I don't think the man actually existed. Have you looked into Dr. Richard Carrier's work on this? He makes a compelling case.

Its difficult to have this conversation with a Christian because I could do a complete dissection of what I see as Christianity, and because of the number of denominations you'd have wiggle room. Its like trying to nail jello to a wall.

I know why youre opposed to evolution. With evolution there is no Adam and Eve, which means no original sin, which totally negates the need for Jesus to come. Evolution is a death nail to Christianity.


----------



## SamsonsRiddle (Feb 13, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> He listed two, he said something about a retna being upside down but gave no explanation, and then went on to talk about a quala or panda thumb but it eats bamboo well. I didn't address that point because he gave no evidence and that which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
> 
> He compared the bad design of a pinto with no one would say then that it didn't have a designer. The reason there is relevance to the Christian god is that Christians are behind this Intelligent Design movement (ID) but there is a vast difference between the god of ID and the Christian God, who is supposed to be perfect.
> 
> ...



I study the bible every day, and have studied many of the problems with it. OVER AND OVER. The problem is that people forget that the bible was given to man and brought to us through man with all the ideas of man mixed in. So how can you know the truth? The holy spirit. You can accumulate all the knowledge in the world about the bible, but without the missing piece it's futile. There are no mistakes in the bible, god allowed everything to be put in there FOR A REASON.

The old testament was not about god's blunders, but rather a way for man to realize how fucking stupid he really is. Over and over again man is given a chance to follow god's way, but he is so blind by his own "intelligence" that he refuses to believe anything outside of his pursuit of pleasure. So it is today. To have the title of God, there is no way you could make a mistake. By his title alone your assertion about the old testament being him making mistakes is false. 

4 anonymous gospels? there are only 4 and they were written by god, given to man through the holy spirit (levi, mark, john, and luke). Just like every word spoken by Jesus was not his own, but rather God spoke through him by the power of the holy spirit. And Acts takes place after Jesus is resurrected and returns to receive his throne in the third heaven, therefore it's the continuation of the gospel of the coming kingdom of god continued through a bunch of men (Jesus was only used to convert 120 so how many do you think there are today? Millions like the churches teach?). Maybe you've been studying with Martin Luther who denies most of the new testament?

All the denominations are wrong - so that should narrow things down for you, but why would you ever rather with a christian? They can't even figure out which sun they are celebrating (the venerable _Day of the Sun). _

However, if you really think you can educate me on the Bible, i would love to hear it.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 13, 2016)

Well, there are 4 canonical gospels, there were dozens of others that aren't included. None of the bible ones claim to be eyewitness reports, and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were just assigned to them, we have no idea who wrote them, and exactly when they were written, but our oldest surviving piece of any of the canonical gospels comes from about 230ad, and its the size of a credit card.

The gospels don't agree with each other. They have differing accounts on a lot of things. Do you really think the Jesus depicted in John is like the meek and mild Jesus depicted in the others? Matthew and Luke just copied Mark for the most part, and John is just way way out there different. Jesus is more of a superman figure there. His personality is much different in John.

How about inconsistencies with major events like Jesus throwing out the money changers from the Temple? John has Jesus starting off his 3 year ministry with this event, the others have Jesus doing this when he returns to Jerusalem in the last week of his life.

How about the different genealogies given for Jesus, the names are not the same in the gospels that provide them.
Gospel of Matthew:
Eliud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph & _Mary_ *
Jesus

Gospel of John:
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus

These are the generations prior to jesus, each goes further back, and each continues to be different.

These are things that cannot both be correct. This is Josephs line as it goes back through David in each.

Also, they have Jesus being crucified on different days. There is no agreement in the gospels on this.

There is also the event of Jesus getting pissed at the fig tree. One gospel says it withered immediately, another has it withering the next morning?



There is no way this book is inspired by god.

Just take 10 minutes and watch this, see if you're curious....


----------



## SamsonsRiddle (Feb 14, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Well, there are 4 canonical gospels, there were dozens of others that aren't included. None of the bible ones claim to be eyewitness reports, and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were just assigned to them, we have no idea who wrote them, and exactly when they were written, but our oldest surviving piece of any of the canonical gospels comes from about 230ad, and its the size of a credit card.
> 
> The gospels don't agree with each other. They have differing accounts on a lot of things. Do you really think the Jesus depicted in John is like the meek and mild Jesus depicted in the others? Matthew and Luke just copied Mark for the most part, and John is just way way out there different. Jesus is more of a superman figure there. His personality is much different in John.
> 
> ...


I wish you would just make 1 point at a time so i wouldn't have to dig so deep into your shit.

I know there are all kinds of lost gospels, some of which would probably be true - but noone reads it with 66 books, you think they are going to read it when there are 107 books? You are taking a language that noone speaks anymore and had very little tense value (aramaic) and translating and transliterating into and a language before you even get to english. Not an excuse, just saying - it's not that simple.

The gospels do harmonize quite well, even the day of the crucifixion and the resurrection, it just takes a little time to study those things to figure them out.
Jesus cleansed the temple twice - derp??? lol All 4 of the gospels recollect things a little different, including some things left out or added upon each other. Maybe not all 4 apostles were there for every event? Hard one there, buddy.

There are 4 gospels taken in account by 4 different men with 4 different backgrounds. Levi was a tax collector so he writes as a tax collector. Mark was a teenager, so he writes as a teenager. Luke a doctor, hence the detail given to details. And John was a priest, hence the more spiritual description of the life of Jesus. Once again, i m surprised you have caught this....but most atheists know more about the bible than most "christians", so maybe i'm not surprised.

Actually, those are two different genealogies because of his mom and his step-dad weren't from the same parents (which i hear is a good thing). You would have been better off arguing the virgin birth here.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/184/Why-Does-Jesus-Have-Two-Different-Genealogies-Matthew-11-16-Luke-323-38.htm

Jesus was crucified Wednesday Night at 3 p.m. - 3 days 3 nights and resurrected on the sabbath (saturday before sunset) as he was gone from the tomb when they came to check on him "early the first day". So yeah, even sunday worshipping christians can't get that part right.

Please please limit the amount of points, this takes quite a while to type out and i can't type that fast - old fingers.

Here's another point you won't find anywhere on the internet, easily. How long has the earth been in existence? God doesn't say 6,000 years, in fact, there is no time given. The earth was inhabited by the angels before Genesis 1:2, which is why it BECAME tohu and bohu. The angels didn't do their job of implementing god's law and rebelled after they were created to inhabit the earth. Satan took 1/3rd of all the angels with him in this rebellion against god. How long did it take for satan to get these angels to follow him? 1 year? 1,000,000,000,000 years per angel? It doesn't say, but it does say the earth existed much longer than many "christians" are willing to acknowledge.

I know, spiritual knowledge is sparse and hard to accept, but after years of consistent study you could figure out a couple points on your own without some dude telling you what he believes.

The Veil was ripped, now we don't have to rely on others to take us to god. We can go to him ourselves, boldly. Maybe try studying the bible all the way through about 3 times, then you'll know for sure what you're what the word of god says.


----------



## SamsonsRiddle (Feb 14, 2016)

and please no more videos of 12 year old boys


----------



## Rrog (Feb 14, 2016)

Yaaaaawwwwnnnn


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 15, 2016)

SamsonsRiddle said:


> and please no more videos of 12 year old boys


Thanks for the reply. You're right. It's such a broad and complex topic that it is hard to pin down and talk about.

The new testament wasn't written in Aramaic. That's how we know the deciples didn't write it. Those were poor uneducated people.

The original documents of the new testiment were written in Greek by educated men. Greek isn't as hard of a language to translate from. Its telling that your didnt even know it wasn't written in Aramaic. 

As to the ancestry of jesus, giving one for both Joseph and marry isn't the correct answer. They both say Joseph. The difference is becuase their goals are different. Matthew wants to have a royal genealogy. Luke wants a line back to god which is why he goes to adam. Plus many of the names along the way are in there... too coincidentall to be one from each parent.

And we all know Mary wasn't a virgin. It's a mistranslation from the Greek word for young woman.

You've presented some arguments that get the gospels to harmonize. No one argument you gave is impossible. But them all being that way and leading to one cohesive story is a long shot. Very unlikely.

What is far more likely is the scenario put to us by secular scholors.

The gospels talk about how famous jesus was. We have writings that confirm all kinds of people throughout history who had a similar "life" to jesus. They made similar claims. Apalonious of Tyan for instance. He is a confirmed historical figure. Outside of the bible no one talks about jesus. There are NO contemporary independet sources.

Two are often named. Jocephus, tacitus 

These are not independent. Jocephus only mentions that there are people who follow a christ. And the Tacitus guy wasn't writing anywhere near that time. They're only repeating what christians are telling them.

But in reality there were people who were in and around Jerusalem who wrote a lot and took interest in such things. Philo of Alexandria for instance... a cult leader who stormed the temple mount and kicked out the merchants there would have drawn his interest.

Oddly enough he does mention christ. Or.. he mentions jesus anyway. Jesus was the name of a celestial being who some jews were worshiping at that time. He was an angelic like being. Not a person.

The gospels seem far more likely in this light. The presentation of jesus the angel having come down to live...

There were a lot of popular movements in religion at that time. Dying and rising gods who offered personal salvation.

Zalmoxis, Romulus, Inanna, Adonis just to name the ones we know predate the christ myth.

The jews saw these cults and wanted their own.

If you examine the cargo cults of the south pacific you'd find a religion that developed in 30 years or less where the natives there were worshiping the cargo of the US war machine. Initially anyone could 'have a revelation' and add new information to this religion.

You can imagine how any Tom Dick or Harry claiming a revelation could be cumbersome. So a messianic figure was developed. He was even supposed to return.

You seem to be a smart man. I was a fundamentalist christian for many years. Life experience pulled me from the faith and I'm so glad for it.

But this whole concept of Christianity makes much more sense from the concept of myth than all the things you said would have to happen.

If you want to limit this to one or two issues at a time, please limit it. I'm add ad I can't find one thing to focus on myself. I've got this entire framework in my mind and it's hard for me to limit it.

As to the age of the earth... I know it doesn't say that's the age. And hey, your scenario is another one of those things that is just so unlikely that it's difficult to accept.

That 12 year old by the way, is dr. Richard carrier. He's a highly intelligent and interesting man. I'm not an expert but he is.

He is an advocate of the christ myth theory. And although we can't say jesus never existed. The christ we know from the bible is pure myth.


----------



## SamsonsRiddle (Feb 15, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Thanks for the reply. You're right. It's such a broad and complex topic that it is hard to pin down and talk about.
> 
> The new testament wasn't written in Aramaic. That's how we know the deciples didn't write it. Those were poor uneducated people.
> 
> ...


Have you ever heard of Q? That's the original aramaic writings the greek text was translated from. The jews at the time spoke aramaic, not greek and that would obviously make why it was written in aramaic and translated to greek. It's a pretty simple concept.

You can claim that about the mistranslation of mary being a virgin, but then you would have to prove that to the thousands of different scholars who have translated it that way for a LONG time. It was a piece from the old testament that was prophesied to happen and did. However, after jesus she did have at least two children Jude and James, Jesus' half brothers. I always hear the new age christians saying "god didn't hate esau, he just strongly disliked him." People just want god to fit into their mold and change his word accordingly, instead of finding out who he really is intimately. 

I know spiritual things are impossible to understand carnally, and therefore the authenticity of god's word can't come from your own intelligent reasoning. 




Geneaology:
A more straightforward and the most common explanation is that Luke's genealogy is of Mary, with Eli being her father, while Matthew's describes the genealogy of Joseph.[40] This view was advanced as early as John of Damascus (d.749).

Luke's text says that Jesus was "a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli".[41] The qualification has traditionally been understood as acknowledgment of the virgin birth, but some instead see a parenthetical expression: "a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli."[42] In this interpretation, Jesus is called a son of Eli because Eli was his maternal grandfather, his nearest male ancestor.[40] A variation on this idea is to explain "Joseph son of Eli" as meaning a son-in-law,[43] perhaps even an adoptive heir to Eli through his only daughter Mary.[44] An example of the Old Testament use of such an expression is Jair, who is called "Jair son of Manasseh"[45] but was actually son of Manasseh's granddaughter.[46] In any case, the argument goes, it is natural for the evangelist, acknowledging the unique case of the virgin birth, to give the maternal genealogy of Jesus, while expressing it a bit awkwardly in the traditional patrilinear style.

According to R. A. Torrey, the reason Mary is not implicitly mentioned by name is because the ancient Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.[47]

Lightfoot[43] sees confirmation in an obscure passage of the Talmud,[48] which, as he reads it, refers to "Mary daughter of Eli"; however, both the identity of this Mary and the reading are doubtful.[49] Patristic tradition, on the contrary, consistently identifies Mary's father as Joachim. It has been suggested that _Eli_ is short for _Eliakim_,[40] which in the Old Testament is an alternate name of Jehoiakim,[50] for whom Joachim is named.

The theory neatly accounts for the genealogical divergence. It is consistent with the early tradition ascribing a Davidic ancestry to Mary. It is also consistent with Luke's intimate acquaintance with Mary, in contrast to Matthew's focus on Joseph's perspective


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 15, 2016)

SamsonsRiddle said:


> Have you ever heard of Q? That's the original aramaic writings the greek text was translated from. The jews at the time spoke aramaic, not greek and that would obviously make why it was written in aramaic and translated to greek. It's a pretty simple concept.
> 
> You can claim that about the mistranslation of mary being a virgin, but then you would have to prove that to the thousands of different scholars who have translated it that way for a LONG time. It was a piece from the old testament that was prophesied to happen and did. However, after jesus she did have at least two children Jude and James, Jesus' half brothers. I always hear the new age christians saying "god didn't hate esau, he just strongly disliked him." People just want god to fit into their mold and change his word accordingly, instead of finding out who he really is intimately.
> 
> ...


Q is jusr a hypothetically asserted explanation. We can't say it's in Aramaic becuase no one has ever seen Q. 

The gospels don't say, anywhere within them, that they came from Q. 

Q is a guess to explain why the gospels tell the same story but yet have so many differences.

That also takes away from your earlier point about 4 views by 4 different authors with their own perspective. 


Consider the following. The story of Barabas. His name means 'son of the father' in Aramaic. 

Story is that the Romans offered to either release Jesus or Barabas, a violent treasonous murderer. We know what happend. Barabas was freed and jesus was executed. 

Compare this with the tradition of Yam Kippur. Two identical sheep are taken, the jews release one, the other they put all their sins on and execute. 

Jesus was a made up man myth to replace the Temple. I doubt you can find any writings about jesus exist prior to the destruction of the Temple. The temple was destroyed and how would the jews then get rid of sins. The logical framework for this is in Hebrews 9.


----------



## shorelineOG (Feb 15, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> Q is jusr a hypothetically asserted explanation. We can't say it's in Aramaic becuase no one has ever seen Q.
> 
> The gospels don't say, anywhere within them, that they came from Q.
> 
> ...


You should tell a mosque full of young Muslim men that the Qur'an is false, then draw a picture of Muhammad. The sodomites and evangelical agnostics have safety and freedom because of the Christians with guns.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 15, 2016)

shorelineOG said:


> You should tell a mosque full of young Muslim men that the Qur'an is false, then draw a picture of Muhammad. The sodomites and evangelical agnostics have safety and freedom because of the Christians with guns.


Q is not the Quran.

And frankly the Christians would have had the same reaction you anticipate from the Muslims not too long ago. It isn't Christianity that has lead to a civil society, it is secular values that have been imposed upon a Christian population, who has been kicking and screaming in opposition the whole way, but who has been slowly bent into proper form.


----------



## shorelineOG (Feb 15, 2016)

My point is you don't live in a Muslim country. Many of our laws are based on Jewish law. The torah and the new testament civilized man, and even gave them dietary laws and laws for cleanliness. The more religious a Christian is they become charitable or even pacifist like the Quakers and Amish. We know what happens when Muslims become deeply religious. Have you ever seen how savage most cultures are before Christianity? Hindus and Buddhist are also peaceful people but they have been forced to defend themselves from Muslim invaders.


ThickStemz said:


> Q is not the Quran.
> 
> And frankly the Christians would have had the same reaction you anticipate from the Muslims not too long ago. It isn't Christianity that has lead to a civil society, it is secular values that have been imposed upon a Christian population, who has been kicking and screaming in opposition the whole way, but who has been slowly bent into proper form.


----------



## shorelineOG (Feb 15, 2016)

I bet all those faggots who have AIDS are wishing they had followed Gods laws. Just sayin.


ThickStemz said:


> Q is not the Quran.
> 
> And frankly the Christians would have had the same reaction you anticipate from the Muslims not too long ago. It isn't Christianity that has lead to a civil society, it is secular values that have been imposed upon a Christian population, who has been kicking and screaming in opposition the whole way, but who has been slowly bent into proper form.


----------



## shorelineOG (Feb 15, 2016)

Selective breeding and evolution is a fact that doesn't contradict creation. The German shepherd was created in less than 100 years. Eugenics was very popular in the medical community, and doctors were castrating and institutionalizing handicap people until the 1960s. I have seen many average people live very blessed and productive happy lives. I have seen geniuses who hit the genetic lottery, self destruct. Genetics and intelligence are important but we are human not animals. Wisdom is more important than inherited intelligence.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 15, 2016)

shorelineOG said:


> My point is you don't live in a Muslim country. Many of our laws are based on Jewish law. The torah and the new testament civilized man, and even gave them dietary laws and laws for cleanliness. The more religious a Christian is they become charitable or even pacifist like the Quakers and Amish. We know what happens when Muslims become deeply religious. Have you ever seen how savage most cultures are before Christianity? Hindus and Buddhist are also peaceful people but they have been forced to defend themselves from Muslim invaders.


You live in a delusion of your own mind. 

The first 1500 years of christianity are as brutal and bloody as any period. The inquisition. The 30 years war. The crusades against the cathars and north eastern Europe are as bloody as any Islamic period.

You're so far off base you're not even really worthy of responding to.


----------



## shorelineOG (Feb 15, 2016)

You don't know your history either. The spread of the ottoman empire. We should of let the Aztecs keep their daily routine of chopping off heads for the sun. Like los zetas do today with Santa muerte. Some religions civilize people more than others. Millions of people die because of "immoral " behavior. Even if you don't believe the old testament, it is a very good read. Some of it is relevant today.


ThickStemz said:


> You live in a delusion of your own mind.
> 
> The first 1500 years of christianity are as brutal and bloody as any period. The inquisition. The 30 years war. The crusades against the cathars and north eastern Europe are as bloody as any Islamic period.
> 
> You're so far off base you're not even really worthy of responding to.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 15, 2016)

Ive read the old testament, there isn't a civilized country that exists today where anyone who followed it wouldn't swiftly find himself in prison.

The ancient Roman Empire was what became Christianized, I would say the influence of Christianity had the exact opposite effect as you say it would. Once the people became Christian that society regressed until it began taking Christianity less serious during and after what is known as the enlightenment.


----------



## shorelineOG (Feb 15, 2016)

Has anyone here read Mein Kampf? The third Reich and holocaust was based on science, eugenics and selective breeding. It is a scientific argument about the value of life. The value of humanity should not be based on science.


shorelineOG said:


> You don't know your history either. The spread of the ottoman empire. We should of let the Aztecs keep their daily routine of chopping off heads for the sun. Like los zetas do today with Santa muerte. Some religions civilize people more than others. Millions of people die because of "immoral " behavior. Even if you don't believe the old testament, it is a very good read. Some of it is relevant today.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 15, 2016)

Eugenics is pseudoscience. The Nazis were a weird cult mix of Christianity and Nordic pagan myths. One could hardly call them secular rational humanists.


----------



## shorelineOG (Feb 15, 2016)

Nazism and eugenics is not a Christian cult, nice try. The Nazis were the best engineers, doctors and scientists in the world. Please document where the Catholic and Lutheran churches are in support of eugenics. Pure atheism, my friend. If I am wrong please show me otherwise. Same with Stalin and communism where they threw the church out, more dead than the holocaust.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 15, 2016)

Russia had a history of being ruled by an absolute divine right monarch, Stalin was a seminary student. Once Stalin took over he created a cult of personality. It isn't the same type of atheism that Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins advocate, much like North Korea today. The God was the state or the man in power over the state. Much more theocratic than a surface examination would reveal. Yes he kicked Jesus out of the country, but he made himself god.

In history you can interchange the term fascist with 'conservative catholic' and nothing changes. Hitlers birthday was celebrated during mass across all catholic churches in central Europe for several years. His treaty with the Catholic church was his first and the only one he took seriously.

Even the mustachi, the Croatian fascists that caused so much trouble in the 90s were devout catholics.

Hitler grew up in Austria and was a catholic. The german army belt buckle said "God with us" in german.

Neither of those societies have the values of Thomas Payne or Thomas Jefferson. Secular humanism.

Ill concede stalin didn't believe in god, but that's where the similarities end.


----------



## SamsonsRiddle (Feb 15, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> You live in a delusion of your own mind.
> 
> The first 1500 years of christianity are as brutal and bloody as any period. The inquisition. The 30 years war. The crusades against the cathars and north eastern Europe are as bloody as any Islamic period.
> 
> You're so far off base you're not even really worthy of responding to.


Catholicism is not christianity other than in they fact they say they are. The believe they have authority over the bible. ANd oh yeah, during the period they killed all those people....the regular folks weren't allowed to have a copy of the bible in their own language. State run christianity? That's why America came to be, escaping the church of england(another fucked up fake christianity). Doesn't sound like they were serving the god of the bible to me. God always wanted everyone to know the laws and a have an intimate relationship with their creator. Constantine created a form of christianity to have an intimate relationship with controlling his population. Why do you think they worship on the wrong day? Pray to statues? Worship saints and angels and everything else that the bible clearly says not to do? Come on dude.

Dude, they spoke aramaic. Jesus spoke aramaic. Even if it was written in greek by time historians got it, it was from ARAMAIC. I mean if i speak english and someone writes it in greek, it still is a translation from english. Does that make sense?

Next thing you are going to say in genesis it says god created a greater light then he created the sun and moon and stars later. There is spiritual symbolism in there (which can be very simple and/or very complex). Light and darkness of course is good and evil (day and night) and the sun, moon, and stars mean what they mean. How do you distinguish the difference, that one thing you don't understand - the holy spirit.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 15, 2016)

SamsonsRiddle said:


> Catholicism is not christianity other than in they fact they say they are. The believe they have authority over the bible. ANd oh yeah, during the period they killed all those people....the regular folks weren't allowed to have a copy of the bible in their own language. State run christianity? That's why America came to be, escaping the church of england(another fucked up fake christianity). Doesn't sound like they were serving the god of the bible to me. God always wanted everyone to know the laws and a have an intimate relationship with their creator. Constantine created a form of christianity to have an intimate relationship with controlling his population. Why do you think they worship on the wrong day? Pray to statues? Worship saints and angels and everything else that the bible clearly says not to do? Come on dude.
> 
> Dude, they spoke aramaic. Jesus spoke aramaic. Even if it was written in greek by time historians got it, it was from ARAMAIC. I mean if i speak english and someone writes it in greek, it still is a translation from english. Does that make sense?
> 
> Next thing you are going to say in genesis it says god created a greater light then he created the sun and moon and stars later. There is spiritual symbolism in there (which can be very simple and/or very complex). Light and darkness of course is good and evil (day and night) and the sun, moon, and stars mean what they mean. How do you distinguish the difference, that one thing you don't understand - the holy spirit.


What you've done there with the anti catholic bit is known as a logical fallacy, the no true Scotsman variety. 

Catholics go back to long before protestants. Supposedly the first pope as Peter, upon whom christ supposedly said his church would be built. 

This state control of religion for the first thousand plus years is a feather in my cap. Well my arguments cap.

There is about an 80 year period from the time of jesus until the first surviving christian writing that survived... a gap. No writings survive. 

Why?

Nothing was written?

Or the story of the faith evolved so much that the state run church destroyed everything that they could to keep that fact unknown?

If jesus was as famous as the gospels suggest there were people who's writings exist who would have written about him. We don't have them either. 

It comes down to this. You admit this book, the bible, makes no sense. You've said one needs spiritual knowledge to read and understand it. Well that is not something that can be proven or disproven. I can't think of a weaker case.


----------



## shorelineOG (Feb 15, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> What you've done there with the anti catholic bit is known as a logical fallacy, the no true Scotsman variety.
> 
> Catholics go back to long before protestants. Supposedly the first pope as Peter, upon whom christ supposedly said his church would be built.
> 
> ...





ThickStemz said:


> What you've done there with the anti catholic bit is known as a logical fallacy, the no true Scotsman variety.
> 
> Catholics go back to long before protestants. Supposedly the first pope as Peter, upon whom christ supposedly said his church would be built.
> 
> ...


Saying the bible makes no sense is a little strong. The old testament was written thousands of years ago and it taught people safe food preparation and slaughter of livestock,taught people to rest their fields on the seventh year,rotate crops and how to handle disputes or collect debts. Science was not advanced thousands of years ago, but Jewish law is backed by science. Most common law is based on Jewish law. Not Aztec law. Not sharia law.


----------



## shorelineOG (Feb 15, 2016)

Are you Mel Gibson? Is that the riddle?


SamsonsRiddle said:


> Catholicism is not christianity other than in they fact they say they are. The believe they have authority over the bible. ANd oh yeah, during the period they killed all those people....the regular folks weren't allowed to have a copy of the bible in their own language. State run christianity? That's why America came to be, escaping the church of england(another fucked up fake christianity). Doesn't sound like they were serving the god of the bible to me. God always wanted everyone to know the laws and a have an intimate relationship with their creator. Constantine created a form of christianity to have an intimate relationship with controlling his population. Why do you think they worship on the wrong day? Pray to statues? Worship saints and angels and everything else that the bible clearly says not to do? Come on dude.
> 
> Dude, they spoke aramaic. Jesus spoke aramaic. Even if it was written in greek by time historians got it, it was from ARAMAIC. I mean if i speak english and someone writes it in greek, it still is a translation from english. Does that make sense?
> 
> Next thing you are going to say in genesis it says god created a greater light then he created the sun and moon and stars later. There is spiritual symbolism in there (which can be very simple and/or very complex). Light and darkness of course is good and evil (day and night) and the sun, moon, and stars mean what they mean. How do you distinguish the difference, that one thing you don't understand - the holy spirit.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 15, 2016)

shorelineOG said:


> Saying the bible makes no sense is a little strong. The old testament was written thousands of years ago and it taught people safe food preparation and slaughter of livestock,taught people to rest their fields on the seventh year,rotate crops and how to handle disputes or collect debts. Science was not advanced thousands of years ago, but Jewish law is backed by science. Most common law is based on Jewish law. Not Aztec law. Not sharia law.


What the bible gets right was common knowledge to many people at the time it was written. There are diamonds in the rough, that is for sure, but overall, what other bronze age books do we hold in high regard? If not for the god question this book would be long gone.


----------



## SamsonsRiddle (Feb 16, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> What you've done there with the anti catholic bit is known as a logical fallacy, the no true Scotsman variety.
> 
> Catholics go back to long before protestants. Supposedly the first pope as Peter, upon whom christ supposedly said his church would be built.
> 
> ...



You must not know much about the catholic religion. The peter they claim is the peter from the bible is the wrong peter. However, they will not admit this. There is a place in acts where the apostles are out and miracles are being done through them when a man named Simon the Sorcerer (Simon is the same name as Peter) asked the apostles to give him the power to give the holy spirit to others, he asked how much it would cost. That's the peter they follow, the one who thought you could buy the holy spirit. They claim that paul visited rome, yet there is no record of that. Peter had a wife, mary wasn't a perpetual virgin, and the only one that was taught to pray to was the father - not all these other "saints" that are still laying dead in the ground.

They controlled a religion that has nothing to do with what the bible taught to do. All the apostles celebrated the sabbath, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, etc. but the catholic church outlawed the following of those god given festivals (which once again i remind you were still celebrated by the apostles AFTER christ's death and resurrection) and replaced them with easter (better known by the goddess it is based around Ishtar) and christmas (saturnalia, celebration of the rebirth of a new year and therefore a perfect time for orgies and singing naked in the streets) and every other pagan religion rebranded as "christian". How can anyone who has studied the bible really believe the catholics care about what the bible says? Even Jesus warned there would be false christs and false religion, and anyone who knows the bible can see it.

The protestants are retarded, too. Their leader didn't even believe most of the bible was supposed to be in there, yet he and all his congregant followed 90% of what the catholics did. Once again, worshiping on the wrong day (prove to me god ever said to worship on sunday), worshiping the son even thought he always pointed to the father, and many other things that make no sense. Did you not understand the part where I said nowhere in the bible does it say christians would be saved? Only believers and followers - not of the false religion that these people are doing. They think you go to heaven when you die, even though the bible teaches that you die and go into the ground. No one is resurrected until Jesus' return, check out 1 corinthians 15.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 16, 2016)

SamsonsRiddle said:


> You must not know much about the catholic religion. The peter they claim is the peter from the bible is the wrong peter. However, they will not admit this. There is a place in acts where the apostles are out and miracles are being done through them when a man named Simon the Sorcerer (Simon is the same name as Peter) asked the apostles to give him the power to give the holy spirit to others, he asked how much it would cost. That's the peter they follow, the one who thought you could buy the holy spirit. They claim that paul visited rome, yet there is no record of that. Peter had a wife, mary wasn't a perpetual virgin, and the only one that was taught to pray to was the father - not all these other "saints" that are still laying dead in the ground.
> 
> They controlled a religion that has nothing to do with what the bible taught to do. All the apostles celebrated the sabbath, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, etc. but the catholic church outlawed the following of those god given festivals (which once again i remind you were still celebrated by the apostles AFTER christ's death and resurrection) and replaced them with easter (better known by the goddess it is based around Ishtar) and christmas (saturnalia, celebration of the rebirth of a new year and therefore a perfect time for orgies and singing naked in the streets) and every other pagan religion rebranded as "christian". How can anyone who has studied the bible really believe the catholics care about what the bible says? Even Jesus warned there would be false christs and false religion, and anyone who knows the bible can see it.
> 
> The protestants are retarded, too. Their leader didn't even believe most of the bible was supposed to be in there, yet he and all his congregant followed 90% of what the catholics did. Once again, worshiping on the wrong day (prove to me god ever said to worship on sunday), worshiping the son even thought he always pointed to the father, and many other things that make no sense. Did you not understand the part where I said nowhere in the bible does it say christians would be saved? Only believers and followers - not of the false religion that these people are doing. They think you go to heaven when you die, even though the bible teaches that you die and go into the ground. No one is resurrected until Jesus' return, check out 1 corinthians 15.


I didn't say that's the truth I said that's what they claim, and as incomplete as the information is who are any of us to argue? It is nothing me or you can prove or disprove, each claim as a level of probability and some claims are simply or less probable than others.

Do you know where any Christian got the concept of heaven or hell? When the Jews were exiled to Babalon they got the idea from the Zoroastrians. Jews believe in God and an afterlife. They didn't have a satan or a hell until that happened.

Once Jesus came on the scene this got further refined until what we have today.

You're knowledgable on this, I am, but our knowledge is in different areas. I'm not going to say I'm more knowledable than you, I don't know. I certainly don't have any of your spiritual knowledge, as I don't think it exists.

I will say that your perspective is more correct to what I know the bible to say than the typical Christian.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 17, 2016)

To the person who said that Hitler was an atheist and that is what made him so bad... then asked me if I had read Mein Komph..
I present to you page 70 of that book... 

"In taking on the filthy virus of Judism I'm taking on the work of the Lord, I'm called by him to do this work."

And it was one of the few books of that type the Catholic Church did not bad...

Drop mic...


----------



## SamsonsRiddle (Feb 17, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> I didn't say that's the truth I said that's what they claim, and as incomplete as the information is who are any of us to argue? It is nothing me or you can prove or disprove, each claim as a level of probability and some claims are simply or less probable than others.
> 
> Do you know where any Christian got the concept of heaven or hell? When the Jews were exiled to Babalon they got the idea from the Zoroastrians. Jews believe in God and an afterlife. They didn't have a satan or a hell until that happened.
> 
> ...


Before the babylon exile, heaven and hell were very well documented in the bible. Take for example the book of Job (which took place right around the time of Genesis 10 where you find his name) who mentions both heaven and hell (along with the grave so you can't "gotcha" me) and clearly mentions satan. Also, god wrote most of the psalms through david by the power of the holy spirit where hell is clearly mentioned several times (along with the grave).
Some of the prophets were there before the exile to babylon, such as isaiah and ezekiel and they mention satan, but with different names (king of tyrus and king of babylon).

Some Jews don't (didn't) believe in a resurrection, called Sadducees, who vehemently fought against Jesus when he mentioned the resurrection.

However, I do agree it became much more complete when Jesus revealed it to us.

Here are a few things that typical christians have never heard of and won't believe:

The 1,000 year reign - the time after Jesus returns to earth when Satan and sin are separated from earth while people who never had a chance to accept God's way will have a chance without any excuse (can't blame it on the devil). This means those who had no chance to know god through jesus will not be automatically sent to hell like most christians of today act like. Only a very small few will be given their spiritual bodies there, never having to fear death again - the ones who study every day now will teach those who never had a chance then as they reign as kings and priests. *This is clearly in the bible*

There is more than one antichrist. There is a spirit that dwells in the sons of disobedience who reject god's law and way called the spirit of antichrist, the unholy spirit. It says there are many antichrists, meaning those who put themselves as god in choosing what they believe is the knowledge of good and evil. These are children of satan, yes he has children, as clearly indicated by christ in the parable of the wheat and the tares. Also, Cain was satan's child, demonstrated by Adam's genealogy and also in one of the latter new testament books where it says "cain, who was of the evil one". There is much more to demonstrate this, but i haven't researched this in a few years.

There is a good mark. The mark is mentioned in the old testament as put on those who worship god on the sabbath. Seems like a pretty simple thing to follow, yet millions of christians get it wrong every week. Guess the catholic church, protestant church, and every other worldly church makes more sense to serve to them than the god of the bible. I studied the sabbath for years, both sides of the subject, and try to ask christians why they do it and have found nothing but excuses. Of course, what do you expect from people who claim to follow a god they only spend time with through some man for an hour each week (if that). Weak ass ignorant pew potatoes.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 17, 2016)

That is all translation error. The concept of hell and the devil/Satan greatly evolved. 

It doesn't mean the figures didn't exist. It just means their meanings changed... 

In the Old Testament and in particular, prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, those who died in faith were not permitted to go into the presence of God because atonement had not yet been provided. 

The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament. All 31 of those times, the word translated "hell" is the Hebrew word "sheol." While the English word "hell" has connotations as a place of punishment for the condemned, sheol does not have such connotations. Sheol simply refers to the abode of the dead in general, not particularly the place of the punishment for the wicked. In fact, sheol was divided into two compartments, one for the righteous dead and one for the wicked dead. And, more specifically, the Jewish concept of sheol was the "underworld," or in other words, a place within the earth, underneath the surface world. 

And these concepts are substantiated in scripture. The first indication we have that prior to the death and resurrection of Christ, the righteous dead remained in Sheol comes from 1 Samuel 28:6-20. In this passage, Saul enquires of the LORD but the LORD will not answer him. So, Saul then goes to a witch from Endor who, by Saul's request, brings up the spirit of Samuel from the dead. First, in verse 11, both Saul and the witch refer to "bringing up" a spirit. This phrase itself indicates the belief that dead spirits resided "below" or "under" and thus needed to be "brought up." 

And in verse 13-14, Saul asks the witch to describe what she sees as she brings up Samuel. The witch replies saying, "I saw gods ascending out of the earth" and "an old man cometh up." Now, the Bible does not deny that this is really occurring nor does it qualify this as a trick of some sort. Instead, the Bible testifies that Samuel actually answers Saul in verse 16. Therefore, the Bible records the reality of these events, particularly that the spirit of the dead prophet Samuel resided within the earth. Thus, this Biblical account substantiates the Jewish concept of sheol as a place below the surface of the earth where the righteous dead resided.


----------



## GregS (Feb 23, 2016)

Watch. There are many interesting concepts. Religious concepts emerge from states of mental disorder.


----------



## Christianiadelic (Feb 29, 2016)

Interesting debate lads. Somewhat sober as well. Much appreciated.

Is Christianity especially conducive of democracy? Well, insofar as it promotes tolerance and equality.
At least, that's what I take from Francis Fukuyama's book _The end of History and the Last Man. _He writes_:_ 
"[...] there is no inherent conflict between religion and liberal democracy, except at the point where religion ceases to be tolerant or egalitarian. [...] Christianity in a certain sense had to abolish itself through a secularization of its goals before liberalism could emerge. The generally accepted agent for this secularization was Protestantism. By making religion a private matter between the Christian and his God, Protestantism eliminated the need for a separate class of priests, and religious intervention into politics more generally."​


shorelineOG said:


> Has anyone here read Mein Kampf? The third Reich and holocaust was based on science, eugenics and selective breeding. It is a scientific argument about the value of life. The value of humanity should not be based on science.


_Mein Kampf_ is not a scientific paper, but ideological non-sense. It was not peer reviewed. 
Both religion and science is held in high regard by a lot of people. Both are sources of authority and legitimacy. I find it natural for opportunists to want to associate themselves with these institutions. Let's not pretend either of these institutions are to blame.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 29, 2016)

Christianiadelic said:


> Interesting debate lads. Somewhat sober as well. Much appreciated.
> 
> Is Christianity especially conducive of democracy? Well, insofar as it promotes tolerance and equality.
> At least, that's what I take from Francis Fukuyama's book _The end of History and the Last Man. _He writes_:_
> ...


But religion clearly is to blame. People do not do things so much in the name of god, but because god commands them to do so in his holy book. Its quite different from science.


----------



## Christianiadelic (Feb 29, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> But religion clearly is to blame. People do not do things so much in the name of god, but because god commands them to do so in his holy book. Its quite different from science.


It definitely is. _Science _doesn't tell people what to do. But science is sometimes used to legitimise otherwise illegitimate concepts and ideas. I don't believe religion is inherently bad. The Christian God has a chequered past, surely, but now - following 2000 years of evolution - the Christian church has actually build an impressive capacity as a vehicle for democratic values. We should embrace this change. Though I'm atheist, I believe we will benefit from the spiritual leadership of the Christian Church. We do need to work to remove the last remnants of the totalitarian Church.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 29, 2016)

Christianiadelic said:


> It definitely is. _Science _doesn't tell people what to do. But science is sometimes used to legitimise otherwise illegitimate concepts and ideas. I don't believe religion is inherently bad. The Christian God has a chequered past, surely, but now - following 2000 years of evolution - the Christian church has actually build an impressive capacity as a vehicle for democratic values. We should embrace this change. Though I'm atheist, I believe we will benefit from the spiritual leadership of the Christian Church. We do need to work to remove the last remnants of the totalitarian Church.


So what you're saying is the christian church has become better the more secular values it has adopted. 

I would agree. They're so good now they're hardly christian at all.


----------



## Christianiadelic (Feb 29, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> So what you're saying is the christian church has become better the more secular values it has adopted.
> 
> I would agree. They're so good now they're hardly christian at all.


Not far from it. I believe the church has become better the more democratic values it has adopted. Secular does not necessarily mean democratic. North Korea is a great example of that.


----------



## ThickStemz (Feb 29, 2016)

Christianiadelic said:


> Not far from it. I believe the church has become better the more democratic values it has adopted. Secular does not necessarily mean democratic. North Korea is a great example of that.


North Korea isn't secular, it has taken the religious impulse and made a god out of man. The birds sang when the great leader was born. He is still the head of the state eventhough he is long dead and his son is dead, his grandson is only head of the party. Its, as Christopher Hitchens called it, a Necrocacy.

Their god is a living man who is reincarnated in his grandson. That's a god, that's a form of theism.


----------



## Christianiadelic (Mar 1, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> North Korea isn't secular, it has taken the religious impulse and made a god out of man. The birds sang when the great leader was born. He is still the head of the state eventhough he is long dead and his son is dead, his grandson is only head of the party. Its, as Christopher Hitchens called it, a Necrocacy.
> 
> Their god is a living man who is reincarnated in his grandson. That's a god, that's a form of theism.


I understand from Wikipedia* that there's some doubt, as to whether _Juche* _ought to be considered a political philosphy or a religion. I don't know, so feel free to link to a better source if you feel like it. I believed North Korea to be secular due to their Marxist-Lenist-inspired ideology. But of course, Stalin too created a cult of nigh Biblical proportions around his persona. 

I don't believe that the problem is religion. I don't believe the problem to be that the value of humanity is grounded in science. It's that the masses are unable to tell when religion and science is peddled by opportunists for political gain. We fear that by questioning these individuals, we either forsake our God or cast doubt on our own rationality when, in fact, the opposite is true. 




*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 1, 2016)

Christianiadelic said:


> I understand from Wikipedia* that there's some doubt, as to whether _Juche* _ought to be considered a political philosphy or a religion. I don't know, so feel free to link to a better source if you feel like it. I believed North Korea to be secular due to their Marxist-Lenist-inspired ideology. But of course, Stalin too created a cult of nigh Biblical proportions around his persona.
> 
> I don't believe that the problem is religion. I don't believe the problem to be that the value of humanity is grounded in science. It's that the masses are unable to tell when religion and science is peddled by opportunists for political gain. We fear that by questioning these individuals, we either forsake our God or cast doubt on our own rationality when, in fact, the opposite is true.
> 
> ...


Stalin was trained to be a preist. The Russians had just came out of a theocratic monarchy. You shouldn't be in the dictator business if you can't take advantage of that.

It's the religious impulse that gets us into trouble. 

Show me a society that has fallen into despair and tyranny after embracing the values of Spinoza, Payne, Jefferson, Hume and the like. 

The secular humanism vein of philosophy is our best bet for prosperity.


----------



## Christianiadelic (Mar 1, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> The Russians had just came out of a theocratic monarchy. You shouldn't be in the dictator business if you can't take advantage of that.


Almost choked on my spliff when I read this. Macchiavelli himself could not have said it better.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 1, 2016)

Christianiadelic said:


> Almost choked on my spliff when I read this. Macchiavelli himself could not have said it better.


Nor could I, those are the words of Christopher Hitchens, whom I whole heartedly agree with on this subject. Hitchens is, in my opinion, the most intestering man of the last half century. I miss him greatly, he left us too young. He'd be having a field day with ISIS.


----------



## Cyrus420 (Mar 7, 2016)

We've only been recording our history very recently in the grand scale of time. 

As far as humans go we are evolving, all the time!

Every successive generation of people bring a whole new wave of minor genetic changes/mutations, hence why people on average are getting taller than they used to be, because taller people are more likely to reproduce.

To keep it simple, we aren't going to see any major changes in our species in our lifetimes, or that of our children or even their children. Evolution is a complicated and intricate process that while we know it happens we don't quite know the mechanics of it yet. 

Just because we have a higher standard of living doesn't mean we're evolving differently than every other animal. Well, we are, but that sentence would be true for every animal as they are all always evolving too.

I won't get into any debates over this. This is my one and only response to OP's question.


----------



## GreenLogician (Mar 7, 2016)

There are fossils mapping the evolutionary history of life in brilliant detail, from all over the tree of life. 
Pick anything that leaves good fossils, like an animal with a skeleton, and there's a rich fossil record showing its evolution.

Doing comparative anatomy of fossil specimens, cataloging their traits, you can build cladograms, and find the most parsimonious arrangement.
Doing so matches the cladograms built by heaps of other independent methods of investigation, like ERV codes in genetics, and comparative anatomy in extant species.
Having so many independent fields of investigation converging on the same answer greatly reinforces that the cladogram we've found is the phylogenetic tree, the common ancestry family tree of life.


----------



## ThickStemz (Mar 7, 2016)

The funny thing is that christians ask for a intermediate species to show evolutionary proof in the fossil record. 

Science finds sedimentary rock the correct age and look for the intermediate fossil and find it.

A species perfectly showing the characteristics predicted to be possessed by the species that was previously undiscovered. 

Instead of giving it credit creationists then say "ah, now there are two gaps."

They argue in bad faith.


----------



## Cyrus420 (Mar 7, 2016)

ThickStemz said:


> The funny thing is that christians ask for a intermediate species to show evolutionary proof in the fossil record.
> 
> Science finds sedimentary rock the correct age and look for the intermediate fossil and find it.
> 
> ...


It's also unreasonable to assume we'd have a fossil for every possible iteration of an organism throughout it's evolution, which a lot of those who argue against evolution demand. 

I tend to use the example of a puzzle and it works for a lot of different scenarios, this one being perfect.

If you have a simple 12 piece puzzle and you only have 8 pieces, you can still put this pieces together and see the majority of the image and even predict what will fill in the gaps of the missing pieces based on the image around it, even if you never find those pieces.


----------

