|
Post by cartman123 on Apr 25, 2014 17:15:00 GMT
Here is one for the Bible Bashers and God Squad to answer. Adam & Eve had 2 kids,both boys, Cane & Able, please explain where the next generation came from.... Adam and Eve had daughters too. christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html
|
|
|
Post by cartman123 on Apr 25, 2014 17:22:12 GMT
Antibiotic resistance? How can some forms of the same bacteria i.e Staphylococcus aureus be completely resistant to penicillin yet others vulnerable to it without mutation of the genome caused by selective pressures? That's evolution on a very small but real and significant scale. A mutation is simply an alteration in the order of bases in DNA which code for an amino acid which bond to form proteins, therefore mutations do not only cause cancer and other conditions as so many believe but may change the nature of the protein responsible for fur colour, which subsequently allows an animal to hide from predators more successfully, which then allows it to reproduce and pass on the mutated protein to its offspring, whilst those without die and are gradually replaced by the mutated offspring. The evidence is before your very eyes. Good and reasonable point this............how else do we explain the fact that fleas are now,mostly, immune to Frontline?.....The first generations were not( hence its effectiveness ), but the more recent ones are....just ask my dog!! Flea evolution in action, the little bastards www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=572
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Apr 25, 2014 17:45:59 GMT
Here is one for the Bible Bashers and God Squad to answer. Adam & Eve had 2 kids,both boys, Cane & Able, please explain where the next generation came from.... Adam and Eve had daughters too. christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.htmlThat was a difficult read, but I got there in the end. One needs faith to believe that.
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Apr 25, 2014 17:48:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Apr 25, 2014 18:38:48 GMT
Good and reasonable point this............how else do we explain the fact that fleas are now,mostly, immune to Frontline?.....The first generations were not( hence its effectiveness ), but the more recent ones are....just ask my dog!! Flea evolution in action, the little bastards www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=572Since when were fleas designated as bacteria?...I must have missed that one
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Apr 25, 2014 20:25:19 GMT
Good and reasonable point this............how else do we explain the fact that fleas are now,mostly, immune to Frontline?.....The first generations were not( hence its effectiveness ), but the more recent ones are....just ask my dog!! Flea evolution in action, the little bastards www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=572You're quoting a source from 1994, do you have any concept of how long 20 years is in science? A species is defined when two members of a group mate to produce fertile offspring, as bacteria reproduce via mitosis (simple cell division following semi-conservative DNA replication) it's technically impossible to create a "new" species of bacteria, conjugation is just the exchange of genetic material, no daughter cells are produced from it. Speciation,the process by which new species arise has been observed both in nature and artificially created in laboratories. Fruit flies were fed on different mediums for several years, after multiple generations the two flies of different mediums were introduced to one another and could not reproduce to create fertile offspring, the flies had been collected and identified as of the same species at the start of the investigation, yet through different selective pressures had evolved different mutations that created varying phenotypes that set them apart from one another. In 2008 a speciation gene was isolated and identified, which some believe has the capability to drive this process forward when required.
|
|
|
Post by giboscfc on Apr 25, 2014 21:16:29 GMT
My own view is that this planet is used as a penal colony, lunatic asylum and dumping ground by a superior civilisation, to get rid of the undesirable and unfit. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2014 21:21:15 GMT
What a laughably ridiculous, heavily edited and misleading film, based on either a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works or (more likely) a wilful misrepresentation of people's responses to a series of questions, which is designed ultimately and only to make religious evolution-deniers feel slightly better about themselves and their denial, and no more.
One of the repsondents correctly points out the fabulous Richard Lenski experiment (well worth googling or reading pp 116-131 of Richard Dawkins book "The Greatest Show on Earth - The evidence for evolution") which is a nice example of evolution through natural selection in bacteria in front of our very eyes in a timescale (months) which we can easily observe, something the interviewer seems particularly obsessed with using as a stick to 'prove' that evolution is false because we can't see it happening. Strange that he also doesn't deny the existence of rocks because we can't see most of them being laid down either but there you go, perhaps that his next trick! Incidentally there are plenty of other examples in the same chapter of that book.
I didn't watch all of the film. I got to about four or five minutes then got a bit fucked off with the twat, so decided to duck out. Maybe I missed the crucial question that no atheist can answer ??? if so my bad, but to deal with the other daft point he made before I did cry off: animals don't evolve into other 'kinds' as he seems to think or want evolutionists to 'prove'. Evolution by natural selection involves small changes over time. In the example above, the bacteria are still bacteria, just different bacteria in the timescale we used. Who knows, maybe in several million years of running that superb experiment, those bacteria may well have continued to evolve into some form of multicelled organism which we no longer call bacteria.
Similarly if you were able to take all the generations of 'rabbits' that had ever existed starting from now and working backwards in time over millennia you'd no doubt find in your enormously long line of 'rabbits' small changes along the way back, perhaps every 10,000 generations or so, until the ancient 'rabbits' didn't actually resemble modern 'rabbits' all that much anymore and certainly couldn't interbreed with them (= the definition of a species). Where you decide that the ancient 'rabbits' aren't actually modern 'rabbits' is a bit of a semantic argument since terminology and classification are human artefacts. Keep going back further and you'll find that the animals now resemble a generic rodent like thing from which most modern rodents descended over millions of years.
To expect natural selection to change a frog for example into a shrew, which is what the interviewer apparently demands, within an easily demonstrable timescale is just silly, ignorant of evolution's mechanism of action, or wilfully misleading purely to try to appeal to ignorant religious believers desperate for something to attack evolution with. Ultimately, it does more damage to the creationists' stance than it ever will do to Darwin's theory of evolution, because, despite the apparent success of the video in stitching up a few atheists, there are no doubt millions of intelligent people who can see it for what it actually is, and will disassociate themselves further from the creationists' ignorance or deception.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Apr 25, 2014 22:24:28 GMT
Just when you thought that cartman couldn't become more of an embarrassment, this thread pops up.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Apr 26, 2014 1:11:54 GMT
What a laughably ridiculous, heavily edited and misleading film, based on either a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works or (more likely) a wilful misrepresentation of people's responses to a series of questions, which is designed ultimately and only to make religious evolution-deniers feel slightly better about themselves and their denial, and no more. One of the repsondents correctly points out the fabulous Richard Lenski experiment (well worth googling or reading pp 116-131 of Richard Dawkins book "The Greatest Show on Earth - The evidence for evolution") which is a nice example of evolution through natural selection in bacteria in front of our very eyes in a timescale (months) which we can easily observe, something the interviewer seems particularly obsessed with using as a stick to 'prove' that evolution is false because we can't see it happening. Strange that he also doesn't deny the existence of rocks because we can't see most of them being laid down either but there you go, perhaps that his next trick! Incidentally there are plenty of other examples in the same chapter of that book. I didn't watch all of the film. I got to about four or five minutes then got a bit fucked off with the twat, so decided to duck out. Maybe I missed the crucial question that no atheist can answer ??? if so my bad, but to deal with the other daft point he made before I did cry off: animals don't evolve into other 'kinds' as he seems to think or want evolutionists to 'prove'. Evolution by natural selection involves small changes over time. In the example above, the bacteria are still bacteria, just different bacteria in the timescale we used. Who knows, maybe in several million years of running that superb experiment, those bacteria may well have continued to evolve into some form of multicelled organism which we no longer call bacteria. Similarly if you were able to take all the generations of 'rabbits' that had ever existed starting from now and working backwards in time over millennia you'd no doubt find in your enormously long line of 'rabbits' small changes along the way back, perhaps every 10,000 generations or so, until the ancient 'rabbits' didn't actually resemble modern 'rabbits' all that much anymore and certainly couldn't interbreed with them (= the definition of a species). Where you decide that the ancient 'rabbits' aren't actually modern 'rabbits' is a bit of a semantic argument since terminology and classification are human artefacts. Keep going back further and you'll find that the animals now resemble a generic rodent like thing from which most modern rodents descended over millions of years. To expect natural selection to change a frog for example into a shrew, which is what the interviewer apparently demands, within an easily demonstrable timescale is just silly, ignorant of evolution's mechanism of action, or wilfully misleading purely to try to appeal to ignorant religious believers desperate for something to attack evolution with. Ultimately, it does more damage to the creationists' stance than it ever will do to Darwin's theory of evolution, because, despite the apparent success of the video in stitching up a few atheists, there are no doubt millions of intelligent people who can see it for what it actually is, and will disassociate themselves further from the creationists' ignorance or deception. This. Completely this. Our lifespan in context with the age of the Earth itself and indeed the universe is less than a blink of the eye. People hold the concept of evolution as dramatic changes in groups of people at discrete intervals, as I have previously said and the poster above concurs the changes are tiny, subtle and often apparently insignificant, but when the weight of all changes are added together over millions of years the end result is completely different from the starting point.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 1:28:53 GMT
What a laughably ridiculous, heavily edited and misleading film, based on either a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works or (more likely) a wilful misrepresentation of people's responses to a series of questions, which is designed ultimately and only to make religious evolution-deniers feel slightly better about themselves and their denial, and no more. One of the repsondents correctly points out the fabulous Richard Lenski experiment (well worth googling or reading pp 116-131 of Richard Dawkins book "The Greatest Show on Earth - The evidence for evolution") which is a nice example of evolution through natural selection in bacteria in front of our very eyes in a timescale (months) which we can easily observe, something the interviewer seems particularly obsessed with using as a stick to 'prove' that evolution is false because we can't see it happening. Strange that he also doesn't deny the existence of rocks because we can't see most of them being laid down either but there you go, perhaps that his next trick! Incidentally there are plenty of other examples in the same chapter of that book. I didn't watch all of the film. I got to about four or five minutes then got a bit fucked off with the twat, so decided to duck out. Maybe I missed the crucial question that no atheist can answer ??? if so my bad, but to deal with the other daft point he made before I did cry off: animals don't evolve into other 'kinds' as he seems to think or want evolutionists to 'prove'. Evolution by natural selection involves small changes over time. In the example above, the bacteria are still bacteria, just different bacteria in the timescale we used. Who knows, maybe in several million years of running that superb experiment, those bacteria may well have continued to evolve into some form of multicelled organism which we no longer call bacteria. Similarly if you were able to take all the generations of 'rabbits' that had ever existed starting from now and working backwards in time over millennia you'd no doubt find in your enormously long line of 'rabbits' small changes along the way back, perhaps every 10,000 generations or so, until the ancient 'rabbits' didn't actually resemble modern 'rabbits' all that much anymore and certainly couldn't interbreed with them (= the definition of a species). Where you decide that the ancient 'rabbits' aren't actually modern 'rabbits' is a bit of a semantic argument since terminology and classification are human artefacts. Keep going back further and you'll find that the animals now resemble a generic rodent like thing from which most modern rodents descended over millions of years. To expect natural selection to change a frog for example into a shrew, which is what the interviewer apparently demands, within an easily demonstrable timescale is just silly, ignorant of evolution's mechanism of action, or wilfully misleading purely to try to appeal to ignorant religious believers desperate for something to attack evolution with. Ultimately, it does more damage to the creationists' stance than it ever will do to Darwin's theory of evolution, because, despite the apparent success of the video in stitching up a few atheists, there are no doubt millions of intelligent people who can see it for what it actually is, and will disassociate themselves further from the creationists' ignorance or deception. Pretty good Sif ....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 1:32:33 GMT
Just when you thought that cartman couldn't become more of an embarrassment, this thread pops up. There is always that danger mate .....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 1:36:56 GMT
What a laughably ridiculous, heavily edited and misleading film, based on either a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works or (more likely) a wilful misrepresentation of people's responses to a series of questions, which is designed ultimately and only to make religious evolution-deniers feel slightly better about themselves and their denial, and no more. One of the repsondents correctly points out the fabulous Richard Lenski experiment (well worth googling or reading pp 116-131 of Richard Dawkins book "The Greatest Show on Earth - The evidence for evolution") which is a nice example of evolution through natural selection in bacteria in front of our very eyes in a timescale (months) which we can easily observe, something the interviewer seems particularly obsessed with using as a stick to 'prove' that evolution is false because we can't see it happening. Strange that he also doesn't deny the existence of rocks because we can't see most of them being laid down either but there you go, perhaps that his next trick! Incidentally there are plenty of other examples in the same chapter of that book. I didn't watch all of the film. I got to about four or five minutes then got a bit fucked off with the twat, so decided to duck out. Maybe I missed the crucial question that no atheist can answer ??? if so my bad, but to deal with the other daft point he made before I did cry off: animals don't evolve into other 'kinds' as he seems to think or want evolutionists to 'prove'. Evolution by natural selection involves small changes over time. In the example above, the bacteria are still bacteria, just different bacteria in the timescale we used. Who knows, maybe in several million years of running that superb experiment, those bacteria may well have continued to evolve into some form of multicelled organism which we no longer call bacteria. Similarly if you were able to take all the generations of 'rabbits' that had ever existed starting from now and working backwards in time over millennia you'd no doubt find in your enormously long line of 'rabbits' small changes along the way back, perhaps every 10,000 generations or so, until the ancient 'rabbits' didn't actually resemble modern 'rabbits' all that much anymore and certainly couldn't interbreed with them (= the definition of a species). Where you decide that the ancient 'rabbits' aren't actually modern 'rabbits' is a bit of a semantic argument since terminology and classification are human artefacts. Keep going back further and you'll find that the animals now resemble a generic rodent like thing from which most modern rodents descended over millions of years. To expect natural selection to change a frog for example into a shrew, which is what the interviewer apparently demands, within an easily demonstrable timescale is just silly, ignorant of evolution's mechanism of action, or wilfully misleading purely to try to appeal to ignorant religious believers desperate for something to attack evolution with. Ultimately, it does more damage to the creationists' stance than it ever will do to Darwin's theory of evolution, because, despite the apparent success of the video in stitching up a few atheists, there are no doubt millions of intelligent people who can see it for what it actually is, and will disassociate themselves further from the creationists' ignorance or deception. This. Completely this. Our lifespan in context with the age of the Earth itself and indeed the universe is less than a blink of the eye. People hold the concept of evolution as dramatic changes in groups of people at discrete intervals, as I have previously said and the poster above concurs the changes are tiny, subtle and often apparently insignificant, but when the weight of all changes are added together over millions of years the end result is completely different from the starting point. So what exactly are you saying then ?........Rhetoric for Rhetorics sake looks good ....but you aren't saying anything
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Apr 26, 2014 1:59:48 GMT
This. Completely this. Our lifespan in context with the age of the Earth itself and indeed the universe is less than a blink of the eye. People hold the concept of evolution as dramatic changes in groups of people at discrete intervals, as I have previously said and the poster above concurs the changes are tiny, subtle and often apparently insignificant, but when the weight of all changes are added together over millions of years the end result is completely different from the starting point. So what exactly are you saying then ?........Rhetoric for Rhetorics sake looks good ....but you aren't saying anything I've posted some of the evidence of evolution in action further up the page, I was just agreeing with the point made about the fact it's not a metamorphic process.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 2:36:01 GMT
Here is one for the Bible Bashers and God Squad to answer. Adam & Eve had 2 kids,both boys, Cane & Able, please explain where the next generation came from.... Adam and Eve had daughters too. christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.htmlSo Sons & Daughters shagged to create next generation then...Why are there not loads of deformed people around...Oh there are...Vale Fans....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 8:49:16 GMT
A question for religious people who ask atheists to 'prove' their belief and the atheists who ask religious people to 'prove' theirs: Do you not have anything better to do in your time than to argue with people you'll never agree with? It smacks of insecurity about your own beliefs. You've decided who you are, what you believe and how you're going to live - can't you just be satisfied with that? I'm my own God, I genuinely believe that and the beauty of it is that I don't have to prove otherwise to anybody! I don't think it smacks of insecurity, although I agree that there are some individuals you'll never get through to because their minds are made up and therefore closed to any degree of rational discussion. Those people are a lost cause you're right but maybe there are people reading this who are undecided and prepared to think about things a bit more. Perhaps not, it's only a football message board after all! I'd also say that I think most atheists have come to that position because they have thought and read about religion and God and evolution rather a lot, yet would still be quite happy to be proved wrong ultimately because one their minds are, by dint of that questioning and researching approach, generally open to new evidence, two that would clearly mean there is some form of afterlife and three I expect they'd have some pretty awkward questions about life on earth for God! By contrast, I think most religious believers are quite emotionally attached to their beliefs, usually as a result of indoctrination via their parents, rather than coming to it rationally after a lot of thought, and for them to give up this emotional attachment to what is after all a nice comforting thought about death and thereafter, tossing it back in their parents' faces effectively, in favour of an existence based purely on pointlessness (other than procreation) is probably a massive step too far for them. They will usually seek to find some justification for their position, no matter how small or evidence free, simply to make themselves feel better about their position, hence the video, so you'll never get to them it's true.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Apr 26, 2014 9:15:11 GMT
A question for religious people who ask atheists to 'prove' their belief and the atheists who ask religious people to 'prove' theirs: Do you not have anything better to do in your time than to argue with people you'll never agree with? It smacks of insecurity about your own beliefs. You've decided who you are, what you believe and how you're going to live - can't you just be satisfied with that? I'm my own God, I genuinely believe that and the beauty of it is that I don't have to prove otherwise to anybody! I don't think it smacks of insecurity, although I agree that there are some individuals you'll never get through to because their minds are made up and therefore closed to any degree of rational discussion. Those people are a lost cause you're right but maybe there are people reading this who are undecided and prepared to think about things a bit more. Perhaps not, it's only a football message board after all! I'd also say that I think most atheists have come to that position because they have thought and read about religion and God and evolution rather a lot, yet would still be quite happy to be proved wrong ultimately because one their minds are, by dint of that questioning and researching approach, generally open to new evidence, two that would clearly mean there is some form of afterlife and three I expect they'd have some pretty awkward questions about life on earth for God! By contrast, I think most religious believers are quite emotionally attached to their beliefs, usually as a result of indoctrination via their parents, rather than coming to it rationally after a lot of thought, and for them to give up this emotional attachment to what is after all a nice comforting thought about death and thereafter, tossing it back in their parents' faces effectively, in favour of an existence based purely on pointlessness (other than procreation) is probably a massive step too far for them. They will usually seek to find some justification for their position, no matter how small or evidence free, simply to make themselves feel better about their position, hence the video, so you'll never get to them it's true. The reason my ex wife is ex is for this same reason , previously she was a pretty normal church goer everything was fine . she went on the ALPHA course and basicaly turned into what i can only discribe as a catholic extremist . alianating freinds and family even her own children for a time .whenever her views or the biblical vertion of creation were challenged she would just say she has faith in all of it including the old testament FAITH . that one word covered all the improbable tails from noahs ark to the parting of the red sea . logic , geological data, DNA, scientific evidence . none of its of any use when somebody chooses to believe in something else
|
|
|
Post by Miles Offside on Apr 27, 2014 9:24:42 GMT
The Evolution / God debate is a useless argument.
There's plenty of evidence of evolution, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of there being some higher power.
As has been said, evolution is about how life changes, not how it began in the first place.
None of the religions have the answer either, because they all contradict each other.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 16:11:04 GMT
The Evolution / God debate is a useless argument. There's plenty of evidence of evolution, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of there being some higher power. As has been said, evolution is about how life changes, not how it began in the first place. None of the religions have the answer either, because they all contradict each other. Yeah I agree. If god made everything, everything would include evolution. The god squad's problem is having to support a book of very old folk tales from which is derived a stupid start date. But then current scientific thinking for how the universe was created, is ... it's turtles all the way down. Hymns to Terry Pratchett in the works, I reckon. Believe in what you want. I've never heard anyone with a decent explanation for any of it. Belief is only a problem when someone is forcing theirs down someone else's throat.
|
|
|
Post by cartman123 on Apr 27, 2014 17:01:56 GMT
The Evolution / God debate is a useless argument. There's plenty of evidence of evolution, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of there being some higher power. As has been said, evolution is about how life changes, not how it began in the first place. None of the religions have the answer either, because they all contradict each other. Yeah I agree. If god made everything, everything would include evolution. The god squad's problem is having to support a book of very old folk tales from which is derived a stupid start date. But then current scientific thinking for how the universe was created, is ... it's turtles all the way down. Hymns to Terry Pratchett in the works, I reckon. Believe in what you want. I've never heard anyone with a decent explanation for any of it. Belief is only a problem when someone is forcing theirs down someone else's throat. So how do you explain the prophecies? The coming of the messiah, the rebirth of Israel, the Jews going without an homeland for nearly 2000 years yet maintaining their national identity, Israel blossoming, ect ect The prophecies say that once Israel had been handed back to the Jews, no one would uproot them again. Just hours after Israel became independent in 1948, the surrounding Arab countries attacked. Amazingly Israel won and gained additional land. watchmanbiblestudy.com/Articles/1948PropheciesFulfilled.htmExplain...?
|
|
|
Post by giboscfc on Apr 27, 2014 21:03:41 GMT
So no doubt the rest of the old testament is true also Cartman?
But in that 1948 re-birth Israel did not get Jerusalem. In the war of 1948 they were not able to hold the city or the Temple site, though they were able to establish their nation outside of Jerusalem. It was only in a subsequent war, the six-day war of 1967, that Jerusalem and the Temple site was captured by Israel.
Nevertheless we are talking about "The book of Ezekiel" and his prophecies! So let's start with the first page.
Inaugural vision (Ezekiel 1:1–3:27): Yahweh approaches Ezekiel as the divine warrior, riding in his battle chariot. The chariot is drawn by four living creatures each having four faces (of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle), and four wings. Beside each "living creature" is a "wheel within a wheel," with "tall and awesome" rims full of eyes all around. Yahweh commissions Ezekiel to be a prophet and a "watchman" in Israel: "Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites." (2:3) :-)
Emancipate yourself from the idea of a celestial dictatorship and you've taken the first step to becoming a free man/woman.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2014 4:31:12 GMT
Yeah I agree. If god made everything, everything would include evolution. The god squad's problem is having to support a book of very old folk tales from which is derived a stupid start date. But then current scientific thinking for how the universe was created, is ... it's turtles all the way down. Hymns to Terry Pratchett in the works, I reckon. Believe in what you want. I've never heard anyone with a decent explanation for any of it. Belief is only a problem when someone is forcing theirs down someone else's throat. So how do you explain the prophecies? The coming of the messiah, the rebirth of Israel, the Jews going without an homeland for nearly 2000 years yet maintaining their national identity, Israel blossoming, ect ect The prophecies say that once Israel had been handed back to the Jews, no one would uproot them again. Just hours after Israel became independent in 1948, the surrounding Arab countries attacked. Amazingly Israel won and gained additional land. watchmanbiblestudy.com/Articles/1948PropheciesFulfilled.htmExplain...? Because prophecies are made by people and (sometimes) fulfilled by people, cartman. (some) People are like that with prophecies, always trying to be the one who makes them come true. God didn't write the bible. People wrote the bible. So, any truth in the latter does not justify the existence of the former. Neither does disproving the latter disprove the existence of the former. The two things are only related because the latter was written in worship of one possible version of the former.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Apr 29, 2014 18:04:00 GMT
This video is so fucking stupid.
It's the same as walking up to someone in Stoke and saying - prove to me there is snow in the Antarctic. Or that the earth moves round the sun.
What we believe is based on what we learn.
I've learned that the world would be a much better place if there hadn't been so many religious dingbats imposing their beliefs on people!
|
|
|
Post by denman on Apr 29, 2014 23:24:42 GMT
This thread was unexpectedly amusing.
bravo Cartman bravo.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Apr 30, 2014 15:10:48 GMT
Knowing what we know now, or think we know now, would anybody invent religion? We might/would have tribalism and some sort of hero worship, we might well have philosophies and a structure of morals/laws, but would we invent an all seeing, all knowing, omni present creator?
I don't think so and I'm confident that had early mankind known what we know now, they wouldn't have done it either. But, they didn't so they did!
|
|
|
Post by block27row27 on Apr 30, 2014 15:21:25 GMT
I'm pretty sure evolution occurs through natural selection. Think I read in an exam once, a species of Wolves that live in arctic conditions have thicker fur than a species in warmer climates. This is because they all varied at one point, however the conditions killed off the ones with short hair in the snow and the long hair in the heat, leaving only the relevant wolf to mate in that area. I've confused myself a little there
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Apr 30, 2014 17:54:00 GMT
Knowing what we know now, or think we know now, would anybody invent religion? We might/would have tribalism and some sort of hero worship, we might well have philosophies and a structure of morals/laws, but would we invent an all seeing, all knowing, omni present creator? I don't think so and I'm confident that had early mankind known what we know now, they wouldn't have done it either. But, they didn't so they did! L.Ron Hubbard wanted to get really rich, so he started a religion. So, yes, people are still at it today.
|
|
MooG
Youth Player
Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change.
Posts: 492
|
Post by MooG on Apr 30, 2014 20:09:46 GMT
Well the video convinced me. You can't argue with logic like that.
On a similar note I wasn't at he match against Spurs, and switched off the radio before the final whistle so we never lost. Odd how the table in the paper doesn't reflect my personal reality.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Apr 30, 2014 20:48:53 GMT
My eldest lad is doing his masters at the moment in animal biology and wildlife conversation, he sends me all his stuff to proof read, after weighing up all the evidence I'd like to say that the video is ..........
absolute bollocks
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 13:46:38 GMT
|
|