Missing link found by Norwegian scientist

[Hespera]

Actually, It believe it would only have to be 4 billion years long, give or take a billion.

----------



Yep that's a good example of all Christians. We all beat our kids for not believing. I'm sure every single evolutionist and or Athiest is a perfect human.

The discussion was about, i believe, a small corps of hard shell fundamentalists. No need to get sarcastic. nobody thinks all christians do that, there is no claim on anyones part of being perfect. I hope...!

 

[Honkytnkmn]

The discussion was about, i believe, a small corps of hard shell fundamentalists. No need to get sarcastic. nobody thinks all christians do that, there is no claim on anyones part of being perfect. I hope...!

Actually it was originally a discussion about the finding of the missing link by a Norwegien Scientist.

It De-evolved into a Christian bashing thread by inferring that we are stupid and unreasonable.

it just REALLY irritates me that some people out there get to vote AND they get to tell kids these lies too...

Have a little sympathy too tho. They were doubtless raised that way, back when their innocent child minds didnt know any better. They internalized it, and now they are passing it on to the next generation......its sad for the adults, sad for the kids. They think they are doing the right thing.

even still, if you found aLL the fossis, and taxonomzed ALL those animals, an even brought them back to life through genetic engineering, AND showed the creationists a youtubevideo that lasts for trillions of years, theyd STILL think that the earth is 6000 years old, and all of humanity came from two and only two people, and they didnt even have last names.

----------

y'know whats worse? I knew a kid who'd get punished and reprimanded by his family for not believing the piles and loads their fundamnetalist parents tried to inundate and program him with; he basically got disowned by his father for not buying into the myth of creationism.

THAT irks me.....

That's because they believe David Copperfield actually makes things disappear!

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

even still, if you found aLL the fossis, and taxonomzed ALL those animals, an even brought them back to life through genetic engineering, AND showed the creationists a youtubevideo that lasts for trillions of years, theyd STILL think that the earth is 6000 years old, and all of humanity came from two and only two people, and they didnt even have last names.

----------

y'know whats worse? I knew a kid who'd get punished and reprimanded by his family for not believing the piles and loads their fundamnetalist parents tried to inundate and program him with; he basically got disowned by his father for not buying into the myth of creationism.

THAT irks me.....

I'm sure this happens all too often.

'Waking up in America' by Marshall Evans - RichardDawkins.net

 

[mpok1519]

no honkytonkman, theres no such thing as de-evolution. Its just evolution. Some could sayumans de-evolved once we built the nuke, but thats a different discussion.

yes; creationism IS irrational and it IS unreasonable by all accounts and standards of rationality and reasonability.

Creationism is disrespectful to knowledge itself. its disrespectful to a human's intellegence.

It is unreasonable to ever spread this idea that crationism exists.

 

[Honkytnkmn]

no honkytonkman, theres no such thing as de-evolution. Its just evolution. Some could sayumans de-evolved once we built the nuke, but thats a different discussion.

yes; creationism IS irrational and it IS unreasonable by all accounts and standards of rationality and reasonability.

Creationism is disrespectful to knowledge itself. its disrespectful to a human's intellegence.

It is unreasonable to ever spread this idea that crationism exists.

Ok.

 

[kabazauls]

I think it's wonderful that in my life time science is proving beyond doubt the origins of mankind.

Just think it was only a hundred or so years ago when religion could actually still make an argument for creation. Only a truly uninformed ignoramus would try to make that argument these days.

The science is literally right in front of us now for the world to see. Organized religion will find it very hard to exist in the future as long as they continue to ignore these facts. Let's face it, with the advent of the internet the world is being educated whether religion likes it or not.

Science deniers these days are no different than Holocaust deniers, imo. Truly a case of "head in the sand" if I've ever seen one.

In defense of the creationists beliefs, we haven't had a world wide mass education system for the general public (internet) until just recently.

That was then this is now so NO MORE EXCUSES!
Right?

 

[mpok1519]

Yes, quite true.

People can't hide from knowledge anymore.

The Catholic Church used to have all of its ceremonies in Latin; but, the peasantry was mostly uneducated, and knew only their local languages. The Church forbid peasants to become educated because then the people would know exactly what the Bible was saying. The Church knew that if people actully knew about the love, truth and light that Christ preached about, it would be all over for the Church and reformation would ensue.

Well, as soon as people began to read and become educated, thts exactly what happened.

 

[USincognito]

{snip}

Hi Consol!

 

[Belk]

Actually it was originally a discussion about the finding of the missing link by a Norwegien Scientist.

It De-evolved into a Christian bashing thread by inferring that we are stupid and unreasonable.

No, it devolved into a creationist bashing thread by inferring they where ignorant of science.

 

[TheReasoner]

Actually it was originally a discussion about the finding of the missing link by a Norwegien Scientist.

It De-evolved into a Christian bashing thread by inferring that we are stupid and unreasonable.

I disagree. Is it not more creationism that has been attacked? Creationism is not Christianity, Honkytnkmn. Very far from it. Creationists belong to many different faiths. But it itself is not Christian, even though some would claim that it is. Christianity is about love, compassion, and truth. Not the truth we would want to be, but the truth that is. And if that truth happens to be that the world is X billion years old, and that we evolved, does that render God inert? Does it make Jesus' love or sacrifice any less? No. Of course not. We evolve as individuals, as human beings. That does not make us any less His children, at any stage in our development. If we hold to what we believe a certain translation of the bible says without even paying heed to the original language and the original culture when and where it was first written, and then at a later time find that creation/existence itself counters what we believe? When this is so, what service have we rendered unto God but a disservice? What have we done but given an impression that our faith is not compatible with truth and facts? As some Christians read certain verses with a poetic or prophetic intent literally and end up believing the world is flat and round like a coin, and others read other verses a wrong way and end up believing the world is an unshakable center of the universe, so may it be that "creationists" have interpreted the bible incorrectly. This does not discredit God or the bible. It discredits the men who make these arrogant assumptions, claiming that their own interpretations of the bible is God's word. Not the bible itself. And what do these men then do, if not put themselves above God, and put their own arrogant self-assuredness above the humility and modesty that God has called for? God has not provided all the answers to every life's riddle in the bible. He has given us guidelines and hints, yes. But as far as science goes, what would the world be if God gave us all the answers from the get-go? Has he not created us with a desire to research and discover? What then would giving all the answers from the start be but a twisted and mocking joke at our expense?
No, creationism, claiming to have all the answers bundled up so neatly in one single interpretation of one translation has little in common with true faith which does not rely on having all answers, and more in common with a brittle faith. Seeming to be stronger than it is through loud proclamations of alleged truths no-one really has.

 

[dad]

MY fables?! lol lol

ID is real? but, evolution is not?

lol

lol

lol

anyone else hearing this? Oh man....I just think I popped a blood vessal....

Keep hunting for that harvard degree at the bottom of the cheerio box...

I would no more hunt for a harvard degree there, or anywhere else, than I would hunt for used toilet tissue on the bottom of a garbage can, thanks anyway.
I prefer to hunt for facts, and truth. If you ever stumble on those you will come face to face with the fact that so called science is nothing but foolish fables. And real science does not rank a mentch in the creation debate, any more than snappy a shot on a cloudy day in New York with a disposable camera ranks a mentch in the finer pics of hubble hall of fame.

I might suggest looking for something with a basis in fact, rather than a belief system of science so called, it may save a few blood vessels.

 

[mpok1519]

no dude.

you don't hunt for facts.

You mislead people deliberately. I suspect you can't believe yourself when it comes to your ramblings which have absolutely nothing to do with facts, truth, rationale, logic, pragmatism, or knowledge.

End Fundamentalism!
NO ID IN SCHOOLS!
TEACH SCIENCE ONLY!

 

[praisejahupeople]

yes; creationism IS irrational and it IS unreasonable by all accounts and standards of rationality and reasonability.

Well the biggest difference i can see is that you dont believe that God made life according to its kind starting with vegetation in Genesis 1:11,and animals according to their kind in verse 20 to verse 25.
I am attempting to fathom your resistence to this particular idea.
Whats irrational about it?

Creationism is disrespectful to knowledge itself. its disrespectful to a human's intellegence.

I disagree,it might shock you to know this but people like copernicus,galileo,kepler,newton and others believed in the account of genesis.It didnt seem to inhibit their brillance.
Are you sure that comment of yours is worthy of being regarded as "rational".

It is unreasonable to ever spread this idea that crationism exists.

You are a fanatical Evo.Free speech that contradicts your brainwashing must be stamped out.Are you sure your comment was reasonable?

 

[praisejahupeople]

End Fundamentalism!
NO ID IN SCHOOLS!
TEACH SCIENCE ONLY!

Edited..love thy enemy.

 

[mpok1519]

Well the biggest difference i can see is that you dont believe that God made life according to its kind starting with vegetation in Genesis 1:11,and animals according to their kind in verse 20 to verse 25.
I am attempting to fathom your resistence to this particular idea.
Whats irrational about it?

I disagree,it might shock you to know this but people like copernicus,galileo,kepler,newton and others believed in the account of genesis.It didnt seem to inhibit their brillance.
Are you sure that comment of yours is worthy of being regarded as "rational".
You are a fanatical Evo.Free speech that contradicts your brainwashing must be stamped out.Are you sure your comment was reasonable?

fanatical? from upcased fonts of truth? Fanatical for truth. Yes. So what?
Creationism solely is based on YEC. Naturality is a better word for what creationists describe.

Naturality.

Its deceptive to say the earth and people are 6000 years old.

thats my position.

Creationism is just another ill-conceived word in the million english word language.

 

[mpok1519]

i apologize if you feel my teach science only in schools position is offensive.

 

[TheReasoner]

Well the biggest difference i can see is that you dont believe that God made life according to its kind starting with vegetation in Genesis 1:11,and animals according to their kind in verse 20 to verse 25.
I am attempting to fathom your resistence to this particular idea.
Whats irrational about it?

You must read Genesis in Hebrew and then understand the author's culture before you can conclude that you know what it says beyond a shadow of a doubt. And many who have shed your views of genesis and read it very differently. As for the order of creation of life, that fits, doesn't it? The timing 6*24 hours is obviously not to be read literally. Of course the Hebrew words used don't necessarily mean 24 hours...

I disagree,it might shock you to know this but people like copernicus,galileo,kepler,newton and others believed in the account of genesis.It didnt seem to inhibit their brillance.
Are you sure that comment of yours is worthy of being regarded as "rational".
You are a fanatical Evo.Free speech that contradicts your brainwashing must be stamped out.Are you sure your comment was reasonable?

That is hopelessly irrelevant as they lived BEFORE the theory of evolution came to be. So if they believed in your interpretation of genesis account who can blame them? No alternative was around. Should we bash Newton because he did not take into account relativity? Or what about Copernicus for his heliocentric view? The sun is not the center of the universe, even though he may have believed it was.

 

[praisejahupeople]

You must read Genesis in Hebrew and then understand the author's culture before you can conclude that you know what it says beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I have a bible right here,and can translate the hebrew words if need be.

And many who have shed your views of genesis and read it very differently.

You mean you told me to find out the hebrew words and what they mean,yet they mean something else to you???

As for the order of creation of life, that fits, doesn't it?

It does, if you found out the meaning of the hebrew words.

The timing 6*24 hours is obviously not to be read literally. Of course the Hebrew words used don't necessarily mean 24 hours...

I agree.

That is hopelessly irrelevant as they lived BEFORE the theory of evolution came to be. So if they believed in your interpretation of genesis account who can blame them? No alternative was around. Should we bash Newton because he did not take into account relativity?

Actually youve gone off on a tangent here.We ll just stick to the genesis account for now.Im curious as to your claim that you have studied the account and your take on the order of creation..how does it contradict itself?If you know the actual hebrew words,it wouldnt,but im open to what you say here..

 

[TheReasoner]

I have a bible right here,and can translate the hebrew words if need be.

You mean you told me to find out the hebrew words and what they mean,yet they mean something else to you???

It does, if you found out the meaning of the hebrew words.

I agree.

Actually youve gone off on a tangent here.We ll just stick to the genesis account for now.Im curious as to your claim that you have studied the account and your take on the order of creation..how does it contradict itself?If you know the actual hebrew words,it wouldnt,but im open to what you say here..

I merely wanted to point out that it is not necessarily about 6*24 hours. And that the time span may have been anything at all above that. I wanted to point out that it is a very rough text, and as God is outside time as we know it we cannot know that evolution is not the process by which He created us and every living thing.

I myself have not studied it I am afraid. But I have discussed the topic with people who have, and who do believe in both the bible being God's word and in evolution. My reference was to the word "day" which may not necesarily mean 24 hours. Only a certain period of time, anything at all, as I have understood it. So my argument was against young earth creationism, chiefly.

"Creationism" is largely an American construct, and I would be sad to see it spread as it accomplishes little if not pushing people away from Christ and His mercy.

 

[praisejahupeople]

I merely wanted to point out that it is not necessarily about 6*24 hours. And that the time span may have been anything at all above that.

Preaching to the converted im not a YEC,i find their attempts to explain the size of the universe being super massive with a 24 hr day incompatible.

I wanted to point out that it is a very rough text, and as God is outside time as we know it we cannot know that evolution is not the process by which He created us and every living thing.

Evolution is true only to an extent.Common ancestry is true only to an extent.Theres genetic barriers inbetween kinds that evos cant explain away.

I myself have not studied it I am afraid.

I have the relevant material.The JWs put out a lot of literature to supplement the bible.The genesis account makes sense once actual hebrew is interpreted and the perspective of moses being an observer from the earth is taken into account.

But I have discussed the topic with people who have, and who do believe in both the bible being God's word and in evolution.

Man was formed from Gods own hands.The animals were made according to their kinds .Anyone who tries to say otherwise is lying.basically.Thats my take on it,and biology tends to support what genesis says about kinds only being able to reproduce after themselves with variation of course.

My reference was to the word "day" which may not necesarily mean 24 hours. Only a certain period of time, anything at all, as I have understood it. So my argument was against young earth creationism, chiefly.

Understood.

"Creationism" is largely an American construct, and I would be sad to see it spread as it accomplishes little if not pushing people away from Christ and His mercy.

Jesus tells the truth,he believed in the account of genesis,i think christians who believe that we evolved from monkey like animals are also doing great damage.