- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 01 2007,06:45) Kenrck ++”A few posts back I asked a simple question. Perhaps the atheist cannot answer simple questions because I have received NO answer.
I'm not sure what your question means. Do you literally mean who was the first person to use the English word “dog”?
Stuart
Who gave the names to animals in any language? The basic names.
Do history books record this information. Someone had to have given the names to the animals. The animals didn't name themselves. So Who or if you prefer What scientist named the animals since scientist are your high priest.
Now I believe the bible and that Adam named the animals but what say your high priest?I “heard” more and more scientist are coming around to a master mind having orchestrated the cosmos and life itself. Is this true? But of course you being an atheist how am I to believe you, a lie would be nothing for you after all their is no God so anything goes, right? So never mind.
Quote But of course you being an atheist how am I to believe you, a lie would be nothing for you after all their is no God so anything goes, right? So never mind. i would go on about how ignorant and foolish you are, but I'm much to busy, i got to get back to my baby masochism and shrine in my attic floor
it isn't the people who believe in god that i have the problem with, its people like kenrch that have no logic
this i think is fairly compelling evidence that religion in some cases can cause dementia
kenrch, i hope you get help
Does someone want to explain why this fine young gentile is so ignorant?
and how atheist have a moral code?
he won't take my word for it, clearly!Quote (Stu @ Aug. 01 2007,06:31) Not3in1 ++”A “theory” is nothing more than a guess or opinion.
This is an incorrect statement.
Stuart
OK
Tell that to Merriam-Webster.
I voted “yes”. Not because I believe evolution over creation, but I do believe in micro-evolution or something similar. That is, I believe that God placed within His creation the ability to evolve to a certain extent. How else do animals adapt to their environment? Here is the verse that I think support my view
Gen 1:24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.
How many here believe that God gets personally involved with every adaptation of an organism? Wouldn't it make more sense that God would make living things with the ability to adapt, and thus evolve?
There are certain principals in the theory of Evolution that are probably correct.
Most people including those who believe in God don't usually have a problem with variation within species for example.
But I personally do not believe that our ancestors were chimps. The so called proof for this is genetics and the fossil record. But neither prove that our ancestors were chimps. That assumption is imagination only.
Oh well, can't say i didn't try
can't argue with someone if it is impossible to change there mind no matter how much evidence you give them
i give up on you guys, sorryQuote (A4J @ Aug. 01 2007,00:16) Oh well, can't say i didn't try
can't argue with someone if it is impossible to change there mind no matter how much evidence you give them
i give up on you guys, sorry
Huh?Quote (A4J @ Aug. 01 2007,17:16) i give up on you guys, sorry
Your giving up convincing us that our ancestors were chimps.So you should.
Anyway, see ya. I going to eat a banana.
Hi Nick
++”Faith is trust. People who have faith in God trust in God.
If you don't believe in God, then you trust that there is no God.Trust and faith look superficially the same but faith is specific to the situation where there is no evidence. I trust scientists because I have evidence (previous experiences of the person's trustworthiness), you have faith beacuse there is no evidence for the existence of the thing you believe in.
++”Therefore you have faith that there is no God because you cannot scientifically prove that God doesn't exist. Your tooth ferrie argument doesn't work because a tooth ferrie gives you money for your teeth and we all know that it is parents who do this, but God is the creator and designer of all things.
I never mentioned a “tooth ferrie”. I worship the fairies at the bottom of my garden. They make the flowers grow.
By your logic I also have faith that there is no Thor, no Roman gods, no Flying Spaghetti Monster (admire His noodly appendage), no teapot in orbit. Why do you have so much faith in one thing for which there is no evidence while rejecting the others which are equally fictional?
++”Design implies a designer and creation implies a creator.
They certainly do. What point are you trying to make?
Stuart
Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 01 2007,16:33) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 01 2007,06:31) Not3in1 ++”A “theory” is nothing more than a guess or opinion.
This is an incorrect statement.
Stuart
OK Tell that to Merriam-Webster.
Theory (from M-W)5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
Hi t8
++”But I personally do not believe that our ancestors were chimps.
You are quite right not to believe this, the chimpanzee has never been a human ancestor. Humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor 5 to 7 million years ago.
++”The so called proof for this is genetics and the fossil record. But neither prove that our ancestors were chimps. That assumption is imagination only.
You have evidence that falsifies the independently agreeing fossil and genetic records?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 01 2007,18:38) Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 01 2007,16:33) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 01 2007,06:31) Not3in1 ++”A “theory” is nothing more than a guess or opinion.
This is an incorrect statement.
Stuart
OK Tell that to Merriam-Webster.
Theory (from M-W)5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
Theory: general principles of a subject…..acceptable explaination….guess, or opinion.Merriam-Webster, Copyright 1987
Hey, Stu – welcome! I don't know if I have ever chatted with you? I don't think so? Well, at any rate, I'm glad you're here.
Hi Not3in1
++”Hey, Stu – welcome! I don't know if I have ever chatted with you? I don't think so? Well, at any rate, I'm glad you're here.
Thanks for the welcome, I think we may have swapped posts previously.
I wanted to pick you up on theory because you said that a theory is “nothing more than” a guess or an opinion. The M-W definitions include several other senses, including the specific one that deals with science. A scientific theory is certainly not a guess or opinion. It represents the best knowledge we have on a subject, scrutinised to a level higher than in any other field of human endeavour.
The guess / opinion thing is very often abused by creationists who use a different sense of the word to try to persuade others that there is some disagreement in mainstream science about the fact of evolution explained by the theory of natural selection. They have no evidence, only prejudice.
Stuart
hi Kenrck
++”I “heard” more and more scientist are coming around to a master mind having orchestrated the cosmos and life itself. Is this true?
No. But if you have evidence for such a thing, don't sit on it! Share!
++”Who gave the names to animals in any language? The basic names.
I think A4J might not have appreciated the difficulty there is in answering what seems to be a simple question.
You need to know when humans first started using speech to communicate, then at what point language was developed enough to name animals. It is likely that animals were an early subject of communication because of the advantage in being able to coordinate hunting or warn of the presence of dangerous animals. 50,000 years ago? 160,000 years ago? One of the major difficulties is that the larynx is made of soft tissue and doesn't fossilise so it is hard to work out even when humans would have been physically capable of making a range of vocal sounds, let alone what stared them off actually using those sounds.
Lets say that 100,000 years ago animals like buffalo and giraffes could be named in some way, then the second problem is that of domestication. Humans were around before dogs. When did a dog first get called a word that names that animal, and by whom? Somewhere between 15,000 and 100,000 years ago, probably by an unknown Homo Sapiens living somewhere in Asia, would seem to be the current answer. Of course the dog was a wolf before domestication.
This is all very uncertain. At least it is still based on evidence, unlike the myth of Adam naming things (in what language?).
I'd like to be able to explain it better.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 01 2007,18:44) Hi t8 ++”But I personally do not believe that our ancestors were chimps.
You are quite right not to believe this, the chimpanzee has never been a human ancestor. Humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor 5 to 7 million years ago.
++”The so called proof for this is genetics and the fossil record. But neither prove that our ancestors were chimps. That assumption is imagination only.
You have evidence that falsifies the independently agreeing fossil and genetic records?
Stuart
Apologies.Replace the word chimp with ape. Chimps are suppose to be our closest cousins according to some.
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight.My ancestors weren't primitive apes, they were human and always have been. The fossil record uses imagination to put different fossils together. Even fraud has been used at times.
We are humans and we have human nature.
But if you want to believe that you are the offspring of primitive apes, then you are free to do that. It's just that I do not agree with you and I certainly wouldn't waste on iota of faith on it either.
Your faith is that your ancestors were primitive apes. That is your faith. You believe it even though it is a theory.
As weird as it sounds, there are many followers of this faith. They also probably also deserve a title. Maybe Apians or Darwinians?
After all we were called Christians because we follow Christ.
Hi t8
++”Your faith is that your ancestors were primitive apes. That is your faith. You believe it even though it is a theory.
Have you not been reading anything that has gone before now? Your use of the words “faith”, and “theory” in the sentence above are wrong.
Your and my immediate ancestors are apes. That's what we humans all are, like it or not.
You can choose to disbelieve it, but you should do so in the full knowledge that you have not disproved anything by your disbelief and that the evidence stacks up year by year in favour of the scientific view. There is not a single scrap of evidence for your supernatural alternative.++”For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight.
That says it all really. Will all those who are anti-science please give back their heart medication, refridgerators, ipods, cured meat, modern longevity, motorised transport and any other products of the wisdom of this world.
Then give me the evidence that there is any other different kind of world to this one. I'm sorry to say that quoting from the Judeo-Christian holy book is not the same as supplying evidence.
Stuart
Quote (A4J @ July 31 2007,23:16) Quote But of course you being an atheist how am I to believe you, a lie would be nothing for you after all their is no God so anything goes, right? So never mind. i would go on about how ignorant and foolish you are, but I'm much to busy, i got to get back to my baby masochism and shrine in my attic floor
it isn't the people who believe in god that i have the problem with, its people like kenrch that have no logic
this i think is fairly compelling evidence that religion in some cases can cause dementia
kenrch, i hope you get help
Does someone want to explain why this fine young gentile is so ignorant?
and how atheist have a moral code?
he won't take my word for it, clearly!
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
Rom 2:15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
Rom 2:16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.Quote (Stu @ Aug. 01 2007,22:31) Hi t8 ++”Your faith is that your ancestors were primitive apes. That is your faith. You believe it even though it is a theory.
Have you not been reading anything that has gone before now? Your use of the words “faith”, and “theory” in the sentence above are wrong.
Your and my immediate ancestors are apes. That's what we humans all are, like it or not.
You can choose to disbelieve it, but you should do so in the full knowledge that you have not disproved anything by your disbelief and that the evidence stacks up year by year in favour of the scientific view. There is not a single scrap of evidence for your supernatural alternative.++”For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight.
That says it all really. Will all those who are anti-science please give back their heart medication, refridgerators, ipods, cured meat, modern longevity, motorised transport and any other products of the wisdom of this world.
Then give me the evidence that there is any other different kind of world to this one. I'm sorry to say that quoting from the Judeo-Christian holy book is not the same as supplying evidence.
Stuart
Do you always need evidence? No.Hi acertainchap
++”Do you always need evidence? No.
Actually yes, and I'd suggest you probably run most of your life by evidence as well.
If your bank said your account was overdrawn and you didn't believe it, you'd look for evidence for their claim, perhaps by adding up income to and expenditure from the account.
Your dentist says you need a filling. You trust his judgement not on faith but because your past experiences tell you that properly trained dentists are able to cure and prevent dental problems. Would you go to a faith healer with a toothache?A really interesting thing about human nature is how some people can point-blank deny things that are almost obviously true and supported by very good evidence while at the same time cherishing unshakable belief in things for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
